The Dustbin

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11488
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:46 am

Karvon wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:36 am
My only slight reservation would be about be about lumping all the Arabs and Indians together. To me that's like saying all the Macedonian successors are one group, and only one could be chosen. I could see lumping Arab city, Bedouin and conquest lists as one set as they are all centered on Arabia. Probably some of the Indian lists could likewise be lumped together. but in each region, some of these lists were contemporaries and enemies/allies.

Karvon
True, but given that most of the match-ups in the FOG2DL are ahistorical anyway, I don't think that this presents a major problem. Only the Themed Event aspires to be historically accurate. The main point is to get a good variety of armies in each division so there are plenty of interesting match-ups. I think what I am suggesting will do that pretty much.

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by devoncop » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:32 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:46 am
Karvon wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:36 am
My only slight reservation would be about be about lumping all the Arabs and Indians together. To me that's like saying all the Macedonian successors are one group, and only one could be chosen. I could see lumping Arab city, Bedouin and conquest lists as one set as they are all centered on Arabia. Probably some of the Indian lists could likewise be lumped together. but in each region, some of these lists were contemporaries and enemies/allies.

Karvon
True, but given that most of the match-ups in the FOG2DL are ahistorical anyway, I don't think that this presents a major problem. Only the Themed Event aspires to be historically accurate. The main point is to get a good variety of armies in each division so there are plenty of interesting match-ups. I think what I am suggesting will do that pretty much.
I have no problem with the proposals as such. Your main point about your objective being "to get a good variety of armies in each Division so there are interesting match up's" is an interesting one.

Whilst this is indeed interesting it can on occasion lead to some completely asynchronous match ups where one side given the random terrain may as well pack up and go home from the off.

Has their every been any interest in having a level playing field category....maybe in the Themed event ?......ie to match identical army lists in a series of Civil War engagements.....The best Generals rather than the luckiest ones (on occasion) could then be said to have the best chance........It would be a bit like Formula 1 with the drivers having to drive equally capable cars......

Just a thought.

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:53 am

Pete I'll play whatever you decide to do. However I'd like to throw in my two cents worth. I think bunching all the Arab armies including Abbasids, Umayyads as being the same is going to reduce the number of options available by too much. How would you categorise the Fatimids? If Arabs why not the Successor armies which are more alike than some of the Arab armies mentioned? Would you consider no more than two armies of those you mention per section? I realise that this creates issues with Vikings and Greeks for example as they are essentially identical.

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:22 am

Div A

Cunningcairn - Egyptian 664-571 BC beat sunnyboy - Phoenician 681-539 BC by 43% to 12%

Doyley50
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by Doyley50 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:23 am

Division C

Doyley50 (Vikings) beat desertedfox (Byzantine) 61-43

Doyley50 (Vikings) beat KiFi (French) 47-18

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11488
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:12 am

devoncop wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:32 am
I have no problem with the proposals as such. Your main point about your objective being "to get a good variety of armies in each Division so there are interesting match up's" is an interesting one.

Whilst this is indeed interesting it can on occasion lead to some completely asynchronous match ups where one side given the random terrain may as well pack up and go home from the off.
But that is as much a terrain issue as an army issue. I would not be in favour of excluding what might be considered "outlier" armies. How would we decide what these were, in any case?
Has their every been any interest in having a level playing field category....maybe in the Themed event ?......ie to match identical army lists in a series of Civil War engagements.....The best Generals rather than the luckiest ones (on occasion) could then be said to have the best chance........It would be a bit like Formula 1 with the drivers having to drive equally capable cars.....
It sounds very sterile to me. And then you have the random terrain and number generators making sure things do not stay too "equal" for long. I can certainly build civil war battles into the Themed Event again (I have done so in the past) but I don't think having "a level playing field" as a theme is too interesting really.

GeneralKostas
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:49 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by GeneralKostas » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:13 am

My proposal about it is, every player should choose one core army and one ally army.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11488
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:00 pm

Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:53 am
Pete I'll play whatever you decide to do. However I'd like to throw in my two cents worth. I think bunching all the Arab armies including Abbasids, Umayyads as being the same is going to reduce the number of options available by too much. How would you categorise the Fatimids? If Arabs why not the Successor armies which are more alike than some of the Arab armies mentioned? Would you consider no more than two armies of those you mention per section? I realise that this creates issues with Vikings and Greeks for example as they are essentially identical.
At the moment there are 109 armies available in Early Middle Ages, but if you strictly apply the current criterion of one core army per nation that still leaves you with 48 separate choices for the 10 players in each division. That is still a fairly wide choice - you have to pick 4 from 48.

If we look at the armies called "Arab" in the Early Middle Ages list then there are 14 of them (not including the Fatimid Egyptians). What I could do with this group is break them up a bit with the first two only being available in Late Antiquity (even though their end date goes beyond the cut-off of 500 AD). The next 10 stay in Early Middle Ages only (including the last one Arab (Syria/Iraq) which goes beyond the 1000 AD cut off). And the last 2 should really be in High Middle Ages as they start after 1000 AD . . .

Late Antiquity only
Arab (Bedouin) 300-636 AD
Arab (City) 300-633 AD

Early Middle Ages only*
Arab (Conquest) 629-637 AD
Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD
Arab (Umayyad) 685-750 AD (Damascus)
Arab (Abbasid) 747-793 AD (Baghdad)
Arab (Abbasid) 794-814 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 815-835 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 836-873 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 874-946 AD
Arab (North Africa) 789-999 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 890-1008 AD*

High Middle Ages
Arab (North Africa) 1000-1160 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD

So that would leave one choice from 10 Arab armies in Early Middle Ages, which is almost the same as the current one choice from 9 Byzantine armies. Plus the Fatimids of Egypt can be considered a second Arab choice as they have dastardly not called themselves "Arab". I think there are going to be anomalous situations with whatever I come up with but I think the one army/one nation rule is still OK for Early Middle Ages.

ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by ianiow » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm

I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11488
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:47 pm

ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
Well, if you would like to submit an army list for the Early Middle Ages section from which players would make their choices then that would be very interesting. :wink:

sunnyboy
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:18 pm

Division A
sunnyboy (Phoenician 681-539 BC) challenges harveylh (Achaemenid Persians 545-481 BC)
PM sent
PW: harveylh

sunnyboy
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Classical Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:26 pm

Division C
Sunnyboy - Jewish 167-164 BC challenges Cromlechi – Carthaginians, Hannibal in Africa (202BC)
PM sent
PW: Cromlechi

sunnyboy
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:28 pm

Congrats General, well done on winning the division!

ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by ianiow » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:47 pm
ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
Well, if you would like to submit an army list for the Early Middle Ages section from which players would make their choices then that would be very interesting. :wink:
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11488
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pm

ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.
I don't see how this would help with the two issues that you originally identified - players fielding hordes of skirmishers or players hiding their MF armies in the woods. On top of that, players make their army selections before the divisions are announced and many will not be sure which division they are going to play in. Players who finished near the top of an A division last time will do, but what if you have come 2nd, 3rd or 4th in Divisions B, C or D? Where you will be playing all depends on the proportion of players returning to the same section from the previous season. If 80%+ return it is much easier to predict where you will play than it is if the figure is only 50%+.

I think there might be a case for more managed army selection lists where, for one season at a time, certain types of army might be excluded, to both create more historical match-ups and reduce the number of asynchronous match-ups. I would be interested in such an idea myself, but I have never suggested it as I think it would be very controversial and might affect recruitment quite negatively.

However, the idea that I was edging towards with my comments on the Arab and Byzantine armies earlier today was that maybe there is a group of nations whose armies are heavily represented in the lists who might be allowed 2 armies instead of 1. So, maybe, the Byzantines, Romans and Arabs for starters. Who else? The Carthaginians perhaps? It would need some research, but if we said something like those nations with 6 or more armies in a FOG2DL section army list could be allowed 2 core army selections, then that might be quite popular. But I definitely cannot agree to a situation where we could possibly have 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players with the same core Roman army, just with different allies, in the same division.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11488
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:04 pm

The final result of the poll was 21-7 in favour of rolling out the allies feature across the whole tournament from Season 6 onwards . . . so we shall. :D

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by devoncop » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:33 pm

ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
This is exactly my point too Ian.

I hear what you say Pete. I just wondered if the demand was out there for a "level playing field" section.
If you say there isn't ......then fine.....I get that terrain across the battlefield can still vary but certainly the disparities between two hoplite armies from Greece on any usual field of battle are a lot less than that of a Moorish Horse Archer one v a pike phalanx one using the same map.

Nosy_Rat
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!

Post by Nosy_Rat » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:59 pm

Impressive job, congratulations!

ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by ianiow » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:28 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pm
ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.
I don't see how this would help with the two issues that you originally identified - players fielding hordes of skirmishers or players hiding their MF armies in the woods.
I guess it boils down to me hating having to choose 3 standby armies and worse, getting one of them. :lol: If I take a liking to an army (and it doesnt have to be a particularly good army), I practice with it, read up on it, device strategies for it, then I want to play it. Even if I have to fight another player with a similar army (especially so - because two close armies are the ultimate test of generalship imho).

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:36 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pm

I think there might be a case for more managed army selection lists where, for one season at a time, certain types of army might be excluded, to both create more historical match-ups and reduce the number of asynchronous match-ups. I would be interested in such an idea myself, but I have never suggested it as I think it would be very controversial and might affect recruitment quite negatively.

Not knowing what you might face is one of the attractions of the league. In saying that there is nothing worse than facing a large skirmisher or mounted army with a heavy foot army or for that matter playing against a medium foot army in heavy terrain with a horse army. There is always going to be someone who will take an army that just doesn't make for a good game in that period but they are in the minority. What about limiting the maximum number of skirmishers in an army as was done in FOG1?

However, the idea that I was edging towards with my comments on the Arab and Byzantine armies earlier today was that maybe there is a group of nations whose armies are heavily represented in the lists who might be allowed 2 armies instead of 1. So, maybe, the Byzantines, Romans and Arabs for starters. Who else? The Carthaginians perhaps? It would need some research, but if we said something like those nations with 6 or more armies in a FOG2DL section army list could be allowed 2 core army selections, then that might be quite popular. But I definitely cannot agree to a situation where we could possibly have 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players with the same core Roman army, just with different allies, in the same division.

I think having the option of 2 armies (with a different ally selection) of heavily represented armies is a good compromise.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”