The Dustbin

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

Cunningcairn
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:37 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:24 am
GeneralKostas wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:34 am
Good morning,

The problem is to avoid unhistorical and anachronistic matcups between armies of different centuries. I have noticed that in the current league with my Greek army in the Classical Antiquity section and other sections of course.

My proposal :

The player with the highest rank in each division should choose the 4 armies as usual. When Pete choose the army for the nine games, then the rest of the players should choose the 4 armies according to this army. You can find the suitable army when you set up a Custom game and hit the DATE button ON below the army list. The list is shorten with armies in related centuries. You should choose two armies of the same nation in that list if it is possible.

I think that with this rule we can play more antagonistic games between realistic opponents.

Have a good day!!

Again this is interesting. The awkward thing is that, as the tournament organiser, I have to deal with between 60 and 70 players, so the procedures for them all signing up and choosing armies and then for me forming up the divisions and allocating armies has to be straightforward and quick. The time between the last few people signing up and the tournament starting is around a week and sometimes I am not sure how many divisions there are going to be in a section until then.

If I have to wait until I have formed up the divisions before I can begin the process of choosing and allocating the armies it is going to make things very rushed and it would require all players to respond very quickly to what is happening on the forum. The problem is that not all players read the forum regularly so there are likely to be delays to the start of some divisions.

I have just been thinking how it might work in practice . . .

1) recruitment would open and players would indicate which sections they wanted to join without choosing any armies at first
2) about half-way though the recruitment period, once I had got a "critical mass" of players signing up so that I had a fairly good idea how many divisions would be running in each section, I would start to draw up provisional divisions. I would say that I can tell which division a player will end up in about 75% of the time by this stage. If you came, say, 6th in Division A, or 5th in Division C last time, and you are entering the same section again, then the odds are very likely that you will be playing at the same level in the coming season too
3) from these provisional divisions of 5 or 6 players I would choose one player to pick an army they want to use in the coming season (I can use my bingo kit to choose the player) and then I would post their choice on the forum with a "historically relevant" list of armies that could be used by the other players
4) players would then make their 4 army selections by editing their original post in the recruitment thread. Players signing up for the tournament at this stage would choose their armies from the list
5) I would then form up the divisions and allocate the armies in the same way as I do now by using the FOG2DL ratings

The weakness in this procedure is at stage 2. What if the player who nominated the army needed to be moved to a different division at the last moment? What if I thought there would be 4 divisions, but in the end there were only three? This definitely would happen from time to time. So it would not be a watertight system, whereas what we have now is fairly robust.

Obviously player choices would be more restricted with this system, but the advantage would be to give more historical match-ups. Any comments?
But wouldn't this just end up as 6 sections of themed events? I quite like the fact that some opponents are not historical. I think a bigger problem is mismatched opponents like heavy foot versus armies consisting entirely of a horde of skirmishers. The game thankfully doesn't model this type of conflict very well and I believe there does need to be a restriction on the percentage of skirmishers in an army. Not as restrictive as in FOG1 digital league but maybe no more than 50% of an army or 15 elements?
Last edited by Cunningcairn on Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1282
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Post by devoncop » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:51 am

In effect this method would be the polar opposite of the random army selection method proposed (maybe only half seriously) recently.

This would be a pretty railroaded method so participants would have a negligible chance of playing with their preferred army and play style.

It would be interesting to see what effect that had on player recruitment.

Several players enjoy being pushed out of their comfort zones..............whether they are more than outweighed by those who don't is a moot point. :wink:

SawyerK
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:16 am

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by SawyerK » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:05 am

Division D

SawyerK (Ptolemaic 55-30 BC) defeated Phoyle3290 (Jewish Revolt 66-135 AD) by 66-49.

The Jewish army surged into the early lead under devastating Zealot charges but after that the use of a series of small hills for defense enabled the Ptlolemaics to slowly move back into the game. As shown by the score, it was either army's win until the last two moves when the rolls went to the Ptlolemaics. Phoyle3290 should have a least got a point for his valiant efforts but he just missed getting to 50 in two different unit battles.

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Post by Geffalrus » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:37 pm

Personally, I don't mind historical mismatches. And it can be an interesting (if frustrating) challenge to face an army style that does not sync up well with yours. However, I do feel that the sword cuts both ways in that regard. An army that is designed for skirmishing has many advantages and disadvantages, same with one that is heavy infantry focused. Forests nullify horse skirmishing pretty hard, rough terrain gives heavy infantry masses ulcers, streams make my pikes and lancers want to cry, etc etc. If you bring an army that is dynamite in a certain situation, you're gonna be in big trouble if your matches involve armies or terrain types that hard counter your units. After getting flummoxed by rough terrain and streams in last seasons Classical Division, I've spent the time since working on how to handle that sort of terrain when using my preferred pike/lancer army. Still doesn't mean I enjoy overcoming a stream disadvantage.

I think a bigger issue in army list selection would be armies that have too much flexibility in terms of what they bring. Hannibal in Africa is a great example of a Swiss Army Knife that can bring heavy infantry OR a horde of mediums OR a horde of skirmishers OR a mass of elephants. You never know exactly what they will bring due to the fact that they have a high recruitment cap on those units. Makes for quite the unit selection guessing game.

IMC
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by IMC » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:27 pm

Hi folks
Early Middle Ages Division B

(8) IMC - Viking (Ireland) 900-1049 AD (no allies) beat (7) rbodleyscott - Frankish 751-887 AD (Viking 790-899 AD allies)

62% to 45%

Thanks for the game

Ian

KiFi
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:49 pm
Location: Western Michigan, USA

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by KiFi » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:48 pm

Division D

KiFi (Macedonians) was marginally ahead of General Shapur 53-47 in a hard fought battle when darkness fell and the Indians withdrew.

Thank you General Shapur for the very enjoyable game.

(2-2)
Last edited by KiFi on Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

DzonVejn
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:36 pm

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by DzonVejn » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:25 pm

Division C:
A draw between Dzon Vejn (Indian) 45 VS 31 Karvon (Achmenidian Persian). Indians killed 45% of Persians. Persians killed 31% of Indians.

(2-2)

lydianed
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:35 pm

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by lydianed » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:00 pm

Division D

lydianed (Gepids) defeats uneducated (Jewish) 40-5.

The jews couldn't quite get their shape and while they were still manoeuvring and caught between two positions, the Gepids struck. The battle of the valley was bloody but quick.

ruskicanuk
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:18 am

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by ruskicanuk » Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:03 am

Div A
ruskicanuk - Breton 411-579 AD (no allies) defeats Nosy_Rat - Khorasanian 821-1003 AD (Abbasid 815-835 AD allies), 47 - 18, well played tight game!
ruskicanuk - Breton 411-579 AD (no allies) defeats Cunningcairn - Viking 900-1049 AD (Irish ally), 61 - 36, very interesting rush for the high rough ground, well fought!

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

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

Post by deve » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:13 am

Div B
deve (Persian) defeated paulmcneil (Thracian) 44-19

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

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

Post by deve » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:15 am

Div B
deve (Persian) defeated uneducated (Hebrew) 47-4

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by deve » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:17 am

Div C

deve (Dailami) defeated KiFi (French) 42-0

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9435
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:27 am

Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:37 am
But wouldn't this just end up as 6 sections of themed events? I quite like the fact that some opponents are not historical. I think a bigger problem is mismatched opponents like heavy foot versus armies consisting entirely of a horde of skirmishers. The game thankfully doesn't model this type of conflict very well and I believe there does need to be a restriction on the percentage of skirmishers in an army. Not as restrictive as in FOG1 digital league but maybe no more than 50% of an army or 15 elements?
I would not have introduced this system in all sections of the tournament. But I am always on the look-out for ways to offer variations from time to time to keep things interesting. In this case the idea does not quite work as stage 2 of the process would be very problematic. So I will not be polling it. I don't know whether batesmotel or klayeckles will flesh out their ideas a bit more, in due course, but they might offer something viable that we can use in future seasons.

How many armies are there where the number of skirmishers are a problem? Which armies are they?

lydianed
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:35 pm

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by lydianed » Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:51 am

Division B

lydianed (Lydians) challenges MikeMUC (Assyrian) pw MikeMUC.

PM sent

lydianed
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:35 pm

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

Post by lydianed » Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:52 am

Division D

lydianed (Gepid) challenges MikeMarchant (Roman) pw MikeMarchant

PM sent.

SawyerK
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:16 am

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

Post by SawyerK » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:55 pm

In Division D SawyerK (Seleucid 205-167 BC) challenges MikeMarchant (Roman 105-25 BC). The PW has been sent by private message.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Post by batesmotel » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:51 pm

My thought with buckets is that once they're set up and sanity checked, the only further restricton would be only one army from a bucket could be used in a division. I think my buckets for the Achaemenids and Byzantines are set if anyone with an opinion wants to look at them. I'm happy to look at some of the other armies as well for setting up buckets for those but may not be the most knowledgeable for specific armies if anyone else wants to volunteer.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

SnuggleBunnies
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 949
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Themed Event: winners post your results here . . .

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:21 pm

Match 1

Pydna

SnuggleBunnies (Macedonian) defeats IMC (Roman) 57-32

GG, our other match is still ongoing.

Cunningcairn
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:52 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:27 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:37 am
But wouldn't this just end up as 6 sections of themed events? I quite like the fact that some opponents are not historical. I think a bigger problem is mismatched opponents like heavy foot versus armies consisting entirely of a horde of skirmishers. The game thankfully doesn't model this type of conflict very well and I believe there does need to be a restriction on the percentage of skirmishers in an army. Not as restrictive as in FOG1 digital league but maybe no more than 50% of an army or 15 elements?
I would not have introduced this system in all sections of the tournament. But I am always on the look-out for ways to offer variations from time to time to keep things interesting. In this case the idea does not quite work as stage 2 of the process would be very problematic. So I will not be polling it. I don't know whether batesmotel or klayeckles will flesh out their ideas a bit more, in due course, but they might offer something viable that we can use in future seasons.

How many armies are there where the number of skirmishers are a problem? Which armies are they?
I think over 15 to 20 skirmishers per 1200 points army list can lead to pointless and frustrating games. To the best of my knowledge there are 21 lists with 20 or more skirmishers. They follow below. The number is the total of LH and LF.

Indo-Parthian – 25
Libyan - 28 and 32
Moorish – 52
Navarrese – 22
Numidian or Moorish - 42 and 52
Palmyran 272 to 273 AD – 24
Parthian – 34
Skythian 750 to 551 BC – 23
Spanish 300 to 10 BC – 25
Spanish Sertorius – 28
9 of the 11 Thracian lists have between 20 and 30

klayeckles
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by klayeckles » Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:27 pm

DIV a
klayeckles (hepthalites) vs youngr (ptolemaic) 65 to 30
hepthalites found a nice flat dry battle field with the sun and wind at their backs, lady luck on their side, and the enemy in the middle of a sing-along, and managed to sneak between the ptolemaics and their weapons for a rare and still challenging win. If anyone wants to improve their game in the cavalry department, give one of these horsey shooter armies a try in the classical periods (and leave your ego at the door).

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”