The Dustbin
Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
@Pete
Any chance we could get a rotation which divisions we get the 1200 pt format in?
Any chance we could get a rotation which divisions we get the 1200 pt format in?
Stratford Scramble Tournament
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:35 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .
Division B
Challenge up for desertedfox - German Foot Tribes 260-599 AD with Roman 379-424 allies` vs Najanaja - Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD with Roman 24 BC–196 AD allies.
PW = dfox
PM sent
Challenge up for desertedfox - German Foot Tribes 260-599 AD with Roman 379-424 allies` vs Najanaja - Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD with Roman 24 BC–196 AD allies.
PW = dfox
PM sent
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
No, there is not going to be a rotation as it will cause confusion among those players who do not read the instructions properly. Because I am dealing with a large number of players I have to use systems that are straightforward and easy to understand. There clearly is quite a bit of support for larger 1600pt armies to be used more widely (the voting was 34-27) and there also seems to be a strong sentiment that, for historical reasons, Classical Antiquity battles should have access to the larger format.
So what I am going to do next season is trial pantherboy's idea in Classical Antiquity rather than Biblical (my original idea). At the recruitment stage players will be required to state their preference for either 1200pt or 1600pt armies and where both players indicate 1600pt armies then they will be able to play a larger battle.*** The default size of the battles will be 1200pts so players wishing to stay at medium will do so. I do not feel the poll result was quite strong enough to make 1600pts the default size of battles, although I will listen to arguments that suggest that it should be during the course of next season. If the trial goes successfully next season then the idea will be introduced right across the FOG2DL in Season 10 giving players the opportunity to play at least some larger battles in all sections of the tournament.
So for next season we will have . . .
Classical Antiquity - 1200/1600pt trial
Late Antiquity - 1200pt
Early Middle Ages - 1600pt
Biblical - 1600pt
Themed Event - 1200pt
*** Of course, I know that a number of players, when offered this choice, will put something like "I don't mind" rather than clearly choosing one option or the other. These players will be put in the 1600pt category in order to increase the proportion of larger battles available to players. Larger battles did win the poll 34-27.
-
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:09 am
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division E
texanotedesco (Khorasanian) wins vs Supervark (Rus with Polish ally 966-1057 AD) 60% to 44%
texanotedesco (Khorasanian) wins vs Supervark (Rus with Polish ally 966-1057 AD) 60% to 44%
-
- General - Elite King Tiger
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
- Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
Sounds great. Two questions:
1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?
2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices... It's just out of curiosity.)
1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?
2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices... It's just out of curiosity.)
kronenblatt's campaign and tournament thread hub:
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
October 1st.kronenblatt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:14 am Sounds great. Two questions:
1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?
No, no-one has mentioned it.2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices... It's just out of curiosity.)
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
- Location: Isle of Wight, UK
Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .
Div A
ianiow (Kushite) defeated desertedfox (Persian) 41-10
ianiow (Kushite) defeated desertedfox (Persian) 41-10
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division E
Aetius39 - Palmyran 258-273 AD with Arab 312-299 AD allies beat snooky51 - Sassanid 477-590 AD with Hun (Sabir) 463-558 AD allies 51-19
The Persians had an all cavalry army, with a few elephants, while the Palmyrans brought many massed archers and irregular infantry because there was quite a bit of rough terrain, along with a stream in the middle. For a while there was a bit of posturing on both sides, each trying to get field advantage. Slowly but surely the armies got together, but it was really two smaller battles away from each other. This benefited the Palmyrans as the battle further to the north had only a few Persian cavalry that the archers/medium infantry, and one Roman legion could gang up on. In the south, the Palmyrans foolishly had their cataphracts charge into the elephants, but luckily they held until the rest of the Persian force was routed. Could have been a lot closer or lost if my units broke earlier. GG to my opponent!
Aetius39 - Palmyran 258-273 AD with Arab 312-299 AD allies beat snooky51 - Sassanid 477-590 AD with Hun (Sabir) 463-558 AD allies 51-19
The Persians had an all cavalry army, with a few elephants, while the Palmyrans brought many massed archers and irregular infantry because there was quite a bit of rough terrain, along with a stream in the middle. For a while there was a bit of posturing on both sides, each trying to get field advantage. Slowly but surely the armies got together, but it was really two smaller battles away from each other. This benefited the Palmyrans as the battle further to the north had only a few Persian cavalry that the archers/medium infantry, and one Roman legion could gang up on. In the south, the Palmyrans foolishly had their cataphracts charge into the elephants, but luckily they held until the rest of the Persian force was routed. Could have been a lot closer or lost if my units broke earlier. GG to my opponent!
Creator of "There Can Be Only One" tournaments in Field of Glory 2.
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:28 am
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division F
Thunderbird - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Khorasanian 821-1003 AD allies defeated hscic - Lombard 776-1049 AD 58 - 32
Thanks to hscic for the match!
Thunderbird - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Khorasanian 821-1003 AD allies defeated hscic - Lombard 776-1049 AD 58 - 32
Thanks to hscic for the match!
Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
Swuul (Spartan 550-461 BC with Corinthian 550-461 BC allies) beat edb1815 (Egyptian 570-525 BC with Kyrenean Greek 630-461 BC allies) 45-18
A Thermopylae map, with impassable mountains and a seacoast narrowing down the initial front to just 6 squares wide. This time it wasn't the spartans who defended the pass, but attempted to break through against the egyptian spearmen and archers. I brought along (rather stupidly) cavalry and skirmishers, and they were useless -> when they were charged, they had nowhere to run because of the mass of spartan troops behind them, so the evaders got caught in the rear and slaughtered (as any spartans who broke were immediatly destroyed with nowhere to retreat). The egyptian line fell back in the face of the spartans, as the spartans were advancing in the shade the egyptian arrows filling the sky provided. But once the spartan hoplites finally got to melee with the egyptians, things started to go south pretty fast for the sons of Nile.
Thank you for the game edb1815. When I saw the map I thought I was so screwed, but I presume the map was a blessing for me after all. With such a narrow front (initially), I could take full use of my superior hoplites (who certainly took some serious beating from the arrows, but due to excellent morale only a few did become Disrupted in the arrow-storm) without having to worry about flank-attacks.
Screenshot of the end-situation, taken from an angle so that the initial thermopylae position can be viewed:
https://i.imgur.com/i9yz3ig.jpg
Swuul (Spartan 550-461 BC with Corinthian 550-461 BC allies) beat edb1815 (Egyptian 570-525 BC with Kyrenean Greek 630-461 BC allies) 45-18
A Thermopylae map, with impassable mountains and a seacoast narrowing down the initial front to just 6 squares wide. This time it wasn't the spartans who defended the pass, but attempted to break through against the egyptian spearmen and archers. I brought along (rather stupidly) cavalry and skirmishers, and they were useless -> when they were charged, they had nowhere to run because of the mass of spartan troops behind them, so the evaders got caught in the rear and slaughtered (as any spartans who broke were immediatly destroyed with nowhere to retreat). The egyptian line fell back in the face of the spartans, as the spartans were advancing in the shade the egyptian arrows filling the sky provided. But once the spartan hoplites finally got to melee with the egyptians, things started to go south pretty fast for the sons of Nile.
Thank you for the game edb1815. When I saw the map I thought I was so screwed, but I presume the map was a blessing for me after all. With such a narrow front (initially), I could take full use of my superior hoplites (who certainly took some serious beating from the arrows, but due to excellent morale only a few did become Disrupted in the arrow-storm) without having to worry about flank-attacks.
Screenshot of the end-situation, taken from an angle so that the initial thermopylae position can be viewed:
https://i.imgur.com/i9yz3ig.jpg
There are three kinds of people, those who can count and those who can't.
-
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 pm
- Location: Hamble, UK
- Contact:
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
paulmcneil (Parthian) beats hidde Indian 61:52
(3-1)
paulmcneil (Parthian) beats hidde Indian 61:52
(3-1)
Paul McNeil
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division D
bomber23 (Germanic Horse Tribes, Carpi) beat ggarynorman [Palmyran] 65.57
(3-1)
bomber23 (Germanic Horse Tribes, Carpi) beat ggarynorman [Palmyran] 65.57
(3-1)
-
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 pm
- Location: Hamble, UK
- Contact:
Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .
div b
paulmcneil (skythian) challenge for sunnyboy (syracusan) pw = sunnyboy
paulmcneil (skythian) challenge for sunnyboy (syracusan) pw = sunnyboy
Paul McNeil
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
cromlechi - Roman 379-424 AD defeats lydianed - Moorish 350-698 AD with Byzantine 493-550 AD allies 40-14
Thank you for the game lydianed, look forward to the next one.
cromlechi - Roman 379-424 AD defeats lydianed - Moorish 350-698 AD with Byzantine 493-550 AD allies 40-14
Thank you for the game lydianed, look forward to the next one.
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
Great plan. Sound basis. I think I will like the variety and the flexibility. It adds another layer of depth as well. I'm in.stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:36 amNo, there is not going to be a rotation as it will cause confusion among those players who do not read the instructions properly. Because I am dealing with a large number of players I have to use systems that are straightforward and easy to understand. There clearly is quite a bit of support for larger 1600pt armies to be used more widely (the voting was 34-27) and there also seems to be a strong sentiment that, for historical reasons, Classical Antiquity battles should have access to the larger format.
So what I am going to do next season is trial pantherboy's idea in Classical Antiquity rather than Biblical (my original idea). At the recruitment stage players will be required to state their preference for either 1200pt or 1600pt armies and where both players indicate 1600pt armies then they will be able to play a larger battle.*** The default size of the battles will be 1200pts so players wishing to stay at medium will do so. I do not feel the poll result was quite strong enough to make 1600pts the default size of battles, although I will listen to arguments that suggest that it should be during the course of next season. If the trial goes successfully next season then the idea will be introduced right across the FOG2DL in Season 10 giving players the opportunity to play at least some larger battles in all sections of the tournament.
So for next season we will have . . .
Classical Antiquity - 1200/1600pt trial
Late Antiquity - 1200pt
Early Middle Ages - 1600pt
Biblical - 1600pt
Themed Event - 1200pt
*** Of course, I know that a number of players, when offered this choice, will put something like "I don't mind" rather than clearly choosing one option or the other. These players will be put in the 1600pt category in order to increase the proportion of larger battles available to players. Larger battles did win the poll 34-27.
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
There is bit of a history here. Lots of community debate. Plenty to find. I'll add what I have taken from the debate, maybe others want to add their voices...maybe not...kronenblatt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:14 am Sounds great. Two questions:
1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?
2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices... It's just out of curiosity.)
More list points mitigates the medium infantry swarm risk faced by high quality (heavy) lists due to inferior unit numbers
More list points mitigates the impact of adverse battle results, whether due to luck or incompetence
Those are the two that are meaningful to me....I am sure there are others but I cant recall them as others might.
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 818
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
More list points mitigates the likelihood of enjoyment.
I just want to say that people enjoy the Digital League but the slight majority who want all games to be 1600 points are likely to get their wish in the end. But, they are going to have less players to play. There is nothing wrong I think with the current set-up. Two whole sections are already at 1600 points.
To move towards all sections at 1600 points which I can see happening is a big shift.
I just want to say that people enjoy the Digital League but the slight majority who want all games to be 1600 points are likely to get their wish in the end. But, they are going to have less players to play. There is nothing wrong I think with the current set-up. Two whole sections are already at 1600 points.
To move towards all sections at 1600 points which I can see happening is a big shift.
YouTube channel for Field of Glory 2: Ancients and Medieval.
https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
https://www.youtube.com/@simonlancaster1815
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division C
Garokan - Polish 966-1057 AD with Rus 860-959 AD allies defeatss MikeMarchant - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD with Turkish 600-1036 AD allies 45 - 18
Thanks for the game, Mike!
Garokan - Polish 966-1057 AD with Rus 860-959 AD allies defeatss MikeMarchant - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD with Turkish 600-1036 AD allies 45 - 18
Thanks for the game, Mike!
-
- Sr. Colonel - Battleship
- Posts: 1693
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:36 pm
- Location: Osaka, Japan
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
I'm fine with allowing 1600 pt battles between consenting adults. I, for one, will be sticking to 1200 pt games.
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
As I understand it, if you want a 1200 point battle, you will 100% get one. Your enjoyment is the same.SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:43 pm More list points mitigates the likelihood of enjoyment.
I just want to say that people enjoy the Digital League but the slight majority who want all games to be 1600 points are likely to get their wish in the end. But, they are going to have less players to play. There is nothing wrong I think with the current set-up. Two whole sections are already at 1600 points.
To move towards all sections at 1600 points which I can see happening is a big shift.