The Dustbin

[SimonLancaster]

Maybe a simple solution would be - a bit like drug testing in sport, any player who wins a promotion in the dl gets drug tested i.e. the log for reloads is passed to Pete, any player who has no choice but to reload due to some catastrophic failure on their system (which should be very rare)

It should be exceptionally rare. This isn't something that requires a strong internet connection where data is passed back and forth which requires high bandwidth or low latency. It literally is passing what is a very small file in modern-day terms to a server. FoG2 itself is super stable and it simply does not crash. If it does crash, it is usually not FoG2 causing the problem but other things like video card drivers. I have had to deal with multiple service providers for my Internet cutting out, getting video recording software to run right when I was making videos, AND fight terrible AMD Radeon drivers on my 5700XT and over the course of what, 2 years, I have had to reload maybe 5 times? Maybe 10?

I would contest that Mike. For people in US or Europe, yes. Generally stable and fast connections. I crashed quite a lot when in the Middle East. That was on another game but my internet cut out and it would be the same for FoG2. I also have already shared that someone from Eastern Europe crashed 3 times in FoG 2 in season 7 of DL alone.

[Macedonczyk]

As many have written before, it would be best if the system automatically informs the opponent about game restarts and I think that the best place would be a window where discussions are held during the game.
Something like that:
X: Good luck
Y: Good luck
Siltherine: Y restart game last turn 2 times.

[SimonLancaster]

25th July, 2020. Let’s see if even a simple ‘solution’ like Macedonczyk suggests is implemented!

[grumpydaddy845]

There should be a checkbox that indicates if a game is for a competition/tournament/league. Once that has been checked, the organizer should have a right to see who is restarting games

[pompeytheflatulent]

How long ago were the games with 225 and 99 reloads?

Those games were both in June during the current FOG2DL season.

These wouldn't happen to be from the first half of June, around the time of the 3rd stage of the FOG goes large automated tournament would they?

[rbodleyscott]

They spanned the whole of June, and were FOG2DL games.

[pompeytheflatulent]

They spanned the whole of June, and were FOG2DL games.

Ok thanks. I asked because I had noticed a strange pattern when playing mirrored games against dkalenda: when I logged into multiplayer I would often find one of the pair of games submitted and back to being my turn to move, but the other game would still be on dkalenda's turn except that it has been updated and saved around the same timestamp as the first game.

[deeter]

Back in FOG I days, a bad winter played havoc with my turns. I received a warning about restarts after the third time. I took it seriously, but with no enforcement who else would?

Deeter

[rbodleyscott]

Division A

rbodleyscott (Germanic Horse Tribes + Carpi) drew vs nyczar (Romans and Franks) 56:40

(2-2)

[rbodleyscott]

They spanned the whole of June, and were FOG2DL games.

Ok thanks. I asked because I had noticed a strange pattern when playing mirrored games against dklenda: when I logged into multiplayer I would often find one of the pair of games submitted and back to being my turn to move, but the other game would still be on dklenda's turn except that it has been updated and saved around the same timestamp as the first game.

Well that would happen if he saved the situation half-way through his turn, which in itself, of course, is perfectly legal.

[MikeMarchant]

I have to say that over this and past season I have played games that could fit this pattern of behaviour. Games that have rattled along at a decent pace and then when I have worked a significant advantage my opponent doesn't respond for some days and then when that reponse does occur my opponent has enjoyed outrageous luck. In one such game I had a 20 point lead and when my opponent's turn came back I had a 10 point deficit. I lost that game.

My objections to the outragoeus RNG in this game, I only now realise, seem largely to be rooted in the luck enjoyed by opponents in their turn, although that isn't exclusively the case. If this save-scummng business really is the cause of these apparent RNG anomolies, then I apologise to RBS and others for takin issue with them over the RNG question.


Best Wishes

Mike

But (just to deliberately stir up another massive argument) in that case, what we were saying was correct, the RNG was working massively wrong, because it was being frigged, the theory obviously didn't fit the reality.

Do you mean that an ordinary dice with 6 sides, each marked with a different number from 1 to 6, the sum of the opposite sides making 7, works massively wrong if a trickster succeeds in making you watch elsewhere while he re-roll the dice and believe he does not cheat ? Is the fault of the dice ?

No.

Best Wishes

Mike

[Cunningcairn]

Can I just point out that shifting a match to large proportionally increases the map size, increases points, increases the min/max of unit types and I think provides a second general with a command radius equal to the CinC. Ostensibly this means everything is the same as a medium size battle except on a larger scale. There shouldn't be a greater disparity in forces just more of everything. Percentage wise you should still end up with the same force composition e.g. max skirmishers in lieu of other units. Also understand that Pete will be making it optional so that a large battle will be contingent on both players desiring one otherwise it will be medium sized. As for myself I don't care either way so if I decide to play next season I will select large so that my opponents can enjoy their match in whatever fashion pleases them as it will default to medium if that is what they have selected.

I drew this out to illustrate what I was saying. On the left, the smaller heavy list (the "x's") is in a wedge with refused flanks. It may be flanked by the enemy (assume a medium list) in 8 turns. On the right, a larger heavy list in the same formation may be flanked in 9 turns by the larger enemy force. So even if everything is bigger, and because everything is bigger, a larger force gives the heavies more time. Of course this assumes passive defense to make the point. fog pic.jpg No?

Good illustration. The bigger army size also facilitates the use of reserves which mitigate surprising and disastrous combats results.

[Cunningcairn]

As many have written before, it would be best if the system automatically informs the opponent about game restarts and I think that the best place would be a window where discussions are held during the game.
Something like that:
X: Good luck
Y: Good luck
Siltherine: Y restart game last turn 2 times.

Great suggestion Macedonczyk! I have been one of the more vocal players w.r.t. what I called "one in a thousand chance" results happening regularly. Strangely these rarely came when playing dkalenda. We typically had good close games and I don't recall feeling cheated when I played him. I'm quite stunned to hear what has happened and very sad to hear it is dkalenda. Someone in this thread said that players are now going to be suspicious of every bad result which I think is correct. Macedonczyk's suggestion will allay that suspicion and also discourage if not eliminate cheating. Is it technically possible to implement his suggestion and if so what can the DL players do to make it happen?

[Jagger2002]

I dropped out of the DLC because my two areas of interest, Biblical and Early Medieval, were the first converted to large battles. Now I just play fun games with friends and open pickup games. I don't play nearly as many games but I still have a lot of fun and much more relaxing.

[SimonLancaster]

Double post.

I can’t even delete posts and they are double posting. Whole Slitherine system needs a good spring clean!

[SimonLancaster]

As many have written before, it would be best if the system automatically informs the opponent about game restarts and I think that the best place would be a window where discussions are held during the game.
Something like that:
X: Good luck
Y: Good luck
Siltherine: Y restart game last turn 2 times.

Great suggestion Macedonczyk! I have been one of the more vocal players w.r.t. what I called "one in a thousand chance" results happening regularly. Strangely these rarely came when playing dkalenda. We typically had good close games and I don't recall feeling cheated when I played him. I'm quite stunned to hear what has happened and very sad to hear it is dkalenda. Someone in this thread said that players are now going to be suspicious of every bad result which I think is correct. Macedonczyk's suggestion will allay that suspicion and also discourage if not eliminate cheating. Is it technically possible to implement his suggestion and if so what can the DL players do to make it happen?

Forward on the suggestion to the Slitherine dev team. I agree, it would seem one of the simplest solutions mentioned so far. It probably requires some work but surely it is worth it for the integrity of the Slitherine PBEM system. People can’t believe that this kind of thing can happen in 2020.

[rs2excelsior]

Division C - two to report!

rs2excelsior (Carthaginian 550-411 BC with Greek, Western 460-381 BC allies) beat gamercb (Thracian (Getae) 680-330 BC) 62-38

The Thracians brought a large force of massed peltasts and spearmen along to the battle - enough to make the Carthaginians worry about the sheer numbers they would be facing. The Thracian army gamely moved forwards out of the woods, and the Carthaginian line advanced to meet them. The Carthaginian chariots on the left got caught up by infantry ZOCs and were shot up by Thracian skirmishers, and the Carthaginian cavalry on the right were severely mishandled and crushed by the Thracian cavalry wing. However, progress had been made in the infantry fight in the middle, and the Carthaginian main line was beginning to make and exploit gaps. It looked to still be in the balance with Thracian cavalry closing in on the rear of the Carthaginian line, but in the end the Thracian infantry collapsed before their cavalry could come to the rescue. Some luck on my part and dogged use of ZOCs bought enough time to shatter the Thracian infantry and seal the win.

The battlefield at the end of the match:

20200725210656_1.jpg (602.96 KiB) Viewed 1982 times

rs2excelsior (Carthaginian 550-411 BC with Greek, Western 460-381 BC allies) beat Barrold713 (Syracusan 550-461 BC with Libyan 549-301 BC allies) 61-42

This one was a real back-and-forth affair, a roller coaster of a match that saw major swings in who was in the lead. The battlefield was divided by a stream, with mountains restricting the Carthaginian left flank. The lines clashed along the stream, while Carthaginian cavalry and chariots managed to force their way across on the right flank. However, some carelessness on my part left an exposed flank inside my main line, and a Syracusan cavalry exploited it, breaking three units and disrupting a fourth in a single flank charge - a move which basically crippled my right flank. My center was getting worn down, my left was holding alright but not making progress, and the Syracusans had the lead in both points and position. I figured the game was probably done for. However, the medium foot which the Syracusans had deployed to hold their right began to buckle, and my troops on that flank held out heroically. In the center some good luck and advancing reserves saved me from more flank charges and managed to stabilize the situation. With the collapse of the Syracusan right and the Carthaginian cavalry managing to hit the Syracusan center in the rear, the Carthaginians managed to swing the scores back in their favor, and then push the Syracusan army over the break threshold.

The stream was running red with the blood of both sides by the end of the fight:

20200725210820_1.jpg (581.04 KiB) Viewed 1982 times

Good games to both of my opponents! Both of these were matches that were very much in the balance until near the end, and could have gone either way easily.

[nyczar]

Division A

nyczar - Assyrian 681-609 BC with Median 836-627 BC allies nips a win over ianiow - Kushite Egyptian 727-656 BC 65%-59%

Slaying a titan is a bloody business. Was perhaps the most stressful and exciting game I have enjoyed in a while.

(3-1)

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well played! It was a pleasure to lose to you.

[rs2excelsior]

Division D

rs2excelsior (Byzantine 551-578 AD) beat Rob123 (Roman 379-424 AD with Armenian 253-476 AD allies) 58-31

Another battle of eastern and western Rome! The Western empire brought a fairly infantry-heavy force, deployed on a small hill in a fairly open map. Both sides were relatively cautious at first, with the Eastern lancers facing a difficult attack uphill. In the end, the Byzantines managed to push around the flanks, and though the Western empire's infantry were winning the battle against the token legions and limitanei brought by the Eastern emperor, the lancers were able to tip the battle before the better western infantry could push through.

The battlefield at the end:

20200726002508_1.jpg (609.1 KiB) Viewed 1866 times

Good game to my opponent, it was a fun match!