A discussion about maps . . .

[TheGrayMouser]

Yes I understand why you started this thread, so, how about some commentary on some of my observations? ie zero points for a draw (except when both armies break same turn) for example.

[voskarp]

Yes I understand why you started this thread, so, how about some commentary on some of my observations? ie zero points for a draw (except when both armies break same turn) for example.

I agree on that. I think that's the only way to keep people playing aggressive (short of distributing fly agaric to the players).

But it would also be a good idea to change some of the (silliest) maps.

[stockwellpete]

Yes I understand why you started this thread, so, how about some commentary on some of my observations? ie zero points for a draw (except when both armies break same turn) for example.

No, I would prefer a 4-2-1-0 points regime - one point for agreed draws or where neither army has broken after 24 turns. A draw is not the same as a defeat so no points for for certain types of draw is anomalous in my view. The best way to minimise the chance of a stalemate in competitive play is to overhaul the maps. Restricting initial deployment to more central areas would also get my support.

[stockwellpete]

What your suggesting appears to be an attempt to control player behavior on how they deploy by removing any possibility that a map can have some small advantage /hope for certain army types. Thus the player that wins the initiative will presumably always get the huge advantage? Initiative (which is mostly luck) will be the deciding factor....

I think it is preferable that if a player with a HF/Cav army has chosen "Very Open" then they should get a "very Open" map to fight on if they win the initiative (the same would be true for MF armies winning the initiative and selecting "Very Crowded" terrain). And if players knew that this outcome was fairly certain from the outset it might mean that players who are using MF armies would opt for an "inspired" leader (to increase their chance of winning the initiative) and/or they might pick a contingent of HF/Cav (where possible) to give them some sort of counter-play. It might also mean that players will eschew one-dimensional armies in competitions (whether HF or MF) and opt for more balanced armies in future. This would mean that "horde armies", where half the units are perpetually out of command radius, are less likely to be an issue either.

EDIT: I have just looked at two medieval MF-heavy armies, the Welsh and the Irish (later). For the Welsh it is possible to spend 380pts out of 500 without picking any MF (by choosing French allies, other knights, militia spearmen and skirmishers); and for the Irish it is possible to pick a 500pt army without any MF at all. I think this reinforces my point in the paragraph above. MF armies would not become a liability because of what I am suggesting but it would force players using them to diversify their troop types and it would mitigate against the selection of "horde" armies to a certain extent.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yes I understand why you started this thread, so, how about some commentary on some of my observations? ie zero points for a draw (except when both armies break same turn) for example.

No, I would prefer a 4-2-1-0 points regime - one point for agreed draws or where neither army has broken after 24 turns. A draw is not the same as a defeat so no points for for certain types of draw is anomalous in my view. The best way to minimise the chance of a stalemate in competitive play is to overhaul the maps. Restricting initial deployment to more central areas would also get my support.

IMHO Wrong, you will never get a consensus on something as subjective as whether a specific map is fair or unfair, viable not viable (to attempt something so crazy as attempting to play on it to WIN a battle) EVER for any specific situation. One players opinion that "this map is unplayable for me" is another players, "hmm this is interesting but I can do it"
Even with tweeks you cant stop the behavior of hunkering in a corner, gentlemans terms to not fight BUT get your cake and it it too (by getting points)

BTW, talk about bad blood in comps, one thing I have seen is players arguing over the maps after the battle Example: player A loses a rematch but feels stiffed because he thought the ist map was reasonable but his opponent disagreed and complained so much that A decides to allow a rematch. In the rematch player B has redesigned his army AND wins the initiative AND choses a MAP that A will likely have a hard time on but A plays it anyhow.
(of course ALL these things are subjective and cannot be covered by rules)
Sounds like to me A has no official recourse in the current scheme of things except to demand another map ad infinitum, or "complain"
Of course you can say A was a chump, new the rules and should have "gone for the draw" on map 2 rematch.
yeah, isn't that great, everyone gets points for complaining about an unfair map LOL

Pete , no offence but we will never agree on the merits of awarding points for draws that result in agreements between players not to fight a battle, or concede to earning points by not moving, rather than risk zero point by trying
Yes under these terms a draw is not the same as a loss, its worse:
The point of the game(whether comps or "friendly battles") is to FIGHT, not gets points , right? And battle is always risky, no?

Isnt it funny how we even call non comp games "friendly battles" ha ha, WTF are comp games then? Real? , historical? A display of masterfull gamesmanship?

Honestly , you are setting up a situation where players (not that they would do so, but they COULD) need not even play and simply post "yeah we agreed on a draw, gimme the points"

You are attempting to solve a "problem" of negative play etc by introducing new rules or game mechanics that don't or cant exist and possibly never will. The issue at hand, as I understand it is the spirit of the game, friendly competition etc. The solution at hand cannot be "maybe Slitherine will incorporate better maps in the future"

That be said my next post will be a fantasy map selection process

[TheGrayMouser]

Idea for map selection

Ist all existing maps for dag battles would need be categorized in a map cluster of 4 reasonably similar maps based on some type of homogenous terrain(s), named appropriately for easy reference. example “agricultural low lands #3” or “rocky highlands#2” or “river ford #1”
These clusters of maps MUST always be viewable in the ingame dag selection process and out of game
Step One
When issueing a challenge or accepting, each player selects his “cluster” of 4 maps, and must chose his “approach” march (ie north or south) (remember, your choosing the predetermined cluster Not 4 individual maps)
Initiative will be determined as is normal, the winner gets his cluster
(now the part where players get angry LOL)
The above because there will be one additional turn passed prior to deployment and fighting
Step 2
The cluster of 4 maps is of course visible to both players
Each player is allocated 7 points which can positive + to get one of the specific maps in that cluster or negative - to “deny” his opponent that specific map
Rules:
* for each player at least one point must be allocated (+ or -) to 3 maps
*for each player, no more than 5 points can be allocated to any one map
*should be obvious, but a player cannot assign a mix of plus or minus to any ONE map
Now the results are netted for each plus or minus for a map , the map that has the greatest amount of plusses is the one you fight on…
Now I have NOT mathematically determined all the possibilities and its likely a thing or needs be tweeked BUT it should work and give both players real input on getting the map they really want or taking a risk in getting bad map despite winning the initiative if they put all their eggs in one basket
Example
Lets assume 4 maps numbered 1-4
Player A has a pike army , player B has a medium foot army
Pikes won the initiative and chose lowland agriculture as the cluster
Map one is pretty flat with no real problem areas for pike
Map four is ok but not ideal
Maps 2-3 are indifferent to the pike player
Medium foot player assesses the situation and feels he NEVER would want to fight on map one
But might like map two, or three, map for is so so
The players (in secret of course, duh) allocate as follows
Pike player allocates 4 +’s to map 1 and 2 +’s to map 4 and one + to map 2(7 points, 3 maps allocated something)
Medium player , so dreadfull of map 1 allocates 5 –‘s to that map, and 1 + each to map two and three
So Map one is now excluded as -5 to +4
Map two is a tie
Map three is up a point for medium player
BUT pike player has 2 +’s allocated for map four
Game is played on map 4

OH BTW more "what ifs", for historical line ups, campaign type matches or friendly games, one could issue challeges with specific cluster (or even a specific map) as a condition (ie like issuing FOW or double moves on or off)

[stockwellpete]

IMHO Wrong, you will never get a consensus on something as subjective as whether a specific map is fair or unfair, viable not viable (to attempt something so crazy as attempting to play on it to WIN a battle) EVER for any specific situation. One players opinion that "this map is unplayable for me" is another players, "hmm this is interesting but I can do it"
Even with tweeks you cant stop the behavior of hunkering in a corner, gentlemans terms to not fight BUT get your cake and it it too (by getting points)

Really all that I am doing with this thread is asking everyone whether, as a group, we can develop a broad consensus about which sort of maps we would prefer to see in the game. I am asking the question, "Are there things we can do to improve the situation, or not?" If there is no consensus at all for any changes then perhaps the best we can do is just ask that more maps be included in the game to give us greater variety. But my own view is that there are certainly things we can do to improve things and some maps need to be withdrawn or modified.

Pete , no offence but we will never agree on the merits of awarding points for draws that result in agreements between players not to fight a battle, or concede to earning points by not moving, rather than risk zero point by trying
Yes under these terms a draw is not the same as a loss, its worse:

That's OK, TGM, you are entitled to your view just as much as I am. But 2pts each for a "fought draw" and only 1pt each for an "agreed" draw is proportionate - because it still gives players twice as many points for fighting it out in a drawn game than those who come to agreement. Getting 1pt for an agreed draw is not going to win you any tournaments when 4pts are on offer for a win .

[voskarp]

... Getting 1pt for an agreed draw is not going to win you any tournaments when 4pts are on offer for a win .

But then a win is only twice as good as a fought draw, not three times (0-1-3). Shouldn't it be 0-1-2-6 then?

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, I realise Ive likely gone off tangient here vs maps discussions so I will let it be (of course they are integrally related ha ha)

Waddya think of my map selection idea? No doudt theres plenty of logic holes within as I slapped the idea together quite quickly but I think its technologically feasible...

[TheGrayMouser]

... Getting 1pt for an agreed draw is not going to win you any tournaments when 4pts are on offer for a win .

But then a win is only twice as good as a fought draw, not three times (0-1-3). Shouldn't it be 0-1-2-6 then?

Unless its near the end of the comp(where every other players position and scores are public) when you and 2 others have games to finish, and both those players are near the low end of scores , You are vying for ist place vs a player whom is done with his games and your 1 point behind, if you lose either one or both games you come in second or at best tie , if you "play" it safe and hunker in a corner for the draws you win ...Why cant you see how gamesmanship can often be so insidious? Your way too chivilric

I have no issue with a fought draw being half as good as a win, you fought, but didn't lose or win..

Alright I reneged on my statement to let it be, now .... stop...

[stockwellpete]

Waddya think of my map selection idea? No doudt theres plenty of logic holes within as I slapped the idea together quite quickly but I think its technologically feasible...

Sorry, but I find that all far too complicated.

[batesmotel]

... Getting 1pt for an agreed draw is not going to win you any tournaments when 4pts are on offer for a win .

But then a win is only twice as good as a fought draw, not three times (0-1-3). Shouldn't it be 0-1-2-6 then?

Unless its near the end of the comp(where every other players position and scores are public) when you and 2 others have games to finish, and both those players are near the low end of scores , You are vying for ist place vs a player whom is done with his games and your 1 point behind, if you lose either one or both games you come in second or at best tie , if you "play" it safe and hunker in a corner for the draws you win ...Why cant you see how gamesmanship can often be so insidious? Your way too chivilric

I have no issue with a fought draw being half as good as a win, you fought, but didn't lose or win..

Alright I reneged on my statement to let it be, now .... stop...

I fail to see any good reason to penalize an agreed draw rather than one that's fought out. It's about as pointless as specifically imposing an arbitrary limit on when both players can agree to restart a game. There is no enforcement mechanism in either case, so in the first players can just agree to some arbitrary finishing score (like each player lost their AP+1) rather than announcing it as an agreed up on draw. In thesecond, the players just start the game over at any point without making a public declaration that they've done so.

Fewer rules in the end is almost certainly better than more are. Put someone reasonable in charge of running the LoEG and let that person recruit asssitants and ask for opinions when they want them.

To get back on subject for the thread, the map with the mountain in the middle looks unplayable at first but it's one where I've had a number of memorable games fighting to be king of the mountain including one between Swiss and Maximilian Low Countries where both armies were heavily pikes. I'll agree that the map with the sink holes in t he middle does seem odd and not conducive to good games.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

Off the top of my head . . .

What if we put all the maps into just three categories - "Open", "Mixed" and "Crowded".

Initiative is decided in exactly the same way. If you win by +3 or more you get to choose your preferred category of map; if you win by +1 or +2 you get a selection of "Mixed" maps to choose from. Very simple.

[stockwellpete]

I fail to see any good reason to penalize an agreed draw rather than one that's fought out. It's about as pointless as specifically imposing an arbitrary limit on when both players can agree to restart a game. There is no enforcement mechanism in either case, so in the first players can just agree to some arbitrary finishing score (like each player lost their AP+1) rather than announcing it as an agreed up on draw. In thesecond, the players just start the game over at any point without making a public declaration that they've done so.

This is true, of course - but I think most players are honest. Maybe then the re-starting idea would work better as a convention rather than a rule?

[TheGrayMouser]

Off the top of my head . . .

What if we put all the maps into just three categories - "Open", "Mixed" and "Crowded".

Initiative is decided in exactly the same way. If you win by +3 or more you get to choose your preferred category of map; if you win by +1 or +2 you get a selection of "Mixed" maps to choose from. Very simple.

I still like the idea of categorizing maps based on geography ie "agricultural" which would be relatively flat, occasion cluster of fields a stream maybe here and there a couple copses of trees. "Mediterranian agriculture" could feature more orchards, perhaps be a little more hilly, "highlands" could be hilly w some steep hills and some rocky/rough hexes etc , you get the point
Maybe 10 or so categories altogether

Then each army per dag would be officially assigned 1 to three "types" ie "home ground" (this is how the TT game does it)

When issueing or accepting a challenge one could select any type of category, but you could have the variable dice for initiative weighted aginst you for selecting outside of the categories for either army
or maybe even a positive modifier for within

example: Medieval French list has "agicultureral", "pleasant hills" and "light woodsy"
opponents Early Scots has "highlands" and "barren"

the Scots player chooses "barren" and maybe gets a +2 modifier to initiative role (+1 perhaps for choosing terrain avaialabe to either army, another + for his own home terrain)

for some silly reason French player chooses "desert oasis" he gets a -2 modifier on the initiative roll

the dice roll for initiative would likely need to be broadened ie two dice instead of one with all the additional modifiers...

the player that wins initiative gets to select one of the four maps in his chosen category

You could even "weight"/rank the categories to some degree so if a player choses a terrain type extremely different than either army has as a base , the penalty roll increases...

Just some thoughts , simple than my other posted idea.....

[TheGrayMouser]

I fail to see any good reason to penalize an agreed draw rather than one that's fought out. It's about as pointless as specifically imposing an arbitrary limit on when both players can agree to restart a game. There is no enforcement mechanism in either case, so in the first players can just agree to some arbitrary finishing score (like each player lost their AP+1) rather than announcing it as an agreed up on draw. In thesecond, the players just start the game over at any point without making a public declaration that they've done so.

This is true, of course - but I think most players are honest. Maybe then the re-starting idea would work better as a convention rather than a rule?

Chris, it isn't about penalizing anyone , its just not rewarding anyone for not fighting. Put it this way, if points are allowed for draws and the rules of draws makes it easy for any one to call one, then arnt you to some degree penalizing the player that is potentially being denied full points for a win?

Pete, I agree, players most are honest, its not about honesty its about human nature...

I just cant seem to stay away from this topic! So I will desist with the understanding that it appears most like the current points system, its not going anywhere, so its all cool

Howabout my less complicated map selection idea? ( I really don't think my ist one was that complicated, just my explanation of it was byzantine, I'm a doctor Jim, not a tech writer)

[stockwellpete]

Howabout my less complicated map selection idea? ( I really don't think my ist one was that complicated, just my explanation of it was byzantine, I'm a doctor Jim, not a tech writer)

I think anything that borrows substantially from the TT rules stands a chance. Your map selection idea could work, I agree. It would not mean players have to send two or three pre-battle turns to one another - it is just as quick as what we have now.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yet another map proposal:

This one runs the risk of having an additional pass but , and I emphasize, only sometimes:

Lets illustrate the current game process, each stage to be referred as a “work flow” or WF

Player A issues a challenge, a WF
Player B accepts a challenge, a WF
Now there are two branches and only two, next:
Player B Wins the initiative when he accepts the challenge and he then choses his map , deploys and send the turn
Player A then gets the turn and deploys and then makes the ist move, a WF

Thusly if the acceptor of the challenge wins the initiative, there are three WF’s****
If the Player B loses the initiative, the turn is sent back to player A, whom selects the map, deploys and send turn, now Player B deploys and makes his ist move, a WF

Thus 4 WF’s if the acceptor loses the initiative****

( I purposefully left out the second player MOVING for the ist time as this is a "constant" in the way it is currently, and what I will propose)

Winning the initiative is of course very important yet for the most part determine by a single dice. I would like to propose an idea that give some consideration to the player that loses by a close margin, and thus increases the value of inspired leaders etc. What a waste of AP’s to buy an inspired leader, xtra cavalry etc to have a +4 modifier and roll low and have your opponent , who chose nothing, roll a 6. Even worse, you are in the same position map wise if you had no modifiers at all!

So:
Ist let us assume the idea incorporates losing the initiative by a small margin, by an average margin and by a huge gap…
I propose if you lose the initiative by a huge gap, then the WF and game mechanic is the SAME as it is now
If you lose by an average margin the loser gets to DENY 1 of the 4 maps to the winner
Lose by a small margin and you can deny 2 of the 4 maps to the winner
This of course could be tweeked a little, and additionally, well additional modifiers could be considered, but I’ll keep it basic now
So the real concern is how much extra time will this take to “get the game on”
Here is the work flow with the proposal:
*keep in mind now, 50% of the time it will take 3 WF’s(when the acceptor of the challenge wins initiative) , 50% of the time it will take 4 WF’s (when the acceptor of the challenge loses initiative)
There are no other possibilities currently.

So in my fantasy proposal this is the WF

A. WF1 Challenge Issued by P1-->WF2 challenge accepted by P2, P2 loses initiative (loses BIG) WF3 turn passed to P1 whom selects map, deploys send turn->WF4 P2 deploys and moves troops.
4 WFs
B. WF1 Challenge Issued by P1-->WF2 challenge accepted by P2, P2 loses initiative (loses by a moderate or small margin) P2 removes 1 or 2 maps  WF3 turn passed to P1 whom selects from remaining maps, deploys send turn->WF4 P2 deploys and moves troops.
4 WF’s

C. WF1 Challenge Issued by P1-->WF2 challenge accepted by P2, P2 wins initiative by a BIG margin, selects map and deploys  WF3 turn passed to P1 whom deploys and moves troops.
3 WF’S
D. WF1 Challenge Issued by P1-->WF2 challenge accepted by P2, P2 wins initiative by a moderate or small margin, passes turn  WF3 P1 denies 1 or 2 maps to P2 and sends turn WF4 P2 selects from remaining maps, deploys--> WF5 turn passed to P1 whom deploys and moves troops.
5 WF’s

So , going with the dubious(as I cannot prove it as way to many variable) , yet not unrealistic assumption that the player accepting the challenge WINS initiative by a BIG margin around 33% of the time
50% of all matches will have 4 WF’s
16.5% will have 3 WF’s (.50x.33)
33.5% will have 5 WF’s (.50x.67)
Currently its 50% 4 WF’s, and 50% 3 WF’s

So can players handle that maybe around 33% of their games might have one additional step, in exchange for having initiative modifiers mean more, be able to possibly deny the worst single map(from your persective) of the 4 maps your opponent gets to chose from?

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I understand that, TGM. I quite like this as an idea and it bears some resemblance to my suggestion inasmuch as the size of the victory in the initiative role is the key thing.

[stockwellpete]

Have a look at this map. It is actually from a scenario of mine - "The Battle of Vienna 487AD" and I have taken the troops off. I think it might be good as a "Very Crowded" map . . .