The Rally Point

[stockwellpete]

Oskar, yes I would only want to try it in one section in the first season and then see how players felt about it. The historical match-ups would be very interesting, I think - and players would have to use armies that they were less familiar with. I think it would be quite a testing competition.

[MikeMarchant]

I don't know whether it's a 'good' idea, but it's an idea I like.

I don't know about other players, but I tend to go for the same armies over and over if given the choice. Not necessarily the same 'nation' or even the same army list book, but I tend to try to create the same composition again and again. Even when I have made a deliberate attempt to do something different I've ended up with something that looks oddly familiar.

One of the things I have enjoyed about the themed event and Fogman's Lords of History, is having to play with very different styles of army and having to figure out what on earth to do with them. It's been a disaster for me in the themed event, not having a clue what to do with a knight, or a crossbowman or a longbowman, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the lessons I've been given on the battlefield. I also think that when I have then returned to my old familiar styles of army that I've improved as a consequence of these lessons.

So, just from the point of view of being forced to do something different, learn a new style of fighting, new tactics, new ways of losing even, I'm in favour of the experiment.


Best Wishes

Mike

[paulmcneil]

To be honest I wouldn't take part in this. I don't like playing with armies in set scenarios, they are usually not balanced, I think that probably shows in the results from the french vs english games this year, seemed to me to be a preponderance of wins for one particular side in the same scenarios.

I'd much rather been given choice, so narrow down which armies you can have by a set century, but don't impose the scenarios, really didn't like that.

[Jonathan4290]

I think this would be a great idea for a themed event but not really for an entire section. I think what youve done for HMA this year (limiting armies for more historical matchups) is a good mid-way point as far as DL is concerned.

My reasoning is that the historical matchups are already largely covered by the lords tournament and my own themed tournaments which have opted to become more historically based (by limiting armies from book to specific time period) and use mirror matches.

I think if someone really likes this idea though, they should take it up and run a tournament, which I really enjoy doing I must say.

[PeterGuest]

It would be interesting to use more than 1 army in a league - but I'm not sure this is the right way to go. Personally I found the later games could become a bit of a grind, while I liked the element of surprise in the slitherine trophy. On the other hand, historical match-ups can be less balanced than arranged games (pair every match-up!), so I wonder if there are other ways of introducing some variety that aren't too complicated?

Not sure if this is the right place for this (and probably already been discussed), but a completely different idea is to increase the number of promotion and relegation places in each of the divisions (except promotion from A and relegation from C/D of course). This would keep things interesting for longer each season and players would have more to aim for - and avoid. Maybe 2-3 up and down?

[stockwellpete]

I don't know whether it's a 'good' idea, but it's an idea I like.

I don't know about other players, but I tend to go for the same armies over and over if given the choice. Not necessarily the same 'nation' or even the same army list book, but I tend to try to create the same composition again and again. Even when I have made a deliberate attempt to do something different I've ended up with something that looks oddly familiar.

One of the things I have enjoyed about the themed event and Fogman's Lords of History, is having to play with very different styles of army and having to figure out what on earth to do with them. It's been a disaster for me in the themed event, not having a clue what to do with a knight, or a crossbowman or a longbowman, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the lessons I've been given on the battlefield. I also think that when I have then returned to my old familiar styles of army that I've improved as a consequence of these lessons.

So, just from the point of view of being forced to do something different, learn a new style of fighting, new tactics, new ways of losing even, I'm in favour of the experiment.


Best Wishes

Mike

Yes, I think the format would provide a much tougher test for players. Each player would be using nine armies in a season instead of one and, as we know, each army has its own particular "secret" in terms of getting the best out of it. In addition, I think FOG is at its most interesting with historical match-ups. I do enjoy them more myself and think many other players do too. Quite frankly I get very tired with match-ups like Scots Isle versus Burgundians or whatever.

[stockwellpete]

To be honest I wouldn't take part in this. I don't like playing with armies in set scenarios, they are usually not balanced, I think that probably shows in the results from the french vs english games this year, seemed to me to be a preponderance of wins for one particular side in the same scenarios.

I'd much rather been given choice, so narrow down which armies you can have by a set century, but don't impose the scenarios, really didn't like that.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, Paul. The last couple of themed events have offered scenarios instead of DAG matches and they seem to have been well-supported and enjoyed. This proposal does not concern scenarios but is about using the DAG for historical match-ups in at least one of the four other sections each season. I ran a poll some time ago and players told me that they wanted more historical match-ups so I am trying to deliver on that request.

Edit - on the question of balanced games, I would like to think that my scenarios are generally well-balanced. On the evidence of Bouvines, Poitiers and Tinchebrai so far, I would say that Bouvines needs a bit of looking at but Poitiers and Tinchebrai are just fine. The really unbalanced games are often ahistorical DAG match-ups in my opinion. I actually think the proposal would drastically reduce unbalanced games.

[stockwellpete]

I think this would be a great idea for a themed event but not really for an entire section. I think what youve done for HMA this year (limiting armies for more historical matchups) is a good mid-way point as far as DL is concerned.

Yes, it would certainly work in the themed event section and it might be the best way to introduce the idea to the competition. The themed event in Season 5 should really have an Antiquity theme of some sort (unless Wolves From the Sea makes a sudden appearance).

My reasoning is that the historical matchups are already largely covered by the lords tournament and my own themed tournaments which have opted to become more historically based (by limiting armies from book to specific time period) and use mirror matches.

I don't this is as a valid reason for the FOGDL not to offer historical match-ups. After all, I was running themed medieval invitation events two or three years ago so I am just continuing in that vein really.

[stockwellpete]

It would be interesting to use more than 1 army in a league - but I'm not sure this is the right way to go. Personally I found the later games could become a bit of a grind, while I liked the element of surprise in the slitherine trophy. On the other hand, historical match-ups can be less balanced than arranged games (pair every match-up!), so I wonder if there are other ways of introducing some variety that aren't too complicated?

On the question of balanced games I agree that care will need to be taken to make sure the armies are evenly matched. This can be done by putting some restrictions on certain troop types (e.g Swiss pikemen in a match up with the Burgundian Ordonnance).

Not sure if this is the right place for this (and probably already been discussed), but a completely different idea is to increase the number of promotion and relegation places in each of the divisions (except promotion from A and relegation from C/D of course). This would keep things interesting for longer each season and players would have more to aim for - and avoid. Maybe 2-3 up and down?

The problem with promotion and relegation is that not exactly the same players return each season so over a period of time regular players will tend to gravitate towards the higher divisions even if they finish with a 6-3 or 5-4 win record. So what we have done is to say that the winner of each division and the bottom player in each division will always be promoted or relegated respectively, and that other promotions or relegations will be at the discretion of the committee.

[stockwellpete]

Anyone for anymore?

[cromlechi]

I would like to see anything that forced you to take different armies. Perhaps if armies from each era were put in pools based on how good they were. You could then make higher rated players choose from the lower rated pools. This would give a type of handicap and make the matches more competitive as top rated players would be forced to choose from lower rated pools of armies. Just an idea.

Another idea is to have pools of armies that are relatively equal in terms of win - loss and and limit choice too these armies for different divisions. This would still allow people to have some choice but eliminate really poor match ups where you know the result before you've started.

[paulmcneil]

I hate the idea of being forced to take an army I don't want. And all the tinkering with troop types seems to show that the standard points system is not working on army selection, it would be better to fix the points system than banning different numbers of a troop type.

[gamercb]

I would support this idea as it adds an additional challenge in having to select a diferent army for each battle rather than just tweaking the army you have. It also means that new inexperienced players would not be penalised for picking a bad army at the start and then have to fight 9 battles with little chance of winning. For the more experienced players, it takes away the option to choose a top army that beats most opponents. This could balance up the battles for both players and lead to closer and more interesting games.
I am not sure if you were suggesting doing rounds so that you have to complete the 1st game before starting the second but I would suggest you put the list of all the games up at the start so it is possible to fight multiple battles with different players at the same time. I like to get as many battles completed as I can early in case something crops up later that interferes with the time I have for gaming.

Give it a try, those who do not want to take part need not enter that particular section.

Colin

[stockwellpete]

I would like to see anything that forced you to take different armies. Perhaps if armies from each era were put in pools based on how good they were. You could then make higher rated players choose from the lower rated pools. This would give a type of handicap and make the matches more competitive as top rated players would be forced to choose from lower rated pools of armies. Just an idea.

Another idea is to have pools of armies that are relatively equal in terms of win - loss and and limit choice too these armies for different divisions. This would still allow people to have some choice but eliminate really poor match ups where you know the result before you've started.

I agree that it would be desirable to reduce the number of poor match-ups in the competition. I don't think I would like to attempt to classify the armies further than I have done already with the "super armies" though. The thing about historical DAG match ups is that armies in close geographical proximity to one another tend to adapt to one another over time (Spanish and Moors), unless one nation is much stronger than the other and raiding or guerrilla warfare becomes the norm (English and Welsh). This can make for interesting match-ups.

There is also a lot of scope in the DAG to set up more interesting match-ups with armies and allies that are not usually chosen. I have just started to look at what might be offered in Season 5 for the themed event. It will probably be a Classical Antiquity theme. I looked at some of the scenarios already included in the game for some ideas. One of them is Triganocerta (69BC) which involves the Late Republican Romans and the Armenians (Tigran) from the DAG. Normally, you might think that the Romans would steamroller the Armenians, but if you use Triganocerta as an "inspiration" for a DAG match-up then it becomes quite interesting (the important point being that I am not trying to actually recreate the battle itself). So the Roman army could be forced to choose 10 units of Bithynian allies and also to choose Thracian foot and maximum cavalry, plus they might be allowed, say, only 4 veteran legionaries - while the Armenians would be required to take some Arab allies and minimum numbers of cataphracts and javelinmen might also be stipulated. And now I think it starts to get a lot more interesting as a match-up.

Some of these ideas would need testing before the start of Season 5 and I think it might be good if I got a small group of us together to do this - we could play paired games to see if we have the balance about right. How does this sound to people?

[stockwellpete]

I hate the idea of being forced to take an army I don't want. And all the tinkering with troop types seems to show that the standard points system is not working on army selection, it would be better to fix the points system than banning different numbers of a troop type.

There is a lot of imbalance in the DAG, I agree. We will have to see what the new version is like now as there is no prospect of altering the current DAG.

[stockwellpete]

I would support this idea as it adds an additional challenge in having to select a diferent army for each battle rather than just tweaking the army you have. It also means that new inexperienced players would not be penalised for picking a bad army at the start and then have to fight 9 battles with little chance of winning. For the more experienced players, it takes away the option to choose a top army that beats most opponents. This could balance up the battles for both players and lead to closer and more interesting games.

Yes, I agree with all of that very much.

I am not sure if you were suggesting doing rounds so that you have to complete the 1st game before starting the second but I would suggest you put the list of all the games up at the start so it is possible to fight multiple battles with different players at the same time. I like to get as many battles completed as I can early in case something crops up later that interferes with the time I have for gaming.

No, all matches would be available to play from day one of the competition in a 10-player division. The themed event would have scheduling though if there were 4 players in a group. This worked OK in Season 3.

[Jonathan4290]

I would support this idea as it adds an additional challenge in having to select a diferent army for each battle rather than just tweaking the army you have. It also means that new inexperienced players would not be penalised for picking a bad army at the start and then have to fight 9 battles with little chance of winning. For the more experienced players, it takes away the option to choose a top army that beats most opponents. This could balance up the battles for both players and lead to closer and more interesting games.
I am not sure if you were suggesting doing rounds so that you have to complete the 1st game before starting the second but I would suggest you put the list of all the games up at the start so it is possible to fight multiple battles with different players at the same time. I like to get as many battles completed as I can early in case something crops up later that interferes with the time I have for gaming.

Give it a try, those who do not want to take part need not enter that particular section.

Colin

I agree but come to a different conclusion inspired by the way you framed it.

What if there was a limited number of armies available for each section (similar to what was done with HMA this year) but you couldnt use the same army twice (similar to slitherine trophy, which I think was much more interesting this year).

This would allow to narrow the field to only historical matchups but add the strategy of when to use which armies against who, and trying to guess what opponent would use. Just a thought.

[rexhurley]

I'm against this for the League Pete leave it pure and have other events for matchups

[LordNytram]

I'm in favour of the idea, especially if its only for one out of 4 periods.
Keep the ideas coming Pete.

[klayeckles]

I don't get all the chatter about "even match ups"...we already have many rock paper sissors match ups in the league....face it my Persians are going to get spanked by pikemen...etc...almost every time, unless I am really on my game. if there is an "uneven" match up...beat the odds man! that's the test of a true champion. I like the idea of maybe one era having historical match ups. this round I was stuck playing my 3rd choice army in 9 battles...that's a lot of battles with the same bad choice. boo whooo feel sorry for Klay.

as an easier approach, we could have 5 classic match ups and each player plays both sides of the battle, so fairness presides on the uneven army issue.