The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4596
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri May 25, 2018 5:15 pm

Why not have players submit army picks via pm? Then no question of gaming the tourney with late choice advantage,before it even starts?

devoncop
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Classical Antiquity divisions and army allocations

Post by devoncop » Fri May 25, 2018 6:14 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:Why not have players submit army picks via pm? Then no question of gaming the tourney with late choice advantage,before it even starts?
I have to say I am not someone who takes any interest at all in preferred choices of others before the armies are allocated but for those who do a "sealed bid" process of nominating by PM would seem an excellent suggestion.

Ironclad
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:57 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Ironclad » Fri May 25, 2018 7:13 pm

A bit unfair on Pete to chide him about these outcomes given the immense workload he undertakes within a fairly tight timescale to give us all the pleasure of a participating in such a well organised league.

On army choices its not something I spend much time on although I must admit that I do often sign up and then decide my army preferences later, not to crib others' choices but more indecisiveness on choosing. This time I did take advantage of a late change - having boldly initially plumped for Western Huns as my first choice despite being pretty hopeless at mounted bow armies and only having used the Huns once in FOG2 in a battle of Chalons victory. Fortunately common sense kicked in and I thought I had better try them out. Two defeats later at the hands of the Alans (!) in repeated attempts at the first battle of the Hunnic Empire Campaign showed me the error of my ways and the Huns and I parted company! :)

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Fri May 25, 2018 7:46 pm

Ironclad wrote:A bit unfair on Pete to chide him about these outcomes given the immense workload he undertakes within a fairly tight timescale to give us all the pleasure of a participating in such a well organised league.
Thanks Nigel, but I don't really feel chided. :wink: There are a number of ways of allocating the armies and it doesn't hurt to discuss it every now and again. I think the main things is if you are going to make a change then it must clearly be an improvement on what we have at the moment.

The advantages of what we do right now is that it does work inasmuch as no-one has had to make a fourth choice in the two seasons of the FOG2DL and no-one has resigned from the league because of their army allocation (not yet anyway). The point is that players are asked to choose three armies that they would like to use in a section, so really no-one should be feeling disappointed. Maybe if we said in future that players should not put their three armies in order of preference? Perhaps this would encourage some players to think harder about all three choices rather than concentrating on the first two and being a bit careless with their third one? Also, I should also point out that I do not enter the sections where I am required to allocate armies so I am completely neutral with respect to the entire process. Having said all this, I am not sure what sort of proportion of players are unhappy with the current system so maybe a poll at the end of Season 2 would be a good idea.

If a significant number of players are unhappy with the current system then the PM'ing of army selections to me combined with a "first come, first served" approach might be worth trialling next season. It would change the army allocation process for me significantly and I think it would involve quite a bit more work as I would have to keep a separate record of when players actually posted their choices to me. But I wouldn't oppose it on that basis if it had widespread support among the players.

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Fri May 25, 2018 11:44 pm

I am not sure how late picking gives anyone an advantage. It would only be disadvantageous to the early bird if they made 3 picks all of which were of a similar archetype and someone counter picked. But given that there are 9 other players and you are not even 100 percent sure of placements, it would be hard for you to counter pick everyone.

There are plenty of competive armies to go around. So if you are concerned about winning, it should not be an issue as long as you make 3 good picks. If you are deadset on a particular archetype, you can pick 3 armies that play very similar.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Sat May 26, 2018 7:42 am

MikeC_81 wrote:I am not sure how late picking gives anyone an advantage. It would only be disadvantageous to the early bird if they made 3 picks all of which were of a similar archetype and someone counter picked. But given that there are 9 other players and you are not even 100 percent sure of placements, it would be hard for you to counter pick everyone.

There are plenty of competive armies to go around. So if you are concerned about winning, it should not be an issue as long as you make 3 good picks. If you are deadset on a particular archetype, you can pick 3 armies that play very similar.
I think this argument is correct. There may be a few examples in the A divisions where the very top players might make their selections on the basis of what a key rival has picked before them. This is because players in the top divisions can be a little more certain about who their opponents are likely to be, as players entering that division for the first time are most likely to come from Division B and nowhere else. It is very rare for a completely new player to start in the A division. But further down the league you go you will have players entering via both promotion and relegation (some of these will be "discretionary" promotions) and there is more chance that a completely new player to the tournament will be placed in a B, C, D or E division. So if you are a Division C player it can be very hard to predict who your opponents are going to be.

But it is still the case that a player who delays his selections to just before the deadline cannot possibly know which armies I am going to allocate to specific players so there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the process. If you are a player that tends to post his entries up early, and you are worried about opponents taking advantage of it, then perhaps the best tactic for you is to pick at least two types of army with your three selections (e.g. two heavy infantry, one horse archer). That should confound anyone seeking an advantage from the process. :wink:

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4596
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by TheGrayMouser » Sat May 26, 2018 1:13 pm

This is not a complaint just floating suggestions, but can we perhaps consider in a future season that the same army be used by multiple players per division? (The idea being players just submit one army via PM)

I'm sure it might happen here and there but is it really a big deal? Currently there are like 11 or so "pike armies" that are basically the same in all except name. Call them Mac's, Lysimachids, whatever, they are basically the same. The only really unique pike armies are The Alexander ( exclusive units) Pyrhic ( bland but TONS of pikes) and late Ptolemy ( fantasy blend of basically the best of all unit types the 1st century BC has to offer)

I get that we don't want a div filled with Carthaginian 210-209, Cartho 208-206, Cartho 205-203 etc etc but there are many lists that share a name and thus would be exclusive as the rules are currently but are really different armies. Plus would the first situation happen that often? And if it did, how would it be detrimental?


Anyway, if this was ever considered it probably would need to have players have a cool down period with armies ( ie cant keep picking same ones over each season, which I think if I recall, was a feature in the later LOEG in Fog1) That alone I think would prevent too many occurrences multiple same armies appearing over and over. One could group vastly similar armies ( like the silly cartho example I gave) as the same for all intents for player cool off for army use the following season

Cheers!

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by edb1815 » Sat May 26, 2018 4:33 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Ironclad wrote:A bit unfair on Pete to chide him about these outcomes given the immense workload he undertakes within a fairly tight timescale to give us all the pleasure of a participating in such a well organised league.
Thanks Nigel, but I don't really feel chided. :wink: There are a number of ways of allocating the armies and it doesn't hurt to discuss it every now and again. I think the main things is if you are going to make a change then it must clearly be an improvement on what we have at the moment.

The advantages of what we do right now is that it does work inasmuch as no-one has had to make a fourth choice in the two seasons of the FOG2DL and no-one has resigned from the league because of their army allocation (not yet anyway). The point is that players are asked to choose three armies that they would like to use in a section, so really no-one should be feeling disappointed. Maybe if we said in future that players should not put their three armies in order of preference? Perhaps this would encourage some players to think harder about all three choices rather than concentrating on the first two and being a bit careless with their third one? Also, I should also point out that I do not enter the sections where I am required to allocate armies so I am completely neutral with respect to the entire process. Having said all this, I am not sure what sort of proportion of players are unhappy with the current system so maybe a poll at the end of Season 2 would be a good idea.

If a significant number of players are unhappy with the current system then the PM'ing of army selections to me combined with a "first come, first served" approach might be worth trialling next season. It would change the army allocation process for me significantly and I think it would involve quite a bit more work as I would have to keep a separate record of when players actually posted their choices to me. But I wouldn't oppose it on that basis if it had widespread support among the players.

Not unhappy with your system just curious about how choices are allocated. If I undertstand correctly you are selecting armies based on how many of the same army are selected per division. So in Classical B it looked like 2-3 players chose a variation of Cathage and 2-3 had Roman 199-106 as their first choice for example. So you would then choose which player got that army or go to second and third choices and no one player ends up with those armies?

GDod
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:26 am

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by GDod » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:41 am

I've noticed the list selection changes depending on players settings within the game.

eg: For my Spanish (Sertorius), if set at centurion or tribune, I have a choice of 5 light cavalry and 4 heavy cavalry, at a setting of legate I have 4 light cavalry and 3 heavy cavalry. Does anyone else notice this?

My questions are ...

1) am I imagining things
2) is there a default setting we should be both accepting and issuing challenges at? I use legate but I notice the list changes if the challenger has set at a different level.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:39 am

GDod wrote:I've noticed the list selection changes depending on players settings within the game.

eg: For my Spanish (Sertorius), if set at centurion or tribune, I have a choice of 5 light cavalry and 4 heavy cavalry, at a setting of legate I have 4 light cavalry and 3 heavy cavalry. Does anyone else notice this?

My questions are ...

1) am I imagining things
2) is there a default setting we should be both accepting and issuing challenges at? I use legate but I notice the list changes if the challenger has set at a different level.
As far as I am aware the setting has no effect at all on your multi-player challenges.

GDod
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:26 am

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by GDod » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:34 am

As far as I am aware the setting has no effect at all on your multi-player challenges.
Thanks, I'll put it down to a lack of water during marathon games causing dehydration and creating mirages on the field, or indeed, confused senility!

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

final score

Post by ianiow » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:10 am

After all this time playing I have only just noticed that the final score percentage shown on the battlefield screen is different to the final score percentage shown on the casualties screen. :oops:
I have always recorded the 'battlefield percentage' rather than the 'casualty percentage'. Are we all singing from the same hymn sheet?

devoncop
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: final score

Post by devoncop » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:42 am

Should always be the "battlefield " % Ian.

The screen at the end takes into account prisoners/wounded etc so is more skewed to the victor.

Cheers

Ian

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:02 am

Just looking ahead to what might be offered in Season 3 (starting October 1st), I think it is just about tenable to open up another core section of the league, namely Early Middle Ages. This is from 500AD to 1000AD and will include any armies that are dated within this period. Early Middle Ages will replace "Enemies of Rome" and will eventually include later armies such as the Carolingian Franks and Vikings. There are 34 armies available so far . . .

Alans 25-650AD
Anglo-Saxons 449-599AD
Arab (Bedouin) 300-636AD
Arab (city) 300-633AD
Armenian 477-627AD
Avars 553-557AD
Avars 558-631AD
Bretons 411-579AD
Bretons 580-1072AD
Byzantines 493-550BC
Byzantines 551-578AD
Byzantines 579-599AD
Franks 496-599AD
Gepids 493-567AD
Hepthalites 350-570AD
Huns, Western 455-559AD
Huns, Sabir 463-558AD
Indians 320-545AD
Indians 546-599AD
Lombards 493-567AD
Lombards 568-569AD
Lombards 570-649AD
Moorish 350-698AD
Ostrogoths 493-561AD
Pictish 477-850AD
Romano-British 407-599AD
Sassanid Persians 477-590AD
Sassanid Persians 591-628AD
Scots-Irish 477-846AD
Slavs 500-599AD
Turkish 552-599AD
Vandals 500-534AD
Visigoths 419-621AD
Welsh 477-599AD

Any thoughts?

ahuyton
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:31 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by ahuyton » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:42 am

The Early Middle ages, or Dark Ages, group looks like fun.

I suppose it would be too complicated, or restricting, to have geographical groupings? For example it would be interesting to have all the British Isles armies together. One option might be simply to omit the eastern armies, but that might exclude someone's favourite army which would be a shame.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:55 pm

ahuyton wrote:The Early Middle ages, or Dark Ages, group looks like fun.

I suppose it would be too complicated, or restricting, to have geographical groupings? For example it would be interesting to have all the British Isles armies together. One option might be simply to omit the eastern armies, but that might exclude someone's favourite army which would be a shame.
At this stage, I think geographical groupings would be too restricting. Back in FOG1 days, I raised the possibility of splitting the High Middle Ages into western and eastern European regions, which I think makes sense historically and militarily, but you would probably need at least 60 players entering the section to make it viable, otherwise the skill levels in each division get really stretched. The initial idea behind the Themed Event was to provide some real historical stuff as an alternative to the non-historical match-ups you often get in sections like Classical Antiquity and Late Antiquity, for example. We'll just have to see how things develop over the next few seasons. :wink:

Ludendorf
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Ludendorf » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:06 am

Sorry for the slowdown folks. There's a heatwave in the UK, and I've been struggling with lack of sleep. Hopefully, I'll be a bit fresher tomorrow and can resume games and challenges apace.

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

multiplayer bug

Post by ianiow » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:42 pm

viewtopic.php?f=488&t=86120

Just a heads up. There is currently a bug that prevents multiplayer games from ending their turn successfully on pressing the End Turn button. This occurs if you leave the game running for a length of time with no moves (while answering the phone or having lunch etc).

The fix is in the pipeline but just for now and to be safe, don't take a break while in game without saving the turn first!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9182
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:30 am

I am beginning to think that the current schedule of the Themed Event is a bit too tight for the time we have available. At the moment, there are three group matches to be played and then three knock-out rounds of paired games. These six rounds of matches have to be done in ten weeks, when ideally I would like to be able to allow fourteen days for each round. This would mean the Themed Event would last twelve weeks but the actual playing season is only of ten weeks duration.

I can see two possible solutions . . .

I) reduce the number of players in each group to three (instead of four) and play two rounds of paired games instead of three rounds of single matches (so you would get an extra game and all players would be using exactly the same armies). This would reduce the number of players in each pool to twelve, but it would enable me to allow fourteen days for each round.

ii) keep the number of players in a pool at sixteen, and each group at four, but abandon the scheduled nature of the group stage matches and let players play them in any order, at their own pace, with the proviso that all matches will have to be completed within one month of the tournament starting. That would then still leave six weeks for the three knock-out rounds.

Thoughts? Preferences?

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by edb1815 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:56 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:30 am
I am beginning to think that the current schedule of the Themed Event is a bit too tight for the time we have available. At the moment, there are three group matches to be played and then three knock-out rounds of paired games. These six rounds of matches have to be done in ten weeks, when ideally I would like to be able to allow fourteen days for each rounds. This would mean the Themed Event would last twelve weeks but the actual playing season is only of ten weeks duration.

I can see two possible solutions . . .

I) reduce the number of players in each group to three (instead of four) and play two rounds of paired games instead of three rounds of single matches (so you would get an extra game and all players would be using exactly the same armies). This would reduce the number of players in each pool to twelve, but it would enable me to allow fourteen days for each round.

ii) keep the number of players in a pool at sixteen, and each group at four, but abandon the scheduled nature of the group stage matches and let players play them in any order, at their own pace, with the proviso that all matches will have to be completed within one month of the tournament starting. That would then still leave six weeks for the three knock-out rounds.

Thoughts? Preferences?
I would vote for option 2. It takes the pressure off for the group stage and allows players to have all the matches going simultaneously. Four weeks should be sufficient time in that case.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”