A suggestion for something a bit more interesting for Northern League FoG next year.
A frequent complaint in competitions is from those who have to chase skirmishers around with foot armies. This is rarely a very exciting game. Further, our Swiss chess arrangement means the same players meet quite often. This latter is not a major problem, but a bit of variety might be interesting.
Let's change the game pairings. Order the armies by the total of LH, Cv and LCh bases, tie break by total bases. Pair off the first games 1st plays 2nd etc.in this list. Second game, winners on table one play winners on table 2, losers play losers. With an odd number of tables, the bottom three tables by skirmish points, can be paired by scores.
Results tie breaks can be by the total of enemy skirmish bases in the opponents played in the two rounds. This would give a slight advantage to those with foot armies, but I don't think encouraging people to get stuck in with large bodies of foot troops is a bad thing.
This should give us more balanced armies playing each other, better games and a potentially more varied set of opponents.
Northern League 2010
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Ghaznavid, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Well, I think the terrain theme was one of mine so it is obviously good 
I am not sure about Roger's suggestion as it stands, it may mean that if you bring lots of light horse you end up facing lots of light horse. Which could be exploited.
We also have to bear in mind that there is an overall Northern Doubles champion, which we would not want to compromise. I suspect that DBM will not be offered next year (but could be wrong), meaning both DBMM and FoG will be offered.
The other usual argument trotted out by Colin is that people don't have enough armies - we already have the class system, which there has been some grumblings about (mainly by Roger)
However, I am always open to suggestions and I think with a bit of work then Roger's suggestion has merit. It does sound a bit complicated though and I wouldn't like to try and work out the draw or explain why each team was facing each other!
We must always bear in mind that the class system will be preserved, so this needs to be preserved as well.
I am not sure about Roger's suggestion as it stands, it may mean that if you bring lots of light horse you end up facing lots of light horse. Which could be exploited.
We also have to bear in mind that there is an overall Northern Doubles champion, which we would not want to compromise. I suspect that DBM will not be offered next year (but could be wrong), meaning both DBMM and FoG will be offered.
The other usual argument trotted out by Colin is that people don't have enough armies - we already have the class system, which there has been some grumblings about (mainly by Roger
)However, I am always open to suggestions and I think with a bit of work then Roger's suggestion has merit. It does sound a bit complicated though and I wouldn't like to try and work out the draw or explain why each team was facing each other!
We must always bear in mind that the class system will be preserved, so this needs to be preserved as well.
Even you could work out the draw Dave.
Round 1: list the armies by number of CV, LH, LCH and pair off from the top of the list.
Round 2: top two tables swap opponents, next two swap opponents.
I'll explain it to anyone who has trouble with this. Might be a few, because it takes some of them a while to work out a list to send in
Bringing LH, you have to play someone else with LH, might lead to exploitation? Sounds fair to me. You can all nancy about skirmishing together.
The class system is somewhat defunct as far as FoG is concerned (unless we make LH superior troops) (Joke). What stops us being innovative and the first to go with balanced army type games?
Round 1: list the armies by number of CV, LH, LCH and pair off from the top of the list.
Round 2: top two tables swap opponents, next two swap opponents.
I'll explain it to anyone who has trouble with this. Might be a few, because it takes some of them a while to work out a list to send in
Bringing LH, you have to play someone else with LH, might lead to exploitation? Sounds fair to me. You can all nancy about skirmishing together.
The class system is somewhat defunct as far as FoG is concerned (unless we make LH superior troops) (Joke). What stops us being innovative and the first to go with balanced army type games?
I was wondering about somebody bringing millions of Cav, Superior, Drilled, Lt Spr, Swd - thus making two "classess of LH armies.Bringing LH, you have to play someone else with LH, might lead to exploitation? Sounds fair to me. You can all nancy about skirmishing together.
Well, you say that but it is astonishing how many players limit their armies to 15 BG's! We also need to consider that there are some teams which will only turn up to one event - so we dont' want to make it too restrictive.The class system is somewhat defunct as far as FoG is concerned (unless we make LH superior troops) (Joke). What stops us being innovative and the first to go with balanced army type games?
Anyway - who uses LH at the Northern Doubles? Just checking back at the last four rounds and there are 16 armies which can be described as Cav and LH out of a total of 55 used. At a maximum of five at a round and only two at Derby!
I may suggest we do a themed terrain comp - would you object to the following terrain themes (i.e. you must pick an army with that terrain and then use that terrain in the game)
- Steppes
- Agricultural
- Developed
- Hilly
- Open (as in no terrain them, not open ground....)
-
spike
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
- Location: Category 2
I agree there should be changes for next year, I was going to suggest a period theme, as there seem to be more Medieval period armies than Classical Period armies. However what ever is suggested im probably happy with, just as long as we get rid of the old 16-16 scoring system, which neither FoG nor DBMM use!dave_r wrote:I was wondering about somebody bringing millions of Cav, Superior, Drilled, Lt Spr, Swd - thus making two "classess of LH armies.Bringing LH, you have to play someone else with LH, might lead to exploitation? Sounds fair to me. You can all nancy about skirmishing together.
Well, you say that but it is astonishing how many players limit their armies to 15 BG's! We also need to consider that there are some teams which will only turn up to one event - so we dont' want to make it too restrictive.The class system is somewhat defunct as far as FoG is concerned (unless we make LH superior troops) (Joke). What stops us being innovative and the first to go with balanced army type games?
Anyway - who uses LH at the Northern Doubles? Just checking back at the last four rounds and there are 16 armies which can be described as Cav and LH out of a total of 55 used. At a maximum of five at a round and only two at Derby!
I may suggest we do a themed terrain comp - would you object to the following terrain themes (i.e. you must pick an army with that terrain and then use that terrain in the game)
- Steppes
- Agricultural
- Developed
- Hilly
- Open (as in no terrain them, not open ground....)
Spike
Re: Northern League 2010
Not heard that one at the games I've played heard many more about it being open and why it could'nt be themedrogerg wrote:
A frequent complaint in competitions is from those who have to chase skirmishers around with foot armies.
At its worst the leader at that time could play the last team should they lose could still end up playing a top half player IMO the Swiss draw seems the bestrogerg wrote: Let's change the game pairings. Order the armies by the total of LH, Cv and LCh bases, tie break by total bases. Pair off the first games 1st plays 2nd etc.in this list. Second game, winners on table one play winners on table 2, losers play losers.
Would you tell the team with less expereience why it had to play both their games against possibly two top teams. Please don't say experience as no one wants to lose 32 - 0 in both games as it would be at the doubles.rogerg wrote: This should give us more balanced armies playing each other, better games and a potentially more varied set of opponents.
dave_r wrote: I may suggest we do a themed terrain comp - would you object to the following terrain themes (i.e. you must pick an army with that terrain and then use that terrain in the game)
- Steppes
- Agricultural
- Developed
- Hilly
- Open (as in no terrain them, not open ground....)
Do you think Steppes is a viable option?
Would they be enough people to play at an event with this terrain type.
It is a valid point - and one that is a concern.Theme by terrain, which was my idea originally, would be acceptable. We might need to check to see that gives enough options for people with a small number of armies.
On a completely different track - what if me made all troops with the "Bow, Swordsmen" attribute restricted.
At least then it would give a flipping good incentive to win?
Incentives to win are of little use if the win is not possible. Good games come from good army match ups where both sides have opportunities.
Why must we persist with restricted troop types and classes? This was a system that worked well with DBM. It has little, if any, relevance in FoG, where the points system is better balanced. The object of any system is to produce good games,. Nothing elese really matters.
I am not even sure we need to worry about the quality and experience of teams. I am not too sure about what less experienced players feel. However, surely there must be some who want the opportunity to come and play against stronger players. If not, we might as well not have a competition and just play like a club meeting with arranged games to make sure no-one is overly challenged.
Why must we persist with restricted troop types and classes? This was a system that worked well with DBM. It has little, if any, relevance in FoG, where the points system is better balanced. The object of any system is to produce good games,. Nothing elese really matters.
I am not even sure we need to worry about the quality and experience of teams. I am not too sure about what less experienced players feel. However, surely there must be some who want the opportunity to come and play against stronger players. If not, we might as well not have a competition and just play like a club meeting with arranged games to make sure no-one is overly challenged.
Historically the Northern League has used the class system rather than themeing, I am not exactly sure why this was the case but it does make the league different.
For me Themed comps are the way to go but that does make life harder for new players and we want new players.
I suggested a few ideas on the Northern League mailing list and think that there may be mileage in an optional theme but don't know if that is practical.
As for LH armies, I have used a few in the Northern League and both done well and badly with them. I don't really see a problem but others seemingly do.
For me Themed comps are the way to go but that does make life harder for new players and we want new players.
I suggested a few ideas on the Northern League mailing list and think that there may be mileage in an optional theme but don't know if that is practical.
As for LH armies, I have used a few in the Northern League and both done well and badly with them. I don't really see a problem but others seemingly do.
Optional theme, that sounds interesting - but how does it work, gonna be a little miffed if i'm following a Biblical theme and face an opt out Late Medieval outfit - Hammy can you paste your idea's into this thread, don't really follow the league mailing list 
I think i would be in favour of Random first round draws tho... as Roger says, mix up the faces a bit.
P.
I think i would be in favour of Random first round draws tho... as Roger says, mix up the faces a bit.
P.