Field of Glory II - The Divisional Championships (TDC)-Rules and FAQ

[Karvon]

I have just completed my first battle and have finally got around to reading the rules. What does ELO stand for?

It's actually the name of the mathetician who created the scoring/ranking system. It's probably most famous for its adoption in the chess world, but is used in a lot of other kinds of competitions.

Karvon

[ulysisgrunt]

Has thought been given to placing restrictions on some of the 'killer' horse armies like Huns?

[Karvon]

Has thought been given to placing restrictions on some of the 'killer' horse armies like Huns?

Not really; the paper, scissors, stone factor comes into play, as the Huns don't fair well vs all armies, and certainly not on fields with a lot of rough or difficult terrain.

Regards,

Karvon

[markleslie]

If I were to offer some feedback on this event it might be something like shave a month off this fat boy.

Do we really need three months?

I for one dislike weekly turns and prefer things to move at a slightly faster clip. I'm sure everyone's quite used to, and comfortable with, the Slitherine tournament tempo that a two month competition is entirely feasible.

I assume the three month time frame was decided upon for good reasons, I don't know what they are, but I would be interested in what others think on the current length? Maintain the status quo? Shorter, longer?

[Hari72]

Many people here have work and real life and during the week hasnt much spare time to play every day or more than once a day . Not every one play slitherine tournements for this reason! There are other type of tournements if one need to go faster! Three months are right to enjoy the games! Ten battles in 90 day one every 10 days

[Blagrot]

If I were to offer some feedback on this event it might be something like shave a month off this fat boy.

Do we really need three months?

I for one dislike weekly turns and prefer things to move at a slightly faster clip. I'm sure everyone's quite used to, and comfortable with, the Slitherine tournament tempo that a two month competition is entirely feasible.

I assume the three month time frame was decided upon for good reasons, I don't know what they are, but I would be interested in what others think on the current length? Maintain the status quo? Shorter, longer?

Don't be so sure that people are comfortable with the slitherine tournament speed, I don't enter them because I can't manage that speed consistantly with my work shifts, especially if my opponent is in an awkward timezone relative to me. I do prefer to avoid weekly turns too but in busy periods it can easily be 3-4 days before I have time for games. I've finished my sets in both this and the old DL in about 2.5 months so 3 seems just right to me.

[Karvon]

This is something which has been discussed by coordinators at some length in the past.

The consensus is it is better to give players ample time to complete games at a leisurely pace and/or to accommodate real life demands on time.

As noted by several, the Slitherene tournament time schedule is not loved by all, and some have ceased to participate in them because of that, myself included.

There is nothing from preventing players playing at faster rates and completing their games early, assuming their opponents are fine with the pace of play. In tracking time required in Early Medieval, there were several games which finished in 3-4 days. The average for the period was 18 days from posting of challenge to posting of results. The upper divisions played slightly slower, 22-23 days to finish.

I don't see the time frame changing given the current results and feedback overall.

Regards,

Karvon

[CheAhn]

Hi Organisers,

Great comp. Some feedback. Can you reconsider map re-rolls, my preference is none and others may share this view. Would simplify things. Perhaps put it to a vote.


Cheers

[Karvon]

Rerolls have been part of TDC, and its predecessor DL, from the beginning and not likely to be dropped anytime soon.

Some randomly generated maps are simply unplayable or unbalanced in favor of one army. Historically, it was very difficult to force an opponent to fight. Campaign narratives are filled with accounts of armies refusing to fight and marching off in search of more favorable ground, or camping and waiting/hoping the other side would blink and attempt to assault an established defensive position. The reroll option gives players the opportunity to avoid what they perceive to be a bad field and take a chance on getting something better. Sometimes rerolled fields are better, sometimes they are worse. Now, each player has at least one chance to alter the field if they are unhappy with it.

In the original DL rules, both players had to agree to a reroll. In effect, this usually meant there were no rerolls as a player who felt a field was good for him had no reason to agree to a reroll.

In my own tournaments, I implemented the rules we use now. These were later adopted by HOML and a number of other events.

When TDC started, Erik modified the DL rule to allowing 2 rerolls unilateral if either player insisted, with a third if both agreed. I felt that was excessive as one player could force two rerolls and the other was then stuck with the field without ever having a chance to reroll. This past offseason, I proposed TDC adopt my rules to bring us into line with what most other tournaments are now using. After some discussion, the coordinators voted to do so.

Also note, players are free to agree on a particular terrain type if they wish. For example, two horse armies could choose to face off on steppe. I've done that once with one opponent so far.

Regards,

Karvon

[CheAhn]

Rerolls have been part of TDC, and its predecessor DL, from the beginning and not likely to be dropped anytime soon.

Some randomly generated maps are simply unplayable or unbalanced in favor of one army. Historically, it was very difficult to force an opponent to fight. Campaign narratives are filled with accounts of armies refusing to fight and marching off in search of more favorable ground, or camping and waiting/hoping the other side would blink and attempt to assault an established defensive position. The reroll option gives players the opportunity to avoid what they perceive to be a bad field and take a chance on getting something better. Sometimes rerolled fields are better, sometimes they are worse. Now, each player has at least one chance to alter the field if they are unhappy with it.

In the original DL rules, both players had to agree to a reroll. In effect, this usually meant there were no rerolls as a player who felt a field was good for him had no reason to agree to a reroll.

In my own tournaments, I implemented the rules we use now. These were later adopted by HOML and a number of other events.

When TDC started, Erik modified the DL rule to allowing 2 rerolls unilateral if either player insisted, with a third if both agreed. I felt that was excessive as one player could force two rerolls and the other was then stuck with the field without ever having a chance to reroll. This past offseason, I proposed TDC adopt my rules to bring us into line with what most other tournaments are now using. After some discussion, the coordinators voted to do so.

Also note, players are free to agree on a particular terrain type if they wish. For example, two horse armies could choose to face off on steppe. I've done that once with one opponent so far.

Regards,

Karvon

All good. Looks like a fair bit of thought and discussion has gone into it. Cheers

[Stones1985]

Not sure if this has been covered before but if it has I haven't seen it.

In one of my games it was going very well for me and my opponent was in a very difficult position My opponent surrendered the game after a few turns with the score 22 to 3 in my favour. As he said in the notes "the position is hopeless so I'll save you time".

My question is what does that count as in terms of the score. Does it go down as 40 to 3?

Ian

[Karvon]

Not sure if this has been covered before but if it has I haven't seen it.

In one of my games it was going very well for me and my opponent was in a very difficult position My opponent surrendered the game after a few turns with the score 22 to 3 in my favour. As he said in the notes "the position is hopeless so I'll save you time".

My question is what does that count as in terms of the score. Does it go down as 40 to 3?

Ian

Yes, if an opponent surrenders, your score is advanced to the minimum required for a win.

Karvon

[fogman]

Something to ponder about scoring (assuming this has not been discussed before):

Because the game stops at 25+ differences

1) the player is incentivized to delay destroying enemy units in certain situations so that he can get a higher score the following turn.

2) Unexpected enemy collapses can also cause the game to stop when the difference unluckily reaches 25 and not more.

Since the points beyond 60 are a reward for the degree of dominance, that dominance often goes unrewarded to the extent it should.

Maybe it should be 60 + (60 - winner's losses).
Ex: 30:5 gives the winner a score of 60+(60-5)=115
Now, there is this issue:
Ex: 40:5 gives the winner a similar score of 60+(60-5)=115
but it may relate to points 1) and 2)
and I feel the minimizing of own losses is a better measure of dominance than the maximizing of enemy losses as 25:0 is more dominant than 55:30.

To mitigate the spread between winner and loser, the points award for victory could be reduced to 30.

Just my two roubles.

[ericdoman1]

Well hello, I hope all are well and it seems you are enjoying playing and thanks for he post

As you have guessed, we have looked at a variety of scoring formula.

Yours is similar to the HOML scoring system

The first WTC, we used the old Digital League scoring

As all have noticed. Slitherine have now maaged to customize their system to hav a KO tournament.

Who knows they may be able to customize their system to include team scores.

We have also looked into a Swiss System as well, maybe with the use of the Slitherine system.

[Bagatrix1805]

Are there any artillery /gun restrictions sorry cant remember

[Kroche]

Are there any artillery /gun restrictions sorry cant remember

No

[Stones1985]

A query about using a similar army to last year:

The rules say

"Players cannot use the same army list, variant army or same allies in the same period the following season. Nor can they use the same army list in a different period the following season. However they can use a "variant" army or allies in a different period the following season.

Variant (Armies) – All armies that have the same “first” name, for example Roman, Carthaginian, Byzantine and so on. A maximum of 2 variants per division will be allowed."

Last TDC (VII) in the Classical period I used Parthian 250 BC to 225AD with Seleucid Allies 166 to 125 BC. Is it permitted to use for TDCVIII Seleucid 166 to 125 BC with Parthian Allies 250 BC to 225 AD? This seems to be acceptable under the rules definition?

[Karvon]

A query about using a similar army to last year:

The rules say

"Players cannot use the same army list, variant army or same allies in the same period the following season. Nor can they use the same army list in a different period the following season. However they can use a "variant" army or allies in a different period the following season.

Variant (Armies) – All armies that have the same “first” name, for example Roman, Carthaginian, Byzantine and so on. A maximum of 2 variants per division will be allowed."

Last TDC (VII) in the Classical period I used Parthian 250 BC to 225AD with Seleucid Allies 166 to 125 BC. Is it permitted to use for TDCVIII Seleucid 166 to 125 BC with Parthian Allies 250 BC to 225 AD? This seems to be acceptable under the rules definition?

That is a legitimate option. You are not using the same main list or the same allies.

Regards,

Karvon