FoG2 campaign player base?

[kronenblatt]

Am I correct in my observation that the number of players here at the forum has been reduced quite a lot during the last year, few years, or so?

The activity in this Ancients' Tournament & Leagues sub-forum seems very low (and even more so in Medieval's) with players mostly interested in playing leagues like the WTC, TDC, and HOML, and not campaigns to the same extent anymore.

Would be interesting to understand how much the MP challenges have fallen (if at all) and also the visits to the forum, and in particular the Tournaments & Leagues sub-forum.

I'm missing the 'grand' old days when FoG2 MP games could be combined with strategic campaigns of historical conflicts. Is it possible to revive them?

[Rosedelio]

I haven't checked the numbers, but it did seem like there were less people playing in TDC last season than before. The fact that neither Ancients nor Medieval will get a new DLC leads to the natural decline in the playerbase. There's only so many times you can play with the major army types before you get bored. Even though the success of Kingdoms is leading to more FoG players, most are likely not the tactical MP type.

The original FoG2 is over 8 years old now, so the fact that there's still a dedicated multiplayer base is good, even if it is smaller. Hopefully the next tactical FoG game brings some players back!

[Karvon]

TDC participation has been dropping since hitting a high of 106 a few seasons back.

I think with campaigns, it's probably an issue of lack of interest in what's been offered.

Another issue is campaigns folding prematurely, which I think sours players on joining such again. Sometimes this is due to organizer's lacking the time to continue, sometimes it's because players drop out for various reasons. It takes some dedication on both sides to keep campaigns running smoothly to conclusion.

I think campaigns are going to be most successful if they are rather simple, don't require a lot of time do orders or moderate, yet allow players some viable strategic options to pursue.

I know I personally got overwhelmed when I started putting together a Punic Wars campaign. I simply wasn't happy with the balance between realism and playability that developed as I was assembling components I wanted to include. I realized I wouldn't have the time to effectively moderate what I was developing, so shelved it.

Karvon

[SimonLancaster]

The official tournament numbers seem consistent or even growing. For both Ancients and Medieval, it is usually about 110-120 players.

There are also tons of leagues and tournaments. Probably more than ever. I have never played in the HOML but it is popular. I usually try to enter the TDC. The WTC has 64 players.

You have run the Chaos League. Is it still running? My main point being that every few months there is something to join.

Then you add campaigns and we are spoilt for choice. Kronenblatt runs many throughout the year. Asterix ran a successful Diadochi league a few months ago..

[Karvon]

I usually alternate between Chaos and Little Wars between TDC seasons. As HOML kickedoff this offseason and WTC was also running I've opted to hold off on running Chaos till after next TDC, so probably starting in April 2026.

Here's the data on Slitherine Official Ancients Tournaments I compiled and added to my spreadsheet covering that.

[tyronec]

Numbers are down for the HOML this season, but it is running in parallel with the WTC so I don't think that is significant.
Overall I think participation is just about keeping level, with some new players joining the HOML while others drop out and the occasional one comes back.

Pretty impressive for a game with no DLCs for a long time.

[kronenblatt]

Yes, leagues enjoy the advantages of offering what people very often come here for, i.e., playing FoG2 MP games, a very structured approach with set time schedules and so on, and a good way of matching player skills in divisions.

Campaigns on the other hand need for players to enjoy both FoG2 MP games and strategic considerations between such games. They also need to like the (historical) context/era/challenge of the campaign as well as the rules (and the additional effort of learning and understanding the rules ). Add to that the open-ended nature, i.e., not knowing when or even if it will be completed, and uncertainty on how much effort it will take along the way. Plus that a wide variety of FoG2 skills among the players participating often lead to imbalances.

So for a campaign to work, it seems to me that the following is important:

• Simple and straightforward but not too simple rules (needs some strategic element)

• A historical era of interest (including the FoG2 armies involved; vanilla or maybe tailor-made)

• Not too many players participating: 2-6 is probably a realistic range (most likely 3-4)

• Players with roughly same skill level (or ways in the rules to address that)

• Not too long campaigns

Other aspects?

[kronenblatt]

Some questions

1. Which historical eras are of most (and least) interest in campaigns?
2. Would armies tailor-made for the campaign increase or reduce appeal?
3. What parts of rules are the most interesting and off-putting, respectively?
4. Thoughts on handicap systems anyone? I’m toying with the idea of giving players winning FoG2 games in a campaign fewer FP’s along the way. But that goes against the idea of success making a faction stronger, not weaker…

[SimonLancaster]

I am not really a campaign person. I think the most off-putting part is the length of it. 3 months plus is too long for me. What would the average length would be?

If there were shorter campaigns maybe that would encourage more players.

[kronenblatt]

I am not really a campaign person. I think the most off-putting part is the length of it. 3 months plus is too long for me. What would the average length would be?

If there were shorter campaigns maybe that would encourage more players.

Thanks, that’s a relevant aspect. Added it to my list above.

[DIVM]

I join most of the "official" tournaments unless I'm very busy at the time or I really dislike the theme. For forum's tournaments, this is my 3rd or 4th edition of the HOML. I dropped out of the TDC two editions ago because I found the army selection to be very unbalanced (it is not restricted by time/geographical, and can have allies; and I'm not someone who will obsess thinking of the best army possible).

I did look a few times into campaigns, and some of them looked very interesting, I was tempted to join sometimes. However I often felt the rules or the campaign evolution to be too demanding to follow properly with the required time on my side; especially as there is always something else going on with players' tournaments, official tournaments or other wargames tournaments.

[kronenblatt]

I join most of the "official" tournaments unless I'm very busy at the time or I really dislike the theme. For forum's tournaments, this is my 3rd or 4th edition of the HOML. I dropped out of the TDC two editions ago because I found the army selection to be very unbalanced (it is not restricted by time/geographical, and can have allies; and I'm not someone who will obsess thinking of the best army possible).

I did look a few times into campaigns, and some of them looked very interesting, I was tempted to join sometimes. However I often felt the rules or the campaign evolution to be too demanding to follow properly with the required time on my side; especially as there is always something else going on with players' tournaments, official tournaments or other wargames tournaments.

Which themes and eras do you like the most?

[Karvon]

Some questions

1. Which historical eras are of most (and least) interest in campaigns?
2. Would armies tailor-made for the campaign increase or reduce appeal?
3. What parts of rules are the most interesting and off-putting, respectively?
4. Thoughts on handicap systems anyone? I’m toying with the idea of giving players winning FoG2 games in a campaign fewer FP’s along the way. But that goes against the idea of success making a faction stronger, not weaker…

Regarding your questions:

Based on TDC sign-ups, the classical era is the overwhelming winner with double the number of most of the other periods.

While some players like customizing lists, I suspect the majority are happier with just using lists they are already familiar with.

I'm not sure there's really a simple answer on rules. You are never going to make everyone happy. Some players like more detailed strategic and diplomatic options, whereas others are simply looking for a bit of connection between battles.

While I'm not all that keen on setting up a handicap system, clearly, some players are better than others, and to provide a balanced and happier experience, some sort of adjustment is probably a good idea. The question naturally arises, what do you base it on? Practically speaking, the Slitherine ELO rating is probably the one more players are rated under, but not everyone plays ranked games or participates in Slitherine events, so some would have to be given a default rating. The same would be true for TDC ratings. One simple option would be to award a FP advantage based on the differences between ELOs. That amount would need to considered vs the size battles you were expecting. This could be combined with using generals of various levels.

Some other thoughts in response to comments posted.

Campaign speed. I think you need to allow at least 3 weeks for players to fight battles if you want them to not time out. The average time required for TDC VIII BA Div 1 was 18 days, so 21 days should be sufficient IMHO. If you add in another week for admin stuff, you're looking at a about a month per turn.

Campaign Length. I think most strategic level games would play for a minimum 6-8 turns, so that translates into a minimum time commitment of six months. I suppose if you set up a single campaign season game, you could cut it to 3 or 4, but given the amount of time to organize and set up, that seems like a bit of a waste to me, unless the strategic game is very simple.

Participation. One option you might consider is to have different roles available. Some players might not want to deal with the strategic level stuff much and just focus on battles. Thus, you might have some players as rulers and some who just participate as generals. You might opt to have a generals assigned to fix sides, or be randomly drawn from a pool to fill spots not taken by the ruler.

Campaign Scope. Some campaigns might include diplomatic and economic management options. These would normally run for a longer period of time representing years, or even decades. Others might simply be recreating a particular war using set sides and armies with minimal logistic considerations beyond resupply and recreate just one or two seasons of fighting.

Tools. There are some tools which can be used to help organize and run campaigns beyond your usual graphics programs. Tides of Conquest is a program designed to generate battles for FOG2, which has a number of historical scenarios. Cyberboard is a PBEM gaming aid which can be used to construct and share maps and pieces between players. Bethiers is an older windows program which can used to create and run fairly complex campaigns. Links for these can be found in the forums.

Campaigns can be a lot of fun and promote the game if well organized and run. I played in campaign at a local gaming shop when in HS which had over 20 players and run by a pair of refs. It drew in a lot of new players over the two years that it lasted. I ran several campaigns in HS and uni and they attracted new players to WRG each time.

Regards,

Karvon

[DIVM]

Anything that goes from the Peloponnesian War to the Fall of Rome, for Ancients. For Medieval campaigns I'd be ok with any period !
I like how campaigns are within a historical narrative, so always willing to participate if the demands are a bit lighter and a new campaign comes out when I'm not super busy with other tournaments.

Would armies tailor-made for the campaign increase or reduce appeal?
What parts of rules are the most interesting and off-putting, respectively?
Thoughts on handicap systems anyone? I’m toying with the idea of giving players winning FoG2 games in a campaign fewer FP’s along the way. But that goes against the idea of success making a faction stronger, not weaker…

-Yes, I think tailor-made armies increase appeal.
-I just saw the Dividing the Spoils tournament. This level of complexity is ok.
- My advice is sending PM to potential interested players and scheduling it so it doesn't crash with any community tournament.

Best regards,

DIVM

[tyronec]

While I'm not all that keen on setting up a handicap system, clearly, some players are better than others, and to provide a balanced and happier experience, some sort of adjustment is probably a good idea. The question naturally arises, what do you base it on? Practically speaking, the Slitherine ELO rating is probably the one more players are rated under, but not everyone plays ranked games or participates in Slitherine events, so some would have to be given a default rating. The same would be true for TDC ratings. One simple option would be to award a FP advantage based on the differences between ELOs. That amount would need to considered vs the size battles you were expecting. This could be combined with using generals of various levels.

This would be a great idea and it shouldn't be too hard to give the more experienced players a deduction of 50-100 points or so for battles.
One of the reasons why the leagues work so well is that players skill levels are reasonably well matched.

[kronenblatt]

While I'm not all that keen on setting up a handicap system, clearly, some players are better than others, and to provide a balanced and happier experience, some sort of adjustment is probably a good idea. The question naturally arises, what do you base it on? Practically speaking, the Slitherine ELO rating is probably the one more players are rated under, but not everyone plays ranked games or participates in Slitherine events, so some would have to be given a default rating. The same would be true for TDC ratings. One simple option would be to award a FP advantage based on the differences between ELOs. That amount would need to considered vs the size battles you were expecting. This could be combined with using generals of various levels.

One of the reasons why the leagues work so well is that players skill levels are reasonably well matched.

Yes, that’s the beauty of divisions.

[markleslie]

Where is the glory in beating a handicapped opponent?

[Karvon]

Where is the glory in beating a handicapped opponent?

Well, handicapping helps level the playing field, which is of particular importance in campaigns where you may have very low level players facing very high level ones. If you don't do this, you simply see the strong player steamrollering over the weak player, and the latter likely dropping out when they realize the situation after a battle or two. Dropouts can very quickly lead to imbalance and collapse of campaigns in my experience, both in FOG2 and WRG campaigns I have participated in.

[markleslie]

As you say, getting repeatedly hammered would discourage anybody but fake laurels and hollow victories take us down the path of participation ribbons and everyone's a winner! If people want to compete they have to expect competition and everything that comes with it.

I'm all for divisions in the various tournies to even up the games, afterall the struggle is what makes the game worthwhile, to struggle and overcome is truly memorable.
Handicapping is something else altogether; as I've already mentioned, when your opponent is armless, where is the glory in beating the poop out of them.

Glory comes in slaying Dragons (or the Rabbit of Caerbannog) .

[kronenblatt]

Ha ha! tyronec or rosedelio (left) would still beat most of us (right).

But we’ll see. I’ll try out this in the upcoming DiSp4:

If the player has more victories than losses against the enemy player in this tournament, that player uses 2000 FP minus that difference times 40 FP. The enemy player then uses 2000 FP.

Example: rbodleyscott has won 3 battles and lost 1 battle against kronenblatt so far in this tournament, why the difference is 2 (3-1) in the favour of rbodleyscott who will then use 1920 FP (2000-2*40) against kronenblatt's 2000 FP.