Who wants to have a extraordinary Cup as well?

[hidde]

Cheers ..Army Builder...I must try this weekend , let's build our dream army and fight it over...someone must organize an arena for this battles

I've been enjoying pantherboys excellent creation immensely the last couple of weeks. Now when the flood of games seems to slow down I suspect withdrawel symptoms.
I'm not saying that I'm the man to organize it but lately I have amused myself by fantasies about a Cup which could be a complement to the League. As I don’t know exactly how the scenario builder or the new army generator works, I can’t be sure if my ideas are possible or not.

Number of players.
Ideally 32. That’s a realistic number and a natural start for a Cup. Any lower number feels a bit tepid. It could be higher of course but then it has to start with some kind of qualification rounds in groups. Anyone can apply. If players from the first division of the League participate (why wouldn’t they?) some kind of seeding may be called for so they do not meet each other immediately or end up in the same group.


Armies
Each player choose an army. Either from all available or from a pool of selected armies. The player are given a set number of points to build an army of around 25 BGs, slightly more if no qualification rounds are played. Not all players can have their first choice I guess since an even distribution of armies between players would be the goal.


Play
Qualification rounds with groups are done as usual, a straight serie. Matches in elimination rounds are done in best of three. Before the first game in each elimination round the players get points to add an additional 5-6 BGs to their army. This way the final will be played between two armeis of about 50 BGs each (thoose numbers can certainly be addjusted up or down).First game is played with a neutral map (think Great Plains). The winner may choose the next map from a pool of pre-made maps. If a third game is necessary the player with the best ratio of BGs broken/lost choose the map. For the first game in each new round the player with the best ratio from the previous round chooses map.

That's about it. I don't know if pre-made maps are possible.. or adding BGs.. or setting up a lot of matches that are all uniqe. It may all be a pipe dream...

[CharlesRobinson]

It is an okay idea - basicaly a tournament - battle groups would not be the equalizing factor though. Build points would. Start at whatever the default point value is and up it by a factor each time instead of adding strait BGs. In the Table Top Version of Field of Glory the basic start points for a 25mm game is 600pts and the max points seem to be around 1200pts. Since PC Field of Glory tends to have a 50% ratio compaired to the TT version - I would go with a point system starting at 300pts and gradually moving up to 600pts. That is if you want to increase the size of the battle as people are eliminated and others move up. It maybe more fun to go the opposite direction; start with 600pt armies and as you move up you have to chop your points down - this is were it would get interesting - what do you drop - cavalry, medium infantry, heavy infantry, skirmishers - what? People would have to make some hard choices. Lets see - you are talking about 32 starting off, so after the first rounds you would then have 16, then 8, and then 4, and finally 2. I would have to see how big an army you can build with the army builder first, but it may look something like this. Final two will duke it out at 300pts each, final four at 400pts each, final 8 at 500pts each, final 16 at 550 pts each, and the first 32 will start with 600pts each. If the army builder lets you build bigger than 600 then change final 16 to 600pts and first 32 to 700pts. This way, nobody can blame getting knocked out early on just bad luck, or particular troop mismatchers. They will start with a full size army and then go down from there - also better reflects casualties taken as the campaign progresses as well. Just as idea.

[hidde]

Yes, build points would be used. I'm not familiar with the system so I used BGs as a sort of reference.
When it comes to adding points after rounds that was meant as a sort of strategic layer and a way to make more uncertainty. It now occurs to me that you don't know your next oppnents army anyhow when each build their own. Your idea is a better strategic challenge but I think it feels a bit unsatisfactory to have smaller and smaller armies.
Might be better to skip it alltogether and let the choice of map be the only strategic part.

[CharlesRobinson]

I don't know the idea of fighting on a random map meens that you would have to build your army more balanced. If you could pick your battlefield then say a army of Parthians fighting Illyrians in an open plain would almost garauntee the defeat of the Illyrians. Question: Once built would the army have to stay the same - i.e. build it once and your stuck with it? That would be interesting - you can bet that people would be more likely to really think hard about the mixture of troops that they would have then.

[hidde]

Yes, the idea is that each player builds an army that he keep the whole tournament. That's also one reason I thought that adding to it gradually could be fun.
I don't know that much about the difference between armies but do I understand you right that random maps could mean too much of an advantage for the player that got to choose? I would like it to be a slight advantage but not decisive.

[papajack]

I do suggest that single knockout format between all the players from the 5 division s we have now

[RyanDG]

Yes, the idea is that each player builds an army that he keep the whole tournament. That's also one reason I thought that adding to it gradually could be fun.
I don't know that much about the difference between armies but do I understand you right that random maps could mean too much of an advantage for the player that got to choose? I would like it to be a slight advantage but not decisive.

If a player knows what army they are going up against, it is incredibly easy to pretty much wreck specific armies by tailoring it to a specific terrain. Some of the challenge comes from trying to work around these obstacles, but as a primarily Parthia army player on the table top, I can tell you that when you look at giving one person control of the terrain (as soon as they know what I'm playing) will often times end up with a large amount of trees/hills/rough going smack dab in the middle of the table.

[hidde]

Ok, I think I have to let some experineced player think out a better format.
Hope someone does it soon

[Morbio]

OK, here's my twopeneth.....

I'm not a TT player, so my views are based on FoG Digital (since beginning of Jan) and all the posts I've read. Please bear with me if I make a few dumb suggestions.

All start with some build points to start with, perhaps 700 points as suggested earlier. The key point is that your army, or what is left of it, moves on to the next battle, with say a 20% or 100 point addition (as examples, the amount could be tweaked) between battles - this represents some of the routed units returning or new recruits from those oppressed cities you've liberated.

32 players is 6 battles and the key thing is that the sequence of 6 battles should be determined from the start (so everyone knows the type of troops that may be required as you progress). Think of it as someone like Alexander planning his route from Macedon to India or Ceasar from Rome to Britain. The challenge then is whether you build to optimise your initial battle and rely on new recruits providing what is needed for the next one, or whether you you weight your early selection to optimise later battles. It may be an option to only allow you to add only from routed armies and the local populace. So, for example, If we take a Ceasar scenario, and the 1st battle is Cisapline Gaul, then you can only add Roman units or Gaul allies after the 1st battle. It would be assumed that any surviving unit is back at full strength for the next battle - the best of the returning routers... after decimation, of course!

In addition to the above, then also allow a number of upgrades between battles, i.e. a poor unit becomes average, or an average unit becomes superior. This represents the units learning through experience. The number of upgrades allowed could be fixed, e.g. 3, or dependent on the result of the previous battle. Examples: A win in 6 turns would give 5 upgrades, 8 turns 4, 10 turns 3, etc. Or it could be determined by the difference in break points between the 2 armies.

Another factor may be the choice of starting country. The early battles may be hilly or wooded and the end battles flat plains. So, the challenge is also to decide what army to build from.

This gives an element of longer term strategic planning, but also an element of luck too. A Pyrrhic victory, or two, may put an end to all plans of world domination!

The big problem would be automating this.... or finding a way to reliably recording the units at the end of the game without it becoming too onerus.

[Xiccarph]

Letting everyone build is likely the most popular option, but another would be to give everyone the same army list to build from, and vary the maps. A Roman Civil War type scenario with the winner claiming the title of Ceasar or some such. Just a variant thought.

[CharlesRobinson]

I would like to keep it simple, whoever runs it, everyone builds their own army, keep the same army each battle, Start at 700 and go down by say a hundred at each advancement or start at 300 and go up a 100 at each advancement (personally - I think it would be more nailbiting having to fight with less and less troops); each battle should be with a random map, and since each battle is on a random map make it best two out of three games (would reduce the bad luck factor from single elimination). Start with 32 players paired off in two/ then 16/then 8/then 4/then 2. It would be fun to have a Championship Cup emoticon for the winner to display on their posts.

Just some ideas