I resign!

[stockwellpete]

I have had a spate of 500pt "open" challenge games recently where I have named my army in the challenge (around 35 BG's) and then my opponent has turned up with about 60BG's of skirmishers e.g. Irish, Grenadines or whatever. I am not interested in playing those sorts of battles, people - and I will politely decline to engage i.e. resign. Similarly, if I respond to a 500pt open challenge that does not specify the army name and I get "ambushed" by a mass of skirmishers then I will also resign straight away. It is probably my age or something but I am primarily playing for enjoyment and I can't be arsed to be shot at for about fifteen turns until my army collapses.

If the developers come up with more sensible command rules and prevent these skirmisher units miraculously passing through, or over, or under each other then I might change my mind.

Just so you all know.

[deeter]

I feel your pain. That's why I don't accept blind challenges or offer open challenges anymore.

Deeter

[pantherboy]

I have no issues with such a resignation. It would be nice to add comments to a challenge posted to head this kind of thing off at the pass. But please be mindful that in LoEG matches you'll need to tough it out or at least make an attempt before resigning. If you have a lot of trouble with said armies I can always have a game with you and show you how I handle them. The top heavy light armies aren't as deadly as before and if lacking any real weight can be overwhelmed but 35 BG's is kind of small.

Cheers,

Steve

[Skanvak]

I don't see how a skirmisher heavy army cannot be defeated. Panther have surely more tips than me no this one.

But the point is that you launch a challenge then resign if you think you cannot win. I do think that some people will start thread about rage quitter spoiling their fun. I reckon that if you don't like the meta game army just don't play random match. I don't see the argument in your post.

The good question would be : are the skirmisher army balanced? Is the point system correct. So you should start your threand about the problem of command structure and argument why you think you are correct. (because, I do see command issue in the game but light horse skirmisher are independant unit so they shouldn't be touch by it).

[stockwellpete]

I feel your pain. That's why I don't accept blind challenges or offer open challenges anymore.

Deeter

I think that I am heading in that direction too, deeter.

[stockwellpete]

But please be mindful that in LoEG matches you'll need to tough it out or at least make an attempt before resigning. If you have a lot of trouble with said armies I can always have a game with you and show you how I handle them. The top heavy light armies aren't as deadly as before and if lacking any real weight can be overwhelmed but 35 BG's is kind of small.

Cheers,

Steve

Hello Steve. But in a league game the situation is completely different. You know which army you are going to be facing and you know there is a possibility that certain armies could have large skirmisher contingents. So there is no "ambush" taking place - and you would have to make your own army selection to cover all eventualities. I would not resign a league game under any circumstances that I can think of.

I would be interested to see how you play against them though. Presumably you have a fair amount of cavalry (especially lights) and it is about getting the angles right and cutting down space as rapidly as possible. My "ambushed" French Ordonnance armies had pikes and knights so they were not best equippied to deal with a mass of skirmishers. I'll pick a skirmisher heavy medieval Irish army for you to destroy, password "scarper".

[stockwellpete]

I don't see how a skirmisher heavy army cannot be defeated. Panther have surely more tips than me no this one.

Well, I disagree. If the skirmisher units are set on "evade" then it is very hard to come into contact with them, particularly if you don't have much mobile cavalry in your army. They can then shoot you to death over 10-12 turns.

But the point is that you launch a challenge then resign if you think you cannot win. I do think that some people will start thread about rage quitter spoiling their fun. I reckon that if you don't like the meta game army just don't play random match. I don't see the argument in your post.

My argument is very clear. I don't ENJOY playing that sort of game. That is the point of playing the game, surely? I always name my army in my challenges so my opponent knows what he might be facing within certain boundaries. I actually think you should have to name your army when you make a challenge. There is no "rage", by the way. If you play the game long enough you begin to recognise certain outcomes are inevitable from certain match-ups and there is nothing more to be learnt from them. So you move on and try to learn about something else.

The good question would be : are the skirmisher army balanced? Is the point system correct. So you should start your threand about the problem of command structure and argument why you think you are correct. (because, I do see command issue in the game but light horse skirmisher are independant unit so they shouldn't be touch by it).

We have had that discussion several times on here already. I don't see any need to repeat it ad nauseum.

[pantherboy]

Ok. I'll use French Ordonnance.

[TheGrayMouser]

I feel your pain. That's why I don't accept blind challenges or offer open challenges anymore.

Deeter

I think that I am heading in that direction too, deeter.

That stinks, that is two less people Im likly to run across in friendly matches.

Im kinda confused by the logic of the posts here, you like to play for fun or to learn, but if you dont think a pick up game will be fun or a learning experiance you zapp it, leaving an opponent who likly doesnt know your particular tastes in the lurch. Explaining why you zapped isnt going to give back that wasted time to the player whom deployed his forces and waited patiently for yu to send a turn.
Why are Leaugue game more important? Knowing you are facing a horde army isnt going to change anything. The reality is it is againts the rule to resign so you cant or your LOEG play will be limited or even ended next go round.

Not trying to make a big thing out this, I get it, there are line ups that I dont particulalry like either but if more an more people zap games due to armies they dont like and if it becomes an acceptable norm, well ,eventually a pickup game will only have a 20% of not being rejected

BTW see how subjective this is anyways? You are saying the Irish are a skirmishy army who you dont enjoy fighting , which they can be but they are really a HORDE army (whatever that ,means ha ha)

[stockwellpete]

That stinks, that is two less people Im likly to run across in friendly matches.

Im kinda confused by the logic of the posts here, you like to play for fun or to learn, but if you dont think a pick up game will be fun or a learning experiance you zapp it, leaving an opponent who likly doesnt know your particular tastes in the lurch. Explaining why you zapped isnt going to give back that wasted time to the player whom deployed his forces and waited patiently for yu to send a turn.
Why are Leaugue game more important? Knowing you are facing a horde army isnt going to change anything. The reality is it is againts the rule to resign so you cant or your LOEG play will be limited or even ended next go round.

It is not that difficult to understand surely, TGM? It is tedious in the extreme for me to play against these skirmisher armies. I don't enjoy it and I don't pick them myself. As pantherboy is explaining to me in our game (while he is slaughtering me too ) you probably need at least 40BG's to cope with a large skirmisher army. So I was right about my 35BG French Ordonnance army not having much of a chance.

I have already explained about the league - you know what army you are facing and you can make the appropriate selections, so it is not really relevant to my main point about being "ambushed" by a skirmisher army in an open challenge.

Anyway, I'll make it simpler from now on and I will do what Deeter does - no more open challenges from me either.

[Blathergut]

I don't like posting an open challenge and getting some weird match up. I'd prefer posting a note here somewhere for an opponent using "this or that" vs my particular choice. The open ones are a gamble as to whether you will enjoy the game.

[stockwellpete]

I don't like posting an open challenge and getting some weird match up. I'd prefer posting a note here somewhere for an opponent using "this or that" vs my particular choice. The open ones are a gamble as to whether you will enjoy the game.

Yes, I agree. Historical match-ups and "civil-war" contests are much more interesting to me. Talking about weird, the other day my Irish army were confronted by the Swiss on a beach somewhere that had loads of tropical trees dotted about it! We still won though!

[deeter]

TGM,

I do accept challenges you have posted because I know your style and it's no gamey. Otherwise, I tend to set up locked games against players I know and who know what's expected. For example, Mordio and I have played numerous games to experiment with different armies and become ,ore proficient with them. They're a lot of fun too.

Deeter

[omarquatar]

Anyway, I'll make it simpler from now on and I will do what Deeter does - no more open challenges from me either.

that was my fear from the beginning pete...competitive league play is killing the open friendly sort of games

[stockwellpete]

Anyway, I'll make it simpler from now on and I will do what Deeter does - no more open challenges from me either.

that was my fear from the beginning pete...competitive league play is killing the open friendly sort of games

I am not sure it is anything to do with the league though - I see that as something separate, to be quite honest. When we play together it is almost always a scenario that one of us has made or it is a historical match-up with the DAG - we don't have "weird" battles, do we? So really I feel that it is just a matter of taste. I just prefer knights and longbows and the tempo that goes with them. And I think that you have similar tastes too.

[Morbio]

TGM,

I do accept challenges you have posted because I know your style and it's no gamey. Otherwise, I tend to set up locked games against players I know and who know what's expected. For example, Mordio and I have played numerous games to experiment with different armies and become ,ore proficient with them. They're a lot of fun too.

Deeter

... and I will keep playing him and whipping his backside until he learns to spell my name correctly!

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, Mordio has a nice ring to its, vagueley Tolkenesque.

Anyways I do understand what people are saying. Maybe its just what you have personally experianced when playing open matches. I personally only occasionally have an opponent select an army that causes me to raise an eybrow even when i declare my army, and even then I play it thru and generally have a good time.

I think Slitherine should look into the ability to selct an opponents army in the challenge field though as an additional option.

[Skanvak]

I think Slitherine should look into the ability to selct an opponents army in the challenge field though as an additional option.

That is constructive. Though we can already chose to limit the challenge to a single book. Is this enough or not?

[stockwellpete]

We need a system where both players know which armies are going to be fighting the battle before the troops are selected.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, that might be going a little too far, some armies are so flexible and or have so many ally options they could tailor make themselves to be ideal againt almost anyone. (of course you could argue the acceptor of a challenge can do so anyhow)

I was thinking some kind of 'themed" challenge could help, but what would it be tied into as criteria? Dates might work, so you wouldnt have to worry about a protected hoplite army going againt an armoured one, Of course, some armies are so far removed date wise from others in certain books, it would be hard to have a diversity of opponents. Also, it wouldnt mitigate players concerns about facing horde/shooty armies, especially in SOA's timeline as it is the tightest of all the books, only being about 200 years or so of history....

Ideally IMHO when issuing a challenge you could list the "allowable armies" an opponent could chose from, but that likly would become a UI nightmare. Ceratinly being able to issue challenges with one specific enemy army wouldnt clutter up the challenge screen too much?