Trivia with Army Rankings

[shadowdragon]

This time not by ELO score or average points per game but sheer popularity.....designed to answer the question no one really asked, which is, "what armies account for most of the games played in tournaments - at least as recorded on the FoG database?"

I was surprised....

The FoG database has over 12 thousand games played, but since there are two armies in every game (well, most of the time ), that means 25,164* occasions in which an army participated in a game.

*I have no idea why this is sum is more than twice the 12,018 games mentioned as being played in the database, but I don't care enough to figure it out.

Any, there are 303 listed in the database, the top 5% (15 armies) accounted for 35% of all games played.

The top 10% (30 armies) accounted for 50% of the games.
The top 25% (75 armies) accounted for 80% of the games.
The top 50% (156 armies) accounted for 95% of the games.

1 in 6 armies (16.5% or 50 armies) have never been used in a tournament.

In case you're too lazy to go and find out which armies are the top 5% - or, even better still, don't know how (hopefully not the lame excuse that you're too busy), they are, in order of popularity:

Later Seleucid
Late Republican Roman
Later Ottoman Turkish*
Dominate Roman
Alexandrian Macedonian
Later Carthaginian
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
Principate Roman
Early Successor
100 Years War English (Continental)
Ordonnance French*
Later Hungarian*
War of the Roses English
Early Achaemenid Persian
Sassanid Persian

Since only 3 of these armies make it into the top 10% of armies by ELO from which I conclude the other armies are there for others to get points.

It's sort of FoG's version of only a few percent of the soldiers do all the killing, most do nothing while the rest do all the dying.

[lawrenceg]

Any, there are 303 listed in the database, the top 5% (15 armies) accounted for 35% of all games played.

Do you mean that in 35% of games both armies were from the top 5%, or at least one of them was?

OR do you mean if you consider all the records of an army being used, 35% of the records were for a top 5% army?

[shadowdragon]

Any, there are 303 listed in the database, the top 5% (15 armies) accounted for 35% of all games played.

Do you mean that in 35% of games both armies were from the top 5%, or at least one of them was?

OR do you mean if you consider all the records of an army being used, 35% of the records were for a top 5% army?

Sorry, that's "games played by an army", which as you point out means a "record of an army being used". For any game there are two armies playing the game so two instances of a "game played by an army". That means that the top 5% of armies accounted for 35% of all instances of armies involved in tournament games. It would take far too much work to figure how many cases "both armies were from the top 5%".

[david53]

In case you're too lazy to go and find out which armies are the top 5% - or, even better still, don't know how (hopefully not the lame excuse that you're too busy), they are, in order of popularity:

Later Seleucid
Late Republican Roman
Later Ottoman Turkish*
Dominate Roman
Alexandrian Macedonian
Later Carthaginian
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
Principate Roman
Early Successor
100 Years War English (Continental)
Ordonnance French*
Later Hungarian*
War of the Roses English
Early Achaemenid Persian
Sassanid Persian

Since only 3 of these armies make it into the top 10% of armies by ELO from which I conclude the other armies are there for others to get points.

It's sort of FoG's version of only a few percent of the soldiers do all the killing, most do nothing while the rest do all the dying.

Let's guess the top 3 then


Dominate Roman
Later Hungarian*
Later Ottoman Turkish*

[shadowdragon]

In case you're too lazy to go and find out which armies are the top 5% - or, even better still, don't know how (hopefully not the lame excuse that you're too busy), they are, in order of popularity:

Later Seleucid
Late Republican Roman
Later Ottoman Turkish*
Dominate Roman
Alexandrian Macedonian
Later Carthaginian
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian
Principate Roman
Early Successor
100 Years War English (Continental)
Ordonnance French*
Later Hungarian*
War of the Roses English
Early Achaemenid Persian
Sassanid Persian

Since only 3 of these armies make it into the top 10% of armies by ELO from which I conclude the other armies are there for others to get points.

It's sort of FoG's version of only a few percent of the soldiers do all the killing, most do nothing while the rest do all the dying.

Let's guess the top 3 then


Dominate Roman
Later Hungarian*
Later Ottoman Turkish*

Nearly. I forgot to include the note that the * indicated the top 3, which are Later Hungarian, Later Ottoman Turkish and Ordonnance French.

Other top 3?

ELO Value = Early Hungarian, Later Hungarian, Neo-Assyrian (note: I've noticed Neo-Assyrian has been rapidly moving up in popularity over the past year)
Average Points per Game (at least 50 games played) = Christian Nubian, Early Hungarian, Western Turkish
Average Points per game (game played in brackets) = Papal Italian (4), Communal Italian (3), Navarrese (10) (note: too few games to really indicate anything but still interesting - see below)

Papal Italian played in one tournament and won gold - routing a Ordonnance French, Early Medieval Burgundia and MRR armies and a 9.2-11.8 draw to Ghaznavid
Communal Italian played in one tournament and won gold - routing a Catalan Company army and winning draws to another Catalan Company army (19-1) and a Post-Latin Conquest Byzantine army (11-9)
Navarrese played in two tournaments and won a gold and a bronze - routing Sassanid, MRR, Palmyran, Principate Roman, Later Seleucid and LRR armies. Losing draws to a Classical Greek (7-13) army. Dead even draw (10-10) to a NKE army. Routs to Early Carthaginian (8-17) and Alexandrian Macedonian (2-23) armies.

[david53]

I've tried working it down to top UK played armies by ELO but can't seem to grt the figures could you have a try

[shadowdragon]

I've tried working it down to top UK played armies by ELO but can't seem to grt the figures could you have a try

I'm not sure what you mean by the top UK armies played by ELO. Do you mean the top ELO armies based only on games played in the UK? That would be tough since the ELO is computed from all games played by an army regardless of which nation. Would be tough to do without the detail records.

[david53]

I've tried working it down to top UK played armies by ELO but can't seem to grt the figures could you have a try

I'm not sure what you mean by the top UK armies played by ELO. Do you mean the top ELO armies based only on games played in the UK? That would be tough since the ELO is computed from all games played by an army regardless of which nation. Would be tough to do without the detail records.

Thats a pity.

[dave_r]

Is it?

Really?

[lawrenceg]

It would be interesting to know (and be able to sort armies by) the number of different players that have used each army - an alternative measure of popularity.

[shadowdragon]

Is it?

Really?

No, it's not a pity.

I did look at just the current top 10 UK players, counted up the games they played by army and then sorted by number of games played amongst this group of 10 players.

I had a more detailed post but the computer ate so, this is just the summary....

What I found was that an army was in the top 10 because of just one player and maybe two players. The most commonly used of these armies by the "top 10' players was Neo-Assyrian (5 players used). However, if Graham Evans had never played Dominate Roman it wouldn't be in the "top 10 most popular armies amongst the top 10 UK players". And, Skythian??? If it weren't for a guy called Dave Ruddock, it wouldn't even be in the list.

What was more interesting to me was how much the top 10 UK players experimented with using other armies. Amongst these 10 players they've played nearly 90 armies (out of the approximately 250-ish that have been used in tournaments). Phil Powell's played 28 different armies and I don't think he's used the same army in more than 2 tournaments. The top 3 experimenters were Phil, James Hamilton and - surprise - this guy called Dave Ruddock.

The question might be are the these top player because of the armies they've chosen or are the armies top armies because they've been chosen by these players? That's not really a question that can entirely be answered but I did notice that these players won tournaments with other, supposedly tough to win armies like "Classical Indian".

[shadowdragon]

It would be interesting to know (and be able to sort armies by) the number of different players that have used each army - an alternative measure of popularity.

Yes, that would be, but I won't be doing it.

Also, it's interesting to see the changing trends. I noticed that some of the "top 10 UK" players chose a Gallic army early on and then never again. Is the army still popular because it was chosen twice or is the opposite because it was chosen and then discarded.

Also, is number of time a player has chosen to enter an army in a tournament a better measure of popularity than number of games? If you play an army in a tournament for 6 games and another tournament for 2 games, it the first army really 3 X more popular?

[mbsparta]

"""Also, is number of time a player has chosen to enter an army in a tournament a better measure of popularity than number of games? If you play an army in a tournament for 6 games and another tournament for 2 games, it the first army really 3 X more popular?"""

................. There seems to be a lot of tournament oriented posting lately. And I fear the tournament players are driving the V2 changes. I just hope when the smoke clears the game is still enjoyable to historical gamers. We have four regular players (locally) and another 4 that dabble in the game from time to time. Not one is a regular tournament player and of the 8, I am the only one that has even played in a tournament. All have been attracted to the game by its historical feel, ease and challange of play and the way the game looks on the table top. We have begun playing FoG-R also ... for many of the same reasons. We live in the US midwest and could be considered an island ... but unlesss FoG is different than other games I have played, the silent majority of any rule-set supporters are historical gamers rather than tournament players. So for these 8 players to want to buy V2 ... the changes to the game must keep the historical feel that we were (pleasantly) surprised to see in V1. .... I am not against tournament players or tournaments ... but there is a significant difference between tournament players and historical gamers. They play the game differently ... goals are different ... and I guess they want different things from the rules. Playing for a draw is a perfect example. It seems to be a badge of smart elegant play for tournament players ... it would get you banned from historical gaming. Army selection is another difference. Historical gamers collect armies because of their passion for that army or period of history ... not to find an army with the best playing pieces that give the advantage to the player. Now I'm not saying tournament players don't know or love their history ... I am sure they do. Not passing judgement ... just pointing out different approaches.

With all this tournament banter going on ... I hope the authors keep the historical gamer in mind. Hopefully some of the changes will benefit both of us. Locally, many of the changes have met with little support. We'll just have to see I guess.

Mike B

[hazelbark]

With all this tournament banter going on ... I hope the authors keep the historical gamer in mind. Hopefully some of the changes will benefit both of us. Locally, many of the changes have met with little support. We'll just have to see I guess.

I think you will find a lot of the tournament players here are very sympathetic to what you call the historical gamer. The debate of points and table space and time ratio is a very tournament oriented one granted. But the rule changes i think you will find no damage being done to history in favor of tournaments. More the tournament lifecycle is attempting to iron out the knots that can arise.

[david53]

"""Also, is number of time a player has chosen to enter an army in a tournament a better measure of popularity than number of games? If you play an army in a tournament for 6 games and another tournament for 2 games, it the first army really 3 X more popular?"""

................. There seems to be a lot of tournament oriented posting lately. And I fear the tournament players are driving the V2 changes. I just hope when the smoke clears the game is still enjoyable to historical gamers. We have four regular players (locally) and another 4 that dabble in the game from time to time. Not one is a regular tournament player and of the 8, I am the only one that has even played in a tournament. All have been attracted to the game by its historical feel, ease and challange of play and the way the game looks on the table top. We have begun playing FoG-R also ... for many of the same reasons. We live in the US midwest and could be considered an island ... but unlesss FoG is different than other games I have played, the silent majority of any rule-set supporters are historical gamers rather than tournament players. So for these 8 players to want to buy V2 ... the changes to the game must keep the historical feel that we were (pleasantly) surprised to see in V1. .... I am not against tournament players or tournaments ... but there is a significant difference between tournament players and historical gamers. They play the game differently ... goals are different ... and I guess they want different things from the rules. Playing for a draw is a perfect example. It seems to be a badge of smart elegant play for tournament players ... it would get you banned from historical gaming. Army selection is another difference. Historical gamers collect armies because of their passion for that army or period of history ... not to find an army with the best playing pieces that give the advantage to the player. Now I'm not saying tournament players don't know or love their history ... I am sure they do. Not passing judgement ... just pointing out different approaches.

With all this tournament banter going on ... I hope the authors keep the historical gamer in mind. Hopefully some of the changes will benefit both of us. Locally, many of the changes have met with little support. We'll just have to see I guess.

Mike B

What I have found in the UK at least is that a large majority of people playing tornement games say less the top 20% are there just to get a chance to play the games. Not all UK players are near or want to be in a club, and too be honest if these people failed to go to the tornements they would be very small events.

Dave

[grahambriggs]

.. There seems to be a lot of tournament oriented posting lately. And I fear the tournament players are driving the V2 changes.

the silent majority of any rule-set supporters are historical gamers rather than tournament players. So for these 8 players to want to buy V2 ... the changes to the game must keep the historical feel that we were (pleasantly) surprised to see in V1. .... I am not against tournament players or tournaments ... but there is a significant difference between tournament players and historical gamers. They play the game differently ... goals are different ... and I guess they want different things from the rules. Playing for a draw is a perfect example. It seems to be a badge of smart elegant play for tournament players ... it would get you banned from historical gaming. Army selection is another difference. Historical gamers collect armies because of their passion for that army or period of history ... not to find an army with the best playing pieces that give the advantage to the player. Now I'm not saying tournament players don't know or love their history ... I am sure they do. Not passing judgement ... just pointing out different approaches.

With all this tournament banter going on ... I hope the authors keep the historical gamer in mind. Hopefully some of the changes will benefit both of us. Locally, many of the changes have met with little support. We'll just have to see I guess.

Mike B

I'd be hoping that the two requirements converge. For example, I far prefer my 'Greek Invasion' early Persians for historical feel. However, I've found in tournament play that the hoplites struggle to get in the game as there are so many skirmishy outfits out there. Hence, I tend to go more for an Eastern cavalry army with the Persians.

At least some of the changes in v2 seem to be aimed at making things more historical. e.g. cutting down on the excessive manouver of drilled MF (Immortals really didn't do much of that).

Clipping the wings of skirmishers will also I think make for a more historical battle. One of the playtesters was moaning the other day that the changes meant his light foot could no longer withdraw behind the main line and then funnel out to the wings to shoot up the enemy. Stopping the excesses of light foot use would make things more historic I feel.

[shadowdragon]

"""Also, is number of time a player has chosen to enter an army in a tournament a better measure of popularity than number of games? If you play an army in a tournament for 6 games and another tournament for 2 games, it the first army really 3 X more popular?"""

................. There seems to be a lot of tournament oriented posting lately. And I fear the tournament players are driving the V2 changes. I just hope when the smoke clears the game is still enjoyable to historical gamers. We have four regular players (locally) and another 4 that dabble in the game from time to time. Not one is a regular tournament player and of the 8, I am the only one that has even played in a tournament. All have been attracted to the game by its historical feel, ease and challange of play and the way the game looks on the table top. We have begun playing FoG-R also ... for many of the same reasons. We live in the US midwest and could be considered an island ... but unlesss FoG is different than other games I have played, the silent majority of any rule-set supporters are historical gamers rather than tournament players. So for these 8 players to want to buy V2 ... the changes to the game must keep the historical feel that we were (pleasantly) surprised to see in V1. .... I am not against tournament players or tournaments ... but there is a significant difference between tournament players and historical gamers. They play the game differently ... goals are different ... and I guess they want different things from the rules. Playing for a draw is a perfect example. It seems to be a badge of smart elegant play for tournament players ... it would get you banned from historical gaming. Army selection is another difference. Historical gamers collect armies because of their passion for that army or period of history ... not to find an army with the best playing pieces that give the advantage to the player. Now I'm not saying tournament players don't know or love their history ... I am sure they do. Not passing judgement ... just pointing out different approaches.

With all this tournament banter going on ... I hope the authors keep the historical gamer in mind. Hopefully some of the changes will benefit both of us. Locally, many of the changes have met with little support. We'll just have to see I guess.

Mike B

Just to be clear....

I am not a tournament player.
I posted this outside the v2 beta forum.
I put the word "trivia" in the title.

On the other hand expert tournament player have lots and lots of experience that is invaluable for identifying issues with the rules. And I can assure you that better historical play does seem to be a concern of the authors.

[Jilu]

Hello has someone a link to the rankings?

i can not find it anymore...

thank you

[Robert241167]

Follow this thread for ELO:

viewtopic.php?t=14588&start=0

Rob