Closing the gap on the top players . . .

[stockwellpete]

I have been playing this game for about a year now and for most of that time I have felt that I have been slowly improving my game (in a two steps forward, one step backwards sort of way). But in the last couple of months my performances are definitely levelling off and I have a sense that I am not discernibly improving at the moment.

So I have been thinking about ways that I might strengthen my play. I suppose the first thing to do in an exercise such as this is to break the game down into its various components and see if there are any weak areas that I could improve quite quickly. Fully understanding the rules and picking balanced armies to cope with the various enemy formations and terrain that you might encounter are two important aspects, for sure. But what other things are key components of the game, would you say?

And what things have you tried in an effort to improve your performance in this very challenging game?

[davouthojo]

You may not be plateauing - it might just be that all your opponents are climbing the same learning curve as you!
I am certainly finding this seasons LOEG matches much tougher.....and now even Pantherboy can now occassionally be beaten (OK, only when he chooses a weak army!)

I broke up the skills the following way for the wiki - needs more in this area - I'm happy to cut and paste good adds from this thread!

Selecting your army:
- What army?
- What troops?
Crafting a plan:
- Deployment.
- During the battle.
- Winning with different army types
Tactical tips:
- Winning with different troop types
- General tactics

[stockwellpete]

Some interesting points there, davouthojo.

What I have noticed is that I tend to do better against the top players in historical scenarios. So what that suggests to me is that I have weaknesses in the way I select an army (troop composition and balance, I mean), weaknesses in the decisions I make about the type of terrain I try to fight on and weaknesses in formulating of a battleplan (and a plan B). In historical scenarios these decisions tend to be pre-programmed to a greater degree. Of course, you can still make your own plan but you proceed from a historically determined deployment.

One dilemma I have is over picking what is called a "balanced" army. Should I pick a similar number of HF and MF? Should I pick up to a third of my army as missiles (and skirmishers) or cavalry, so that I can cover most eventualities - or should I set out to win the initiative and pick an army on the basis that I will win choice of terrain? Now this winning the initiative idea may backfire in a number of battles, but in the longer term might it mean that I win more than I lose?

Another dilemma is how many leaders should I pick. I have been experimenting lately with a field-troop-troop trio of leaders (because I have been told that this is historically accurate for the medieval period) and trying to pick mobile troops for my leader units that will only fight themselves at crucial points of the battle. But this does mean that some of my troops somewhere are out of command radius every turn. It does worry me a bit, but perhaps I should get used to it because the extra troops that I can now pick should give me greater options during the battle.

[Morbio]

I feel the same about my recent performance. Some of this is due to my much reduced play time, so that I'm forgetting some of the rules, but also I think I do better with historical scenarios, rather than DAG too.

I think that this is because it takes 2 skill elements out of the game. Army selection and deployment. I think I may be weak in them, but I know my opponents are stronger too. So, removing these has a double benefit for me.

I also lack the in-depth knowledge of how each type of unit will fare against each other. I have a good basic understanding, but in some unit matchups I don't know the odds, or the scale of them, until we get close enough to melee and by then it is too late to avoid a bad situation. An example would be if superior light spear were engaging average offensive spear, which would be better at impact and which at melee.... and which would more often win the fight? Another example is superior protected light spear cavalry vs average armoured cavalry. I think I would do better if I had a host of lookup tables that had all the permutations and could inform me whether an encounter is something I should seek or avoid.

I think the other factor is because I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the rules and play by feel. There are times when I, with hindsight, attack in the wrong order or fail to utilise some of the gamey aspects that I know the best players utilise along with their superior, selection, deployment and battlefield tactics.

[Xiggy]

One of the things I have found is that I play better with certain style armies. When I first started playing I played all kinds of armies. Lately, I have found an army that fits my playing style. (It is more of a certain mix, there are armies of this type in most of the periods)

I seem to be doing better limiting my army types.

[deeter]

Another reason historical scenarios level out players is that the power players know how to generate ahistorical armies and use ahistorical tactics that are hard to beat with other armies. I'm talking about shooty/hordy armies with minimal generals vs. more quality but less quantity armies. These may win a lot of battles, but have little to do with history.

With historical scenarios, it comes down to making the best of what you've been given, not who came up with the cutest list or the cleverist terrain selection. I'm beginning to prefer historical scenarios. Even if imbalanced, playing paired games gives everyone a chance at victory.

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

Another reason historical scenarios level out players is that the power players know how to generate ahistorical armies and use ahistorical tactics that are hard to beat with other armies. I'm talking about shooty/hordy armies with minimal generals vs. more quality but less quantity armies. These may win a lot of battles, but have little to do with history.

With historical scenarios, it comes down to making the best of what you've been given, not who came up with the cutest list or the cleverist terrain selection. I'm beginning to prefer historical scenarios. Even if imbalanced, playing paired games gives everyone a chance at victory.

Deeter

Yes, I agree with all of that. I tend to find that the very best players concentrate their armies very tightly and just overwhelm your battleline in a certain area - a bit like a tidal wave breaching coastal defences. I suppose the only answer is to try and do likewise, but I'm not sure that I really want to play in that way.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I disagree that the top players "overwhelm" you at one point on your battle line , and also that this is a-historical. This is a classic way of defeating you enemy , Gaugemela, the Thebans deep right wing, the Romans punching thru the center etc etc
Why would any commander, if he had a choice, send his entire frontage againt the enemy frontage all at once?

I believe the "gap" between the top players and mortals is that they :
* maximise every advantage available when designing their armies against KNOWN opponents army ( so competive settings where you know which DAG they will be fielding)
Some lists allow an army to morph in amazing ways Example : Skythians that can have a horde of bow cavaly and a decent amt of mediums, or can take Greek allies and have a hoplite army, with a lot of mediums or they can take another ally and have MORE mediums.... Many armies with an ally can take pikes where you would really never suspect it, many many other "medium" foot armies can take Roman legions, or allies that have cats and more cats etc.
basically what i am saying is sometimes you cannot account for /have any realsitic plan on fighting one of those armies because they can be ANYTHING and yo will likly deploy poorly.


*deploy in such a manner that it really doesnt matter how you deply.. The big one is the wall of troops, Not much you can do vs this if you deploy in the center of your side of the map in the "tradditional way" ie heavy infantry in center , cavalry on wings. You will get enveloped by the giant hand that closes around you army.
The other is the giant box on one corner of the map which can be confounding

* Mixing troop types up to maximise every possible poa advantage regardless of what troops you have Example : pike alternating cat down the line. Noone can crack that line without major disadvantges yet that combo can be offensive minded vs almost any troop combo, as well as defensive.

*top players also tend to play very slowing and methodical, every BG position is accounted for , you generally dont see wide flank attempts, echeloned attacks etc, although you do often se the run away and reform a battle line at 90 derees quite a bit. Physics of such mean that if you go after that , your own battle line will strech and thin while theres will compact .

Basically cold brutal math wins the day

[stockwellpete]

Hmm, I disagree that the top players "overwhelm" you at one point on your battle line , and also that this is a-historical. This is a classic way of defeating you enemy , Gaugemela, the Thebans deep right wing, the Romans punching thru the center etc etc Why would any commander, if he had a choice, send his entire frontage againt the enemy frontage all at once?
as defensive.

Well, I have had that happen to me, TGM. Basically I deploy in three "battles" with a mounted reserve - and, in some games, I have found virtually the entire enemy army bearing down on just one of those "battles". Enemy archers usually in the front with a mixture of mounted knights, HF and MF tucked in tightly behind - and maybe an "inspired" leader somewhere at the back. The only way that I know how to cope with this is to try and rush everything over to where the attack is coming (I am usually too late) - and the battle ends up in an unholy mess.

I think this is a bit different from concentrating your best forces to deliver a decisive strike against an opponent though. Of courese, we should all be trying to do that.

[davouthojo]

One of the appeals of the FOG system is that there is a counter to most tactics.

Setting up alternating patterns sometimes works - but sometimes doesn't as when I tried interleafing pikes and archers and got slaughtered by Sarmatians selectively routing the archers.

Sometimes the hammer blow works, and other times you get tied in knots - the enemy can blunt it with good defensive terrain, or withdraw in front of it and manoevre on flanks and rear. Currently I am having trouble with cascading routs as batesmotel has penned my Sciri's drive and has lancers racing for my flanks.

Sometimes I look at a newbie's deployment and know that the match is won because they are too spread out. I can then look at hidde/ericdoman's deployment spread across the map and see that they can concentrate their forces way before I can strike them.

Personally, I think the most critical choice is the battleplan/advance to combat. You can have an advantage/disadvantage in troop selection, terrain, detailed tactics and the opponent can surprise you in deployment. But big wins/losses come from how you react and line up in the first 5-6 turns.

[stockwellpete]

Personally, I think the most critical choice is the battleplan/advance to combat. You can have an advantage/disadvantage in troop selection, terrain, detailed tactics and the opponent can surprise you in deployment. But big wins/losses come from how you react and line up in the first 5-6 turns.

Yes, I think there is a lot in this. One of the things that I have been experimenting with is what I call "the wait and see" start. Sometimes I will not move much on my first turn, maybe only my vanguard, sometimes I will not move at all. The reason for this is that I like to see what my opponent has in mind and it might also be the case that my lack of movement might be disconcerting. In this game it is very hard to undo a blunder if you have advanced too far or if you find that your deployment is unbalanced once you see the disposition of the enemy forces. So waiting sometimes can be quite a useful tactic.

[Xiggy]

Patience is also important. If one of your shock troops goes uncontrolled, maybe let him die, don't follow them up. I am an average player that has moments (infrequently) of brilliance.

If you switched sides the top player would still win the battle. It comes down to picking your army, but also, timing and what works in the system as well as what tactics to use.

Talk to pantherboy and play a game with the army you chose, then reverse it. I would expect him to win both battles. He even wins with Numidians most of the time.

[stockwellpete]

What might be a great help to players of all standards is the ability to replay entire games after they have finished so you can study how things have developed and think about how you might have done better. Also good would be the ability to save these games for as long as you needed them. And a third thing would be the ability to be able to study the battlefield while you were waiting for an opponent to move.

I have no idea whether these things would be easy to introduce into the game or not. I suspect not - which is a shame.

[Old_Warrior]

I am in the worst "die roller" and even when I beat my opponent the dice say 3 to 0 his unit doesn't Disorder or Fragment or Rout!

So it wouldn't matter how good I play - my luck is just plain awful.

[todd645]

I've been playing a crazy amount of games in order to improve - and it works. I've only been playing for a bit over 4 months now, but I am starting to challenge good players (I still lose, but it isn't easy for them).

The number one thing I am learning is patience. I used to make very dumb mistakes because I was hurrying the fight. Now, I will pause parts of my battle line while others get into position or draw enemy troops away from an area that I want to attack. This is different from fighting a defensive battle. I am not so good at those. I look at mschund and still marvel at how well he sets up an army for defense. That is his specialty (and it usually works). I recently had my first victory against him and felt like I conquored the world

On the other hand, when I play ericdoman I watch precision maneuvering coupled with flawless covering of his own troops. I saw this when he trounced me using the Huns against my Dacians in bad terrain. I think I got only one rear charge in the entire game.

Some of it has to do with attitude, like so many things in life. As I become more confident, oddly I win more. And it often appears than my dice luck is aweful. I think if you pay attention to it though, it evens out over the life of the battle.

Now I get caught up in setting up traps or attacking spots where it seems as though I have the advantage. This is my weakness at the moment. The good players set me up to make a bold maneuver that they then crush once it's too late to change my approach.

Anyway - I love this game!

[stockwellpete]

And it often appears than my dice luck is awful. I think if you pay attention to it though, it evens out over the life of the battle.

I don't agree with this bit, Todd. I think in some battles you just have bad luck and you lose - and there is not much you can do about it. This happens quite frequently in games against opponents of a similar skill level, I find - for example, it might be that your knights are your key troop type and you just get an incredibly poor run of impact results in one turn with 4 or 5 of them that really scuppers your army. I agree, over the longer term, that a players' luck will even out though.

[deeter]

I will opine that the real luck in FOG is having the right army in favorable terrain vs. the wrong army. Many games are over before the begin.

Deeter

[CharlesRobinson]

Hmmm... This is a hard one because there are so many factors involved.

1. Some armies leave you with limited strategies.
2. Some armies are particularly vulnerable to other armies.
3. Some players will litterally design their army to fight yours - known enemy.
4. Army size, two few troops usually leaves you overwelmed - to many and your individual troops tend to be to week - army builds with around 40 break points seems to be about the right mix.
5. People who use the same strategies over and over become predictable.
6. Know your enemy by playing with their army - nothing tells you more about the weeknesses of an army than trying to win with it.
7. Some players do better with certain styles of armies - I like mobile armies and usually do well if I can eliminate any symbolence of a battle line, the more choatic the battle field the better I usually do - but I play all types of armies.
8. Never give up - I have won battles where I thought I was doomed.
9. Some games are honestly lost at setup.
10. Play lots of games - practice does make you better.
11. Know your limits - I am a middle of the road player that wins 50% of my games - I could be better but I just play for fun.
12. Use terrain to your advantage as much as possible.
13. I have been playing around with commanders as well - it depends on how mobile my army is - the more mobile the more commanders and the better their ratings - I make bold (and sometimes foolish) moves with my mobile units.
14. Few plans survive contact with the enemy - I make my battle plans in two stages - first is setup where I plan for an over all strategy that takes in terrain and likely setup/composition of my enemy - second - adjust plan on first turn when I get to actually see my enemy - block occupy unit stronger than mine and concentrate/overwelm/break through and week points in my opponents battle line. There are so many ways to approach both of these that it would take a mighty tome indead to cover it all.
15. I like fighting on my opponents side of the battle field - I do not like having my back to the wall so to speak - I like maneuver room - and I want their routing units to have a very short run to get off of the battlefield.


I don't know if any of this helps, but there it is.

[TJD]

I will opine that the real luck in FOG is having the right army in favorable terrain vs. the wrong army. Many games are over before the begin.

Deeter

I think that is very well-stated and profoundly true.

Tim