The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[gamercb]

That chart also provides the means of showing which players had a 3-1 result so I do not see the need to include it in the league tables.

[stockwellpete]

This game is doing my head in again. I stopped playing over 6 months ago and have only played in the FOG2DL since then if someone has dropped out at the last minute. I won't be doing this again, and if you see me putting my name down as a reserve again you all have to remember this post and tell me not to do it. I will be very grateful. So, at the end of this tournament I will be permanently retired. Of course, I will still continue to run the FOG2DL as always.

Why does it do my head in? Basically, I think luck becomes more of a factor the more equal in skill the two players are. This was also true of FOG1. So, in two of my recent games, one of my opponents (who is better than me anyway) had about 10 rallies, including 3 routed units, while I had either none or one (I can't remember exactly). What are you supposed to do with luck like that? Then, in another game, right at the very beginning two of my units fragged on impact against units of similar capabilities. Why would they? They were not being charged downhill by superior troops, or being attacked in the rear. And then when they are routed soon after, they caused cohesion drops in adjacent units so the whole line is now in danger of collapse. I just look at it all and wonder what have I done wrong in this situation? Nothing really and it is meant to be a game of skill.

[Geffalrus]

Don't forget map generation luck. Giving one player who has lots of mediums a nice rocky hill (I've now been both sides of that equation), throwing a deep stream in the center, or (just had this happen) spawning a mountain pass to dominate the map can massively benefit one army type over the other.

[stockwellpete]

Don't forget map generation luck. Giving one player who has lots of mediums a nice rocky hill (I've now been both sides of that equation), throwing a deep stream in the center, or (just had this happen) spawning a mountain pass to dominate the map can massively benefit one army type over the other.

You can offset that a bit by picking armies that offer a balance of HF, MF, cavalry and skirmishers e.g. the Carthaginian armies, but yes, map generation can have a decisive effect on battle outcomes.

[harveylh]

This game is doing my head in again. I stopped playing over 6 months ago and have only played in the FOG2DL since then if someone has dropped out at the last minute. I won't be doing this again, and if you see me putting my name down as a reserve again you all have to remember this post and tell me not to do it. I will be very grateful. So, at the end of this tournament I will be permanently retired. Of course, I will still continue to run the FOG2DL as always.

Why does it do my head in? Basically, I think luck becomes more of a factor the more equal in skill the two players are. This was also true of FOG1. So, in two of my recent games, one of my opponents (who is better than me anyway) had about 10 rallies, including 3 routed units, while I had either none or one (I can't remember exactly). What are you supposed to do with luck like that? Then, in another game, right at the very beginning two of my units fragged on impact against units of similar capabilities. Why would they? They were not being charged downhill by superior troops, or being attacked in the rear. And then when they are routed soon after, they caused cohesion drops in adjacent units so the whole line is now in danger of collapse. I just look at it all and wonder what have I done wrong in this situation? Nothing really and it is meant to be a game of skill.

Pete,

I'm up to nearly 100 league games and probably close to 200 multiplayer games overall. I have found about 2 games out of every 10 between players of equal skill are decided by luck (however map generation is a whole different issue). And of those two games, you usually win one of them. However beware of small sample sizes. There is always the possibilty of a "hot" streak or "cold" streak. And it is human nature to forget or downplay good luck because we like to think we won the game because of our skill. And speaking of bad luck, in our recent game, you charged uphill against my MI with a general. You fragged my unit on contact despite the general and disrupted the unit next to it. That helped you a great deal in our very close game that you won by 63-51 as it unhinged that flank several turns faster than otherwise. Despite that I had a lot of fun and you did too. The key is to not take any loss too seriously. And you can't retire until I get a rematch.

[stockwellpete]

Pete,

I'm up to nearly 100 league games and probably close to 200 multiplayer games overall. I have found about 2 games out of every 10 between players of equal skill are decided by luck (however map generation is a whole different issue). And of those two games, you usually win one of them. However beware of small sample sizes. There is always the possibilty of a "hot" streak or "cold" streak. And it is human nature to forget or downplay good luck because we like to think we won the game because of our skill. And speaking of bad luck, in our recent game, you charged uphill against my MI with a general. You fragged my unit on contact despite the general and disrupted the unit next to it. That helped you a great deal in our very close game that you won by 63-51 as it unhinged that flank several turns faster than otherwise. Despite that I had a lot of fun and you did too. The key is to not take any loss too seriously. And you can't retire until I get a rematch.

Oh yes, some games I win because of good luck. But I have been fed up with the vagaries of the dice and how it affects the game for a long period of time. There are ways to tone down these things but they are counter to the "design philosophy" of the game. I think running the league is enough for me now. I can't be arsed to sit down, think about what army I should pick, devise a plan, and then have it all quickly go pear-shaped because of the dice. Not my idea of fun. Perhaps I am getting old and grumpy (64 now), but this is my last season. Btw I am putting you in charge of the special FOG2DL administrative unit that has to prevent me from signing up again whenever we need a late replacement.

[Geffalrus]

You can offset that a bit by picking armies that offer a balance of HF, MF, cavalry and skirmishers e.g. the Carthaginian armies, but yes, map generation can have a decisive effect on battle outcomes.

Yes, certain army lists do seem to be a bit more balanced than others. Some are one trick ponies that work really well on the right map, while others have a LOT of unit options that make them much more flexible. Some of player skill is analyzing the army lists, I guess. XD

[SpeedyCM]

Without a randomizing factor such as a die roll you would just get the same result every time.

Then what is the point of playing?

[stockwellpete]

Without a randomizing factor such as a die roll you would just get the same result every time.

Then what is the point of playing?

Of course, I haven't suggested that there should be no random elements in the game, but there are ways of reducing their impact. The game does this already to a certain extent with re-rolls for certain types of troops. But I don't think, for example, that equally matched warband units should be able to fragment each other on impact and then go onto cause multiple cohesion failures when they rout the next turn. That is just giving way too much power to one roll of the dice. Where is the skill in it? Anyway, it doesn't matter as I have argued all these things before in the main forum to no avail. The game just doesn't work for me, I'm afraid, but I do really enjoy organising this league and I will continue to do so.

[youngr]

Having being a long time player of tabletop ancients, I know only too well the vagaries of the dice. I do remember several occasions when I was in a commanding position when my bottom was handed to me on a plate simply due to my bad dice or opponents good dice (or both!). These days I am fairly philosophical and accept that the games where you get bad luck are just going to happen. In one of my league games here, I faced Galatians with my Jewish army and got absolutely blown away in a short time even though I outnumbered and surrounded the enemy. He had 2 critical rallies and units that held on forever, I had none. It was just one of those games. There are a few players who are lucky and always seem to get good luck at the critical times in competitions. I know many would say that luck averages out - no it doesn't in my experience!!

Richard

[Cunningcairn]

Without a randomizing factor such as a die roll you would just get the same result every time.

Then what is the point of playing?

Of course, I haven't suggested that there should be no random elements in the game, but there are ways of reducing their impact. The game does this already to a certain extent with re-rolls for certain types of troops. But I don't think, for example, that equally matched warband units should be able to fragment each other on impact and then go onto cause multiple cohesion failures when they rout the next turn. That is just giving way too much power to one roll of the dice. Where is the skill in it? Anyway, it doesn't matter as I have argued all these things before in the main forum to no avail. The game just doesn't work for me, I'm afraid, but I do really enjoy organising this league and I will continue to do so.

Pete I feel the same as you. Luck has become the deciding factor in most of the FDL games. That is luck for me and against. Without disrespect to anyone the only player I have played that is definitely a cut above the rest is Pantherboy. When not playing FDL I play only large scale battles i.e. 2000 points. I feel this rewards tactical superiority and lessens victory through luck of the die. Because of the greater number of troops and hence combats the luck evens out before your army collapses. Could the FDL be played using 2000 point armies? In saying all that I think that FOG2 is a fantastic game that probably still needs a little tweeking. I started with TT 7th edition and have enjoyed all iterations despite their faults and have great faith in the creators and their ability to sort what needs to be sorted. Don't give up Pete rather stay in the moment and manage the frustrations Your contribution to this wonderful pastime as a player and an organiser are greatly appreciated.

[Cunningcairn]

I can't be arsed to sit down, think about what army I should pick, devise a plan, and then have it all quickly go pear-shaped because of the dice. Not my idea of fun. Perhaps I am getting old and grumpy (64 now), but this is my last season.

Funnily I always thought of you as a younger guy

[stockwellpete]

Pete I feel the same as you. Luck has become the deciding factor in most of the FDL games. That is luck for me and against. Without disrespect to anyone the only player I have played that is definitely a cut above the rest is Pantherboy. When not playing FDL I play only large scale battles i.e. 2000 points. I feel this rewards tactical superiority and lessens victory through luck of the die. Because of the greater number of troops and hence combats the luck evens out before your army collapses. Could the FDL be played using 2000 point armies? In saying all that I think that FOG2 is a fantastic game that probably still needs a little tweeking. I started with TT 7th edition and have enjoyed all iterations despite their faults and have great faith in the creators and their ability to sort what needs to be sorted. Don't give up Pete rather stay in the moment and manage the frustrations Your contribution to this wonderful pastime as a player and an organiser are greatly appreciated.

I think we could certainly poll the idea of using larger armies for part of the FOG2DL in future. I don't know how many people like the larger format. Do the larger games take longer to complete, or is it similar to medium-sized games? This was the main concern when FOG1DL was launched all those years ago. I'll have a think about some poll questions and post them on here in due course.

[stockwellpete]

Funnily I always thought of you as a younger guy

I have always felt that I exude youthfulness. And I did manage to run 5K yesterday. Like a gazelle on the last lap, I was.

[stockwellpete]

I am just starting to look at Cunningcairn's idea of using larger armies in the FOG2DL in future. It would reduce the impact of "bad luck" a little bit, as the proportion of your army affected by a bad die roll would be less. For medium-sized armies that we use now we get 1200 points to spend. Using an early Anglo-Saxon army that would give you around 22/23 units. The next size up is large and that gives you 1600 points to spend, which would allow you to build an early Anglo-Saxon army of around 30 units. And the biggest size (very large) provides you with 2000 points allowing an early Anglo-Saxon army build of around 35 units. These two largest sizes are played on "very wide" maps.

So to compare "medium sized" with "very large" it seems that the armies will be about 50% bigger. I have played a few of the epic scenarios and I think some of them probably have bigger armies than even this. I am not sure if these larger battles take much longer to complete. I would be interested to know what people think about this.

[Geffalrus]

One difference about larger battles for me is that the epic scenarios slow my computer to a crawl in a way that the medium battles definitely do not. However, I don't think that kicks in with battles that are one step up from Medium. Certainly, my Breton games don't drag on much even though the army is naturally a lot bigger than an Antigonid force. Certainly for pikes, not having everything depend on ~5 rolls of the dice (the average number of pikes in an army) is kind of nice in theory........

[stockwellpete]

For a poll, how about the following? You have to set it up in a certain way . . .

Poll question - To consider whether increasing the size of armies used in the FOG2DL would be beneficial.

Options
1. I would like the size of the armies (1200 points) used in the FOG2DL to remain the same.
2. I would like the size of the armies used in the FOG2DL to be increased.
3. I would stop playing in the FOG2DL if the size of the armies was increased.

Players would be allowed 2 votes. The score for option 3 would be very important because I would not want to lose players over this possible change.

[Morbio]

Pete, will increasing the size of the armies reduce player choice in army composition and make some army selections very predictable? i.e. pretty much everything listed would need to be taken to use 2,000 points. If yes, would this remove any tactical or surprise element from the game?

[stockwellpete]

Pete, will increasing the size of the armies reduce player choice in army composition and make some army selections very predictable? i.e. pretty much everything listed would need to be taken to use 2,000 points. If yes, would this remove any tactical or surprise element from the game?

I have no idea really. I hardly play the game at all now and I have never played very large battles. Hopefully this will come out in the discussion if players generally feel the subject is worth having a poll on. I wouldn't have thought there would be too much difference between 1200 and 1600 point armies. Maybe there would be issues at 2000pts?

[rbodleyscott]

Pete, will increasing the size of the armies reduce player choice in army composition and make some army selections very predictable? i.e. pretty much everything listed would need to be taken to use 2,000 points. If yes, would this remove any tactical or surprise element from the game?

Unlike Tabletop FOG and FOG1, the FOG2 army list minima and maxima are scaled to the total points available, so the amount of choice should be about the same.