The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[Geffalrus]

According to my suggestion effect would be actually opposite since only double-drops that do not make sense would be removed (i.e. mid foot causes double drop on heavy-foot hoplite/pikes/cav etc). Also armies that rely on quantities (usually mid tier spam) benefit from excessive rallies more than armies that rely on quality (Pike armies for example). So these changes would weaken mid-foot meta.

.......hmmmm, guess I need to reread your suggestion.

I see what you're saying about the rallies - of - the medium units. I was focusing more on the utility of lights and cavalry in terms of chasing/charging routers, but you make a good point.

[garymann]

have just done a quick stat this morning on how the marginal victory rule is working. For those who are new to the FOG2DL, this is the first season where the loser of a match who has scored 50% or more gets one point and the winner of the match gets three points instead of four. The number of times these marginal victories have occurred are as follows (using the latest league tables and charts) . . .

Pete,

Could there be any slack in this system to reduce to 45%. Many game results I've seen on the results page seen to be 60+ against a 45 + result. It seems both sides have been at it hammer and tongs and then probably in 1 or 2 turns 1 side just collapses. I'd be interested in the stats for 45% or more?

[stockwellpete]

Could there be any slack in this system to reduce to 45%. Many game results I've seen on the results page seen to be 60+ against a 45 + result. It seems both sides have been at it hammer and tongs and then probably in 1 or 2 turns 1 side just collapses. I'd be interested in the stats for 45% or more?

OK, so the stats for the marginal victory set at 50% are . . .

Classical Antiquity - 8 out of 118 matches
Late Antiquity - 11 out of 112
Early Middle Ages - 10 out of 88
Biblical - 7 out of 85
Themed Event 2 out of 27

So the total so far is 38 out of 430, which is 8.8% of the total (or around 1 in 12 matches)

And if we were to set the cut off at 45% instead, the revised numbers would be . . .

Classical Antiquity - 16 out of 118 matches
Late Antiquity - 19 out of 112
Early Middle Ages - 15 out of 88
Biblical - 10 out of 85
Themed Event 2 out of 27

The new total is 62 out of 430, which is 14.4% of the total (or around 1 in 7 matches)

My own view is that 1 in 7 matches would be too high really. The reason that we set the cut off at 50% was to reward players who have lost a very close match, maybe because they were a little bit unlucky to lose. If we were go to 45% then we would start to stretch that idea beyond credibility.

[garymann]

Pete,

thanks for that. appreciate the view.

[paulmcneil]

I think the problem with double drops and the latest tweak to chance factors in the game is that there is a misconception between "on average it evens out" and distribution of results causing a fatal collapse, like if I told you a river was 4ft deep "on average" would you feel like attempting to wade across it, given that it could be 20ft deep in the middle. In games I regularly see skill completely negated by chance built into the games algorithms or "dice" if you like. I want chance to operate around the edges of a combat where most things are close, and the effect to be gradual, not instantly cataclysmic.

[MikeC_81]

I think it is exactly this point where we keep talking past each other. I understand the frustration of random catastrophic rolls. But I feel that building strategies that are resilliant to rare mishaps is a skill (ie the maintenance of a solid reserve). Learning tactics to minimize the number of CTs that your side has to make (and vice versa) as well as giving yourself the best possible modifiers to the rolls that are taken (ie sequencing combat properly,having generals influence the correct segment of the line, having or preventing flankers to add or remove the -1 modifiers to CTs) is also a skill.

These are things I feel people simply are not doing and then they throw their hands up in the air when it falls apart and they haven't seriously looked at what they could have done differently.

[stockwellpete]

I think it is exactly this point where we keep talking past each other. I understand the frustration of random catastrophic rolls. But I feel that building strategies that are resilliant to rare mishaps is a skill (ie the maintenance of a solid reserve). Learning tactics to minimize the number of CTs that your side has to make (and vice versa) as well as giving yourself the best possible modifiers to the rolls that are taken (ie sequencing combat properly,having generals influence the correct segment of the line, having or preventing flankers to add or remove the -1 modifiers to CTs) is also a skill.

These are things I feel people simply are not doing and then they throw their hands up in the air when it falls apart and they haven't seriously looked at what they could have done differently.

But what you are saying is that people like me who are talking about the balance between luck and skill don't really know how to play the game properly - and you are also saying that "mishaps" because of die rolls are rare. I disagree with you very much on both points. Also, you cannot maintain a solid reserve if your opponent is throwing his whole army at you from the outset. Keeping a reserve in those situations means that you will be facing a number of 2 v 1 melees at the start which means that you are likely to lose the game.

[stockwellpete]

I think the problem with double drops and the latest tweak to chance factors in the game is that there is a misconception between "on average it evens out" and distribution of results causing a fatal collapse, like if I told you a river was 4ft deep "on average" would you feel like attempting to wade across it, given that it could be 20ft deep in the middle. In games I regularly see skill completely negated by chance built into the games algorithms or "dice" if you like. I want chance to operate around the edges of a combat where most things are close, and the effect to be gradual, not instantly cataclysmic.

Yes, this exactly sums up my feelings about the game.

[deve]

I think it is exactly this point where we keep talking past each other. I understand the frustration of random catastrophic rolls. But I feel that building strategies that are resilliant to rare mishaps is a skill (ie the maintenance of a solid reserve). Learning tactics to minimize the number of CTs that your side has to make (and vice versa) as well as giving yourself the best possible modifiers to the rolls that are taken (ie sequencing combat properly,having generals influence the correct segment of the line, having or preventing flankers to add or remove the -1 modifiers to CTs) is also a skill.

These are things I feel people simply are not doing and then they throw their hands up in the air when it falls apart and they haven't seriously looked at what they could have done differently.

How can you mitigate with a skill effect of rallies that happen somewhere on other side of the map ?
How can you predict and maintain reserve in places where double-drops completely unexpected (mid foot double drops cav or non-impact mid foot double-drops better quality heavy foot) ? You would need to almost double your formation depth to counter something that should never happen. My example with my pike double droping against citizen hoplite - you never expect this to happen and if you need to keep reservers behind the pikes it defeats purpose of pikes in addition to the fact that pike armies already have narrow front.

Nobody is saying that RNG should be taken away out of equation. We are just suggesting to limit its effect in most outrages cases.

[Geffalrus]

Also, you cannot maintain a solid reserve if your opponent is throwing his whole army at you from the outset. Keeping a reserve in those situations means that you will be facing a number of 2 v 1 melees at the start which means that you are likely to lose the game.

Hang on, are the matches in A division just people slamming a big line of units into one another? Like, does the concept of Refusing a Flank not even exist? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I do genuinely sympathize with the fact that tiny variations in (luck, terrain, army composition) can have dramatic consequences, but the idea that having a reserve is just not possible seems...........suspect. If for no other reason than getting two armies to collide perfectly at the same time never seems to happen for me. Some units always lag behind others during maneuvers.

[stockwellpete]

Hang on, are the matches in A division just people slamming a big line of units into one another? Like, does the concept of Refusing a Flank not even exist? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I do genuinely sympathize with the fact that tiny variations in (luck, terrain, army composition) can have dramatic consequences, but the idea that having a reserve is just not possible seems...........suspect. If for no other reason than getting two armies to collide perfectly at the same time never seems to happen for me. Some units always lag behind others during maneuvers.

Obviously not. But it does happen from time to time, particularly if your opponent deploys with maximum width - maybe they have cavalry on both flanks. Then you are forced to deploy your reserve quite quickly to avoid being overwhelmed somewhere along your front.

[deve]

Also, you cannot maintain a solid reserve if your opponent is throwing his whole army at you from the outset. Keeping a reserve in those situations means that you will be facing a number of 2 v 1 melees at the start which means that you are likely to lose the game.

Hang on, are the matches in A division just people slamming a big line of units into one another? Like, does the concept of Refusing a Flank not even exist? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I do genuinely sympathize with the fact that tiny variations in (luck, terrain, army composition) can have dramatic consequences, but the idea that having a reserve is just not possible seems...........suspect. If for no other reason than getting two armies to collide perfectly at the same time never seems to happen for me. Some units always lag behind others during maneuvers.

I think his point was the more reserves you keep the more risks of being outflanked/outnumbered you take so you really need to minimize reserve and place them where you expect them to be useful and not just double-down on formation depth. For some armies it is exceptionally big problem. It is very hard to maintain reserve and have wide enough formation with spartans or pike lists (i.e. factiosn that rely on quality of their infantry). Taking units like Veteran PIkes while needing to worryi about it being double-droped by dice luck makes this unit as useless as scythed chariott.

[Geffalrus]

Obviously not. But it does happen from time to time, particularly if your opponent deploys with maximum width - maybe they have cavalry on both flanks. Then you are forced to deploy your reserve quite quickly to avoid being overwhelmed somewhere along your front.

I guess I'll take your word for it.

Being unit outnumbered was something I had to deal with in Classical D as the Antigonids. I thought I handled it pretty well, but I won't know for sure until I really try it out in the higher divisions. Or at least until I've slugged it out with Sunny, Morkin, and Deve a few more times..........

[MikeC_81]

Hang on, are the matches in A division just people slamming a big line of units into one another? Like, does the concept of Refusing a Flank not even exist? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I do genuinely sympathize with the fact that tiny variations in (luck, terrain, army composition) can have dramatic consequences, but the idea that having a reserve is just not possible seems...........suspect. If for no other reason than getting two armies to collide perfectly at the same time never seems to happen for me. Some units always lag behind others during maneuvers.

Obviously not. But it does happen from time to time, particularly if your opponent deploys with maximum width - maybe they have cavalry on both flanks. Then you are forced to deploy your reserve quite quickly to avoid being overwhelmed somewhere along your front.

In those cases the appropriate response is to shift quickly to a wedge like formation with your best units and blow the center open while delaying action on the flanks by staggering both flanks backwards and increasing the distance traveled before you can be enveloped.

Another option is to rapidly advance to match position with one flank with your best units while refusing your weak flank and dragging it towards where your center was and crushing one side and assaulting the enemy line in reverse while using all measures at your disposal to delay contact.

Simply throwing reserves out to the flanks is probably the least desirable option although sometimes it can be dictated by terrain.

If both lines manage to contact at the same time, it is almost a certainty that someone messed up.

[MikeC_81]

Also, you cannot maintain a solid reserve if your opponent is throwing his whole army at you from the outset. Keeping a reserve in those situations means that you will be facing a number of 2 v 1 melees at the start which means that you are likely to lose the game.

Hang on, are the matches in A division just people slamming a big line of units into one another? Like, does the concept of Refusing a Flank not even exist? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I do genuinely sympathize with the fact that tiny variations in (luck, terrain, army composition) can have dramatic consequences, but the idea that having a reserve is just not possible seems...........suspect. If for no other reason than getting two armies to collide perfectly at the same time never seems to happen for me. Some units always lag behind others during maneuvers.

I have played twice in Div A, twice in Div B, and am currently doing one Div A section this season. I can confirm that the maneuver to contact rarely results in just two lines smashing together simultaneously.

Sometimes the margins are exceedingly tight and a single misplay will cost you a game.

[stockwellpete]

Obviously not. But it does happen from time to time, particularly if your opponent deploys with maximum width - maybe they have cavalry on both flanks. Then you are forced to deploy your reserve quite quickly to avoid being overwhelmed somewhere along your front.

In those cases the appropriate response is to shift quickly to a wedge like formation with your best units and blow the center open while delaying action on the flanks by staggering both flanks backwards and increasing the distance traveled before you can be enveloped.

I am sorry but you are making me laugh!

How can you possibly give advice like this when you have no idea what the armies are, and how they have deployed, or what the terrain is like? And how does anyone shift HF quickly, for goodness sake?

Another option is to rapidly advance to match position with one flank with your best units while refusing your weak flank and dragging it towards where your center was and crushing one side and assaulting the enemy line in reverse while using all measures at your disposal to delay contact.

This reads like some sort of weird sexual encounter. I am too old for all this sort of malarkey now I'm afraid.

Simply throwing reserves out to the flanks is probably the least desirable option although sometimes it can be dictated by terrain.

If both lines manage to contact at the same time, it is almost a certainty that someone messed up.

I know I should be taking notes here, but I just can't stop giggling.

[stockwellpete]

I have played twice in Div A, twice in Div B, and am currently doing one Div A section this season. I can confirm that the maneuver to contact rarely results in just two lines smashing together simultaneously.

Sometimes the margins are exceedingly tight and a single misplay will cost you a game.

Yes, it sounds very much like luck could be the decisive factor here on many such encounters.

[MikeC_81]

Obviously not. But it does happen from time to time, particularly if your opponent deploys with maximum width - maybe they have cavalry on both flanks. Then you are forced to deploy your reserve quite quickly to avoid being overwhelmed somewhere along your front.

In those cases the appropriate response is to shift quickly to a wedge like formation with your best units and blow the center open while delaying action on the flanks by staggering both flanks backwards and increasing the distance traveled before you can be enveloped.

I am sorry but you are making me laugh!

How can you possibly give advice like this when you have no idea what the armies are, and how they have deployed, or what the terrain is like? And how does anyone shift HF quickly, for goodness sake?

Another option is to rapidly advance to match position with one flank with your best units while refusing your weak flank and dragging it towards where your center was and crushing one side and assaulting the enemy line in reverse while using all measures at your disposal to delay contact.

This reads like some sort of weird sexual encounter. I am too old for all this sort of malarkey now I'm afraid.

Simply throwing reserves out to the flanks is probably the least desirable option although sometimes it can be dictated by terrain.

If both lines manage to contact at the same time, it is almost a certainty that someone messed up.

I know I should be taking notes here, but I just can't stop giggling.

Sounds like you know a lot more about sexual positions than I do

The principles are really the same regardless of the armies (unless its a mass bow army mounted or otherwise). If you are outnumbered to the degree which you say you are, it can be presumed that you have the better quality troops and it is the player with the larger army with the onus of flanking and creating positions to negate his opponent's more powerful units. The player with the smaller army has the onus of trying to defeat his opponent in detail before the weight of numbers can be brought to bear against his smaller frontage.

Also HF are just as manoeuvrable as MF unless in rough. If you are picking lots of un-maneuverable units that are somehow also expensive and not picking up very cheap units as a counterbalance....maybe you mispicked..

Yes, it sounds very much like luck could be the decisive factor here on many such encounters.

Or you can simply try not to make mistakes

[deve]

In those cases the appropriate response is to shift quickly to a wedge like formation with your best units and blow the center open while delaying action on the flanks by staggering both flanks backwards and increasing the distance traveled before you can be enveloped.

Another option is to rapidly advance to match position with one flank with your best units while refusing your weak flank and dragging it towards where your center was and crushing one side and assaulting the enemy line in reverse while using all measures at your disposal to delay contact.

Simply throwing reserves out to the flanks is probably the least desirable option although sometimes it can be dictated by terrain.

If both lines manage to contact at the same time, it is almost a certainty that someone messed up.

Do you imply your opponent will be just waiting for you to do all those adjustments without even attempting to capitalize on his advantage ? To me it sounds that your advise is to outplay opponent if he has wider formation. If it always can be done why not to just double-down on depth ? Why formation width is important ? I think you must agree that in general when you narrow your frontline you definitely take a risk of being flanked or outnumbered while you lose this opportunity completely (granted both opponents are the same skill level)

[Geffalrus]

Do you imply your opponent will be just waiting for you to do all those adjustments without even attempting to capitalize on his advantage ? To me it sounds that your advise is to outplay opponent if he has wider formation. If it always can be done why not to just double-down on depth ? Why formation width is important ? I think you must agree that in general when you narrow your frontline you definitely take a risk of being flanked or outnumbered while you lose this opportunity completely (granted both opponents are the same skill level)

Not necessarily. Simply moving one flank slower than the other creates a diagonal refused flank that can mitigate the advantage of your opponent's superior numbers. Engaging the DRF directly takes additional time, outflanking it takes even more time, and ignoring it runs the risk of being outflanked in turn.

Outflanking only works if you can actually bring your extra units to bear on your opponent. Some of that is skill, but the movement points of units can also be a limiting factor. Especially when terrain comes into play.