The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

We were talking about using the larger format right across the tournament just under a year ago . . .

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)
Post by stockwellpete » 09 Aug 2019 14:02
Yes the 1600 point experiment has gone well. The armies are not a great deal bigger and the match completion rate for Biblical is the same as for the other sections. Perhaps I should do another poll with regards to rolling it out right across the tournament for next season?

I have no objection to it myself. There are no logistical arguments against doing it. I could run a poll to see what the wider view of such a change might be. The crucial question is how many people would stop playing in the league if we introduced it. To be honest, I don't think it would be very many players at all.

[melm]

It does kind of make me wonder. Can a unit of 240 cavalrymen really ignore a body of horse half their size crashing into their flanks without turning the formation to face, even if they are just light horsemen armed with javelins and short swords? It feels like the kind of thing which SHOULD be a problem.

If we consider that one rank models are acutally many ranks formation, it may not be a big problem that the rear ranks of 240 cavalrymen could turn and counter 120 cavalrymen while others, perhaps majority, still keep their facing.

[random27]

I agree with that , i prefer large battles , i m new to the league and i would accept any of the decisions because i m too happy to play in that tournament , but my opinion is that large batlles are better

[Swuul]

I could run a poll to see what the wider view of such a change might be.

If I was captain Picard to you, I would say:


But as it is just me, I would say "The outcome of the poll might be quite predictable."

[pompeytheflatulent]

I prefer large battles, but for a different reason. On medium sized maps it can feel pretty cramped if the map rolls with water cutting off a quarter of the map, or if there is mountains, or large forests or swamps.

[paulmcneil]

Regarding battle-sizes in Digital League. Pete told a moment ago the difference of battle-sizes (Medium in Classic and Later Antique, Large in Biblical and Early Medieval) is for variety reasons. I have to say I personally have this season began to dislike the Medium sized battles, as there the randomness plays a bigger role than in Large battles, and the armies can be more versatile in Large than in Medium. A couple doubledrops in a single turn feels bad in Large battles but in Medium battles it is quite devastating, a generals death is nasty in Large but crippling in Medium.

If at some point it was to be decided all eras would be played as Large battles, I for one would be in the crowd performing the standing ovation

Yeah I agree, anything that makes the chance factor less devastating overall, and shifts the balance towards skill and tactics with a bit of chance to add some sauce to the meal.

[rs2excelsior]

I too have enjoyed the large-size battles in Biblical and Early Middle Ages and don’t find them any more time consuming or onerous to complete. I’d be in favor of making CA/LA large size battles as well (although a general poll would be good to see too - maybe with separate options for “I oppose this change” and “I oppose this change, and would likely stop playing in the DL if all battles were large”).

Originally posted a comment about this on the question thread, deleted it and posted here instead when I saw this discussion going on.

[MikeC_81]

On that topic, what effect has 1600 point games had upon the large vs small elite army debate? I would have thought more points would give the more expensive army a bit of breathing space. There's more room for those elite troops to score disruptions and fragmentations over time if the army sizes are greater and flanking units have a longer march to get around the flanks and into the guts of the enemy army. Should be a simple matter of surface area.

This entirely depends on the army list composition. For armies that already have expensive cores and very little chaff to fill out the ranks, the large vs small army issue is exacerbated. We already know that "elite" units need to be much better than their opponent's units to reliably generate disruptions and fragmentations needed to go in on a head-on attack. If you can't get reliability in this fashion, then the answer is always to go wide which some army lists simply can't do even at 1600 FP. Medium Foot and other chaff armies will be the primary beneficiaries. That is a simple exercise of allowing the incremental point efficiency per to grow over a large FP. A chaff army might be able to gain an extra 2 maneuver elements at 1200 FP after compulsory buys of expensive units but potentially a lot more as it scales to 1600 FP since an average of say, an average 6 point difference per unit in non-compulsories can add up quickly. These extra elements will be stretched over a wider area but in many circumstances and chaff armies might have to build larger reserves, but in my experience, it just means the expensive armies now have that many more flanks to try and protect along the battle line.

As for RNG effects, my main experience with 1600 FP came from before the DL in a couple of side tournaments, and when I played 1600 FP EMA for one season. The RNG is different but not necessarily less. 1200FP battles tend to pivot around a decisive event that most players plan for and the outcome of the game is heavily weighted on one or two die rolls at times. Think Vet Roman Principes crashing into the softer parts of a Pike army where the Romans simply have to break their troops via Impact or their friends are likely going to get ground down by Pikes before the Vets can clean up and help in sufficient numbers. Or our game long ago in the KO tournament when the 1 LH who managed to tie down my flanking cav unit that was about to auto drop your anchor unit the following turn. Failure to execute or poor RNG for one side or the other at these critical moments meant inevitable defeat unless RNG swung back severely on the other side in less critical areas.

I found 1600 FP games to have more than one event but quite often split evenly. But all that manages to accomplish for most of my 1600 FP games was that both sides would clean up the respective wings where they were victorious and now you had a hodgepodge of depleted units coming together for a '600 FP final battle' where all sorts of random things also happened. They do take longer though and I have had 1200 FP matches essentially enter clean up phase for the victor as early as turn 10 and I could shut off my brain while the game plays out, whereas 1600 FP games often require the last phase of grinding that goes well into 16+.

Like with the previous rallying arguments before, it rarely comes down to changes that reduce RNG, but whether players feel better about where the RNG kicks in so when you lose to RNG and not via mistakes or skill, it feels less like a kick in the balls.

[DanZanzibar]

On that topic, what effect has 1600 point games had upon the large vs small elite army debate? I would have thought more points would give the more expensive army a bit of breathing space. There's more room for those elite troops to score disruptions and fragmentations over time if the army sizes are greater and flanking units have a longer march to get around the flanks and into the guts of the enemy army. Should be a simple matter of surface area.

This entirely depends on the army list composition. For armies that already have expensive cores and very little chaff to fill out the ranks, the large vs small army issue is exacerbated. We already know that "elite" units need to be much better than their opponent's units to reliably generate disruptions and fragmentations needed to go in on a head-on attack. If you can't get reliability in this fashion, then the answer is always to go wide which some army lists simply can't do even at 1600 FP. Medium Foot and other chaff armies will be the primary beneficiaries. That is a simple exercise of allowing the incremental point efficiency per to grow over a large FP. A chaff army might be able to gain an extra 2 maneuver elements at 1200 FP after compulsory buys of expensive units but potentially a lot more as it scales to 1600 FP since an average of say, an average 6 point difference per unit in non-compulsories can add up quickly. These extra elements will be stretched over a wider area but in many circumstances and chaff armies might have to build larger reserves, but in my experience, it just means the expensive armies now have that many more flanks to try and protect along the battle line.

As for RNG effects, my main experience with 1600 FP came from before the DL in a couple of side tournaments, and when I played 1600 FP EMA for one season. The RNG is different but not necessarily less. 1200FP battles tend to pivot around a decisive event that most players plan for and the outcome of the game is heavily weighted on one or two die rolls at times. Think Vet Roman Principes crashing into the softer parts of a Pike army where the Romans simply have to break their troops via Impact or their friends are likely going to get ground down by Pikes before the Vets can clean up and help in sufficient numbers. Or our game long ago in the KO tournament when the 1 LH who managed to tie down my flanking cav unit that was about to auto drop your anchor unit the following turn. Failure to execute or poor RNG for one side or the other at these critical moments meant inevitable defeat unless RNG swung back severely on the other side in less critical areas.

I found 1600 FP games to have more than one event but quite often split evenly. But all that manages to accomplish for most of my 1600 FP games was that both sides would clean up the respective wings where they were victorious and now you had a hodgepodge of depleted units coming together for a '600 FP final battle' where all sorts of random things also happened. They do take longer though and I have had 1200 FP matches essentially enter clean up phase for the victor as early as turn 10 and I could shut off my brain while the game plays out, whereas 1600 FP games often require the last phase of grinding that goes well into 16+.

Like with the previous rallying arguments before, it rarely comes down to changes that reduce RNG, but whether players feel better about where the RNG kicks in so when you lose to RNG and not via mistakes or skill, it feels less like a kick in the balls.

I totally agree with this. If 1600 point battles feel less luck-oriented to anyone and that's what they want, that's great and I have no interest arguing with that. I do seriously doubt that there is an appreciably higher % of games that luck decides rather than skill at 1200 vs 1600.

Then again, I don't feel luck really determines that many games other than ones that are incredibly close (obviously slimmer margins mean lucky events matter more). Seems to me the player who relies least on luck usually wins. I have come to see though that having this perspective is largely a personal decision and many don't choose to feel that way.

[melm]

I totally agree with this. If 1600 point battles feel less luck-oriented to anyone and that's what they want, that's great and I have no interest arguing with that. I do seriously doubt that there is an appreciably higher % of games that luck decides rather than skill at 1200 vs 1600.

Then again, I don't feel luck really determines that many games other than ones that are incredibly close (obviously slimmer margins mean lucky events matter more). Seems to me the player who relies least on luck usually wins. I have come to see though that having this perspective is largely a personal decision and many don't choose to feel that way.

The more FP, the more units on the map. Thus, we have more trials when units interact with each others. So technically, if the experiment has more trials, the resulting distribution is closer to the designed distribution. That's why people feel less luck-oriented.

[MikeC_81]

I totally agree with this. If 1600 point battles feel less luck-oriented to anyone and that's what they want, that's great and I have no interest arguing with that. I do seriously doubt that there is an appreciably higher % of games that luck decides rather than skill at 1200 vs 1600.

Then again, I don't feel luck really determines that many games other than ones that are incredibly close (obviously slimmer margins mean lucky events matter more). Seems to me the player who relies least on luck usually wins. I have come to see though that having this perspective is largely a personal decision and many don't choose to feel that way.

The more FP, the more units on the map. Thus, we have more trials when units interact with each others. So technically, if the experiment has more trials, the resulting distribution is closer to the designed distribution. That's why people feel less luck-oriented.

But not all trials are weighted the same.

[nyczar]

I could run a poll to see what the wider view of such a change might be.

If I was captain Picard to you, I would say:


But as it is just me, I would say "The outcome of the poll might be quite predictable."

Results of a poll would be interesting to see.

[melm]

I totally agree with this. If 1600 point battles feel less luck-oriented to anyone and that's what they want, that's great and I have no interest arguing with that. I do seriously doubt that there is an appreciably higher % of games that luck decides rather than skill at 1200 vs 1600.

Then again, I don't feel luck really determines that many games other than ones that are incredibly close (obviously slimmer margins mean lucky events matter more). Seems to me the player who relies least on luck usually wins. I have come to see though that having this perspective is largely a personal decision and many don't choose to feel that way.

The more FP, the more units on the map. Thus, we have more trials when units interact with each others. So technically, if the experiment has more trials, the resulting distribution is closer to the designed distribution. That's why people feel less luck-oriented.

But not all trials are weighted the same.

We can't go to too much detail. What I write is just a rough, big picture to explain that the less luck-oriented feeling has its ground.

[DanZanzibar]

I totally agree with this. If 1600 point battles feel less luck-oriented to anyone and that's what they want, that's great and I have no interest arguing with that. I do seriously doubt that there is an appreciably higher % of games that luck decides rather than skill at 1200 vs 1600.

Then again, I don't feel luck really determines that many games other than ones that are incredibly close (obviously slimmer margins mean lucky events matter more). Seems to me the player who relies least on luck usually wins. I have come to see though that having this perspective is largely a personal decision and many don't choose to feel that way.

The more FP, the more units on the map. Thus, we have more trials when units interact with each others. So technically, if the experiment has more trials, the resulting distribution is closer to the designed distribution. That's why people feel less luck-oriented.

Well I obviously understand the basic notion you're getting at and didn't bother to explain the fundamentals of math to you, it doesn't actually follow that luck will therefore play a smaller role. What you've described is correct if we were to say roll dice 10 times. Whoever rolls higher wins the round. If I had some skill at rolling dice you didn't, then sure, rolling 100 times will make it more likely for me to win the entire match. That's an awfully oversimplified way of looking at FOG2.

It's a complicated system that has elements of luck (or RNG or whatever you want to call it) built in, and the important thing to evaluate is how players interact with it. For instance, in either a 1200 or 1600 point scenario, you may have one unit that has to win his high probability combat right now for your plan not to fall apart. In this case it doesn't matter that there are more total units on the field. Sure, in general, larger armies may mean no single one game combat resolution will (again generally) have as large an impact. That does not translate to there being a significant change in luck influencing the outcomes of games.

My quick example is just one example of how things can remain the same between the games - it is not meant to say that's how it always works. But when people jump on and say that yes, it's obvious large armies reduced the luck factor and emphasized skill... I think that is just ridiculous. We are using anecdotal evidence here and speculating as any rigorous analysis of this would be impractical. Anecdotally, and speculatively, I will say it again - I seriously doubt skilled players are at a disadvantage in smaller army games and I think win percentages wouldn't change.

[DanZanzibar]

The more FP, the more units on the map. Thus, we have more trials when units interact with each others. So technically, if the experiment has more trials, the resulting distribution is closer to the designed distribution. That's why people feel less luck-oriented.

But not all trials are weighted the same.

We can't go to too much detail. What I write is just a rough, big picture to explain that the less luck-oriented feeling has its ground.

Sorry - I just assumed we all understood the idea that more combat units seems to indicate a single combat is less relevant and instead tried to talk about how you need to look deeper at the question. I do understand why, especially at first glance, you could assume that luck/RNG becomes less of a factor.

[melm]

But not all trials are weighted the same.

We can't go to too much detail. What I write is just a rough, big picture to explain that the less luck-oriented feeling has its ground.

Sorry - I just assumed we all understood the idea that more combat units seems to indicate a single combat is less relevant and instead tried to talk about how you need to look deeper at the question. I do understand why, especially at first glance, you could assume that luck/RNG becomes less of a factor.

Well, you have a good argument. I think our difference is that your luck defined as a single, maybe pivtol event while my definition of luck is upon the distribution of the results. Correct me if I interpreted wrong.

[DanZanzibar]

We can't go to too much detail. What I write is just a rough, big picture to explain that the less luck-oriented feeling has its ground.

Sorry - I just assumed we all understood the idea that more combat units seems to indicate a single combat is less relevant and instead tried to talk about how you need to look deeper at the question. I do understand why, especially at first glance, you could assume that luck/RNG becomes less of a factor.

Well, you have a good argument. I think our difference is that your luck defined as a single, maybe pivtol event while my definition of luck is upon the distribution of the results. Correct me if I interpreted wrong.

I see that you're defining it that way... and it's sensible. But the context of this discussion is how game outcomes are impacted by the luck of either a single, pivotal event or the overall cumulative luck of the match. I agree that it is less likely then for one player to have great luck all the time in a larger battle but I don't find this is what often happens anyway, given the sample size of # of combats in even a medium force battle is quite large. I think that players usually feel robbed when something that is very likely to go their way (and must for their plan to work) doesn't - and this is usually a single or small number of events in quick succession. Because of this I don't think there is much difference is having armies 33% larger.

There is another key reason why luck may play a larger factor in a larger battle, at least locally. You would agree, I think, that with more sample points (i.e. more combats) you will get more outliers - double drops from advantaged attackers... whatever you want to fill the blank in with. Because of this and the fact that the geometry of the game means that there is likely the same number of troops close by to help, you may actually have a more chaotic battle line. But also due to a longer battle line, you may have 2 double drop in the same area more likely (again, it's just more outliers). You could ague that this is not as significant because the battle is larger but this is a real consideration if one is to claim that large battles are more about skill and medium battles are more about luck.

Because you can't just evaluate how much more luck is involved in large vs. medium battles, I think it would generally be most insightful to rely on experienced players feelings of past experience (certainly not infallible though). People often like to jump on what seems an obvious logical argument as fact when it may just over simplify the situation - as I think is happening here. Some have readily stated (implicitly because of the explanation you stated originally) that large = more skill, medium = more chance.

I would really like to hear from players more experienced than myself as to if they feel large battles actually significantly increase the value of their skill. In my personal experience, I have had some lucky matches against players better than me as often in large matches as not.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I personally very much prefer Medium sized battles. Trust me, when you're playing 4 sections and 36 matches you really start to feel the increased time that large sized matches take. I also have never really been bothered by the role that luck plays in the game, so there is that. If all the sections were large, I would just have to play in fewer sections, as I am barely able to handle 2 Large and 2 Medium sized sections. That would be a shame, as I enjoy all four.

[nyczar]

I understand how people become frustrated with the RNG (and other macro/micro game mechanics). I have played in over 600 games now since FOGII came out and there are indeed maybe 4-6 games I vividly recall where extreme outlier results won me/cost me the game...or so I believe....I remind myself that that a RNG roll was actually the culminating event in a series of my choices that led to the roll in the first place...maybe the game was lost/won there? No matter, I am at peace with the RNG because FOGII is meant to be neither Chess nor GO. Just as in my work life where I need to make a 2021 Profit/loss projection in a highly uncertain Covid-19 environment, FOGII is about skill given uncertainty.

The same players defeat me in 1200 and 1600 point games. They will continue to do so until my skill improves. They will continue to win until my vision of the battlefield (what I choose to include in my list and how I choose to place my troops) is as good or better than they. They will continue to do so until I can adjust my game plan to reflect the facts on the field when I see their disposition; they will continue to do so until I refuse to do what they want and make them do what I want; they will continue to do so until I insist on engaging with better match ups; they will continue to do so until I learn how to fight with lancers, bows and everything else other than superior impact foot; they will continue to do so until I master defending my flanks vs. swarm armies; they will continue to do so until I master how to use ZOC to frustrate my opponents; they will continue to do so....and the the list can grow and grow to include all the parts of this game that make it so deep and engaging. If there is one thing I have learned losing to the top players is that they minimize their risk, maximize their opponent's risk, and keep reserves handy for the unexpected.

The RNG is by definition something we cant control and we are all subject to its whims. What I focus is on is improving the skill I bring to field.

[kronenblatt]

I have idea what to do with rally of routed units: replace them with adding of routed unit soldiers(or some percentage of them) to similar units which are close to them OR ignore them in percent score, score stay as there is no rally.

I like the second idea (had it myself too): routed units are treated as permanently routed for the purpose of score calculation, so that it doesn't affect the score if a routed unit rallies to fragmented or better.