32 Turns for Tournament Games

[SimonLancaster]

What do people think about setting it to 32 turns for tournament games? From time to time I just feel that I need more time for some manoeuvres. With 24 turns you more or less have to get going from the start. I have asked a few players and they say that they run out of time as well in some games (in most games only 24 turns are needed).

Would this change tactics much? Would it be better? Perhaps we could do it for larger games (like large armies/wide map)?

One issue that we have on this game is camping when there is a hill or something. Surely, if we set it to 32 turns then that would give the attacking player a better chance of completing manoeuvres to get around a hill or rough ground?

Just some thoughts.. maybe say yes or no and then reply!

[MikeC_81]

You would have more time to deal with campers.

[SimonLancaster]

You would have more time to deal with campers.

Which is a good thing!

[76mm]

I have always set my XL MP game to 36 turns. Works pretty well, I think. Rarely goes that long, but in the meantime you have time for more maneuvering, and camping is rarely effective. Not sure about the medium-sized tournament games, but 32 sounds about right.

[SimonLancaster]

In this game in the Digital League my opponent moved back after this turn with his main line. We didn't clash until turn 13 or something. It took time for my cavalry to get around him. But, maybe we want shorter games because it is more exciting, I don't know.

[rbodleyscott]

What do people think about setting it to 32 turns for tournament games?

Please no!

[stockwellpete]

No, it won't be happening in the Digital League. I am so opposed to the idea myself that I will not be offering a poll either. 24 turns is plenty long enough, in my opinion.

[TheGrayMouser]

Increasing the turn length only aids players whom, if given nicknames based on play style, would be dubbed “the Great Delayer” , “The Forester”, “Cocke on The Hill, “The Edger”, “Swing Wide and Deep, Forever” and “Flatearther”

[Swuul]

Increasing the turn length only aids players whom, if given nicknames based on play style, would be dubbed “the Great Delayer” , “The Forester”, “Cocke on The Hill, “The Edger”, “Swing Wide and Deep, Forever” and “Flatearther”

I don't know. This season in Digital League I have in three different matches been running after an opponent who not only tries to stay as far back as possible, but is actively trying to run away from fights. Strangely those three players seem to have achieved quite a few 0-0 draws in their other matches... If I wasn't such an aggressive player myself, I would never had time to even make contact with the opponent lines in 24 turns, and it has been close shaves as it is.

I don't think it would be cool to play 36 turn matches regularily, but I am not fond of players who do not even attempt to play a match but are actively trying to ruin the fun for both. I can understand people taking advantage of strong tactical positions and using the map-features to their advantage, but that is quite different from taking a highly mobile army and never even releasing an arrow as they are in such a hurry to run away attempting to hide Such players are the true "Grand Delayers", and I bet they are on their knees every evening thanking the matches last only 24 turns

[rbodleyscott]

Increasing the turn length only aids players whom, if given nicknames based on play style, would be dubbed “the Great Delayer” , “The Forester”, “Cocke on The Hill, “The Edger”, “Swing Wide and Deep, Forever” and “Flatearther”

I don't know. This season in Digital League I have in three different matches been running after an opponent who not only tries to stay as far back as possible, but is actively trying to run away from fights. Strangely those three players seem to have achieved quite a few 0-0 draws in their other matches... If I wasn't such an aggressive player myself, I would never had time to even make contact with the opponent lines in 24 turns, and it has been close shaves as it is.

I don't think it would be cool to play 36 turn matches regularily, but I am not fond of players who do not even attempt to play a match but are actively trying to ruin the fun for both. I can understand people taking advantage of strong tactical positions and using the map-features to their advantage, but that is quite different from taking a highly mobile army and never even releasing an arrow as they are in such a hurry to run away attempting to hide Such players are the true "Grand Delayers", and I bet they are on their knees every evening thanking the matches last only 24 turns

And yet another 8 turns of such tedium would not increase my enjoyment, for one. I guess I might concede just to get it over with, but I don't suppose that is what the proposal was aiming for.

[76mm]

I find the strong negative reaction interesting, I guess the dynamic is different in tournament games than in standard MP games, where people generally pick up a game because they want to fight rather than run around the battlefield. Plus XL battlefields are bigger, so naturally take more time to navigate.

The only problem I've had with game length is with a few MP epic battles, where there is NO limit on turns...I had one go to 70 turns before I could convince my opponent to call a draw...

[Swuul]

I guess I might concede just to get it over with, but I don't suppose that is what the proposal was aiming for.

I am way too competetive to concede. Even when I am down 63-0 I hope a miracle will happen which would allow me to make a comeback

[Ludendorf]

Is this really a major problem? I've yet to encounter a player who could keep away from me for 24 turns straight. A couple of close shaves that forced me to fight at a disadvantage, usually due to corner camping or fortifying mountainous or heavily forested terrain but nothing insurmountable, or even something that made for an uninteresting game. Then again, I am one of those weirdos who actually relishes a chance to extricate an opponent from an easily defensible but static position.

Its not something I want to be doing every battle, but it provides an interesting puzzle, and trying to statically defend actually puts you at a major disadvantage against a player who is patient enough to worm their way around your flanks (or just shoot you to death). Some of my most interesting games, including one of my most memorable defeats, have been cases where my opponent has started off trying to play like that, but then came out and started defending their position actively after I made it clear I was eventually going to break their position if they continued to stay in place.

I've never had a player take a horse army and just run away from me the entire game. I've had a few cases where a clearly defeated player has forced or tried to force a draw, but that in my mind is fair play; no general in history worth their salt would let their army break if they could delay the outcome until nightfall and then withdraw with their mauled army still intact and able to try again another time.

[TheGrayMouser]

Is this really a major problem? I've yet to encounter a player who could keep away from me for 24 turns straight. A couple of close shaves that forced me to fight at a disadvantage, usually due to corner camping or fortifying mountainous or heavily forested terrain but nothing insurmountable, or even something that made for an uninteresting game. Then again, I am one of those weirdos who actually relishes a chance to extricate an opponent from an easily defensible but static position.

Its not something I want to be doing every battle, but it provides an interesting puzzle, and trying to statically defend actually puts you at a major disadvantage against a player who is patient enough to worm their way around your flanks (or just shoot you to death). Some of my most interesting games, including one of my most memorable defeats, have been cases where my opponent has started off trying to play like that, but then came out and started defending their position actively after I made it clear I was eventually going to break their position if they continued to stay in place.

I've never had a player take a horse army and just run away from me the entire game. I've had a few cases where a clearly defeated player has forced or tried to force a draw, but that in my mind is fair play; no general in history worth their salt would let their army break if they could delay the outcome until nightfall and then withdraw with their mauled army still intact and able to try again another time.

Arguably very few ancient or medieval battles allowed a mauled army to slink away, they broke and that was it.

[Ludendorf]

Arguably very few ancient or medieval battles allowed a mauled army to slink away, they broke and that was it.

That is a fair point. Actually, how many battles were settled due to night falling and the engagement being broken off? I do seem to recall a few battles that went on and on for multiple days, with battle resuming the next day.

[Swuul]

I've never had a player take a horse army and just run away from me the entire game.

I hadn't thought of the possibility, but I have one battle (classic antique) still ongoing where the opponent had three cavalry, three light horses and a few light foot. Those all ran around my flank, without attempt to engage in combat. Their medium foot infantry were hiding in a forest (and their only heavy foot, a closed order warband, is there too), and attempted to sneak around my flank in the forest when I started to smell something is fishy. I have now made contact with the medium foot and have routed off one cavalry, but I have just a few turns left, so it looks like I won't even get 20% so that I would get the two points for the effort (yeah, looks like it is going to be 0-0 draw because my opponent for sure isn't interested in killing off even a single soldier in my army, yippeepoopingokay ). Not fun

[TheGrayMouser]

Arguably very few ancient or medieval battles allowed a mauled army to slink away, they broke and that was it.

That is a fair point. Actually, how many battles were settled due to night falling and the engagement being broken off? I do seem to recall a few battles that went on and on for multiple days, with battle resuming the next day.

I’m sure there are some. I think of Hastings going on til dark, but that was really the mopping up stage.

[kronenblatt]

Currently the points system in the Digital League is as follows, right?

4 points - for a win where the losing player has not scored 50% or more
3 points - for a marginal win where the losing player has scored 50% or more
2 points - for a tie where both players score 60% or more, or for a draw where a player has scored at least 25%
1 point - for a marginal defeat where the losing player has scored 50% or more
0 points - for a loss, or for a draw where a player has not scored 25% or more

So in the case of a draw, do I understand it correctly that if one player has scored 25%+ at the end of the 24 turns, he/she gets 2p, and if he/she hasn't reached 25% will instead get 0p? So draws can produce different points to the two players?

Would it then make sense to instead somewhat tweak the points system? For example, adjusting the 25% to something lower to de-incentivize passivity?

[SimonLancaster]

Currently the points system in the Digital League is as follows, right?

4 points - for a win where the losing player has not scored 50% or more
3 points - for a marginal win where the losing player has scored 50% or more
2 points - for a tie where both players score 60% or more, or for a draw where a player has scored at least 25%
1 point - for a marginal defeat where the losing player has scored 50% or more
0 points - for a loss, or for a draw where a player has not scored 25% or more

So in the case of a draw, do I understand it correctly that if one player has scored 25%+ at the end of the 24 turns, he/she gets 2p, and if he/she hasn't reached 25% will instead get 0p? So draws can produce different points to the two players?

Would it then make sense to instead somewhat tweak the points system? For example, adjusting the 25% to something lower to de-incentivize passivity?

I think the 2 points for a draw works well at the moment. I remember one game this season in the Digital League where I was on a hill and my opponent wouldn't attack me. We had done some skirmishing and used a few units up and the score was 17-9 to me or so. The turns were ticking down and I decided to attack to get over 25%. He needed to do the same so it was a good incentive.

[SimonLancaster]

In a non-league game that I am playing now my opponent has tons of cavalry that he will probably want to sweep around me and his infantry is way at the back of the map on a hill. It is turn 4 now and I don't know when I will make contact...