The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[SimonLancaster]

I don't know... someone asked me last season for another map and I said no. I prefer to just play on with what I have in front of me. It has potential to cause conflict when someone asks and is refused.. another layer of confusion. We did talk about this before and some people would even write in the game title 'No Reruns!'.

Then if you made it a rule with no option - player B requests it and then you play on another map it could work out very well for player B. You could go from rough ground and swamps to a nice open plain for his phalanx army!!

[desertedfox]

Given there are a limited number of army lists to choose from and within them are a limited number of "offensive" armies, someone is going to be stuck with a rather defensive army.

Given that is the case they either try and find a good defensive position or they march into the open field to be slaughtered. I unfortunately in my selections this time around took 3 fairly defensive armies. I won't be doing that again.

I am actually doing worse than when I had offensive armies. One major factor is you hand the initiative to the attacker and that counts for a huge advantage. This is my 3rd tournamnt and I remember in my first one I came across an opponent completely sitting on a hill in the cornerwith his archers/spears. I was able to pick the time and place to attack and won easily.

I am totally against any further penalties when there is a 0-0 score.

In one game this tourney I had crazy good defensive positions, my opponent suggested I come out of it to fight in the open, where I pointed out to him I would be slaughtered. He agreed this was true (I would be slughtered) and he tried to flank me and lost.

Cudos to him for trying. I did offer a draw once I made it clear I wasn't going to be a sacrifical lamb in the middle of the map.

Two words in closing, Crecy and Poitiers.

[General Shapur]

Yes, Elrawen started telling me not to move to the rough ground. He wouldn’t fight me and started retreating. I just said let’s agree a draw because it wasn’t pleasant.

I could have asked for a restart but we weren’t on sporting terms. I also really prefer to play on what is in front of me. Every time I see someone on a hill or on rough ground I should ask for a restart?

Perhaps the request to change terrain on turn 1 should be made mandatory and not on agreement if that request is made. Then no unpleasant situations.
I have had a few games where I've been informed of what will result if I stay in good terrain - even before I have decided to stay here or not, and that just leaves a bitter taste.

[MikeC_81]

Then if you made it a rule with no option - player B requests it and then you play on another map it could work out very well for player B. You could go from rough ground and swamps to a nice open plain for his phalanx army!!

Player A retains the right to use his own map veto in this case if it is a blank slate. I am using this system in my own small 3 round tournament, I'll poll the crowd afterwards and see what they thought of it. I used the rule myself against TheGrayMouser when I was assigned a Pike Army and the map was a set of escalating hills on his side with difficult slopes and tons of rough.

In one game this tourney I had crazy good defensive positions, my opponent suggested I come out of it to fight in the open, where I pointed out to him I would be slaughtered. He agreed this was true (I would be slughtered) and he tried to flank me and lost.

Cudos to him for trying. I did offer a draw once I made it clear I wasn't going to be a sacrifical lamb in the middle of the map.

Two words in closing, Crecy and Poitiers.

So in short you made him be the sacrificial lamb by forcing an assault on your position via the threat of a 0-0 draw. This is exactly what is wrong imo with what is happening in the DL.

[Karvon]

In Chaos Tourney, each player can exercise a veto once and can mutually agree to an additional map reroll. I've had no negative feedback over the past three seasons.

In DL, I've asked for a single reroll a few times and all but once my opponent graciously accepted. In that particular case, I simply minimized the engagement and it ended in a draw. In one game where both of us were running horse armies we both agreed to the max 3 rerolls, as we kept getting heavy forests and/or steep rugged hills dominating with a waterway or impassible river thrown in for good measure.

[stockwellpete]

In one game this tourney I had crazy good defensive positions, my opponent suggested I come out of it to fight in the open, where I pointed out to him I would be slaughtered. He agreed this was true (I would be slughtered) and he tried to flank me and lost.

Cudos to him for trying. I did offer a draw once I made it clear I wasn't going to be a sacrifical lamb in the middle of the map.

Two words in closing, Crecy and Poitiers.

So in short you made him be the sacrificial lamb by forcing an assault on your position via the threat of a 0-0 draw. This is exactly what is wrong imo with what is happening in the DL.

He did no such thing. He offered a draw which was declined.

[stockwellpete]

In Chaos Tourney, each player can exercise a veto once and can mutually agree to an additional map reroll. I've had no negative feedback over the past three seasons.

In DL, I've asked for a single reroll a few times and all but once my opponent graciously accepted. In that particular case, I simply minimized the engagement and it ended in a draw. In one game where both of us were running horse armies we both agreed to the max 3 rerolls, as we kept getting heavy forests and/or steep rugged hills dominating with a waterway or impassible river thrown in for good measure.

The trouble is that there is a big difference in the size of the tournaments. The FOG2DL this season has nearly 1,000 matches scheduled and it would be down to me to monitor the use of vetoes and resolve any issues arising. Sorry, no can do. I have more than enough to deal with already.

[General Shapur]

Theres probably a good answer to this, but. Would playing the games as Advance Guard games make things better?

Points for flag capture on other side of the battlefield preventing camping - still get main force arriving in a few turns without being allowed to strategically place units in front of terrain matching their type.

If people arent aware - it is an existing scenario type. I enjoy the game play.

Opinions?

[Karvon]

In Chaos Tourney, each player can exercise a veto once and can mutually agree to an additional map reroll. I've had no negative feedback over the past three seasons.

In DL, I've asked for a single reroll a few times and all but once my opponent graciously accepted. In that particular case, I simply minimized the engagement and it ended in a draw. In one game where both of us were running horse armies we both agreed to the max 3 rerolls, as we kept getting heavy forests and/or steep rugged hills dominating with a waterway or impassible river thrown in for good measure.

The trouble is that there is a big difference in the size of the tournaments. The FOG2DL this season has nearly 1,000 matches scheduled and it would be down to me to monitor the use of vetoes and resolve any issues arising. Sorry, no can do. I have more than enough to deal with already.

Um, there's nothing to monitor; players can veto one field per game, not per tourney.

[stockwellpete]

Um, there's nothing to monitor; players can veto one field per game, not per tourney.

Once each player per game, if required. I see. That will lead to a lot of re-setting and delays at the start of a game as players seek to optimise the map. Players will be picking armies and setting them up on the map and then the second player will veto the map and that time will have been wasted. A player entering 4 divisions might expect to go through this process over a dozen times a season, I guess. I am not sure if this is not just creating another set of problems myself

[Karvon]

Don't know about that; I've only asked 3-4 times in 4 seasons of DL myself and only one opponent ever asked me during the same span. In CT, I've used the option a couple of times maybe in three seasons. There's no guarantee the reroll will be better, so unless the map is really bad, I haven't used it. I suppose you could poll people and see what the reaction would be to the option.

[stockwellpete]

Don't know about that; I've only asked 3-4 times in 4 seasons of DL myself and only one opponent ever asked me during the same span. In CT, I've used the option a couple of times maybe in three seasons. There's no guarantee the reroll will be better, so unless the map is really bad, I haven't used it. I suppose you could poll people and see what the reaction would be to the option.

Well, I am not at all convinced that we have a problem. And we already have a trial arranged for next season in Classical Antiquity where players will be nominating either 1200pt or 1600pt armies. I am definitely not going to have 2 trials happening at the same time. So there is not going to be a poll on this subject this year.

I remember what happened when I brought in the change that allowed re-starts by agreement a few seasons back. Some players were very agitated about it and didn't enter the league the next season. So any change along the lines you are suggesting is going to agitate that group of players again, even more so because both players could exercise vetoes in the same match and the amount of faffing about before some games get underway will be extremely frustrating for some players. I expect some players to vote with their feet if something like that was brought in. It is very easy to say "let's change this, or let's change that", but the person left with the responsibility of sorting it out afterwards is me. And, at the moment, re-starts are not causing me any problems so I am happy to stick with what we have got.

[Karvon]

I understand. You're running a very large event and changes are best done incrementally, if at all, to minimize disruption.

[MikeMarchant]

In all the seasons I have been playing I have never asked my opponents for a change of terrain; I have simply accepted what has been presented. Similarly, I have only be asked to change the terrain by my opponent twice. I happily acquiesced on both occasions.


Best Wishes

Mike

[rs2excelsior]

I honestly don’t feel that defensive play leading to 0-0 draws is an endemic problem in the DL. From my perspective in three seasons in the lower divisions, I’ve never seen a 0-0 draw in the games I’ve played. I did have two 2-2 draws this season if I remember correctly. Neither was due to defensive play, even though in both cases one side dug into strong defensive terrain. They were more due to situations where one side had infantry left, the other had cavalry, and neither could force a decision on the other. In one of those two games, both of us started by playing defensively, until I was forced to attack by losing the skirmisher fight (That was the one I nearly won, by the way, I just had nothing to catch their cav or lights and no time to chase them around the map).

Personally I think the incentive of getting to 25% in a draw for 2 points (and a draw at less than that score counting as a loss) is plenty of incentive to try and fight even if you’re likely to end up in a draw, and I’d personally oppose penalties for playing defensively. In my opinion, it’s not up to your opponent to give you a fair fight. It’s up to each player to force the other into a fight which is as unfair as possible. If that means your opponent’s medium foot army is refusing to match into the open to die on your legion’s swords, then it’s up to you to lure them out, force them out, or use the initiative they’ve given you to find a point to attack where you can beat them anyway. Or use your option to request a reroll.

On the topic of rerolls, I think I have requested one, and don’t remember an opponent making a request on the initial map. The one I asked to reroll went from a map heavily weighted in my opponent’s favor to one heavily weighted in mine, which he objected to. The third map was more balanced and led to a good game. In this season I offered my opponent a reroll on one map, since it was dominated by rough hills and forests, and while I have medium foot options his army is lancers and heavy infantry. He declined, and the match is still in progress - but it looks like neither of us are going to be overly passive.

[desertedfox]

I honestly don’t feel that defensive play leading to 0-0 draws is an endemic problem in the DL. From my perspective in three seasons in the lower divisions, I’ve never seen a 0-0 draw in the games I’ve played. I did have two 2-2 draws this season if I remember correctly. Neither was due to defensive play, even though in both cases one side dug into strong defensive terrain. They were more due to situations where one side had infantry left, the other had cavalry, and neither could force a decision on the other. In one of those two games, both of us started by playing defensively, until I was forced to attack by losing the skirmisher fight (That was the one I nearly won, by the way, I just had nothing to catch their cav or lights and no time to chase them around the map).

Personally I think the incentive of getting to 25% in a draw for 2 points (and a draw at less than that score counting as a loss) is plenty of incentive to try and fight even if you’re likely to end up in a draw, and I’d personally oppose penalties for playing defensively. In my opinion, it’s not up to your opponent to give you a fair fight. It’s up to each player to force the other into a fight which is as unfair as possible. If that means your opponent’s medium foot army is refusing to match into the open to die on your legion’s swords, then it’s up to you to lure them out, force them out, or use the initiative they’ve given you to find a point to attack where you can beat them anyway. Or use your option to request a reroll.

On the topic of rerolls, I think I have requested one, and don’t remember an opponent making a request on the initial map. The one I asked to reroll went from a map heavily weighted in my opponent’s favor to one heavily weighted in mine, which he objected to. The third map was more balanced and led to a good game. In this season I offered my opponent a reroll on one map, since it was dominated by rough hills and forests, and while I have medium foot options his army is lancers and heavy infantry. He declined, and the match is still in progress - but it looks like neither of us are going to be overly passive.

+1

[harveylh]

In one game this tourney I had crazy good defensive positions, my opponent suggested I come out of it to fight in the open, where I pointed out to him I would be slaughtered. He agreed this was true (I would be slughtered) and he tried to flank me and lost.

Cudos to him for trying. I did offer a draw once I made it clear I wasn't going to be a sacrifical lamb in the middle of the map.

Two words in closing, Crecy and Poitiers.

So in short you made him be the sacrificial lamb by forcing an assault on your position via the threat of a 0-0 draw. This is exactly what is wrong imo with what is happening in the DL.

He did no such thing. He offered a draw which was declined.

I was the player that ended up being the sacrificial lamb. MikeC_81 is correct in I made the forlorn hope assault because of the threat of the 0-0 draw. My logic was since it did not appear that desertedfox was a threat to win the division, I was better off trying to get a point or two than accepting zero. If desertedfox had been a division contender then I would have accepted the 0-0 draw not wanting to help a contender to win the division. The bad luck with the crazy good defensive position (great description by desertedfox) will probably cost me a chance to win the division but those are the breaks. I think our current system is not perfect, but I cannot think of a better one.

Harvey

[GeneralKostas]

I think it depends on the matchup of both players and factions. I tend to play rather defensively against people who usually beat me; not that it saved me against Nosy_Rat or Ludendorf or pantherboy! But I think I did better than I would have with an offensive strategy. I even went so far as to camp and refuse to move from a strong position against Nosy_Rat in Early Medieval, for a 0-0 draw. Yet considering how he and I each did in the rest of the matchups (him very well, me 2 wins 3 draws 4 losses) I think camping for the draw was the right call. There were also some matches where I attacked and frankly I should have invited a draw rather than play to my opponent's strategy.

It's true that you have to attack to have a chance of scoring against a defensive opponent. But I think against opponents who camp 'unreasonably' you have to choices - just call them on it and draw, or try to find a way to attack. Both are valid.

Still, there's no sense getting that irritated about it. If you win all your matches except those in which your opponent camped too hard and went, say, 6 wins and 3 draws - you're very likely to promote a division. A player who always camps will not do so well, and is unlikely to promote. Even if they do promote, it's behavior that works better against less experienced players who aren't as versed in strategies like weighted flanks etc. as in higher divisions.

i have to say snuggles hits it on the head...camping is perfectly legit. why would someone get frustrated by that? if i'm a general leading an army of 50,000 troops and i find myself with a battlefield that greatly favors the enemy if i move...wouldn't i be foolish to move? endangering the lives of all my soldiers? live to fight another day is one of the oldest adages of combat. some armies are just plain not cut out to fight certain armies on certain map types.

and horse armies are perfectly legit. I can't say i like playing them, and i don't particularly like fighting them...but adapting to the enemy's army build of all horse or all inf. or all skirmishers etc... is what makes being a general in this game such a challenge. if we start cutting out some army types we reduce the range of challenges, and what make this game so great. to avoid these types of encounters choose the appropriate era or special and also an army that can adapt to differnt army types (ALWAYS a good idea).

Since the terrain is Pot Luck, both players should accept it and try the best. According to the terrain, every player should pick the appropriate units for the battle. It sounds immature to re-roll the terrain. Personally, i will never accept that and i suggest to delete this option from the Digital League rules.

[stockwellpete]

So in short you made him be the sacrificial lamb by forcing an assault on your position via the threat of a 0-0 draw. This is exactly what is wrong imo with what is happening in the DL.

He did no such thing. He offered a draw which was declined.

I was the player that ended up being the sacrificial lamb. MikeC_81 is correct in I made the forlorn hope assault because of the threat of the 0-0 draw. My logic was since it did not appear that desertedfox was a threat to win the division, I was better off trying to get a point or two than accepting zero. If desertedfox had been a division contender then I would have accepted the 0-0 draw not wanting to help a contender to win the division. The bad luck with the crazy good defensive position (great description by desertedfox) will probably cost me a chance to win the division but those are the breaks. I think our current system is not perfect, but I cannot think of a better one.

Harvey

It sounds to me like you are making choices here, Harvey. Did you not suggest a re-set? Rule 4 states, "Players may agree to re-start a match within the first three turns if they believe the terrain is likely to produce a sterile match or a draw. The maximum number of re-starts permitted for a single match is two."

[harveylh]

He did no such thing. He offered a draw which was declined.

I was the player that ended up being the sacrificial lamb. MikeC_81 is correct in I made the forlorn hope assault because of the threat of the 0-0 draw. My logic was since it did not appear that desertedfox was a threat to win the division, I was better off trying to get a point or two than accepting zero. If desertedfox had been a division contender then I would have accepted the 0-0 draw not wanting to help a contender to win the division. The bad luck with the crazy good defensive position (great description by desertedfox) will probably cost me a chance to win the division but those are the breaks. I think our current system is not perfect, but I cannot think of a better one.

Harvey

It sounds to me like you are making choices here, Harvey. Did you not suggest a re-set? Rule 4 states, "Players may agree to re-start a match within the first three turns if they believe the terrain is likely to produce a sterile match or a draw. The maximum number of re-starts permitted for a single match is two."

Pete,
I think you missed this part of desertedfox's post,
In one game this tourney I had crazy good defensive positions, my opponent suggested I come out of it to fight in the open, where I pointed out to him I would be slaughtered.


I asked for a map reset and desertedfox said no. Don't both players have to agree to a map reset? That is my understanding. So as I said before I could accept a 0-0 draw or try if I was very lucky to get a point or two attacking a very strong defensive position. What other choice did I have?

Harvey