The Dustbin

[deeter]

Wouldn't larger armies also lessen the influence of generals on morale or do they scale up too?

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

Please note that XLegione is having problems with "merging" his Slitherine account and will be using the name Stefano63 until the problem is sorted out.

[paulmcneil]

Division B

paulmcneil (parthians) beat (Nijis) Sassanids 49:24

[SnuggleBunnies]

Division A

SnuggleBunnies (Bosporans) defeats XLegione (Romans) 47-19

https://youtu.be/pczH7ICR9SQ

GG

[nyczar]

nyczar » 10 Jul 2020 10:28

More list points mitigates the medium infantry swarm risk faced by high quality (heavy) lists due to inferior unit numbers

In all likelihood, the player using a "medium infantry swarm" will be very reluctant to agree to a large battle. Hence, the argument for larger battles seems redundant if it is to be by agreement.

I think one has to hark back to the reason for increasing army size. If it is to provide relief for armies who rely on expensive troop types or to reduce the effectiveness of swarm armies it may be desirable to drop the "agreement" condition. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to identify 'the problem army lists' and decree battles involving these lists should be 1600 points.

I only present this discussion as possible solutions to "tweeking" others concerns about an already perfectly good simple system. I personally love my 'expensive troop types' who regularly get swamped by cheaper troop types...hussar!

Moreover, there is definitely a point of difference between the Digi-league and the Slitherine tournaments. Attributes of the Slitherine tournament genre include historical opponents, going large and mirror games, which gives their competition a flavour all of it's own. In contrast, I think what attracts me more to the Digi-league is the handicap system and the variety (i.e. themed, defined periods, some 1200pts, some 1600pts) So, lets celebrate that enlightened choice of list and combination of troop types, or that stunning charge, or continue to be awed and stunned by that unexpected collapse, and continue to enjoy the game regardless of the points!

i don't understand this idea that larger battles help the smaller more elite armies...larger battles help the swarm armies MORE. Go build a Welsh army and our favorite, the Seleucid. At 1600pt the welsh will outnumber the seleuicid 2 to 1...an astonishing 40+ non skirmish troops. the larger field gives more room to manouver, and so the welsh can find more ways to use the numerical advantage. I'm against the large army idea partly because of that (just having to watch my opponent move 50+ troops around is tiring...let alone responding to that kind of mess). Aside from mitigating some of the uncertainties (luck) the large battles take more time and will mean fewer players, but don't appreciably change the outcomes, tactics, strategies or manouvering. (and without the luck factor what will we all complain about ?? )

A larger heavy force can expand the area that a larger medium force must travel to find a flank(s), allowing the heavy force more time to break the center and support the wings....in theory...

[SpeedyCM]

Pete, MadMaxBot hasn't taken up the game I setup over 10 days ago. He still hasn't even read the PM I sent so I'm not sure he is even checking this forum.

[GDod]

Division C

GDod - Byzantine 551-578 AD beats SawyerK - Roman 285-312 AD with Armenian 253-476 AD allies 44-18%

The Romans sent out skirmishers who became isolated while the rest sat on a hill. The Byzantines went up the hill over a few speed bumps ...but all in good humour. Next time it's your turn SK!

[stockwellpete]

Pete, MadMaxBot hasn't taken up the game I setup over 10 days ago. He still hasn't even read the PM I sent so I'm not sure he is even checking this forum.

Yes, his last visit to the forum (logged in) is 9th July according to the system. He has 2 PM's from me just sitting forlornly in my Outbox. I think he is AWOL and I will be wrapping up his matches first thing Sunday morning if he does not contact me.

[Nosy_Rat]

Division A

Nosy_Rat (Cimmerians) defeats ianiow (Kushan Egyptians) 46-10.

[rs2excelsior]

Hi this is not a question but a request. When the tables are posted would it be possible to see who you have played and not played displayed? I understand it might be a lot of work so no problem. It would just help to see who you still had to play as I lose track sometimes of who to challenge. and this would help.

Thanks

I’ve got a spreadsheet that I set up in google docs that I use to track matches which are not started/in progress/complete. I can link it to you if you like. It’s been helpful to me, especially being in four sections this time around.

[pantherboy]

Can I just point out that shifting a match to large proportionally increases the map size, increases points, increases the min/max of unit types and I think provides a second general with a command radius equal to the CinC. Ostensibly this means everything is the same as a medium size battle except on a larger scale. There shouldn't be a greater disparity in forces just more of everything. Percentage wise you should still end up with the same force composition e.g. max skirmishers in lieu of other units. Also understand that Pete will be making it optional so that a large battle will be contingent on both players desiring one otherwise it will be medium sized. As for myself I don't care either way so if I decide to play next season I will select large so that my opponents can enjoy their match in whatever fashion pleases them as it will default to medium if that is what they have selected.

[nyczar]

Can I just point out that shifting a match to large proportionally increases the map size, increases points, increases the min/max of unit types and I think provides a second general with a command radius equal to the CinC. Ostensibly this means everything is the same as a medium size battle except on a larger scale. There shouldn't be a greater disparity in forces just more of everything. Percentage wise you should still end up with the same force composition e.g. max skirmishers in lieu of other units. Also understand that Pete will be making it optional so that a large battle will be contingent on both players desiring one otherwise it will be medium sized. As for myself I don't care either way so if I decide to play next season I will select large so that my opponents can enjoy their match in whatever fashion pleases them as it will default to medium if that is what they have selected.

I drew this out to illustrate what I was saying. On the left, the smaller heavy list (the "x's") is in a wedge with refused flanks. It may be flanked by the enemy (assume a medium list) in 8 turns. On the right, a larger heavy list in the same formation may be flanked in 9 turns by the larger enemy force. So even if everything is bigger, and because everything is bigger, a larger force gives the heavies more time. Of course this assumes passive defense to make the point.

fog pic.jpg (102.48 KiB) Viewed 2320 times

No?

[harveylh]

Nice illustration to make your point, nyczar!

[stockwellpete]

I received a message from a player yesterday asking me to investigate whether dkalenda had been regularly re-loading his turns in order to obtain better outcomes in his matches. I spoke to Richard (who is not part of Slitherine) who, in turn, spoke to people at Slitherine who deal with irregularities that occasionally occur on the server. It transpires that Slitherine did suspend dkalenda for a short while this season but re-activated his account when he explained that his internet connection was unreliable. However, I have now been told by Richard that in one particular match dkalenda re-loaded his turns 99 times, including 36 times during just one turn. In other matches against the same opponent this season there were a further 18 and 5 extra re-loads. This cannot be explained away by a poor internet connection.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that dkalenda is regularly re-loading his turns in order to gain an unfair advantage. There is another word for this sort of behaviour that I shall refrain from using here. I have discussed the matter with Anders (hidde) and Ian (ianiow) who help me with the adjudications each season and we have agreed the following should happen now (voting 3-0) . . .

1) all dkalenda's matches this season will be awarded to his opponents 4-0 and he will be placed bottom of the table with 0 points. This affects Classical Antiquity Division A, Early Middle Ages Division A and Biblical Division A. As he had completed 3 matches in all three divisions there is no question of getting a reserve in at this very late stage.

2) dkalenda will forfeit the semi-final "mirror match" against paulmcneil in the Themed Event. paulmcneil will play harveylh in the final.

3) dkalenda will be permanently banned from the FOG2DL. There will be no second chance for something as serious as this and many players will not want to play him again in any case. What Slitherine do with regards to wider bans or suspensions is a matter entirely for them.

4) dkalenda will be removed from the FOG2DL ratings, the Medals Table and the FOG2DL Tournament Records.

5) the league tables from previous seasons will remain unchanged and an entry for dkalenda will remain in the overall Player's Records with a note attached explaining what has happened here.

For all the specific details of the matches affected by this decision I would ask you to be patient for a few hours while I update the various result threads, league tables and charts. I will try to get it all done by the end of the day.

I am very disappointed that something like this has happened in what again has been a very exciting tournament. I have always got on very well with dkalenda and he always seemed very enthusiastic about the tournament. But his position as the top player in the FOG2DL is now irrevocably tainted. I am very sorry that players have competed with him honestly only not to have that honesty reciprocated. My thanks to Anders and Ian as always and to Richard and Paulo (at Slitherine) for allowing me to deal with this so quickly.

[Supervark]

Thanks all. The spreadsheet is an excellent idea, I should be able to knock one up. Thanks for offering to share. How do you find time for all four sections? I barely mange two.

[stockwellpete]

Division A

Match results reversed due to multiple re-loading of turns by dkalenda
cunningcairn beat dkalenda 4-0
herm beat dkalenda 4-0
Nosy_Rat beat dkalenda 4-0
Snugglebunnies beat dkalenda 4-0
Morbio beat dkalenda 4-0

One match had not been completed
Triarii beat dkalenda 4-0

[stockwellpete]

Classical Antiquity A-D Tables.jpg (987.98 KiB) Viewed 2204 times

Classical Antiquity E-F Tables.jpg (571.84 KiB) Viewed 2204 times

[stockwellpete]

Classical Antiquity A-B Charts.jpg (794.51 KiB) Viewed 1791 times

Classical Antiquity C-D Charts.jpg (822.48 KiB) Viewed 1791 times

Classical Antiquity E-F charts.jpg (825.56 KiB) Viewed 1791 times

[stockwellpete]

Division A

Match results reversed due to multiple re-loading of turns by dkalenda
CheAhn beat dkalenda 4-0

These matches had not been completed
Nosy_Rat beat dkalenda 4-0
pompeytheflatulent beat dkalenda 4-0
Triarii beat dkalenda 4-0

[stockwellpete]

Early Middle Ages A-D Tables.jpg (883.85 KiB) Viewed 1992 times

Early Middle Ages E-F Tables.jpg (488.96 KiB) Viewed 1992 times