The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[Challenge1]

Interesting....despite a vote some month ago that was barely in favor of larger armies (1,600 points) across the digital league, upon review of the two divisions I am playing this season, the preference for 1,600 point battles is overwhelmingly (my guess more than 90%) in favor of 1,600 point contests. Given the size of the tournament again, I have to think that no one dropped out due to the 1,600 point option so I am wondering if anyone who voted for 1,200 points might share the evolution of their thinking in favor of 1,600?

Edit: I have not been keeping up with the rally point and I see this may have already be addressed....

I voted in favour of 1200 pt armies and that is still my preference. In the sections where the default is 1600 pt armies I went for a preference of 1600 not because my opinion has changed but because some armies are better suited to the greater number of points (usually those with more expensive units and/or greater variety) and it seemed stupid for me to choose to play an army better suited to 1200 pts when most of my matches would have to be played at the default 1600. I am guessing I am not the only person who used this logic.

Apologies if this point has been made already.

[Cunningcairn]

Interesting....despite a vote some month ago that was barely in favor of larger armies (1,600 points) across the digital league, upon review of the two divisions I am playing this season, the preference for 1,600 point battles is overwhelmingly (my guess more than 90%) in favor of 1,600 point contests. Given the size of the tournament again, I have to think that no one dropped out due to the 1,600 point option so I am wondering if anyone who voted for 1,200 points might share the evolution of their thinking in favor of 1,600?

Edit: I have not been keeping up with the rally point and I see this may have already be addressed....

I voted in favour of 1200 pt armies and that is still my preference. In the sections where the default is 1600 pt armies I went for a preference of 1600 not because my opinion has changed but because some armies are better suited to the greater number of points (usually those with more expensive units and/or greater variety) and it seemed stupid for me to choose to play an army better suited to 1200 pts when most of my matches would have to be played at the default 1600. I am guessing I am not the only person who used this logic.

Apologies if this point has been made already.

Yes I agree. I prefer 1600 or even 2000 points over 1200 but if the default is 1200 I will pick and army that suits the lower points. It makes absolutely no sense to then play at 1600 points.

[SimonLancaster]

Sometimes I also wonder about allies.. whether better to exclude them. But, we have allies and default points and I still enjoy my games.

[paulmcneil]

My first game of the Digital League and I get into a 'debate' about map rerolls. Honestly, as things stand now, I think I would ban them. I don't know what others think.

I remember this happened to me last season. A player asked for a map reroll and I said no. I just tell players that I play on whatever is in front of me. I have never asked for a map reroll myself in all the time I have played. Monkey put it well when he said, "I thought that pot luck map meant you played with what you were given, good or bad. You were right to decline." On any map there will usually be an advantage for one of the players so best to play on what you are given is my philosophy.

In both cases after saying no my opponent thought that a draw would be best unless I completely left the hill or rough ground. An agreed draw in both cases was the outcome.

Would it be better just to play on without being able to ask for a draw? Would this make things worse? In both cases, there was a bit of bad feeling and it just didn't make for an enjoyable game and we both wanted a draw to move on.

In other tournaments there are no map rerolls.

I think there's nothing wrong with asking for a map reroll, and nothing wrong with declining it either. I've asked for a map reroll I think twice, where there was the usual map with a third of the board cut off completely down one side with an uncrossable river, and one where a huge chunk of the board was "The Sea", as this takes you from a wide board to a narrow one that completely negates any chance of a lighter/Cavalry army having a chance against a spear/footbow army. For me the issue could be taken away by always having a route through impassable terrain via a track or causeway whatever, preferably more than one way.

[SimonLancaster]

My first game of the Digital League and I get into a 'debate' about map rerolls. Honestly, as things stand now, I think I would ban them. I don't know what others think.

I remember this happened to me last season. A player asked for a map reroll and I said no. I just tell players that I play on whatever is in front of me. I have never asked for a map reroll myself in all the time I have played. Monkey put it well when he said, "I thought that pot luck map meant you played with what you were given, good or bad. You were right to decline." On any map there will usually be an advantage for one of the players so best to play on what you are given is my philosophy.

In both cases after saying no my opponent thought that a draw would be best unless I completely left the hill or rough ground. An agreed draw in both cases was the outcome.

Would it be better just to play on without being able to ask for a draw? Would this make things worse? In both cases, there was a bit of bad feeling and it just didn't make for an enjoyable game and we both wanted a draw to move on.

In other tournaments there are no map rerolls.

I think there's nothing wrong with asking for a map reroll, and nothing wrong with declining it either. I've asked for a map reroll I think twice, where there was the usual map with a third of the board cut off completely down one side with an uncrossable river, and one where a huge chunk of the board was "The Sea", as this takes you from a wide board to a narrow one that completely negates any chance of a lighter/Cavalry army having a chance against a spear/footbow army. For me the issue could be taken away by always having a route through impassable terrain via a track or causeway whatever, preferably more than one way.

Yes, I agree. I think perhaps 95% of the time you can play on. There may be a few times when a reroll could be used like when huge mountains are covering most of the map.

What is your view on agreed draws then?

[tyronec]

Here is the map is question. SLancaster was playing Scots-Irish against my Arab + Sassanid.
I could have picked an army with a few more bowmen and lights but even then don't think I could have made progress against the Scots up on the hill or in the wood. And I accept that my opponent is perfectly entitled not to fight on an open plain.

I would have gone for a map reroll, it is more of a risk for the Scots-Irish as it could have been too open but maybe we would have got a map with more mixed up terrain and something both armies had a reasonable chance on.

As a new player to the DL would be interested to hear what others would have done in my position.

Screenshot.jpg (435.33 KiB) Viewed 1734 times

[SimonLancaster]

My aim on that map was to go down on my left and over the hill. I was going to use the hill as my base as I turned towards you. I was going to try to push on towards the forest. I am pretty sure we could have had a battle. There is a fair gap between the hill and that forest.

I was the Romans last season in Late Antiquity. They have strong infantry. With that army I would have just gone straight down the middle and fought you in the open.

With the Scots or an army like the Thracians in Classical you have to make full use of the terrain.

[paulmcneil]

My first game of the Digital League and I get into a 'debate' about map rerolls. Honestly, as things stand now, I think I would ban them. I don't know what others think.

I remember this happened to me last season. A player asked for a map reroll and I said no. I just tell players that I play on whatever is in front of me. I have never asked for a map reroll myself in all the time I have played. Monkey put it well when he said, "I thought that pot luck map meant you played with what you were given, good or bad. You were right to decline." On any map there will usually be an advantage for one of the players so best to play on what you are given is my philosophy.

In both cases after saying no my opponent thought that a draw would be best unless I completely left the hill or rough ground. An agreed draw in both cases was the outcome.

Would it be better just to play on without being able to ask for a draw? Would this make things worse? In both cases, there was a bit of bad feeling and it just didn't make for an enjoyable game and we both wanted a draw to move on.

In other tournaments there are no map rerolls.

I think there's nothing wrong with asking for a map reroll, and nothing wrong with declining it either. I've asked for a map reroll I think twice, where there was the usual map with a third of the board cut off completely down one side with an uncrossable river, and one where a huge chunk of the board was "The Sea", as this takes you from a wide board to a narrow one that completely negates any chance of a lighter/Cavalry army having a chance against a spear/footbow army. For me the issue could be taken away by always having a route through impassable terrain via a track or causeway whatever, preferably more than one way.

Yes, I agree. I think perhaps 95% of the time you can play on. There may be a few times when a reroll could be used like when huge mountains are covering most of the map.

What is your view on agreed draws then?

Don't like agreed draws, opens the game too much to "arranged results" that could affect other players. To my detriment (usually) I tend to be a crash, bang, wallop, type of aggressive player, so I hate it when someone hides in a corner etc. I suppose a 0:0 points result in the tables for agreeing a draw puts paid to a lot of fixing rather than a 2:2, the only real way to change it would be to get rid of the board edge, i.e. much bigger boards, and start deployment away from the edge, so that if you choose to camp on a hill, marsh, forest you know you will get surrounded.

[Geffalrus]

My understanding is that draws with no casualties above 25% are 0-0, but when one player gets above 25%, that player gets 2 points in the draw. Is that still the case? I find that allottment tends to discourage fixed games because it's harder for players to agree to a 2-2 draw because victory is theoretically within reach for at least one of them at that point. 0-0 draws don't really benefit either player, and are more a function of the terrain preventing the desired engagement.

One thing about open vs. rough terrain. Yes, medium foot armies are theoretically vulnerable in open terrain, but that is mostly in the cohesion check department aka once they lose a round of combat. So long as medium foot - don't - lose the combat, they perform much like heavy infantry. However, heavy infantry are hugely disadvantaged in rough terrain. Movement is slower and they take a substantial POA penalty. So in that respect, medium foot can operate in open terrain just fine, but heavy infantry really cannot operate in rough terrain. Which in my mind would tilt things in favor of the heavy infantry or cavalry player asking for a map reroll if there's too much rough terrain.

Just my 2 cents.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, I think you need to get to 25% of inflicted casualties in order to collect your 2 points.

[edb1815]

It seems to me that rerolls should not come up often. Terrain is usually clustered on the map edges, at least the large pieces. Even the map posted above the woods are at the edges. Having said that last season I got a map that had a coastline on one said and mountains on the other so I offered my opponent a reroll which he did not accept, stating that he played what he was dealt. I think he beat me too!

Personally as the Sassanid player I would have gone after the chariots and tried to get at least 2 points out of the match. Maybe selected more massed bows at the outset as well. Medium infantry are also disordered in the woods, although not as severely as heavies or cavalry.

[tyronec]

Personally as the Sassanid player I would have gone after the chariots and tried to get at least 2 points out of the match. Maybe selected more massed bows at the outset as well. Medium infantry are also disordered in the woods, although not as severely as heavies or cavalry.

The chariots were heading for the woods so they could have been protected.
Maybe I could have sat around the bottom of the hill with 39% of my army and that way we could have got to a 2-2 draw if both sides cooperated, but I think the Scots-Irish would have had the advantage on a restricted battle and it might just have easily ended up with a 2-0 draw to them.
I certainly did not anticipate what was going to happen and picked the wrong units for that sort of combat.

[SimonLancaster]

I wasn’t going to put the chariots in the woods. They were just at back of infantry. And any moving forward were to go over the hill.

[Karvon]

I have no problems with rerolls and have always granted them when requested by opponents thus far. I have only had such request made a handful of times over the five seasons I've played in DL. I have likewise requested rerolls about the same number of times in that same period. I have had about half of my requests rejected; some players simply want to play on what's rolled and other don't want to give up a very favorable field terrain wise for them. Those games have almost always ended in draws.

From a historical point of view, it was very difficult to force an opposing army to fight. Armies often spent whole seasons maneuvering without ever drawing the enemy into a full pitched battle. There are plenty of accounts of armies simply staring at each other from favorable positions till one side decided to move off and the process repeated itself. Hannibal's campaign in Italy is a classic example of this. Competent generals were careful about selecting the spots for their camp and deployment. Better one's were move creative and innovative in their use of ground.

From a gaming point of view, FOG2 doesn't let you pick your battlefield; your dumped on a map and have to make the best of it with the troops you have at your disposal. You can pick where to fight on the field to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, but you're still at the mercy of some very random generation. In the extreme cases, you can end up on a map where you have next to zero chance of victory and even salvaging a draw would be a challenge. Now, while some might argue these situations are a good test of one's generalship, a challenge to be savored, in competitive play they are not particularly fair and should be minimized IMHO.

Allowing rerolls, I feel, reflects a competent general realizing this isn't the place to fight and marching off before getting entangled with the enemy. They reduce the odds of unenjoyable one-sided games or time-wasting draws that leave neither side happy. Players that refuse to grant them have no one but themselves to blame if the opponent hides in terrain or simply runs away the whole game.

In the tourneys I run, Chaos and Little Wars, rerolls are unilateral; you can declare one and that's it, a new map is rolled. Each player is allowed one and they can mutually agree to one additional. In the 7 seasons of play, I have not asked for or been asked for rerolls under these rules any more than I have experienced in DL. I have had one case where my opponent and I did the full 3 rerolls as we got really garbage terrain twice. I haven't had any negative feedback or situations reported to me by players so far regarding this rule.

Your mileage may vary

Karvon

[SnuggleBunnies]

I very rarely suggest rerolls, and if it's rejected I still play. I do think in the screenshotted situation above I would have at least played the first 10 turns to see what happened. Worse case scenario neither army is able to make headway and then a draw is agreed.

If I do find myself in a situation where both players think leaving their best terrain is an indefensibly bad idea, I like to agree to the draw, and then after having done so attack, just to see what would happen.

[SimonLancaster]

Well, I will post up a map now that I think at least some of you will say is ripe for a reroll. We are playing a Biblical mirror match. I am the Urartians with almost all Assyrian style medium bow-spearmen. My opponent is Egyptian 570 with Greek allies with heavy infantry and he has access to one Irregular unit. There is a huge forest in my deployment zone and in front of it. I can choose to come out of the forest and fight in the open. The hoplites will probably run over me.

A few players have said that it is just tough on the Egyptians because the map favours the Urartians. Maybe as it is a mirror match we can both agree to come out and fight on the Urartian side. It just becomes a little bit ridiculous. This is my second game in six so far this season where I can see a reroll or draw being on the cards.

[Karvon]

As an Egyptian, I probably wouldn't ask for a reroll as there's a lot of open space away from the large woods. Your army does have some elements which likely wouldn't deploy into the woods, so I would try hunting those down, looking to get at least enough for a 2 pt draw. The Egyptians can field a fair number of massed bow, who fight after a fashion in the woods, so these could be used perhaps in some way, though I wouldn't fancy their chances straight vs your foot. Of course, if they shelter in the woods, despite the poor fighting ability there, then this might well turn into a called draw. One never really knows till the game is played, as players can be very unpredictable. I've seen players wade into such forests with cavalry and heavy foot to root out defenders, sometimes with surprising success, though usually it's a very slow process and with heavy losses.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, I was thinking we will play on. Even if no clear win then some action I am sure. I am just philosophically against rerolls. A map will usually favour someone. You ask for a reroll because the map is against you. The next map is in your favour. Your opponent doesn't want to say no to the new map to be awkward.. he could do, of course, and then it justs goes on.

It is also a mirror match so will be interesting to see how someone else approaches this map. Maybe we can't always go into a game expecting to force a win..

[tyronec]

I have no problems with rerolls and have always granted them when requested by opponents thus far. I have only had such request made a handful of times over the five seasons I've played in DL. I have likewise requested rerolls about the same number of times in that same period. I have had about half of my requests rejected; some players simply want to play on what's rolled and other don't want to give up a very favorable field terrain wise for them. Those games have almost always ended in draws.

From a historical point of view, it was very difficult to force an opposing army to fight. Armies often spent whole seasons maneuvering without ever drawing the enemy into a full pitched battle. There are plenty of accounts of armies simply staring at each other from favorable positions till one side decided to move off and the process repeated itself. Hannibal's campaign in Italy is a classic example of this. Competent generals were careful about selecting the spots for their camp and deployment. Better one's were move creative and innovative in their use of ground.

From a gaming point of view, FOG2 doesn't let you pick your battlefield; your dumped on a map and have to make the best of it with the troops you have at your disposal. You can pick where to fight on the field to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, but you're still at the mercy of some very random generation. In the extreme cases, you can end up on a map where you have next to zero chance of victory and even salvaging a draw would be a challenge. Now, while some might argue these situations are a good test of one's generalship, a challenge to be savored, in competitive play they are not particularly fair and should be minimized IMHO.

Allowing rerolls, I feel, reflects a competent general realizing this isn't the place to fight and marching off before getting entangled with the enemy. They reduce the odds of unenjoyable one-sided games or time-wasting draws that leave neither side happy. Players that refuse to grant them have no one but themselves to blame if the opponent hides in terrain or simply runs away the whole game.

In the tourneys I run, Chaos and Little Wars, rerolls are unilateral; you can declare one and that's it, a new map is rolled. Each player is allowed one and they can mutually agree to one additional. In the 7 seasons of play, I have not asked for or been asked for rerolls under these rules any more than I have experienced in DL. I have had one case where my opponent and I did the full 3 rerolls as we got really garbage terrain twice. I haven't had any negative feedback or situations reported to me by players so far regarding this rule.

Your mileage may vary

Karvon

I agree with all of this. Maybe too many players are against rerolls - another decision to make and it slows down the start of the game but on balance it looks to reduce the number of no-action games.

Have had two other games where it came up. The first one we had a restricted map, it probably favored my army but forcing a win would have been difficult and we both had an incentive to hold back. We did a reroll and now have a good game.

The second one there was a river down the center of the map, again I had the better army for a river assault. My opponent crossed the river and paid the price. I asked him why he did not request a reroll and he said he never played them.

I very rarely suggest rerolls, and if it's rejected I still play. I do think in the screenshotted situation above I would have at least played the first 10 turns to see what happened. Worse case scenario neither army is able to make headway and then a draw is agreed.

If I do find myself in a situation where both players think leaving their best terrain is an indefensibly bad idea, I like to agree to the draw, and then after having done so attack, just to see what would happen.

SnuggleBunnies is right, I should have rejected the draw offer and played on, maybe the Scots-Irish would have come out.

[tyronec]

At the moment play in HMA is scheduled to start on Monday 15th February, but if I can bring it forward a few days so that players can get going next weekend then I will. It depends on the speed of recruitment.

HMA - personally I would prefer not to have it brought forwards. Have only just purchased the game and would like to have a few days to try it out before selecting armies.