TDC - Archive

[ericdoman1]

Hi All

A few of us has began looking into a new FOG II league.

The rules will be added at some point. Probably a customized version of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Temporary League and Digital League. Although as Pete has mentioned it will have to be different.

So far we have discussed below. I should mention that there will be an individual or a group of players running each period.

This will be a communal league so I think we should go with what the majority wants (5 of us) and so hopefully negates any procrastination.

A new name - ? "FOG II Divisional Championships", "FOG II League of Nations", just a thought

Thanks very much for your support. It'll mean the DL will continue but slightly differently.

As a target/deadline. I would like it to start February 1st

So far we have 5 players willing to help, provisionally, maybe. It would be good to put together a step by step stage for administration etc purpose.

I am going to contact hidde to see if he will continue designing the tables for us. I would like to have everybody's email address as well please, as I would imagine attachments will be used.

I am working on some rules. Pete does not want us to use his, however I did mention it to him., that way back pantherboy had started the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and when he stopped running it, I took over with some other players and I believe we changed the original rules. Then Pete took over to begin the FOG I DL. Part of these rules become rules for FOG I DL and then FOG II

The 5 periods I have suggested are:-

Classical 700 to 25 BC
Imperial and Early Dark Ages 25 BC to 600 AD
Dark Ages 600 AD to 1000 AD
Early Medieval (no heavy armoured troops) 1000 to 1200 AD
Later Medieval 1200 to 1500 AD

The idea here is not to include a post showing all of the armies allowed but to indicate that all armies and allies can be used within the time period so a slight difference to the DL. A player cannot use the same army twice though. I wanted to include the "Biblical" armies and another suggestion is to include the armies from the Silk Road Modules?

I have thought of 1600, 1600, 1400, 1200 and 1200 point armies respectively. 40W x 32H, 40W x 32H, 36W x 32H, 32W x 32H maps respectively. All - 24 turns, open battles and pot luck terrain. Even toying with 1600, 1500, 1400, 1300, 1200 points respectively 40x32, 38x32, 36x32 34x32 and 32x32 maps. Trying to keep it simple for the first season. 10 players a division, hopefully 3 divisions per period, top 2 are promoted, bottom 2 are relegated or 8 players a division, 1 or 2 promoted and relegated.

Themed event, maybe use some of the Slitherine tournament games, making all X Agricultural. I haven't looked at creating scenarios yet, heck I started creating FOG I scenarios abut 9 years after I had started. I have created a number of FOG I campaigns and converted them into FOG II so possibly the armies included in these historical campaigns may be used in a themed event. Stew101 had come up with a few ideas as well. I do like the mirror match concept now. Not very keen on it in the past.

Although I am thinking of giving it a miss for season 1 and see if players can come forward over the next few months with new scenarios?

There are a few possibilities but I would like it simple at the beginning and see what happens.

Cheers

Eric

[SimonLancaster]

All suggestions and offers to help are welcome!

[Karvon]

A few thoughts...

1. I like 10 player divisions as you get a wider range of opponents and with more matches, a better chance to recoup from a fluke loss.

2. I like the reroll rules such as proposed in the historical mirrored competition, as nothing's worse than getting stuck with absolutely terrible terrain for your army. Each side getting one unilateral works well in my experience in Chaos Tourney and Little Wars.

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

Glad to see folks stepping up to see this concept continuing.

Regards,

Karvon

[DocVanNostrand]

one thought less on the rules and more to reduce the administrative burden - would it make sense to have a google sheets that is editable by players where winners can enter their scores from a match vs. having to submit it in the forum, have the admin copy it into their back end score sheet, update tables manually, etc.? Meanwhile the administrator for each period would then only be on the hook to nudge slow players, adjudicate as needed, and make sure nothing is getting screwed up on the sheet (can download a local copy as backup each week or something)

I'd be happy to pull together a simple excel template that could be copied for each period and that can be ported to google sheets if we think this would be helpful

[SimonLancaster]

My thoughts so far..

1. The idea behind making divisions of 8 players is that it would reduce the burden on administration a little bit and shorten the playing time. 7 games is still a lot, especially if players are entering other sections. This is still up for consideration and we are looking at everything.

2. I wouldn't be so much in favour of encouraging map rerolls. It just wastes time. I understand the point about trying to get a better map.

3. The Google spreadsheet might be a good idea but I just don't know if everyone would use it. We could have a link somewhere. I wonder also if from time to time players would input the wrong score somewhere and mess things up.

[ericdoman1]

one thought less on the rules and more to reduce the administrative burden - would it make sense to have a google sheets that is editable by players where winners can enter their scores from a match vs. having to submit it in the forum, have the admin copy it into their back end score sheet, update tables manually, etc.? Meanwhile the administrator for each period would then only be on the hook to nudge slow players, adjudicate as needed, and make sure nothing is getting screwed up on the sheet (can download a local copy as backup each week or something)

I'd be happy to pull together a simple excel template that could be copied for each period and that can be ported to google sheets if we think this would be helpful

Hi Doc

The ideal scenario would be for Slitherine to be involved and to use a variation of their system. This would certainly reduce admin duties to possibly Zero, which would be nice:) If not, I like your idea and that you are willing to help. I had been toying with also including tables for players to show that the game has started. I'll contact Slitherine and see if they can help. We have no means of knowing how many turns have been played and if there is slow play and or a player may not be well or is on holidays but has not contacted anybody about it.

[ericdoman1]

A few thoughts...

1. I like 10 player divisions as you get a wider range of opponents and with more matches, a better chance to recoup from a fluke loss.

2. I like the reroll rules such as proposed in the historical mirrored competition, as nothing's worse than getting stuck with absolutely terrible terrain for your army. Each side getting one unilateral works well in my experience in Chaos Tourney and Little Wars.

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

Glad to see folks stepping up to see this concept continuing.

Regards,

Karvon

Hi K

I had thought of getting you involved as our Asian representative. Are you able to? You will be running one of the periods. Scoring system sounds good, if you don't mind us nicking it:) Would that be usable with DocNostrands Google template. Hidde unfortunately is also retiring but he is willing to pass on the link its called https://www.diagrams.net/

[LuciusSulla]

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

What I've been thinking is that for a winner who routed the enemy army, the best indicator of the decisiveness of the win is the lost percentage of its own army. A 40-10 victory usually means a more decisive victory than 60-30, and almost certainly more decisive than a 60-50 victory. But the proposed scoring system will make the winner in the latter two cases receive higher points.

[ericdoman1]

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

What I've been thinking is that for a winner who routed the enemy army, the best indicator of the decisiveness of the win is the lost percentage of its own army. A 40-10 victory usually means a more decisive victory than 60-30, and almost certainly more decisive than a 60-50 victory. But the proposed scoring system will make the winner in the latter two cases receive higher points.

I have had a look at the "Banner" score. The one with Final Losses at the top. To my knowledge this has never been used. However the margin of victory is far greater using it. For example a 61-55 win, using the top left score is a 58-24 win using the "banner". Then again in the majority of sports, I believe, a win is a win, the margin is irrelevant

[LuciusSulla]

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

What I've been thinking is that for a winner who routed the enemy army, the best indicator of the decisiveness of the win is the lost percentage of its own army. A 40-10 victory usually means a more decisive victory than 60-30, and almost certainly more decisive than a 60-50 victory. But the proposed scoring system will make the winner in the latter two cases receive higher points.

I have had a look at the "Banner" score. The one with Final Losses at the top. To my knowledge this has never been used. However the margin of victory is far greater using it. For example a 61-55 win, using the top left score is a 58-24 win using the "banner". Then again in the majority of sports, I believe, a win is a win, the margin is irrelevant

Oh, by "lost percentage" I mean the routed percentage of the winner's own army in top left score.

And yes, if we are deeming a win is a win, then we shall apply the same point for any kind of wins. But if we are using a variable point system, like in DL (3 point v. 4 point wins) or the one suggested by Kar above, then I think it should be tied to how decisive the victory is, which in my point of view is best indicated by the routed percentage of the winner's own army.

[DocVanNostrand]

one thought less on the rules and more to reduce the administrative burden - would it make sense to have a google sheets that is editable by players where winners can enter their scores from a match vs. having to submit it in the forum, have the admin copy it into their back end score sheet, update tables manually, etc.? Meanwhile the administrator for each period would then only be on the hook to nudge slow players, adjudicate as needed, and make sure nothing is getting screwed up on the sheet (can download a local copy as backup each week or something)

I'd be happy to pull together a simple excel template that could be copied for each period and that can be ported to google sheets if we think this would be helpful

Hi Doc

The ideal scenario would be for Slitherine to be involved and to use a variation of their system. This would certainly reduce admin duties to possibly Zero, which would be nice:) If not, I like your idea and that you are willing to help. I had been toying with also including tables for players to show that the game has started. I'll contact Slitherine and see if they can help. We have no means of knowing how many turns have been played and if there is slow play and or a player may not be well or is on holidays but has not contacted anybody about it.

Love the idea of getting Slitherine involved, one step ahead of me!

[Captainwaltersavage]

Yes please!

If Slitherine can set up the back end of the system that makes it very easy. These divisions with the competitive play are very enjoyable. They attract a great deal of attention and keep people playing the game and keen for more. Anything that can reduce the administrative burden is a very good idea.

[Karvon]

A few thoughts...

1. I like 10 player divisions as you get a wider range of opponents and with more matches, a better chance to recoup from a fluke loss.

2. I like the reroll rules such as proposed in the historical mirrored competition, as nothing's worse than getting stuck with absolutely terrible terrain for your army. Each side getting one unilateral works well in my experience in Chaos Tourney and Little Wars.

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

Glad to see folks stepping up to see this concept continuing.

Regards,

Karvon

Hi K

I had thought of getting you involved as our Asian representative. Are you able to? You will be running one of the periods. Scoring system sounds good, if you don't mind us nicking it:) Would that be usable with DocNostrands Google template. Hidde unfortunately is also retiring but he is willing to pass on the link its called https://www.diagrams.net/

I have no problem with others using the scoring system I use if it suits their tastes.

I might be willing to help out, depending on exactly what would be expected of me. I do run a couple of other tournaments, usually between DL seasons, so I don't want to overload myself

Karvon

[Karvon]

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

What I've been thinking is that for a winner who routed the enemy army, the best indicator of the decisiveness of the win is the lost percentage of its own army. A 40-10 victory usually means a more decisive victory than 60-30, and almost certainly more decisive than a 60-50 victory. But the proposed scoring system will make the winner in the latter two cases receive higher points.

Well, a more decisive victory, say 40-0 would net you a 6-0 win for a net of 6 pts over your opponent, where as a narrower victory of 60-50, while earning you 7-2 would only give you a net gain of 5 pts in the standings. Thus, more decisive wins will gain you greater separation from your opponent in the standings.

[LuciusSulla]

3. You might consider a slightly modified scoring system which spreads points out. A base of 4 pts for breaking the enemy army +1 pt per 20% casualties inflicted. A winner will thus usually score 6-7 pts and a loser/drawer 0-2. I've used this in my Little Wars tourney and been happy with it. Your mileage may vary

What I've been thinking is that for a winner who routed the enemy army, the best indicator of the decisiveness of the win is the lost percentage of its own army. A 40-10 victory usually means a more decisive victory than 60-30, and almost certainly more decisive than a 60-50 victory. But the proposed scoring system will make the winner in the latter two cases receive higher points.

Well, a more decisive victory, say 40-0 would net you a 6-0 win for a net of 6 pts over your opponent, where as a narrower victory of 60-50, while earning you 7-2 would only give you a net gain of 5 pts in the standings. Thus, more decisive wins will gain you greater separation from your opponent in the standings.

Hmm, I think that the "net gain" will be more meaningful in the context of a smaller division. In a 10-player division like what Eric is proposing here, the gross score is more meaningful as you are competing with all other 9 players in the division for the standings instead of your current opponent only.

Say there are two players in the division who draw against each other but won against all the other 8 players, the first player won 8 decisive 40-0 games against the 8 other players, and the second player won 8 60-50 games. The second player will end up at a higher place than the first player in the final standings.

[devoncop]

Reading the discussions about the pros and cons of different scoring systems , I was just wondering what the problem was with the system used in the latest season of the DL ?

I appreciate Pete has said he doesn't want a copy and paste successor to the DL (though it is hardly a copyright issue ) but just adopting the simple and uncomplicated existing system of scoring would seem reasonable wouldn't it ?

[Karvon]

What I've been thinking is that for a winner who routed the enemy army, the best indicator of the decisiveness of the win is the lost percentage of its own army. A 40-10 victory usually means a more decisive victory than 60-30, and almost certainly more decisive than a 60-50 victory. But the proposed scoring system will make the winner in the latter two cases receive higher points.

Well, a more decisive victory, say 40-0 would net you a 6-0 win for a net of 6 pts over your opponent, where as a narrower victory of 60-50, while earning you 7-2 would only give you a net gain of 5 pts in the standings. Thus, more decisive wins will gain you greater separation from your opponent in the standings.

Hmm, I think that the "net gain" will be more meaningful in the context of a smaller division. In a 10-player division like what Eric is proposing here, the gross score is more meaningful as you are competing with all other 9 players in the division for the standings instead of your current opponent only.

Say there are two players in the division who draw against each other but won against all the other 8 players, the first player won 8 decisive 40-0 games against the 8 other players, and the second player won 8 60-50 games. The second player will end up at a higher place than the first player in the final standings.

In my experience that is quite unlikely to happen. 60+ wins have only occurred about 31% of the time based on the past three seasons of CT vs 58% other wins and 11% draws out of 343 games.

[Karvon]

Reading the discussions about the pros and cons of different scoring systems , I was just wondering what the problem was with the system used in the latest season of the DL ?

I appreciate Pete has said he doesn't want a copy and paste successor to the DL (though it is hardly a copyright issue ) but just adopting the simple and uncomplicated existing system of scoring would seem reasonable wouldn't it ?

With narrower scoring, there is a greater chance of ties requiring the creation of a series of tie breakers. By increasing the number of points possible in a match, it spreads out the scores.

It also depresses the value of draws as in the DL system a couple of 25% 2 pt draws is equal to a single 4 pt win. Whereas, in my scoring system in LW, you'd need 3 draws of 40% or 6 draws of 20% to equal a single 6-0 win.

[devoncop]

Ah okay. I see the difference.

I actually have had some very worthwhile and exciting 2-2 draws which seem to deserve half the points of a win for both sides but maybe that is just me.

[LuciusSulla]

Well, a more decisive victory, say 40-0 would net you a 6-0 win for a net of 6 pts over your opponent, where as a narrower victory of 60-50, while earning you 7-2 would only give you a net gain of 5 pts in the standings. Thus, more decisive wins will gain you greater separation from your opponent in the standings.

Hmm, I think that the "net gain" will be more meaningful in the context of a smaller division. In a 10-player division like what Eric is proposing here, the gross score is more meaningful as you are competing with all other 9 players in the division for the standings instead of your current opponent only.

Say there are two players in the division who draw against each other but won against all the other 8 players, the first player won 8 decisive 40-0 games against the 8 other players, and the second player won 8 60-50 games. The second player will end up at a higher place than the first player in the final standings.

In my experience that is quite unlikely to happen. 60+ wins have only occurred about 31% of the time based on the past three seasons of CT vs 58% other wins and 11% draws out of 343 games.

Well, it was just an example to illustrate why I think points for the winner should not be tied only to the routed percentage of the enemy and why I think gross points matters more than "net gain" in the context of a 10-player division.

So I don't think the likelihood of 8 60+ wins in a row is important here. Instead, the point is, in the context of a 10-player division, by using the proposed point system, a 60+ win would enable the winner to get a higher place in the standings (than a 40+ win) even though the 60+ win is actually not more decisive.