Field of Glory II Tournament Suggestions

[rbodleyscott]

Not sure this is the right place to put a couple of tournament questions, but I could not find a better thread.

1. With the Rise of Macedon tournament finishing, is there anything in the queue for another using FoG2 (I know about the FoG:M one)?

Not yet.

2. Regarding the Rise of Macedon tournament, are the aggregated results published on the forums anywhere? I am really curious about how the 3rd Round broke down, in terms of players winning with the Indian side.

Only on the tournament page. The scores stay up there forever. You will be able to see the information you want there, though you will need to add up the wins for each army yourself.

[Yorck]

Only on the tournament page. The scores stay up there forever. You will be able to see the information you want there, though you will need to add up the wins for each army yourself.

I can see the player scores, but I don't see a way to tag each score to which army that player had for that game. Is the top of the 2 players always the Macedonian in Game 1?

My curiosity really stems from how difficult that Indian army is to play, at least versus Macedon. I recorded strong Macedonian wins and narrow opponent wins in the first two rounds. Last round still playing, emphatic Macedonian win but my best hope for the Indians is covering the point spread for a close loss. Beating the Macedonians with the Indians is likely to be a real 'sheep from the goats' test, curious how many of the ~185 players managed it.

[rbodleyscott]

Only on the tournament page. The scores stay up there forever. You will be able to see the information you want there, though you will need to add up the wins for each army yourself.

I can see the player scores, but I don't see a way to tag each score to which army that player had for that game. Is the top of the 2 players always the Macedonian in Game 1?

Yes.

One way I look at this is to look at completed games where the same player did not win both games. i.e. matchups where the same army won both games.

So far, if I have counted correctly, there seem to be

Macedonians 8
Indians 3

So yes, the Macedonians certainly appear to have an advantage, even on the current map with a large stream (counting as rough going).

I am not sure this necessary means that the Indian army is worse, but it certainly means it is harder to use than the Macedonian army, especially in this particular matchup.

Clearly the Macedonian advantage isn't insurmountable though, as many players won both their games.

Of course the whole point of using mirror matches in tournaments is that the armies don't have to be evenly matched - you get a better than average score by doing better than average with each matchup compared with all the other players, you don't necessarily have to win them all.

[Yorck]

Yes.

One way I look at this is to look at completed games where the same player did not win both games. i.e. matchups where the same army won both games.

So far, if I have counted correctly, there seem to be

Macedonians 8
Indians 3

So yes, the Macedonians certainly appear to have an advantage, even on the current map with a large stream (counting as rough going).

I am not sure this necessary means that the Indian army is worse, but it certainly means it is harder to use than the Macedonian army, especially in this particular matchup.

Clearly the Macedonian advantage isn't insurmountable though, as many players won both their games.

Of course the whole point of using mirror matches in tournaments is that the armies don't have to be evenly matched - you get a better than average score by doing better than average with each matchup compared with all the other players, you don't necessarily have to win them all.

I am genuinely shocked that there were any match pairs where the Indians won both, and indeed that ratio suggests a much smaller advantage than I expected. My opponent basically ignored the stream, and in particular ignored the bend next to the hill with difficult slope (ideal firing position), choosing to force a broad crossing there. But other than elephants, just not much punch in that Indian army. When I hit 60% lost to end the game, Macedonians were ~48%. I don't really see any obvious ways I could have got more from the stream. Obviously, there are some players out there who can really handle a Bw army.

Anyway, brilliant format, really quite a tactical study for the Macedonian army. Looking forward to the next.

[anderarcos11]

I'm thinking of organizing a new tournament. Who should I talk to? just post it here?

[rbodleyscott]

I'm thinking of organizing a new tournament. Who should I talk to? just post it here?

Post it here:

viewforum.php?f=494

[sIg3b]

My favourite tournament theme:

5 very large what-if battles from different time periods!

Example: Carthage sends help to Syracuse in 213: Lots of gold and a mid-sized expedition army.
(Syracuse with Carthaginian allies versus Rome)

[rbodleyscott]

My favourite tournament theme:

5 very large what-if battles from different time periods!

Example: Carthage sends help to Syracuse in 213: Lots of gold and a mid-sized expedition army.
(Syracuse with Carthaginian allies versus Rome)

More suggestions?

[sIg3b]

*Babylon is the real enemy!*

Assyria gets significant help from Egypt in 609.
Assyrians with Egyptian allies versus Babylonians with Median allies

[sIg3b]

*Revenge for Alesia!*

Galatian tribes join Pompeius at Pharsalus.
Romans with Galatian allies versus Romans

[sIg3b]

*We don´t like them, either!*

Would Bedouins have been of use against the Goths at Adrianopolis?
Romans with Arab (Bedouin) allies versus Germanic Horse Tribes in 378AD

[sIg3b]

*We don´t like them, either!, Part 2*

Would Bedouin allies have been useful against the Sassanids?
Narses is sent east in the 550s to find out.
Byzantines with Arab (Bedouin) allies versus Sassanid Persians

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks

[Badger73]

Richard, while not a tournament suggestion per se, has any thought ever been given to making finished tournaments available as solo or mirror matches in downloadable Community Content? I can think of several occasions where I would have liked a second crack at unfinished rounds as friendly matches with regular opponents. Please give it serious consideration for whichever of the FoG2 & Medieval tournament scenarios might still be found backed up in storage. Thank you.

[rbodleyscott]

Richard, while not a tournament suggestion per se, has any thought ever been given to making finished tournaments available as solo or mirror matches in downloadable Community Content? I can think of several occasions where I would have liked a second crack at unfinished rounds as friendly matches with regular opponents. Please give it serious consideration for whichever of the FoG2 & Medieval tournament scenarios might still be found backed up in storage. Thank you.

This would be nice. Because of the way MP setup works, it isn't something that would be possible for me to implement with the current game engine.

I will (re-)add it to the wishlist.

[ZeCid]

Has it been mentionned some tournament to play the epic scenarios in miror ? like 5 players on 5 epic battles of same area or period or thematic ; exemple, Homs + bukhara + kili + kulikovo + chalons are epic battles for a tournament based on horse and arrow (same for "romans vs enemies of rome", same for "hellenestic wars"...)

[rbodleyscott]

Has it been mentionned some tournament to play the epic scenarios in miror ? like 5 players on 5 epic battles of same area or period or thematic ; exemple, Homs + bukhara + kili + kulikovo + chalons are epic battles for a tournament based on horse and arrow (same for "romans vs enemies of rome", same for "hellenestic wars"...)

That could be done.

[Kashtronomical]

I noticed there are usually tournaments for Ancients and Medieval that both start on the same day. I’m wondering if they could be staggered by one week so that those playing in both can manage time commitments a bit better? Hopefully this would encourage more players or at least better play.

[rbodleyscott]

I noticed there are usually tournaments for Ancients and Medieval that both start on the same day. I’m wondering if they could be staggered by one week so that those playing in both can manage time commitments a bit better? Hopefully this would encourage more players or at least better play.

We are planning to stagger start dates by a minimum of one day, often more, in future.

However, if we staggered the start of five game, 10 week tournaments by 1 week, I don't really see how that would significantly help time management.

[Kashtronomical]

Thanks for the response. That is good to hear. Even a day would be helpful.

For me the initial turn with force selection and deployment usually requires the most time. So spacing those out a week feels like it would smooth out the game flow because by the time the second set of two games starts, you should already be in the relatively quicker phase of the first set of two games.