Slitherine

Hehe, rather enjoying those Antigonid and Polish win statistics.

Lovely! one little footnote...many of the indian wins came from early years, prior to the de-buffing of archers...so buyer beware.

I have separated these off as they are slightly different from what I provide. They will also need to be updated with the Season 7 data.

There hasn't been any follow-up to these suggestions and that tells me that players are generally happy with what is being offered. So I will not be making any changes for Season 8 in Biblical or Classical Antiquity.

I am trying to get something done about the Kingdom of Soissons and Romano-British armies that are, in my opinion, way too successful in the FOG2DL. The Kingdom of Soissons only ever fought one major battle and it was destroyed by the Franks, whereas the Romano-British list represents the atomised society that existed in Britain after the Roman legions left in the early 5thC. Militarily, they were often very dependent on Anglo-Saxon foederates for their defence.

The stats (W-D-L) for the two armies are as follows . . .

Kingdom of Soissons (461-486AD) 84-10-42 = 62% win rate
Romano-British (407-599AD) 103-12-40 = 66% win rate

So both armies have a success rate of around 2 out of 3 - and they have both been used well over 100 times suggesting that they must have had a wide range of players using them (both higher and lower rated players).

I have spent a bit of time looking at the Romano-British in more detail here . . .

viewtopic.php?f=599&t=98310

I am not sure what Richard's response will be although it does look like a change might be in the offing with the Kingdom of Soissons list whereby limitanei are swapped for sub-Roman foot.

There are a number of possibilities that suggest themselves to me for dealing with the Romano-British if the list remains unchanged . . .

i) make Anglo-Saxon allies compulsory (i.e. make them part of the army's name). This would reduce the combined number of Brythonic and sub-Roman foot available from 36 to 26. How effective would this be? I am not sure what players are facing when they play against the Romano-British.

ii) say that the Romano-British list (and Kingdom of Soissons list if it is unchanged) will only be available to the first 3 players receiving their armies in each division. So if you are a "top gun" you will not be getting them so there is no point picking them.

iii) remove them completely from the army lists. I don't really want to do this and some players will complain if I do.

Thoughts please.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:03 am
ii) say that the Romano-British list (and Kingdom of Soissons list if it is unchanged) will only be available to the first 3 players receiving their armies in each division. So if you are a "top gun" you will not be getting them so there is no point picking them.
.

Thoughts please.

Allowing only the first 3 players to get them seems reasonable to me even though that means I'll never get them.

Harvey

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:03 am Thoughts please.

I always have difficulty responding to questions like this, simply becasue I feel completely unqualified to comment, but what I can say is that I am happy to accept whatever rules and condiions you feel are apporpriate for the competition.


Best Wishes

Mike

the army list or rule change must deal with this problem i think.

relieved to see I am not the only one struggling with the French 888-1049

Pretty simple solution...give these armies to players like me. I will run them into the ground...by this time next year they will have a 33% win rate!

It is probably a bit complicated but for me:

1. Give Kingdom of Soissons a little less elite infantry.
2. Make Romano-British medium infantry a bit more expensive.

stockwellpete's recommendation for new players - Andalusian 756-1049 AD

Really?

Although it is a very effective army, I think it probably requires some skill to use effectively.

Arab Conquest 638-684 is probably more forgiving.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:06 am

stockwellpete's recommendation for new players - Andalusian 756-1049 AD

Really?

Although it is a very effective army, I think it probably requires some skill to use effectively.

Arab Conquest 638-684 is probably more forgiving.

Yes, harveylh has told me that as well. Andalusians are probably pound for pound the best army in the game right now and are very suitable for a 9 match campaign on the various terrain types. I am just trying to keep them out of the hands of the better players in the lower divisions in the interests of a more balanced competition.

To be fair, Andalusia can be played as Conquest-lite pretty effectively. Another good option for newer players would be Abbasid 815-835 list.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:23 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:06 am

stockwellpete's recommendation for new players - Andalusian 756-1049 AD

Really?

Although it is a very effective army, I think it probably requires some skill to use effectively.

Arab Conquest 638-684 is probably more forgiving.

Yes, harveylh has told me that as well. Andalusians are probably pound for pound the best army in the game right now and are very suitable for a 9 match campaign on the various terrain types. I am just trying to keep them out of the hands of the better players in the lower divisions in the interests of a more balanced competition.

I thought as much, but the army list contains lots of traps for the uninitiated. For example too many LH or Javelin armed cavalry will be a weakness rather than an advantage if the player does not know how to use them effectively.

Manipulating a new player into using an army that he may struggle with and hate does not seem like a very fair way of keeping it out of the hands of the experts.

One possibility would be to rank armies A, B or C depending on their previous post-nerf success rate, and then the top ranked players in each division automatically have any A rated armies they choose disqualified, even if they are the only one who picked it. Also nobody can include more than one A-rated army in their selection.

The Arab Conquest 638-684 list is equally suitable for varied terrain types (with 2 units of Veteran Dailami MF and 4 units of Bedouin MF at 1600 points), but is a lot more straightforward to use. More importantly, its Heavy Infantry are pretty much fire and forget, and almost certainly the most cost effective non-swarm infantry in the game. (Without having to have a lot of weaker spearmen to give the enemy something to kill).

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 11:11 am Manipulating a new player into using an army that he may struggle with and hate does not seem like a very fair way of keeping it out of the hands of the experts.

Words fail me. It is just a suggestion. They are a good army. Players have 4 choices. Only one player can get the Andalusians in each division and they are better than most other armies whatever their pitfalls. Why are you trying to turn this into something nasty?

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 11:44 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 11:11 am Manipulating a new player into using an army that he may struggle with and hate does not seem like a very fair way of keeping it out of the hands of the experts.

Words fail me. It is just a suggestion. They are a good army. Players have 4 choices. Only one player can get the Andalusians in each division and they are better than most other armies whatever their pitfalls. Why are you trying to turn this into something nasty?

I am not trying to turn it into something nasty.

I honestly don't think that Andalusian is a good army for a beginner, despite its overall excellent performance. (It is a finesse army, similar to Carthaginians in that regard, though perhaps even more so).

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:00 pm
I am not trying to turn it into something nasty.

I honestly don't think that Andalusian is a good army for a beginner, despite its overall excellent performance. (It is a finesse army, similar to Carthaginians in that regard, though perhaps even more so).

Please check the archive . . .

In Season 6 a player came bottom of Division C in Early Middle Ages losing all 9 matches.
In Season 7 the same player used Andalusians in Division D winning 6 and losing 3 of his matches and finished third.

In Season 6 a different player finished sixth in Division D winning 5 and losing 4.
In Season 7 I had to promote him to Division C as a lot of players had not returned to play in that division. He used Andalusians winning 6 and losing 3 and finished second.

Both players have been around for a couple of seasons, so the evidence suggests that players can improve their record considerably using this army. It is also worth noting that a player may be "new" to the FOG2DL, but they may not be new at all to multi-player or tournament play. Hopefully most of the newer players who read my suggestions for an army selection will at least check them to see if they like them. If the Andalusian army ends up in the hands of the top rated player in the division then it could turn into a bit of a procession.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:50 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:00 pm
I am not trying to turn it into something nasty.

I honestly don't think that Andalusian is a good army for a beginner, despite its overall excellent performance. (It is a finesse army, similar to Carthaginians in that regard, though perhaps even more so).

Please check the archive . . .

In Season 6 a player came bottom of Division C in Early Middle Ages losing all 9 matches.
In Season 7 the same player used Andalusians in Division D winning 6 and losing 3 of his matches and finished third.

In Season 6 a different player finished sixth in Division D winning 5 and losing 4.
In Season 7 I had to promote him to Division C as a lot of players had not returned to play in that division. He used Andalusians winning 6 and losing 3 and finished second.

Both players have been around for a couple of seasons, so the evidence suggests that players can improve their record considerably using this army. It is also worth noting that a player may be "new" to the FOG2DL, but they may not be new at all to multi-player or tournament play. Hopefully most of the newer players who read my suggestions for an army selection will at least check them to see if they like them. If the Andalusian army ends up in the hands of the top rated player in the division then it could turn into a bit of a procession.

Heck...give them to me in the league.

I will hoist the flag of the Loyal Order of The Wooden Spoon and march into battle with them. If they are a super duper weapon, I should clean up.

It would be like the Washington Generals pulling out wins against the Harlem Globetrotters because they recruited Shaq, LeBron, and Micheal Jordan in the off-season.

Hi Pete.

I see that the Biblical section appears to be back to using regular rather than large sized armies and battlefields . Its a shame from my point of view but as we are using the phenomenal TT Mod I was interested in Paul's (the creator of the mod) comment in the forum that :

"As to the actual points amounts, remember that the TT Mod was not designed purely for tournament play. It has to work for all modes of play that the game offers, and you can use the Custom Battles and Campaign generators to have armies up to 2000 points. In fact an army list needs to have a total points value of at least 2000 (or is it 2500?) otherwise it won't work properly."

Just for info.

Cheers

ian