The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion)

What about Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion) to give something a little different?

What's this Skythian invasion, and of what?

Also, the two army lists seem virtually identical, don't they? But with a historical context and maybe with some allies (can it be, and does it need to be, historically correct allies), such as Cimmerian 760-600BC bringing Mannaean 750-610 BC allies, then it may be fun?

Apparently the Cimmerians were driven off the steppe by the Skythians circa 750BC. It is not a great match-up to be honest, as both armies are virtually the same. Mannaeans are not historically appropriate allies for 750BC. I think we can find better match-ups than this one.

[kronenblatt]

What about Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion) to give something a little different?

What's this Skythian invasion, and of what?

Also, the two army lists seem virtually identical, don't they? But with a historical context and maybe with some allies (can it be, and does it need to be, historically correct allies), such as Cimmerian 760-600BC bringing Mannaean 750-610 BC allies, then it may be fun?

Apparently the Cimmerians were driven off the steppe by the Skythians circa 750BC. It is not a great match-up to be honest, as both armies are virtually the same. Mannaeans are not historically appropriate allies for 750BC. I think we can find better match-ups than this one.

Agree. If we want one horse archer army and an explicit historical context, then maybe:

Cimmerian 760-600BC v Lydian 687-551BC (Invasion 653BC and the killing of king Gyges and sack of Sardis)

[stockwellpete]

Here are the 5 army match-ups that we will be using in Season 9 . . .

Egyptian 664-571BC v Kushite 727-656BC (Invasion of Lower Egypt 664BC)
Median 836-627BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion 653BC)
Greek 680-461BC v Lydian 687-551BC (Campaign 615BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Babylonian 626-539BC with Median allies (Fall of Assyria 613BC)
Indian 500BC-319AD v Persian 545-481BC (Persian invasion 518-516BC)

[SimonLancaster]

Just some confusion about picking the armies for the Digital League. I am reading the new rule to mean you can't pick any of the 4 armies that you sent to Pete in Season 8 in a particular section. Warg is reading it to mean just not to pick the army that you actually played with.

[stockwellpete]

Just some confusion about picking the armies for the Digital League. I am reading the new rule to mean you can't pick any of the 4 armies that you sent to Pete in Season 8 in a particular section. Warg is reading it to mean just not to pick the army that you actually played with.

Warg1 is correct. You cannot use the army (or allies) again that you used in that section in the last season.

[Blagrot]

That's good, I doubt I could even remember the choices I didn't use

[edb1815]

That's good, I doubt I could even remember the choices I didn't use

That's exactly what I was thinking! Confusion cleared up since fortunately I remember what I did use.

[rs2excelsior]

So, now that we’ve got the line up posted for EMA, I did a little figuring on battle sizes, since that section is trialling a system where players indicate whether they’d prefer medium or large battles. Note that some of these numbers might change since some people haven’t put a preference yet, if they decide on larger battles it might change things.

Out of the 60 players signed up for EMA, 30 indicated a preference for large battles (50%). By division, the numbers were:

Division A: 3
Division B: 4
Division C: 4
Division D: 6
Division E: 7
Division F: 6

With those numbers, and with mismatched preferences defaulting to medium, the number of matches in each division (out of 45) which will be large is:

Division A: 3 (6.7%)
Division B: 6 (13.3%)
Division C: 6 (13.3%)
Division D: 15 (33.3%)
Division E: 21 (46.7%)
Division F: 15 (33.3%)

Overall, out of 270 EMA matches across all divisions, 66 of them will be large (24.4%).

So overall, 50% of the players opting into large battles leads to about half that percent of actual battles being large. On one extreme, Division E had 70% player preference for large battles, and about 2/3 that percent of large battles. On the other, Division A had 30% preference for large but only about a fifth of that percentage of large battles. Those who indicated a preference for large battles in Division A will only play two of their nine matches at large size.

So, does this feel about on point? As someone who was in favor of going to all larger matches, and who indicated a preference for 1600 points in Division D, I think it feels about right. I’ll get to play 5 of 9 matches at the increased size, while those who prefer medium battles never have to play a large one. In divisions where very few people opt for large battles the percentages drop dramatically, but I don’t see a way to change that without upsetting the balance where more people picked large - and from how it seemed in the polls and earlier discussions, it seems like most people who prefer large battles are more willing to fight medium than vice versa. I do think it’s interesting that the lower divisions have more people choosing large matches.

No idea if these numbers will be useful, but I thought I’d throw them out there for discussion!

[stockwellpete]

Thanks for doing this, rs2excelsior.

Just one small point. There were a number of players who had not expressed a preference when I drew up that list today, so I expect the proportion of 1600pt games across the section to increase by a little bit.

[LuciusSulla]

So, now that we’ve got the line up posted for EMA, I did a little figuring on battle sizes, since that section is trialling a system where players indicate whether they’d prefer medium or large battles. Note that some of these numbers might change since some people haven’t put a preference yet, if they decide on larger battles it might change things.

Out of the 60 players signed up for EMA, 30 indicated a preference for large battles (50%). By division, the numbers were:

Division A: 3
Division B: 4
Division C: 4
Division D: 6
Division E: 7
Division F: 6

With those numbers, and with mismatched preferences defaulting to medium, the number of matches in each division (out of 45) which will be large is:

Division A: 3 (6.7%)
Division B: 6 (13.3%)
Division C: 6 (13.3%)
Division D: 15 (33.3%)
Division E: 21 (46.7%)
Division F: 15 (33.3%)

Overall, out of 270 EMA matches across all divisions, 66 of them will be large (24.4%).

So overall, 50% of the players opting into large battles leads to about half that percent of actual battles being large. On one extreme, Division E had 70% player preference for large battles, and about 2/3 that percent of large battles. On the other, Division A had 30% preference for large but only about a fifth of that percentage of large battles. Those who indicated a preference for large battles in Division A will only play two of their nine matches at large size.

So, does this feel about on point? As someone who was in favor of going to all larger matches, and who indicated a preference for 1600 points in Division D, I think it feels about right. I’ll get to play 5 of 9 matches at the increased size, while those who prefer medium battles never have to play a large one. In divisions where very few people opt for large battles the percentages drop dramatically, but I don’t see a way to change that without upsetting the balance where more people picked large - and from how it seemed in the polls and earlier discussions, it seems like most people who prefer large battles are more willing to fight medium than vice versa. I do think it’s interesting that the lower divisions have more people choosing large matches.

No idea if these numbers will be useful, but I thought I’d throw them out there for discussion!

I am in EMA Division B and I chose medium battles. But that's only because I feel that medium battle fits my army selection better. 1600 pts makes me take two armored lancer which I don't want; 1200 pts also offers a better ratio of the troops I desire.

If I was to make a choice between 1200 pts and 1600 pts without considering my army list. I would probably prefer 1600 pts as it would balance out the extreme dice rolls and make the outcome more dependent on player skills.

[rs2excelsior]

Thanks for doing this, rs2excelsior.

Just one small point. There were a number of players who had not expressed a preference when I drew up that list today, so I expect the proportion of 1600pt games across the section to increase by a little bit.

Yep, I made a note of that. Just wanted to get some preliminary numbers out now that we have an idea of the actual cross-section of size picks. It was a slow day at work

[Blagrot]

There might also be people like me who picked 1600 on the very simple logic the other catagories are that size and I have to think less if it all the same size

[General Shapur]

1600 pts offers more chance of recovery from mistakes or 'bad luck' , so I think it tends to level things out more between people of differing skill levels. I'd expect people that feel their armies are less affected by such things would go 1200pts. Or, if someone think they have fine tuned play down to making optimal moves almost every time 1200pts would benefit them against a lower level player. This could be why many of the top players have opted for 1200.

[kronenblatt]

There might also be people like me who picked 1600 on the very simple logic the other catagories are that size and I have to think less if it all the same size

Good for you and me that we both play together in division E of the EMA, where everyone has opted for 1600 FP. So all games will be large.

[deeter]

If I may, I think we should primarily be trying to recreate ancient battles here. Even 1600 pt. battles would really be skirmishes by ancient standards, hardly worth a footnote in most histories. In FOG, Epic battles are closer to the realities of handling large numbers of troops and even these have troop strengths fudged to represent 20 - 40K armies of the era. Of course competition games often have a different goal.

Deeter

[SnuggleBunnies]

For me, the preference for 1200 has nothing to do with optimizing points, or luck, or whatever. It just takes each game about 25% less time. That's it.

As for 1200pt battles being too small, it really depends on the conflict and era. Yes, 15000 men is pretty small for the 3rd century BC; it's huge for Western Europe in the 9th century. So it's appropriate that the Early Middle Ages section has the 1200pt option.

And of course, most battles in any era skewed smaller. I recently played in the Little Wars Tourney of 600pt battles, and found them just as enjoyable as larger scraps, with something of a different feel to them.

[Karvon]

And for those arguing about scale, remember, units can be scaled to represent any number of men, so you actually talking about maneuver elements you can control rather than the number of men taking part in a battle. There is a reasonable argument that breaking the army into so many maneuver elements is unrealistic as generals didn't have such micro control over their armies and tended to organize and move them as blocks/wings/battles. DBM forced that upon players with its pips restriction on moves each turn.

[TomoeGozen]

1600 points just means more toys on the table....

[SimonLancaster]

I talked about this a lot before so won't now.. What is the actual rationale for going to 1600 points?

Quite a lot of players haven't returned for the Digital League this season. Yes, we are at bumper levels because of the new blood. Richard didn't return. Bunny only wanted to play one section. Probably a good few others. Even playing in two sections means 18 games which is quite a lot for any tournament. If it takes 25% longer to finish a match then I may only play in one section next season. Players were getting burnt out quite frankly.

I just thought the Digital League was great as it was.. let's see how all these 1600-point games go.

[kronenblatt]

I talked about this a lot before so won't now.. What is the actual rationale for going to 1600 points?

Quite a lot of players haven't returned for the Digital League this season. Yes, we are at bumper levels because of the new blood. Richard didn't return. Bunny only wanted to play one section. Probably a good few others. Even playing in two sections means 18 games which is quite a lot for any tournament. If it takes 25% longer to finish a match then I may only play in one section next season. Players were getting burnt out quite frankly.

I just thought the Digital League was great as it was.. let's see how all these 1600-point games go.

Richard did return and "Bunny" (if you mean Snugglebunnies) plays two sections, based on Tournament News and Diary.

The rationale for the players who prefer 1600 FP is probably simply that they feel it's more fun, and it was quite a few of them, according to the poll, and that was on the question of whether you would be in favour of moving to larger 1600pt armies in all sections of the FOG2 Digital League.

Time constraint is of course an issue, so why did players get burnt out last season, in your view?