The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

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

If you go back to page 35 of The Rally Point you will find the beginning of the discussion about larger armies being a way to off-set the vagaries of the RNG. I think it is a very good argument myself.

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.

Yes, a higher number of A and B level players have not returned, or have reduced their number of matches, this season compared to last season. I have spoken to some of them (e.g. Ludendorf and Schweetness101) and their reason for not playing this season has nothing to do with the game at all. And we have also lost a few because of "dkalenda-gate" and my consequent request that players who do not have confidence in the integrity of the tournament should not register to play. My guess is that some are also absent/downsizing because the next DLC has been a long time in coming.

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

The tournament has to continually evolve or players will get fed up with it and the turnover would be higher.

[Karvon]

I don't think it's necessarily an issue of burn out; there is a significant minority who do not wish to play a full schedule of 1600 pt battles and subsequently signed up for fewer sections, myself included. I'm glad to see overall participation has increased, but will be curious to see the final reaction people have to playing a full schedule of 1600 pts.

[General Shapur]

In some regards. If playing 1600 points means one person is unlikely to enter multiple events because of time constraints, as the league is now oversubscribed, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Depending on how this event runs I may drop down to 2 events for #10.

I agree that the bigger games do tend to remove the chance element to what is (to me) an acceptable level. Making the game less about the meta and giving too many choices to have a key strategy against. To that end, it will be interesting to see if a 1200 point runner wins in the EM contest, particularly in the A and B divisions and other divisions where good players seem to be 'trapped' (lol).

[oscarius]

The downside of larger point sizes is that armies become more predictable in composition. Smaller ones mean you have to play a guessing game of what your opponent is going to put on the table and think how to counter it.

[NikiforosFokas]

The big news for this season is Biblical's format (imho). Not only i find paired match to be more fair but also I love the fact that we will play historical match-ups (no more Scots versus Jews ).
I hoped that the Medieval was like that but we can not have it all.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I'm just pleased that Biblical isn't going to be all about how to fight hoplites; that just felt wrong to me.

[Cunningcairn]

I'm just pleased that Biblical isn't going to be all about how to fight hoplites; that just felt wrong to me.

Yes I agree 100%. However make sure your hat is tightly secured for the Persian vs Indian encounter

[kronenblatt]

I believe that it would be good if the players creating the challenges (except for mirror matches) set themselves as Side B, don't you think? Because then the players accepting the challenge will immediately get the battle in their My Turn folders and can start deploying directly after having accepted the challenge instead of having to wait.

[stockwellpete]

I believe that it would be good if the players creating the challenges (except for mirror matches) set themselves as Side B, don't you think? Because then the players accepting the challenge will immediately get the battle in their My Turn folders and can start deploying directly after having accepted the challenge instead of having to wait.

But Side B is the "enemy" army, isn't it? And Side A is your own army. So I don't think this idea would work.

[kronenblatt]

I believe that it would be good if the players creating the challenges (except for mirror matches) set themselves as Side B, don't you think? Because then the players accepting the challenge will immediately get the battle in their My Turn folders and can start deploying directly after having accepted the challenge instead of having to wait.

But Side B is the "enemy" army, isn't it? And Side A is your own army. So I don't think this idea would work.

To my understanding, there is no real "enemy" side or "own" side (even though the terms are still in the setup of battles), since a player can set himself/herself up as the "enemy" (side B) and the opponent as side A, and then in the next window choose Side B as Player Side. In the example below, I would play as Kushite Egyptian (Side B) against you as Egyptian (Side A). And when you accept the challenge, you (as Side A) will get the game in your My Turn folder and can deploy immediately, without needing to wait. So I believe it would work.

SelectingArmies.jpg (155.47 KiB) Viewed 1658 times

SelectingSideB.jpg (170.51 KiB) Viewed 1658 times

[stockwellpete]

I believe that it would be good if the players creating the challenges (except for mirror matches) set themselves as Side B, don't you think? Because then the players accepting the challenge will immediately get the battle in their My Turn folders and can start deploying directly after having accepted the challenge instead of having to wait.

But Side B is the "enemy" army, isn't it? And Side A is your own army. So I don't think this idea would work.

To my understanding, there is no real "enemy" side or "own" side (even though the terms are still in the setup of battles), since a player can set himself/herself up as the "enemy" (side B) and the opponent as side A, and then in the next window choose Side B as Player Side. In the example below, I would play as Kushite Egyptian (Side B) against you as Egyptian (Side A). And when you accept the challenge, you (as Side A) will get the game in your My Turn folder and can deploy immediately, without needing to wait. So I believe it would work.

SelectingArmies.jpg
SelectingSideB.jpg

Well, if it works players can do that if they want to, but I am not going to issue it as an instruction.

[kronenblatt]

But Side B is the "enemy" army, isn't it? And Side A is your own army. So I don't think this idea would work.

To my understanding, there is no real "enemy" side or "own" side (even though the terms are still in the setup of battles), since a player can set himself/herself up as the "enemy" (side B) and the opponent as side A, and then in the next window choose Side B as Player Side. In the example below, I would play as Kushite Egyptian (Side B) against you as Egyptian (Side A). And when you accept the challenge, you (as Side A) will get the game in your My Turn folder and can deploy immediately, without needing to wait. So I believe it would work.

SelectingArmies.jpg
SelectingSideB.jpg

Well, if it works players can do that if they want to, but I am not going to issue it as an instruction.

Didn't think you would. Just wanted to mention an efficient way to save lead time with all the battles on schedule.

[Conteshard]

To my understanding, there is no real "enemy" side or "own" side (even though the terms are still in the setup of battles), since a player can set himself/herself up as the "enemy" (side B) and the opponent as side A, and then in the next window choose Side B as Player Side. In the example below, I would play as Kushite Egyptian (Side B) against you as Egyptian (Side A). And when you accept the challenge, you (as Side A) will get the game in your My Turn folder and can deploy immediately, without needing to wait. So I believe it would work.

SelectingArmies.jpg
SelectingSideB.jpg

Well, if it works players can do that if they want to, but I am not going to issue it as an instruction.

Didn't think you would. Just wanted to mention an efficient way to save lead time with all the battles on schedule.

I usually ask my adversary if he prefers to go first or second, and set up accordingly.

[wellsonian]

This is good info. I'll start "Side B...ing it" on my challenges.

[SimonLancaster]

I was just looking at the allies for some armies in the Digital League. One example - Picts 210 AD have Saxon 449 AD allies. I understand that the opposing armies are ahistorical in the league but I think allies should be historical.

[rs2excelsior]

I was just looking at the allies for some armies in the Digital League. One example - Picts 210 AD have Saxon 449 AD allies. I understand that the opposing armies are ahistorical in the league but I think allies should be historical.

Is that ahistorical? Post-Roman Britain isn't really my thing historically, but from what I do know it doesn't strike me as that unlikely that a Pictish and Anglo-Saxon group may have joined together against a common enemy at some point. The lists do overlap time-wise, if only at the end of the Pict/beginning of the Anglo-Saxon list.

If this is something which may be ahistorical, it might be better to bring it up in the main forum.

[SimonLancaster]

Okay, last part does overlap. Acceptable!

[joggy]

well, sometimes it can be important if you go 1st or 2nd, so I set half of my games as side A and half as side B

[GeneralKostas]

The player, who issue the match, take Side A and the opponent Side B. And after the deployment, the player in Side A make the first move. I follow this rule for my games.

[stockwellpete]

The player, who issue the match, take Side A and the opponent Side B. And after the deployment, the player in Side A make the first move. I follow this rule for my games.

Yes, that is OK.