Slitherine

Sorry........ I misunderstood the point you were making.

I am easily confused

So do you play each opponent home and away? That would be 10 mirror matches (20 battles)?

5 mirror matches, 10 games. Some players would have 2 home matches, some would have 3 home matches.

The problem with allowing the home army to choose the terrain base is defining what are historically reasonable options in any given match up. Some lists might be able to claim a whole range of terrain, where others might only have one or two. How would this be decided?

Player would specify their home terrain when selecting their army. So when you come to the mirror match the Home player has chosen their army and the map type. The Away player can then pick the army of their choice for for that match, so they would know for example that it was going to be a wooded map or an open map and select an army accordingly.
Would require players to select a map according to their place of origin, so a Gallic army could have Mediterrean or N. European; Agricultural, Hills, Wooded or Mountains.

tyronec wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:41 pm

So do you play each opponent home and away? That would be 10 mirror matches (20 battles)?

5 mirror matches, 10 games. Some players would have 2 home matches, some would have 3 home matches.

The problem with allowing the home army to choose the terrain base is defining what are historically reasonable options in any given match up. Some lists might be able to claim a whole range of terrain, where others might only have one or two. How would this be decided?

Player would specify their home terrain when selecting their army. So when you come to the mirror match the Home player has chosen their army and the map type. The Away player can then pick the army of their choice for for that match, so they would know for example that it was going to be a wooded map or an open map and select an army accordingly.
Would require players to select a map according to their place of origin, so a Gallic army could have Mediterrean or N. European; Agricultural, Hills, Wooded or Mountains.

I like this home terrain selection idea - very much like the table top version.

I'll sign up for this!

Regarding terrain...

Specifying a single home terrain sort of defeats the purpose of selecting the best ground suitable against the army your facing. An heavy infantry army such as Greek or Roman would prefer open ground vs medium foot armies or other heavy foot armies generally, but would seek more cluttered fields if facing a cavalry army. In any case I think mountains should not be an allowable choice as that often really constricts the field to nothing more than just a pass or two, hardly the best for an interesting open game.

Specifying a single home terrain sort of defeats the purpose of selecting the best ground suitable against the army your facing. An heavy infantry army such as Greek or Roman would prefer open ground vs medium foot armies or other heavy foot armies generally, but would seek more cluttered fields if facing a cavalry army. In any case I think mountains should not be an allowable choice as that often really constricts the field to nothing more than just a pass or two, hardly the best for an interesting open game.

Mountains - good point, will adopt your suggestion.

Allowing the Home player to select the map after the Away player has chosen their army is more problematic. It swings it slightly in favor of the Home army because they can now pick the map to match their opponents while the Away player has to pick their army not knowing the map type. However not a big deal either way as they are mirror matches. However what swings me against doing it this way is that it adds another stage to setting up a match. With the proposed system the sequence is:
Home player selects army and map.
Away player selects army and sets up the game.
with this system it would be:
Home player selects army.
Away player selects army
Home player selects map and sets up the game.
so that adds another round for what I think is only at best a small benefit.

Hi, this sounds very interesting. Historical match ups always appeal and I do like mirror matches so I can try out both armies. Personally, I would suggest dates for the period to limit the options also 10 mirror games (if I understand correctly) is 20 games(??) That's a lot in 10 weeks. Even 10 games in 10 weeks is a lot ...so would add a couple of weeks on to give some slack. Overall very interested.

IMC wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:01 pm Hi, this sounds very interesting. Historical match ups always appeal and I do like mirror matches so I can try out both armies. Personally, I would suggest dates for the period to limit the options also 10 mirror games (if I understand correctly) is 20 games(??) That's a lot in 10 weeks. Even 10 games in 10 weeks is a lot ...so would add a couple of weeks on to give some slack. Overall very interested.

I asked the same! It will be 10 games total (5 mirror matches) as you will play your home army in 2 or 3 of the 5 mirrors and in the other 2 or 3 you will be the away player so those mirrors will be involving the other (home) players army choice.

tyronec wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:05 am Participants will be split up into divisions of 6 players each.
Players will play a mirror match against each opponent in their division, so a total of 10 games.

tyronec wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:41 pm 5 mirror matches, 10 games. Some players would have 2 home matches, some would have 3 home matches.

Maybe divisions of 5 players each, because then all players get 2 home games each (instead of some getting 3 and some 2) and a more manageable 8 games total.

Maybe divisions of 5 players each, because then all players get 2 home games each (instead of some getting 3 and some 2) and a more manageable 8 games total.

I don't see it as an issue that some players would have 2 Home matches and some 3 Home matches, they are all mirrors so it is more a tool to set games up rather than an advantage to one side or the other.
Would 8 games be preferable to 10 ? I have no preference and would be guided by what people ask for.
If there were 8 games maybe reduce the duration to 8 weeks ?

I really like this idea and the mirror match element - really evens things up. If you choose something too unfavourable for the opposition remember you'll be playing it too!
I agree keep it simple - home player chooses the map (maybe no mountains!)
Sounds like a lot of fun. sign me up.

tyronec wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:36 pm

Maybe divisions of 5 players each, because then all players get 2 home games each (instead of some getting 3 and some 2) and a more manageable 8 games total.

I don't see it as an issue that some players would have 2 Home matches and some 3 Home matches, they are all mirrors so it is more a tool to set games up rather than an advantage to one side or the other.
Would 8 games be preferable to 10 ? I have no preference and would be guided by what people ask for.
If there were 8 games maybe reduce the duration to 8 weeks ?

It's not about advantages but rather about all players getting to play the same number of games with/against the home army they signed up for. So it'll be an elegantly simple and balanced structure where you wouldn't have to spend any time on who to get 3 and who to get 2.

(The same would of course be accomplished with e.g. seven players, or any uneven number.)

8 games in a season may also be more manageable, at least in the beginning of the tournament's life while ironing out what works well and what doesn't.

And these 8 games could be played over 8-10 weeks: no preferences there at my end.

What I found in the DL was that the Biblical section, which was using mirror matches in the later seasons, would be ahead of the other sections (using single matches) in terms of match completion. Quite a bit ahead too. So a lot of players were getting their 5 mirror matches done in 6/7 weeks.

This sounds good, I am all for historical matches.Please put me down for it.

Looks great, count me in!

Aetius

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:58 am It's not about advantages but rather about all players getting to play the same number of games with/against the home army they signed up for. So it'll be an elegantly simple and balanced structure where you wouldn't have to spend any time on who to get 3 and who to get 2.

(The same would of course be accomplished with e.g. seven players, or any uneven number.)

8 games in a season may also be more manageable, at least in the beginning of the tournament's life while ironing out what works well and what doesn't.

I think this sounds very good, having it be the same numbers for everyone. Of the various proposed new tournaments, this is the one I am most keen on.

Definitely count me in too.

I have amended the rules on the first post of this thread according to the suggestions, any more feedback is welcome.

I like the change to 5 player divisions with 2 home and 2 away games.

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 12:44 am I like the change to 5 player divisions with 2 home and 2 away games.

This makes sense to me too, always start small and simple to begin with. Mirror games are what got me into the tourneys so really like this proposal and I will sign up when it opens.