Slitherine

batesmotel wrote:Most likely the real problem with the recruitment for the Early Middle Ages is the limited list of armies included in it. The organizers seem to have realized that limiting it to armies from Decline and Fall (with the exception of the Sassanids) is a problem for this. IT seems like there are a number of additional armies could have been included from LT such as the Early Alans, Gepids, Lombards, Early Anglo-Saxons, as well as it would have made sense to allow armies from Swords and Scimitars that are early enough to not allow Heavily Armoured Knights. The usual break point for FoG TT tournaments is with the introduction of Heavily Armoured Knights rather than with Armoured Knights and I think this would make sense for dividing the early and late Medieval periods for FoG PC divisions as well for the future.

Chris

Thanks for this suggestion, Chris. The committee can put this "under review" for Season 2. Hopefully we will have Wolves from the Sea" by then as well.

TheGrayMouser wrote:OK, I guess that will give me time to figure out how fight the Lithuanians who can purchase up to 8 heavy armored kniggits.

Sorry for the delay. The recruitment period has been a bit longer than normal this time for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is our first season and there is still a lot to organise - for example, we are discussing design of the tournament threads and tables at the moment. Secondly, we want to bring as many new players as possible to the league and the best way to do that seems to be to pick up their challenges from the system. Thirdly, as we wanted to catch as many players as possible who have been knocked out of the Slitherine Trophy. And lastly, not everyone has made their army selections in the three broader historical sections.

If there are any questions from the Player's Guide please post them here . . .

The Guide

We hope you will take the time to read this short player’s guide. It will be assumed by the committee that everyone has done so and that all the points contained within it are fully understood. We will be intervening on the basis of these rules, particularly with regards to Rules 3 and 6, if necessary. If you need clarification on anything then please ask a member of the committee. The complete rules of competition are posted on the forum.

viewtopic.php?f=247&t=44243

We would like to bring your attention to the following . . .

Rule 3
“Players must register their first result in each section they have entered within one month of the opening of the tournament or they may be replaced by a player from the reserve list.”

Rule 4
““Fog of War” and “Double Moves” settings are mandatory for this league. Either player may initiate a match by posting a challenge in the appropriate thread in the competition forum.

If a match is set-up incorrectly for any reason then it must be re-started as soon as possible.

Players may also agree to restart a game during the first two turns if they feel the map terrain makes it likely that the match will be stalemated.”

Rule 6
“It is expected that all matches will be completed within one month of their starting date.

Please notify the tournament organisers if you are unable to contact an opponent or if they fail to make a move in a match in progress after 7 days have elapsed without explanation.”

stockwellpete (for tournament committee)

If you have any questions about how the FOG Digital League is going to be run or what you need to do then please use this thread. The contributions received here will be used to make a Q and A section to be added to the "Very Short Player's Guide to the FOG Digital League".

Just some points that have already been raised . . .

i) you will play each opponent just once in your division making 9 league games each for the season.

ii) there will be no entering results on spreadsheets in the FOG Digital League. The winner just posts the result in the appropriate thread and you are done - we do the rest. League tables will be updated regularly in the results threads.

iii) the excellent artwork and tables design has been done by Anders (hidde).

Hello,

A last question I have seen somewhere, I don't remember): the type of terrain?
Mike.

Hi Mike Terrain is any you like there are no restrictions.

Other questions I have received . . .

Q. How many times do we play each opponent?
A. Just the once unless you are playing "mirror matches" in the Eternal Empire themed event. You will play 9 league matches in Classical Antiquity, Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages.

Q. Is there a fixture schedule?
A. No, you must arrange your own matches and you can play as many as you like at once.

Tip of the day: Wednesday 2nd October

Try and regularly read the latest posts in the threads for the sections you have entered. You may find that someone has put a challenge on for you.

When/where are the results tables being updated - I'm looking at the the Post Your Results Here... threads but the tables are stubbornly blank. Are the tables being displayed somewhere else?

Ta, lydianed

lydianed wrote:When/where are the results tables being updated - I'm looking at the the Post Your Results Here... threads but the tables are stubbornly blank. Are the tables being displayed somewhere else?

Ta, lydianed

They are going to updated regularly every fortnight in the results threads starting weekend 19/20 October. In addition, Individual tables will be updated in between these fortnightly updates whenever there is a cluster of results in that particular division. The Eternal Empire event tables will be updated on a match by match basis. I don't feel we need any tables in the three historical sections at the moment as we have hardly started.

Thanks first of all to y'all for doing this and any news from PB and LOEG?

1) Do you (all) have any idea what is happening to the bugs in the game.

Examples

a) Some troops (cav) should automatically evade from troops that have better impact factors but they do not. I suppose this is a tip for the day. If your sup arm bow sword cav are going to be charged by undrilled superior knights (as an example). If you do not AI evade always, they will stand. They will evade, even on AI evade from drilled superior knights. Wondering if they would evade from the Polish 1/2 xbow knights, as they cost 20pts?

b) I have found that if a few of your units are fighting and then routed/destroyed an enemy bg, one or some of your bgs can not move fully.

c) Again some troops that can and normally would evade, stand when hit by a pursuing enemy bg. This shouldn't happen.

d) Cav evading through a 1 hex gap, even passing enemy bgs.

There are probably others but I can not remember them all

I am bringing this up again as I mentioned it to Slitherine at about the time Unity/V2 was beginning. The answer was either the bugs will be zapped after Unity is completed or nothing will happen as Unity will replace V1. It has been over a year now!

Suggestions for next Digital League

1) Mirror matches, both players should win initiative
2) DAilami warriors or Almughavars can only be used if average training? A bit of a contradiction from me as I ahve used both but it is only a suggestion

Sorry didn't know where else I could post this.

ericdoman1 wrote:Thanks first of all to y'all for doing this and any news from PB and LOEG?

No, nothing at all. I thought that Steve was going to release the details of the new version in late September but maybe he is very busy with other things right now?

1) Do you (all) have any idea what is happening to the bugs in the game.

Examples

a) Some troops (cav) should automatically evade from troops that have better impact factors but they do not. I suppose this is a tip for the day. If your sup arm bow sword cav are going to be charged by undrilled superior knights (as an example). If you do not AI evade always, they will stand. They will evade, even on AI evade from drilled superior knights. Wondering if they would evade from the Polish 1/2 xbow knights, as they cost 20pts?

b) I have found that if a few of your units are fighting and then routed/destroyed an enemy bg, one or some of your bgs can not move fully.

c) Again some troops that can and normally would evade, stand when hit by a pursuing enemy bg. This shouldn't happen.

d) Cav evading through a 1 hex gap, even passing enemy bgs.

There are probably others but I can not remember them all

I am bringing this up again as I mentioned it to Slitherine at about the time Unity/V2 was beginning. The answer was either the bugs will be zapped after Unity is completed or nothing will happen as Unity will replace V1. It has been over a year now!

Again nothing, Eric. We desperately need (and deserve) an honest update from cothyso and Slitherine about the current state of play. It doesn't seem likely to me that there will be anything new this year now. I am very disappointed, I must say.

Suggestions for next Digital League

1) Mirror matches, both players should win initiative
2) DAilami warriors or Almughavars can only be used if average training? A bit of a contradiction from me as I ahve used both but it is only a suggestion

Sorry didn't know where else I could post this.

I am not sure how we could fix the initiative even if we wanted to, Eric. At the moment we have a "discretionary list" for Dailami, Catalan, Arab Conquest armies etc but I think there will be a number of armies completely excluded from Season 2 as in a "prohibited list". It seems to me that there were a number of mistakes made with the values of these armies, particularly in "Decline and Fall". The committee will be flagging this issue up in our "Talking Point" feature that will run in the close season. One idea we might possibly discuss is the formation of a small sub-committee to sort through the armies and impose certain restrictions on them (in the context of a 400pt competition). It could be quite a worthwhile exercise.

Initiative can be fixed but it is a bit of a pain.

Whoever did not win initiative in the first game post x challenges to palyers until finally he wins initiative. This could be a real pain if one army ahs an initiative of 4 and the other 0.

IMHO winning initiative is very very important if not the most important part of the game.

The downside is that as the other player knows he is going to win initiative he can customize his army a bit more?

As for this version, if Unity is going to take a lot longer maybe you shoud contact Iain and ask if they can sort out some of these bugs. There is a probability that it has put people off playing the game.

Oh yes would it be possible for us to forward our army choices privately in the next digital league.

As for missing out on some rmy builds. It happened a long time ago in a competition. It was meant to be a period comp but the organisers did not give any dates. So evreybody turned up with Feudal Spanish, that is heavily armoured knights. Yep in TT comps you could have the same army chosen by more than one player.

ericdoman1 wrote:Initiative can be fixed but it is a bit of a pain.

Whoever did not win initiative in the first game post x challenges to palyers until finally he wins initiative. This could be a real pain if one army ahs an initiative of 4 and the other 0.

IMHO winning initiative is very very important if not the most important part of the game.

The downside is that as the other player knows he is going to win initiative he can customize his army a bit more?

Personally, I wouldn't be in favour of a system like that. Players have to pick their armies in such a way that they stand a chance of winning the initiative really, Eric.

As for this version, if Unity is going to take a lot longer maybe you shoud contact Iain and ask if they can sort out some of these bugs. There is a probability that it has put people off playing the game.

But the version of the game we are now using is in the old code so the bugs cannot be fixed now.

Oh yes would it be possible for us to forward our army choices privately in the next digital league.

We can discuss this on the committee, Eric. The problem with it I see is that, at the moment, players posting their army choices publicly indicates that momentum is building up behind the competition and that encourages more players to join in. To do what you are suggesting would mean players posting their intention to enter on the forum AND then sending us a PM. Not sure what the purpose of the private choices might be, in any case, given that we ask players to make three choices and that they will be allocated any one of them - we don't really have a strict first choice, then second choice, then third choice system that LOEG had. We treat each division as a separate mini-tournament and try and make it as competitive as possible with the widest variety of armies as possible. Again, quite different from LOEG. If you look at the early results that have come in, there are a lot of very close matches and not any massacres yet (there will be some though) so we feel the early indications are that we have got our divisions very well set up.

Sorry if I missed it, but where can I see which matches I have played(against whom that is)?

I can't seem to find the timespan of the league either. Ends in late december?

Tiavals wrote:Sorry if I missed it, but where can I see which matches I have played(against whom that is)?

There are no spread-sheets. You need to keep your own records.

I can't seem to find the timespan of the league either. Ends in late december?

Ends 31/12.

stockwellpete wrote:

Tiavals wrote:Sorry if I missed it, but where can I see which matches I have played(against whom that is)?

There are no spread-sheets. You need to keep your own records.

I can't seem to find the timespan of the league either. Ends in late december?

Ends 31/12.

Pete,

Since you folks are running things you really need to post something equivalent to the old spreadsheets for who has played whom. So far the new system without the spreadsheets seems inferior to the old even with the problems that existed with the spreadsheets. Having helped with maintaining the spreadsheets and fixing the problems, I am quite aware of their shortcomings .

It's clearly not reasonable to expect individuals to have to maintain a separate record of who has played whom and having the detailed results all in one place makes it much easier for everyone to verify their results are correctly recorded. This is clearly information you have to track to know who to nag so please post it since you don't trust the players to fill out the spreadsheets themselves.

Chris

We will not be posting anything equivalent to the old spread-sheets. A player was asking for a record of who he has played against, not a record of the whole league. If players cannot remember who they have played then it is a relatively simple job to go back through the results threads (which are tidied up every couple of days) or to look on their own FOG results screen to ascertain that information.

stockwellpete wrote:We will not be posting anything equivalent to the old spread-sheets. A player was asking for a record of who he has played against, not a record of the whole league. If players cannot remember who they have played then it is a relatively simple job to go back through the results threads (which are tidied up every couple of days) or to look on their own FOG results screen to ascertain that information.

The old sheets provided the ability to easily track who had played whom as well as providing additional info. You could certainly just provide a matrix showing a grid of which players have already played each other or the results either as actual BP or just won/lost/draw since you obviously have to track that information.

If you can't be bothered to share the information you already have, why should I bother to keep track separately of who I've played. If you won't share the info, it's easier for me to just wai until the other player challenges me or else you figure it out and nag me to play. Seems like that would be more work for you but then you do seem to want to be such an active nanny for the league.

Chris

I would put it in big bold letters for you Chris, but then you would accuse me of being "pompous" again. The records that I keep are in hard copy in case the forum loses data as it has done in the past. I do not have big spread sheets to share - and our committee is unanimous that we will not be using spread sheets again.

As for the "nannying" - I do it because I love you all so much! (and actually it works too)