Slitherine

klayeckles wrote: as an easier approach, we could have 5 classic match ups and each player plays both sides of the battle, so fairness presides on the uneven army issue.

You should start playing my book-themed tournaments then! My SAS one is starting next week.

Jonathan4290 wrote:
What if there was a limited number of armies available for each section (similar to what was done with HMA this year) but you couldnt use the same army twice (similar to slitherine trophy, which I think was much more interesting this year).

This would allow to narrow the field to only historical matchups but add the strategy of when to use which armies against who, and trying to guess what opponent would use. Just a thought.

Yes, I quite like this idea. The only drawback might be is that most armies actually only fought one or two historical opponents, apart from those who successfully built large empires (Macedonians, Romans). It would depend then on how "historical match-up" was defined - just armies that really did fight each other, or more broadly to include armies that were active in the same historical period and/or geographical region.

rexhurley wrote:I'm against this for the League Pete leave it pure and have other events for matchups

We are only talking about one of the four sections having historical match-ups each season, plus there will be a historically matched themed event (sometimes using scenarios). So there will be plenty of "pure" matches available to players. I will also be loathe to intervene too much at all for the first season when the new version comes out - this might be Season 5 or more likely, I guess, Season 6.

klayeckles wrote:I don't get all the chatter about "even match ups"...we already have many rock paper sissors match ups in the league....face it my Persians are going to get spanked by pikemen...etc...almost every time, unless I am really on my game. if there is an "uneven" match up...beat the odds man! that's the test of a true champion. I like the idea of maybe one era having historical match ups. this round I was stuck playing my 3rd choice army in 9 battles...that's a lot of battles with the same bad choice. boo whooo feel sorry for Klay.

as an easier approach, we could have 5 classic match ups and each player plays both sides of the battle, so fairness presides on the uneven army issue.

Well, the idea is that only one era has these historical match-ups each season.

stockwellpete wrote:...more broadly to include armies that were active in the same historical period and/or geographical region.

I think this is the reasonable way to go.

There will be 10 players in a division and each player will have nine matches. Instead of choosing a specific army to use for nine matches each player will play nine separate historical match-ups. The matches themselves can be organised in any order but the schedule must be strictly adhered to in all other respects. Here is an example of how High Middle Ages might work with the new idea . . .

Round 1
Medieval Castilians v Medieval Crown of Aragon

Round 2
Anglo-Irish (early) v Medieval Irish (early)

Round 3
WotR Lancastrians v WotR Yorkists

Round 4
HYW English Continental (early) v Medieval French

Round 5
Scots In Britain (early) v Later Scots Isles Highlanders

Round 6
Medieval Danish v Later Medieval Swedish

Round 7
Venetian Condotta (no Swiss) v Florentine Condotta (no Swiss)

Round 8
HYW English in Britain (later) v Scots in Britain (later)

Round 9
Ordonnance Burgundian v Swiss, Burgundian War (limited pikemen, must take Lorraine allies)

Another idea I have been thinking about is to occasionally (i.e. not every season) offer a section based on the idea of "civil war". So, for example, instead of players picking an army and using it in all nine matches, there would be nine designated "civil war" match-ups where both players used the same army against each other (exceptionally there are some armies in the DAG that represent different sides in a civil war that might also be used e.g. Late Republican Romans and LRR Brutus and Cassius, or the War of the Roses armies and Yorkist Pretender army).

I need to do a bit more research to try and identify genuine historical civil wars contained with in the DAG, but I think this might be an interesting idea for a competition. I would not use it every season but it could be used once in a while to freshen things up a bit.

This idea was suggested by Jonathan4290.

What if there was a limited number of armies available for a section (similar to what was done with HMA this year) but players could not use the same army twice (similar to The Slitherine Trophy, which I think was much more interesting this year).This could narrow the field to allow only historical matchups, but add the strategic element of deciding when to use the armies against different players, and also trying to guess what your opponent might use. This idea would be used occasionally in the FOGDL to freshen things up (i.e. not every season).

I have just been talking to Kilroy and he has agreed that we can use his scenarios for the themed event. I think it might be quite good to choose six battles between 500AD and 1000AD for the themed event in Season 5. Kilroy has made the following scenarios from this period . . .

1. Ad Decimum 533 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=39809
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Ad%20Dec ... 20v1.1.zip

3. Anzen 838 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=19683
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/483 ... DHC%29.zip

8. Bishop's Meadow 863 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=27751
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Bishop%27 ... 20v1.1.zip

9. Callinicum 531 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=15486
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Callinicu ... 20v1.3.zip

16. Dara 530 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=15960
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Dara%2C%2 ... 20v1.2.zip

18. Faenza 542 AD (GBoH)
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=15101
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Faenza%2C ... 20v1.1.zip

32. Marcellae 792 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=42542
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/483 ... 0v1.04.zip

35. Porta Pinciana 537 AD (GBoH)
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=17600
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Porta%20P ... 20v1.1.zip

37. Roman-Arab Border War c. 850 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=52302
Multiplayer: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/483 ... 20v1.0.zip

38. Solachon 586 AD
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=16154
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Solachon% ... 20v1.2.zip

39. Taginae 552 AD (GBoH)
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=15076
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Taginae%2 ... 0v2.01.zip

44. Tricameron 533 AD (GBoH)
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=15100
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48312/Tricamero ... 20v1.2.zip

If people are generally in favour of this idea then I would like to put together a small testing group, maybe 4-6 players, so that we can play test and choose the best six for Season 5. Ideally, we will be able to pair off with players of a similar standard so that we can check the scenarios for balance.

Another idea is to use the DAG more creatively to create historical match-ups that are rarely seen in competitions. For example, if we use the battle of Triganocerta between the Late Republican Romans and the Tigran Armenians as our basic idea we might come up with a historical match-up that looked something like this . . .

Round 1 Triganocerta

Roman player
- must pick at least 10 units of Bithynian allies
- must pick 6 units of Thracian foot
- must pick 4 units of Roman cavalry
- may only pick 4 units of veteran Legionaries

Armenian player
- must pick at least 4 units of Arab allies
- must pick at least 6 units of cataphracts
- must pick at least 8 units of javelinmen

Then in Round 2, and subsequent rounds, inspiration would be taken from other battles so that each player would use nine different armies during the course of that particular section.

This idea would be used occasionally (i.e. not every season) to freshen things up a bit. All these match-ups would need to be play-tested first for balance, but it could make for a very interesting competition, I feel.

I have put a number of these scenarios on the system as paired games. The password is "test". If anyone wants to pick up a game or two and help me play-test them then please go ahead.

Most of these scenarios have now either been play-tested, or are undergoing play-tests right now, and I can say that they will make a fabulous set of match-ups for the themed event next season. I need to pick just six scenarios but there are eight or nine that are suitable for our purposes.

Kilroy has provided an updated version of the Dara scenario this morning. A paired game challenge, password is "test" is on the system now. Help yourself.

As we have a number of polls running at the moment, I thought I might as well put this idea out there as well. I don't expect to introduce it until the new version of the game comes out and a new batch of players start playing the game. Basically, it will be a separate section called "FOGDL minis" and players entering it will be picking armies of 250 points only. It could work either as a straightforward league or in the format used for the themed event.

It represents a break from the 400 point norm in the FOGDL (FOG Digital League) but I think it might be interesting. The matches would turn round quite quickly so paired game formats would work fine too.

Sounds like fun to me and I am entirely happy with it.

Just to clarify though, when you say the matchups can take place in any order, but the schedule must be strictly adhered to, do you mean that round 9 can be played before round 3 and round 1 could be played last but that these rounds must involve the proscribed armies?

Best Wishes

Mike

like that

MikeMarchant wrote:Sounds like fun to me and I am entirely happy with it.

Just to clarify though, when you say the matchups can take place in any order, but the schedule must be strictly adhered to, do you mean that round 9 can be played before round 3 and round 1 could be played last but that these rounds must involve the proscribed armies?

Best Wishes

Mike

Yes, that's right, Mike.

I really liked this idea this year in the Slitherine Trophy.

I´m fine with everything.

Cheers, Klaus

Any variation is good