Slitherine

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:31 pm The second issue occurred with Ironclad because all of his selections had already been taken so he would have had to make a fourth choice. As I had previously suggested this system is less flexible than the current one (where I actively seek out ways to both maximise first choices and minimise third choices with very little regard to the names of the players in the division) so I think it will be necessary to ask players to make four selections in future instead of three.

Fair enough.

The issue is that some armies don't give a player many options for difficult terrain, i.e. they lack medium and light infantry. So don't pick an army like that if you aren't sure what terrain/opponents' armies you are up against. if you can't beat a player playing defensively then tough, It's a draw and you get fewer points. Otherwise you have to reduce bad terrain and suddenly light armies don't stand a chance. Remember FOG1 where the swiss used to line up and march from one side of the board to the other sweeping everything before them? Now THAT was boring. Also I don't see defensive play as "negative" it's a standard battle tactic, although I'm not emotionally inclined to adopt it, I don't have a problem with players who do. Maybe the answer is to have a win as 1 point, and a draw or a loss as 0 points (as an example), so only people who win games will have a chance of scoring points?

Will the next season make use of the Rise of Persia DLC and if so how is it likely to be incorporated?

shadowblack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:04 am Will the next season make use of the Rise of Persia DLC and if so how is it likely to be incorporated?

It depends when it is released. Recruitment opens on Monday 17th September so I would think the latest date it could be released and still included in Season 3 is Thursday September 6th. That would give players about 3 weeks to purchase and practice with the DLC. I think the most obvious way of incorporating the armies would be to add them to Classical Antiquity. The rules do make provision for an earlier Biblical section but it would need 30+ armies from that period to make it viable. So we will need another ancient period DLC to be released before I could set up a Biblical section.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:05 am A 10 light horse unit cap would affect the following armies (I may have missed one or two). The negative number shown after their name shows how many LH archer units the cap would remove from their maximum . . .

Hepthalites -2
Hunnic (Western 250-375AD) -6
Hunnic (Western455-559) -6
Hunnic (Sabir) -6
Indo-Parthians -16
Indo-Skythians -6
Kushans -6
Parthians -16
Saka -2
Saka/Skythian -2
Skythian -2
Turkish -4

So the Indo-Parthians and Parthians would be hardest hit, but they are not chosen that often.

The Parthians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans will be able to field some of their unarmoured horse archers as Cavalry following the next update.

This update is likely to be released just before or soon after the the FOG2DL season begins. But the lists won't be available to view prior to specifying army choices.

The Saka, Huns etc. work best with most of their horse archers as Cavalry anyway. (If they are actually trying to win the game rather than play for a draw right from the start, which this and other rule changes would discourage).

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:02 am Just looking ahead to what might be offered in Season 3 (starting October 1st), I think it is just about tenable to open up another core section of the league, namely Early Middle Ages. This is from 500AD to 1000AD and will include any armies that are dated within this period. Early Middle Ages will replace "Enemies of Rome" and will eventually include later armies such as the Carolingian Franks and Vikings. There are 34 armies available so far . . .

Alans 25-650AD
Anglo-Saxons 449-599AD
Arab (Bedouin) 300-636AD
Arab (city) 300-633AD
Armenian 477-627AD
Avars 553-557AD
Avars 558-631AD
Bretons 411-579AD
Bretons 580-1072AD
Byzantines 493-550BC
Byzantines 551-578AD
Byzantines 579-599AD
Franks 496-599AD
Gepids 493-567AD
Hepthalites 350-570AD
Huns, Western 455-559AD
Huns, Sabir 463-558AD
Indians 320-545AD
Indians 546-599AD
Lombards 493-567AD
Lombards 568-569AD
Lombards 570-649AD
Moorish 350-698AD
Ostrogoths 493-561AD
Pictish 477-850AD
Romano-British 407-599AD
Sassanid Persians 477-590AD
Sassanid Persians 591-628AD
Scots-Irish 477-846AD
Slavs 500-599AD
Turkish 552-599AD
Vandals 500-534AD
Visigoths 419-621AD
Welsh 477-599AD

Any thoughts?

Note that these Sassanid lists will be getting a major revamp in the next official update, which will make them a more flexible option, including some better quality Heavy Foot (Undrilled Heavy Foot, Average, Protected, Light Spear, Swordsmen) in addition to the levy spearmen, Massed Archers and the option to have some Above Average armoured horse archers rather than all Superior.

The earlier Sassanid lists will be divided into 224-349 AD and 350-476 AD lists. The earlier list is transitional between a Parthian-style composition and the current Sassanid composition. The later list is similar to the current Sassanid 224-476 AD list, but with the additions listed above.

The Byzantines will be getting an increase in their maximum number of infantry units. The 551-578 list will also get some 480-strong units of pre-dismounted Herul/Lombard lancers.

This update is likely to be released just before or soon after the the FOG2DL season begins. But the lists won't be available to view prior to specifying army choices.

Other changes in the next update that might affect army choice:

1) Heavy Weapon will now get 100 POA vs mounted at impact (unless the infantry are charging mounted shock troops)
2) 50% Heavy Weapon units will get 100 POA at impact and 50 POA in melee.
3) 50% Defensive Spearmen units will get 100 POA at impact and 50 POA in melee.
4) Heavy chariots impact POA in open terrain vs any except Lancers, Elephants, Light Foot, Light Horse or steady non-charging foot who are Pike, Offensive Spearmen or Defensive Spearmen increased to +150.
5) Points cost of Carthaginian/Kyrenean chariots reduced from 56 to 52.
6) Chariots mitigation vs shooting by bows, slings and javelins increased from 16% to 28%. (The same as Armoured Cavalry)

Richard, I will "sticky" these last few posts once all the loose ends have been tied up at the end of the season. Thanks for the information.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:05 pmThe only fair way to do it without order of preference is completely randomly.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:15 pmInteresting. Please explain. Do you mean something like this? I get my old trusty bingo kit out and put the balls numbered 1 to 10 in a bag and pull the first one out. That will give the player's name. Then, in another bag I put another 3 or 4 balls and pull another ball out and that gives me the army for that player. Then I move onto the next player and so on. I think this might work and the only question again is how many army choices players initially would have to make. Almost certainly 3 would not be enough, maybe 4 would be? That would be completely impartial and would be within the range of ideas that I could support as the organiser. It would remove any discretion I could exercise though for the benefit of the tournament. In the FOG2DL I have not entered sections where I have to allocate armies and I have now retired from competitive play so I am a completely neutral benevolent despot.

Just in preparation for the next poll, I have tested Richard's idea of a completely random army allocation process, on the basis of my response above. I used my bingo kit to ascertain in which order players would be allocated armies and then I allocated the armies to the players. It did work perfectly well. Players would need to make 4 army choices and there would be no need for an order of preference. As the FOG2DL ratings would not be used we could leave the qualifying number of matches to get a rating at 15 and, as there would be no need for me to intervene at all, I wouldn't need to look at Mike's army classification.

I think we can have this as a third option in the poll as it may appeal to some people. The other two options will be to continue with the current system, or to a adopt a more formal system using the FOG2DL ratings to ascertain the order in which players will be allocated their armies (i.e. a very mild handicapping system) and which would allow very limited intervention by the tournament organiser to advise new players.

Just so we are clear, I am in favour of adopting the more formal system using the FOG2DL ratings.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:40 am
Just so we are clear, I am in favour of adopting the more formal system using the FOG2DL ratings.

Me too.

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:23 pm The issue is that some armies don't give a player many options for difficult terrain, i.e. they lack medium and light infantry. So don't pick an army like that if you aren't sure what terrain/opponents' armies you are up against. if you can't beat a player playing defensively then tough, It's a draw and you get fewer points. Otherwise you have to reduce bad terrain and suddenly light armies don't stand a chance. Remember FOG1 where the swiss used to line up and march from one side of the board to the other sweeping everything before them? Now THAT was boring. Also I don't see defensive play as "negative" it's a standard battle tactic, although I'm not emotionally inclined to adopt it, I don't have a problem with players who do. Maybe the answer is to have a win as 1 point, and a draw or a loss as 0 points (as an example), so only people who win games will have a chance of scoring points?

Its option 1 on the poll, if you vote for it it will bring it up to 7% approval

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:39 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:05 am A 10 light horse unit cap would affect the following armies (I may have missed one or two). The negative number shown after their name shows how many LH archer units the cap would remove from their maximum . . .

Hepthalites -2
Hunnic (Western 250-375AD) -6
Hunnic (Western455-559) -6
Hunnic (Sabir) -6
Indo-Parthians -16
Indo-Skythians -6
Kushans -6
Parthians -16
Saka -2
Saka/Skythian -2
Skythian -2
Turkish -4

So the Indo-Parthians and Parthians would be hardest hit, but they are not chosen that often.

The Parthians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans will be able to field some of their unarmoured horse archers as Cavalry following the next update.

This update is likely to be released just before or soon after the the FOG2DL season begins. But the lists won't be available to view prior to specifying army choices.

The Saka, Huns etc. work best with most of their horse archers as Cavalry anyway. (If they are actually trying to win the game rather than play for a draw right from the start, which this and other rule changes would discourage).

I hope some sort of cap on units within armies is NOT implemented, as this futher restricts armies and tactics.

BTW , is this a cap on ONLY LH archers? if so this gives Thracians a pretty huge advantage in LH in general as they can buy the 10 LH archers and then quite a load of LH javelins. (coupled with the new HW POA) they will be pretty powefull.) Late Bretons and numidians too have many LH Javelins. Why should they be superior in overall LH #'s than LH steppe armies?

Interesting, the results from the themed event were very fair, in as much as both players play with both armies each round, but the results (from the final and other rounds) between roughly equivalent players reflect a major disconnect in army ability vs army cost, e.g. in the final the result would seem to suggest either Sassanids are massively overpriced, or Hepthalites are massively underpriced, compared to their effectiveness. BTW Congratualtions to NosyRat for winning, and Ludendorff as runner up, both excellent players. I think the rule writers should look at the cost of units before wading in to rule changes, much simpler, quicker, and easy to adjust as more results come in for comparison.

I'm really late to this discussion, but I'll add my two-penneth...

I tend to try to pick armies that I haven't played before (or recently) so I can try something different. This time in Late Antiquity I tried the Jewish Revolt army because I'd never tried it before and I was very pleasantly surprised to discover how good an army it is and I wouldn't like to lose the potential to experiment by having someone override my choice of army just because it is viewed as uncompetitive. I like to do my best and if I can win a division then I'd be chuffed, but I play for the fun and the challenge and I want to be able to choose, although I accept I won't always get my first choice army.

RE: Digital League Archive. Is it possible to supply a list of which armies were played in the Classical and Late categories? I think the player-army combo is an even more interesting statistic than just the player name and position he came.

ianiow wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:47 pm RE: Digital League Archive. Is it possible to supply a list of which armies were played in the Classical and Late categories? I think the player-army combo is an even more interesting statistic than just the player name and position he came.

Do you mean these lists? This was Classical Antiquity Season1.

Division A
edb1815 - Graeco Bactrians 250-130BC
ianiow - Gallic 300-101BC
klayeckles - Indian 500BC-319AD
mhladnik - Antigonids 320-301BC
mst007 - Seleucid 301-206BC
NikiforosFokas - Achaemenid Persians 460-420BC
rbodleyscott - Carthaginians 235-146BC
Snugglebunnies - Pergamenes 190-129BC
Valdavia - Macedonians 320-261BC
wolf blitzee - Romans 199-106BC

Division B
Aryaman - Gallic 300-101BC
devoncop - Seleucids 205-167BC
Dortmund - Indo-Greeks 175BC-10AD
ggarynorman - Indian 500BC-319AD
Lysimachos - Macedonians 320-261BC
MikeC_81 - Roman 199-106BC
Najanaja - Antigonid 320-301BC
rexhurley - Achaemenid Persians 480-461BC
shadowblack - Ptolemaic 320-167BC
shawkhan2 - Carthaginians (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217BC

Division C
batesmotel - Bosporan 348-85BC
Cunningcairn - Seleucids 166-125BC
Ironclad - Carthaginians (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
majandro - Galatians 280-63BC
nyczar - Lysimachid 320-281BC
paulmcneil - Indians 500BC -319AD
Peterabb - Pyrrhic 280-272BC
Trogilus - Carthaginians 262-236BC
Ulysisgrunt - Antigonid 320-301BC
XLegione - Macedonians 320-261BC

Division D
Asterix_von_TWC - Macedonians 328-321BC
Conaire - Graeco-Bactrians 250-130BC
cromlechi - Seleucids 301-206BC
eddieballgame - Spartan 550-461BC
GrayNemesis - Syracusan 421-281BC
Hendricus - Romans 219-200BC
MikeMUC - Indo-Greeks 175BC-10AD
Morbio - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC
SpeedyCM - Achaemenid Persians 545-481BC
Tresantes - Pontic 281-111BC

Division E
76mm - Lysimachids 320-281BC
Barrold713 - Greeks 460-281BC
bbogensc - Indo-Greeks 175BC-10AD
Bluefin - Gallic 300-101BC
dkalenda - Romans 199-106BC
gamercb - Ptolemaics 166-156BC
IMC - Spartan 550-461BC
pbuck777 - Indian 500BC-319AD
simpleninja - Seleucids 166-125BC
Zardoz02 - Achaemenid Persians 419-329BC

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:59 pm
Do you mean these lists? This was Classical Antiquity Season1.

Yes, put that list and the Late period list somewhere near the final tables. Or ideally IN the tables (if Anders can find a way to fit the long wording of each army into the small spreadsheet cells).

These were the army results for the "From Zhou to Chen" section (adjudications included) presented as W-D-L . . .

Qiang v Chinese (Zhou) 7-1-2
Lysimachids v Antigonids 6-0-4
Carthaginians v Syracusans 7-0-3
Spanish v Spanish Sertorius 6-1*-3
Indo-Skythians v Kushans 5-0-5
Pyrrhus v Macedonians 5-0-5
Kingdom of Soissons v Germanic Foot Tribes 6-2-2
Scots-Irish v Romano-British 5-1-4
Northern Dynasties v Chinese (Chen) 6-1-3

I don't think it worked out too badly overall. Obviously a lot depends on the player match-ups and the terrain, but the Kingdom of Soissons results against the Germanic Foot Tribes surprised me a little bit. The Carthaginians were a bit too strong for the Syracusans and the two Chinese armies needed some terrain to stand a chance against the lancer heavy Qiang and Northern Dynasties.

I will probably keep this section going in its current form for at least one more season. My plan is that it will eventually be replaced by the Late Medieval section although elements of it will survive in the Themed Event in subsequent seasons.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:27 pm These were the army results for the "From Zhou to Chen" section (adjudications included) presented as W-D-L . . .

Qiang v Chinese (Zhou) 7-1-2
Lysimachids v Antigonids 6-0-4
Carthaginians v Syracusans 7-0-3
Spanish v Spanish Sertorius 6-1*-3
Indo-Skythians v Kushans 5-0-5
Pyrrhus v Macedonians 5-0-5
Kingdom of Soissons v Germanic Foot Tribes 6-2-2
Scots-Irish v Romano-British 5-1-4
Northern Dynasties v Chinese Chen 6-1-3

I don't think it worked out too badly overall. Obviously a lot depends on the player match-ups and the terrain, but the Kingdom of Soissons results against the Germanic Foot Tribes surprised me a little bit. The Carthaginians were a bit too strong for the Syracusans and the two Chinese armies needed some terrain to stand a chance against the lancer heavy Qiang and Northern Dynasties.

I will probably keep this section going in its current form for at least one more season. My plan is that it will eventually be replaced by the Late Medieval section although elements of it will survive in the Themed Event in subsequent seasons.

I'm particularly fond of the Themed Event, so a little biased, but it does seem to work well enough despite some uneven match-ups. I certainly had a few games where I won or lost in significant part to the army/map combo I rolled, but on average I do think it more or less evens out. Indeed, if you look at both divisions, there's a significant difference between the scores of those at the top and the bottom of the divisions, which you wouldn't expect if army imbalance and random allocation were having a strong effect.

In any case, I would like to see it stay in some form at least. It's nice to have an excuse to play with different armies, especially given most other organised MP games involve repeated use of the same force.

I have some statistics on drawn games that show the increased number of these results in Season 2 compared to Season 1.

Season 1

Classical Antiquity (5 divisions) - 8 draws in 225 matches (3-2-2-1-0)

Late Antiquity (5 divisions) - 11 draws in 225 matches (4-4-2-1-0)

From Cyrus to Tigranes - 11 draws in 135 matches (5-5-1)

Classical Indian - 1 draw in 90 matches (0-1)

Themed Event (Group Stage) - 1 draw in 48 matches

Themed Event (KO Stage) - 2 draws in 28 matches


In total there were 34 draws in 751 matches = 4.12% of matches were drawn (1 in 25).


Season 2

Classical Antiquity (5 divisions) - 26 draws in 225 matches (8-10-4-2-2)

Late Antiquity (4 divisions) - 21 draws in 180 matches (8-5-6-2)

Enemies of Rome (3 divisions) - 11 draws in 135 matches (6-2-3)

From Zhou to Chen (2 divisions) - 5 draws in 90 matches (5-0)

Themed Event (Group Stage) - 3 draws in 24 matches

Themed Event (KO Stage) - 2 draws in 14 matches


In total there were 68 draws in 668 matches = 10.15% of matches were drawn (1 in 10).