Passive vs Active Defence

[Schweetness101]

...Although, one non-mod near equivalent would be for all players to submit a unit selection list after receiving their army choice, and be obligated to pick that list every game P...

That is what is done in tabletop miniatures tournaments.

how does it affect the individual games and overall tournament outcomes? more or fewer draws? more balanced armies?

[edb1815]

...Although, one non-mod near equivalent would be for all players to submit a unit selection list after receiving their army choice, and be obligated to pick that list every game P...

That is what is done in tabletop miniatures tournaments.

how does it affect the individual games and overall tournament outcomes? more or fewer draws? more balanced armies?

I think it brings more balanced armies because you need to have an army that is good at handling a variety of opponents. It works better with historical or semi historical match ups though. You do tend to get more draws or uneven match ups in an "open" tournament vs. a theme event similar to the time period breakdowns in the DL. There is always someone who brings a shooty cavalry army which tends to favor draws against infantry opponents.

[kronenblatt]

The system I thought of a while back to emulate the auto tourneys for a win/loss/draw point based approach was:

4 points for a win
If you lose or draw you get points based on casualties inflicted.
15% - 1 pt
30% - 2 pts
45% - 3 pts

The other idea I had (but I don’t feel so strong about) was giving an extra point for winning within so many turns... kinda an artificial shot clock type motivater to get people to march at each other right away. Might help with camping.

What happened to this structure of yours, that I like a lot?

The score of a player who hasn’t routed the enemy army is based on casualties inflicted (as indicated on the final turn in the game):
0-14% = 0 points
15-29% = 1 point
30-44% = 2 points
45%+ = 3 points

The score of a player who has routed the enemy army equals 7 points minus the number of points that the opponent receives, as per above.

Examples:
* 42% - 0% gives loser (i.e., the player who was routed) 0p and winner 7p (7 - 0 = 7).
* 42% - 17% gives loser 1p and winner 6p (7 - 1 = 6).
* 60% - 59% gives loser 3p and winner 4p (7 - 3 = 4).
* 17% - 0% gives the player with 17% inflicted casualties 1p and the other player (with 0% inflicted causalties) 0p.

[DanZanzibar]

The system I thought of a while back to emulate the auto tourneys for a win/loss/draw point based approach was:

4 points for a win
If you lose or draw you get points based on casualties inflicted.
15% - 1 pt
30% - 2 pts
45% - 3 pts

The other idea I had (but I don’t feel so strong about) was giving an extra point for winning within so many turns... kinda an artificial shot clock type motivater to get people to march at each other right away. Might help with camping.

What happened to this structure of yours, that I like a lot?

The score of a player who hasn’t routed the enemy army is based on casualties inflicted (as indicated on the final turn in the game):
0-14% = 0 points
15-29% = 1 point
30-44% = 2 points
45%+ = 3 points

The score of a player who has routed the enemy army equals 7 points minus the number of points that the opponent receives, as per above.

Examples:
* 42% - 0% gives loser (i.e., the player who was routed) 0p and winner 7p (7 - 0 = 7).
* 42% - 17% gives loser 1p and winner 6p (7 - 1 = 6).
* 60% - 59% gives loser 3p and winner 4p (7 - 3 = 4).
* 17% - 0% gives the player with 17% inflicted casualties 1p and the other player (with 0% inflicted causalties) 0p.

Yeah that was the original idea meant to basically copy the automated tournament entirely - the winner also scores more points for beating their opponent badly and keeping their own casualties low. I think for a league type setting there's an advantage to having any two players with 7 wins for instance to be tied and not differentiated on strength of win. This way if you have two unbeaten players fight it out for a top spot, only the outcome of their match will determine the winner of the division. I also don't like the idea that someone who goes 9-0 might be behind someone who went 8-1.

[Cunningcairn]

The system I thought of a while back to emulate the auto tourneys for a win/loss/draw point based approach was:

4 points for a win
If you lose or draw you get points based on casualties inflicted.
15% - 1 pt
30% - 2 pts
45% - 3 pts

The other idea I had (but I don’t feel so strong about) was giving an extra point for winning within so many turns... kinda an artificial shot clock type motivater to get people to march at each other right away. Might help with camping.

What happened to this structure of yours, that I like a lot?

The score of a player who hasn’t routed the enemy army is based on casualties inflicted (as indicated on the final turn in the game):
0-14% = 0 points
15-29% = 1 point
30-44% = 2 points
45%+ = 3 points

The score of a player who has routed the enemy army equals 7 points minus the number of points that the opponent receives, as per above.

Examples:
* 42% - 0% gives loser (i.e., the player who was routed) 0p and winner 7p (7 - 0 = 7).
* 42% - 17% gives loser 1p and winner 6p (7 - 1 = 6).
* 60% - 59% gives loser 3p and winner 4p (7 - 3 = 4).
* 17% - 0% gives the player with 17% inflicted casualties 1p and the other player (with 0% inflicted causalties) 0p.

Yeah that was the original idea meant to basically copy the automated tournament entirely - the winner also scores more points for beating their opponent badly and keeping their own casualties low. I think for a league type setting there's an advantage to having any two players with 7 wins for instance to be tied and not differentiated on strength of win. This way if you have two unbeaten players fight it out for a top spot, only the outcome of their match will determine the winner of the division. I also don't like the idea that someone who goes 9-0 might be behind someone who went 8-1.

Won't any system like this increase the chance of negative (defensive) play? If I did not want an opponent to score more points than me I certainly would be more inclined to play defensively with this points system than I would with the current one. I also don't see how it is fair for someone who inflicts 44% casualties to get 1 point less than someone who gets 45% casualties. As we all know a single bad dice roll can cause an extremely lucky or catastrophic (depending on who is the lucky one) result. These single results can cost a battle let alone 1% casualties and are more likely to be in excess of 10% casualties. That could be to the advantage of the person using negative tactics that you are trying to prevent.

I also don't understand how someone who who has narrowly (gotta be a lot of luck with all those narrow wins) won 9 games for 27 points under the current system should not be behind someone who has won 8 games comfortably for 32 points and leads the table. Is the problem not that people are seeing the win count and not the points scored as a measure for victory in the digital league? If so would that argument not contradict the intention behind a sliding scale point system based on casualties inflicted ? After all their argument is about number of wins and not quality of wins which any sliding point system tries to introduce.

[DanZanzibar]

Won't any system like this increase the chance of negative (defensive) play? If I did not want an opponent to score more points than me I certainly would be more inclined to play defensively with this points system than I would with the current one.

You do make a good point in that if one doesn't perceive this as encouraging more offensive play than it certainly won't. But the structure of awarding points to losers at lower thresholds than 50% does actually encourage the taking of more risks since you are much more likely to score something even if you lose than the current system where losing almost guarantees you zero points.

I also don't see how it is fair for someone who inflicts 44% casualties to get 1 point less than someone who gets 45% casualties. As we all know a single bad dice roll can cause an extremely lucky or catastrophic (depending on who is the lucky one) result. These single results can cost a battle let alone 1% casualties and are more likely to be in excess of 10% casualties. That could be to the advantage of the person using negative tactics that you are trying to prevent.

Any system with thresholds will always have the possibility of 1% making a difference. The game itself already has this - I just won a friendly match I was down 24% in at one point. There's matches that come down to 60-59%. But a larger number of tiers actually decreases the impact of narrowly missing the single tier that may get you points. I'm not sure I understand how you relate this back to negative tactics though please feel free to explain that further.

I also don't understand how someone who who has narrowly (gotta be a lot of luck with all those narrow wins) won 9 games for 27 points under the current system should not be behind someone who has won 8 games comfortably for 32 points and leads the table. Is the problem not that people are seeing the win count and not the points scored as a measure for victory in the digital league? If so would that argument not contradict the intention behind a sliding scale point system based on casualties inflicted ? After all their argument is about number of wins and not quality of wins which any sliding point system tries to introduce.

This is really a matter of preference at the end of the day. I wouldn't mind it either way really but for the reasons I already mentioned I like it better with all wins having the same score value. But really this is just a matter of preference - is being undefeated or having stronger victories to be rewarded more? I don't think whichever you choose will impact metagame considering too much.

[kronenblatt]

Won't any system like this increase the chance of negative (defensive) play? If I did not want an opponent to score more points than me I certainly would be more inclined to play defensively with this points system than I would with the current one.

You do make a good point in that if one doesn't perceive this as encouraging more offensive play than it certainly won't. But the structure of awarding points to losers at lower thresholds than 50% does actually encourage the taking of more risks since you are much more likely to score something even if you lose than the current system where losing almost guarantees you zero points.

I also don't see how it is fair for someone who inflicts 44% casualties to get 1 point less than someone who gets 45% casualties. As we all know a single bad dice roll can cause an extremely lucky or catastrophic (depending on who is the lucky one) result. These single results can cost a battle let alone 1% casualties and are more likely to be in excess of 10% casualties. That could be to the advantage of the person using negative tactics that you are trying to prevent.

Any system with thresholds will always have the possibility of 1% making a difference. The game itself already has this - I just won a friendly match I was down 24% in at one point. There's matches that come down to 60-59%. But a larger number of tiers actually decreases the impact of narrowly missing the single tier that may get you points. I'm not sure I understand how you relate this back to negative tactics though please feel free to explain that further.

I also don't understand how someone who who has narrowly (gotta be a lot of luck with all those narrow wins) won 9 games for 27 points under the current system should not be behind someone who has won 8 games comfortably for 32 points and leads the table. Is the problem not that people are seeing the win count and not the points scored as a measure for victory in the digital league? If so would that argument not contradict the intention behind a sliding scale point system based on casualties inflicted ? After all their argument is about number of wins and not quality of wins which any sliding point system tries to introduce.

This is really a matter of preference at the end of the day. I wouldn't mind it either way really but for the reasons I already mentioned I like it better with all wins having the same score value. But really this is just a matter of preference - is being undefeated or having stronger victories to be rewarded more? I don't think whichever you choose will impact metagame considering too much.

True, perception is everything. And as Zan says, I believe that it's less of a hurdle to go on the offensive if the threshold to getting at least 1p is 15% inflicted casualties. At least that's what I would feel.

The effect of thresholds in the points system could be reduced through introducing decimal points, e.g. (in Zan's example),

4.0 points for a win
If you lose or draw you get points based on casualties inflicted, with 0.05 points for each percentage point of casualties inflicted (example: 14% inflicted casualties yields you 0.7 points).


At the expense of needing a calculator or (God forbid) an Excel spreadsheet (looking at you, SLancaster!).

[Cunningcairn]

Won't any system like this increase the chance of negative (defensive) play? If I did not want an opponent to score more points than me I certainly would be more inclined to play defensively with this points system than I would with the current one.

You do make a good point in that if one doesn't perceive this as encouraging more offensive play than it certainly won't. But the structure of awarding points to losers at lower thresholds than 50% does actually encourage the taking of more risks since you are much more likely to score something even if you lose than the current system where losing almost guarantees you zero points.

I see you are trying to give a player a chance of at least scoring some points when facing a negative or defensive player. Why should that happen? The negative connotation to defense is central to this thread and others on the subject of camping etc. and I don't think that is the case. Defense be it passive or aggressive is a tactical decision based on the general's perception of the situation. In fact there are many situations that any general worth his salt will take a "camping" position because the risks far outweigh the rewards for aggressive action in that particular situation.

I also don't see how it is fair for someone who inflicts 44% casualties to get 1 point less than someone who gets 45% casualties. As we all know a single bad dice roll can cause an extremely lucky or catastrophic (depending on who is the lucky one) result. These single results can cost a battle let alone 1% casualties and are more likely to be in excess of 10% casualties. That could be to the advantage of the person using negative tactics that you are trying to prevent.

Any system with thresholds will always have the possibility of 1% making a difference. The game itself already has this - I just won a friendly match I was down 24% in at one point. There's matches that come down to 60-59%. But a larger number of tiers actually decreases the impact of narrowly missing the single tier that may get you points. I'm not sure I understand how you relate this back to negative tactics though please feel free to explain that further.

Correct but only at 20% casualties, 50% losses and 60% victories, if I'm correct, where 19%, 49% and 59% respectively become issues. I don't think more should be introduced when the intention is purely to counter what is seen as negative play. Pete has presented the statistics for draws/ties on numerous occasions and understanding the nature of army match ups and maps in this game I'm surprised that more players do not take camping/negative/defensive positions.

I also don't understand how someone who who has narrowly (gotta be a lot of luck with all those narrow wins) won 9 games for 27 points under the current system should not be behind someone who has won 8 games comfortably for 32 points and leads the table. Is the problem not that people are seeing the win count and not the points scored as a measure for victory in the digital league? If so would that argument not contradict the intention behind a sliding scale point system based on casualties inflicted ? After all their argument is about number of wins and not quality of wins which any sliding point system tries to introduce.

This is really a matter of preference at the end of the day. I wouldn't mind it either way really but for the reasons I already mentioned I like it better with all wins having the same score value. But really this is just a matter of preference - is being undefeated or having stronger victories to be rewarded more? I don't think whichever you choose will impact metagame considering too much.

Stronger victories are currently rewarded more and that is why a player can win a division with 8 wins against a player with 9 wins which any sliding scale as presented will also support. I am answering your post because it is under the heading of passive vs active defense and has morphed into ways of stopping camping i.e. defensive or possible negative play.

[DanZanzibar]

I should point out before this gets construed again as an attack on the DL, this is an abstract conversation about how to construct rules to encourage and justify the type of play that one wants to see (and yes, it is off the original topic in many ways). I don't really think the DL has a major problem with draws or even camping. The stats are draws are minimal. The main reason, though, is that there is often this game of reverse-chicken going on. You know chicken - when you drive your car at each other and the one who doesn't turn away wins (sorry for the explanation, maybe it's got other cultural names ). In this game (again this only sometimes happens anyway) the player to leave their hill last actually decides to encourage a fight at their disadvantage (and almost invariably someone does and there are few draws). I just like the idea that you can have rules in place to make it so that this behavior is inherently logically correct. Hence the point structure.

It's not that big a deal and it often gets turned into a defense of the DL to refute things like what I have said. I like considering rules and the motivations they inspire in game. To me, something like this would probably not change the behavior of players so much as reward those already playing more aggressively... and that appeals to me.

[Cunningcairn]

I should point out before this gets construed again as an attack on the DL, this is an abstract conversation about how to construct rules to encourage and justify the type of play that one wants to see (and yes, it is off the original topic in many ways). I don't really think the DL has a major problem with draws or even camping. The stats are draws are minimal. The main reason, though, is that there is often this game of reverse-chicken going on. You know chicken - when you drive your car at each other and the one who doesn't turn away wins (sorry for the explanation, maybe it's got other cultural names ). In this game (again this only sometimes happens anyway) the player to leave their hill last actually decides to encourage a fight at their disadvantage (and almost invariably someone does and there are few draws). I just like the idea that you can have rules in place to make it so that this behavior is inherently logically correct. Hence the point structure.

It's not that big a deal and it often gets turned into a defense of the DL to refute things like what I have said. I like considering rules and the motivations they inspire in game. To me, something like this would probably not change the behavior of players so much as reward those already playing more aggressively... and that appeals to me.

Dan I don't think anything you have posted is an attack on anything and I am certainly not attacking anything. I am a devout follower of constant improvement practices:-) I am questioning the value of the changes you and others have suggested over what we currently have in the DL. The reason I mention the DL is because it is the most popular and prestigious of any of the FOG2 competitions on offer. FOG2 is a wargame and models perceived behaviour of that period. Playing, chicken, Russian roulette or knifey ( I bet you don't know that one ) is not the same thing. Wargaming is far more than that. I'm assuming you want to introduce a different point system to change player's behaviour. If that is correct then how does the introduction of a different point system improve the game by changing the behaviour of players? What are the behaviours expected by the change? If that is not correct then what is the purpose for doing so?

PS my questions are just that, questions. Please do not see any of my responses as an aggressive defense or passive attack against anything you have said

[DanZanzibar]

I should point out before this gets construed again as an attack on the DL, this is an abstract conversation about how to construct rules to encourage and justify the type of play that one wants to see (and yes, it is off the original topic in many ways). I don't really think the DL has a major problem with draws or even camping. The stats are draws are minimal. The main reason, though, is that there is often this game of reverse-chicken going on. You know chicken - when you drive your car at each other and the one who doesn't turn away wins (sorry for the explanation, maybe it's got other cultural names ). In this game (again this only sometimes happens anyway) the player to leave their hill last actually decides to encourage a fight at their disadvantage (and almost invariably someone does and there are few draws). I just like the idea that you can have rules in place to make it so that this behavior is inherently logically correct. Hence the point structure.

It's not that big a deal and it often gets turned into a defense of the DL to refute things like what I have said. I like considering rules and the motivations they inspire in game. To me, something like this would probably not change the behavior of players so much as reward those already playing more aggressively... and that appeals to me.

Dan I don't think anything you have posted is an attack on anything and I am certainly not attacking anything. I am a devout follower of constant improvement practices:-) I am questioning the value of the changes you and others have suggested over what we currently have in the DL. The reason I mention the DL is because it is the most popular and prestigious of any of the FOG2 competitions on offer. FOG2 is a wargame and models perceived behaviour of that period. Playing, chicken, Russian roulette or knifey ( I bet you don't know that one ) is not the same thing. Wargaming is far more than that. I'm assuming you want to introduce a different point system to change player's behaviour. If that is correct then how does the introduction of a different point system improve the game by changing the behaviour of players? What are the behaviours expected by the change? If that is not correct then what is the purpose for doing so?

Knifey! You kiwis are nuts!

The comparison to chicken (or reverse-chicken rather) is just a way of describing what sometimes happens. I'm not sure how to answer your questions besides what I already wrote so maybe feel free to PM me if you feel like what I'm saying doesn't make sense. To reiterate one more time - lower point thresholds should encourage more aggressive play and even somewhat justify the attacks-at-disadvantage that people occasionally have to do just so the fighting begins.

[TheGrayMouser]

For the “stats of draws” in some tournaments , I’ll opine this. What isn’t known or quantifiable is when player x basically tells player y unless “z happens, it’s a draw”. Player y “complies” if only to get an actual game in, usually at some tactical disadvantage. A win or loss here obviously is not a draw, but when these things occur it not pleasant and some of the fun is lost.

Anyhow there’s no confrontation from me here, just my thoughts. Clearly many people enjoy Systems that allow for points in draws, “magnitude of victory” meta gaming etc etc,some tolerate it, and some just don’t want to game that way. Cheers!

[Cunningcairn]

I should point out before this gets construed again as an attack on the DL, this is an abstract conversation about how to construct rules to encourage and justify the type of play that one wants to see (and yes, it is off the original topic in many ways). I don't really think the DL has a major problem with draws or even camping. The stats are draws are minimal. The main reason, though, is that there is often this game of reverse-chicken going on. You know chicken - when you drive your car at each other and the one who doesn't turn away wins (sorry for the explanation, maybe it's got other cultural names ). In this game (again this only sometimes happens anyway) the player to leave their hill last actually decides to encourage a fight at their disadvantage (and almost invariably someone does and there are few draws). I just like the idea that you can have rules in place to make it so that this behavior is inherently logically correct. Hence the point structure.

It's not that big a deal and it often gets turned into a defense of the DL to refute things like what I have said. I like considering rules and the motivations they inspire in game. To me, something like this would probably not change the behavior of players so much as reward those already playing more aggressively... and that appeals to me.

Dan I don't think anything you have posted is an attack on anything and I am certainly not attacking anything. I am a devout follower of constant improvement practices:-) I am questioning the value of the changes you and others have suggested over what we currently have in the DL. The reason I mention the DL is because it is the most popular and prestigious of any of the FOG2 competitions on offer. FOG2 is a wargame and models perceived behaviour of that period. Playing, chicken, Russian roulette or knifey ( I bet you don't know that one ) is not the same thing. Wargaming is far more than that. I'm assuming you want to introduce a different point system to change player's behaviour. If that is correct then how does the introduction of a different point system improve the game by changing the behaviour of players? What are the behaviours expected by the change? If that is not correct then what is the purpose for doing so?

Knifey! You kiwis are nuts!

The comparison to chicken (or reverse-chicken rather) is just a way of describing what sometimes happens. I'm not sure how to answer your questions besides what I already wrote so maybe feel free to PM me if you feel like what I'm saying doesn't make sense. To reiterate one more time - lower point thresholds should encourage more aggressive play and even somewhat justify the attacks-at-disadvantage that people occasionally have to do just so the fighting begins.

I'll post a game for you if you're interested. New 1600 point late antiquity. What army do you want?

[Cunningcairn]

For the “stats of draws” in some tournaments , I’ll opine this. What isn’t known or quantifiable is when player x basically tells player y unless “z happens, it’s a draw”. Player y “complies” if only to get an actual game in, usually at some tactical disadvantage. A win or loss here obviously is not a draw, but when these things occur it not pleasant and some of the fun is lost.

Anyhow there’s no confrontation from me here, just my thoughts. Clearly many people enjoy Systems that allow for points in draws, “magnitude of victory” meta gaming etc etc,some tolerate it, and some just don’t want to game that way. Cheers!

Yes I agree it is unpleasant but it is what it is. No matter what system you put in place it will occur at times and any system that penalises a player for taking a defensive stance will be very unfair. Like in real life situations will occur when troop capability and terrain make it suicidal for one side to not take a defensive stance. Luckily this happens rarely in the digital league which I think shows that many players play aggressively even if it is to their detriment. To state that defensive play is undesirable is very unfair on players who choose to do so. It is in fact no different to the behaviour of generals that were faced with similar predicaments. I think it would be more beneficial to manage the potential of army mismatches and ensure that the ability of players in each section are similar which Pete already has covered.

[MikeC_81]

For the “stats of draws” in some tournaments , I’ll opine this. What isn’t known or quantifiable is when player x basically tells player y unless “z happens, it’s a draw”. Player y “complies” if only to get an actual game in, usually at some tactical disadvantage. A win or loss here obviously is not a draw, but when these things occur it not pleasant and some of the fun is lost.

Anyhow there’s no confrontation from me here, just my thoughts. Clearly many people enjoy Systems that allow for points in draws, “magnitude of victory” meta gaming etc etc,some tolerate it, and some just don’t want to game that way. Cheers!

Yes I agree it is unpleasant but it is what it is. No matter what system you put in place it will occur at times and any system that penalises a player for taking a defensive stance will be very unfair. Like in real life situations will occur when troop capability and terrain make it suicidal for one side to not take a defensive stance. Luckily this happens rarely in the digital league which I think shows that many players play aggressively even if it is to their detriment. To state that defensive play is undesirable is very unfair on players who choose to do so. It is in fact no different to the behaviour of generals that were faced with similar predicaments. I think it would be more beneficial to manage the potential of army mismatches and ensure that the ability of players in each section are similar which Pete already has covered.

What I don't get is why the DL doesn't allow for map rerolls unless both sides agree. If we want to try and match the DL up to real life, then the one side can always refuse battle in disadvantageous terrain and force a confrontation somewhere else. The Chaos tourney allows for map rerolls and it has worked well according to Karvon. I have had an opponent request a reroll himself and I have done so as well. It has simply generated better games.

[Cunningcairn]

For the “stats of draws” in some tournaments , I’ll opine this. What isn’t known or quantifiable is when player x basically tells player y unless “z happens, it’s a draw”. Player y “complies” if only to get an actual game in, usually at some tactical disadvantage. A win or loss here obviously is not a draw, but when these things occur it not pleasant and some of the fun is lost.

Anyhow there’s no confrontation from me here, just my thoughts. Clearly many people enjoy Systems that allow for points in draws, “magnitude of victory” meta gaming etc etc,some tolerate it, and some just don’t want to game that way. Cheers!

Yes I agree it is unpleasant but it is what it is. No matter what system you put in place it will occur at times and any system that penalises a player for taking a defensive stance will be very unfair. Like in real life situations will occur when troop capability and terrain make it suicidal for one side to not take a defensive stance. Luckily this happens rarely in the digital league which I think shows that many players play aggressively even if it is to their detriment. To state that defensive play is undesirable is very unfair on players who choose to do so. It is in fact no different to the behaviour of generals that were faced with similar predicaments. I think it would be more beneficial to manage the potential of army mismatches and ensure that the ability of players in each section are similar which Pete already has covered.

What I don't get is why the DL doesn't allow for map rerolls unless both sides agree. If we want to try and match the DL up to real life, then the one side can always refuse battle in disadvantageous terrain and force a confrontation somewhere else. The Chaos tourney allows for map rerolls and it has worked well according to Karvon. I have had an opponent request a reroll himself and I have done so as well. It has simply generated better games.

Mike the only problem I see with that is if the second map re-roll disadvantages the player that was happy with the first map. I have asked for and accepted requests for re-rolls without incident but that might not always be the case.

[stockwellpete]

What I don't get is why the DL doesn't allow for map rerolls unless both sides agree. If we want to try and match the DL up to real life, then the one side can always refuse battle in disadvantageous terrain and force a confrontation somewhere else. The Chaos tourney allows for map rerolls and it has worked well according to Karvon. I have had an opponent request a reroll himself and I have done so as well. It has simply generated better games.

Because a lot of players do not agree there should be map re-rolls at all. Their argument is that we already have the "pot luck" terrain mechanism and so we should stick to the first map chosen. It is a very reasonable argument. But, as a concession to those players who occasionally get a stinker of a map, a re-roll is allowed (up to 2 times) if both players agree to it. In addition, changing maps at the start can cause a lot of messing about. Player A likes the map, thinks about his/her army and sets it up carefully, only for Player B to veto the map. So all that time is wasted and Player A has now got the hump and is going to veto the next map if he/she is at any sort of disadvantage on it. In a big tournament like the DL this is bound to lead to problems somewhere along the line eventually. On the other hand, the current system gave me absolutely zero problems in Season 8.

[kronenblatt]

What I don't get is why the DL doesn't allow for map rerolls unless both sides agree. If we want to try and match the DL up to real life, then the one side can always refuse battle in disadvantageous terrain and force a confrontation somewhere else. The Chaos tourney allows for map rerolls and it has worked well according to Karvon. I have had an opponent request a reroll himself and I have done so as well. It has simply generated better games.

Can't we stay clear of questioning the DL and just stick to constructive discussions instead? At least in this thread, but ideally across the forum. DL, like all tournaments, are free not to join in case the setup is not to a person's liking, and the people who are organising and administering the tournaments (and making mods too, by the way) are doing that on their free time and on an ideal basis for the benefit of the community of other players, so I think it's fair that they shouldn't need to spend a lot of their time defending their creations (I feel strongly about this ever since my EU4 modding days). One-off suggestions are one thing (and then in the proper sub-forum and thread or PM), but endless questioning is another.

Mike the only problem I see with that is if the second map re-roll disadvantages the player that was happy with the first map. I have asked for and accepted requests for re-rolls without incident but that might not always be the case.

Then that player can exercise his/her veto, for another and final re-roll of the map? Admittedly cumbersome though. I guess in the end it's a gentleman's agreement for a re-roll agreement "not to be unreasonably withheld", and if a person always declines pleas for a re-roll, that person is not likely to get re-rolls accepted him/herself.

[Cunningcairn]

What I don't get is why the DL doesn't allow for map rerolls unless both sides agree. If we want to try and match the DL up to real life, then the one side can always refuse battle in disadvantageous terrain and force a confrontation somewhere else. The Chaos tourney allows for map rerolls and it has worked well according to Karvon. I have had an opponent request a reroll himself and I have done so as well. It has simply generated better games.

Can't we stay clear of questioning the DL and just stick to constructive discussions instead? At least in this thread, but ideally across the forum. DL, like all tournaments, are free not to join in case the setup is not to a person's liking, and the people who are organising and administering the tournaments (and making mods too, by the way) are doing that on their free time and on an ideal basis for the benefit of the community of other players, so I think it's fair that they shouldn't need to spend a lot of their time defending their creations (I feel strongly about this ever since my EU4 modding days). One-off suggestions are one thing (and then in the proper sub-forum and thread or PM), but endless questioning is another.

Mike the only problem I see with that is if the second map re-roll disadvantages the player that was happy with the first map. I have asked for and accepted requests for re-rolls without incident but that might not always be the case.

Then that player can exercise his/her veto, for another and final re-roll of the map? Admittedly cumbersome though. I guess in the end it's a gentleman's agreement for a re-roll agreement "not to be unreasonably withheld", and if a person always declines pleas for a re-roll, that person is not likely to get re-rolls accepted him/herself.

I personally don't have a problem with map re-rolls but do think the issue is more about mismatched armies. In saying that there are sections like Later Antiquity where this cannot be avoided. I'm interested to see if the change next season to 1600 points helps mitigates mismatches by giving some infantry armies more cavalry.

PS What is EU4?

[kronenblatt]

What is EU4?

Europa Universalis 4. I've made some Ancient Era mods for that game. Actually modded the game much more than I played it, so I'm good at modding the game but I suck at playing (even my own mods).