The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[devoncop]

That is true but in season 1 of FOGDL massed archers dominated. These things change as folks learn to counter particular armies.

My point is that the winner of Div A could have chosen a cheap massed infantry army even in VS but didn't and he won fair and square without help from rule restrictions.

Like you have said though, you are introducing those rules and if folk want to enter they need to be able to accept them.

Massed archers were nerfed by Richard and were not available at all in the FOG2DL for one season. These massed infantry armies may be nerfed in the near future, but I have no plans to withdraw them for Season 6. So I am not introducing any rules at all pertaining to these sorts of armies.

I must have misunderstood then....I thought if someone used the army in season 5 they would be barred from using them in season 6 ?

[stockwellpete]

I must have misunderstood then....I thought if someone used the army in season 5 they would be barred from using them in season 6 ?

Now you are mixing different things up. I have no current plans to do anything to massed infantry armies. Richard may have, I am not sure, but I am not part of the development team. We held a poll on whether players would be forced to change their army each season but this modest proposal was narrowly defeated and will not be introduced in Season 6. As the vote was very close I may either re-poll, or just unilaterally introduce the rule myself, at some point in the future. The tournament needs to keep evolving and offering new challenges to retain player interest.

[devoncop]

Ah.......

This was the statement I got confused with.......

"Well, you are going to have to get used to the idea because I will be bringing it in for Season 6. The other reason for doing this is because at the moment it is possible to have 6 pike armies in the same division - Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid plus the non-Diadochi Pyrrhic. Under the new regulation the maximum number of pike armies per division will be 3 i.e. two Diadochi armies plus the Pyrrhic. 3 out of 10 is definitely enough".

So there will be restrictions on army choices but not on a player at least trying to use the same army they used the previous season..........but obviously whether you allowed them to get that choice would be your decision.

Have I now got that right ?

[stockwellpete]

Ah.......

This was the statement I got confused with.......

"Well, you are going to have to get used to the idea because I will be bringing it in for Season 6. The other reason for doing this is because at the moment it is possible to have 6 pike armies in the same division - Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid plus the non-Diadochi Pyrrhic. Under the new regulation the maximum number of pike armies per division will be 3 i.e. two Diadochi armies plus the Pyrrhic. 3 out of 10 is definitely enough".

So there will be restrictions on army choices but not on a player at least trying to use the same army they used the previous season..........but obviously whether you allowed them to get that choice would be your decision.

Have I now got that right ?

No, not really.

Certain nations that have 6 or more armies in a section have been given a limited exemption from the "one army per nation per division" rule from Season 6 onwards. And what I am now calling the "Diadochi nation" (for want of a better description) will be included in this list of exemptions. Two armies per division will be allowed for these exempted nations. So this will increase the chances of players to use an army from one of these nations (they are mostly the nations that built great empires).

However, because the Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian etc are now considered part of one nation (i.e. the Diadochi nation) players will only be able to choose one army from this list in future. This is not actually a rule change because players have always been required to make their choices from 3, and more recently, 4 different nations. But now players will not be able to pick 4 pike armies, in future, to ensure they get a pike army of some sort - and the maximum number of pike armies in any division will now be 3 instead of 6.

Players will still be able to use the same army from season to season as the last poll did not support a change to this rule. In terms of the specific army allocation process, I have hardly any room now to decide anything myself. Before the army allocation process begins, there is a process using the FOG2DL ratings to put players into divisions. I have some discretion here because sometimes there are quite big differences between who enters a section from one season to the next - and sometimes players return after missing a season or two. So I often have to think about discretionary promotions and relegations (provided for in the rules since FOG1DL Season 1 over 5 years ago). But once the divisions are formed up and the army allocation process starts, I have no room at all to interfere in the process. It is completely transparent. Players who cannot be allocated one of their four choices are asked to make a fifth choice from all the armies that have not been allocated to that division.

[devoncop]

That is a lot clearer to me.

Thanks.

[batesmotel]

For what it's worth, the Ptolemaic 55-30 BC probably shouldn't be in that list. 1 average pike and 3 raw pike doesn't a pike army make.

[stockwellpete]

For what it's worth, the Ptolemaic 55-30 BC probably shouldn't be in that list. 1 average pike and 3 raw pike doesn't a pike army make.

Yes, and the most recent Seleucid army is not a pike army either, nor are two of the earlier Seleucid armies (320-303 BC and 302-301 BC). But, as I said, when dealing with 60-70 players it is much more straightforward to group the "Diadochi nation" in the way that I have to start off with. Once players have got used to the idea then maybe I can tweak it a bit in later seasons. But for Season 6 it will be as listed.

[Triarii]

3-1 score - Here is a general question for opinions.

Twice in this tournament I have missed out on a point by seeing opponents rallying in the last move take my score below the 50% needed to gain a point while my opponent gets over the line.
The first was 53% shifting to 49% but otherwise well beaten and I felt so be it.
However; The last was a move which started 58%-56% and finished 47%-62%. This after a last move in which there were 5 opponent rallies 3 of which were routed to fragmented.

Is the 50% for 1 point sufficiently close when last move rallies can give a double digit swing - is this anyone else's experience and if so what do they think regarding a tweak or is this a one off outlier?

[General Shapur]

3-1 score - Here is a general question for opinions.

Twice in this tournament I have missed out on a point by seeing opponents rallying in the last move take my score below the 50% needed to gain a point while my opponent gets over the line.
The first was 53% shifting to 49% but otherwise well beaten and I felt so be it.
However; The last was a move which started 58%-56% and finished 47%-62%. This after a last move in which there were 5 opponent rallies 3 of which were routed to fragmented.

Is the 50% for 1 point sufficiently close when last move rallies can give a double digit swing - is this anyone else's experience and if so what do they think regarding a tweak or is this a one off outlier?

I had 1 game like that this season - with my indians that were beaten to a pulp in a few turns coming back from the dead to win soundly against Romans due to many many behind the lines rallies. I figured that as I had more troops there were going to be more rallies - but didn't expect that fortune. But that was a 1 in 36 event as it din't grace me in my other games that I remember.

[stockwellpete]

3-1 score - Here is a general question for opinions.

Twice in this tournament I have missed out on a point by seeing opponents rallying in the last move take my score below the 50% needed to gain a point while my opponent gets over the line.
The first was 53% shifting to 49% but otherwise well beaten and I felt so be it.
However; The last was a move which started 58%-56% and finished 47%-62%. This after a last move in which there were 5 opponent rallies 3 of which were routed to fragmented.

Is the 50% for 1 point sufficiently close when last move rallies can give a double digit swing - is this anyone else's experience and if so what do they think regarding a tweak or is this a one off outlier?

But wherever you move the cut off point to you will get the same thing happening. Also, the likelihood of a player getting 4 or 5 rallies at such a crucial stage of a game is quite low, I would say.

[Karvon]

I dunno, I've seen 3-4 rallies on a single turn on several occasions in the past couple of months. It's not that rare. It's terrible at any stage; I feel it's even worse mid=game as it can completely reverse the momentum of the game.

One reason I often stock up on LH is specifically to have units to see off routers and fragmented ralliers. I wish LF would be scripted to pursue routers, something which I've read they were tasked for in ancient manuals. I do try to use them for this manually, but as they don't pursue, the routers usually easily outdistance them.

[paulmcneil]

I think the issue comes back to the same problem with double drops in morale. It's not the fact that it happens, it's the fact that over a course of a game it doesn't even out between sides, that says to me that the random factor on rallies (especially from rout) and double drops have "fat tails" i.e. the randomness is far too wide meaning that there can be enormous differences between two sides within a game, and as these two factors often give game changing results, the outcome will be catastrophic for one side, and negates the skill of the players, this is especially noticeable where players are evenly matched where you would expect chance to play a proportionally bigger chance on the outcome, but the extreme nature of the test results skews the outcome beyond anything the players can mitigate effectively against. The random factors need to be toned down, so that chance operates around the edges of the game, rather than being the core of the outcome.

[stockwellpete]

The random factors need to be toned down, so that chance operates around the edges of the game, rather than being the core of the outcome.

Yes. I agree very much with this sentiment.

[MikeC_81]

Romano-British and Soisson being good armies in Late Antiquity are more of a function of the fact that most Late Antiquity armies are poop. In FoG2 your units need to either be really good or very cheap and Late Antiquity is a race to the bottom to get the most men per dollar spent especially now that Jewish Zealots are more expensive.

Most of the expensive fancy pants units in Late Antiquity aren't hard-hitting units that can win quickly. In Classical, you got pikes, Impact Foot, tons of superior spears, Elephants, Lancers in well balanced mixed armies that can mitigate low quality zombie hordes. I would be more concerned if Soissons and Romano British was running roughshod over the KO tournament but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[MikeMarchant]

The random factors need to be toned down, so that chance operates around the edges of the game, rather than being the core of the outcome.

Yes. I agree very much with this sentiment.

Yes, this has always been something that has undermined FoG (1 & 2) for me. Not only that the luck often doesn't come close to evening out in a battle, but also that very unlikely events occur significantly more often than on the historical battlefield.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Geffalrus]

Not sure I agree that unlikely events are happening in FoG2 more often than on the historical battlefield. Unreasonable panic and confusion were ever present.

I think one important thing to remember is that this game has far, far more control of units and far better cross battlefield communication than ancient commanders have. Hell, more even than modern commanders have. Additionally, we don't usually have things like baggage trains that can be captured, something that was decisive for a number of crucial battles.

The other important thing I want to just put out there is that there are a LOT of places where luck comes into play (and that people, myself included, complain about) that can decide battles in this game. Double drops are far from the only culprit. Here's my list:

- Garbage units holding firm under stress.
- Expensive super units rolling Indecisive vs. garbage units.
- Evading instead of standing firm and fighting.
- Fighting instead of evading.
- Evading a grand total of 1 space and getting rear attacked.
- Pursuit roll distance is too short.
- Pursuit roll distance is too long.
- Pursuit roll results in flank attack on your unit.
- Pursuit roll ignores the flank of an enemy unit.
- Unit pursues off the map.
- Enemy units rally from routing.
- None of your routed units ever rally.
- Enemy units rally while in melee nullifying a previous turn's flank attack.

Edit: Also.......

- Rolling a flat, featureless plain as a medium foot army.
- Rolling a mountain forest map as the Huns.
- Rolling a map with a stream as a pike/lancer army.
- Rolling a rocky mesa map as a heavy infantry army.

[MikeMarchant]

Not sure I agree that unlikely events are happening in FoG2 more often than on the historical battlefield. Unreasonable panic and confusion were ever present.

I think one important thing to remember is that this game has far, far more control of units and far better cross battlefield communication than ancient commanders have. Hell, more even than modern commanders have. Additionally, we don't usually have things like baggage trains that can be captured, something that was decisive for a number of crucial battles.

The other important thing I want to just put out there is that there are a LOT of places where luck comes into play (and that people, myself included, complain about) that can decide battles in this game. Double drops are far from the only culprit. Here's my list:

- Garbage units holding firm under stress.
- Expensive super units rolling Indecisive vs. garbage units.
- Evading instead of standing firm and fighting.
- Fighting instead of evading.
- Evading a grand total of 1 space and getting rear attacked.
- Pursuit roll distance is too short.
- Pursuit roll distance is too long.
- Pursuit roll results in flank attack on your unit.
- Pursuit roll ignores the flank of an enemy unit.
- Unit pursues off the map.
- Enemy units rally from routing.
- None of your routed units ever rally.
- Enemy units rally while in melee nullifying a previous turn's flank attack.

Edit: Also.......

- Rolling a flat, featureless plain as a medium foot army.
- Rolling a mountain forest map as the Huns.
- Rolling a map with a stream as a pike/lancer army.
- Rolling a rocky mesa map as a heavy infantry army.

I think for me the standout anomalies are the way that fragmented units can often survive for turn after turn after turn, even when surrounded. This has very often prevented me from turning a flank (and having my flank turned). I have no doubt that this kind of heroism must have occurred on the ancient battlefield on occassion, but not with the frequency it occurs in FoG. Another, admittedly rarer, anomaly is having catahphracts or heavy cavaly charged by MF on flat open terrain, to their front, and in equal number and having the cataphracts or heavy cavarly fragmented on contact.

The way that lights effect the game also troubles me a great deal. I just can not see a professional HF army advancing on the enemy line only to ignore their orders and chase off after lights, often turning their flanks or rear to the enemy in doing so. This seems even worse in FoG 2 where the game won't allow you to turn your flank to an enemy unit if it can charge you (very sensible most of the time), and the so the stupidty of chasing after lights seems even more stupid.


Best Wishes

Mike

[youngr]

Not sure I agree that unlikely events are happening in FoG2 more often than on the historical battlefield. Unreasonable panic and confusion were ever present.

I think one important thing to remember is that this game has far, far more control of units and far better cross battlefield communication than ancient commanders have. Hell, more even than modern commanders have. Additionally, we don't usually have things like baggage trains that can be captured, something that was decisive for a number of crucial battles.

The other important thing I want to just put out there is that there are a LOT of places where luck comes into play (and that people, myself included, complain about) that can decide battles in this game. Double drops are far from the only culprit. Here's my list:

- Garbage units holding firm under stress.
- Expensive super units rolling Indecisive vs. garbage units.
- Evading instead of standing firm and fighting.
- Fighting instead of evading.
- Evading a grand total of 1 space and getting rear attacked.
- Pursuit roll distance is too short.
- Pursuit roll distance is too long.
- Pursuit roll results in flank attack on your unit.
- Pursuit roll ignores the flank of an enemy unit.
- Unit pursues off the map.
- Enemy units rally from routing.
- None of your routed units ever rally.
- Enemy units rally while in melee nullifying a previous turn's flank attack.

Edit: Also.......

- Rolling a flat, featureless plain as a medium foot army.
- Rolling a mountain forest map as the Huns.
- Rolling a map with a stream as a pike/lancer army.
- Rolling a rocky mesa map as a heavy infantry army.

Totally agree with the above - seen them all several times!

[youngr]

Not sure I agree that unlikely events are happening in FoG2 more often than on the historical battlefield. Unreasonable panic and confusion were ever present.

I think one important thing to remember is that this game has far, far more control of units and far better cross battlefield communication than ancient commanders have. Hell, more even than modern commanders have. Additionally, we don't usually have things like baggage trains that can be captured, something that was decisive for a number of crucial battles.

The other important thing I want to just put out there is that there are a LOT of places where luck comes into play (and that people, myself included, complain about) that can decide battles in this game. Double drops are far from the only culprit. Here's my list:

- Garbage units holding firm under stress.
- Expensive super units rolling Indecisive vs. garbage units.
- Evading instead of standing firm and fighting.
- Fighting instead of evading.
- Evading a grand total of 1 space and getting rear attacked.
- Pursuit roll distance is too short.
- Pursuit roll distance is too long.
- Pursuit roll results in flank attack on your unit.
- Pursuit roll ignores the flank of an enemy unit.
- Unit pursues off the map.
- Enemy units rally from routing.
- None of your routed units ever rally.
- Enemy units rally while in melee nullifying a previous turn's flank attack.

Edit: Also.......

- Rolling a flat, featureless plain as a medium foot army.
- Rolling a mountain forest map as the Huns.
- Rolling a map with a stream as a pike/lancer army.
- Rolling a rocky mesa map as a heavy infantry army.

I think for me the standout anomalies are the way that fragmented units can often survive for turn after turn after turn, even when surrounded. This has very often prevented me from turning a flank (and having my flank turned). I have no doubt that this kind of heroism must have occurred on the ancient battlefield on occassion, but not with the frequency it occurs in FoG. Another, admittedly rarer, anomaly is having catahphracts or heavy cavaly charged by MF on flat open terrain, to their front, and in equal number and having the cataphracts or heavy cavarly fragmented on contact.

The way that lights effect the game also troubles me a great deal. I just can not see a professional HF army advancing on the enemy line only to ignore their orders and chase off after lights, often turning their flanks or rear to the enemy in doing so. This seems even worse in FoG 2 where the game won't allow you to turn your flank to an enemy unit if it can charge you (very sensible most of the time), and the so the stupidty of chasing after lights seems even more stupid.


Best Wishes

Mike

Frontal combat in Pike and Shot seems to work much better. Fragged units do not hold on forever, elite units are not held forever by inferior units so that a larger army has loads of time to outflank them............. grrrrr

[paulmcneil]

Not sure I agree that unlikely events are happening in FoG2 more often than on the historical battlefield. Unreasonable panic and confusion were ever present.

I think one important thing to remember is that this game has far, far more control of units and far better cross battlefield communication than ancient commanders have. Hell, more even than modern commanders have. Additionally, we don't usually have things like baggage trains that can be captured, something that was decisive for a number of crucial battles.

The other important thing I want to just put out there is that there are a LOT of places where luck comes into play (and that people, myself included, complain about) that can decide battles in this game. Double drops are far from the only culprit. Here's my list:

- Garbage units holding firm under stress.
- Expensive super units rolling Indecisive vs. garbage units.
- Evading instead of standing firm and fighting.
- Fighting instead of evading.
- Evading a grand total of 1 space and getting rear attacked.
- Pursuit roll distance is too short.
- Pursuit roll distance is too long.
- Pursuit roll results in flank attack on your unit.
- Pursuit roll ignores the flank of an enemy unit.
- Unit pursues off the map.
- Enemy units rally from routing.
- None of your routed units ever rally.
- Enemy units rally while in melee nullifying a previous turn's flank attack.

Edit: Also.......

- Rolling a flat, featureless plain as a medium foot army.
- Rolling a mountain forest map as the Huns.
- Rolling a map with a stream as a pike/lancer army.
- Rolling a rocky mesa map as a heavy infantry army.

Personally I have no problem with any of these issues, IF THEY ARE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED BY CHANCE BETWEEN PLAYERS IN THE SAME GAME, that is the point, it's when the chance factor is so diverse that it can mean that only one side suffers during a single game that it becomes a problem, especially double drops in morale and rallies from rout as these two factors can be instantly decisive in the outcome of a game.