Slitherine

Proposed new competition. Amended 22/12/21

OVERVIEW.
Participants will be split up into divisions of 5 players each.
Players will play a mirror match against each opponent in their division, so a total of 8 games.
Players select a Home army when they enter. In each mirror match you will either play with your Home army or an Away army (two of each). The Away player sets up the match and can choose ANY historical army opponent for the match.
Hopefully the system will encourage more players to select armies that are less commonly used.
Scoring will be on the Percentage difference at the end of the battle, there is no bonus for winning.

TIMELINE.
Do not enter yet, I will open up a thread for entries in due course.
25 Dec - 7 Jan Entries
10 Jan - 6 Mar Competition (8 weeks).

SIGN UP
Sign up on the entry thread when it has opened.
To sign up you have to submit your Home Army list and optionally a map set. Armies are restricted to the period from 600 BC to 600 AD, if it overlaps any of that time period it is valid.
There are NO Allies.
You cannot select an Army list that has already been chosen, however there are no restrictions on multiple armies of the same nationality as long as they are for different dates.
You must have all the Ancients DLCs to enter.
Players are committing to completing 8 games in the 8 week time period, and to starting 2 matches (that is a mirror match of two games) within the first week. If you are unable to commit to this then do not enter.
I am not sure how many entries I will accept, will see how the process goes and aim to terminate it with full divisions and some players in reserve.

DIVISIONS.
I will rank players into divisions accordingly to their DL ranking. Players without a DL ranking will go into a lower division, however I may upgrade players if they have done well in other competitions.
There will be a table specifying which matches you play as a Home army and which as an Away army.

MATCHES.
All matches are Mirror match, 1600 points, Large/Wide map, Open Battle.
The Away player sets up the match. They can choose any historical opponent to the Home army EXCEPT that same army or their own Home army. This will allow for some Away armies to be outside of the period from 600 BC to 600 AD - that is OK. If you leave ‘DATE’ and ‘GEOGRAPHICAL’ checked that will give you the list of valid armies that you can use. The Home player should check that their opponent has used a valid army, invalid matches will have to be replayed.
There are no Allies for either side.
Use the map that the Home army has selected, or ‘Pot Luck’ if they have not selected one.
So for example, the Home army is Dacian 89-106 AD. The away army could be: Alan, Bosphoran, Germanic FT, Roman or Sarmatian of the appropriate dates.
Either of the two players can require a map reroll during deployment or on the first turn, so that is a maximum of two rerolls per match if both players separately request one. You can require your one map reroll even if your opponent is happy with the map that has come up. The Away player cannot change their mind about which army to use between rerolls.

SCORING.
Loser: takes his points. Never more than 60.
Winner: takes 120 minus the loser's points. Never less than 60.
If a player resigns then they get their score at that point.
If a player defaults then it is scored 120:0

Examples:
result: 40-15. score: 105-15
result: 60-35. score: 85-35
result: 60:50. score: 70:50

Draws. Each player gets their points scored, with a maximum of 60.
Examples:
result: 25-15. score: 25-15
result: 63:61. score: 60:60

The scoring is not ideal if a player resigns or worse defaults. The best resolution of this is for everyone to complete all of their games in good time.

CHALLENGES.
Either the Home or the Away player can make a Challenge.
When you make a challenge then post it in the thread and send a PM.
If the Away player makes the challenge then they should set up the mirror match.
If the Home player makes a challenge then the Away player sets up the mirror match when they accept it.
When setting up the matches password protect them - use all lower case or all upper case. Use the comment field to indicate the opponent.
All challenges must be responded to within one week, either accept it or agree to accept it at a later date. Once a challenge has been accepted then the games should be played.
If your challenge is ignored then PM me.

MAPS.
When players enter the competition they may optionally select a map for their Home army. To select a map you need the Region (Med., N. Europe, Middle East, Tropical, Desert or Steppe) and the Type (Agricultural, Rough, Wooded or Marshy - Mountain is excluded as it leads to maps being too restricted). For Tropical it is either with or without Marshy. Desert and Steppe have no type. The Regions for each army are listed below (this comes from the ARMYLIST.TXT file in the game - though don’t ask me where to find it !)
If you do not select a map then ‘Pot Luck’ will be used. So for example if you have a Carthaginian army the region is Mediterranean and you can select Agricultural, Rough, Wooded or Marshy OR you could go with Pot Luck which I think gives 70% Agricultural and 10% Rough/Wooded/Mountain.
If you have a Scythian army your choice is either Steppe or Pot Luck.

TIMLINESS
1.All players must start two matches within the first week.
2. All challenges must be responded within a week. The response can be to accept it OR that you will accept it within a given time frame.
3. Once a game has been started all turns must be returned within three days, unless by prior notice.
Players would generally be expected to average a turn a day or if it suits faster.
If a player defaults on clause 2 or 3 above above then their opponent can claim a game by default.
If a player defaults on clause 1, or repeatedly on clauses 2 or 3 then they may be removed from the competition.
I will conduct checks to determine if the competition is progressing well enough during the second week. For that to function properly I need to know if any challenges have been ignored so please PM me if that is happening.

At the end of the competition if there are games outstanding then:
Players may agree that the game is complete on the present score OR one player may resign.
Any games still outstanding will be adjudicated, in which case one or both players may be adjudged to be in default.

There is no good resolution to players not completing matches, I would appeal to all participants to play in a timely manner and if they see that they are not going to be able to complete a game then it is preferable to resign that to just disappear.

I really like the idea behind this League and agree it will see some different match ups than we are used to.

It's an interesting one re choice of maps. I am normally all for random maps but given the concept of a home and away fixture and bearing in mind the away player will have the choice as to which army they bring along I think letting the home player choose the ground does make sense.

Just my opinion and either way I will definitely be signing up.

Can I just confirm that the armies used will be those from the DL Classical Antiquity and Late Antiquity lists ?

Thanks for this proposed League .

It is much appreciated.

Ian

I like this idea and will probably sign up!

Just for clarification, with respect to "Either of the two players can require a map reroll during deployment or on the first turn, so that is a maximum of two rerolls per match if both players separately request one. You can require your one map reroll even if your opponent is happy with the map that has come up. The Away player cannot change their mind about which army to use between rerolls," when a game is forfeited because one of the plays requested a reroll, both games in the mirror match should be forfeited right? So the active games that would count are always a pair of mirror games.

With respect to "could the home player be allowed to select the map" I don't think it really matters in mirror games. After all, a really advantageous map also means really disadvantageous in the mirror game. It would also make the process more burdensome as you'll need information from both players to set-up a challenge.

Can I just confirm that the armies used will be those from the DL Classical Antiquity and Late Antiquity lists ?

Am open to people's preference on this one, could be any FoG 2 Ancients army or could restrict it to something like 600 BC to 600 AD.

Map rerolls. The principle is to give players the chance to get rid of a bad map where you are not going to get much of a battle. Since both mirror games are going to be played on the same map it is not going to give an advantage to either player but some maps are just no fun to play on hence the option to force a reroll. There is no link between map rerolls and defaults - a reroll is to get a good game going while a default is for when someone disappears without completing their games in a timely manner.

With respect to "could the home player be allowed to select the map" I don't think it really matters in mirror games. After all, a really advantageous map also means really disadvantageous in the mirror game. It would also make the process more burdensome as you'll need information from both players to set-up a challenge.

If we were going to have the Home player specify the map type then I would require them to do that at the same time as selecting their army, and if no selection was made it would just be pot luck map. So no extra burden required.

I personally prefer the idea of 600BC to 600AD but again would play either way.

Please count with me. I say yes to everything

I need to think an army for now but I realice you could chose an army wich have only one very bad historical and geographycal opponent. I think in the chase you have only one oponent you could “open” gegraphycal tab in order the battle could be less foreseable. For example, if I chose spartacus slaves army I will be sure I only could play against romans, so I could be tempted to always apply the same strategy in your games.

What do you think about?

For example, if I chose spartacus slaves army I will be sure I only could play against romans, so I could be tempted to always apply the same strategy in your games.

Historical opponents doesn't mean actual opponents, so if you pick Slave revolt there are 10 or so possible armies from that geographical area and time zone.

tyronec wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 3:36 pm

For example, if I chose spartacus slaves army I will be sure I only could play against romans, so I could be tempted to always apply the same strategy in your games.

Historical opponents doesn't mean actual opponents, so if you pick Slave revolt there are 10 or so possible armies from that geographical area and time zone.

I didnt know this, Iwas talking from memory and it is possible I didnt understand well something due to my horrible english. In this chase much better to have more options for playing. Sorry for the lost in translation

tyronec wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:05 am ... They can choose any historical opponent to the Home army EXCEPT that same army or their own Home army. If you leave ‘DATE’ and ‘GEOGRAPHICAL’ checked that will give you the list of valid armies that you can use...

I really like that idea and limitation.

tyronec wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:05 am There are no Allies for either side.

I believe (but I may be wrong (EDIT: but it turns out I wasn't this time)) that allies are subject to the same limitations as main armies if ‘DATE’ and ‘GEOGRAPHICAL’ are checked and main armies are selected first. If that's the case, could allies then be allowed? Would result in some more variety.

Example: independent of in which order Roman 24 BC - 196 AD and Dacian 89 -106 AD are selected as main armies, Romans only have access to Germanic Foot Tribes and Sarmatian as allies, whereas Dacians only have Sarmatian allies. Should instead of Dacian 89 - 106 AD, Armenian 331 BC - 252 AD be chosen as main army, Romans can now instead choose Armenian, Jewish, and Sarmatian as allies, and Armenians can choose Alan, Atropatene, and Parthian as allies.

devoncop wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:36 am I really like the idea behind this League and agree it will see some different match ups than we are used to.

It's an interesting one re choice of maps. I am normally all for random maps but given the concept of a home and away fixture and bearing in mind the away player will have the choice as to which army they bring along I think letting the home player choose the ground does make sense.

Just my opinion and either way I will definitely be signing up.

Can I just confirm that the armies used will be those from the DL Classical Antiquity and Late Antiquity lists ?

Thanks for this proposed League .

It is much appreciated.

Ian

I always like historical match ups, I did in table top and now here. Great ideas. I also like the idea that the home army chooses the ground. I think that not having the Pot Luck maps selected we may get better terrain. In the TT rules each army had specific terrain types which went went well with historic matches.

Another benefit of the home and away system is that you do not have to be as concerned about a theme - like Classical Antiquity vs. Late etc. The home army choice determines the theme so to speak.

I wouldn't be opposed to doing this for Medieval in February after the Storm of Arrows DLC hits.

Eric

I believe (but I may be wrong (EDIT: but it turns out I wasn't this time)) that allies are subject to the same limitations as main armies if ‘DATE’ and ‘GEOGRAPHICAL’ are checked and main armies are selected first. If that's the case, could allies then be allowed? Would result in some more variety.

I think it could be done with allies as you say. My reasoning was to make it a bit different, some armies (though not all) are being played with allies all the time in the DL and often the same ones. No allies is going to give you more armies that are less balanced.

I wouldn't be opposed to doing this for Medieval in February after the Storm of Arrows DLC hits.

Eric

Would be great if a few more people run competitions now that we have a huge hole in the calendar, am more than happy if someone wants to use anything from this. Plus I want to play some games too and am not going to play if I am running it.

tyronec wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 6:55 pm

I believe (but I may be wrong (EDIT: but it turns out I wasn't this time)) that allies are subject to the same limitations as main armies if ‘DATE’ and ‘GEOGRAPHICAL’ are checked and main armies are selected first. If that's the case, could allies then be allowed? Would result in some more variety.

I think it could be done with allies as you say. My reasoning was to make it a bit different, some armies (though not all) are being played with allies all the time in the DL and often the same ones. No allies is going to give you more armies that are less balanced.

I was thinking building upon your setup that players' home armies are upon start specified without allies and that for each game the away player selects the historical opponent, also without allies. The difference lies in that finally each player in the game will select his allies (or decide to go without allies). It will admittedly be a more complicated setup, but with the benefit of creating different match setups than what we've seen in the DL. But sure, I get your reasoning and you have a point of getting less balanced armies, which is always fun.

Whilst seeing the reasoning of Kronenblatt about allies I do agree that evidence suggests that players simply pick the same ally for their army every time . Adding an extra stage to decide on allies every match after the armies and terrain are decided would seem to be a bit cumbersome.

I would be in favour of using armies without allies to keep things straightforward.



I

So do you play each opponent home and away? That would be 10 mirror matches (20 battles)?

You would play as your initially selected home army once against each opponent in a mirror match where the opponent chooses an army from the date+geographically appropriate list - different opponents could select the same army to use against your home army?

Then you play against each opponent as the away side choosing an army to fight a mirror match with their home army?

Or in a league of 6 would there be 2 or 3 matches where you are allocated the home player and 2 or 3 matches where you are allocated as the away player?

(I did read the format, but it is late )

Keiron

An interesting concept.

There are a few lists that only have a handful of opponents with geography and time filters turned on. You might want to exclude lists that don't have a minimum of 10-12 opponents.

The problem with allowing the home army to choose the terrain base is defining what are historically reasonable options in any given match up. Some lists might be able to claim a whole range of terrain, where others might only have one or two. How would this be decided?

I think no allies is the simplest option since if you pick allies, that further narrows the options of opponents.

Kroche wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 11:07 pm So do you play each opponent home and away? That would be 10 mirror matches (20 battles)?

You would play as your initially selected home army once against each opponent in a mirror match where the opponent chooses an army from the date+geographically appropriate list - different opponents could select the same army to use against your home army?

Then you play against each opponent as the away side choosing an army to fight a mirror match with their home army?

Or in a league of 6 would there be 2 or 3 matches where you are allocated the home player and 2 or 3 matches where you are allocated as the away player?

(I did read the format, but it is late )


Keiron

You'd play 5 mirrored matches in a 6 player division for a total of 10 battles. 5 would be designated as home and 5 away.

Karvon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:14 am An interesting concept.

The problem with allowing the home army to choose the terrain base is defining what are historically reasonable options in any given match up. Some lists might be able to claim a whole range of terrain, where others might only have one or two. How would this be decided?

My understanding is that all Home armies would be able to choose whatever terrain they wished. After all a Roman army may instinctively prefer open farmlands to fight on but when faced with a horse archer army may decide a wooded field of battle would be preferable.

devoncop wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:50 am

Karvon wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:14 am An interesting concept.

The problem with allowing the home army to choose the terrain base is defining what are historically reasonable options in any given match up. Some lists might be able to claim a whole range of terrain, where others might only have one or two. How would this be decided?

My understanding is that all Home armies would be able to choose whatever terrain they wished. After all a Roman army may instinctively prefer open farmlands to fight on but when faced with a horse archer army may decide a wooded field of battle would be preferable.

So you're saying a Roman army facing Jewish Revolt could choose Steppe to avoid any difficult terrain, or a Spanish army could choose Jungle to maybe cut down on enemy missile fire when facing Parthians?

The assumption you are making though is that the Roman player would know which army he was facing when choosing the map. If as I understand it the opposing player knows the map he is free to pick any of the permitted Roman opposing armies, which makes sense as on an open steppe an enemy army that was Parthian would be far more likely to be willing to engage the Rmans than a Jewish Revolt one.

devoncop wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 8:53 am The assumption you are making though is that the Roman player would know which army he was facing when choosing the map. If as I understand it the opposing player knows the map he is free to pick any of the permitted Roman opposing armies, which makes sense as on an open steppe an enemy army that was Parthian would be far more likely to be willing to engage the Rmans than a Jewish Revolt one.

(earlier quote)
My understanding is that all Home armies would be able to choose whatever terrain they wished. After all a Roman army may instinctively prefer open farmlands to fight on but when faced with a horse archer army may decide a wooded field of battle would be preferable.

Um, well yeah, that's sort of the whole point, which you yourself made earlier and I pasted in