Slitherine

I like winning as much as the next person, but what I really want most from my games is fun.

For this, I prefer a close battle with nail-biting moments and turns of the tide.

Which is why I was annoyed to accept a game without fully investigating the match up, only to find myslef commanding a paltry band of Thracians against a force of armoured lance wielding super cavalry. On a mostly open battle field. A small one, at that, with nowhere much to run.

Now, this may indeed present an interesting tactical dilemma, and I am trying to treat it as such - but I'm wondering why, in that case, did the creator choose the easy side? I can't help wondering if it was just to score an easy win... but at the expense of any mutual fun...

Lesson learned - if you don't recognise the armies involved, check them first, and have a look at the terrain set up too!

In such situations, I always immediately request a mirror match.

Your post isn't about me, but I've probably been guilty of similar match-ups, so wanted to respond.

Tresantes wrote: For this, I prefer a close battle with nail-biting moments and turns of the tide.

Who doesn't? But personally I get tired of the same old match-ups all the time so am constantly looking for other good matchups.

Tresantes wrote:...but I'm wondering why, in that case, did the creator choose the easy side? I can't help wondering if it was just to score an easy win... but at the expense of any mutual fun...

Sometimes that search for something new does not work out--I have certainly been guilty of posting a few lopsided matchups. Generally when I try new match-ups I choose hilly or wooded terrain if it looks like it might be lopsided, so that it is more of a fight--but at least 3 times out of 4, the "hilly" or "wooded" map is really just a big open field. Also, just as often as not I choose what looks to be the weaker army. I just started a program of private challenges featuring lopsided match-ups, in which the opponent chooses his side, and the player that ends up with the weaker army gets three chances to choose a map that he likes. So far, so interesting!

Tresantes wrote: Lesson learned - if you don't recognise the armies involved, check them first, and have a look at the terrain set up too!

For the same reason, I'll never accept a "Pot Luck" challenge again, after ending up with Bithynians vs Seleucids--not pretty! I'm also amazed how few people choose anything other than "agricultural" maps--ho hum!

SnuggleBunnies wrote:In such situations, I always immediately request a mirror match.

But how is that better--then you end up playing two bad games instead of one?

This is why the format of both players picking their armies, while not knowing what army the other player had picked, was the most popular multiplayer format in FoG I. Both players would be able to choose an army they liked and wanted to play, and by not having knowledge of what army one's opponent had picked, there was an element of luck which could favour or disadvantage either player equally. If one had an army whose troop composition wasn't well-suited to one's opponent it would be because of the hand of fate, rather than the because the dastardly opponent had set one up for a fall.

This is also why I suggested having an option to randomize sides for games in which the armies are pre-arranged, so both players would have an equal chance of playing the "better" army if there is one.

Tresantes wrote:I like winning as much as the next person, but what I really want most from my games is fun.

For this, I prefer a close battle with nail-biting moments and turns of the tide.

Which is why I was annoyed to accept a game without fully investigating the match up, only to find myslef commanding a paltry band of Thracians against a force of armoured lance wielding super cavalry. On a mostly open battle field. A small one, at that, with nowhere much to run.

Now, this may indeed present an interesting tactical dilemma, and I am trying to treat it as such - but I'm wondering why, in that case, did the creator choose the easy side? I can't help wondering if it was just to score an easy win... but at the expense of any mutual fun...

Lesson learned - if you don't recognise the armies involved, check them first, and have a look at the terrain set up too!

I am just curious, what was the other army? But yes, a cavalry based army going up against an enemy army with no heavy foot and/or significant amounts of cavalry of their own seems like a gimmick setup.

Sarmatian. Lots of noble lancers of high quality.

I did get some light javelin cavalry, and tried to focus on one of his units, but the map was set at Very Small, so there wasn't much room to move and they were gradually caught or driven off.

A mirror match allows you to compete over who can do better with the worse army, or even win with it. At the least it makes it so you're not just playing a game where you're getting wrecked.

I agree, I have run into this a number of times. As soon as you see the armies you know that you have very little if any chance. Then you wonder did the poster not know or did they intentionally pick a battle they could not lose? Well it probably happens both ways but it can't always be coincidence, some just want to win at "any price".

I still think that these “charges”are unfair....a player might set up a challenge with a hilly map—and if you got a hilly/rough map the game would be interesting, but if like most hilly maps the map is actually rather flat, the game wont be very good.

Moreover I’m not sure what people are complaing about—if you dont think thst a challenge is “fair” then dont accept it?