Please don't make me come and get you.

[MikeC_81]

Please don't make me come across the map and get you. This is from the Digital League and I have blacked out the armies involved to avoid naming and shaming but this is absurd and rest assured it is not only this instance. More than half of my games have my opponent with troops within 5-10 squares of their baseline. And one of those that doesn't literally have their army forming a ring around a hill on their half of the map and has no intention of moving off of it.

If you want to do that against me, just let me know upfront via PM. We will reset the map as many times as you want till you get something where you feel that you can play. If that won't do I'll just give you the win like I have done in the past since I don't care about prizing or wins. If you are concerned with Pete frowning on this then just let me know, we can make the game and let a week pass or something and just make up a score to your liking. We are all playing armies we choose so there isn't some automated mismatch going on. There shouldn't be any reason to literally avoid playing the game. I just want a decent game.

[zakblood]

a defensive box as shown, using the map edge and forest to make both flanks secure means only one thing, pure defence, wait out and see the frontage and hold, then play for time, rather boring, but looking at the other side, i can't say it's much different from my point of view, you have the mountains and then a forest for flank protection and have the numbers to hold, then again maybe there higher quality so will win in a push, but then you can counter while they follow and still win overall, but what do i know, i don't play online and are useless at the best of time, but do like the looks of both sides tbh, but maybe would like a closer look more zoomed in to really say what could happen, i often play the back line if the terrain is good, then again i only play the AI

[Cunningcairn]

In most games someone takes a defensive position. That is normally because one army is disadvantaged because of terrain and army composition. Part of the challenge in the league is to pick an army that can do well in any situation and still be competitive. A skill I'm definitely struggling with However your opponent might have lured you into a trap as very little of his army is visible and your right flank is very exposed.

[76mm]

Well, that map is a perfect example of why I almost never play Mountain maps; Mountain maps should have lots of rough terrain and favor armies with medium foot and lots of skirmishers. Instead, they generally feature a narrow, flat plain between impassable terrain, perfect for heavy foot armies.

[MikeC_81]

In most games someone takes a defensive position. That is normally because one army is disadvantaged because of terrain and army composition. Part of the challenge in the league is to pick an army that can do well in any situation and still be competitive. A skill I'm definitely struggling with However your opponent might have lured you into a trap as very little of his army is visible and your right flank is very exposed.

I took the time to send a skirmisher to check out the forest. It will take another 2 turns for that skirmisher to clear the next set of forests. The game plan, no matter how disadvantage shouldn't be to sit one position and be ok not advancing at all. What if I chose not to march through some dangerous potential traps? Then we would be still separated by a football field with only half the game to go.

a defensive box as shown, using the map edge and forest to make both flanks secure means only one thing, pure defence, wait out and see the frontage and hold, then play for time, rather boring, but looking at the other side, i can't say it's much different from my point of view, you have the mountains and then a forest for flank protection and have the numbers to hold, then again maybe there higher quality so will win in a push, but then you can counter while they follow and still win overall, but what do i know, i don't play online and are useless at the best of time, but do like the looks of both sides tbh, but maybe would like a closer look more zoomed in to really say what could happen, i often play the back line if the terrain is good, then again i only play the AI

The things is I am now occupying a bunch of hills inside his deployment zone. He obviously has a ton of troops somewhere tucked away. If he wanted a narrow frontage game he could have fought at the mountain pass or the hills that I am on now. He could have asked for terrain reroll.

[Cunningcairn]

In most games someone takes a defensive position. That is normally because one army is disadvantaged because of terrain and army composition. Part of the challenge in the league is to pick an army that can do well in any situation and still be competitive. A skill I'm definitely struggling with However your opponent might have lured you into a trap as very little of his army is visible and your right flank is very exposed.

I took the time to send a skirmisher to check out the forest. It will take another 2 turns for that skirmisher to clear the next set of forests. The game plan, no matter how disadvantage shouldn't be to sit one position and be ok not advancing at all. What if I chose not to march through some dangerous potential traps? Then we would be still separated by a football field with only half the game to go.

a defensive box as shown, using the map edge and forest to make both flanks secure means only one thing, pure defence, wait out and see the frontage and hold, then play for time, rather boring, but looking at the other side, i can't say it's much different from my point of view, you have the mountains and then a forest for flank protection and have the numbers to hold, then again maybe there higher quality so will win in a push, but then you can counter while they follow and still win overall, but what do i know, i don't play online and are useless at the best of time, but do like the looks of both sides tbh, but maybe would like a closer look more zoomed in to really say what could happen, i often play the back line if the terrain is good, then again i only play the AI

The things is I am now occupying a bunch of hills inside his deployment zone. He obviously has a ton of troops somewhere tucked away. If he wanted a narrow frontage game he could have fought at the mountain pass or the hills that I am on now. He could have asked for terrain reroll.

I agree that it is frustrating but it is the nature of the league games. I have again lost games where I have pursued the enemy instead of waiting. I do not blame my opponents for the tactics as they were trying to get in a favourable position. It is normally my rashness in trying to get into contact that changes their position into something more favourable. Unfortunately I haven't quite got the tactic to entice them out quite correct yet and normally end up getting beaten

[melm]

This map does look unfriendly to an army mainly composed of lancers due to lack maneuver ground. Perhaps he is playing ambush tactic using woods. But in my view, you are not in disadvantage as the initiator to attack. He made his choice to hide. Usually if both sides find the advance is unfavorable, map rerolls. BTW, we should guarantee some liberty to choose where one wants to fight. Some pick open ground in the middle, some choose the edge of the map. The only case that I think is indeed frustrating which needs to be evaluated is that one player hides more than 60% of his forces in the woods. I pick 60% because that is the threshold for the other side to get enough amount to win the game. However, when I am thinking of Slav and their tactics, perhaps even this is legitimate in FOGII.

[MVP7]

Nothing inherently wrong with hiding or staying in favorable part of the map as long as the map borders aren't being used as unnatural obstacles in my opinion. Then again, this kind of stuff is why I stick to the single-player .

[Nijis]

I don't blame a player for doing what they think is necessary to preserve their army, but I believe that there should be some sort of rule to prevent turtling. Maybe if no casualties have been inflicted for five turns running, then whoever controls the four middle squares wins a 40-0 victory, or something like that. In nine games out of 10 it's not a problem, but for that 10th game, it can be very frustrating.

[Cunningcairn]

This map does look unfriendly to an army mainly composed of lancers due to lack maneuver ground. Perhaps he is playing ambush tactic using woods. But in my view, you are not in disadvantage as the initiator to attack. He made his choice to hide. Usually if both sides find the advance is unfavorable, map rerolls. BTW, we should guarantee some liberty to choose where one wants to fight. Some pick open ground in the middle, some choose the edge of the map. The only case that I think is indeed frustrating which needs to be evaluated is that one player hides more than 60% of his forces in the woods. I pick 60% because that is the threshold for the other side to get enough amount to win the game. However, when I am thinking of Slav and their tactics, perhaps even this is legitimate in FOGII.

Sometimes the most aggressive players hide their entire armies at deployment. This gives one the opportunity to plan your battle and leaves your opponent wondering. Cowering in a corner and denying your opponent information before attacking are two different beasts.

[MikeC_81]

I don't blame a player for doing what they think is necessary to preserve their army, but I believe that there should be some sort of rule to prevent turtling. Maybe if no casualties have been inflicted for five turns running, then whoever controls the four middle squares wins a 40-0 victory, or something like that. In nine games out of 10 it's not a problem, but for that 10th game, it can be very frustrating.

Way more than 1 in 10.

The issue has gotten progressively worse since season 1

[stockwellpete]

Please don't make me come across the map and get you. This is from the Digital League and I have blacked out the armies involved to avoid naming and shaming but this is absurd and rest assured it is not only this instance. More than half of my games have my opponent with troops within 5-10 squares of their baseline. And one of those that doesn't literally have their army forming a ring around a hill on their half of the map and has no intention of moving off of it.

If you want to do that against me, just let me know upfront via PM. We will reset the map as many times as you want till you get something where you feel that you can play. If that won't do I'll just give you the win like I have done in the past since I don't care about prizing or wins. If you are concerned with Pete frowning on this then just let me know, we can make the game and let a week pass or something and just make up a score to your liking. We are all playing armies we choose so there isn't some automated mismatch going on. There shouldn't be any reason to literally avoid playing the game. I just want a decent game.

I don't have too much sympathy with your argument here, Mike. Basically, you get allocated a map and it is up to both players to deploy on it to their best advantage. If that means one player hiding their army in an attempt to delay contact, or to make an ambush, then that is fair enough in my book. Sometimes a player will feel outclassed by their opponent, and/or their opponent's army, and they will hope for a draw. Sometimes they will be having a bad run and will just be seeking to avoid defeat. If a player can survive for 24 turns and deny their opponent a win then that is just the way the cookie crumbles, in my opinion. You cannot expect players to stand in the open to get slaughtered just so you get "a decent game". What about your opponent's right to a "decent game" too?

The rules in the FOG2DL allow for 2 re-starts if both players agree and low-scoring draws do not win any points at all so there is very little reward for persistent negative play. A very small proportion of maps allow a player to hide their army for a large part of the game. Also, I really do not want players "making up scores", although there is no way that I can police that by myself. So, if you get someone suggesting that to you then I would ask that you let me know that it has happened.

[devoncop]

I don't always agree with Pete, (as he will no doubt attest!) but on this one he has nailed it.

Cannot disagree with a word of the above contribution.

When the Tyrant of Syracuse holed up in his fortress for years frustrating efforts by superior forces to get him out and refusing a "fair fight" on an open battlefield (where he would have been slaughtered) it was sensible and entirely justified.

I have been using a Moorish light army this season which is possibly one of the most irritating armies to face ......albeit about as powerful as a bowl of cotton wool). Not one of my opponents has complained about my attempts to evade a head on fight and almost all have been successful in a variety of terrain.

The battles are not traditional but have been enjoyable and a battle of wits nonetheless.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't always agree with Pete, (as he will no doubt attest!) but on this one he has nailed it.

Cannot disagree with a word of the above contribution.

When the Tyrant of Syracuse holed up in his fortress for years frustrating efforts by superior forces to get him out and refusing a "fair fight" on an open battlefield (where he would have been slaughtered) it was sensible and entirely justified.

I have been using a Moorish light army this season which is possibly one of the most irritating armies to face ......albeit about as powerful as a bowl of cotton wool). Not one of my opponents has complained about my attempts to evade a head on fight and almost all have been successful in a variety of terrain.

The battles are not traditional but have been enjoyable and a battle of wits nonetheless.

So players whom hide in a corner are abstractly pretending they are inside a fortress?
NO, there is no real life example in a field battle where an army decides last minute to run at a right angle of their original battle line and hide in the woods. Such action have one sole purpose by the player, to NOT LOSE the battle, which is very different than making the best of a situation and trying to win..

This is no slight vs the league being that it needs rules, and it would be impossible to have rules re situations like this.. However , and Stockwell might disagree with me, I believe that although rules cannot prevent this, the attitude of players with the weight of discouragement of such "non-games" by the admin., would go a long way. A "These tactics are not in the spirit of the game" so to speak.

Could we have in game mechanics to prevent such things? maybe...

possibly a combo of these:

*Wider yet less deep maps ( relative not absolute...)
*Not allowing deployment near the rear edge
*some rule that units cannot voluntarily go with in 4-6 tile of any map edge unless they are under the auspices of a leader, and or if they do they contribute to ones break point until they get back inside.

* this is probably the best option though: The first 2 turns only units under a leader can move, and they can ONLY move straight forward ( which means that at deployment you can only face forward)
deployment zones would need to be a little wider to make this work methinks...

this would also slow down the silly "race to outflank" gambit that happens at the start of every battle. We have all seen and done it, your flank cavalry never moves straight ahead, it always move obliquely forward haha....

[Barrold713]

I don't always agree with Pete, (as he will no doubt attest!) but on this one he has nailed it.

Cannot disagree with a word of the above contribution.

When the Tyrant of Syracuse holed up in his fortress for years frustrating efforts by superior forces to get him out and refusing a "fair fight" on an open battlefield (where he would have been slaughtered) it was sensible and entirely justified.

I have been using a Moorish light army this season which is possibly one of the most irritating armies to face ......albeit about as powerful as a bowl of cotton wool). Not one of my opponents has complained about my attempts to evade a head on fight and almost all have been successful in a variety of terrain.

The battles are not traditional but have been enjoyable and a battle of wits nonetheless.

Heh...I played the Moorish as a change of pace last season. Most games I was beaten like a rented red-headed mule but I annoyed the heck out of a lot of superior armies with the mosquito like swarms of projectiles. It was an interesting challenge to see how to best use them against a wide variety of armies and terrain.

BDH

[Paul59]

NO, there is no real life example in a field battle where an army decides last minute to run at a right angle of their original battle line and hide in the woods. Such action have one sole purpose by the player, to NOT LOSE the battle, which is very different than making the best of a situation and trying to win..

This is no slight vs the league being that it needs rules, and it would be impossible to have rules re situations like this.. However , and Stockwell might disagree with me, I believe that although rules cannot prevent this, the attitude of players with the weight of discouragement of such "non-games" by the admin., would go a long way. A "These tactics are not in the spirit of the game" so to speak.

Could we have in game mechanics to prevent such things? maybe...

possibly a combo of these:

*Wider yet less deep maps ( relative not absolute...)
*Not allowing deployment near the rear edge
*some rule that units cannot voluntarily go with in 4-6 tile of any map edge unless they are under the auspices of a leader, and or if they do they contribute to ones break point until they get back inside.

* this is probably the best option though: The first 2 turns only units under a leader can move, and they can ONLY move straight forward ( which means that at deployment you can only face forward)
deployment zones would need to be a little wider to make this work methinks...

this would also slow down the silly "race to outflank" gambit that happens at the start of every battle. We have all seen and done it, your flank cavalry never moves straight ahead, it always move obliquely forward haha....

The way that the armies deploy in FOG2 Custom battles, with so much space between the two (12 tiles?), suggests to me that the situation represents a bit of approach marching, rather than two armies deployed for a set piece battle. That being the case there are probably several examples of armies diverting off in all sorts of unexpected directions; Frederick the Great at Leuthen, and various feigned retreats by nomad armies come to mind.

But if the consensus of players is that these matchups should represent battles, and no approach marching, the simplest game mechanic to reduce this issue would be to have the two armies much closer together. If there was only a gap of, say, 4 tiles between the frontlines of the armies it would stop one side running for the hills (or woods!). BTW, some Epic scenarios are set up with a very small gap between the armies; Issos and Granikos are extreme examples with only two tiles between the frontlines!

[rbodleyscott]

The way that the armies deploy in FOG2 Custom battles, with so much space between the two (12 tiles?), suggests to me that the situation represents a bit of approach marching, rather than two armies deployed for a set piece battle.

That is indeed the intention with Custom Battles. The "battlefield" as it would be described in a book, is the part where the opposing battle lines clash, not the whole map.

The Epic Battles, on the other hand, are set up with the armies closer together because they do represent the actual historical battlefield, and the actual historical deployment, and we don't want it to be practicable to significantly alter that.

[devoncop]

Such an approach would hugely disadvantage any armies that rely on mobility making them pointless.

They would also give huge advantages to heavy infantry armies in most cases and eliminate any finesse in manouvre.

[rbodleyscott]

Such an approach would hugely disadvantage any armies that rely on mobility making them pointless.

They would also give huge advantages to heavy infantry armies in most cases and eliminate any finesse in manouvre.

+1

[Sennacherib]

Typically if i play against horde armies you can expect me to only play in a defensive way and do nothing to agreement the game ! horde armies are the shame of this game…. in other case when you have no chance to win you try to make a draw, and it is understandable but i know some players who always love staying sit on their butt and do nothing, taking zero risk and think they're great players. Ok in competition you have two options, try to win even with disadvantage or do like them and make horrible games… it sucks but in all competitive games i made it happened ! Respect to Pantherboy, top player who always try to crush you, with success !