King of Kings - FOG II "Swifter Than Eagles" DLC Tourney - Cancelled

Rico

Rico

FGM General
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
14,505
Reaction score
10,173
Age
58
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
I have cooked up this cut-throat King Of The Hill-type tournament for the new "Swifter Than Eagles" DLC -- covering the Bronze Age (2500 to 681 BC).

We'll need 8 players to fill up the first round of battles -- hopefully we'll get at least a few interested players here at FGM -- I'll play as well.

...and over the weekend will post this over at Slitherine and see if we can invite some players over from there to FGM.


King of Kings Ancients sample2.jpg

Start with 8 players, 4 winners advance up to the next tier.. then two and so forth until one becomes the King.

The King then sees how long he can keep the emerging challengers from unseating him.

Meanwhile, after Round 1, the eliminated players can re-join and new players slot in to fight their way back up the pyramid -- in total it'll eventually need 16 players for a full roster.

BATTLES
Battles are Mirror Battles (standard for tournaments), with the armies selected Pot Luck by myself as Tourneymeister (with DATE & GEOGRAPHICAL settings on) -- variety is the spice of life, I say.
(MAP should be Pot Luck as well, Medium battle)
All the battles on a given TIER use the same settings.

Scores added up, higher scoring (any victory margin moves up to the next tier)

Points earned each Round
TIER 1 Victory: 1
TIER 2 Victory: 2
TIER 3, Victory: 3
Throne Defence or Capture: 4
(the first Throne capture will also net 4 points, even though the player will need only 3 battles to get there.

We can keep running total of the scores and run it for say, 4 months?

PS: Players get a tourney avatar assigned randomly. (just for aesthetic purposes ;-)
 
PqPhFI9.jpg
 
Rico said:
I've decided to kill this idea -- the prospect of shepherding up to 112 - 16 players over from another website and managing them once tourney has started ... I don't have the energy for that anymore.
Click to expand...
Completely understandable, @Rico. You've done tremendous work for the FGM community. It's time to step back and enjoy your own gameplay. Perhaps that might recharge you for later.
 
Rico said:
Sorry - -thought of making a smaller version -- but it still needs 8 players, which we don't have.
Click to expand...
I really like this king of the mountain idea with the different historical settings of "King of Kings", "King of Jerusalem", "Donning the Purple", etc., as a standing and universal concept, @Rico !

Maybe it could be made exactly that: standing (i.e., no defined end) and universal (i.e., with the same rules independent of setting)? And made smaller, with just two tiers (three if including the challenger versus reigning player), thus more manageable and flexible?

Basically setting the scene at start with say "King of Kings" (maybe always with mirror games to avoid unbalanced army pairings, unless same army on both sides), and with four players in two legs at tier 1 (same pair of armies fighting in both semifinals), then the winners of the two pairs meeting in tier 2, with the winner become the first reigning player. Just like it's done currently. This first round would then identify a reigning player, who would remain until deposed by a challenger, so a reigning player would then remain in place going forward.

And then four new (or old) players enter at tier 1 again (a queueing system if needed sometimes), and if there's only two of them, then they'll meet in tier 2 immediately, and if only 1 then he'll meet the reigning player immediately (in tier 3).

And so on. It would be running with that concept as long as it still is fun, or a couple of rounds (3-4 or something, who knows?)

Once the concept of "King of Kings" starts feeling boring, after the challenge of a reigning player has been resolved, switch to another concept (e.g., "King of Jerusalem", "Roman Conquests", or whatever, of your suggestion or of the other players), but with the reigning player remaining as reigning, and with other players starting off again in tier 1.

And so on. So the concept and storyline (and thus the potential army lists) would be reinvented but the underlying structure and rules remain the same, and the reigning player still there.

This would allow the tournament to run with as few as 3-5 players, and be reinvented with new concepts (but keeping rules unchanged), and would temporarily even allow only 2 players (the reigning player and a ever-hopeful challenger). :) Players could then enter, leave, re-enter the tournament over time, depending on real-life issues, etc.

I believe such a concept could work well in a forum like FGM, since it would enable friendly games but still in a (historical) context and structure.

Or what do you other guys think?

HxlanHq.png
 
Last edited:
I’d also suggest to allow a slower game resolution pace, say four weeks, since it’s mirror games and this tourney would then be acting as a leisure backdrop over time to other campaigns, leagues, and tournaments.

(And… For each concept, players could still be given cool avatars. :) )
 
kronenblatt said:
I’d also suggest to allow a slower game resolution pace, say four weeks, since it’s mirror games and this tourney would then be acting as a leisure backdrop over time to other campaigns, leagues, and tournaments.

(And… For each concept, players could still be given cool avatars. :) )
Click to expand...
Yes, there were smaller versions in the past... needs a base of 8 players minimum to work once the roster is full.

King of Jerusalem 004f.jpg

Long Live The King-teaser.jpg

Donning The Purple sample.jpg

Can cover most periods and settings.
 
Does it? I see only a need for 2-5. (4 in the first round in order to establish a reigning player, and then 5 if 4 start out in tier 1 and there is already 1 reigning player.) And could be even fewer than 5 over periods of time, as I outlined (down to 2, in the extreme). You wouldn’t need to fill up tier 1 again until the previous round has been concluded, and players can start over again (4 in tier 1, 2 in tier 2, or 1 if in tier 3).
 
Last edited:
kronenblatt said:
Does it? I see only a need for 2-5. (4 in the first round in order to establish a reigning player, and then 5 if 4 start out in tier 1 and there is already 1 reigning player.) And could be even fewer than 5 over periods of time, as I outlined (down to 2, in the extreme). You wouldn’t need to fill up tier 1 again until the previous round has been concluded, and players can start over again (4 in tier 1, 2 in tier 2, or 1 if in tier 3).
Click to expand...
The idea is to fill up the bottom tier again straight after the first round of battles.
So there is no break in play (with player sitting around waiting) eliminated players can immediately sign up again for the bottom tier to have another go and new ones slot in .

So it’s a constant conveyor belt of challengers fighting their way up the pyramid and the reigning player has to beat off a throne challenger every round.

Hence the 8 players.
 
Could you consider not needing to fill up the bottom tier straight away? That would of course result in the higher tiers not playing every round and thus some waiting time for them, but with the advantage of not needing a constant inflow of many bottom tier players that may result in waiting time anyway (for everyone). And it would enable a much smaller group of dedicated and committed players to have a continuing tournament. And even allow them to leave and re-enter, while still keeping it running. And allow new players as well, if need be queuing to enter bottom tier.
 
If that would happen, you would have been having fun meanwhile though! :) Given the alternative of it not kicking off in the first place.

But I understand. We’re all different. I’m the other way around: prefer to have a number of slower-paced games and campaigns running in parallel.
 
For your information, I'll be trying out this tournament idea with four players at start and then once a Champion has been crowned, four new (and/or old) players starting out again at the bottom stage. I'll start with good ol' "Alexandrian Era" for a couple of seasons. Let's see how it turns out. :)

Thanks for the inspiration and the idea on both the tournament structure and graphical layout, @Rico ! I'll give you credit in the thread, once there. :)

The idea is as follows:
  • The tournament has an initial specific historical theme, in this case The Alexandrian Era (roughly late fourth to early second century BC; Alexander plus the Diadochi kingdoms).
  • Four players start out at the bottom level; two each in two legs.
  • The two players in each leg will fight each other for promotion to the next level.
  • As part of this, in each leg, the two players (yes, the players themselves!) together for their leg agree on two historically rivalling army lists (whether with or without allies) from the Alexandrian Era, plus a map terrain, with which they will fight two battles in a mirror game (standard setup: 24 turns, 1600 FP, 40x32).
  • The player with the best total score (i.e., sum of casualty difference in his two battles of the mirror game) from each leg will be promoted to the next level, where he fight the winner from the other leg in the same way as above (i.e., the two agreeing on two army lists to fight two battles in a mirror game).
  • In this first "season", since there is no "King on The Mountain" yet, the winner in that level will become the "Champion" and remain in that position.
  • A new season will then kick off with four players (new and/or old, but of course not the "Champion") at the bottom level who will fight each other for promotion.
  • The one player emerging as the winner of these four and reaching the third level will then challenge the "Champion" for the title (again in the same way as above, with a mirror game consisting of the battles).
  • A "Champion" who has successfully defended his title at least once, defeating the challenger, will have the option (if he wants to) of selecting another historical theme, from where to select army lists in the next season, still staying as the "Champion" of course.
  • And so on.
  • Losing players can decide to come back for another season, or lick their wounds and stay out for a while, and new players can enter (and old ones re-enter).
  • Very laid back and leisure, no points accumulating, just a tournament running for the fun of it (hopefully).
  • I want to keep it small, hence only four players at the bottom level each season (plus a "Champion" later on) in order to keep it running at a steady pace.

hhLyfCS.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom