Warrior General Games

For those that remember the "glory years" of Ironman football - it often resembled a Rugby scrum, because you can only beat on and get beaten on so much before exhaustion sets it. The higher scoring games were lopsided blowouts where there was a distinct mismatch in talent level (i.e. Michigan 49 Stanford 0 in the first Rose Bowl). Teams like Yale, Harvard, Penn, Minnesota - when they played each other the games were 7-6, 6-0 slugfests. When they played lesser teams they were 40-0 or higher blowouts, evidence Michigan's "point a minute" teams under Fielding Yost at the turn of the 20th Century. Against Wisconsin they won 6-0, the rest they destroyed like an F5 tornado through an inner city.

http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1902fbt.htm
http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1903fbt.htm
http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1904fbt.htm

The Stamina/Energy model is fine for rotating players in and out AND only having them play on one side of the ball. This same model will destroy two way players - at least to the point where the player plays at nowhere near what his stats say he should play at.

Guys with teams can test what I'm telling them once friendlies/scrimmages open up. Set your depth charts to have the test players play both ways and the energy settings to force the starters to play till exhaustion (which WILL be the case in Ironman) AND set them to come back in every other play for the rest of the game (i.e. something like 11/10). Don't forget to put them on BOTH Special Teams units too!!!! How soon the subs come on board will tell you all you will need to know, and what their actual skills look like when they are exhausted will be nowhere near what they are when they are fresh.

Originally posted by greengoose
The Stamina/Energy model is fine for rotating players in and out AND only having them play on one side of the ball. This same model will destroy two way players - at least to the point where the player plays at nowhere near what his stats say he should play at.


Isn't that the point?

Whats the point of playing on 10 energy for 3/4th of the game? Thats the reason currrent teams have depth charts, have people train Stamina up to the 30-40 range - EVEN WITH only playing one way and having dedicated ST units in some cases.

The question should be - do proponents of Ironman expect a player with 60 Speed to run like 60 Speed with just 10 Energy? If the answer is yes, then they don't understand the whole point of Energy drain in the first place.

I say this because I've had DE's with 30-35 Stamina in the high teens, low 20's get absolutely destroyed when playing on teams that didn't know how to manage Stamina/Energy - in only 40 plays. Ironman players will be playing 3 times that amount bare minimum, and be playing Special Teams which by it's very nature is an Energy killer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added: My problem with Ironman isn't the Ironman part - it the thought that people think this is gonna be viable entertainment without at least some changes to the game code to accommodate it. It will be like watching paint dry - because Speed should become non-existent with no energy - because you can't sustain it without it. With the current Stamina/Energy model Ironman players will be destroyed of energy in short order with no rest (because there is no players to get them rest).

Think about it, does a Starting Pitcher pitch at or near 100% like a short reliever does? Nope, because he knows he will have to pace himself to be able to throw 100-120 pitches and have anything on them later in the game. In GLB the game code doesn't allow players to pace their Energy usage. In Ironman all players would be the equivalent of Mariano Rivera - but expected to go 9 innings at 95-100% - it's just not possible and still have energy drain mean anything.

This is why I still think we wont see anything like this unless Bort makes an arena/indoor league sim.

Smaller field. Less players on the field. Faster offense. Higher scoring.

Originally posted by greengoose
Whats the point of playing on 10 energy for 3/4th of the game? Thats the reason currrent teams have depth charts, have people train Stamina up to the 30-40 range - EVEN WITH only playing one way and having dedicated ST units in some cases.

The question should be - do proponents of Ironman expect a player with 60 Speed to run like 60 Speed with just 10 Energy? If the answer is yes, then they don't understand the whole point of Energy drain in the first place.

I say this because I've had DE's with 30-35 Stamina in the high teens, low 20's get absolutely destroyed when playing on teams that didn't know how to manage Stamina/Energy - in only 40 plays. Ironman players will be playing 3 times that amount bare minimum, and be playing Special Teams which by it's very nature is an Energy killer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added: My problem with Ironman isn't the Ironman part - it the thought that people think this is gonna be viable entertainment without at least some changes to the game code to accommodate it. It will be like watching paint dry - because Speed should become non-existent with no energy - because you can't sustain it without it. With the current Stamina/Energy model Ironman players will be destroyed of energy in short order with no rest (because there is no players to get them rest).

Think about it, does a Starting Pitcher pitch at or near 100% like a short reliever does? Nope, because he knows he will have to pace himself to be able to throw 100-120 pitches and have anything on them later in the game. In GLB the game code doesn't allow players to pace their Energy usage. In Ironman all players would be the equivalent of Mariano Rivera - but expected to go 9 innings at 95-100% - it's just not possible and still have energy drain mean anything.

I get it, I get it. You are against the Ironman idea because you think everyone should be able to play both sides of the football field at 100 percent energy all the time.

I understand your analogies, but really, I think Mariano Rivera would suck as a football player. Apples to oranges, in my opinion, and I think you're exaggerating quite a bit to bring this idea crashing down.

You ask:

"The question should be - do proponents of Ironman expect a player with 60 Speed to run like 60 Speed with just 10 Energy? If the answer is yes, then they don't understand the whole point of Energy drain in the first place."

But then you follow this up with this comment:

"It will be like watching paint dry - because Speed should become non-existent with no energy - because you can't sustain it without it. With the current Stamina/Energy model Ironman players will be destroyed of energy in short order with no rest (because there is no players to get them rest)."

So you imply that a 60 speed guy with just 10 energy will run like ... a 1 speed guy? Have you even watched game replays? Do you think players turn around in circles and start making blubbering noises when they get down to 10 energy? They don't dash and dart around the field any more when their energy gets low, but I would hardly compare them to watching paint dry.

Yes, your DEs sucked when their energy was mismanaged and they dropped down to 10 energy, because they were playing against other players who were managed correctly. In Ironman, BOTH TEAMS will labor under the same energy constraints, and players will be playing against each other with similar energy levels for the entirety of the game.

If someone wants to try this out in preseason, as you suggest, then make sure your opponent is doing the same thing. Of course they'll run circles around you and make you look stupid if they have all their energy.

The more I read your comments, the less I think you understand the point of Iron Man football. Why would we want these guys to keep 100 percent energy the whole game?

I've watched my players in many games where they ended up with 10 energy at the end of the game and saw no noticeable drag on replays. So a 70 speed might look like a 50 speed late in the game, big deal. As long as everyone is suffering the same energy drains, the games will be fun and the unlimited number of ways to build a 15 man squad is what makes this game appealing. Go ahead and make a team of 15 FBs and I'm sure it will gets its ass kicked most games. The OOP penalties are whats going to stop alot of tis type of exploits. Its too bad we cant do scrimmages right now because a couple of teams could sim this idea and take the guessing out of it. Heck we could even put together an ironman tourny together just to test out what kind of problems might pop up.

God forbid someone may have to build differently for Ironman. Stamina over first cap?!??! They may even want to spend VAs on things like Second Wind and Distance Runner!!! Oh, the horror! What will I do with all these cookie cutters?

Originally posted by haole

I understand your analogies, but really, I think Mariano Rivera would suck as a football player. Apples to oranges, in my opinion, and I think you're exaggerating quite a bit to bring this idea crashing down.


The biggest thing about this thread that has driven me crazy is the frailty of those who are in favor of this so much, they feel like the slightest negativity will de-rail the whole suggestion and Bert won't do it.

The biggest myth in this thread is that all you need to do is create a league with a 15 man roster limit and everything will be OK. Time and time again, I've read this statement "Just make it simple and if anything needs to be tweaked we can do it later" as if half implemented and bug filled ideas already weren't the #1 problem with GLB.

The fact of the matter is, Bert will either like the idea of Ironman football or he won't. He will only need to read the OP to decide whether or not it's a properly thought out suggestion or not. Bert could see the title, Iroman football and come up with his own idea of the rules without reading a word in the thread.

If I had a million dollars, I would bet every penny on this not getting implemented anyway. No matter who says what about energy, OOP or anything else.

However, one thing I can agree with, is if you had an Ironman player who consistently had low energy, then just add stamina.

It's not the negativity that will derail the suggestion. It's the insistence of adding all kinds of bells and whistles to a simplistic idea, and using gross exaggerations to attempt to prove a point.

I concede that this idea could be tweaked and possibly made better with some coding changes, but each additional suggested change makes the idea less feasible. That is a fact that has been proven over and over since the inception of GLB.

But to imply that a 60 speed guy with 10 energy is not faster than a 50 speed guy with 10 energy, to imply that all of the attributes will drop to nothing when players are low on energy and it won't matter how the players are built is, in my opinion, disingenuous. To use examples of "ironman" football scores from the turn of the century when the game more resembled rugby and forward passes were still illegal as indicative of the type of football this would be is also disingenuous.

You're right, though, if Bort likes the idea, he'll figure his own stuff out for it, but there seems to be overwhelming support for the idea as it has been originally pitched, with just roster limits of 15.

+1 to the OP! Great idea, just as proposed.

some people forget we DO have energy settings. this might actually be useful in this league.

bumping this up

this is a really good idea and would add a different aspect to this game

like it would like to see try it

Great idea, count me in.

like it