Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DL24
Originally posted by The Avenger

There's no way for a 15 man roster?

What if there was a happy medium? like 17-18 max roster? That way there HAS to be 3 to 4 builds that are forced to play offence and defence!

And what about the other major issue, can tactics be the exact same as Casual (which work very well to avoid exploits and rely on builds mostly, to which this special league should be relying on builds more!)

No, we need at least 20 to be able to sim the game :

Originally posted by Bort

15 would not work. The sim has a hard coded minimum of 20 players on a side because otherwise there can be issues with filling out a formation. If 20 works, however, and there is a lot of interest, I wouldn't be against the idea.

EDIT: And yes, I'm sure I can bring up the option of just using Casual League tactics so things stay simple and focused on builds

LOL, ok then. All you needed to do is link that quote and i would have shut the hell up long ago!



Lets cross our fingers on this one!

+1 to this idea. I would also retire my players, and possibly put more money into GLB to make more as well.

Season 13 kick off please...

20 man roster... sounds good:

This is how I think I would populate the roster:

QB - QB
RB1 - RB
RB2 - MLB
FB - FB
TE - TE
TE - LOLB
WR - WR
WR - WR
WR - CB
WR - CB
WR - TE
C - C
C - NT
RG - G
LG - G
OG - DT
ROT - T
LOT - DE
OT - DE

NT - NT
NT - C
DT- - DT
DT - OG
RDE - DE
RDE - OT
LDE - DE
LDE - OG
LOLB - LOLB
MLB - MLB
ROLB - HB
LB - TE
CB - CB
CB - CB
CB - HB
CB - TE
CB - WR
SS - SS
SS - WR
FS - FS
FS - WR

QB would be the only one that I would prefer to be fresh.

Originally posted by The Avenger
LOL, ok then. All you needed to do is link that quote and i would have shut the hell up long ago!



Lets cross our fingers on this one!

lol, I did, twice.

Originally posted by timthorn
Season 13 kick off please...

20 man roster... sounds good:

This is how I think I would populate the roster:

QB - QB
RB1 - RB
RB2 - MLB
FB - FB
TE - TE
TE - LOLB
WR - WR
WR - WR
WR - CB
WR - CB
WR - TE
C - C
C - NT
RG - G
LG - G
OG - DT
ROT - T
LOT - DE
OT - DE

NT - NT
NT - C
DT- - DT
DT - OG
RDE - DE
RDE - OT
LDE - DE
LDE - OG
LOLB - LOLB
MLB - MLB
ROLB - HB
LB - TE
CB - CB
CB - CB
CB - HB
CB - TE
CB - WR
SS - SS
SS - WR
FS - FS
FS - WR

QB would be the only one that I would prefer to be fresh.

Yup, that looks about right. When theres 20 players to choose from, player build diversity is not so dramatic as well as alot more one way builds too, oh well. Its written in stone that 20 is the lowest, then so be it. I'll still be in the top 50 in line if its announced!

No kicker/punter timthorn?

Originally posted by The Avenger
No kicker/punter timthorn?At last, you know what it means to hate. Now you're ready to be a king.

Why, the QB can handle it with the high vision and confidence the player would have. ST's maybe a crucial aspect of the game, but with a 20 man roster, I would be willing to make that sacrifice.

Originally posted by timthorn
Originally posted by The Avenger

No kicker/punter timthorn?At last, you know what it means to hate. Now you're ready to be a king.

Why, the QB can handle it with the high vision and confidence the player would have. ST's maybe a crucial aspect of the game, but with a 20 man roster, I would be willing to make that sacrifice.


no SP's in kicking and punting and it wouldn't matter if your vision and strenght was 100, you won't kick a 50 yarder or punt away a 45 yarder without those. Thus giving the other team huge field advantage all game?

Posted again for Bort, hopefully I can get a comment on this tomorrow

All I can say is wow ... Just wow!

I originally posted this suggestion on April 5 and during that time I've got excellent feedback from some of the great, intelligent members of this community. Now it might become a reality?

Just wow.

All that being said, here's my thoughts on the Iron Man with 20-man rosters:

20 players is not ideal, and the farther we get from 15, the more we pull away from the true Iron Man idea. But, 20 can work, and might actually open up the league into hundreds of different build/roster strategies instead of just dozens.

My only real concern is this: If 20 is the min and also the max, that could create problems with filling out a roster. If someone goes inactive or you can't sign a free agent, and there's no wiggle room to create places for extra FAs. But if we raise it from 20, then we run into more problems -- at 22, you can make an entire offense and defense-only team. That was why we had settled on 15 players -- assuming that 11 was the minimum, it allowed some wiggle room for filling out rosters.

I can see 20 as both min and max being a real problem. Can teams still go to battle with just 18 players even if you can't set the max lower than 20? If so, problem solved.

Originally posted by haole
All I can say is wow ... Just wow!

I originally posted this suggestion on April 5 and during that time I've got excellent feedback from some of the great, intelligent members of this community. Now it might become a reality?

Just wow.

All that being said, here's my thoughts on the Iron Man with 20-man rosters:

20 players is not ideal, and the farther we get from 15, the more we pull away from the true Iron Man idea. But, 20 can work, and might actually open up the league into hundreds of different build/roster strategies instead of just dozens.

My only real concern is this: If 20 is the min and also the max, that could create problems with filling out a roster. If someone goes inactive or you can't sign a free agent, and there's no wiggle room to create places for extra FAs. But if we raise it from 20, then we run into more problems -- at 22, you can make an entire offense and defense-only team. That was why we had settled on 15 players -- assuming that 11 was the minimum, it allowed some wiggle room for filling out rosters.

I can see 20 as both min and max being a real problem. Can teams still go to battle with just 18 players even if you can't set the max lower than 20? If so, problem solved.

Hm, I'll ask Bort. As for it being the min and max, I think maybe it would be a good idea to have something like an 18 or 20-man gameday roster, and 2-3 spots for an "Injured Reserve"-like list, for inactives and CPUs you needed to fill out the roster. Will post.

Well if you can create an "injured reserve" thingie, why not make it a max roster size of 20 with 5 IR slots? Then you can still only have 15 active players for any given game, but you also have homes for any extra FAs, and you still don't have to lower the max roster size below 20. We still get the actual Iron Man feel of the game.

Wow!

Just checking back and I guess this Bort reponse quote thing started just in time!

Frankly, 15 or 20 people, that this thread immediately progressed into disagreements over what kind of builds have to go in or whatever to build the best team under these circumstances seems to give me hope. It sounds a lot like the nitpicky specific talk of the other aspects of this game, which is AWESOME.

My favorite part of this idea was the potential lack of work anyone would have to do to make it happen. However, if people are worried that the roster size will be used to circumvent the spirit of the Iron Man, the idea of trying to limit specialized offense-only or defense-only. I'm thinking just take the average 'long' drive and double it, so about 20 plays again. Set that as a threshhold that someone can only play on either side of the ball for 20 plays, PLUS the number of plays that they've done on the other side. Count special teams as offense/defense as the Sim already seems to, in the way that the Sim does, that's fine.

I don't know how much massive blow outs will happen in the Iron Man League, but that would be the one disruption in this. For example, one of the teams one of my guys played for just had a blow-out game, 244-0, which broke down with their QB having 119 plays and ours having 46. This is due to them not having a defense and us being able to score off of special teams or after just a play or two, etc etc.. but it would still need to be addressed. I don't really know how big of a deal massive blow-outs will be though, especially with this requirement in place because it would require competitive teams to be diversifying their builds for both side of the ball already, and its a smaller league, etc etc..

But, if anyone out there is feeling clever enough to finish that thought I think some kind of two-sided-game enforcement would actually be good for the Iron Man.

hm if 20 is the minimum than so bee it will be off from the ironman feel of the game but maybe this will make a sollution.

all i can think of that teams have a minimum of dc spots to fill
20 guys filling at least 40 depth chart slots might make it feel more iron man like
put in a base energy in and out so that the backup HAVE to play and Voila
We might have to tweak it a little but it would be a long way there even maybe leave a little room for some specialsts
so say they need to fill atleast 36 DC slots to fill ( not sure if this anwers all but might go al long way )
\

Originally posted by unicorn99
hm if 20 is the minimum than so bee it will be off from the ironman feel of the game but maybe this will make a sollution.

all i can think of that teams have a minimum of dc spots to fill
20 guys filling at least 40 depth chart slots might make it feel more iron man like
put in a base energy in and out so that the backup HAVE to play and Voila
We might have to tweak it a little but it would be a long way there even maybe leave a little room for some specialsts
so say they need to fill atleast 36 DC slots to fill ( not sure if this anwers all but might go al long way )
\

I don't think we really need to put in depth chart requirements or energy requirements with a 20-man max. Even if you create a bunch of specialists, they're still going to need backups during the course of the game and the teams that will thrive will likely be the ones who build and recruit for depth with a few specialists here and there for certain situations.

I think we can stick with the original idea, suck it up and go with 20 if we have to -- although I do think we'll be losing a few interested people when we move this far away from the original idea.

The only lingering issue is the roster requirements -- do you have to have at least 20 guys on you roster or is that just the minimum number the max roster size can be set at? Is there a way to make some of those 20 slots permanently inactive slots -- giving you space to hold up to 20 players, but only letting you have 15 active for every game? (This would be the ideal situation, tbh)