Warrior General Games

Crimson built starting last season with the eye on this season. We were rather surprised we did as well as we did last year. We started the entire team between 1st and 4th level and did everything we could to get everyone even playing time, and keep everyone involved. Our group of friends has historically started new games like gangbusters and gotten bored quickly. This game we really pushed to keep people involved. Heck we even had hats made on cafepress.

Some of the things that we do, are we never simply boost. We always try to make sure we know what we are looking for when we boost. We also tend to boost a single level and play a few games to see how the different players are affected, before we boost again. I hate boosting three times either early or late in the season because I've seen it drastically unbalance decent player builds.

We tend to play to our strengths, with not as much focus on our opponents. We started doing that last year after Naperville beat us in the regular season, and it worked very well for us. We also like to experiment with our offensive and defensive settings to see what happens depending on the game.

I do think our team strength is mostly due to the idea we have a group of about 20 guys that have known each other for years.

PinTBC

lol, Sorry, you know I'm messin with ya

The Colorado Mustangs are a charter member and I hate to see them go. Stick with it and you'll be a winning team soon enough.

Originally posted by SAVAGE OPS
lol, Sorry, you know I'm messin with ya


chuckle, I had to actually look back and make sure I didn't mistype it. This two finger typing methods is prone to some very odd words coming out when you least expect it.

PinTBC

Originally posted by SAVAGE OPS
lol, Sorry, you know I'm messin with ya


Savage - both versions actually are probably true!! lol

Originally posted by Snackman Jones
you might get a win this week i'm experimenting with alot of defensive settings since we already clinched

We experimented a bit and started a lot of backups against the gippers and still won by 5 TDs, so I don;t think it matters a whole lot unless you really try to throw a game.

The sim is just extremely biased against losing teams. You take an attribute hit for morale and chemistry, and morale and confidence seem extremely important to do well. If my understanding of the game is accurate, you can never raise your team's confidence level above the morale rating at which you started. So no matter how good a losing team performs, if they go into a game with 70-85 morale, it never gets better than that.. and if it's already that low to begin with, you're already looking at a heavy statistical penalty. So you operate under the simulated assumption at all times like you're having a bad game, even if you're having a good game, and the turnovers come, the QBs confidence is affected.

I think if you're on a losing team, unless you have sky-high confidence so the bad morale doesn't affect you as much, you're just going to lose unless you have significant more talent, have a significantly better game plan, or are also facing a team that is on par with you in the morale setting.

I think they need to change the balance of morale, it's been a long time coming. A morale rating should be allowed to return to 100 in-game (and quickly) if that isn't already the case, to better and more truly simulate game momentum. One of my players teams is 4-9 this year, played a 7-6 team on a win streak (which means they likely have 100 morale) we out-leveled the other team by about 2 levels per starter, and we were destroyed. Turnovers, drops, the usual. It wasn't a horrible game plan by any means. It's just imbalanced right now and biased towards winners.

(Player builds on that team are average to good too in case anyone wants to point out level doesnt equal talent, I'm well aware.)

I'm sure everything mentioned here might have a small bit to do with what's going on with Colorado, but has anyone but me looked at the way his roster is set up? I don't think he has enough players to be competitive in a league where teams are very deep like this one.

1 FB? A C playing backup LT? He's only got 4 WRs which means when the sim goes 5 wide it's going to bring in an out of position CB or worse to fill the gap.

I've looked at that riccor, and there are a number of teams of similar talent that are doing very well with limited reserves. In fact, one of my WR's is on a 9-3 team that started winning this year, and he pared his roster tighter than mine is.

And this doesn't address the beginning of this season, when I had a full compliment of OT's, OG's, two FB's, 3 HB's, 6 WR's... you get the idea.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't know after which game you switched to the small roster strategy, but looking at the scores from the begining of the season I can see you had a couple games that you could have won like Laurier and Texas.

I also don't know the details of the other team you're talking about or the details of the teams it faces. However, it's just common sense that you're going to be more competitive with a full roster that gives your starters breaks and allows them to return to the game playing at a high level.

And another thing....

Who cares what teams in other leagues are doing. Look at the teams that are doing well in this league. There aren't many leagues across this game as deep as this one.

Originally posted by riccor25
Who cares what teams in other leagues are doing. Look at the teams that are doing well in this league. There aren't many leagues across this game as deep as this one.

I don't disagree with your second premise; I fully expect we'd be a 500 or better team in a number of other leagues.

I just don't think, from other experiences, that there should be such a drastic difference in the play of the team with such subtle differences. I'll take losing 16-13 all day long, compared to being blown out by a team that has no distinct advantage over us save maybe confidence and chemistry. Both of which are vastly overrated in this game.

I'm just frustrated with the game's attempt at realism in a number of areas, and it's lack of realism (and the uncaring attitude) within the administration.

Originally posted by stahu miguel


I'm just frustrated with the game's attempt at realism in a number of areas, and it's lack of realism (and the uncaring attitude) within the administration.

Me too 100%.

Originally posted by riccor25
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't know after which game you switched to the small roster strategy, but looking at the scores from the begining of the season I can see you had a couple games that you could have won like Laurier and Texas.

I also don't know the details of the other team you're talking about or the details of the teams it faces. However, it's just common sense that you're going to be more competitive with a full roster that gives your starters breaks and allows them to return to the game playing at a high level.

And another thing....

Who cares what teams in other leagues are doing. Look at the teams that are doing well in this league. There aren't many leagues across this game as deep as this one.

I think one of the bigger reasons the Fire tend to shrink down the stretch in tough games is because of a lack of depth. Energy gets lower, stat penalties hit, and we tend to suck more in the 2nd half. We almost dropped a game to Tijuana in the 4th quarter after dominating for 2 1/2 quarters.

I'd say depth could also be a big reason a team struggles.