Page 435 of 636

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:05 pm
by stockwellpete
Geffalrus wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:15 pm
I feel that the priority order of picking (lowest rank to highest within a division) already works to limit the ability of players to ride a single army to victory. The better the army list, the more likely someone else is to pick it ahead of you the higher ranked you are.
At the moment players who are rated in the top places in a division, particularly in the A divisions which tend to be more stable in their composition from season to season, never know which army they are going to get, whereas players who receive their army allocation before the better players have a much greater chance of getting their preferred army. For instance, players who finish 6th, 7th or 8th know that they are very likely to get their first choice of army in the next season.This means that certain armies are never, or hardly ever, available to the higher rated players. One way to mitigate this a little bit is to say that players cannot have an army from the same nation in consecutive seasons. I think it is a very mild regulation, to be honest, given the number of armies (with different allied options) that are available now.

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:16 pm
by Supervark
Division D

Supervark (Lombards) yes the horsey types, Beat MikeMarchent (Romans) the footy types 49%-9%

The terrain did not favor the Romans being open on his right flank and middle while the left flank had scattered trees. Whittling the superior Roman units down with light troops was a boon even then they put up an incredibly tough fight when I attacked them. Fortunately, his right flank took a mauling and I was able to get some of my units in behind his army. Though his CinC performed heroics, at one point holding off 4 of my units, it was not to be for the Romans. Eventually, he attacked with a lot of auxiliaries from the woods but it was too little too late as I had finally managed to rout a couple more legionary units. A very interesting and enjoyable game thanks Mike

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:43 pm
by deve
Div C
Draw in a battle between deve (Dailami) - Karvon (Arab-Bedouin) 29-40

(2-2)

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:51 pm
by Bluefin
Division D

Bluefin (Syracusan) ends up in draw with uneducated (Jewish) despite getting nearly routed 6-32.

(0-2)

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:12 am
by harveylh
I'm voting no because I do not want to discourage any player.

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:46 am
by klayeckles
Div A
klayeckles (persians) vs ruskicanuk (indo greek) 53 to 28
persians won the sprint to the forest where they were able to weather the arrow storm while their hoplite mercenaries set a trap for the indogreek pike blocks getting a flank attack on both...leading to access to the soft gooey center of the indo part of the indo greeks. very different match up requiring some unique strategies...fun one and GG!

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:59 am
by SpeedyCM
Div B

SpeedyCM (Spanish 300-100 BC) defeated rexhurley (Numidian/Moorish 220-56 BC) 41-11.

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:14 am
by Geffalrus
Division B

Geffalrus (Palmyra) defeats IMC (Romans) 60-37. Yet another good game against IMC (third time this season).

To be thematic, the Palmyrans opted not to include any of their optional Roman units. Nothing but skirms, massed archers, and Cataphracts as far as the eye could see. The relatively open map, combined with the Roman's dense marching formation provided the Palmyrans with ample space for maneuver. The Roman skirmishers were quickly eliminated, but the elephants and cavalry remained protected behind the scutum wall. The Palmyrans were able to pounce on a few stragglers here and there, but eventually, the Roman infantry caught up with the back-pedaling Palmyran infantry. Realizing you don't have the 25% margin for victory just as the Roman legions slam into your massed archers is a rough feeling. Most of the Palmyran foot was slaughtered, but their death throes bought enough time for the Cataphracts to flank isolated Roman cohorts.

As was stated in the recent forum discussion, for skirmishing to be decisive, you need to have that armored fist to eventually back it up. Or be some sort of wizard like Rexhurley.
Screen_00000445.jpg
Screen_00000445.jpg (525.74 KiB) Viewed 835 times

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:19 am
by klayeckles
i will just comment that the LOEG did definitely encourage players to explore other armies...and i think playing other army types greatly improves a players skill set. I guessing my opponents will agree that my Having played predominant cav-shooter armies in early spear eras several times has made me a much better cav commander (and a bit more humble). definitely don't want to lose players...but encourage folks to look at all sides of the issue...mixing it up keeps things fresh and your tactics progressing. (and freshness might keep some folks involved that would otherwise not). so i'm not "voting", just adding to the discussion.

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:58 am
by MikeMarchant
Supervark wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:16 pm
Division D

Supervark (Lombards) yes the horsey types, Beat MikeMarchent (Romans) the footy types 49%-9%

The terrain did not favor the Romans being open on his right flank and middle while the left flank had scattered trees. Whittling the superior Roman units down with light troops was a boon even then they put up an incredibly tough fight when I attacked them. Fortunately, his right flank took a mauling and I was able to get some of my units in behind his army. Though his CinC performed heroics, at one point holding off 4 of my units, it was not to be for the Romans. Eventually, he attacked with a lot of auxiliaries from the woods but it was too little too late as I had finally managed to rout a couple more legionary units. A very interesting and enjoyable game thanks Mike
Taking to the field against a Gepid army is always a challenge for a Roman army that lacks auxiliary cavalry support. No German cavalry, no Gallic cavalry, no Sarmatians, just a few equites cohortales and equites alares. That’s not a matchup the Romans are going to win on an open field. And so it all comes down to terrain.

It wasn’t the worst, a flat open field, but nor was it the best. The Roman line anchored its left flank on a wood, but the right flank was open. An auxiliary heavy Roman force deployed medium foot in the woods on the left flank, in the woods even further left of those and in woods to the Roman rear near the right flank, to attempt to challenge any encirclement from the right.

And then the Romans waited.

The Gepids, clearly suspicious of the trees, kept well away from the Roman left and sent massed skirmishers to the Roman front backed up by vigilant lancers, and a strong force to encircle the right.

The Roman second line was stripped as they turned to meet the threat to their right flank, and the front line was scourged by Gepid skirmishers. It was a tough fight on the right flank, and Rome can be proud of its sons for the way they fought to protect the army, but they were always too few and too late. Even with support from the auxiliaries in the woods, the Gepids finally broke them down.

In the meantime, tired of the rain of missiles, the main line had advanced to push the lights away, but even a small advance was to put the army in danger. The Gepids skirmishers fled, but then returned to continue the harassment as they had before. The Romans could do nothing but fall back and reform their line.

The attrition on the legionaries was beginning to tell and while all of the Roman reserves were tied up in the battle for the Roman right, the Gepids started a tentative probe against the right side of the Roman main line.

Seeing what appeared to be a fairly helpless situation the Roman legatus ordered a general advance before it was too late. Remaining as they were the skirmishers were going to continue to slowly destroy the line and there was not much longer to go before the Gepids defeated the Roman forces fighting to preserve the Roman right and then the Romans would be surrounded and slaughtered.

The legions advanced at the same time as auxiliaries poured out of the woods to their left, taking to open country against Gepid lancers. Gepid lights and Gepid lancers retreated ahead of the advance and looked threatened by an encirclement themselves.

But it was too late.

The Roman right flank crumbled and Gepid lancers swarmed to the rear. Caught between hammer and anvil there was only one outcome and that was an outcome that would be met with the gnashing of teeth and the tearing of hair in the Forum Romanum.

A really tough battle this one, and yet again highlighting the weakness of Roman armies against horse armies without either solid cavalry support or sympathetic terrain. Supervark marshalled and manoeuvred his forces masterfully. I suspect the Romans were handicapped by my timidity too. I was left feeling that I ought to have advanced two turns earlier. If I had ordered that advance a little earlier we might have stood a chance – not a big chance, but a chance nonetheless.

Well done, Supervark, a well deserved victory and really fun battle to fight.


Best Wishes

Mike

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:32 am
by rexhurley
Current restrictions with allocation based on stats is the best, why punish us for being noobs? Take away our choices you just condemn us to be forever cellar dwellers...not thats a bad thing the lofty heights of Div A and getting constantly boringly massacred by Pantherboy is just yawn...

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:34 am
by rexhurley
Division B

rexhurley (Numidians) defeats Xlegione 49/14 the terrain gods were not kind to the Huns once again

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:54 am
by desertedfox
Div C

desertedfox - Byzantine 988-1041 AD defeated KiFi - French 888-1049 AD - 40 to 13.

An interesting battle that seemed to end early with the French losing heart at 40% loses.

Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:57 am
by stockwellpete
Late Antiquity A-B charts.jpg
Late Antiquity A-B charts.jpg (746.48 KiB) Viewed 852 times
Late Antiquity C-D charts.jpg
Late Antiquity C-D charts.jpg (775.47 KiB) Viewed 852 times

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:01 am
by stockwellpete
rexhurley wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:32 am
Current restrictions with allocation based on stats is the best, why punish us for being noobs? Take away our choices you just condemn us to be forever cellar dwellers...not thats a bad thing the lofty heights of Div A and getting constantly boringly massacred by Pantherboy is just yawn...
Can I have a pint of what you've just had please? Quite how your answer relates to the question is beyond me. No-one is being "punished" or having choices taken away in a way that privileges the top players. Everyone will be affected equally by this very mild adjustment to the army selection process.

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:06 am
by stockwellpete
harveylh wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:12 am
I'm voting no because I do not want to discourage any player.
I don't understand. How will players be "discouraged"? :? At the very most players will be asked to choose just one different army in their selections each season.

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:47 am
by Karvon
I think the current restrictions are sufficient, though I wouldn't be bothered if such a change was implemented. While I personally like to try new lists, I wouldn't begrudge someone the option of sticking with their favorite. Depending on seeding, they may not get it anyhow. Has this really been an issue so far? Have a significant number of players played the same lists? Do you really want the added work of checking lists against the previous season to insure no one's duplicating?

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:19 am
by stockwellpete
Karvon wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:47 am
I think the current restrictions are sufficient, though I wouldn't be bothered if such a change was implemented. While I personally like to try new lists, I wouldn't begrudge someone the option of sticking with their favorite. Depending on seeding, they may not get it anyhow. Has this really been an issue so far? Have a significant number of players played the same lists? Do you really want the added work of checking lists against the previous season to insure no one's duplicating?
I am not really too bothered about it, to be honest, as I do not enter the tournament myself. I have already altered the army lists so that each army only appears once in the tournament lists from Season 6 onwards. But as pantherboy took the trouble to post his method from the old LOEG I have decided to poll it to see if it will fly here. The added work will amount to very little as players will quickly start to self-regulate their choices if such a rule were to be introduced. The issue is not so much about the number of players continually using the same lists but is rather more about certain armies never being available for any of the higher rated players in a division. A player rated 3 or 4 receiving such an army as a result of this proposal might very well be in a position to challenge for the top spot and/or win a voucher in the future whereas now they tend to finish mid-table. I do find it a bit boring to see that certain armies end up with the same players season after season. I think the tournament should try and take players out of their comfort zone a bit from time to time.

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:22 am
by Bluefin
With the current season, I decided to select armies I'm not very familiar with and having a blast and will continue to do this in the future. Love the Syracusans, not so much the Franks. That said, I don't think a rule like this is necessary. I think the current selection system is fine. Granted, I'm generally not a very good player (I have "moments" of greatness, though) and know that the odds of me progressing up the ranks is rather slim even if I play the same army every season. But it's a great game, the digital league and tournaments are great fun, and the people involved have been fantastic. Already have my eye on an army that I have never seen anybody select yet so looking forward to the next season!

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:31 am
by MikeMarchant
For my part, I quite like the idea. As with the FoG1 digital league, I find myself agonising over which army to take for competitive games and always want to try something new. I vacillate, I agonise, and inevitably I always selet my trusty Romans - simply because I know what I'm doing with them (to the limit of my lowly abilities) and I would like to do well. Having this new restriction would relieve me of that particular struggle and force me to pick something new. That would be good.

Having said that, I would not want to impose a restriction on other players on the basis of my own weakness.


Best Wishes

Mike