The Dustbin
Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:25 pm
- Location: Perth, Australia
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Div D
General Shapur - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD defeats phoyle3290 - Jewish Revolt 66-135 AD 62-33
The before and after images tell the story.
A complex map with terrain in the Roman half - but not really optimal for heavy foot.
The Jewish army did well on the Roman right from the outset - quickly breaking Roman heavy hitters and Raw troops alike and scoring a quick lead - but they did get bogged down by superior numbers as they diverted zelots to deal with the
Roman troops well positioned on a commanding hill, well positioned, but not really suited to rough ground.
The Zelots were able to scatter my cavalry and reduce the hill; had there been more turns they would have taken it fully. The cavalry reappeared on the Roman right but only played a minor role.
General Shapur - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD defeats phoyle3290 - Jewish Revolt 66-135 AD 62-33
The before and after images tell the story.
A complex map with terrain in the Roman half - but not really optimal for heavy foot.
The Jewish army did well on the Roman right from the outset - quickly breaking Roman heavy hitters and Raw troops alike and scoring a quick lead - but they did get bogged down by superior numbers as they diverted zelots to deal with the
Roman troops well positioned on a commanding hill, well positioned, but not really suited to rough ground.
The Zelots were able to scatter my cavalry and reduce the hill; had there been more turns they would have taken it fully. The cavalry reappeared on the Roman right but only played a minor role.
- Attachments
-
- Final Roman victory
- Screen_00000011.jpg (973.26 KiB) Viewed 2321 times
-
- Opening positions
- Screen_00000003.jpg (902.4 KiB) Viewed 2321 times
Previously - Pete AU (SSG)
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:49 pm
- Location: Greece
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division D
uneducated (Jewish 163-111 BC) defeats General Kostas (Greek 460-281 BC) 60-37
uneducated (Jewish 163-111 BC) defeats General Kostas (Greek 460-281 BC) 60-37
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division C
cromlechi - Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD defeats GDod - Galatian 280 BC-63 AD score = 50-24
Good game, thank you.
cromlechi - Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD defeats GDod - Galatian 280 BC-63 AD score = 50-24
Good game, thank you.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!
With 9 wins and a very impressive 35 points, General Shapur and his Kingdom of Soissons army has won Late Antiquity Division D. He looks a good bet for a prize voucher too as only 2 players in this section still have 100% records. Well played General Shapur!
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!
Congrats Shapur! Excellent work this season. KoS does seem to be quite the competitive list.
We should all Stand With Ukraine.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Div B
Cunningcairn - Indian 320-545 AD beat XLegione - Hunnic Sabir 463-558 AD by 58% to 26%
Huns were always up against it with a reduced width battle field. With one flank protected by the Hunnic Sea of Despair the Indians could not be outflanked and the Huns could do nothing to stop their advance. A valiant defense by XLegione who managed to escape with some of his army through gaps that eventually appeared in the Indian line.
Cunningcairn - Indian 320-545 AD beat XLegione - Hunnic Sabir 463-558 AD by 58% to 26%
Huns were always up against it with a reduced width battle field. With one flank protected by the Hunnic Sea of Despair the Indians could not be outflanked and the Huns could do nothing to stop their advance. A valiant defense by XLegione who managed to escape with some of his army through gaps that eventually appeared in the Indian line.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
-
- 1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:46 pm
Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!
Well done, General Shapur!
It was a pleasure to play you.
Best Wishes
Mike
It was a pleasure to play you.
Best Wishes
Mike
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
devoncop (Jewish revolt) beat Triarii (Kingdom of Soissons) 45% to 20%
A beast of a map for the Roman army with hills woods and rough terrain saw them frantically trying to hold an elevated hill in the NW corner....Unexpected resilience from the Jewish irregular foot combined with the usual impact success from the zealots managed to get the Jewish side home before the Irregulars collapsed....Thanks to my opponent for a brutal contest !
devoncop (Jewish revolt) beat Triarii (Kingdom of Soissons) 45% to 20%
A beast of a map for the Roman army with hills woods and rough terrain saw them frantically trying to hold an elevated hill in the NW corner....Unexpected resilience from the Jewish irregular foot combined with the usual impact success from the zealots managed to get the Jewish side home before the Irregulars collapsed....Thanks to my opponent for a brutal contest !
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:35 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division C
Najanaja (Romans) defeated Dzon Vejn (Indians) 61-55
Romans started well with a flank attack that routed several elephants. Then the overlap started to tell and many of elephants rallied.
Very close game.
(3-1)
Najanaja (Romans) defeated Dzon Vejn (Indians) 61-55
Romans started well with a flank attack that routed several elephants. Then the overlap started to tell and many of elephants rallied.
Very close game.
(3-1)
Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!
Congratulations, Shapur!
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature
I really like ianiow's suggestion of just not identical. A lot of the ally options are not that great so I doubt there will be too many choices of the same main nation with different allies.ianiow wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:46 amI would vote for just not identical. But I could live with your suggestion.stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:42 amDo you think we should increase it to two armies per nation?
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature
I have been giving this issue some thought in recent days. With just a couple of hours left in the poll, the result looks decisively in favour of rolling out the new allies feature right across the tournament in Season 6. I am now quite strongly in favour of keeping things the way they are with regards to allies, with some clarifications. If we do what Ian and Martin are proposing then I think it would, on occasions, increase the likelihood of getting very similar armies in the same division. If you look at the Viking 790-899 list, they can have Breton, British, Frankish or French allies (4), while the Roman 379-424 list can have Alan, Arab, Armenian, Frankish, Germanic Foot Tribes, Germanic Horse Tribes and Hunnic (Western) (7). So it would then be possible to have 7 Roman armies with a different army in the same division. I am not saying this is very likely, but every now and then you might get a division where 3 players have the same core army and just have different allies. I don't really want that to happen.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:08 am I really like ianiow's suggestion of just not identical. A lot of the ally options are not that great so I doubt there will be too many choices of the same main nation with different allies.
So I am advocating we retain the rule of one core army per nation and that there is no restriction on the allies that may be chosen. So two completely different core armies would be allowed to choose the same ally. I do not think that two players in the same division having, say, Viking allies for their Irish and French core armies, even if someone else had chosen a Viking core army, would make it too samey, which seems to be the concern of some players. Because, in addition, I propose to designate the following groups of armies (where the nationality is more nuanced) as coming from one nation so that only one can be used in each division . . .
Anglo-Saxon and Continental Saxon
Arab (all of them - City, Bedouin, Conquest, Abbasid, Umayyad etc)
Dacian and Carpi
Greek, Western and Mercenary
Hunnic, Hepthalite and Sabir
Indian (all of them - Mountain, Rajput etc)
Jewish and Jewish Revolt
Thracian (all of them - Hellenistic, Gallic, Getae etc)
Viking and Viking (Ireland)
So, for example, in future there will only be one core Arab army in a division. You could not have Arab City and Umayyad in the same division, nor could you have Hepthalite and Hunnic Sabir.
I know that not all players will get their heads round these ideas, not least because a lot of players do not read the forum thoroughly (only around half of the 60 entering this season have voted in this poll), but that doesn't really matter as it will be me who will be implementing the army selection procedure at the start of the season. I will obviously make things as clear as I can in the recruitment threads and gradually over the next couple of seasons players will get to understand the slightly modified system.
I would like to hear comments on these ideas. i am not sure yet whether we need to do another poll. Let's just see how the discussion develops.