The Dustbin

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:59 am

Biblical                               A-D tables.jpg
Biblical A-D tables.jpg (619.04 KiB) Viewed 445 times

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:59 am

Biblical A-B charts.jpg
Biblical A-B charts.jpg (667.77 KiB) Viewed 387 times

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

MorkinTheFree has won Classical Antiquity Division C!

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:02 am

With 7 wins and 2 draws MorkinTheFree has won automatic promotion with his Pyrrhic army. Well played! :D

nyczar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: Themed Event: winners post your results here . . .

Post by nyczar » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:23 pm

Match 4

Pydna

nyczar (Romans) defeats rexhurley (Macedonia) in the revenge match but not as convincingly 61-38. GG

rexhurley goes through to the semi-finals 35-23 on the tiebreaker after 1-1 draw. He will play either deve or Geffalrus.

paulmcneil
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Winchester, UK
Contact:

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

Post by paulmcneil » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:58 pm

Div C

Paulmcneil Thracians drew with Karvon Persians 54:55 game ran out of time

(2-2)
Paul McNeil

sunnyboy
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: MorkinTheFree has won Classical Antiquity Division C!

Post by sunnyboy » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:24 pm

Congratulations on the win Morkin, well done!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

The poll on player army choices is now closed . . . 23-20 in favour of no change

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:06 pm

Towards the end of our discussion in the thread (with a poll) about the new allies feature, pantherboy wrote this about the way he used to organise the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (LOEG) back in the days of FOG1 . . .

"Each season players are not allowed to reselect an army list they have chosen in a previous season until they have played 5 different lists with each list originating from a different nation. I wish to encourage variety within the league and broaden players play styles."

I am wondering whether enough players feel that a similar approach is preferable for the FOG2DL? While I have no intention at all of checking back through five seasons to make sure players are choosing different armies, we could have a much simpler rule that says that players must pick an army from a different nation each season in each tournament section that they enter. So that would mean a player having a particular fondness for, say, the Romano-British or Jewish Revolt armies, could only have the chance to play with them in the tournament every second season, and not in consecutive seasons as at present. I have already adjusted the army lists so that no army is available in more than one tournament section so that players cannot use the same army twice in the same season.

There are probably a few anomalous armies such as the Diadochi group that should be specified as one "nation" for the purpose of this rule. Please suggest any other candidates for this designation.

The poll will run for 10 days and you may change your vote at any time.

CLARIFICATION

JUST IN CASE THERE IS ANY CONFUSION - ALL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS THAT IF YOU USE AN ARMY IN ONE SEASON THEN YOU CANNOT USE IT AGAIN IN THE NEXT SEASON.

paulmcneil
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Winchester, UK
Contact:

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

Post by paulmcneil » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:32 pm

Div C

paulmcneil challenge for Barold713

pw=Barold713
Paul McNeil

XLegione
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:54 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .

Post by XLegione » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:50 pm

Division A

XLegione - Carthaginian 550-411 BC defeated Morbio - Assyrian 681-609 BC 48% - 16%

Geffalrus
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by Geffalrus » 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.

I also think players are more likely to pick new armies the more the play and the more bored with one approach they get. Honestly, I just don't see the advantage in not allowing people the freedom to stick with an army they like.

The only reason I play Classical is to take my favorite pike army through a tournament. If that's off the table due to rules (rather than an increase in their popularity), then I'll be less interested in participating in that division. At some point I'll get bored and experiment, but that's not gonna happen for a few seasons.

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by devoncop » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:20 pm

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.

I also think players are more likely to pick new armies the more the play and the more bored with one approach they get. Honestly, I just don't see the advantage in not allowing people the freedom to stick with an army they like.

The only reason I play Classical is to take my favorite pike army through a tournament. If that's off the table due to rules (rather than an increase in their popularity), then I'll be less interested in participating in that division. At some point I'll get bored and experiment, but that's not gonna happen for a few seasons.
Agree fully with the above.

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by Cunningcairn » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:21 pm

Div A

Cunningcairn - Viking 900-1049 AD (Irish ally) beat CheAhn - Byzantine 988-1041 AD (no allies) Won 63% by 39%

paulmcneil
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Winchester, UK
Contact:

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

Post by paulmcneil » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:22 pm

Div C

paulmcneil challenge for bluefin

pw=bluefin
Paul McNeil

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:05 pm

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.

Supervark
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:24 am

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

Post by Supervark » 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

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by deve » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:43 pm

Div C
Draw in a battle between deve (Dailami) - Karvon (Arab-Bedouin) 29-40

(2-2)

Bluefin
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:41 am
Location: Anoka, MN

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

Post by Bluefin » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:51 pm

Division D

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

(0-2)

harveylh
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:32 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by harveylh » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:12 am

I'm voting no because I do not want to discourage any player.

klayeckles
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:47 am

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

Post by klayeckles » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:46 am

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!

SpeedyCM
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:42 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by SpeedyCM » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:59 am

Div B

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

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”