Moderators: kronenblatt, Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
But what I do want to avoid is the 100% competitive oriented approach, where the chat starts with "GL HF" and ends with "GG" and nothing in between, if you understand what I mean. The league comes in four separate sections, with armies covering a specific year (300 BC, 500 AD, 900 AD, and 1240 AD), and this thread refers to the 900 AD section.
)Glad you're back in 900 AD! Scots are yours!TomoeGozen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:11 pm ok sign me up , I'll take the Scots. (picked at random , I've no idea what's in the list
Spanish 900-1049 AD is unfortunately already taken by another player, so please pick another army.schmolywar wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:05 pm Spanish 900-1049 AD with Andalusian 756-1049 AD allies please
Fantastic! More people should do that!^^TomoeGozen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:11 pm ok sign me up , I'll take the Scots. (picked at random , I've no idea what's in the list
Of course, if we were gaming the system, which we aren't supposed to be doing, it would perhaps be most effective to pick the worst army in the list (whichever that is), since you will only have to play one game with it (for a while) and it will thereafter spread alarm and despondency amongst the players who have to use it subsequently.Aetius39 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:08 amFantastic! More people should do that!^^TomoeGozen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:11 pm ok sign me up , I'll take the Scots. (picked at random , I've no idea what's in the list
I doubt (or at least hope not) people would do that. Besides, I (optimistically) would look at that as a challenge. Also, every person would only have to play that army for a while too, so wouldn't be so bad. Now if you had to play Moors 350 army 9x...then I could understand jumping out a windowrbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:37 amOf course, if we were gaming the system, which we aren't supposed to be doing, it would perhaps be most effective to pick the worst army in the list (whichever that is), since you will only have to play one game with it (for a while) and it will thereafter spread alarm and despondency amongst the players who have to use it subsequently.Aetius39 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:08 amFantastic! More people should do that!^^TomoeGozen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:11 pm ok sign me up , I'll take the Scots. (picked at random , I've no idea what's in the list
Agree: I believe and hope that people choose armies based on what they think would be fun to play with and against. And from what I've seen so far, that seems to be the case for all of 300 BC, 500 AD, and 900 AD.Aetius39 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:33 amI doubt (or at least hope not) people would do that. Besides, I (optimistically) would look at that as a challenge. Also, every person would only have to play that army for a while too, so wouldn't be so bad. Now if you had to play Moors 350 army 9x...then I could understand jumping out a windowrbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:37 amOf course, if we were gaming the system, which we aren't supposed to be doing, it would perhaps be most effective to pick the worst army in the list (whichever that is), since you will only have to play one game with it (for a while) and it will thereafter spread alarm and despondency amongst the players who have to use it subsequently.
I can make that apply to any army I might pick . . .rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:37 am <snipped>
. . . . it would perhaps be most effective to pick the worst army in the list (whichever that is), since you will only have to play one game with it (for a while) and it will thereafter spread alarm and despondency amongst the players who have to use it subsequently.
