The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11732
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:45 am

SLancaster wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:14 am
The Digital League is great. Tons of people playing. More came in the last season. All the suggestions in the last few weeks have been about really big changes not little tweaks. Everything from large armies all round, mirror matches, and another round of finals after 9 games! Now we come to the idea of random armies.
It is not going to be "large armies all round", but I do hope we can transition to a situation in Season 10 whereby players in all sections can have the option at the start of the season of choosing to play at either 1200 or 1600pts. There is not a massive difference between the two sizes of battle so it should not be a source of great controversy. The only issue is when two players in a match have indicated a preference for different size battles. So the "default setting" for the size of the battle in each section will decide which size battle will be used and the historical commonsense approach is probably to say that armies in Classical and Late Antiquity (an age of empires) tended to be larger than in the other periods, which were periods of greater political fragmentation. For example, Early Middle Ages tended to have smaller polities (and therefore smaller armies) in western Europe after the collapse of the western Roman empire.

There is a significant proportion of players who enjoy mirror matches and we already use them in the Themed Event, so they are not a new introduction. The longer term plan is to continue to offer them in just one section of the tournament so players who do not like them will still be able to choose four other sections where you play just 9 matches against 9 different opponents. The balance will not be changing in the longer term in this regard.

There is not going to be another round of finals.

I am not sure what you mean by "random armies", but the Themed Event is on its last legs in its current format. What we did in the first few seasons of the FOG2DL, when we had very few DLC's, was to provide a set of nine different historical match-ups for people to play. It was very popular and the idea will be revived in one section each season, probably starting in Season 10.
Honestly, can't we just leave the Digital League intact more or less as it is? Not everyone has time for extra games or playing with large armies, mirror matches and more turns. Surely, another tournament could include most if not all of these new ideas. Mirror match tournament. Tournament with large armies. Tournament like Chaos with purely random armies.

I like to pick my armies. Everyone likes to try out new armies and see how they go. You feel a sense of satisfaction from choosing an army and doing well with it. The random army idea especially has the potential to ruin everything. 9 games in every division with a random army picked for you?

I am all for thinking about improvements but a lot of this is almost like turning it into a different sort of tournament completely.
The FOG2DL needs to keep evolving or we will start to lose players. The basic 10 player divisions, where you play 9 other opponents will remain the dominant characteristic of the tournament, but there will continue to be variations on that basic framework to cater for different player preferences.

kronenblatt
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by kronenblatt » Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:20 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:24 am
Come on man, "basing army selection on whim and nepotism" How obvious does a joke have to be for it to not go over people's heads?
But you were serious about "I really don't like the whole gaming of army selection and chasing the meta thing" and "Results in way too little variety of armies" or were those jokes too?
Arranging the The Year of Many Emperors (TYME), Dividing the Spoils (DiSp), and The West is No More (TWiNM) tournaments for Field of Glory II!

pompeytheflatulent
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:37 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by pompeytheflatulent » Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:30 pm

kronenblatt wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:20 pm
pompeytheflatulent wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:24 am
Come on man, "basing army selection on whim and nepotism" How obvious does a joke have to be for it to not go over people's heads?
But you were serious about "I really don't like the whole gaming of army selection and chasing the meta thing" and "Results in way too little variety of armies" or were those jokes too?
Well that part was serious. Look at the armies in Early Middle Ages divisons A through C this season and see how many repeats and how little variety exists. Keep in mind that Early Middle Ages got the second most army lists after Classical Antiquity. Division A basically consisted of variations of Byzantine armies, variations of Arab armies prior to heavy Turkish influence, variations of Charlemagne's armies, and wildcards like Snugglebunnies.

kronenblatt
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by kronenblatt » Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:48 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:30 pm
Well that part was serious.
Puh, good...! ;)
pompeytheflatulent wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:30 pm
Look at the armies in Early Middle Ages divisons A through C this season and see how many repeats and how little variety exists. Keep in mind that Early Middle Ages got the second most army lists after Classical Antiquity. Division A basically consisted of variations of Byzantine armies, variations of Arab armies prior to heavy Turkish influence, variations of Charlemagne's armies, and wildcards like Snugglebunnies.
How do you propose that armies are selected/allocated?
Arranging the The Year of Many Emperors (TYME), Dividing the Spoils (DiSp), and The West is No More (TWiNM) tournaments for Field of Glory II!

pompeytheflatulent
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:37 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by pompeytheflatulent » Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:52 pm

kronenblatt wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:48 pm
How do you propose that armies are selected/allocated?
You mean besides whim and nepotism? If I had a good answer to that I'd start my own theme park, err tournament, with blackjack, and hookers!

The easiest way for less competitive armies to see more play would be to have mirror matches. But it seems that a lot of people don't want to play with unfamiliar armies or have concerns about time constraints and are therefore against that.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11732
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:23 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:52 pm
The easiest way for less competitive armies to see more play would be to have mirror matches. But it seems that a lot of people don't want to play with unfamiliar armies or have concerns about time constraints and are therefore against that.
Or to have less popular armies included in balanced historical match-ups. Time constraints and mirror matches do not really go together though as a concern, because if mirror matches are to be used at all in a league section in future it would mean reducing the number of players in a division to 6 so that players were asked to fight 10 battles, just 1 more than the current 9. We would not be asking them to fight 18 battles.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23888
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:55 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:23 pm
pompeytheflatulent wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:52 pm
The easiest way for less competitive armies to see more play would be to have mirror matches. But it seems that a lot of people don't want to play with unfamiliar armies or have concerns about time constraints and are therefore against that.
Or to have less popular armies included in balanced historical match-ups. Time constraints and mirror matches do not really go together though as a concern, because if mirror matches are to be used at all in a league section in future it would mean reducing the number of players in a division to 6 so that players were asked to fight 10 battles, just 1 more than the current 9. We would not be asking them to fight 18 battles.
The problem with using historical matchups for mirror matches in the DL is that unless all games use the same matchup, some matchups will probably have more scope for draws than others. And the players have no influence over this if you are picking the matchups for them, and assigning different matchups to each pair of players. Conversely, it would be a bit boring to have to play the same matchup both ways against all 5 opponents.

The alternative would be to allow the players to pick their armies as usual, but then they play mirror matches against their 5 opponents in the 6-player division, instead of 9 individual games against their 9 opponents as in the standard 10-player division.

Having said that, my dream tournament would be the Chaos tourney, with armies randomly picked by the organiser, but with smaller divisions and each matchup played as a mirror match. Playing with weird armies that you would never pick yourself, is some of the most fun that can be had with the game.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11732
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:19 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:55 pm
The problem with using historical matchups for mirror matches in the DL is that unless all games use the same matchup, some matchups will probably have more scope for draws than others. And the players have no influence over this if you are picking the matchups for them, and assigning different matchups to each pair of players. Conversely, it would be a bit boring to have to play the same matchup both ways against all 5 opponents.
But everyone in a division would play the same set of 5 historical match-ups and everyone would have to use the same 10 armies chosen for those match-ups. The random factor would be who you had to play a specific match-up against. So you might have to play a horse army battle against a horse army specialist, which might be a bit difficult, but that is just the way it goes. I cannot see a problem myself.
The alternative would be to allow the players to pick their armies as usual, but then they play mirror matches against their 5 opponents in the 6-player division, instead of 9 individual games against their 9 opponents as in the standard 10-player division.
Yes, I think this can be an element in the new arrangements.
Having said that, my dream tournament would be the Chaos tourney, with armies randomly picked by the organiser, but with smaller divisions and each matchup played as a mirror match. Playing with weird armies that you would never pick yourself, is some of the most fun that can be had with the game.
I think Karvon has got that angle covered already. :wink:

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23888
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:30 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:19 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:55 pm
The problem with using historical matchups for mirror matches in the DL is that unless all games use the same matchup, some matchups will probably have more scope for draws than others. And the players have no influence over this if you are picking the matchups for them, and assigning different matchups to each pair of players. Conversely, it would be a bit boring to have to play the same matchup both ways against all 5 opponents.
But everyone in a division would play the same set of 5 historical match-ups and everyone would have to use the same 10 armies chosen for those match-ups. The random factor would be who you had to play a specific match-up against. So you might have to play a horse army battle against a horse army specialist, which might be a bit difficult, but that is just the way it goes. I cannot see a problem myself.
No that sounds good. I misread the plan.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

kronenblatt
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by kronenblatt » Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:04 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:19 pm
But everyone in a division would play the same set of 5 historical match-ups and everyone would have to use the same 10 armies chosen for those match-ups. The random factor would be who you had to play a specific match-up against. So you might have to play a horse army battle against a horse army specialist, which might be a bit difficult, but that is just the way it goes. I cannot see a problem myself.
This is in my view really a great idea, since it not only achieves better balance thanks to the mirror games, but also creates an explicit historical context to it thanks to the choice of the opposing armies (interest in reading up on what really happened, etc).
Arranging the The Year of Many Emperors (TYME), Dividing the Spoils (DiSp), and The West is No More (TWiNM) tournaments for Field of Glory II!

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:42 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:30 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:19 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:55 pm
The problem with using historical matchups for mirror matches in the DL is that unless all games use the same matchup, some matchups will probably have more scope for draws than others. And the players have no influence over this if you are picking the matchups for them, and assigning different matchups to each pair of players. Conversely, it would be a bit boring to have to play the same matchup both ways against all 5 opponents.
But everyone in a division would play the same set of 5 historical match-ups and everyone would have to use the same 10 armies chosen for those match-ups. The random factor would be who you had to play a specific match-up against. So you might have to play a horse army battle against a horse army specialist, which might be a bit difficult, but that is just the way it goes. I cannot see a problem myself.
No that sounds good. I misread the plan.
+1 on the sounds good part

SLancaster
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion, questions and some highbrow philosophising)

Post by SLancaster » Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:45 am
SLancaster wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:14 am
The Digital League is great. Tons of people playing. More came in the last season. All the suggestions in the last few weeks have been about really big changes not little tweaks. Everything from large armies all round, mirror matches, and another round of finals after 9 games! Now we come to the idea of random armies.
It is not going to be "large armies all round", but I do hope we can transition to a situation in Season 10 whereby players in all sections can have the option at the start of the season of choosing to play at either 1200 or 1600pts. There is not a massive difference between the two sizes of battle so it should not be a source of great controversy. The only issue is when two players in a match have indicated a preference for different size battles. So the "default setting" for the size of the battle in each section will decide which size battle will be used and the historical commonsense approach is probably to say that armies in Classical and Late Antiquity (an age of empires) tended to be larger than in the other periods, which were periods of greater political fragmentation. For example, Early Middle Ages tended to have smaller polities (and therefore smaller armies) in western Europe after the collapse of the western Roman empire.

There is a significant proportion of players who enjoy mirror matches and we already use them in the Themed Event, so they are not a new introduction. The longer term plan is to continue to offer them in just one section of the tournament so players who do not like them will still be able to choose four other sections where you play just 9 matches against 9 different opponents. The balance will not be changing in the longer term in this regard.

There is not going to be another round of finals.

I am not sure what you mean by "random armies", but the Themed Event is on its last legs in its current format. What we did in the first few seasons of the FOG2DL, when we had very few DLC's, was to provide a set of nine different historical match-ups for people to play. It was very popular and the idea will be revived in one section each season, probably starting in Season 10.
Honestly, can't we just leave the Digital League intact more or less as it is? Not everyone has time for extra games or playing with large armies, mirror matches and more turns. Surely, another tournament could include most if not all of these new ideas. Mirror match tournament. Tournament with large armies. Tournament like Chaos with purely random armies.

I like to pick my armies. Everyone likes to try out new armies and see how they go. You feel a sense of satisfaction from choosing an army and doing well with it. The random army idea especially has the potential to ruin everything. 9 games in every division with a random army picked for you?

I am all for thinking about improvements but a lot of this is almost like turning it into a different sort of tournament completely.
The FOG2DL needs to keep evolving or we will start to lose players. The basic 10 player divisions, where you play 9 other opponents will remain the dominant characteristic of the tournament, but there will continue to be variations on that basic framework to cater for different player preferences.
Large armies might be okay. I have played a few games and not a big difference.

I do think that the Digital League only needs a few tweaks. I really enjoy it as it is. Let's see what happens in October!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11732
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:25 pm

As you may already know, the format for the Biblical section will be changing in Season 9. Please see this thread for details . . .

viewtopic.php?f=501&t=100928

Here are the possible army match-ups for the paired games. We will need to choose 5 of them for Season 9 . . .

Arab 1000-313BC v Assyrian 681-609BC (Arabian campaign 644BC)
Arab 1000-313BC v Babylonian 626-539BC (Arabian campaign 599BC)

Assyrian 681-609BC v Babylonian 626-539BC with Median allies (Fall of Assyria 613BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Cimmerian 760-600BC (Cimmerian campaign 679BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Elamite 815-539BC and Babylonian allies (Assyrian invasion 653BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Egyptian 727-656BC (Egyptian campaign 667BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Kushite Egyptian 727-656BC (War 671BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Mannaean 750-610BC (Campaign 676BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Median 836-627BC (Campaign 677BC)
Assyrian 681-609BC v Urartian 681-585BC (Campaign 673BC)

Babylonian 626-539BC v 570-525BC Egyptian (Invasion 567BC)
Babylonian 626-539BC with Median allies v 664-571BC Egyptian with Assyrian allies (Carchemish campaign 605BC)
Babylonian 626-539BC v Hebrew 681-586BC (Invasion of Judah 588BC)
Babylonian 626-539BC v Persian 545-481BC (Invasion 539BC)
Babylonian 626-539BC v Phoenician 681-539BC (Invasion 598BC)

Babylonian Revolt 522-482BC v Persia 545-481BC (Revolt 522BC)

Cimmerian 760-600BC v Lydian 687-551BC (Invasion 653BC)
Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion circa 750BC)

Cypriot 549-490BC with Greek allies v Persian 545-481BC (Ionian Revolt 499BC)

Egyptian 664-571BC v Hebrew 681-586BC (Harran campaign 609BC)
Egyptian 664-571BC v Kushite 727-656BC (Invasion of Lower Egypt 664BC)
Egyptian 664-571BC v Kyrenean Greeks 630-461BC (Invasion of Libya 571BC)
Egyptian 570-525BC v Persian 545-481BC (Invasion of Egypt 525BC)
Egyptian 405-343BC v Persian 419-329BC (Invasion of Egypt 343BC)

Elamite 815-539BC v Persian 545-481BC (Invasion 539BC)

Greek 680-461BC v Lydian 687-551BC (Campaign 615BC)
Greek 680-461BC v Persian 545-481BC (Ionian Revolt 499BC)

Indian 500BC-319AD v Persian 545-481BC (Persian invasion 518-516BC)

Lydian 687-551BC v Median 626-550BC (War 590-585BC)
Lydian 550-546BC v Persian 553-546BC (War 548BC)

Median 626-550BC v Persian 553-546BC (Rebellion of Cyrus II 553BC)
Median 836-627BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion 653BC)
Median 626-550BC v Urartian 681-585BC (Median invasion 585BC)

Persian 545-481BC v Skythian/Saka 550-301BC (Massagetic war 530BC)

Skythian 750-551BC v Urartian 681-585BC (Skythian Invasion 635BC)

(35)

I am still researching whether allies should be added to any more of these match-ups. Obviously the allies will have to fit the historical event shown in brackets after the army pairing. It is not a period that I know particularly well so any help with this would be much appreciated.

kronenblatt
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by kronenblatt » Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:57 pm

Narrowing it down with...

... suggestions from given list above:
1. Babylonian 626-539BC v 664-571BC Egyptian (Carchemish campaign 605BC) [Babylonian would have Median allies and Egyptian Assyrian allies]
2. Egyptian 570-525BC v Persian 545-481BC (Invasion of Egypt 525BC)
3. Babylonian 626-539BC v Hebrew 681-586BC (Invasion of Judah 588BC)
4. Lydian 687-551BC v Median 626-550BC (War 590-585BC)

... and some freelancing on the side:
5. Uruartu–Assyria War (late 8th century BC): as proxied by Assyrian 681-609BC v Urartian 681-585BC
6. Achamenid conquest of India (Cyrus or Darius): Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC vs Indian 500 BC - 319 AD
Arranging the The Year of Many Emperors (TYME), Dividing the Spoils (DiSp), and The West is No More (TWiNM) tournaments for Field of Glory II!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11732
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:45 pm

kronenblatt wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:57 pm
Narrowing it down with...

... suggestions from given list above:
1. Babylonian 626-539BC v 664-571BC Egyptian (Carchemish campaign 605BC) [Babylonian would have Median allies and Egyptian Assyrian allies]
2. Egyptian 570-525BC v Persian 545-481BC (Invasion of Egypt 525BC)
3. Babylonian 626-539BC v Hebrew 681-586BC (Invasion of Judah 588BC)
4. Lydian 687-551BC v Median 626-550BC (War 590-585BC)
Thanks, I have added the ally options for Babylonians v Egyptians.
... and some freelancing on the side:
5. Uruartu–Assyria War (late 8th century BC): as proxied by Assyrian 681-609BC v Urartian 681-585BC
6. Achamenid conquest of India (Cyrus or Darius): Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC vs Indian 500 BC - 319 AD
We have the Urartu v Assyrian war of 673BC already and the earlier conflict you mention is not quite within the range of the armies we have available at the moment. The Persian-Indian match-up is include in the Quick Battles Rise of Persia section, but the campaign took place between 518-516BC, which is just before the Indian army we have starts at 500BC. If it is generally agreed that the 500BC-319AD Indian army is suitable for 518BC then I am quite happy to add this match-up to our list.

kronenblatt
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by kronenblatt » Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:05 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:45 pm
Thanks, I have added the ally options for Babylonians v Egyptians.
Super!
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:45 pm
We have the Urartu v Assyrian war of 673BC already and the earlier conflict you mention is not quite within the range of the armies we have available at the moment.
Ah, didn't see 673 BC Uruartu vs Assyrian war: that should cover it perfectly.
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:45 pm
The Persian-Indian match-up is include in the Quick Battles Rise of Persia section, but the campaign took place between 518-516BC, which is just before the Indian army we have starts at 500BC. If it is generally agreed that the 500BC-319AD Indian army is suitable for 518BC then I am quite happy to add this match-up to our list.
I don't have any archeological evidence for either 'yes' or 'no', but I'm not aware of any paradigm shift in Indian warfare during the 18 years between 518 and 500 BC, a paradigm shift that then would have lasted for over 800 years, until 319 AD. And since Persian Conquest of India 518 BC of the Rise of Persia quick battles uses the Indian 500 BC - 319 AD army list already, I reckon it should be good enough for this as well (who are we to question RBS and Paul59? ;) ) :). It's an interesting matchup, I think, and with a historical relevance.
Arranging the The Year of Many Emperors (TYME), Dividing the Spoils (DiSp), and The West is No More (TWiNM) tournaments for Field of Glory II!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11732
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:32 pm

I cannot see any reason not to include them . . .

http://ancientmilitary.com/ancient-india-military.htm

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:17 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:32 pm
I cannot see any reason not to include them . . .

http://ancientmilitary.com/ancient-india-military.htm
Excellent! It will be an interesting match.

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:22 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:45 pm
kronenblatt wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:57 pm
Narrowing it down with...

... suggestions from given list above:
1. Babylonian 626-539BC v 664-571BC Egyptian (Carchemish campaign 605BC) [Babylonian would have Median allies and Egyptian Assyrian allies]
2. Egyptian 570-525BC v Persian 545-481BC (Invasion of Egypt 525BC)
3. Babylonian 626-539BC v Hebrew 681-586BC (Invasion of Judah 588BC)
4. Lydian 687-551BC v Median 626-550BC (War 590-585BC)
Thanks, I have added the ally options for Babylonians v Egyptians.
... and some freelancing on the side:
5. Uruartu–Assyria War (late 8th century BC): as proxied by Assyrian 681-609BC v Urartian 681-585BC
6. Achamenid conquest of India (Cyrus or Darius): Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC vs Indian 500 BC - 319 AD
We have the Urartu v Assyrian war of 673BC already and the earlier conflict you mention is not quite within the range of the armies we have available at the moment. The Persian-Indian match-up is include in the Quick Battles Rise of Persia section, but the campaign took place between 518-516BC, which is just before the Indian army we have starts at 500BC. If it is generally agreed that the 500BC-319AD Indian army is suitable for 518BC then I am quite happy to add this match-up to our list.
What about Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion) to give something a little different?

kronenblatt
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: More information on Biblical Season 9 . . .

Post by kronenblatt » Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:22 pm

Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:22 am
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:45 pm
Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion)
What about Cimmerian 760-600BC v Skythian 750-551BC (Skythian invasion) to give something a little different?
What's this Skythian invasion, and of what?

Also, the two army lists seem virtually identical, don't they? But with a historical context and maybe with some allies (can it be, and does it need to be, historically correct allies), such as Cimmerian 760-600BC bringing Mannaean 750-610 BC allies, then it may be fun?
Arranging the The Year of Many Emperors (TYME), Dividing the Spoils (DiSp), and The West is No More (TWiNM) tournaments for Field of Glory II!

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”