Page 421 of 770

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

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:28 pm
by rexhurley
Division B

rexhurley (Numidians) defeats Morbio (Indo Greeks) 60/48 as you can imagine a somewhat brutal encounter with body piles everywhere

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

Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:51 pm
by Geffalrus
Division C

Geffalrus (Antigonids) defeats paulmcneill (Thracians-Gallic) 48-4. Good game to my opponent who got extremely unlucky with the cohesion rolls.

Antigonid spirits were not initially very high as they faced a Thracian army with excellent medium foot guarding a large stream with a massive hill to fall back on (all things that Pikes and Lancers are allergic to). To compensate, the Antigonids brought extra cavalry and skirmishers to utilize mobility to find a crossing spot. The Thracians pulled back under threat of missile fire, and the Rhomphaia forces were viciously harassed by Cretans and horse archers. The Thracian light troops occupied a marsh and managed to surprise and rout a unit of Thureos. Covered by the marsh, the Chosen Warriors of the Thracians forded the river, nearly swapping places with the Antigonid army. The pikes turned around and marched to meet them, while the cavalry and light troops distracted the rest of the Thracian host. Temporarily outnumbered, the Thracian chosen warbands attempted to fall back, but were hit with some extremely unlucky cohesion rolls. Promptly pursued by pikes and elephants, the warbands were quickly broken and the day won.

The main clash of the two armies. Cavalry and skirms on one side of the river, pikes and elephants on the other.
Screen_00000328.jpg
Screen_00000328.jpg (494.48 KiB) Viewed 1249 times

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:56 am
by Cunningcairn
Div A

Cunningcairn - Egyptian 664-571 BC beat nyczar - Lydian 550-546 BC Won 64% to 34%

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:47 am
by Trogilus
Div C

Trogilus (Dacian) beat Bluefin (Frank) 60-37

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:53 am
by stockwellpete
Classical Antiquity            A-D tables.jpg
Classical Antiquity A-D tables.jpg (932.98 KiB) Viewed 1129 times

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:22 am
by stockwellpete
Classical Antiquity A-B charts.jpg
Classical Antiquity A-B charts.jpg (719.26 KiB) Viewed 1013 times
Classical Antiquity C-D charts.jpg
Classical Antiquity C-D charts.jpg (758.67 KiB) Viewed 1013 times

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:46 am
by stockwellpete
Late Antiquity                   A-D tables.jpg
Late Antiquity A-D tables.jpg (929.66 KiB) Viewed 1026 times

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:47 am
by stockwellpete
Late Antiquity A-B charts.jpg
Late Antiquity A-B charts.jpg (713.16 KiB) Viewed 1013 times
Late Antiquity C-D charts.jpg
Late Antiquity C-D charts.jpg (754.52 KiB) Viewed 1013 times

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:45 am
by stockwellpete
stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:59 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:36 pm
I think having the option of 2 armies (with a different ally selection) of heavily represented armies is a good compromise.
I'm out tomorrow, but I'll have a look at the army lists on Friday to see what we might be talking about with this. :wink:
If we take as our benchmark 6 armies from a nation in an army list for a particular tournament section, we get this list . . .

Classical Antiquity
Achaemenid Persian 6
Carthage 9
Greek 7
Roman 6
Seleucid 6

Late Antiquity
Hunnic (including Hepthalites) 6
Roman 6

Early Middle Ages
Arab 14
Byzantine 9

Biblical
N/A

So what we could say is that two armies from these nations will be allowed in a division from Season 6 onwards (they would have to different armies though). I don't propose to put any restrictions on the allies as it will cause me some extra fiddling about (PMs to players etc) and delay during the army allocation process.

Comments on this idea please.

Re: Themed Event arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:47 am
by stockwellpete
Quarter-final matches (paired games) start here.

Re: Themed Event arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:00 am
by dkalenda
Quarter-final

dkalenda v Triarii

Pass: dkalenda

Pm: sent

Re: The Allies poll is now closed , , , 21-7 in favour of their introduction next season.

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:57 am
by stockwellpete
pantherboy wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:04 pm
What I used to do back in the LOEG days was:

For the period based leagues (e.g. Classical, Dark Ages etc.) each player is required to select a specific army list (e.g. Early Armenian – Tigran the Great) from the appropriate DAG (ROR, SOA, IF & SAS) and post it to the appropriate thread for their League (e.g. Season 6 Recruitment - Classical). In each group no two players are permitted to field an identical list though each variant may be fielded by a different player. For example one player may select Bosporan (early) while another takes Bosporan (mid) and finally a third player opts for Bosporan (late).
Yes. FOG1 is different in some respects to FOG2 with the periodisation of the armies and how the issue of allies is handled. I don't want to go further in the direction of multiple armies from one nation in a division beyond the limited list of exemptions that I posted earlier today. If people like the idea of the limited exemptions list then I can poll that before the end of this season.
Each season players are not allowed to re-select 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.
Yes, this is something that I have not introduced into the FOGDL, but it was a rule that I liked in LOEG. I wouldn't want to lose the opportunity for players to get promoted through the divisions using a particular army. I remember a player from FOG1DL called "tullius" who was usually a division C/D player. But he started using one of the Slav armies and he got himself promoted into the top division with it and then survived in the top flight for another season. Maybe we could have a rule whereby players could not re-select the same army for the next season unless they were promoted with it in the previous season? This would force most players to change armies each season, but would allow players to choose a favourite army every second season and it would allow promoted players the opportunity to continue their winning run with their "specialist" army. I could also ensure that a player could not get allocated the same army in different sections of the tournament.

Comments on this please so we can see if a poll might be useful.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:35 pm
by General Shapur
Div D

General Shapur -Indian %00 BC - 319 AD defeats SawyerK - Seleucid 205-167 BC: 41-14

Death by 1000000 arrows. Thanks for a great game.

Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:18 pm
by Cunningcairn

If we take as our benchmark 6 armies from a nation in an army list for a particular tournament section, we get this list . . .

Classical Antiquity
Achaemenid Persian 6
Carthage 9
Greek 7
Roman 6
Seleucid 6

Late Antiquity
Hunnic (including Hepthalites) 6
Roman 6

Early Middle Ages
Arab 14
Byzantine 9

Biblical
N/A

So what we could say is that two armies from these nations will be allowed in a division from Season 6 onwards (they would have to different armies though). I don't propose to put any restrictions on the allies as it will cause me some extra fiddling about (PMs to players etc) and delay during the army allocation process.

Comments on this idea please.
I'd be happy with that.

Re: The Allies poll is now closed , , , 21-7 in favour of their introduction next season.

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:19 pm
by Cunningcairn
stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:57 am
pantherboy wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:04 pm
What I used to do back in the LOEG days was:

For the period based leagues (e.g. Classical, Dark Ages etc.) each player is required to select a specific army list (e.g. Early Armenian – Tigran the Great) from the appropriate DAG (ROR, SOA, IF & SAS) and post it to the appropriate thread for their League (e.g. Season 6 Recruitment - Classical). In each group no two players are permitted to field an identical list though each variant may be fielded by a different player. For example one player may select Bosporan (early) while another takes Bosporan (mid) and finally a third player opts for Bosporan (late).
Yes. FOG1 is different in some respects to FOG2 with the periodisation of the armies and how the issue of allies is handled. I don't want to go further in the direction of multiple armies from one nation in a division beyond the limited list of exemptions that I posted earlier today. If people like the idea of the limited exemptions list then I can poll that before the end of this season.
Each season players are not allowed to re-select 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.
Yes, this is something that I have not introduced into the FOGDL, but it was a rule that I liked in LOEG. I wouldn't want to lose the opportunity for players to get promoted through the divisions using a particular army. I remember a player from FOG1DL called "tullius" who was usually a division C/D player. But he started using one of the Slav armies and he got himself promoted into the top division with it and then survived in the top flight for another season. Maybe we could have a rule whereby players could not re-select the same army for the next season unless they were promoted with it in the previous season? This would force most players to change armies each season, but would allow players to choose a favourite army every second season and it would allow promoted players the opportunity to continue their winning run with their "specialist" army. I could also ensure that a player could not get allocated the same army in different sections of the tournament.

Comments on this please so we can see if a poll might be useful.
Good idea I'd support that as well.

Re: Themed Event arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:53 pm
by SnuggleBunnies
Quarter Final

SnuggleBunnies vs IMC (Pydna mirror match)

Game is up, PW snuggles, PM sent.

Re: The Allies poll is now closed , , , 21-7 in favour of their introduction next season.

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:55 pm
by SnuggleBunnies
I would also be good with that - it's good to be forced out of my comfort zone. In fact, I'd go so far as to be happy with totally random army selection, but I'm guessing most people wouldn't be thrilled with that.

Re: The Allies poll is now closed , , , 21-7 in favour of their introduction next season.

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:22 pm
by devoncop
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:55 pm
I would also be good with that - it's good to be forced out of my comfort zone. In fact, I'd go so far as to be happy with totally random army selection, but I'm guessing most people wouldn't be thrilled with that.
Radical suggestion for a new category of Division :-)

I like it !

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:05 pm
by SawyerK
In Division D SawyerK (Seleucid 205-167 BC) challenges Bluefin (Syracusan 280-211 BC). PW sent by PM.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:09 pm
by SawyerK
In Division D SawyerK (Ptolemaic 55-30 BC) challenges phoyle3290 (Jewish Revolt) and
Rob123 (Romano-British)
PW sent by PM for both challenges.