Slitherine

Division A

youngr (Roman) challenges klayeckles (Ach. Persian), password is "charge". PM sent.
youngr (Roman) challenges XLegione (Seleucid), password is "charge". PM sent.

Cheers
Richard

QF

Geffalrus vs deve

Pydna mirror match

PW sarissa

PM to be sent

Division B

Triarii - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD beats Cunningcairn - Indian 320-545 AD 42% - 4%

This time the woods being in the Roman half of the map aided all those Roman foot in getting at the Indians before the archers could do their worst.

Thanks Cunningcairn.

Division C

Bluefin (Franks) defeats Doyley50 (Romans) 64-58.

Not sure how this happened. Feeling rather lucky, to be honest. Romans held huge lead for most of the game and then it suddenly became a toss up at the end. Doyley50 definitely deserved better. Thanks for the game.

(3-1)

Nicely done mate.

Division A

SnuggleBunnies (Kingdom of Soissons) defeats klayeckles (Hephthalites) 63-35

A mighty struggle leaving only a single unit of Limatanei left standing by the end. My poor loyal speedbumps.

Division C

Rob123 (Indian) defeated Ulysisgrunt (Khazar) 45:16

Thanks for the game.

This is the important one because I have to be certain that all players will have enough time to complete their remaining matches. The requirement is that all players have completed 3 matches in each section they have entered. As the Early Middle Ages section started a week late I will accept 2 completed matches for this section this season. Overall, the requirement is quite generous in my opinion as players are only expected to complete one-third of their matches in half the time allocated for the tournament. I will start sending out polite reminders of the rule from today.

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:13 am I can see Classical divisions being full of just Roman, Carthaginian and Diadochi armies with maybe an indian or Indo-Greek for flavour.

I think the thing to do is to trial this idea for one season (if it continues to be supported in the poll) and compare the composition of the final army allocations to see if there is enough variety. The fall-back position would either be to have the benchmark set at 8 armies instead of 6, or just apply the exemptions to the Early Middle Ages section.

I may be being stupid here, but is there a "screenshot" button in the game? I've been taking them with the usual fn print screen keys, is there a way within the game to do this?

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:22 am I may be being stupid here, but is there a "screenshot" button in the game? I've been taking them with the usual fn print screen keys, is there a way within the game to do this?

F2

They get saved in

/Documents/My Games/FieldOfGlory2/SCREENS

Div C

batesmotel (Khorasanian) drew with Karvon (Arab-North Africa) 42%-44%

Thanks for the game. We each destroyed the left flank of the other army but then couldn't re-position troops quickly enough to finish each other off.

Chris

(2-2)

The problem with an abstract rule based on the number of candidate army lists in a several hundred year range as well as a large geographic area seems likely to rule out the use of armies that may differ substantially in troop types and quality. It might make sense to go through these armies by nationality and specifically break them into buckets where only one army from each bucket could be involved? Allow the use of armies of the same nationality that are separated by a sufficiently large gap in dates. e.g. 200-300 years.

Examples of Buckets:
Achaemenid Persian:
1) Sparabara based armies - All Achaemenid lists 553-420 BC
2) Late Achaemenid - Cavalry and hplites vs Alexander Achaemenid 419-320

Byzantine:
1) Early (Late Roman continuation) - Byzantine lists through 493-599 AD - no Skutatoi
2) Arab Conquest and Thematic - Byzantine lists from 600 - 963 -Defensive spear Skutatoi, primarily Thematic cavalry
3) Tagmatic - Byzantine - from 964 - 1041 - lists with mostly Tagmatic cavalry and spear/bow skutatoi
The buckets should be defined in advance and possibly with input from players. Players familiar with the specific historical armies may well be the best to do the bucket definitions.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:21 pm The problem with an abstract rule based on the number of candidate army lists in a several hundred year range as well as a large geographic area seems likely to rule out the use of armies that may differ substantially in troop types and quality. It might make sense to go through these armies by nationality and specifically break them into buckets where only one army from each bucket could be involved? Allow the use of armies of the same nationality that are separated by a sufficiently large gap in dates. e.g. 200-300 years.

Examples of Buckets:
Achaemenid Persian:
1) Sparabara based armies - All Achaemenid lists 553-420 BC
2) Late Achaemenid - Cavalry and hplites vs Alexander Achaemenid 419-320

Byzantine:
1) Early (Late Roman continuation) - Byzantine lists through 493-599 AD - no Skutatoi
2) Arab Conquest and Thematic - Byzantine lists from 600 - 963 -Defensive spear Skutatoi, primarily Thematic cavalry
3) Tagmatic - Byzantine - from 964 - 1041 - lists with mostly Tagmatic cavalry and spear/bow skutatoi
The buckets should be defined in advance and possibly with input from players. Players familiar with the specific historical armies may well be the best to do the bucket definitions.

Chris

It is an interesting suggestion but I think breaking groups of armies into separate "buckets" would be a very difficult and time-consuming job that would provoke all sorts of discussions and counter-arguments. I am sorry but I am not up for initiating a process like this when I already have a much simpler way of doing things.

I have been looking at the army lists today, and now that the new allies feature has been given the go-ahead for next season, I have been adjusting all the army lists so that each army only appears in one tournament section. Hitherto, an army that straddled the various cut-off dates would appear in both sections to increase the variety of options. The cut off dates are as follows (from the Rules of Competition) . . .

Biblical Age 3200BC - 600BC
Classical Antiquity 600BC – 100BC
Later Antiquity 100BC - 500AD
Early Middle Ages 500AD - 1000AD
High Middle Ages 1000AD – 1500 AD

So this change will mean that where an army straddles these cut off dates, they will now be put in the section in which the greater part of their historical dates primarily fall. So, for example, the Welsh (477-599 AD) will now only be in Early Middle Ages, and not Late Antiquity as well, because only 23 years of their period falls before the cut-off of 500 AD while 99 years falls after it. So, primarily, they are an Early Middle Ages army. There are lots of others like this e.g. Gepids, Romano-British etc and I will post up the army lists in due course. There are a few borderline armies such as Indians 500 BC-319 AD which, strictly speaking, should be in Late Antiquity because 419 of the 819 years covered by the list falls in Late Antiquity. But because there is another Indian army (320-545 AD) in Late Antiquity already, I have kept the 500 BC-319 AD Indian army in Classical Antiquity because there is no other Indian army in there.

There are a number of advantages of doing this. First of all, it reduces the number of Roman and Seleucid choices in Classical Antiquity to 5 each and removes them from the exemption list that we are currently polling - so concerns about the section being dominated by Roman and Diadochi armies should be alleviated somewhat. Secondly, and this is a marginal point, it should make the match-ups a bit more historical than they are now. And finally, it will prevent players from using the same army twice in the same season in different sections (it has happened a few times in the FOG2DL).

Congrats on the win mate.

Congratulations!