Page 426 of 473

Re: Early Middle Ages: arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:37 am
by stockwellpete
Early Middle Ages            A-B charts.jpg
Early Middle Ages A-B charts.jpg (646.52 KiB) Viewed 506 times
Early Middle Ages            C-D charts.jpg
Early Middle Ages C-D charts.jpg (527.92 KiB) Viewed 506 times

Second Time Control check this Sunday July 7th

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:47 am
by stockwellpete
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.

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:51 am
by stockwellpete
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.

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:22 am
by paulmcneil
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?

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:25 am
by rbodleyscott
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

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:53 am
by batesmotel
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)

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:21 pm
by batesmotel
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

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:45 pm
by stockwellpete
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).

Re: Sennacherib has won Early Middle Ages Division B!

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:48 pm
by sunnyboy
Congrats on the win mate.

Re: Sennacherib has won Early Middle Ages Division B!

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:36 pm
by Nijis
Congratulations!

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:17 pm
by SnuggleBunnies
Div A

SnuggleBunnies (Abbasid) draws with NikiforosFokas (Arab Conquest) 0-0. I refused to face his Superior Offensive Spears in open terrain, and he refused to attack my enclosures, so a draw it is.

(0-0)

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:37 pm
by rexhurley
Division B

rexhurley (Numidians) defeats Cunningcairn (Indians) 67/37 in another carnage feast. I don't think any unit on either side ended up without having pointy shaft things sticking out of them.

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:49 pm
by paulmcneil
rbodleyscott wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:25 am
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
Thank you

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:57 pm
by Breogan
Division C

Breogan (Greeks) defeated Dzon Vejn (Indians) 52-23.

Elephants are tough, but hoplites beat bowmen when they contact them. Anyway, an exciting game!

Re: Early Middle Ages: arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:13 pm
by Cunningcairn
Div A

Challenges posted for

Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies)
CheAhn - Byzantine 988-1041 AD (no allies)
pantherboy - Indian (Hindu North) 600-1049 AD (Indian (Rajput) 650-1049 AD allies)
Nosy_Rat - Khorasanian 821-1003 AD (Abbasid 815-835 AD allies)
NikiforosFokas - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD (no allies)
GDod - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD (Turkish 600 -1036 allies)

PW is your username in lower case.

PM sent

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:19 pm
by lydianed
Division D

lydianed (Gepid) challenges SawyerK (Ptolemaic) pw: SawyerK

PM sent,

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:51 pm
by CheAhn
Div A

CheAhn (Romans) defeats harveylh (Arab City), 63 - 52

(3-1)

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:12 pm
by klayeckles
I think this is on the right track, but is still confusing...we don't want 9 of the same nation necessarily...but i don't know this rule as presented (where it is based on the number or armies in of a nation), really gets at the issue of providing option while limiting the number of "same" armies....there really aren't that many armies to deal with...and the "Nationality" designation is kind of a arbitrary...ie there is the Lysimachid, the Macedonian, and seleucid that are all more similar than some of the other nation lists. So why not just look over the lists and pick some variants without including all. so there are already several Mac-centric nations so we wouldn't need other additional Mac armies; but maybe there are a couple of romans, as they vary significantly from early to late, and an early and a late carthage. and so on.

so rather than saying..."you can pick any roman, but only two will be allowed"... maybe we list two and only two roman armies to be chosen (i bet pete has a very good idea of what is popular, and which are a bit different). This way it is more clear what choices might be available when you choose your army, and there will be automatic variation in the same nation options

so for instance in the classical division

rome 280 AND rome 210 (same nation Very different)
carthage 350 and carthage 218 (heavy chariots vs. hannibal in rome)
Greek 460 and greek 280 (citizen hoplites vs thoraktai)
gaulic 390 and gaulic 100 (chariot based vs cav based)....note this wouldn't be allowed under the strict rules as defined as there are only 3 gaulic armies,
thracian 329 and 279 (hellenistic vs getae based)



something for another day...but if folks are tired of facing the same 5 armies every time, we might consider a themed event titled..."battle of the misfit armies". there are some very interesting armies out there that never get picked (like my hepthalite army i'm using now--and successfully proving horses don't mix with pikes), because they don't do well against the predominant army selections. but imagine battles of pergamene vs. Bithynian Kushan Vs Samite etc...

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:18 pm
by XLegione
Division B

XLegione - Hunnic Sabir 463-558 AD defeated IMC - Roman 105-25 BC 40% - 3%

It was good battlefield for the huns and the romans accepted to fight.

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:23 pm
by deve
Division B

deve (Samnite) defeated herm (Ptolemaic) 43-3