Page 427 of 660

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

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:46 pm
by stockwellpete
klayeckles wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:12 pm
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)
I take your point, Klay, and along with batesmotel's earlier suggestion I think it could offer some interesting alternatives. I have to say though that I am at about my limit in terms of what I can contribute myself to the FOG2DL. I have no objection if you or Chris want to establish small working groups to flesh out your ideas and then you can present them to me and I will poll them to see if people like the ideas. We could start off with a trial in one section for one season and see how it goes and if there is enough support roll it out further in subsequent seasons. I do feel that the league needs to keep evolving to maintain player interest and recruit new players.
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...
Well, this is what the sections in earlier seasons like "From Maurya to Alaric" and "From Zhou to Chen" were about. A lot of those match-ups were quite obscure. I could put something together along these lines again for the Themed Event in a future season soon.

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:33 pm
by deve
Div C
deve (Dailami) beat Rob123 (Indian) 44-17

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:45 pm
by klayeckles
Div A
THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER! the hepthalites are looking for more pain and suffering...final matches below:

Nikiforosfakas (jewish) PW revolt
Nosy rat (west. hunnic) Pw horsey
Nyczar (scots-irish) pw spankme

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

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:34 pm
by SpeedyCM
Div B

SpeedyCM (Sassanid 350-476 AD) defeated Cunningcairn (Indian 320-545 AD) 60-37.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:08 am
by Karvon
Div C

Karvon - Achaemenid Persian 419-329 BC drew vs. cromlechi - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa 202 BC 34-0 for a score of 2-0.

The short version: Carth divided his force onto two steep hills initially which my horse couldn't reach. He did advance his elephants and some Spanish off which I managed to mostly dispatch with a mix of skirmishers and horse. We chased and fenced in several other sectors but ran out of time before I could regroup enough to try to finish him off.

(2-0)

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:48 am
by batesmotel
I suspect if you get people who know some of the armies well, it shouldn't be hard to split them up into buckets or at least into groups like Klay has done. And no reason Pete has to do it. (I probably spent 15 minutes or less on the examples I did in my prior response and I suspect Klay didn't spend hours either. Some, like the Achaemenids are almost no brainers.

Chris

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

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:07 am
by rbodleyscott
Division B

Frankish 771-887 with Viking 790-899 allies

Challenges posted for:
Nijis - Arab (Abbasid) 836-873
SpeedyCM - Rus 960-1053 with Polish 966-1057 allies
sunnyboy Byzantine 740-903

PW: Doom666

PM sent

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:33 pm
by harveylh
Division A

harveylh -Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC challenges pantherboy - Kyrenean Greek 630-461 BC, password “bible”, PM sent.

harveylh -Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC challenges XLegione - Carthaginian 550-411 BC, password “bible”, PM sent.

Re: Poll on army selection rules

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:17 pm
by Cunningcairn
I really like Klay's and Chris' ideas of buckets.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:46 pm
by Barrold713
Division C
Barrold713 - Numidian/Moorish 55 BC-6 AD challenges Bluefin - Frank 496-599 AD

PW: Minnesota

Cheers
BDH

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

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:57 pm
by harveylh
Division A

harveylh - Arab City 300-633 AD defeats youngr - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC, 42-17

The relatively open map was tough for the Ptolemaic as it made the Arab Lancers even more effective.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:54 pm
by General Shapur
DiV D

General Shapur -Indian %00 BC - 319 AD defeats Barrold713 - Pergamene 190-129 BC: 42-7

An indian swarm. Thanks for the game.

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

Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:56 pm
by Triarii
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies)

Challenges
GDod - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD (Turkish allies 600-1036 AD) pw = Delight
NikiforosFokas - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD (no allies) pw = Hotter

PM sent.