Page 445 of 660

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:59 am
by stockwellpete
Weekly round-up
Still very slow in Division A where ruskicanuk (Breton) remains in a commanding position at the top of the table. Triarii (Dailami) did post 2 wins to move up to fourth, but perhaps the strongest challenge will come from Nosy_Rat (Khorasanian) back in sixth, who has 3 wins from 4 starts. Nothing to report in Division B, but in Division C deve (Dailami) posted 3 wins which was just enough to overtake Karvon (Bedouin) to win automatic promotion.

Unbeaten runs of 3 matches or more
harveylh (Division A) 3 matches
ruskicanuk (Division A) 3 matches
Geffalrus (Division B) 3 matches

Match completion rate (45 matches in total to be played in each division)
Division A - 28 out of 45 matches completed :cry:
Division B - 40 out of 45 matches completed :D
Division C - 42 out of 45 matches completed :D

Division A is slow, but Division B and C have excellent match completion rates.

Player of the week
deve (Division C) who posted 3 wins this week to win automatic promotion. :D

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:26 am
by stockwellpete
Early Middle Ages            A-B charts.jpg
Early Middle Ages A-B charts.jpg (730.48 KiB) Viewed 806 times
Early Middle Ages            C-D charts.jpg
Early Middle Ages C-D charts.jpg (573.71 KiB) Viewed 806 times

deve has won Early Middle Ages Division C!

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:37 am
by stockwellpete
With 7 wins and a draw from his 9 matches, deve has won Early Middle Ages Division C with his Dailami army. Well played deve! :D

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:38 am
by stockwellpete
Biblical                               A-D tables.jpg
Biblical A-D tables.jpg (620.61 KiB) Viewed 1055 times

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:38 am
by stockwellpete
Weekly round-up
No sign of life again in Division A this week so I have ordered the FOG2DL paramedics to investigate. :D Much livelier in Division B where desertedfox (Egyptian) won his eighth match to narrowly beat deve (Achaemenid Persian) to the automatic promotion place.

Unbeaten runs of 3 matches or more
desertedfox (Division B) 8 matches and finished
devoncop (Division B) 6 matches
lydianed (Division B) 4 matches

Match completion rate (45 matches in total to be played in each division)
Division A - 29 out of 45 matches completed :cry:
Division B - 40 out of 45 matches completed :D

Division A is slow while Division B is excellent.

Player of the week
desertedfox (Division B) again with his eighth win to secure automatic promotion. :D

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:53 am
by stockwellpete
Biblical A-B charts.jpg
Biblical A-B charts.jpg (682.61 KiB) Viewed 845 times

desertedfox has won Biblical Division B!

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:03 am
by stockwellpete
In an exciting race desertedfox (Egyptian) has just finished ahead of deve (Achaemenid Persian) to win Biblical Division B! Well played desertedfox! :D

Re: The poll on player army choices is now closed . . . 23-20 in favour of no change

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:12 am
by stockwellpete
This poll is now closed. I am a bit disappointed that this didn't pass as I really would have liked to freshen things up a bit. It was very close in the end so I may re-poll at some point in the future, maybe towards the end of Season 7.

Btw, I am planning that there will be 12 seasons of the FOG2DL overall. So that is for the whole of 2020 and 2021. After that, we'll have to see as we may have all the DLC's by then and player numbers may start to diminish.

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:51 am
by sunnyboy
In response to welfare check by paramedics

Division A

Sunnyboy (Phoenician 681-539 BC) beat nyczar (Lydian 550-546 BC) 67 - 49

Quite a bloodbath in the end. The Phoenicians initially extended their right, a move that was quickly countered by the Lydians pushing their lancers supported by some raw hoplites to their left. As both sides faced off some initial success gained by the Phoenician skirmishers was quickly followed by the Lydian slaughter of said skirmishers.
Both sides then slugged it out in an even fight, the failure of the Lydian right came a couple of turns earlier than the failure of the Phoenician right, sufficient time for the Phoenician to gain the win.

Thanks for the game Mark, well played!

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:03 pm
by rexhurley
Division B

rexhurley (Numidians) defeats nyczar (Roman) 54/28

once again the Desert Djinni turns away the greedy Roman hoard, may he forever wither in the sand and sun

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:35 pm
by nyczar
Division A

nyczar Scots-Irish 50 BC - 476 AD challenges Nosy_Rat - Hunnic Western 376-454 AD PM sent

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:31 pm
by lydianed
Division C

lydianed (Gallic) defeated cromlechi (Carthaginian) 54:9

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

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:31 pm
by dkalenda
Division A

dkalenda - Lysimachid beats klayeckles - Achaemenid Persian 51% - 21%

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:56 pm
by Nijis
Div B

Nijis (Abbasids) beats rbodleyscott (Franks) 61-43.

One of those battles where each side outflanks the other's left and then tries to surround the center. The result was a fight that rotated 180 degrees and shrank inward, like it was being sucked into a vortex. First the Arabs were about 20 points down, then almost 25 up, then it settled at a nail-biting conclusion.

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

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:04 am
by pantherboy
Division A

pantherboy (Kyrenean Greeks) beat Sunnyboy (Phoenician 681-539 BC) 61 - 52

(3-1)

Re: The poll on player army choices is now closed . . . 23-20 in favour of no change

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:07 am
by General Shapur
Just a suggestion. It seems there are some commonly picked armies that consistently outperform. Perhaps removing the top winning armies from selection is an easy way to explore options. Also, consider a civil war division listing perhaps Rome and its allies only (for example). Perhaps a potluck-vs pot luck division. You can get variety by not just having time divisions in the league.

Re: The poll on player army choices is now closed . . . 23-20 in favour of no change

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:51 am
by stockwellpete
General Shapur wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:07 am
Just a suggestion. It seems there are some commonly picked armies that consistently outperform. Perhaps removing the top winning armies from selection is an easy way to explore options.
I am loathe to interfere too much with the lists and excluding certain armies is bound to cause controversy. I do think armies like the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons are too strong and it seems a bit ridiculous to me that they are among the most powerful in the game. I think they are going to be looked at when the beta test for the next DLC gets started. I would prefer that they are adjusted rather than excluded.
Also, consider a civil war division listing perhaps Rome and its allies only (for example). Perhaps a potluck-vs pot luck division. You can get variety by not just having time divisions in the league.
The trouble is that we do not have enough players to support these other sections. We had 60 players this time, which was just about enough for the 5 sections we have running, although I really would have liked a third division in Biblical. With only two divisions in a section the number of uneven match-ups increases quite sharply. And we still have the High Middle Ages section to come next year, probably.

To have these other sections would mean either not having one (or more) of the traditional sections, or having sections with only 2 divisions in them. I am not in favour of doing this.

Re: The poll on player army choices is now closed . . . 23-20 in favour of no change

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:05 am
by Sennacherib
stockwellpete wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:51 am
General Shapur wrote:
Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:07 am
Just a suggestion. It seems there are some commonly picked armies that consistently outperform. Perhaps removing the top winning armies from selection is an easy way to explore options.
I am loathe to interfere too much with the lists and excluding certain armies is bound to cause controversy. I do think armies like the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons are too strong and it seems a bit ridiculous to me that they are among the most powerful in the game. I think they are going to be looked at when the beta test for the next DLC gets started. I would prefer that they are adjusted rather than excluded.

totally agree ! it is time done something to stop these "horde armies" polluting the game ! the medium infantry light spear/swordsmen are too effective for it's cost.

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

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:04 pm
by harveylh
Division A

harveylh -Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC defeats XLegione - Carthaginian 550-411 BC, 45-10

Just enough rough terrain and a small lake in the center of the battlefield to slow down the hoplites was a major factor. Good game.

Re: phoyle3290 has won Classical Antiquity Division D!

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:08 pm
by KiFi
I echo the congratulations to phoyle3290 and Tresantes. It was a pleasure playing you and the other generals in the Classic Antiquity Division D. Thank you all.

I am looking forward to next season.

Regards,
Dick