The Dustbin

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

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

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:47 pm

ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
Well, if you would like to submit an army list for the Early Middle Ages section from which players would make their choices then that would be very interesting. :wink:

sunnyboy
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:18 pm

Division A
sunnyboy (Phoenician 681-539 BC) challenges harveylh (Achaemenid Persians 545-481 BC)
PM sent
PW: harveylh

sunnyboy
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

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

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:26 pm

Division C
Sunnyboy - Jewish 167-164 BC challenges Cromlechi – Carthaginians, Hannibal in Africa (202BC)
PM sent
PW: Cromlechi

sunnyboy
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:28 pm

Congrats General, well done on winning the division!

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1087
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

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

Post by ianiow » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:47 pm
ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
Well, if you would like to submit an army list for the Early Middle Ages section from which players would make their choices then that would be very interesting. :wink:
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

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

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pm

ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.
I don't see how this would help with the two issues that you originally identified - players fielding hordes of skirmishers or players hiding their MF armies in the woods. On top of that, players make their army selections before the divisions are announced and many will not be sure which division they are going to play in. Players who finished near the top of an A division last time will do, but what if you have come 2nd, 3rd or 4th in Divisions B, C or D? Where you will be playing all depends on the proportion of players returning to the same section from the previous season. If 80%+ return it is much easier to predict where you will play than it is if the figure is only 50%+.

I think there might be a case for more managed army selection lists where, for one season at a time, certain types of army might be excluded, to both create more historical match-ups and reduce the number of asynchronous match-ups. I would be interested in such an idea myself, but I have never suggested it as I think it would be very controversial and might affect recruitment quite negatively.

However, the idea that I was edging towards with my comments on the Arab and Byzantine armies earlier today was that maybe there is a group of nations whose armies are heavily represented in the lists who might be allowed 2 armies instead of 1. So, maybe, the Byzantines, Romans and Arabs for starters. Who else? The Carthaginians perhaps? It would need some research, but if we said something like those nations with 6 or more armies in a FOG2DL section army list could be allowed 2 core army selections, then that might be quite popular. But I definitely cannot agree to a situation where we could possibly have 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players with the same core Roman army, just with different allies, in the same division.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

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

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:04 pm

The final result of the poll was 21-7 in favour of rolling out the allies feature across the whole tournament from Season 6 onwards . . . so we shall. :D

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

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

Post by devoncop » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:33 pm

ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:29 pm
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
This is exactly my point too Ian.

I hear what you say Pete. I just wondered if the demand was out there for a "level playing field" section.
If you say there isn't ......then fine.....I get that terrain across the battlefield can still vary but certainly the disparities between two hoplite armies from Greece on any usual field of battle are a lot less than that of a Moorish Horse Archer one v a pike phalanx one using the same map.

Nosy_Rat
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!

Post by Nosy_Rat » Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:59 pm

Impressive job, congratulations!

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1087
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

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

Post by ianiow » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:28 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pm
ianiow wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.
I don't see how this would help with the two issues that you originally identified - players fielding hordes of skirmishers or players hiding their MF armies in the woods.
I guess it boils down to me hating having to choose 3 standby armies and worse, getting one of them. :lol: If I take a liking to an army (and it doesnt have to be a particularly good army), I practice with it, read up on it, device strategies for it, then I want to play it. Even if I have to fight another player with a similar army (especially so - because two close armies are the ultimate test of generalship imho).

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

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

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:36 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pm

I think there might be a case for more managed army selection lists where, for one season at a time, certain types of army might be excluded, to both create more historical match-ups and reduce the number of asynchronous match-ups. I would be interested in such an idea myself, but I have never suggested it as I think it would be very controversial and might affect recruitment quite negatively.

Not knowing what you might face is one of the attractions of the league. In saying that there is nothing worse than facing a large skirmisher or mounted army with a heavy foot army or for that matter playing against a medium foot army in heavy terrain with a horse army. There is always going to be someone who will take an army that just doesn't make for a good game in that period but they are in the minority. What about limiting the maximum number of skirmishers in an army as was done in FOG1?

However, the idea that I was edging towards with my comments on the Arab and Byzantine armies earlier today was that maybe there is a group of nations whose armies are heavily represented in the lists who might be allowed 2 armies instead of 1. So, maybe, the Byzantines, Romans and Arabs for starters. Who else? The Carthaginians perhaps? It would need some research, but if we said something like those nations with 6 or more armies in a FOG2DL section army list could be allowed 2 core army selections, then that might be quite popular. But I definitely cannot agree to a situation where we could possibly have 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players with the same core Roman army, just with different allies, in the same division.

I think having the option of 2 armies (with a different ally selection) of heavily represented armies is a good compromise.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

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

Post by stockwellpete » 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:

rexhurley
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:33 am

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

Post by rexhurley » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:10 pm

Division B

rexhurley (Numdians) defeats IMC (Galatians) 43/18 in a gallant attempt the garlic swillers formed a Ney Square and advanced against all comers, just as they reached my base line their army and morale evaporated. Certainly was a good go by IMC.

SnuggleBunnies
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 906
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:46 pm

Division A

SnuggleBunnies (Abbasids) defeats pantherboy (Indians) 63-41

These Abbasids were a much better lot to fight the Indians with than the Kingdom of Soissons. Cheap Spearmen could beat the elephants in melee if they survived Impact, and masses of skirmishers could absorb much of the arrow storm to protect the rest of the army. Still a close run thing, ultimately secured by a combination of the improbable stand of one of my units of Veteran Dailami Foot against a generalled up elephant in the open until flankers could arrive, and an all along the line charge of Raw Muslim Spearmen against the archer hordes.

GG

Geffalrus
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

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

Post by Geffalrus » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:52 pm

Division B

Geffalrus (Palmyra) defeats XLegione (Huns) 45-5 on the worst map for the Huns imaginable. Good game to my valiant opponent who got hosed by the map script.

No joke - the map was close to 50% mountain and forest. Why the Huns and Palmyrans decided to fight it out in the Swiss Alps is a complete mystery. The Huns had no room to maneuver, leaving them with few options to combat the armored Palmyran steamroller backed up by a dense phalanx of massed archers. Three warbands made a valiant stand against the Legions and Cataphracts, but were ultimately ground down while the trapped horse archers were smothered by arrows.

Trapped between a rock and a hard place.
Screen_00000327.jpg
Screen_00000327.jpg (514.98 KiB) Viewed 605 times

gamercb
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:53 pm

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

Post by gamercb » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:53 pm

Div C

gamercb - Romano-British 407-599 AD beat paulmcneil - Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD 61-32

Thanks for the game. Nice not to face armoured foes or clouds of skirmishers who can run away.

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

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

Post by deve » Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:44 pm

Div B

deve (Samnite) defeated rexhurley (Numidian) 60-43

Karvon
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by Karvon » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:54 am

Div C

Karvon - Arab (Bedouin) 300-636 AD (Sassanid Persian 350-476 AD allies) defeated Ulysisgrunt - Khazar 738-969 AD 48-20 for a score of 4-0

Battle was joined on the steppe with a few scattered patches of boggy ground.

We deployed our heavy horse archers on the left as a delaying force. Further over to the right we deployed our lancers in a single line. Behind the lancers was our reserve of elephants flanking our cataphracts and some camels. Our light lancers were deployed on the far edges of both wings.

The Khazars deployed four groups of a pair of lancers supported by 3 horse archers in a line across the center of the field a single light horse archer unit was posted at the end of each flank.

We immediately sent our large groups of light lancers to drive off their opposing light horse and envelope the enemy line on both flanks. our heavy horse archers shifted towards the center and our lancers and reserves shifted right to mass on and envelope the enemy in support of the leading light horse.

As the lines closed, the elephants came forward and each charged into different enemy lancers to disrupt and break up their formation. The light lancers came in from the flanks and rear, further disrupting and driving enemy horse archers out of position. The lancers and cataphracts charged in or moved to take engaged enemies in the flank. Our heavy horse archers got chased back a bit, drawing some groups away from the main flanking attack.

In the ensuing melees, we lost some of our troops in pinning attacks or during pursuit, but overall, our plan pretty much unfolded as envisioned and the enemy right and center were broken.

CheAhn
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Post by CheAhn » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:18 am

Division A

CheAhn (Byzantine) defeats ruskicanuk (Bretons) 45-11

Unexpected. Cheers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9329
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Tournament diary and news . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:11 am

Just to let you all know that I am experiencing serious laptop problems at the moment. I have a new one ordered, which should arrive early next week. I hope to be able to do the Sunday round-up as normal provided my current lap tap is able to cope with it all.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”