The Dustbin

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

SpeedyCM
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:42 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by SpeedyCM » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:51 am

Division B

SpeedyCM (Sarmatian 350 BC - 24 AD) defeated oscarius (Lombard 493-567 AD) 48-20

dkalenda
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Post by dkalenda » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:46 pm

Division A

dkalenda (Roman) beats Breogan (Spanish Sertorius) 61-33

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by edb1815 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:47 pm

Division B

edb1815 (Persian) challenges GDod (Syracusan)


psw = hoplite


pm sent

herm
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:12 am

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

Post by herm » Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:31 pm

Div C

herm (Ostrogoths) beat Ggarynorman (Palmyre) 50-23

harveylh
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:32 pm

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

Post by harveylh » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:03 pm

Division A

harveylh - Romans 105-25 BC defeats ruskicanuk - Indo-Greeks 175-10 BC, 62-39

Good game and the Indo-Greeks made the Romans very nervous.

harveylh
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:32 pm

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

Post by harveylh » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:09 pm

Division A

harveylh - Romans 105-25 BC defeats hidde - Macedonians 320-261 BC , 44-10

A steep hill with rough terrain secured one Roman flank which neutralized the bulk of the Macedonian cavalry.

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

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

Post by edb1815 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:57 pm

Division C

edb1815 (Arab City) challenges jjaqumond (Kingdom of Sossons)

psw: gaul

pm sent

dkalenda
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Post by dkalenda » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:01 am

Division A

dkalenda (Roman) beats Nijis (Palmyran) 40-8

dkalenda
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Themed Event: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by dkalenda » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:28 am

Vezeronce

Two challenges posted for rexhurley, password is "semi" PM sent.

dkalenda
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Post by dkalenda » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:37 am

Division A

dkalenda - Roman 285-378 AD challenge

nyczar - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD
ruskicanuk - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC

password: dkalenda


PM sent

dkalenda
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:49 pm

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

Post by dkalenda » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:42 am

Division A

dkalenda - Seleucids 166-125 BC challenge rexhurley - Graeco-Bactrians 250-130 BC

password: dkalenda

PM sent

ruskicanuk
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:18 am

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

Post by ruskicanuk » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:59 am

Division A

ruskicanuk - Indo-Greeks 175-10 BC defeats Cunningcairn - Carthaginians (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC, 60 - 43, fun and balanced battle, well played Cunningcairn

ruskicanuk
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:18 am

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

Post by ruskicanuk » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:00 am

Division A

ruskicanuk - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC defeats Breogan - Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC, 44 - 6, nice to see people trying unique strategies (in this case half of the Spanish army was lights)

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9459
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll on trialling the use of larger armies.

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:53 am

This poll will close on Sunday after I have completed the tables and charts.

ahuyton
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:31 pm

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .

Post by ahuyton » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:40 am

Division B

ahuyton - Breton 411-579 AD won against Ulysisgrunt - Indian 546-599 AD, 53-28

My troops pathetically cowered in a big wood in the centre of the field while Danny's elephants, lancers and bowmen surged forward bravely. My ambushes and numbers won the game but credit is due to my pleasant opponent for his active play. The end of a difficult season with the Bretonese peasants.

markwatson360
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:04 am

Re: Poll on trialling the use of larger armies.

Post by markwatson360 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:52 am

This Poll is totally biased towards increasing army size because you can submit 2 votes and there are 2 options for increasing army size yet there is only one option to keep army size the same, so if you're happy with the medium size battles the only place to put your 2nd vote is to leave and you might not want to do that. You should have allowed just one vote per player. Despite this fundamental flaw most votes have been cast to keep medium size armies.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9459
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll on trialling the use of larger armies.

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:16 am

markwatson360 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:52 am
This Poll is totally biased towards increasing army size because you can submit 2 votes and there are 2 options for increasing army size yet there is only one option to keep army size the same, so if you're happy with the medium size battles the only place to put your 2nd vote is to leave and you might not want to do that. You should have allowed just one vote per player. Despite this fundamental flaw most votes have been cast to keep medium size armies.
I don't regard the poll as flawed. I made it in this way to cover all the possible options and to give me an idea how players generally felt about things. And if you read my post on 17/3 you will see what is likely to happen now. There will be a trial in Season 5 in just one section with 1600 pt armies. If that goes OK then from Season 6 one section each season, rotating through the different time periods, will offer 1600 pt armies. So there will still be 4 out of 5 sections using medium-sized armies (5 out of 6 when the later medieval DLC's start to appear). I think this is a fair reflection of what the poll is telling us. Around half of those polled like the idea of using larger armies.

markwatson360
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:04 am

Re: Poll on trialling the use of larger armies.

Post by markwatson360 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:21 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:16 am
markwatson360 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:52 am
This Poll is totally biased towards increasing army size because you can submit 2 votes and there are 2 options for increasing army size yet there is only one option to keep army size the same, so if you're happy with the medium size battles the only place to put your 2nd vote is to leave and you might not want to do that. You should have allowed just one vote per player. Despite this fundamental flaw most votes have been cast to keep medium size armies.
I don't regard the poll as flawed. I made it in this way to cover all the possible options and to give me an idea how players generally felt about things. And if you read my post on 17/3 you will see what is likely to happen now. There will be a trial in Season 5 in just one section with 1600 pt armies. If that goes OK then from Season 6 one section each season, rotating through the different time periods, will offer 1600 pt armies. So there will still be 4 out of 5 sections using medium-sized armies (5 out of 6 when the later medieval DLC's start to appear). I think this is a fair reflection of what the poll is telling us.
Yes, I understand that, but the fact remains if you had allowed just one vote per person the number of votes for 1200 pt battles would be the same and the votes for an increase would be almost halved because most of these players will have voted in the 1600 and 2000 categories

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22348
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Poll on trialling the use of larger armies.

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:38 am

markwatson360 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:21 am
stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:16 am
markwatson360 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:52 am
This Poll is totally biased towards increasing army size because you can submit 2 votes and there are 2 options for increasing army size yet there is only one option to keep army size the same, so if you're happy with the medium size battles the only place to put your 2nd vote is to leave and you might not want to do that. You should have allowed just one vote per player. Despite this fundamental flaw most votes have been cast to keep medium size armies.
I don't regard the poll as flawed. I made it in this way to cover all the possible options and to give me an idea how players generally felt about things. And if you read my post on 17/3 you will see what is likely to happen now. There will be a trial in Season 5 in just one section with 1600 pt armies. If that goes OK then from Season 6 one section each season, rotating through the different time periods, will offer 1600 pt armies. So there will still be 4 out of 5 sections using medium-sized armies (5 out of 6 when the later medieval DLC's start to appear). I think this is a fair reflection of what the poll is telling us.
Yes, I understand that, but the fact remains if you had allowed just one vote per person the number of votes for 1200 pt battles would be the same and the votes for an increase would be almost halved because most of these players will have voted in the 1600 and 2000 categories
+1

Technically, the poll is flawed, because of this. This isn't a matter of opinion.

However, it does not really matter if you will only introduce the trial in one division.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

zakblood
Most Active User 2017
Most Active User 2017
Posts: 15452
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: Poll on trialling the use of larger armies.

Post by zakblood » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:43 am

i don't play online, but as a whole i'd like larger armies in all battles as an option and the unlocking of a set amount of given units as a choice

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”