The Dustbin
Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:42 pm
- Location: NC, USA
Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .
Div D
phoyle3290 - Jewish Revolt 66-135 AD challenges MikeMarchant - Roman 24 BC-196 AD
pw MikeMarchant
Pm sent
phoyle3290 - Jewish Revolt 66-135 AD challenges MikeMarchant - Roman 24 BC-196 AD
pw MikeMarchant
Pm sent
Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
Lydianed (Lydian) defeats MikeMUC (Assyrian) 62:37
Lydianed (Lydian) defeats MikeMUC (Assyrian) 62:37
-
- Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:34 am
- Location: Michigan, U.S.A.
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division D for Determined
Barrold713 (Pergamene) defeats phoyle3290 (Carthaginians) 60-58
Down to the wire slugfest with back and forth teetering on the edge of defeat for both sides until the very last.
My hair was dark before this battle...well not really but it was at one time.
BDH
(3-1)
Barrold713 (Pergamene) defeats phoyle3290 (Carthaginians) 60-58
Down to the wire slugfest with back and forth teetering on the edge of defeat for both sides until the very last.
My hair was dark before this battle...well not really but it was at one time.
BDH
(3-1)
Re: Message for dkalenda
Ok this is the update:
5 to 18
11 to 17
both for me
5 to 18
11 to 17
both for me
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division A
dkalenda - Lysimachid beats ruskicanuk - Indo-Greek 45% - 19%
dkalenda - Lysimachid beats ruskicanuk - Indo-Greek 45% - 19%
-
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:18 am
Re: ruskicanuk has won Late Antiquity Division A!
Personally I blame the Romano-British, those guys are numerous!
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Tournament diary and news . . .
The quarter-final matches between dkalenda and Triarii and also deve v Geffalrus were not finished are currently being adjudicated. I should know the decisions during the course of the day.
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here
Div A
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies beats GDod - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD (Turkish allies 600-1036 AD) 65 - 46
GDod - The elephant whisperer - completely trashed the Arab centre with 5 elephants and 3 Generals so intimidating the Dailami that even the veterans disrupted when the elephants so much as looked sideways at them. Despite Gdod's pachyderm success both Ghaznavid wings took to their heels and the Dailami just held it together.
A game very much in the balance until the end. Thanks to GDod.
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies beats GDod - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD (Turkish allies 600-1036 AD) 65 - 46
GDod - The elephant whisperer - completely trashed the Arab centre with 5 elephants and 3 Generals so intimidating the Dailami that even the veterans disrupted when the elephants so much as looked sideways at them. Despite Gdod's pachyderm success both Ghaznavid wings took to their heels and the Dailami just held it together.
A game very much in the balance until the end. Thanks to GDod.
Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .
Div B
My last two games
Division B
(9) Geffalrus - Palmyran 258-273 AD vs Triarii - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD pw Geffal
(6) SpeedyCM - Sassanid 350-476 AD vs Triarii - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD pw Speedy
You are both cordially invited to the Kingdom
PM sent
My last two games
Division B
(9) Geffalrus - Palmyran 258-273 AD vs Triarii - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD pw Geffal
(6) SpeedyCM - Sassanid 350-476 AD vs Triarii - Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD pw Speedy
You are both cordially invited to the Kingdom
PM sent
Re: Classical Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .
Div A
My last game
Triarii - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa 202 BC vs XLegione - Seleucid 166-125 BC
pw = Xlegio
PM sent
My last game
Triarii - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa 202 BC vs XLegione - Seleucid 166-125 BC
pw = Xlegio
PM sent
Re: Early Middle Ages: arrange your matches here . . .
Last 3 Challenges
Division A
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies) vs CheAhn - Byzantine 988-1041 AD (no allies) pw = CheAhn
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies) vs Nosy_Rat - Khorasanian 821-1003 AD (Abbasid 815-835 AD allies) pw = NosyRat
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies) vs pantherboy - Indian (Hindu North) 600-1049 AD (Indian (Rajput) 650-1049 AD allies) = Panther
PM sent
Division A
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies) vs CheAhn - Byzantine 988-1041 AD (no allies) pw = CheAhn
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies) vs Nosy_Rat - Khorasanian 821-1003 AD (Abbasid 815-835 AD allies) pw = NosyRat
Triarii - Dailami 928-1055 AD (Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD allies) vs pantherboy - Indian (Hindu North) 600-1049 AD (Indian (Rajput) 650-1049 AD allies) = Panther
PM sent
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division A
dkalenda - Lysimachid beats Triarii - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa 49% - 24%
dkalenda - Lysimachid beats Triarii - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa 49% - 24%
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Themed Event: winners post your results here . . .
Themed Event adjudication Match 2
deve v Geffalrus
Match awarded to Geffalrus (voting 3-0)
deve v Geffalrus
Match awarded to Geffalrus (voting 3-0)
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Themed Event semi-final line-up
Semi-finals
Raphia 217 BC
Snugglebunnies v Triarii
Geffalrus v rexhurley
Matches to be completed by 9pm (UK time) Sunday 29th July
Raphia 217 BC
Snugglebunnies v Triarii
Geffalrus v rexhurley
Matches to be completed by 9pm (UK time) Sunday 29th July
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Themed Event arrange your matches here . . .
Semi-final matches (paired games) start here.
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here
Div C
deve (Dailami) defeated Doyley50 (Viking) 42-15
deve (Dailami) defeated Doyley50 (Viking) 42-15
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here
Div C
deve (Dailami) defeated desertedfox (Byzatine) 40-6
deve (Dailami) defeated desertedfox (Byzatine) 40-6
-
- Master Sergeant - U-boat
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 1:07 pm
Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .
Div B
desertedfox - Egyptian 570-525 BC defeated Ulysisgrunt (Cypriots) 64 - 48
Very close battle. We each crushed a flank.
desertedfox - Egyptian 570-525 BC defeated Ulysisgrunt (Cypriots) 64 - 48
Very close battle. We each crushed a flank.
Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .
You won the Division !! Two more points from Ulysisgrunt and you would have come seconddesertedfox wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:13 pm Div B
desertedfox - Egyptian 570-525 BC defeated Ulysisgrunt (Cypriots) 64 - 48
Very close battle. We each crushed a flank.
Great job ! Well played.
Re: Poll on player army choices restriction
Hi Pete,
I remember LoEG (when my memory does not fail me) and the enforced list change worked fine.
That said I do not think it is in anyway a necessary rule and I agree with Morbio; For those who have played a bit the required new list does not matter and for those who are new it might be off-putting to have to leave the comfort blanket of the familiar - I know some who are new feel happier continuing to learn with what they know.
So as I see it there is a risk of discouraging some newer player entrants, it will require extra administration and potentially/inevitably some carping will arise. Your current system works and your seeding system means a likely second or third choice if a player is seeded high so don't change it.
As a PS
However if the poll is inconclusive/equally split how about applying the rule for those in Divs A and B as long as they remain in Divs A and/or B?
I remember LoEG (when my memory does not fail me) and the enforced list change worked fine.
That said I do not think it is in anyway a necessary rule and I agree with Morbio; For those who have played a bit the required new list does not matter and for those who are new it might be off-putting to have to leave the comfort blanket of the familiar - I know some who are new feel happier continuing to learn with what they know.
So as I see it there is a risk of discouraging some newer player entrants, it will require extra administration and potentially/inevitably some carping will arise. Your current system works and your seeding system means a likely second or third choice if a player is seeded high so don't change it.
As a PS
However if the poll is inconclusive/equally split how about applying the rule for those in Divs A and B as long as they remain in Divs A and/or B?