Slitherine

ericdoman1 wrote:I can understand why the top players have to play one another. Games may well be closer and so players below can catch up.

Due to the number of army options a "top" player could make a wrong choice againsta nother player and really struggle.

As there are 12 players we could have 4 differetn opponnets for Springa nd Summer then the 3 players you haven't yet played, you play agst in Autumn.

There would still be a random draw based on whom you play

The difficulty is making sure we all play different players in that year.

I do not like the idea of some players having more games than others though?

Isn't that part of ancient life though , some countries were more active than others , invading other countries
making enemies , growing bigger or getting plundered into poverty.I feel that's more of a campaign , if you try
and even out the matchs it becomes more of a tournament.It seems to work out balanced in TTAL .

The Lost world Tournament was like that and about 8 players
invaded Pantherboy's territory , he defeated all of them , got rich and became immortal.
While others got beaten into non-existence.

Just my 2 pennies worth

Cheers
Ian

If you look at the Ladder in TTAL you will see what im talking about.Players at the top are playing each other more than those below .Even when Keyth allowed anyone to attack anyone and took away the restriction on who you could attack on the ladder.Noone was attacking the bottom 3 players.The top 4 were playing more games and it shows. Have a random draw apart from Summer when your army is at its largest then attack whoever you want.Keyth was conserned about this and was going to publish the number of games played per player but didnt ,it would have been most interesting.

Turk1964 wrote:If you look at the Ladder in TTAL you will see what im talking about.Players at the top are playing each other more than those below .Even when Keyth allowed anyone to attack anyone and took away the restriction on who you could attack on the ladder.Noone was attacking the bottom 3 players.The top 4 were playing more games and it shows. Have a random draw apart from Summer when your army is at its largest then attack whoever you want.Keyth was conserned about this and was going to publish the number of games played per player but didnt ,it would have been most interesting.

hmm , i was not aware of Keyth removing the limit to
the ladder by ½ below you ,i will have to look at that
for my second challenge

Yes i think in a couple of posts for the new seasons he indicated it wouldnt be enforced as he didnt see a need for it.I think he put it in the rules to stop players hammering the bottom players.Open field anyone can attack anyone.....

I don't mind either way, just wanna play

Radio (Early Achamenid Persians (Darius)) 7/30 beat Grudgebringer (Classical Spartans) 34/32. Persian camp looted. No commanders killed.

One of those games that was over in the DAG as Grudge couldn't catch my lighter troops and was very slowly shot to pieces.

Perhaps it might be prudent to play it as it is for a few seasons
to enable Macsen to get his head around this and TTAL ,then have a look at it
to see if its working.

Ta
Ian

Don't worry Ian, I'm a very fast learner. I also raised the number of game problem with Keyth and I'll spell it out below and you will see the problem, sort of. I'm thinking of a hybrid version of events, where you attack two people but only one of them is your choice. This way I get to mess with your minds
TTAL Games Played
Tophat 8, Aristides 10, phlewis 11, batesmotel 12, IDS 14, Tiavals 14, Turk1964 16, keyth 19 and me on 20 (people seem to have it in for me)

cheers

macsen

Battle results:

Egyptians (Turk1964) 46/46 vs. Gekko-Bactrians (Deeter) 14/36

No camps lost or leaders killed.

Good game.

Deeter

For some reason I always get this image of lizards on camels.

deeter wrote:Battle results:

Egyptians (Turk1964) 46/46 vs. Gekko-Bactrians (Deeter) 14/36

No camps lost or leaders killed.

Good game.

Deeter

I get teh image of lizards on camels smoking a cigarette, with a hat on and walking in a stange way?

Did you find out which one of teh Indian armies Aristides was using?

Battle result:

phlewis Ipsos Successor Alliance 31/34 victory against deeter Greaco-Bactrian 42/36

I don't think either of us lost any generals.

Battle Result

Turk1964(Later Syracusais) 33/41 def IanDavidsmith(Classical Indian) 42/42

The Indians lost their Inspired Commander(Blew up)

No camps looted

Thanks for an interesting game and a late comeback well played. Cheers Turk

Battle Result

Radio (Ipsos Alliance) 15/39 against phlewis (Greco-Bactrian) 28/28. Radio Lost an Inspired Commander - dont think phlewis lost any. Both sides were using mercenaries.

A really lucky Javelin salvo disrupted 3 of phlewis 8 phalanxes on the same turn the two bodies of pikemen clashed.

Don't forget to mention if you use mercs.

Radio wrote:Battle Result

Radio (Ipsos Alliance) 15/39 against phlewis (Greco-Bactrian) 28/28. Radio Lost an Inspired Commander - dont think phlewis lost any.

A really lucky Javelin salvo disrupted 3 of phlewis 8 phalanxes on the same turn the two bodies of pikemen clashed.

macsen wrote:What are "Kshatriyas"? Just for my records.

Aristides wrote:My Kshatriyas defeated Bates' Thracians (22/42 to 58/49).

My apologies - trying to add some theme-flavour while not being very helpful. I was Mauryan Indian.

Am I right in thinking the rules are sort of scattered throughout the thread? E.g., I realise that I have used an IC in both games - is that legal? Do I get (once) a bonus for taking the feld? I couldn't find anything about this in the rules... I remember we had some discussion about it (perhaps on anothere thread...) Perhaps best to ignore that rule, seems to be add more complication for little gameplay return?

About players/games numbers.
From the start of the first campiagn I voiced concerns about some players playing a lot more games than others. You might win all your games in a season but have no way to catch a leader who keeps geting attacked and thus having the opportunity to gain more points (even if perhaps he loses a game or two).

I was wondering: what if everyone can attack twice and defend unlimited times. But with the following qualifier: If you win an attack, you get points; but if you win a battle where you are defender you don't gain any points. BUT you do stop your oponnent gaining any points, obviously.

This way a player can only gain points twice a season, but if he is attacked many times - and does well - can stop other players gaining points.

I think the rules are all at the start, and it's simpler than TTAL. As to IC's, use as many as you want and it's -20 if they die, which they have been doing.

Aristides wrote:

macsen wrote:What are "Kshatriyas"? Just for my records.

Aristides wrote:My Kshatriyas defeated Bates' Thracians (22/42 to 58/49).

My apologies - trying to add some theme-flavour while not being very helpful. I was Mauryan Indian.

Am I right in thinking the rules are sort of scattered throughout the thread? E.g., I realise that I have used an IC in both games - is that legal? Do I get (once) a bonus for taking the feld? I couldn't find anything about this in the rules... I remember we had some discussion about it (perhaps on anothere thread...) Perhaps best to ignore that rule, seems to be add more complication for little gameplay return?

macsen wrote:Don't forget to mention if you use mercs.

Sorry, we were both using mercs! I'll edit the battle result.

I think that Keyth dropped the IC rules from To Tame A Land Redux for this campaign. Only difference for an IC is the purchase cost and the number of points for losing one.

Chris