results for Oxford Doubles 2008

[petirouge]

The Results for Oxford Doubles 2008 are now on the web site in the Hall of Honour

[babyshark]

Where are the details of which armies were used? We need more fodder for the "medieval armies are overpowered" debate.

Marc

[davem]

Unless my maths were wrong, I see 8 army breaks out of 88 games played? As we played, the word was going around that 900 points might be a better level.

Dave M

[davidandlynda]

There weren't any medievals in the top 22 ,mind you we were only using Immortal Fire They'll be up soon ,if I remember right the top 3 were EAP.then 2 Early Successors
David

[peterrjohnston]

Unless my maths were wrong, I see 8 army breaks out of 88 games played? As we played, the word was going around that 900 points might be a better level.

Dave M

Very

22 teams means 11 games a round, 44 games in total. I count 10 games with 20+ (a guaranteed full-win score,
although anything 16 or above can be). That's 23%, pretty low compared to the 55% of the singles at the
Challenge. Perhaps it does need a points drop.

By the look of it, you contributed a fair share of those, errr, wins...

Rgds,
Peter

[philqw78]

Don't know what Bruce was using, but Hammy & Martin were Macedonian, Keith and Graham were Macedonian, and I think only 2 (max) EAP were there, one of those could have been LAP. Lots of bactrian greeks, 5 I think.

phil

[rbodleyscott]

Don't know what Bruce was using, but Hammy & Martin were Macedonian, Keith and Graham were Macedonian, and I think only 2 (max) EAP were there, one of those could have been LAP. Lots of bactrian greeks, 5 I think.

phil

There were 2 Early Achaemenid Persians and they came 1st and 5th. 2nd-4th went to assorted Macedonians, as did 6th and 7th. Not sure after that.

There was a Late Achaemenid Persian but I am not sure where it placed.

[davem]

Unless my maths were wrong, I see 8 army breaks out of 88 games played? As we played, the word was going around that 900 points might be a better level.

Dave M

Very

22 teams means 11 games a round, 44 games in total. I count 10 games with 20+ (a guaranteed full-win score,
although anything 16 or above can be). That's 23%, pretty low compared to the 55% of the singles at the
Challenge. Perhaps it does need a points drop.

By the look of it, you contributed a fair share of those, errr, wins...

Rgds,
Peter

Doh! Of course there were 1/2 the games played:-( I blame the Shiraz...;-p
Yes our draw ratio was pretty bad, we faced the only 2 horse archer armies and then Bruce and Paul, who didn't break us. We then took on another Alex Mac, but by then I'd lost the will to live as I failed practically every CT I rolled:-(
I think time was too short for the ap to lend itself to a high proportion of finished games.

Regards

Dave M

[jdm]

This was my first games since I played DBM in South Africa at the worlds and I thouroughly enjoyed. It has to be good cause I got the army lists out when I got home, so I can work out an army for Helsinki

Our last game against Dave Handley resulted in us killing 8 of their BG and they killing 7 of ours. So although a draw it was a bloodbath with action all over the place. They were in the lead at the time so it was all to go for

Graham Evans ( a prominent UK player) captured it for me, he said the difference in this game is that "every dice roll counts " and its impossible to corner sit.

Anyway, it got me enthused again

Regards
JDM

[babyshark]

Anyway, it got me enthused again

Regards
JDM

Glad to hear it, JD. Now come to the US for Historicon and show us colonial boys how the game should be played.

Marc

[hammy]

I am still holding steady at 50% completed games on the doubles circuit this year and that is with unpiring most of the recent tournaments as well which costs time. I think a lot of games were close to completion and would like to see how things pan out over the rest of the year.

There is still a tendancy for players to sit thinking in the later parts of the game when in practice there is not a lot they can do because most of their troops are engaged. There is also a tendancy to not attack enough of the enemy army to win the game. In DBM you could smash one wing then fiddle the bits to get the army. In FoG that isn't enough.