Any more Southern League rounds coming up?

[timmy1]

Looks wonderful. Time to start digging out the rules and check which toys I have in period.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Will it be just European, or can anything be used from the right era?

[Paulkit0]

Currently just thinking European. But willing to be persuaded otherwise.

[timmy1]

I think by limiting to D&G with the earlier end date it will encourage some interesting armies that are plausable historical opponents - allowing Mughal Indian's (for example) or the Chinese Archers with Machine guns might produce some slightly odd games... Not that Ronan has a Mughal army, you do realise...

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Not that Ronan has a Mughal army, you do realise...

Not yet......

[Vespasian28]

Not yet......

Unless your painting has picked up in speed, and those Mughals are very colourful, I suspect another outing for the Bavarians?

[RonanTheLibrarian]

More than likely.

[madlemmey]

If I were to organise another one day event, when would suit people and which theme?
I'm thinking about September-October and either Eastern European or Far Eastern?

[RonanTheLibrarian]

My only concern would be that September-November are pretty crowded with FoG:R tournaments already. Whilst I realise it may be the wrong end of the year from your perspective, if the Clevedon round has gone the way of all flesh, how about late March or late May, and either "nothing European" (including allies) or "takeaway"?

[At the moment, for SL rounds we have Oxford/ECW in late April; Ilford/1660-1690 in late July; Southampton(Wessex)/1500-1550 in late September; then Milton Keynes/????-???? in late November or early December. There are other singles/doubles tournaments at Derby (World Teams), Abingdon and Warfare in October; there's also Colours in mid-September, which we at Wessex were keen to avoid.]

[madlemmey]

March could be viable, May is a pain as I've got various competitions to organise for Campaign...

[madlemmey]

Had a suggestion that we could run a 'tribal' theme, anyone up for that?

[Paulkit0]

yes that cound be fun.

[steads]

Yes I would be up for a tribal theme. Might need some sabot bases though!!

[madlemmey]

I have plenty, you provide the boy-tak!

Just need to find a date that works and doesn't crash any other event...

[viking123]

What armies are you thinking about for a tribal theme?

[madlemmey]

The plan thus far is 1615-1679, at least sixteen bases of cavalry and/or warriors, no armies of 'European Powes' unless as an allied command. So Mapuche yes, colonial Spanish, no.

Books would be 'Cities of Gold' and/or 'Colonies and Conquest'. Unless anyone can think of any other lists that fit into this category. I know a great many of the CoG lists struggle vs cavalry heavy lists, so would that work?

This is the first time I've organised a comp outside Flames of War (usually 36-60 players, if I get 12 for this idea I would be ecstatic! So all hints and tips gratefully received!

[timmy1]

That many cavalry might make some of the CoG lists unviable. You might find you end up with a largely Mughal or Ming competition. For that date range i MIGHT be able to put together a VERY late Japanese list but it does not look very good, a Desert Bedioun or a Mongol but none of them thrill me I have to be honest...

[viking123]

Two of the lists I fancy are all warriors or medium foot. No point in taking them if there is a lot of cavalry around.

[steads]

How about restricting Battle Mounted to a maximum of 12 bases and each Superior BG of them must be accompanied by a Poor BG. That would allow for a small amount of mounted but would not prevent lists with none being smashed by Tibetans or Mughal etc.

[madlemmey]

All valid points, thank you. Really appreciate the honest feedback.
1) Would an earlier date be prefrable as it would allow Aztecs and Samurai to really bear their teeth, or just leave it open on date?
2) Like the limits on cavalry idea, maybe something along the lines of 'maximum 16 bases mounted battle troops, each battle group of armoured, superior or average cavalry troops must be matched by an equal number of warrior battle groups'? Still leaves the issue of LH hordes, which we know certain individuals will want to exploit (hello Nigel)! Should I include LH within the restriction, but I don't want to smother lh completely
Or we just set a list of allowed lists? I suspect if we just said CoG a lot of people won't have lists, that's why I thought the two books.

Further thoughts all?