The Dustbin

[devoncop]

Division C

devoncop (Etruscan 330BC with Samnite allies) beat markwatson360 (Lysimachid 320BC with Hellenistic Thracian allies) by 72% to 52%.

A brutal rollercoaster of a conflict which seemed to provide the template for a certain G. Armstrong Custer many centuries later as the Etruscan general was suckered by the Lysimachids into splitting his forces into three non supporting portions separated by rough hills and woods. One was slowly whittled away by effective skirmishing whilst Lysimachid Cavalry and medium foot destroyed the other leaving the Lysimachids on the verge of victory. Three turns from the eventual conclusion the Etruscan commander gambled everything on destroying three Phalanx blocks facing the remaining coherent Etruscan and Samnite infantry in the centre and threw everything at the Phalanxes which had formed squares.

In two turns all had broken thanks to the all or nothing charges of Veteran Samnite Impact foot which itself was perilously close to breaking due to heavy losses.

Thanks to my opponent who deserved better than this result.

(3-1)

[rs2excelsior]

I do very much like that idea (since it seems all large armies probably is going to fail). Seems about the most straightforward way of letting players tailor (to some degree) the size of battles they prefer without forcing folks to choose to cut out sections they’d like to play. If something along those lines gets trialed next season I will gladly be on board to test it out!

[DanZanzibar]

As someone who voted no, I would support this idea and set my default to medium.

If the rules were to allow it, I would even PM some of my "large" opponents and suggest we could play our match at their preferred size. The occasional large match is fun but I wouldn't want to be fixed with it all season long.

[XLegione]

Division B

XLegione - Roman 105-25 BC with Numidian 55-6 BC allies defeated rexhurley – Carthage, Hannibal in Italy 218-217 BC, 58% - 27%

Rex, thanks for the game

Ciao

XLegione

[klayeckles]

i find the larger battles add more work, but fail to add more strategic thinking...you still only have two flanks, etc. larger battles offer more chance for tactical minutia but no more strategic benefits. so the result is a more ponderous effort that reduces the total number of battles one can process...thus limiting the variety and making it more difficult to participate in multiple periods. I am certain we will lose participation, as people that play in 2 or more brackets will find the turnarounds are more work, and slower overall--so folks will join fewer brackets.

the idea of allowing both to opt for a large battle would be fine.--and in fact who would ever know if people were doing it now???

[nyczar]

What you could do is make large battles optional where if both parties would like to use large armies than they are permitted to use said format for their match. If either player would prefer medium size than it automatically defaults to medium. To minimize administration when players sign up for a league with army preferences they would also be required to indicate whether they would like large/medium battles. It doesn't add significantly to administration and places the onus on players to identify which matches will be large as opposed to medium.

For example:

Sign me up for EMA.

1. Arab Conquest
2. French
3. German
4. Dailami

Battle size: Large

Once the administrator has allocated players to divisions with army selection they would post the divisions as such:

EMA Division A

1. player 1 (Arab Conquest) medium battles
2. player 2 (Germans) medium battles
3. player 3 (Dailami) large battles
etc.

All that is required now for players is to take note of their opponents preference when setting up the challenge. If your opponent agrees to large as indicated by preference than set it up as large otherwise as medium.

I think this could work and could be applied broadly over every division as long as players are willing to respect each others preferences without applying any stigma to those who prefer medium.

Great idea, i would try it out...I am a glutton for challenges that turn my head inside out.

[klayeckles]

Division A

klayeckles (persian w arabs) drew with Snugglebunnies (bosporan w romans) 30-18

A Bloody Draw, a very narrow frontage and a treacherous stream crossing ended the battle at nightfall with neither army being able to force a successful crossing.

(2-0)

[DanZanzibar]

Division E

DanZanzibar - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies challenges
Conteshard - Viking, Ireland 900-1049 AD with Irish 900-1049 AD allies

PW: Milano
PM Sent

[pompeytheflatulent]

Going off on a tangent, how much whisky would it take to bribe stockwellpete into making the army selection process blind? Just let everyone submit their army lists via pm? I know it's going to be more work for pete hence the whisky bribe. Looking at Early Middle Ages, this section probably has the second largest selection of armies out of all of the divisions. But everybody's playing the same armies, and everybody's copying everybody else's army choices. I'm really tempted to Kushan my way back down to Division E where all of the weird and fun armies are.

[baldrick52]

Division E

baldrick52 - Indo-Parthian 60 BC-30 AD beats snooky51 - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy, 216-203 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies 41-11

[cromlechi]

Going off on a tangent, how much whisky would it take to bribe stockwellpete into making the army selection process blind? Just let everyone submit their army lists via pm? Looking at Early Middle Ages, this section probably has the second largest selection of armies out of all of the divisions. But everybody's playing the same armies, and everybody's copying everybody else's army choices. I'm really tempted to Kushan my way back down to Division E where all of the weird and fun armies are.

I guess a lot of people must pick armies based on the published ratings as well. Being able to see what others have picked can help as well I guess as higher rated players are not likely to pick armies that have already been selected as they know they won't get them. Guess there would be pros and cons to it.

[deeter]

Hi all. Wouldn't the choice of larger armies skew the match in that having so many points would exhaust many army lists and thus remove the need to make hard choices as to army composition?

Deeter

[Ludendorf]

Division A

Ludendorf (Hannibal in Africa 202BC) beat Schweetness101 (Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy 216-203 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies) 67-38%.

Schweetness led a valiant charge uphill despite starting with an overwhelmingly good defensive position. The ferocity of his attack caught me off-guard, and all but broke my right, with only the immortal Veteran African Spearmen standing once the dust had settled, but a heroic stand by my Phoenician foot in the centre allowed my line to hold long enough for my victorious left to come to their rescue, and the Veteran Samnite infantry couldn't turn the battle all by themselves as their less experienced colleagues underwhelmed. A particularly bloody day for both sides. The battle between two armies of medium infantry was as brutal and unpredictable as it always is, with double drops and surprise hold outs happening all over the field, leaving both sides' battle lines looking like disordered Swiss cheese within a few turns of them joining.

[devoncop]

Hi all. Wouldn't the choice of larger armies skew the match in that having so many points would exhaust many army lists and thus remove the need to make hard choices as to army composition?

Deeter

In fact those sort of one dimensional armies are very rarely picked as it is so I suspect it would make little difference.

As someone who is no fan of fighting such armies anyway if it was the case they were weeded out then that would be an added bonus

[edb1815]

Division B

edb1815 - Egyptian 570-525 BC with Kyrenean Greek 630-461 BC allies defeated ulysisgrunt - Cypriot 680-550 BC with Greek 680-551 BC allies - 48%-20%

A line fight with a village in the center and a large patch of rough terrain on the right flank of the Egyptian line. The Cypriot army threw their best hoplites and some chariots in an attempt to break the center of the Egyptian line whilst the Egyptians sent a cavalry and chariot wing around the rough terrain while the bowmen took advantage of it. The Cypriot medium infantry proved not to be able to stand with the Egyptian spearmen on the other flank and this contributed to their defeat. The Egyptian center was about to cave in as the Cypriot flanks crumbled and their army morale broke.

Well played by my opponent. Thanks for the game.

[Blagrot]

Division F

Blagrot - Samnite 355-272 BC with Italian Hill Tribe allies beat Geoffrey.P.Smith - Lydian 550-546 BC with Greek 680-461 BC allies 59%-26%

The Greek deployment zone was hemmed in by mountains and the Samnites managed to trap the cavalry in a traffic jam while the hoplites found they disliked charges from veteren impact foot, once the first gaps appeared flank caharges quickly did for the rest of the spearmen while the cavalry beat up every Samnite that ventured their way. Thanks for the game and the excellent chat, hope to play you again soon.

[stockwellpete]

Going off on a tangent, how much whisky would it take to bribe stockwellpete into making the army selection process blind? Just let everyone submit their army lists via pm? I know it's going to be more work for pete hence the whisky bribe. Looking at Early Middle Ages, this section probably has the second largest selection of armies out of all of the divisions. But everybody's playing the same armies, and everybody's copying everybody else's army choices. I'm really tempted to Kushan my way back down to Division E where all of the weird and fun armies are.

Sorry, this idea is completely out of the question. It would be a nightmare for me to deal with.

[deeter]

Actually, I was thinking about armies such as the Seleucids who wouldn't have to choose between their various toys when they have enough points to buy them all.

Deeter

[DanZanzibar]

Division E

DanZanzibar - Arab City 300-633 AD with Sassanid 591-628 AD allies beat gamercb - Lombard 568-569 AD 43-4

A tough ask for my opponent's army list against elephants, camels, cheaper lancers, and cheap heavy light spear foot. Thanks for the game!

[GDod]

It just worries me that large armies would extend playing time, which may discourage players from entering more periods, or increase a dropout rate. Moreover, a large Arab conquest would be just a nightmare. Then again, it does works well in EMA...now I'm just confused