The Dustbin

[Questar17]

Division B

Questar17 - Ptolemaic 166-56 BC beat GDod - Seleucid 302-301 BC with Lysimachid 320 BC allies 42:6

This diadochi clash was tougher than final score could show as 2/3 of the points were got on last two turns when my camel did 3 flanking/ rear charges on pikes opponents after some long ride on the flank filled by Gdod skirmishers. Special thanks to my pike stack who was fighting vs 3 infantries so well so the camel rear charge could be done.

Thank you for the game

[CONSTANTINIX]

Division B

ConstantinIX - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD beat paulmcneil - Polish 966-1057 AD with Viking 900-1049 AD allies 42 : 14

A very good start from my opponent as he secured the mountain in the middle and all my left flank has to run like rabbit under a rain of arrows of his numerous MI archers. But I succeeded in avoiding too much disruption and the match switched when my veteran spearmen made contact whis his "normal" counterpart
Thanks for the game.

[stockwellpete]

Classical Antiquity A-D Tables.jpg (982.86 KiB) Viewed 2204 times

Classical Antiquity E-F Tables.jpg (567.8 KiB) Viewed 2204 times

[stockwellpete]

Classical Antiquity A-B Charts.jpg (751.73 KiB) Viewed 2064 times

Classical Antiquity C-D Charts.jpg (748.04 KiB) Viewed 2064 times

Classical Antiquity E-F charts.jpg (768.46 KiB) Viewed 2064 times

[Garokan]

Division C

Garokan - Polish 966-1057 AD with Rus 860-959 AD allies drew with Challenge1 - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD 33 - 20

Thanks for the game.

(2-0)

[Karvon]

Division C

Karvon (Thracian, Triballi 350 BC-46 AD with Getae allies) defeated General Shapur (Seleucid 166 BC) 47-9 for a 4-0 win.

Cloud of Thracian skirmishers swept around Selucids and slowy but surely dispatched most of the troops supporting the pike and impact foot core. Sustained shooting and repeated flank attacks by horse finally led to the breaking of several heavy foot and the collapse of the army.

[Karvon]

Division C

Karvon (Thracian, Triballi 350 BC with Getae 279 BC – 46 AD allies) drew vs. markwatson360 (Lysimachid 320 BC with Thracian, Hellenistic 350 BC allies) 37-25 for a score of 2-2

Thracian skirmishers and horse dispatched a fair number of support troops, and though we had a few more on the ropes, night fell before we could finish them off. Lysimachids were pretty aggressive in countering our lights and managed to catch a fair number of them.

(2-2)

[stockwellpete]

Mirror matches across the board would have two benefits and one substantial drawback -

1) It would mean players didn't feel screwed by their army choice
2) It would encourage players to use more eccentric and fun army lists without fear of getting stomped across the board

With of course the drawback that it would take more time to play, so people would enter less sections. That sort of variety and encouragement of less 'gaming' of army choice would be worth entering fewer sections to me, unlike larger armies, but I suspect it's not a popular idea.

I agree 100% with that. Maybe just for one division.

The basic league format of 10 players in a division is not going to change. That is one of my "red lines", I'm afraid. To have mirror matches in the league sections would involve altering the number of players in a division, probably to six players so that players were being asked to play a similar number of battles (10 instead of 9). This would completely fragment the section(s) it was introduced into and reduce the number of different opponents any player would meet during the course of a season. I am just not going to do this.

I have used mirror matches in the Themed Event for a few seasons now yet this is the least supported section of the tournament and I usually struggle to get 12 players. So I am not convinced that mirror matches are universally popular.

[stockwellpete]

Late Antiquity A-D Tables.jpg (924.7 KiB) Viewed 2332 times

Late Antiquity E-F Tables.jpg (526.92 KiB) Viewed 2332 times

[SimonLancaster]

I don’t like mirror matches. I prefer to play nine games against different opponents.

In a knockout tournament it might be different. Even then, I probably prefer just one game rather than two against every opponent.

[stockwellpete]

obsolete

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well I did say it probably wasn't a popular idea . The Themed Event doesn't let players choose their armies though, which could certainly be a factor. I would enjoy learning to play both with and against a specific army throughout a section. In any case, the point is moot, as it's clearly not going to happen.

[Swuul]

Division C

Swuul (Samnite 355-272 BC with Etruscan 330-280 BC allies) beat Karvon (Thracian, Triballi 350 BC-46 AD with Getae 279 BC – 46 AD allies) 59-27

A map with some thick woods across the map. The Thracians, despite having a clear quality edge with their troops, mostly focused on hiding in the forest with their heavier troops, and running away from combat through the flanks with the skirmishers. The samnites were mostly fighting against the clock, trying to find the thracians from their hiding places, but where the scattered thracian units were found they put up a fierce resistance before being overrun by the more co-ordinated samnites.

Screen-shot of the end-situation as the last thracians were found in their hiding place: https://i.imgur.com/IMvz0Rg.jpg

[Swuul]

Division C

Swuul (Samnite 355-272 BC with Etruscan 330-280 BC allies) beat General Shapur (Seleucid 166-125 BC) 57-32

A rather flat map with a shallow stream running in the middle. On Seleucid side of the field there some rough patches and a couple defensive hills. The Seleucids decided to take a strong defensive position along the hills. However, as the samnite skirmishers closed in and released volley after volley on the seleucids, they released their troops to chase the skirmishers away. The samnite cavalry broke through on the left flank and began to roll up the seleucid lines, so even though the elephants were running amok through the samnite lines, the phalanxes and argyraspides were flanked and run down by the samnites.
Thank you for the game General Shapur, your defensive positions were really tough to crack, but the samnite javelinmen won this one for me by forcing you to leave the positions

Screen-shot of the end-situation: https://i.imgur.com/LpyIvh9.jpg

[pompeytheflatulent]

I have used mirror matches in the Themed Event for a few seasons now yet this is the least supported section of the tournament and I usually struggle to get 12 players. So I am not convinced that mirror matches are universally popular.

Well, the reason I stay away from the Themed Event is not because of mirror matches, but because I can't wrap my head around how Swiss style tournaments are supposed to work.

[pompeytheflatulent]

In any case, the point is moot, as it's clearly not going to happen.

You should form your own digital league, with blackjack, and hookers.

[Garokan]

Division D

Garokan – Arab, Bedouin 300-636 AD with Byzantine 579-599 AD allies defeats Doyley50 - Dacian, Carpi 107-380 AD 63 - 37.

A very good fight. Thanks.

[IMC]

Division C

IMC - Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD with Roman 24 BC–196 AD allies has beaten Challenge1 - Dacian 89-106 AD with Sarmatian 25-375 AD allies Score: 45% to 17%

Thanks for the game.

Ian

[Garokan]

Division C

Garokan - Polish 966-1057 AD with Rus 860-959 AD allies challenges MikeMarchant - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD with Turkish 600-1036 AD allies

pw mehmet
pm sent

Good luck!

[devoncop]

I have used mirror matches in the Themed Event for a few seasons now yet this is the least supported section of the tournament and I usually struggle to get 12 players. So I am not convinced that mirror matches are universally popular.

Well, the reason I stay away from the Themed Event is not because of mirror matches, but because I can't wrap my head around how Swiss style tournaments are supposed to work.

I stay away because of the rigidity of the army selections. Mirror matches in themselves are actually an attraction for me at least.