The Dustbin

[Schweetness101]

Division A

Schweetness101 – Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy 216-203 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies
challenges
Nosy_Rat - Indian 500 BC-319 AD

pw: 123123

[klayeckles]

Division A

klayeckles (persian+arab) defeats nyczar (roman) 42 to 12

[edb1815]

Division B

edb1815 - Thracian Hellenistic 350-281 BC with Antigonid 320-301 BC allies defeated ulysisgrunt - Lysimachid 320-281 BC 40% - 12%

A straight up line fight with cavalry on one flank and a waterway narrowing the field on the other. Having extra medium foot helped the Thracians thread the gaps. Well played, thanks for the game.

[Cunningcairn]

Division B

Cunningcairn - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies beat Nijis - Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD by 64% to 43%

[PepeSlitherine]

Division F

PepeSlitherine - Spanish 900-1049 AD beat Blagrot - Andalusian 756-1049 AD by 61-37

[Morbio]

Division A

Morbio (Arab, City 300-633 AD with Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD allies) defeats nyczar (Roman 425-492 AD with Frankish 260-495 AD allies) 61 - 33

[Macedonczyk]

division B
challenge for Sunnyboy (Syracusan)
Password: last

[Triarii]

Division A

Triarii – Arab, Bedouin 300-636 AD with Byzantine 579-599 AD allies defeats Questar17 - Ostrogoth 493-561 AD with Frankish 496-599 AD allies 60-53

Exactly as the score suggests very close, very edge of the seat and could have gone either way at the end. Great game thanks to Questar17.

(3-1)

[Stew101]

Well deserved Zan, congratulations. Stew.

[Stew101]

Division E

Stew101 (Arab Conquest) defeats Aetius39 (Frankish 751-887 AD with Saxon, Continental 600-804 AD allies). Score 62 : 51.

What a great game.
Really confining terrain for both sides, dominant hills and a lake on one flank, lots of woods and rough patches all over.
My opponent took the big hill on his side of the table and cleverly stuck his archers on top of it.
This effectively took all the space available space away from the Arab cavalry to operate in. His own cav were similarly hampered.
So we ended up with the infantry slogging match of the season.
Lots of Frankish foot against a smaller number of Arab spearmen.
The Arab Dailami were a huge disappointment and early on it looked like the Franks would roll up the Arabs left.
Then the hero's of the day stepped in - the Arab bowmen.
Occupying a small patch of rough, they not only held the flank, they bounced the enemy cavalry and they crucially destroyed a couple of spear units for good measure.

Thanks Aetius another really close game. See you next time. Stew.

(3-1)

[harveylh]

Division A

harveylh - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC with Roman 105-25 BC allies defeats dkalenda - Pontic 110-85 BC, 46-29. Pontics surrendered.

[Supervark]

Division D

Supervark Sassanid Persians 477-590AD with Hepthalite 350-570AD managed to overcome Barrold713 Roman 425-492AD with the allied Frankish 260-495AD 41-15

This was a battle of one half where the elephants of the Persian army managed to tie up considerable Roman forces in the centre while the Persian Cavalry worked around the left flank and the infantry who actually actively participated also worked around the left. Barrold713 was hampered by a couple of forests on the right and could not get a number of units into contact before the battle ended. More bananas to the Elephants.

Cheers for a good game

[Supervark]

Hi this is not a question but a request. When the tables are posted would it be possible to see who you have played and not played displayed? I understand it might be a lot of work so no problem. It would just help to see who you still had to play as I lose track sometimes of who to challenge. and this would help.

Thanks

[CONSTANTINIX]

Division A

ConstantinIX - Byzantine 551-578 AD beat klayeckles - Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD with Arab, Bedouin 300-636 AD allies 60%-40%

On the left, my byzantine army used his terrific counter to elephants, namely four superior lancers. Nevertheless, I had some cold sweat with a mad elephant who slipped between two lancers after trampling a cavalry unit and began roaming in the back of my battleline but the elephant was fortunately stuck during several turns by a heroic bowmen unit. On the reverse, the sassanid couldn't use numeric superiority as the ground on my side was mostly rough, so not helphing quick tactical mouvement to flank my right. At the end, I have to scratch the last percents by ganging up against the mad elephant as units were rallying on the field far from the last battle .

Good game

[grumpydaddy845]

For Captainwaltersavage

Late Antiquity
Division E

Captainwaltersavage
Roman 24BC-196AD with Jewish 64 BC-6AD allies

VS

grumpydaddy845
Armenian 253-476 AD with Sassanid Persian 350-476 AD allies

PW: eagles

PM sent.

[Aetius39]

Divsion E

Aetius39 - Palmyran 258-273 AD with Arab 312-299 AD allies claims the game against texanotedesco - Arab 312 BC-476 AD under a Rule 6 decision. My opponent hadn't responded at all about the match, and it was posted for weeks (maybe up to a month). (Yes, challenge originally issued by Aetius39 on 22/6, so 30-day provision of Rule 6 applies - stockwellpete)

(4-0)

[MikeMarchant]

Hi this is not a question but a request. When the tables are posted would it be possible to see who you have played and not played displayed? I understand it might be a lot of work so no problem. It would just help to see who you still had to play as I lose track sometimes of who to challenge. and this would help.

Thanks

This information is already posted, Supervaark. If you look in the 'Post you Challenge' sections, you'll see a table of who has played who.


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

Hi this is not a question but a request. When the tables are posted would it be possible to see who you have played and not played displayed? I understand it might be a lot of work so no problem. It would just help to see who you still had to play as I lose track sometimes of who to challenge. and this would help.

Thanks

Hi Supervark

Pete already posts that information in the relevant " Arrange your matches here" thread.

Cheers

Ian

[klayeckles]

Division A

ConstantinIX - Byzantine 551-578 AD beat klayeckles - Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD with Arab, Bedouin 300-636 AD allies 60%-40%

On the left, my byzantine army used his terrific counter to elephants, namely four superior lancers. Nevertheless, I had some cold sweat with a mad elephant who slipped between two lancers after trampling a cavalry unit and began roaming in the back of my battleline but the elephant was fortunately stuck during several turns by a heroic bowmen unit. On the reverse, the sassanid couldn't use numeric superiority as the ground on my side was mostly rough, so not helphing quick tactical mouvement to flank my right. At the end, I have to scratch the last percents by ganging up against the mad elephant as units were rallying on the field far from the last battle .

Good game

(dismounted lancers) definitely good at slaying pachyderms. Good game. and good match up--terrain hampered my flanking efforts enough to allow the dismounted lancers to position against my cav and elephants. that might have been the deciding battle for our division.

[klayeckles]

nyczar » 10 Jul 2020 10:28

More list points mitigates the medium infantry swarm risk faced by high quality (heavy) lists due to inferior unit numbers

In all likelihood, the player using a "medium infantry swarm" will be very reluctant to agree to a large battle. Hence, the argument for larger battles seems redundant if it is to be by agreement.

I think one has to hark back to the reason for increasing army size. If it is to provide relief for armies who rely on expensive troop types or to reduce the effectiveness of swarm armies it may be desirable to drop the "agreement" condition. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to identify 'the problem army lists' and decree battles involving these lists should be 1600 points.

I only present this discussion as possible solutions to "tweeking" others concerns about an already perfectly good simple system. I personally love my 'expensive troop types' who regularly get swamped by cheaper troop types...hussar!

Moreover, there is definitely a point of difference between the Digi-league and the Slitherine tournaments. Attributes of the Slitherine tournament genre include historical opponents, going large and mirror games, which gives their competition a flavour all of it's own. In contrast, I think what attracts me more to the Digi-league is the handicap system and the variety (i.e. themed, defined periods, some 1200pts, some 1600pts) So, lets celebrate that enlightened choice of list and combination of troop types, or that stunning charge, or continue to be awed and stunned by that unexpected collapse, and continue to enjoy the game regardless of the points!

i don't understand this idea that larger battles help the smaller more elite armies...larger battles help the swarm armies MORE. Go build a Welsh army and our favorite, the Seleucid. At 1600pt the welsh will outnumber the seleuicid 2 to 1...an astonishing 40+ non skirmish troops. the larger field gives more room to manouver, and so the welsh can find more ways to use the numerical advantage. I'm against the large army idea partly because of that (just having to watch my opponent move 50+ troops around is tiring...let alone responding to that kind of mess). Aside from mitigating some of the uncertainties (luck) the large battles take more time and will mean fewer players, but don't appreciably change the outcomes, tactics, strategies or manouvering. (and without the luck factor what will we all complain about ?? )