The Dustbin

[stockwellpete]

Pete,

In Biblical, how to determine which historical matchup to play against which opponent?

I will be providing a fixture list just before the tournament starts.

[kronenblatt]

Some players have not yet expressed a preference so you have been put down as 1200pts. If you want to play at 1600pts please let me know by the end of Friday.

Maybe if no preference at all is expressed, the player should be put down as 1 600 FP instead of 1 200? Since if a player is indifferent between 1 200 and 1600 FP and another player explicitly prefers 1 600, it could make sense for their battle to be at 1 600 FP. Because if at least one of these two players explicitly prefers 1 200 FP, the battle will in any event be at 1 200 FP, as per the setup.

[stockwellpete]

Some players have not yet expressed a preference so you have been put down as 1200pts. If you want to play at 1600pts please let me know by the end of Friday.

Maybe if no preference at all is expressed, the player should be put down as 1 600 FP instead of 1 200? Since if a player is indifferent between 1 200 and 1600 FP and another player explicitly prefers 1 600, it could make sense for their battle to be at 1 600 FP. Because if at least one of these two players explicitly prefers 1 200 FP, the battle will in any event be at 1 200 FP, as per the setup.

The default for this section is 1200pts. There are three sections at 1600pts this season already, so I am not going to do anything to increase the number of 1600pt matches in EMA. There may be a number of reasons why players have not expressed a preference, the most likely being that they do not realise they are required to this season because they have not read the instructions.

[Tratmot]

Hello

Please set me for 1600, ty

[frederic02]

I'm in with the following armies :
Arab city (300-633 AD) with sassanids persians (591-628 AD) as allies
Western Hunnic (376-454 AD) with germans tribes infantry (260-599 AD) as allies
Romans (197-284 AD) with Arabs (312-299 AD) as allies
Indians (320-545 AD)

(Reserve)

[frederic02]

I'm in with the following armies :
Arabs Abassids (747-793 AD)
Byzantines (963-987 AD) with Arabs (syrie/Iraq 890-1008 AD) as allies
Normands (923-1040 AD) with Frenc (88-1049 AD) as allies
Scots 851-1051 with vikings (irish) (900-1049 AD)

(Reserve)

[stockwellpete]

I have just done a check and there are only three players who have not sent their army choices in. I will send them reminders this morning and I can start allocating armies today as well. So no more alterations please. I will start putting the allocations up on the forum from tomorrow and I will also post the Biblical fixture list (probably on Wednesday). Play will start on Thursday.

[Cunningcairn]

Some players have not yet expressed a preference so you have been put down as 1200pts. If you want to play at 1600pts please let me know by the end of Friday.

Maybe if no preference at all is expressed, the player should be put down as 1 600 FP instead of 1 200? Since if a player is indifferent between 1 200 and 1600 FP and another player explicitly prefers 1 600, it could make sense for their battle to be at 1 600 FP. Because if at least one of these two players explicitly prefers 1 200 FP, the battle will in any event be at 1 200 FP, as per the setup.

The default for this section is 1200pts. There are three sections at 1600pts this season already, so I am not going to do anything to increase the number of 1600pt matches in EMA. There may be a number of reasons why players have not expressed a preference, the most likely being that they do not realise they are required to this season because they have not read the instructions.

Pete as you know I prefer larger armies but have chosen the default of 1200. That is because certain armies are more effective at a particular size. As I will be forced to play 1200 points if my opponent so chooses I have picked armies I believe are better suited to 1200 points.

[stockwellpete]

Pete as you know I prefer larger armies but have chosen the default of 1200. That is because certain armies are more effective at a particular size. As I will be forced to play 1200 points if my opponent so chooses I have picked armies I believe are better suited to 1200 points.

Yes, OK then.

[kronenblatt]

Maybe if no preference at all is expressed, the player should be put down as 1 600 FP instead of 1 200? Since if a player is indifferent between 1 200 and 1600 FP and another player explicitly prefers 1 600, it could make sense for their battle to be at 1 600 FP. Because if at least one of these two players explicitly prefers 1 200 FP, the battle will in any event be at 1 200 FP, as per the setup.

The default for this section is 1200pts. There are three sections at 1600pts this season already, so I am not going to do anything to increase the number of 1600pt matches in EMA. There may be a number of reasons why players have not expressed a preference, the most likely being that they do not realise they are required to this season because they have not read the instructions.

Pete as you know I prefer larger armies but have chosen the default of 1200. That is because certain armies are more effective at a particular size. As I will be forced to play 1200 points if my opponent so chooses I have picked armies I believe are better suited to 1200 points.

Wow, you're taking this really seriously!

Why do you prefer larger armies btw?

[Cunningcairn]

The default for this section is 1200pts. There are three sections at 1600pts this season already, so I am not going to do anything to increase the number of 1600pt matches in EMA. There may be a number of reasons why players have not expressed a preference, the most likely being that they do not realise they are required to this season because they have not read the instructions.

Pete as you know I prefer larger armies but have chosen the default of 1200. That is because certain armies are more effective at a particular size. As I will be forced to play 1200 points if my opponent so chooses I have picked armies I believe are better suited to 1200 points.

Wow, you're taking this really seriously!

Why do you prefer larger armies btw?

It's a strategy game. Decisions, tactics, skill levels, environment amongst many other things determine success or failure much like real life. Unfortunately I don't take it that seriously to try and explain all the reasons. One of the reasons I prefer larger games is because of the effect it has on certain army choices. In very small armies using expensive elite troops is prohibitive as a single element can cost almost 1/12 of the points available but only 1/20 of a very large army. I believe this favours armies with cheaper troop types that historically did not perform that well. Also the number of troops available in a particular option increase which gives some one dimensional armies sufficient troops of a non core type to be able to fight better in terrain unsuitable to that particular army. For example a mounted army could get more medium foot giving it better rough going capability than it had at a smaller army size. A good example of this is the Franks no longer need a Croatian ally to get more archers at 1200 points as they only get 2 with or without an ally. Many armies can be better balanced in different troop types. More importantly I believe it allows the player to easier use military tactics such as the use of reserves and focus and economy of force. Smaller games are often dominated by chess like tactics rather than higher level strategy which I find occurs less in games using larger armies.

[kronenblatt]

Pete as you know I prefer larger armies but have chosen the default of 1200. That is because certain armies are more effective at a particular size. As I will be forced to play 1200 points if my opponent so chooses I have picked armies I believe are better suited to 1200 points.

Wow, you're taking this really seriously!

Why do you prefer larger armies btw?

It's a strategy game. Decisions, tactics, skill levels, environment amongst many other things determine success or failure much like real life. Unfortunately I don't take it that seriously to try and explain all the reasons. One of the reasons I prefer larger games is because of the effect it has on certain army choices. In very small armies using expensive elite troops is prohibitive as a single element can cost almost 1/12 of the points available but only 1/20 of a very large army. I believe this favours armies with cheaper troop types that historically did not perform that well. Also the number of troops available in a particular option increase which gives some one dimensional armies sufficient troops of a non core type to be able to fight better in terrain unsuitable to that particular army. For example a mounted army could get more medium foot giving it better rough going capability than it had at a smaller army size. A good example of this is the Franks no longer need a Croatian ally to get more archers at 1200 points as they only get 2 with or without an ally. Many armies can be better balanced in different troop types. More importantly I believe it allows the player to easier use military tactics such as the use of reserves and focus and economy of force. Smaller games are often dominated by chess like tactics rather than higher level strategy which I find occurs less in games using larger armies.

Ok, thanks! Was just curious to understand why your preferences of larger battles didn't end up strong enough to actually choose 1600 FP.

[Cunningcairn]

Wow, you're taking this really seriously!

Why do you prefer larger armies btw?

It's a strategy game. Decisions, tactics, skill levels, environment amongst many other things determine success or failure much like real life. Unfortunately I don't take it that seriously to try and explain all the reasons. One of the reasons I prefer larger games is because of the effect it has on certain army choices. In very small armies using expensive elite troops is prohibitive as a single element can cost almost 1/12 of the points available but only 1/20 of a very large army. I believe this favours armies with cheaper troop types that historically did not perform that well. Also the number of troops available in a particular option increase which gives some one dimensional armies sufficient troops of a non core type to be able to fight better in terrain unsuitable to that particular army. For example a mounted army could get more medium foot giving it better rough going capability than it had at a smaller army size. A good example of this is the Franks no longer need a Croatian ally to get more archers at 1200 points as they only get 2 with or without an ally. Many armies can be better balanced in different troop types. More importantly I believe it allows the player to easier use military tactics such as the use of reserves and focus and economy of force. Smaller games are often dominated by chess like tactics rather than higher level strategy which I find occurs less in games using larger armies.

Ok, thanks! Was just curious to understand why your preferences of larger battles didn't end up strong enough to actually choose 1600 FP.

Only because I will not be able to play at 1600 points if my opponent wants 1200 points. I could have picked armies that are as good at either point level but didn't

[McHarg]

Palmyran 258-273 AD
Roman 425-492 AD
Sarmatian 25-375 AD
Bosporan 11 BC-375 AD

[stockwellpete]

All army selections now received. Thanks everyone.

[kronenblatt]

All army selections now received. Thanks everyone.

Many thanks to YOU for setting this all up! Appreciated!

[stockwellpete]

Here are the army allocations for Classical Antiquity. The numbers in brackets (4) after each player's name is the order in which their army was allocated to them. The latest FOG2DL ratings were used for this purpose.

Division A
Cunningcairn (2) - Roman 105-25 BC with Numidian or Moorish 55 BC- 6 AD allies
desertedfox (4) - Macedonian 328-321 BC
harveylh (8) - Gallic 300-101 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies
hidde (7) - Numidian or Moorish 55 BC-6 AD with Roman 24 BC-196 AD allies
klayeckles (9) - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC with Roman 105-25 BC allies
Nosy_Rat (10) - Pontic 84-47 BC with Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC allies
nyczar (3) - Pyrrhic 280-275 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies
Questar17 (1) - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC
Sennacherib (6) - Thracian (Getae) 279-46 BC with Dacian 50 BC-88 AD allies
Triarii (5) - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-103BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies

Division B
batesmotel (9) - Pergamene 190-129 BC with Greek 227-146 BC allies
Challenge1 (5) - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC
DanZanzibar (1) - Bosporan 84-11 BC
DzonVejn (8) - Roman 105-25 BC
GDod (7) - Jewish 163-111 BC
IMC (3) - Galatian 280-63 BC
lunecastle (6) - Lysimachid 320-281 BC with Thracian(Hellenistic) 350-281 BC allies
paulmcneil (10) - Saka 300 BC-50 AD with Seleucid 166-125 BC allies
SLancaster (4) - Roman 199-106 BC with Greek 227-146 BC allies
Trogilus (2) - Syracusan 280-211 BC with Carthaginian 235-146 BC allies

Division C
bomber23 (3) - Seleucid 166-125 BC with Jewish 163-111 BC allies
cromlechi (10) - Gallic 300-101 BC with Umbrian 490-260 BC allies
Ironclad (1) - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC
kraff (2) - Numidian or Moorish 55 BC-6 AD
MorkinTheFree (8) - Pontic 110-85 BC
Najanaja (7) - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
oscarius (9) - Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC
SawyerK (6) - Seleucid 302-301 BC with Lysimachid 320-281 BC allies
Stew101 (4) – Roman 105 - 25 BC with Armenian 331 BC-252 AD allies
ulysisgrunt (5) - Jewish 64 BC-6 AD with Roman 105-25 BC allies

Division D
Aetius39 (6) - Kyrenean Greek 460-322 BC with Carthaginian 340-281 BC allies
Bluefin (8) - Macedonian 260-148 BC
Garokan (10) - Thracian, Triballi 350-46 BC
General Shapur (9) - Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa 202 BC
random27 (2) - Samnite 355-272BC with Gallic 300-101 BC allies
Rob123 (4) - Gallic 300-101BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies
snooky51 (5) - Spartan 221-146 BC with Roman 280-220 BC allies
TomoeGozen (1) - Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC with Saka 300 BC-50 AD allies
Tresantes (7) - Pyrrhic 274-272 BC
Warg1 (3) - Roman 105-25 BC with Armenian 331 BC-252 AD allies

Division E
Barrold713 (9) - Seleucid 302-301 BC with Lysimachid 320 BC allies
Blagrot (8) - Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC
deeter (4) – Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC
DryNick (2) - Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC
Geoffrey.P.Smith (6) - Galatian 62-25 BC
joggy (5) - Roman 219-200 BC with Numidian or Moorish 341-56 BC allies
Kerait (1) - Roman 105-25BC with Bithynian 297-74 BC allies
rs2excelsior (10) - Samnite 355-272 BC with Etruscan 330-280 BC allies
tmac11 (3) - Seleucid 166-125 BC
Tratmot (7) - Achaemenid Persian 480-416 BC with Greek 680-461 BC allies

Division F
angel42052 (3) - Achaemenid Persian 419-329 BC
Badger73 (5) - Roman 105-25 BC with Armenian 331 BC–252 AD allies
Darkwater247 (4) - Samnite 355-272 BC with Gallic 300-101 BC allies
doomben (6) - Bosporan 84 BC-10 AD with Sarmatian 350 BC-24 AD allies
gamercb (10) - Carthaginian 235-146 BC with Syracusan 280-211 BC allies
GeneralKostas (9) - Ptolemaic 166-56 BC
hscic (8) - Armenian (Tigranes) 83 - 69 BC
kronenblatt (2) – Pyrrhic 280-275 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC allies
SSB (1) - Roman 199-106 BC with Pergamene 262-191 BC allies
telesien (7) – Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC with Campanian 280-203 BC allies

Note: please do not start your matches until Thursday 1st October.

[stockwellpete]

I have posted up the army allocations for Classical Antiquity this morning. Please do not start your matches until Thursday. Tomorrow I will post up Late Antiquity, on Tuesday Early Middle Ages and on Wednesday the fixture list for Biblical. The Themed Event draw will now be this evening at 7pm UK time.

[stockwellpete]

I am going to draw for the Themed Event this evening at 7pm (UK time). Sorry to anyone who "tuned in" last night expecting the draw to take place then, but I had an unexpected visitor.

[hscic]

hello.
For me 1600 points are fine