The Dustbin

[toska]

Division F

toska - German 933-1049 AD with Polish 966-1057 AD allies beats SSB - Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD : 62-34

[IMC]

Division C

IMC: Greek 680-461 BC has beaten ahuyton Lydian 687-551 BC (Campaign 615 BC) Score: 55% to 33%

My opponent generously resigned rather than see me run around the map mopping up. Very generous sir!!!

A win for IMC

Thanks for the game.

Ian

[angel42052]

Division F

angel42052 - Achaemenid Persian 419-329 BC defeats SSB - Roman 199-106 BC with Pergamene 262-191 BC allies 48 - 20

The Romans were a tough nut to crack but my Persians did well in a swirling battle scattered across the map

[deeter]

Division E

Challenges up rs2excelsior and Kerait. PW Deeter

Deeter

[TomoeGozen]

Division F

TomoeGozen (Soissons) defeats McHarg (Palmyran) 41-16

The small (but brave) Roman cavalry force was lined up on the plain on my left , their orders to delay the large contingent of Palmyran Cataphracts that faced them. This they managed to do for long enough to take the Cataphracts out of the main fight which took place on a rocky hill in the enemy centre and left. There my excellent mediums and the overlap I now had on my right wing swung the battle my way , the Palmyran infantry were taken in front and flank and died bravely trying to hold the hill. Thanks to McHarg for a good game.

[wmpryor]

Division F

wmpryor (Irish 900-1049AD) beats toska (German 933-1049 AD w. Polish 966-1057 AD Allies) 57-25

A great game - closely fought. I won on the 24th turn. Both sides held rough hilly terrain with 100 foot
elevation differentials in several places. Toska seemed reluctant to attack me so I attacked him about
midway through the game.

[kraff]

Division D

kraff (Skythian 750-551 BC) defeated Barrold713 (Median 836-627 BC): 48-22

[kraff]

Division D

kraff challenges SawyerK: Assyrian 681-609 BC vs Babylonian 626-539 BC with Median 626-550 BC allies

Password is: Mithra

PM sent.

Good luck!

[kraff]

Division C

kraff (Numidian or Moorish 55 BC-6 AD) challenges:

1. cromlechi (Gallic 300-101 BC with Umbrian 490-260 BC allies)

Password: Minerva

2. Ironclad (Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 218-217 BC)

Password: Baal

PMs sent.

Good luck!

[paulmcneil]

group b

challenge for batesmotel pw = bates

[paulmcneil]

group b

challenge for trogilus pw = trogilus

[harveylh]

Division A

harveylh (1200) (4) - Frankish 751-887 AD with Croatian 625-849 AD allies
challenges Sennacherib (1200) (-) - Arab (Umayyad) 685-750 AD with Moorish 350-698 AD allies, password senn, pm sent

harveylh (1200) (4) - Frankish 751-887 AD with Croatian 625-849 AD allies
challenges CheAhn (1600) (3) - Sassanid 591-628 AD, password chea, pm sent

[stockwellpete]

First thing to say - No actual matches are going to be generated by this experiment!

I think that the trial we are running with the new 6-player divisions (with paired games) this season has been an overwhelming success and the match completion rate has been phenomenal. So this will be the way that I run the Biblical section for the forseeable future. One of the ideas I had was to alternate each season between historical match-ups (this season) and allowing players to choose armies in the normal way (next season). The problem is that there are only 26 armies from 18 countries that are truly Biblical. I don't really want to go back to mixing the TT Mod armies into the list again.

So the question is - what rules do we need to have in place for player selection to work in 6-player divisions with only 18 countries represented? So what I want you to do is to take 10 minutes to choose 5 armies from the list below as if you were really entering the Biblical section next season. It does not matter if you have not entered Biblical this season. I just need 24 or 30 players to make their 5 selections so that I can try out various systems and rules to see what works best for next season.

For the experiment please just pick one army from any one nation (so not two Achaemenid Persian armies, for example) . . .

Achaemenid Persian 550-546 BC
Achaemenid Persian (Thymbra) 547 BC
Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC
Arab 1000-313 BC
Assyrian 681-609 BC
Babylonian 626-539 BC
Babylonian Revolt 522-482 BC
Cimmerian 760-600 BC
Cypriot 680-550 BC
Egyptian 664-571 BC
Egyptian 570-525 BC
Elamite (815-539 BC)
Hebrew 681-586 BC
Kushite Egyptian 727-656 BC
Libyan 549-301 BC
Lydian 687-551 BC
Mannaean 750-610 BC
Median 836-627 BC
Median 626-550 BC
Phoenician 681-539 BC
Skythian 750-551 BC
Skythian/Saka 550-301 BC
Thracian (Triballi) 700-351 BC
Thracian 680-461 BC
Thracian (Getae) 680-330 BC
Urartian 681-585 BC

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this.

[IMC]

Hi,

I have to say, I found the format really good. To be able to play many armies rather than sticking to one was great. If it came to a vote I would vote for it in other leagues. I think determining the scenarios prior to the games starting was the best way of doing it.

Here are my 5:

Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC
Assyrian 681-609 BC
Lydian 687-551 BC
Skythian 750-551 BC
Thracian (Getae) 680-330 BC

BW

Ian

[kronenblatt]

Assyrian 681-609 BC
Egyptian 664-571 BC
Hebrew 681-586 BC
Median 626-550 BC
Phoenician 681-539 BC

[pompeytheflatulent]

Only the very best armies make my list:

Babylonian Revolt 522-482 BC
Elamite 815-539 BC
Kushite Egyptian 727-656 BC
Libyan 549-301 BC
Mannaean 750-610 BC

[NikiforosFokas]

Maybe t is not the right place to tell it Peter, but i allow me:
I enjoy Biblical sooo much. I have zero interest in this historical period (i am a medieval guy) but I prefer to play paired matches even if that means that I have to play this section. I would love to see this mode to the early medieval section but i understand that is hard to realize. Also why not keep the "historical possible" element of this section?

[NikiforosFokas]

Hi,

I have to say, I found the format really good. To be able to play many armies rather than sticking to one was great. If it came to a vote I would vote for it in other leagues. I think determining the scenarios prior to the games starting was the best way of doing it.


BW

Ian

So I just see that Ian told in better English what I wanted to say

[stockwellpete]

Maybe t is not the right place to tell it Peter, but i allow me:
I enjoy Biblical sooo much. I have zero interest in this historical period (i am a medieval guy) but I prefer to play paired matches even if that means that I have to play this section. I would love to see this mode to the early medieval section but i understand that is hard to realize. Also why not keep the "historical possible" element of this section?

I am not going to get rid of the "historical possible" element, just alternate with picking your own armies. Just to keep things fresher.

I do not intend to use this format in the other divisions as the 10 player divisions are very popular and we get 60 players in Early Middle Ages anyway. Having 10 separate divisions of 6 players is too much for me to deal with really. The tournament has reached its maximum size now.

[harveylh]

1. Egyptian 664-571 BC
2. Lydian 687-551 BC
3. Thracian 680-461 BC
4. Assyrian 681-609 BC
5. Cypriot 680-550 BC