Run away?3 Swiss and 2 German city leagues...so how do you deal with superior pike?
Britcon 2010 - FoG competitions
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Ghaznavid, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Yet another excellent weekend's gaming - top three's are:
Early
1. Dave Ruddock -- 105
1. Paul Brandon -- 105
3. Shaun Drummond -- 91
Late
1. Olivier Dader
2. Pete Dalby
3. Carl Pinceman
Loonies
1. Kev Johnson
2. Graham Briggs
3. Neil Howard
For the septics amongst us, Matt Iverson showed well and had the Yellow Jersey as Saturday night leader. France occupied first and third in the late period. The relevant Englishmen have been taken outside and shot.
Early
1. Dave Ruddock -- 105
1. Paul Brandon -- 105
3. Shaun Drummond -- 91
Late
1. Olivier Dader
2. Pete Dalby
3. Carl Pinceman
Loonies
1. Kev Johnson
2. Graham Briggs
3. Neil Howard
For the septics amongst us, Matt Iverson showed well and had the Yellow Jersey as Saturday night leader. France occupied first and third in the late period. The relevant Englishmen have been taken outside and shot.
Evaluator of Supremacy
madaxeman wrote:Clearly something else that needs fixing in V2.0.dave_r wrote:
Early
1. Dave Ruddock -- 105...
You may be interested to know that Paul Brandon turned over Grahame Evan's Dom Roms 22-3 in the last game. Clearly Christian Nubian is the new super army and need hamstrung. However, Pauls army was about to come a cropper in the seventh game...
Evaluator of Supremacy
Well done Dave! I don't think the success of Christian Nubian will surprise too many people though. A bit disappointing that out of 38 players no Dark Age armies even warranted a run .dave_r wrote:madaxeman wrote:Clearly something else that needs fixing in V2.0.dave_r wrote:
Early
1. Dave Ruddock -- 105...
Make your case now!!!
You may be interested to know that Paul Brandon turned over Grahame Evan's Dom Roms 22-3 in the last game. Clearly Christian Nubian is the new super army and need hamstrung. However, Pauls army was about to come a cropper in the seventh game...
Also good to see Shaun Drummond coming in 3rd after copping a bit of stick about his seeding.
Walter
-
Robert241167
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D

- Posts: 1368
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:03 pm
- Location: Leeds
Hi guys and gals.
Well the usual sleepless wargaming weekend but had a great time as usual.
Thanks to my opponents........Pedro Sanchez, Eric Thomson, Ian Mackay, Lynda Fairhurst, Pete Dalby and Bob Amey for great games played in great spirits.
Thanks to the organisers for arranging such a great event and for the bonus surprise at the end even though my badge wasn't in the draw.
Also it was nice to meet and chat with Matt from the USA, Pedro from Spain and Martin from Germany. Hope you have safe trips home guys and rejoin the fray next year.
Rob
Well the usual sleepless wargaming weekend but had a great time as usual.
Thanks to my opponents........Pedro Sanchez, Eric Thomson, Ian Mackay, Lynda Fairhurst, Pete Dalby and Bob Amey for great games played in great spirits.
Thanks to the organisers for arranging such a great event and for the bonus surprise at the end even though my badge wasn't in the draw.
Also it was nice to meet and chat with Matt from the USA, Pedro from Spain and Martin from Germany. Hope you have safe trips home guys and rejoin the fray next year.
Rob
-
philqw78
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus

- Posts: 8840
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
At leat a quarter of the armies were 'Dark Age'. Not bad since the top end of the time scale was 1040. So a few dark years were missed.waldo wrote: I don't think the success of Christian Nubian will surprise too many people though. A bit disappointing that out of 38 players no Dark Age armies even warranted a run .
Walter
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
I see you have taken a different approach from modern historians. Instead of frowning upon the use of Dark Ages as pejorative you have broadened it to include everyone at that time. Should we expect to see Classical Mayan in the next Dark Ages theme?philqw78 wrote:At leat a quarter of the armies were 'Dark Age'. Not bad since the top end of the time scale was 1040. So a few dark years were missed.waldo wrote: I don't think the success of Christian Nubian will surprise too many people though. A bit disappointing that out of 38 players no Dark Age armies even warranted a run .
Walter
Walter
Sorry, shuld have said, 'if you aren't a weasly shooty cav/LH army'.hazelbark wrote:Up their bum. Kill their supports. Pull them apart. Loot their camp. Lots of uneven.azrael86 wrote:3 Swiss and 2 German city leagues...so how do you deal with superior pike?
Although the answer appears to be 'from the table next door'.
Depends how you define Dark Ages then. If you consider this to be from the collapse of the Roman Empire to about 1100 AD then that would still mean there are Ancient British and Early Hungarians.waldo wrote:I see you have taken a different approach from modern historians. Instead of frowning upon the use of Dark Ages as pejorative you have broadened it to include everyone at that time. Should we expect to see Classical Mayan in the next Dark Ages theme?philqw78 wrote:At leat a quarter of the armies were 'Dark Age'. Not bad since the top end of the time scale was 1040. So a few dark years were missed.waldo wrote: I don't think the success of Christian Nubian will surprise too many people though. A bit disappointing that out of 38 players no Dark Age armies even warranted a run .
Walter
Walter
But then again, with nine books (Swifter than Eagles, Rise of Rome, Legions Triumphant, Wolves from the Sea, Immortal Fire, Empires of the Dragon, Swords and Scimitars, Blood and Gold and Decline and Fall) covering this period and 38 entries you would only expect four armies per book and with Bosporans being the flavour of the month then some books were always going to have fewer entries than this. When you consider there were 13 entries from Rise of Rome then there are 25 further entries spread between seven books it is evel less surprising that some books got no entries.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
philqw78
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus

- Posts: 8840
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
And I see you have taken a different approach to the BHGS, naming the theme yourself. So if you insist, all the entries in the theme were from the theme stipulated.waldo wrote:I see you have taken a different approach from modern historians. Instead of frowning upon the use of Dark Ages as pejorative you have broadened it to include everyone at that time. Should we expect to see Classical Mayan in the next Dark Ages theme?
Walter
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
You forgot Lost Voles. Also the later period included at least five armies from the above books.dave_r wrote:
Depends how you define Dark Ages then. If you consider this to be from the collapse of the Roman Empire to about 1100 AD then that would still mean there are Ancient British and Early Hungarians.
But then again, with nine books (Swifter than Eagles, Rise of Rome, Legions Triumphant, Wolves from the Sea, Immortal Fire, Empires of the Dragon, Swords and Scimitars, Blood and Gold and Decline and Fall) covering this period and 38 entries you would only expect four armies per book and with Bosporans being the flavour of the month then some books were always going to have fewer entries than this. When you consider there were 13 entries from Rise of Rome then there are 25 further entries spread between seven books it is evel less surprising that some books got no entries.
-
philqw78
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus

- Posts: 8840
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
No, Godless Bosphoran, Christian Nubian, Agnostic Hungarianchubooga wrote:Am I right in thinking that places 1 2 and 3 in the early period were all taken by LH armies... or at least armies with plenty of LH in them?
dont have the lists on me atm....
jon
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
A quick look at the last 4 tournaments in the UK shows that out of 136 players a grand total of 1 used an army from Wolves from the Sea.dave_r wrote:Depends how you define Dark Ages then. If you consider this to be from the collapse of the Roman Empire to about 1100 AD then that would still mean there are Ancient British and Early Hungarians.waldo wrote:I see you have taken a different approach from modern historians. Instead of frowning upon the use of Dark Ages as pejorative you have broadened it to include everyone at that time. Should we expect to see Classical Mayan in the next Dark Ages theme?philqw78 wrote:At leat a quarter of the armies were 'Dark Age'. Not bad since the top end of the time scale was 1040. So a few dark years were missed.
Walter
But then again, with nine books (Swifter than Eagles, Rise of Rome, Legions Triumphant, Wolves from the Sea, Immortal Fire, Empires of the Dragon, Swords and Scimitars, Blood and Gold and Decline and Fall) covering this period and 38 entries you would only expect four armies per book and with Bosporans being the flavour of the month then some books were always going to have fewer entries than this. When you consider there were 13 entries from Rise of Rome then there are 25 further entries spread between seven books it is evel less surprising that some books got no entries.
Perhaps those armies aren’t popular for a reason other than they are not competitive under the rules.
Walter







