Slitherine

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:12 pm**

Don't feel bad, I have not been able to find them either.

Harvey

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:26 pm**

I didn't want to say anything in thread, but there are some Classical army-ally combos that I can't find. So not sure if it's a translation/typo mistake or something, or if I missed a rule that added in the TT mod.

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:54 pm**

I don't have that mod installed now so I am not sure what the issue is with it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:51 pm**

ianiow wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:18 am The armies in the Biblical section are found using the TT mod 1.5.18

I have noticed that some players are using ally combos that do not appear in my lists. I can't seem to locate Babylonian + Cimmerian allies or AEPersians + Spartan allies.

What am I doing wrong?

You may need to change your geographic and date settings, i.e. turn them off, as some allies don't show up if you have these on.

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:09 pm**

ianiow wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:18 am The armies in the Biblical section are found using the TT mod 1.5.18

I have noticed that some players are using ally combos that do not appear in my lists. I can't seem to locate Babylonian + Cimmerian allies or AEPersians + Spartan allies.

What am I doing wrong?

One of my past mistakes with this mod was to forget to activate the TT mod custom battle module. Did you click on the vanilla FOG lists by mistake?

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:32 pm**

paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:51 pm
You may need to change your geographic and date settings, i.e. turn them off, as some allies don't show up if you have these on.

I definitely selected the mod first. I have also selected and deselected the geography and date buttons.

edb1815 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 7:09 pm One of my past mistakes with this mod was to forget to activate the TT mod custom battle module. Did you click on the vanilla FOG lists by mistake?

This might have something to do with it. I have been able to install the TT mulptiplayer mod successfully but never the TT custom battle mod, so I cannot play practice games against the computer. Could this be the cause?

EDIT: Have now added CustomBattles successfully but it didn't help. Also reloaded Rise of Persia - no change. Btw, I play using the Slitherine download not STEAM game.

Posted: **Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:53 pm**

I have sent a PM to Paul59 who designed the mod asking for help.

Posted: **Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:15 am**

I have received the following reply from Paul59, the author of the TT Mod . . .

Re: New TT Mod version 1.5.18 now available!

Sent: 24 Jan 2020 01:08
From: Paul59
Recipient: stockwellpete
Hi Pete,

The nation and ally combinations in question (Babylonian 626-539 BC with Cimmerian 760-600 BC allies, and Achaemenid Persians 545-481 BC with Spartan 680-551 BC allies) do not exist in either vanilla FOG2 or the TT Mod v1.5.18!

So either the players who say they have these combinations have made a mistake, or there is some funny business going on!

To clarify further; the Babylonian 626-539 BC army only has Median 626-550 BC allies. The Achaemenid Persian 545-481 BC army only has Skythian 550-301 BC allies.

Just to clarify some of the other points that people have raised:

1) The three versions of the TT Mod (Campaigns, SP Custom Battles, and MP Custom Battles) all have exactly the same content. They are just set up slightly differently so that they work for the three different modes of play. So if you are using the MP TT Mod it is irrelevant whether you have other mods, or not.

2) I have tried as much as possible to have the same ally combinations in the TT Mod, as there are in the vanilla FOG2. Obviously, for armies that are unique to the TT Mod I have had to make my own ally choices. Also, with RBS changing the vanilla ally combinations several times, it is possible that I might have made an error with some ally combinations, but I have not discovered any as yet.

cheers

Paul

Posted: **Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:42 am**

PM's have been sent to the 3 players concerned asking for clarifications.

Posted: **Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:03 pm**

Does the new 1.5.24 Open Beta released today need to be installed for the tournament? I would imagine everyone needs to have the same version of the game as there are some rule changes ie multiple zoc's.

Posted: **Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:15 pm**

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:03 pm Does the new 1.5.24 Open Beta released today need to be installed for the tournament? I would imagine everyone needs to have the same version of the game as there are some rule changes ie multiple zoc's.

Holy sheeeeeet I didn't notice that. Time to switch my army choices a bit!

Posted: **Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:10 am**

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:03 pm Does the new 1.5.24 Open Beta released today need to be installed for the tournament? I would imagine everyone needs to have the same version of the game as there are some rule changes ie multiple zoc's.

I have just received some advice from Richard about this and I need to speak to Anders and Ian today as well. Then I will put up a message about the Open Beta.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:50 am**

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:10 am
markwatson360 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:03 pm Does the new 1.5.24 Open Beta released today need to be installed for the tournament? I would imagine everyone needs to have the same version of the game as there are some rule changes ie multiple zoc's.
I have just received some advice from Richard about this and I need to speak to Anders and Ian today as well. Then I will put up a message about the Open Beta.

Pete the players submitting lists with allies that are not allowed is not only in the Biblical section.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:24 am**

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:50 am
Pete the players submitting lists with allies that are not allowed is not only in the Biblical section.

There are other issues too, especially with the lists submitted by us new to the league. Illegal armies for the period (for example choosing a roman army from the imperial era for Classic Antiq. era), choosing two armies with same name (for example choosing Arab armies twice in Early Med. era),choosing more than four armies (in case you wonder who would be that stupid, it was me (but I niftly edited that after a couple days when I re-read the rules for an umpteenth time and realised what I had done)).

Reading is hard. Reading comprehension is even harder... I guess the league Admins are tearing their beards with tears in their eyes, which is why I for one stand in awe in their presence; admining a league this large (with people from all over the world, ie there will be the language issues in addition to the "normal" confusion) takes some serious dedication!

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:29 am**

Swuul wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:24 am
Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:50 am
Pete the players submitting lists with allies that are not allowed is not only in the Biblical section.
There are other issues too, especially with the lists submitted by us new to the league. Illegal armies for the period (for example choosing a roman army from the imperial era for Classic Antiq. era), choosing two armies with same name (for example choosing Arab armies twice in Early Med. era),choosing more than four armies (in case you wonder who would be that stupid, it was me (but I niftly edited that after a couple days when I re-read the rules for an umpteenth time and realised what I had done)).

Reading is hard. Reading comprehension is even harder... I guess the league Admins are tearing their beards with tears in their eyes, which is why I for one stand in awe in their presence; admining a league this large (with people from all over the world, ie there will be the language issues in addition to the "normal" confusion) takes some serious dedication!

LOL! Well written.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:18 am**

Just out of interest I looked at dkalenda's classical antiquity choices, they are:

1. Roman 199-106 BC with Atropatene 320-145 BC allies
2. Seleucid 166-125 BC with
3. Samnite 355-272 BC with Armenian Tigranes 83-69 BC allies
4. Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC with Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC

None of these is in my tt mod , perhaps there is an alternate modified version of the tt mod out there with different allies, which some people have installed.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:32 am**

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:50 am Pete the players submitting lists with allies that are not allowed is not only in the Biblical section.

As I start the army allocation process tomorrow I will be checking player choices as I do each division. If I come across an invalid choice I will just ignore it so that player will only have three selections available instead of four. This will increase their chances of not being allocated an army in the usual way and they then will have to make a fifth choice from the armies that have not been chosen.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:35 am**

Swuul wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:24 am There are other issues too, especially with the lists submitted by us new to the league. Illegal armies for the period (for example choosing a roman army from the imperial era for Classic Antiq. era), choosing two armies with same name (for example choosing Arab armies twice in Early Med. era),choosing more than four armies (in case you wonder who would be that stupid, it was me (but I niftly edited that after a couple days when I re-read the rules for an umpteenth time and realised what I had done)).

Reading is hard. Reading comprehension is even harder... I guess the league Admins are tearing their beards with tears in their eyes, which is why I for one stand in awe in their presence; admining a league this large (with people from all over the world, ie there will be the language issues in addition to the "normal" confusion) takes some serious dedication!

I will be going through the army selections of new players today to see if there are any anomalies. I have asked players to get all their choices in by the end of the day so I should be able to complete this task today. It normally doesn't take too much time and it rarely causes many problems.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:38 am**

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:18 am Just out of interest I looked at dkalenda's classical antiquity choices, they are:

1. Roman 199-106 BC with Atropatene 320-145 BC allies
2. Seleucid 166-125 BC with
3. Samnite 355-272 BC with Armenian Tigranes 83-69 BC allies
4. Carthaginian (Hannibal in Africa) 202 BC with Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC

None of these is in my tt mod , perhaps there is an alternate modified version of the tt mod out there with different allies, which some people have installed.

The TTmod is only being used in Biblical, so any combination of armies from it selected for Classical will be disqualified. I have PM'd dkalenda and I'm still awaiting a reply. Other players with unusual combinations in Biblical have responded and have amended their choices. Some have said they copied dkalenda's choices because he is one of the best players.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:48 am**

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:32 am
Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:50 am Pete the players submitting lists with allies that are not allowed is not only in the Biblical section.
As I start the army allocation process tomorrow I will be checking player choices as I do each division. If I come across an invalid choice I will just ignore it so that player will only have three selections available instead of four. This will increase their chances of not being allocated an army in the usual way and they then will have to make a fifth choice from the armies that have not been chosen.

I think the simpler option is just ignore invalid ally selections; a player would not get an ally in such a case. Might consider adding that to the rules for future seasons.

Karvon

Slitherine

The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)