Slitherine

Hi everyone

Thanks for the comments both on here and by text/e-mail.

I'm glad I didn't let the side down and enjoyed some great games against great opponents.

Thanks to all involved with the event.

I hope I qualify for inclusion next year to renew some fun rivalries!

Rob

zoltan wrote:Oh

This is actually the most embarrassing moment for the British team as Mr Ruddock goes to bed early and leaves the whole american team out drinking after him. A shameful performance.

It was, as always, a great event. My thanks to the Portuguese for organizing the tournament and the tour of the Museu Militar. The Port Wine Institute (or whatever it was named; I cannot recall) was also excellent.

Perhaps the best news is that the various team captains agreed to get together online to discuss how to keep the ITC going and get more teams involved.

Mar

philqw78 wrote:This is actually the most embarrassing moment for the British team as Mr Ruddock goes to bed early and leaves the whole american team out drinking after him. A shameful performance.

Yes their was an earthquake also when Ruddock pronounced that going to bed early was the key to his successful strategy and he planned to impose an early curfew and alcohol limitation on future GB teams. Phil very loudedly said I quit. Which may explain his round 4 game versus me.

hazelbark wrote: Phil very loudedly said I quit. Which may explain his round 4 game versus me.

A river of tears

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:This is actually the most embarrassing moment for the British team as Mr Ruddock goes to bed early and leaves the whole american team out drinking after him. A shameful performance.

Yes their was an earthquake also when Ruddock pronounced that going to bed early was the key to his successful strategy and he planned to impose an early curfew and alcohol limitation on future GB teams. Phil very loudedly said I quit. Which may explain his round 4 game versus me.

It never happened in my day. I managed to break Tim Porter at 5.30am Sunday Morning.

GB: Let's see if this closing club will sell us a takeaway beer.
TP: No, I need at least an hour's sleep until breakfast.

Seemed to be a number of armies in most pools that appeared 2-3 times.
Did the organisers and players felt the structure created fairer games than generic period date ranges?

What could be done to encourage more variety of armies?

One could suggest that open time periods would allow for maximum variety.
Saw 1500bc to 500bc Period 1
499bc - 500 ad Period 2
501 ad - 1350 ad Period 3
1351 - 1500 ad Period 4

That is how we do it in the US so will obviously be disliked by anyone else
Gino
SMAC

I wonder if Date periods but exclude the top 2-3 ranked armies in that period?
I'm new but looking at tournament results, I see a lot of the same army on the podium list?

DruOz wrote:I wonder if Date periods but exclude the top 2-3 ranked armies in that period?
I'm new but looking at tournament results, I see a lot of the same army on the podium list?

More normally a lot of the same players

DruOz wrote:Seemed to be a number of armies in most pools that appeared 2-3 times.
Did the organisers and players felt the structure created fairer games than generic period date ranges?

What could be done to encourage more variety of armies?

There is normally more variety. The tighter themed periods (instead of the more open periods we usually use) tended to have more obvious choices. For instance, Period 2 was always going to be either pikes or Romans; the oddity is that all three pike players chose Alex Mac instead of one of the other similar choices.

As Gino said, more open periods will tend to lead to more variety in army choices.

Marc

kal5056 wrote:One could suggest that open time periods would allow for maximum variety.
Saw 1500bc to 500bc Period 1
499bc - 500 ad Period 2
501 ad - 1350 ad Period 3
1351 - 1500 ad Period 4

That is how we do it in the US so will obviously be disliked by anyone else
Gino
SMAC

No you are just creatively challenged. And those periods you just posted are not how we do it in the us. Not at the US team. Not ever. Clearly you bought some bad crack from Hilton.

I am sorry Mr. Hazelruff.
I was using simple dates as an example (This was directed at the Brits after all) and did not get into the specifics of the slight nerfs to the ranges to put armoured spear into Period 2 and so on.

I stand corrected but I think the point I was making is clear.
Gino
SMAC

Well the first period worked very well - there were six very different armies.

The second pool didn't work quite so well as there were only two types of armies - three of each in reality.

Period Three was OK, but Period Four just ended up as Ottomans, as it typically does.

kal5056 wrote:I am sorry Mr. Hazelruff.
I was using simple dates as an example (This was directed at the Brits after all) and did not get into the specifics of the slight nerfs to the ranges to put armoured spear into Period 2 and so on.

I stand corrected but I think the point I was making is clear.
Gino
SMAC

The point being you lacked imaginiation and so did Nik?


I think it is one of the things to do when you look at a period do you let in an obviously popular army.
In period 2 Dominate Romans IMV should have been kept out. It turned out not to matter. And you can make a pseduo-domRom out of principate.
In period 4 it is tough to have an Ottoman theme without Ottomans. It is the perils of picking a theme with a popular army.

hazelbark wrote: It is the perils of picking a theme with a popular army.

And if you don't pick popular armies people cannot play as they haven't got Astur-Leonese, Early Welsh or Greater Moravian.

And then everyone would pick Astur-Leonese anyway.

hazelbark wrote: In period 4 it is tough to have an Ottoman theme without Ottomans. It is the perils of picking a theme with a popular army.

There is also the peril of picking a theme without poular armies in, as Phil aludes to, as players may well not have suitable armies - especially true for the less well off countries where players do not own huge numbers of armies so have limited choices. Hence you tend to get a "period 4" with Ottomans.

I must say that I was a bit surprised at just how unimaginative players were in period 2, although it may just relfect their available fugures. I'd have given very serious consideration to Ancient Brits and the Merovingians (to give 2 examples), rather than the armies picked.

FWIW the plan is to have the pools sorted out as early as possible next year (Dan - weren't you setting something up for this?) - and additional thinking time may well allow players to look at more possibilities.

nikgaukroger wrote:I must say that I was a bit surprised at just how unimaginative players were in period 2, although it may just relfect their available fugures. I'd have given very serious consideration to Ancient Brits and the Merovingians (to give 2 examples), rather than the armies picked.

I looked at the ABs and Merovingians. Aside from not having the figures for either (I could probably have borrowed them at need) I concluded that ABs would have gotten a drubbing from the armies that I expected to see. The Merovingians are a better list but don't have the oomph to win games, especially when facing pikes and elephants. Perhaps they would be a better army for an Open event?

I admit I expected to see a bit more variety in the pike armies chosen (no Ptolemaic was a surprise). But it was pretty clearly a "pikes or Romans" period.

Marc

nikgaukroger wrote:

There is also the peril of picking a theme without poular armies in, as Phil aludes to, as players may well not have suitable armies - especially true for the less well off countries where players do not own huge numbers of armies so have limited choices. Hence you tend to get a "period 4" with Ottomans.

Agreed.

I must say that I was a bit surprised at just how unimaginative players were in period 2, although it may just relfect their available fugures. I'd have given very serious consideration to Ancient Brits and the Merovingians (to give 2 examples), rather than the armies picked.

I can see the merovingians, but have trouble seeing the ABs. Its an army I would like to give a try to, but it seems more of a 900 point army. So clearly i am missing it. How would you try to win with it?

FWIW the plan is to have the pools sorted out as early as possible next year (Dan - weren't you setting something up for this?) - and additional thinking time may well allow players to look at more possibilities.

Yep. Trying to sort work and a two-year-old's birthday party and the honey-do list this past weekend. Any day now.

hazelbark wrote:

I must say that I was a bit surprised at just how unimaginative players were in period 2, although it may just relfect their available fugures. I'd have given very serious consideration to Ancient Brits and the Merovingians (to give 2 examples), rather than the armies picked.

I can see the merovingians, but have trouble seeing the ABs. Its an army I would like to give a try to, but it seems more of a 900 point army. So clearly i am missing it. How would you try to win with it?

In a way I cannot easily explain - you'd have to play Peter Reilly to see how its done, but it includes odd deployments and manoeuvre.

FWIW the plan is to have the pools sorted out as early as possible next year (Dan - weren't you setting something up for this?) - and additional thinking time may well allow players to look at more possibilities.

Yep. Trying to sort work and a two-year-old's birthday party and the honey-do list this past weekend. Any day now.

[/quote]


Excellent