Slitherine

bbogensc wrote:Quick question: Do severely disordered units fight at the same strength if disrupted also? Here we have a screenshot of elephants several disordered elephant (-45%) versus severely disordered elephant, disrupted (-45%), same modifier in melee when disrupted also. Maybe the melee modifier on moral/cohesion maxes out at -45%?

Disorder and disruption etc. are not additive, whichever one is worst applies.

Mind blown with ruskicanuk going 7-0-2 with Thracians in Div A. I wish we had footage of the games.

MikeC_81 wrote:Mind blown with ruskicanuk going 7-0-2 with Thracians in Div A. I wish we had footage of the games.

The army was maxed out skirmishers (LF & LH) topped up with Thracian MF.

With the Dacians I destroyed nearly all of the medium foot, but eventually succumbed to the skirmishers.

Although I have enjoyed playing in all of the tournaments and in the Digital League, my record has me at the bottom of the scrub divisions and I am looking to win more often.

I am not an idiot...the U.S. Navy had me tested!

I was a nuclear qualified mechanical operator and chemistry/rad con technician. I am a system administrator for a complicated laboratory information system. I have played war games for 30 years. I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express!!!

I've read the manuals, watched the videos, practiced against some really terrific gents I have met through my multiplayer matches...and I still SUCK!

So to those who are in the non-exclusive Victorious Against Barrold713 Club (VABC), what am I doing wrong...outside of picking the Krappodokians in the digital league?

Advice, recommendations, challenges, and reminiscences of my beat downs are most welcome.

BDH

Your army selection certainly had something to do with it.

If you haven't already watch this series of videos they helped me a lot.

https://youtu.be/skddq2j1d8o

SpeedyCM wrote:If you haven't already watch this series of videos they helped me a lot.

https://youtu.be/skddq2j1d8o

I am subscribed to Michael's channel and viewed the series a few times. The series is definitely a recommended view.

MikeC_81 wrote:Your army selection certainly had something to do with it.

Kappadokians and armies like that are only in the game for the sake of completeness. They are not a viable tournament army. If you do win, you are winning despite the army rather than because of it.

So take a look at the thread linked below, which might give you some pointers for army choice, and then practice with your short-list. It is a bit out of date though - some balance changes have been made in the patches. In particular, warband armies are not as good a pick as they were, albeit a few warbands in an army can be good.

But don't pick an army whose style of fighting you don't like, just because it is high on the list.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=80633

Your given armies in Classical Indian didn't do you any favours either. Indo skythian, Di and Saka when others got Indo greek, Seleucid and Indian, three of the best lists available.

I'd be happy to talk you through a game or two if you want to PM me, not that I'm claiming to be a master at this, but I do ok

Barrold713 wrote:Although I have enjoyed playing in all of the tournaments and in the Digital League, my record has me at the bottom of the scrub divisions and I am looking to win more often.

I am not an idiot...the U.S. Navy had me tested!

I was a nuclear qualified mechanical operator and chemistry/rad con technician. I am a system administrator for a complicated laboratory information system. I have played war games for 30 years. I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express!!!

I've read the manuals, watched the videos, practiced against some really terrific gents I have met through my multiplayer matches...and I still SUCK!

So to those who are in the non-exclusive Victorious Against Barrold713 Club (VABC), what am I doing wrong...outside of picking the Krappodokians in the digital league?

Advice, recommendations, challenges, and reminiscences of my beat downs are most welcome.

BDH

No worries I am in your position in Div A where the tournament sharks handed me my head on a platter. I did have some close matches but I am firmly in the relegation zone! I think army selection can play a big role as well. I choose Greco-Bactrians - a difficult army to play well. I choose it solely because I have the army in miniature for the table top game, in hindsight not a wise move. I will also be checking the thread RBS linked above for next season!

One more thing since you mentioned Navy - Go Army beat Navy!

That thread will require a major update imo before it is usable again. I am waiting for the final results before posting a revised list.

If you are worried about being bad at this, what am I? I am supporting everyone including you by being at the bottom of the league.

Barrold713 wrote:Although I have enjoyed playing in all of the tournaments and in the Digital League, my record has me at the bottom of the scrub divisions and I am looking to win more often.

I am not an idiot...the U.S. Navy had me tested!

I was a nuclear qualified mechanical operator and chemistry/rad con technician. I am a system administrator for a complicated laboratory information system. I have played war games for 30 years. I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express!!!

I've read the manuals, watched the videos, practiced against some really terrific gents I have met through my multiplayer matches...and I still SUCK!

So to those who are in the non-exclusive Victorious Against Barrold713 Club (VABC), what am I doing wrong...outside of picking the Krappodokians in the digital league?

Advice, recommendations, challenges, and reminiscences of my beat downs are most welcome.

BDH

I found that my game improved when I became more patient.

rbodleyscott wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote:Your army selection certainly had something to do with it.

Kappadokians and armies like that are only in the game for the sake of completeness. They are not a viable tournament army. If you do win, you are winning despite the army rather than because of it.

So take a look at the thread linked below, which might give you some pointers for army choice, and then practice with your short-list. It is a bit out of date though - some balance changes have been made in the patches. In particular, warband armies are not as good a pick as they were, albeit a few warbands in an army can be good.

But don't pick an army whose style of fighting you don't like, just because it is high on the list.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=80633

Technically I picked the army because I thought the name was cool.

That method having brought less than spectacular results, it will not be repeated in the next season.

Thanks for the excellent obsession.

shadowblack wrote:Your given armies in Classical Indian didn't do you any favours either. Indo skythian, Di and Saka when others got Indo greek, Seleucid and Indian, three of the best lists available.

I'd be happy to talk you through a game or two if you want to PM me, not that I'm claiming to be a master at this, but I do ok

Thanks...I am checking out some armies I might like to run with but I will take you up on the offer soon.
Cheers
BDH

I just want to vent a little. I don't see how the Mountain Indian army can be beaten in these matchups. They are all bowmen and bow skirmishers. All three of majandro's victories were wipeouts. Nobody stood a chance against that army. It just seems very unfair.

I'm not a sore loser, but when the matchups are as unbalanced as this was, it just wasn't fun.

FroBodine wrote:I just want to vent a little. I don't see how the Mountain Indian army can be beaten in these matchups. They are all bowmen and bow skirmishers. All three of majandro's victories were wipeouts. Nobody stood a chance against that army. It just seems very unfair.

I'm not a sore loser, but when the matchups are as unbalanced as this was, it just wasn't fun.

Those armies, especially the Indo-Greeks can and have beaten the Mountain Indians. Jonathan4290 and Hidde have done so in Div A of this section.

nyczar wrote:I found that my game improved when I became more patient.

I like this advice but I am contradicted when I see situations where bold action appears to be needed. The maxim "get there firstest with the mostest" comes to mind when I see terrain that I deem necessary to hold to gain an advantage. With the Krappodokians, any rough terrain was vital to have any chance against most infantry.

There were some other prescriptions in the thread RBS linked which I do need to study and attempt to apply to my approach.
Cheers
BDH

gamercb wrote:If you are worried about being bad at this, what am I? I am supporting everyone including you by being at the bottom of the league.

Barrold713 wrote:Although I have enjoyed playing in all of the tournaments and in the Digital League, my record has me at the bottom of the scrub divisions and I am looking to win more often.

I am not an idiot...the U.S. Navy had me tested!

I was a nuclear qualified mechanical operator and chemistry/rad con technician. I am a system administrator for a complicated laboratory information system. I have played war games for 30 years. I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express!!!

I've read the manuals, watched the videos, practiced against some really terrific gents I have met through my multiplayer matches...and I still SUCK!

So to those who are in the non-exclusive Victorious Against Barrold713 Club (VABC), what am I doing wrong...outside of picking the Krappodokians in the digital league?

Advice, recommendations, challenges, and reminiscences of my beat downs are most welcome.

BDH

I am certainly open to a demonstration of skill level. Send me a PM with a challenge with some armies we should have more experience playing.
Thanks
BDH

Barrold713 wrote:

nyczar wrote:I found that my game improved when I became more patient.

I like this advice but I am contradicted when I see situations where bold action appears to be needed. The maxim "get there firstest with the mostest" comes to mind when I see terrain that I deem necessary to hold to gain an advantage. With the Krappodokians, any rough terrain was vital to have any chance against most infantry.

There were some other prescriptions in the thread RBS linked which I do need to study and attempt to apply to my approach.
Cheers
BDH

That's the fun and frustration art of it. Indeed, taking a tactically favorable position is important. I am not thinking about that. More, I was thinking of patience in the fight, freezing troops with ZOC rather than attacking, making a deep threat with a unit that could flank attack rather than flank attacking, waiting for a skirmish battle to resolve before advancing the main line. My disposition is very aggressive, so i always use to take that first flank attack, but by letting go of a quick tactical win, i have found more a few turns later.