Slitherine

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:37 am**

@Pete

Any chance we could get a rotation which divisions we get the 1200 pt format in?

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:37 am**

Division B
Challenge up for desertedfox - German Foot Tribes 260-599 AD with Roman 379-424 allies` vs Najanaja - Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD with Roman 24 BC–196 AD allies.

PW = dfox
PM sent

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:36 am**

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:37 am @Pete

Any chance we could get a rotation which divisions we get the 1200 pt format in?

No, there is not going to be a rotation as it will cause confusion among those players who do not read the instructions properly. Because I am dealing with a large number of players I have to use systems that are straightforward and easy to understand. There clearly is quite a bit of support for larger 1600pt armies to be used more widely (the voting was 34-27) and there also seems to be a strong sentiment that, for historical reasons, Classical Antiquity battles should have access to the larger format.

So what I am going to do next season is trial pantherboy's idea in Classical Antiquity rather than Biblical (my original idea). At the recruitment stage players will be required to state their preference for either 1200pt or 1600pt armies and where both players indicate 1600pt armies then they will be able to play a larger battle.*** The default size of the battles will be 1200pts so players wishing to stay at medium will do so. I do not feel the poll result was quite strong enough to make 1600pts the default size of battles, although I will listen to arguments that suggest that it should be during the course of next season. If the trial goes successfully next season then the idea will be introduced right across the FOG2DL in Season 10 giving players the opportunity to play at least some larger battles in all sections of the tournament.

So for next season we will have . . .
Classical Antiquity - 1200/1600pt trial
Late Antiquity - 1200pt
Early Middle Ages - 1600pt
Biblical - 1600pt
Themed Event - 1200pt

*** Of course, I know that a number of players, when offered this choice, will put something like "I don't mind" rather than clearly choosing one option or the other. These players will be put in the 1600pt category in order to increase the proportion of larger battles available to players. Larger battles did win the poll 34-27.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:27 am**

Division E

texanotedesco (Khorasanian) wins vs Supervark (Rus with Polish ally 966-1057 AD) 60% to 44%

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:14 am**

Sounds great. Two questions:

1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?
2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices...

It's just out of curiosity.)

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:41 am**

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:14 am Sounds great. Two questions:

1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?

October 1st.

2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices... It's just out of curiosity.)

No, no-one has mentioned it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:02 pm**

Div A

ianiow (Kushite) defeated desertedfox (Persian) 41-10

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:20 pm**

Division E

Aetius39 - Palmyran 258-273 AD with Arab 312-299 AD allies beat snooky51 - Sassanid 477-590 AD with Hun (Sabir) 463-558 AD allies 51-19

The Persians had an all cavalry army, with a few elephants, while the Palmyrans brought many massed archers and irregular infantry because there was quite a bit of rough terrain, along with a stream in the middle. For a while there was a bit of posturing on both sides, each trying to get field advantage. Slowly but surely the armies got together, but it was really two smaller battles away from each other. This benefited the Palmyrans as the battle further to the north had only a few Persian cavalry that the archers/medium infantry, and one Roman legion could gang up on. In the south, the Palmyrans foolishly had their cataphracts charge into the elephants, but luckily they held until the rest of the Persian force was routed. Could have been a lot closer or lost if my units broke earlier. GG to my opponent!

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:51 pm**

Division F

Thunderbird - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Khorasanian 821-1003 AD allies defeated hscic - Lombard 776-1049 AD 58 - 32

Thanks to hscic for the match!

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:12 pm**

Division B

Swuul (Spartan 550-461 BC with Corinthian 550-461 BC allies) beat edb1815 (Egyptian 570-525 BC with Kyrenean Greek 630-461 BC allies) 45-18

A Thermopylae map, with impassable mountains and a seacoast narrowing down the initial front to just 6 squares wide. This time it wasn't the spartans who defended the pass, but attempted to break through against the egyptian spearmen and archers. I brought along (rather stupidly) cavalry and skirmishers, and they were useless -> when they were charged, they had nowhere to run because of the mass of spartan troops behind them, so the evaders got caught in the rear and slaughtered (as any spartans who broke were immediatly destroyed with nowhere to retreat). The egyptian line fell back in the face of the spartans, as the spartans were advancing in the shade the egyptian arrows filling the sky provided. But once the spartan hoplites finally got to melee with the egyptians, things started to go south pretty fast for the sons of Nile.
Thank you for the game edb1815. When I saw the map I thought I was so screwed, but I presume the map was a blessing for me after all. With such a narrow front (initially), I could take full use of my superior hoplites (who certainly took some serious beating from the arrows, but due to excellent morale only a few did become Disrupted in the arrow-storm) without having to worry about flank-attacks.

Screenshot of the end-situation, taken from an angle so that the initial thermopylae position can be viewed:
https://i.imgur.com/i9yz3ig.jpg

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:17 pm**

Division B

paulmcneil (Parthian) beats hidde Indian 61:52

(3-1)

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:35 pm**

Division D

bomber23 (Germanic Horse Tribes, Carpi) beat ggarynorman [Palmyran] 65.57

(3-1)

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:40 pm**

div b

paulmcneil (skythian) challenge for sunnyboy (syracusan) pw = sunnyboy

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:17 pm**

Division B

cromlechi - Roman 379-424 AD defeats lydianed - Moorish 350-698 AD with Byzantine 493-550 AD allies 40-14

Thank you for the game lydianed, look forward to the next one.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:18 pm**

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:36 am
MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:37 am @Pete

Any chance we could get a rotation which divisions we get the 1200 pt format in?
No, there is not going to be a rotation as it will cause confusion among those players who do not read the instructions properly. Because I am dealing with a large number of players I have to use systems that are straightforward and easy to understand. There clearly is quite a bit of support for larger 1600pt armies to be used more widely (the voting was 34-27) and there also seems to be a strong sentiment that, for historical reasons, Classical Antiquity battles should have access to the larger format.

So what I am going to do next season is trial pantherboy's idea in Classical Antiquity rather than Biblical (my original idea). At the recruitment stage players will be required to state their preference for either 1200pt or 1600pt armies and where both players indicate 1600pt armies then they will be able to play a larger battle.*** The default size of the battles will be 1200pts so players wishing to stay at medium will do so. I do not feel the poll result was quite strong enough to make 1600pts the default size of battles, although I will listen to arguments that suggest that it should be during the course of next season. If the trial goes successfully next season then the idea will be introduced right across the FOG2DL in Season 10 giving players the opportunity to play at least some larger battles in all sections of the tournament.

So for next season we will have . . .
Classical Antiquity - 1200/1600pt trial
Late Antiquity - 1200pt
Early Middle Ages - 1600pt
Biblical - 1600pt
Themed Event - 1200pt

*** Of course, I know that a number of players, when offered this choice, will put something like "I don't mind" rather than clearly choosing one option or the other. These players will be put in the 1600pt category in order to increase the proportion of larger battles available to players. Larger battles did win the poll 34-27.

Great plan. Sound basis. I think I will like the variety and the flexibility. It adds another layer of depth as well. I'm in.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:28 pm**

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:14 am Sounds great. Two questions:

1. When is next DL season scheduled to start?
2. Has anyone observed any noticeable tendency for different results in Large vs Medium, such as more/fewer 4p, 3p, ties, draws, etc.? (No, it will not affect my preferences and choices... It's just out of curiosity.)

There is bit of a history here. Lots of community debate. Plenty to find. I'll add what I have taken from the debate, maybe others want to add their voices...maybe not...

More list points mitigates the medium infantry swarm risk faced by high quality (heavy) lists due to inferior unit numbers
More list points mitigates the impact of adverse battle results, whether due to luck or incompetence

Those are the two that are meaningful to me....I am sure there are others but I cant recall them as others might.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:43 pm**

More list points mitigates the likelihood of enjoyment.

I just want to say that people enjoy the Digital League but the slight majority who want all games to be 1600 points are likely to get their wish in the end. But, they are going to have less players to play. There is nothing wrong I think with the current set-up. Two whole sections are already at 1600 points.

To move towards all sections at 1600 points which I can see happening is a big shift.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:52 pm**

Division C

Garokan - Polish 966-1057 AD with Rus 860-959 AD allies defeatss MikeMarchant - Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD with Turkish 600-1036 AD allies 45 - 18

Thanks for the game, Mike!

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:58 pm**

I'm fine with allowing 1600 pt battles between consenting adults. I, for one, will be sticking to 1200 pt games.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:59 pm**

SLancaster wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:43 pm More list points mitigates the likelihood of enjoyment.

I just want to say that people enjoy the Digital League but the slight majority who want all games to be 1600 points are likely to get their wish in the end. But, they are going to have less players to play. There is nothing wrong I think with the current set-up. Two whole sections are already at 1600 points.

To move towards all sections at 1600 points which I can see happening is a big shift.

As I understand it, if you want a 1200 point battle, you will 100% get one. Your enjoyment is the same.

Slitherine

The Dustbin

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?

Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?