Slitherine

Supervark wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:05 pm Hi this is not a question but a request. When the tables are posted would it be possible to see who you have played and not played displayed? I understand it might be a lot of work so no problem. It would just help to see who you still had to play as I lose track sometimes of who to challenge. and this would help.

Thanks

Supervark wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:05 pm Hi this is not a question but a request. When the tables are posted would it be possible to see who you have played and not played displayed? I understand it might be a lot of work so no problem. It would just help to see who you still had to play as I lose track sometimes of who to challenge. and this would help.

Thanks

CONSTANTINIX wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:11 pm Division A

ConstantinIX - Byzantine 551-578 AD beat klayeckles - Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD with Arab, Bedouin 300-636 AD allies 60%-40%

On the left, my byzantine army used his terrific counter to elephants, namely four superior lancers. Nevertheless, I had some cold sweat with a mad elephant who slipped between two lancers after trampling a cavalry unit and began roaming in the back of my battleline but the elephant was fortunately stuck during several turns by a heroic bowmen unit. On the reverse, the sassanid couldn't use numeric superiority as the ground on my side was mostly rough, so not helphing quick tactical mouvement to flank my right. At the end, I have to scratch the last percents by ganging up against the mad elephant as units were rallying on the field far from the last battle .

Good game

GDod wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:24 am nyczar » 10 Jul 2020 10:28

More list points mitigates the medium infantry swarm risk faced by high quality (heavy) lists due to inferior unit numbers

In all likelihood, the player using a "medium infantry swarm" will be very reluctant to agree to a large battle. Hence, the argument for larger battles seems redundant if it is to be by agreement.

I think one has to hark back to the reason for increasing army size. If it is to provide relief for armies who rely on expensive troop types or to reduce the effectiveness of swarm armies it may be desirable to drop the "agreement" condition. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to identify 'the problem army lists' and decree battles involving these lists should be 1600 points.

I only present this discussion as possible solutions to "tweeking" others concerns about an already perfectly good simple system. I personally love my 'expensive troop types' who regularly get swamped by cheaper troop types...hussar!

Moreover, there is definitely a point of difference between the Digi-league and the Slitherine tournaments. Attributes of the Slitherine tournament genre include historical opponents, going large and mirror games, which gives their competition a flavour all of it's own. In contrast, I think what attracts me more to the Digi-league is the handicap system and the variety (i.e. themed, defined periods, some 1200pts, some 1600pts) So, lets celebrate that enlightened choice of list and combination of troop types, or that stunning charge, or continue to be awed and stunned by that unexpected collapse, and continue to enjoy the game regardless of the points!