Slitherine

deetmotel huh? I've stayed in a few places that could be described thusly.

Deeter

DIV B

W.HUNNIC(cavehobbit)(41/36) vs E.OSTROGOTHIC(epos)(20/41)

epos !

DIVISION B

2 CHALLANGES UP vs My Carthaginians password=Carthage

First in will face the might of Carthage Cheers Turk

As Ian mentioned and hidde agreed my tactics for taking out a horde army are identical. Biggest mistakes of players is to spread across the map, one side will not have time to support the other. Keep it tight! The Nubians are a very tough army in the pc game. In the TT game, you will only be able to take 50% superiors but a number of the warband armies, Spanish, Illyrians etc. I think they will be able to have more superiors. Not sure if the new PC version will include these adjustments but it will (I think) reduce the number of battle groups. Not the bp size though.

Fogman - Winning any game means you have done something "clever" with that army. The creativity issue also, would be included in winning games. Creativity also comes into the fact of choice and build of armies.

It is a good point though. We shall see how other players feel and if there are enough who are against the horde army (I have been there when I used a Med Irish army), I may well include max size armies to be 50. However it will then reduce the number of armies being used. You could also start questioning the maps (I really do believe this is THE biggest factor in winning games), I hope that SLitherine may do some mpa adjustments. Possibly reducing the number of terrain hexes on a map. I am not knowledgeable enough of every historically recorded battle but I would think the majority would have been fought on wide open battlefields. If this was included again it would reduce the number of armies used. MF armies would really struggle on wide open maps, they need difficult rough terrain.

Botomline is finding the right balance and for the majority of players to accept this?

Division A

eric (CatAlans later) 44/48 vs miverson (Moldavians) 45/45

Very very close, as is most of our games. But finally a win vs Matt after losing 4 games in a row

challenge vs the mighty turks and Tiavals

pw = tiavals

I have issued 8 challenges:

ericdoman1 wrote: It is a good point though. We shall see how other players feel and if there are enough who are against the horde army (I have been there when I used a Med Irish army), I may well include max size armies to be 50. However it will then reduce the number of armies being used.

One of the ideas that players have flagged up repeatedly is the "command and control" issue and quite often this is mentioned in the context of "horde armies". At the moment some players feel these large armies are too easy to control. but maybe, when cothyso and the team get round to reviewing/upgrading the actual gameplay, then "command and control" may be one of the subjects that they look at. If there were certain penalties for large number of units that were, say, out of command radius for example, then that would regulate the size of armies without any restriction from tournament organisers. The skill the would be to judge how many units you could effectively control with the new "command and control" criteria.

You could also start questioning the maps (I really do believe this is THE biggest factor in winning games), I hope that SLitherine may do some mpa adjustments. Possibly reducing the number of terrain hexes on a map. I am not knowledgeable enough of every historically recorded battle but I would think the majority would have been fought on wide open battlefields. If this was included again it would reduce the number of armies used. MF armies would really struggle on wide open maps, they need difficult rough terrain.

I am not sure about this. I tend to feel that the most interesting battles are "terrain heavy" really. Given that we do not have weather rules (and are unlikely to have for the forseeable future) then maybe the number of open hexes per battlefield should actually reduce slightly (as a way of compensating for the lack of weather rules, I mean). Also, what would make battles more interesting in some cases would be to have more impassable terrain (e.g. really dense forests or really treacherous marshes) but with the condition that the status of various terrain hexes at the start of the battle were to be unknown - so you would have to "scout out" various areas on the map to see if they were usable by your army. It would certainly make LH units more important too.

challenge vs Sharkall

pw = sharkall

div C,

philoi (ghaznavids) 11/37 vs tarantiko (nikephorian) 35/34

thank you !

Div C,

3 challenges posted, pw : philoi

Div B,

3 challenges posted, pw : philoi

Division B

ScipioAsinus Medieval French 28/43 vs Macsen Scots in Britain 48/46

B division

fogman dominate romans 12/38 vs cavehobbit western hunnic 42/36

the huns got too close and never recovered.

the maps are very problematic. they're not random since i see the same maps recurring. but whoever did them didn't put any thought into their job since some maps are ludicrous and some others are ridiculously one sided to the point where battle will be refused.

I really think army break points ought to be revised to deal with mass armies. what applies to individual units should apply to armies (by averaging troops quality) in terms of resiliency.

I think a max size of 50 will be acceptable to most since only fringe armies will be affected.

Division C

Ironclad (Seleucid Successor) 38/39 vs Solly (Galatian Macedonian Invasion) 48/48

Exciting, incredibly close game with the Seleucids having a really lucky last turn to gain victory. Thanks Solly.

2 challenges posted

Triarius, pw = triarius

Fedem, pw = fedem

Div C challenge for: Supervark, Ancient British.

Password: Indian

Result Ironclad (Seleecuid Successor) 43/39 Supervark (Ancient British )49/53

Challenge up for Greetings44 (Dracian 100BC -106BC) PW war3