Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:37 pm
by timmy1
Dave

Sorry, I was having a bit of fun. Agree about Urartian. Never knew that there were 6 LM armies out there (I know who has the other one).

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:11 am
by BillMc
timmy1 wrote:I am glad to see that FoG has solved one of the percieved problems with DBM 3.n (too few varieties of armies are seen at competitions...)

'
Neo-Assyrian
Neo-Assyrian
Later Mycenaean
Later Mycenaean
Later Mycenaean
Neo-Assyrian
Later Mycenaean
Kimmerians
Later Mycaenean
'

Also keep in mind this is one of the four books/themes in the overall event. So while having only 4 different armies (you left out the NKE army) in this book - it is with just 10 participants. The entire event is hosting 10 teams of 4 players each. If you look at the entire field of playes vs army variety at the event the numbers look different. There are 23 different armies (not even considering the differences in the lists) represented out of 40 entries.

Bill

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:13 am
by IanB3406
army) in this book - it is with just 10 participants. The entire event is hosting 10 teams of 4 players each. If you look at the entire field of playes vs army variety at the event the numbers look different. There are 23 different armies (not even considering the differences in the lists) represented out of 40 entries.
------------------------------

Bill,

This is true, however I can imagine as each team got together and picked out periods they picked what was seen as the most competitive list in each period, and it seems like everybody picked on two lists (the only ones with substantial armoured infantry available)............I am suspicious of future Swifter than Beagles events because of this......

Ian

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:27 am
by dave_r
The Myceneaneans get a maximum of three BG's of Armoured Foot and Assyrians get two. Not a massive amount.

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:41 am
by nikgaukroger
dave_r wrote:The Myceneaneans get a maximum of three BG's of Armoured Foot and Assyrians get two. Not a massive amount.

Can't the Mykenaians get more by dismounting chariots?

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:31 am
by hammy
If everyone starts using armoured troops the 'solution' is to go unarmoured and swamp them.

I thought Early Libyan would be a really bad army. I picked it because I thought that lots of undrilled unprotedted foot would be rubbish and then I played three Santa Hermandad armies getting a losing draw and two winning draws (14-6 IIRC) plus a Samurai army (winning draw), a Tudor English army (win) and a Mongol army (win).

I think that for this year's team tournament it is just a case of all the Softer than Beagles players being on the same page.

There were 12 different armies in a field of 18 for the StB tournament at Warfare and only three of any one army. There was only one Later Myceneaen

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:56 pm
by petedalby
So who won then?

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:04 pm
by babyshark
The Beltway Bandits won. It was a victory for truth, justice, and the American Way. 8)

Marc

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:07 pm
by hammy
Beltway won the team comp.

Dan Hazlewood was top in Softer than Beagles
Marc Crotteau top in Legions
John Martin in the Early Hungarian period
Matt Iverson won the later period.

Full results are in the files section of the USA FoG list on Yahoo and will I suspect be on the new super ranking system before too long.

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:27 pm
by madcam2us
Beltway 1st 250.2
CoP 2nd 234
Payne 3rd 223.4

Hart's list did him in for games 3 & 4. I finished 0.6 out of top score to Matt (we didnt get matched).

Madcam

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:36 pm
by Scrumpy
hammy wrote:Beltway won the team comp.

Dan Hazlewood was top in Softer than Beagles
Marc Crotteau top in Legions
John Martin in the Early Hungarian period
Matt Iverson won the later period.

Full results are in the files section of the USA FoG list on Yahoo and will I suspect be on the new super ranking system before too long.
Senor Martin won for truth, justice & the Panamanian way !

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:26 pm
by petedalby
Well done to Dan & the Beltway guys!

And I knew CofP would do better than 9th!!

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:47 pm
by dave_r
So did I. But the lists weren't very good though ;)

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:19 pm
by madcam2us
outside of Mikes, I have to disagree.

I was pleased with my Catalan's. I figured I'd see more Turks, but the list was designed to take on the Heavy Armor of the period. What did (but probably shouldn't have) suprise me was the number of Catalans. Each were vastly different from the other and I fancied my chances vs each. It performed well vs the foot heavy list, especially since I won initiative. IMO, I would have matched up even better vs the other but I'll have to wait till next time for my rematch vs Matt.

Madcam.

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:41 pm
by ethan
madcam2us wrote:outside of Mikes, I have to disagree.

I was pleased with my Catalan's. I figured I'd see more Turks, but the list was designed to take on the Heavy Armor of the period. What did (but probably shouldn't have) suprise me was the number of Catalans. Each were vastly different from the other and I fancied my chances vs each. It performed well vs the foot heavy list, especially since I won initiative. IMO, I would have matched up even better vs the other but I'll have to wait till next time for my rematch vs Matt.

Madcam.
As the foot heavy list...I was equally happy with the match up there...Winning initiative was a big deal, but then that was 50-50 either way.

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:53 pm
by dave_r
Was the draw done by team or by individual period?

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:00 pm
by ethan
dave_r wrote:Was the draw done by team or by individual period?
by team

Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:05 pm
by madcam2us
ethan wrote:
madcam2us wrote:outside of Mikes, I have to disagree.

I was pleased with my Catalan's. I figured I'd see more Turks, but the list was designed to take on the Heavy Armor of the period. What did (but probably shouldn't have) suprise me was the number of Catalans. Each were vastly different from the other and I fancied my chances vs each. It performed well vs the foot heavy list, especially since I won initiative. IMO, I would have matched up even better vs the other but I'll have to wait till next time for my rematch vs Matt.

Madcam.
As the foot heavy list...I was equally happy with the match up there...Winning initiative was a big deal, but then that was 50-50 either way.
Agreed. IMO,deploying second was key. that and that open field in the middle we both thought could be crucial. I knew with your protected foot I would have to avoid it at all costs. At least till I was able to work the flanks, hoping for an advantage. Good game and my knight held out in style.

Madcam.

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:08 pm
by hazelbark
petedalby wrote:Well done to Dan & the Beltway guys!

And I knew CofP would do better than 9th!!
Thank you. I think the heavy chariots were important, the Trojans were more vulnerable to assyrians than people realized. My heavy chariots and the other assyrians took lots of mounted between that, the manuverablity of the assyrians seriously out classed the Trojans.