Slitherine

My favorite option is the four broad Periods that we use now, with the Period 1 dates adjusted (perhaps to 700BC, to pick a suggestion out of the air ). But I wouldn't fuss over the idea of four, more "themed" periods, nor even the idea of three themed and one open.

But. As you mention, one needs to be very careful in designing the themes to avoid having one or a few obvious army choices. At the same time, one needs to keep the theme from being too obscure in order to make sure that no players are excluded simply due to a lack of available figures. And, just as important, there is the need to make sure that the themes are not all the same in a meta-sense (all foot slogs, or all shooty cav, etc.) I know I am largely repeating what has already been posted; I do it by way of emphasis.

To take your "Dawn of Chivalry" proposal, I wonder whether the clever choice isn't to figure out which list give the most armored offensive spear, or better still, combination of foot and lancers dismounting as armored sp. Normans spring quickly to mind. In a regular Period 3 the armored spear guys might not be so obvious a choice.

Marc

Well I think an idea of broad time periods that do not overlap and do not have every army. My preference is to encourage variety. One option would be same date ranges as last year but prohibit any army that attended last years comp!

FoG has IMV more than four easy periods. And 3 of the current periods have "problems" from the POV of encouraging diversity.

Period 1. Ostensibly a biblical time frame, but letting in the hoplites eliminates the viablity of the early chariot-centric armies. We potentially (depending on year) have a why not take E Ach Pers or why not take the lsit with the most armoured hoplites.

Period 2. The classical age is not represented by classical armies. Now we have what appears to be i need to take army that will encournter Bosphorans and Dominates.

Period 3. Right now this has the most variety, although there may be a lancer army dominance at moment to counter the shooty cav moment. but both have lots of potential lists. We do have a seeming lack of northern europe dark ages, but that is partially list/rule driven but still this period has the most diversity.

Period 4. Not quite as rigid as 1 & 2, but not as open as 3. We have Ottomans, Longbows as curretn seeming default options. Maybe SHNC. But we absolutely miss the armoured Knigths period.

nikgaukroger wrote:
It has, for example, been suggested that FoG:R should be incorporated with teams being 3 FoG:AM players and 1 FoG:R player

I would resisit this unless we needed them for numbers. Also you have the theme or open debate in FoG:R. I would like to see some FoG:R event, but this feels at the expense of the current. So last resort to rpeserve the event.

French team will be here and this year sorry for you guys we will take the first place.

Please avoid to take many barbarian teams last year one of them was not at the level of the tournament and create some easy way for their opponent

dvorkin wrote:French team will be here and this year sorry for you guys we will take the first place.

Can you drop me an email confirmation please.

Please avoid to take many barbarian teams last year one of them was not at the level of the tournament and create some easy way for their opponent

The extra "barbarian" team was made up at very short notice last year to avoid having uneven numbers and, thus, a bye with a team each round not getting a game. We try to avoid this happening, however, we had to due to a team dropping out - I think we should be grateful for the players who stepped in rather than worrying about ability.

nikgaukroger wrote:The extra "barbarian" team was made up at very short notice last year to avoid having uneven numbers and, thus, a bye with a team each round not getting a game. We try to avoid this happening, however, we had to due to a team dropping out - I think we should be grateful for the players who stepped in rather than worrying about ability.

Hear, hear! A bye is far worse.

Marc

dvorkin wrote:French team will be here and this year sorry for you guys we will take the first place.

Please avoid to take many barbarian teams last year one of them was not at the level of the tournament and create some easy way for their opponent

This Gallic arrogance annoys me! With one or two exceptions, French players very seldom travel outside their sleepy corner of Europe to international wargames events. Yet many players from other countries reguarly travel, spending large sums of hard earned money so to do. You, sir, should consider it a privilege when the Expeditionary Forces of your (former) allies present themselves for your gaming pleasure!

Irk E.D., General (retired)

This Gallic arrogance annoys me! With one or two exceptions, French players very seldom travel outside their sleepy corner of Europe to international wargames events. Yet many players from other countries reguarly travel, spending large sums of hard earned money so to do. You, sir, should consider it a privilege when the Expeditionary Forces of your (former) allies present themselves for your gaming pleasure!

Your comment is as stupid than the initial comment !
First We're not Gallic since two millenia...
Second Our corner aren't sleepy, the last persn who say some desultory comment was W Bush, and it's not a gage of quality
Third Not so many players goes outside europe, specially if you they aren't native english speaker
Fourth If I had some money to spend I'd would love to travel to the IWC and play with undersider, but I haven't it. Even go to Britcon is a challenge for many players. thy don't even dream about NZ
Five: God preserve me of my allies, I'll take my enemies!

Olivier, an other one

Having run a non-european IWF, the weeks before are frustrating so put part of Zoltan's comment down to that stress. It is also always going to be a tension between those that are able to travel versus those that do not. I suspect even within our respective countries we have the same tension. I know the traveller vs non-traveller argument occurs here in the US events as well.

What we all should strive to to do is be supportive of these events even when we cannot attend. There is in the US one individual who attacks events and rarely goes to any. That is not happening here, but we all can endeavor to be more supportive of the international events.

olivier wrote:Five: God preserve me of my allies, I'll take my enemies!

Unfortunately when wargming your friends are your enemies.

Is there a decision on this year's competition format? Wether will include FOG R or not? Pools by periods or books, etc?

Nik can you share the current state of the evolution of your thinking on all things ITC?

OK, current thoughts are the following 4 pools. Note that they are not meant to be historically exhaustive, just a pool of armies based around a broad theme - thus some of the inclusions and exclusions may be rather arbitrary. Comments and suggestions welcome.



Dawn of History – 3000BC to 701BC


Any army dated before 700BC.


Greece & Rome at War – 500BC to 500AD


Immortal Fire

Classical Greek
Early Achaemenid Persian
Kyrenean Greek
Late Dynastic Egyptian
Early Carthaginian
Syracusan
Alexandrian Macedonian
Early Successor (not Seleucids)
Galatian
Hellenistic Greek

Rise of Rome

Mid Republican Roman
Late Republican Roman
Gallic
Pyrrhic
Later Carthaginian
Illyrian
Ancient Spanish
Later Macedonian
Numidian or Early Moorish
Later Ptolemaic
Spartacus Slave Revolt

Legions Triumphant

Principate Roman
Dominate Roman
Foederate Roman
Early German
Ancient British
Early Scots-Irish
Dacian or Carpi
Caledonian
Early Pictish
Early Frankish, etc.
Early Anglo-Saxon, etc.
Early Ostrogothic, etc.
Gepid or Early Lombard
Western Hunnic (must be Attila from 433 to 453 using * options)

Wolves from the Sea

Post Roman British
Early Welsh
Later Scots-Irish
Merovingian Frankish

Lost Scrolls

Early Republican Roman
Etruscan League
Italian Hill Tribes
Latin
Samnite
Campanian
Apulian, Lucanian or Bruttian


Dawn of Chivalry – 1050AD to 1149AD


Special Rule

Armoured Knights have the same movement rates as Cavalry.


Wolves from the Sea

Viking
Norse-Irish
Norman
Anglo-Danish

Oath of Fealty

Feudal Catalan, etc.
Early Hungarian
Taifa Andalusian
Feudal Navarrese
Feudal Castillian
Fanatic Berber
Italo-Norman
Feudal French
Imperial German
Feudal German
Communal Italian
Papal Italian
Early Scots Isles & Highlands
Feudal Scots
Anglo-Norman
Later Welsh

Decline and Fall

Nikephorian Byzantine
Bedouin Dynasties

Swords and Scimitars

Early Crusader
Later Crusader
Fatimid Egyptian
Georgian
Seljuk Turk
Cuman
Komnenan Byzantine
Cilician Armenian
Syrian States


Temujin, Osman, Timur and the East – 1200AD to 1500AD


Oath of Fealty

Early Hungarian
Early Russian
Mongol Invasion

Swords and Scimitars

Later Crusader
Georgian
Seljuk Turk (Rum)
Cuman
Cilician Armenian
Khwarazmian
Medieval Cypriot
Ilkhanid Mongol
Mamluk Egyptian

Eternal Empire

Early Ottoman Turkish
Later Ottoman Turkish
Tatar
Later Byzantine (Trebizond)
Later Russian
Catalan Company
Middle Hungarian
Timurid, Black Sheep Turcoman or White Sheep Turcoman
Later Hungarian

Empires of the Dragon

Later Hindu North Indian
Later Hindu South Indian
Later Horse Nomad
Khmer or Champa
Koryo Korean
Pagan Burmese
Liao
Song (Southern)
Xi Xia
Ghurid Afghan
Jin
Later Heian to Muromachi Japanese
Mongol Conquest
Moslem Indian Sultanates
Medieval Indonesian or Malay
Yuan Chinese
Medieval Burmese
Ming Chinese
Yi Korean

Why no Seleucids? They represent "Greece and Rome at War" better than Merovingian Franks. And while I am asking questions, why Merovingian Franks in a Greece and Rome Theme?

Other than that, I have no substantial objections based on my quick first look. I simply prefer the old school date range periods.
Marc

Because:

they are not meant to be historically exhaustive, just a pool of armies based around a broad theme - thus some of the inclusions and exclusions may be rather arbitrary.

nikgaukroger wrote:Because:

they are not meant to be historically exhaustive, just a pool of armies based around a broad theme - thus some of the inclusions and exclusions may be rather arbitrary.

What my question was meant to discover was whether there was any reasoning behind the arbitrary exclusion of the Seleucids, or whether it was simply capricious.

Marc

If you look at the list you will see that for that suggested pool the armies are more western oriented, so no Parthians or Sasanids either - a bit more emphasis on pedestrians than girly horse boy types.

Looking at the selections for the 500BC to 500AD period, the 'wrong un' appears to be the Huns? You've taken away all of the other usual mounted suspects - Parthians, Bosporans, Sassanids etc - why leave the Huns?

Even with the date restriction they only have to have 1 BG of foot? Given the other lists that are in my preference would be to drop the Huns please.

Other than that, at first glance it seems fine to me.

petedalby wrote:Looking at the selections for the 500BC to 500AD period, the 'wrong un' appears to be the Huns? You've taken away all of the other usual mounted suspects - Parthians, Bosporans, Sassanids etc - why leave the Huns?

Even with the date restriction they only have to have 1 BG of foot? Given the other lists that are in my preference would be to drop the Huns please.

Other than that, at first glance it seems fine to me.

It also has 2 compulsory allied contingents - and it would be possible to enforce the * minima in the Gepid one as well.

However, it could easily be taken out.

The Uldin version with Sciri ally is not too bad. The Attilla version with the compulsory allies is a dog.

Why not just hand the period to Mr Evans?