LORDS OF THE BALKANS circa 1305

[bloodphoenix]

Just a suggestion, but maybe to simplify things, we could all agree to use the same password for the games we post...say "balkans"?

[iandavidsmith]

challenges for.....

jocaramiro:
serbs vs bulgarians
pw: jocaramiro

bloodphoenix:
byzantines vs ottomans
pw: bloodphoenix

batesmotel:
Latins vs Catalans
pw: psycho

Good Luck , Ian

[fogman]

Just a suggestion, but maybe to simplify things, we could all agree to use the same password for the games we post...say "balkans"?

in the past it has led to people picking up the wrong game.

[bloodphoenix]

Hi,

I am confused. It seems I am to challenge blood phoenix as the serbians against the epirotes, and Fogman as the serbians against the cats (perhaps a lost cause).

Shall these be private games? Would you gentlemen like to choose your pass words?

J.Ramiro

you choose the password. see my challenges for example.

Taking an example from Fogman, I am posting two challenges:
My Latins vs Ulysisgrunt's Catalans, password Ulysisgrunt, and
My Byzantines vs Batesmotel's Bulgarians, password Batesmotel

[batesmotel]

Challenges issued for my first player games, passwords are your username:

Byzantines versus Ottomans : jocaramiro
Serbians versus Bulgars: ulysisgrunt
Serbians vs Epirotes: fogman

Chris

[ulysisgrunt]

iandavidsmit serbs vs. epirotes

pw: iandavidsmith

jocarimo Byz vs. Bulgars

pw: jocarimo

[batesmotel]

Round 1
batesmotel (Bulgarians) 20/34 beat bloodphoenix (Byzantines) 36/34

The Bulgar noble lancers were too much for the Byzantines. Thanks for the game.

Chris

[batesmotel]

Round 1

batesmotel (Serbs) 15/35 beat ulysisgrunt (Bulgarians) 43/34

Thanks for the game.

Chris

[iandavidsmith]

Round 1 result

iandavidsmith (Byzantines) 16/34 win
vrs
bloodphoenix (Ottomans)35/34 loss

Thanks for the game,
cheers
Ian

[bloodphoenix]

"BALKANIZE"
verb (used with object), Balkanized, Balkanizing.
1. to divide (a country, territory, etc.) into small, quarrelsome, ineffectual states.
2. (often lowercase) to divide (groups, areas, etc.) into contending and usually ineffectual factions.
3. (submitted by BloodPhoenix) to have your FOG army in a "Lord of the Balkans" game broken into small, ineffectual groups.

I've been enjoying the Tournament, but I suspect I'm out of my depth! The games so far have left me feeling "Balkan-ized!"

[ulysisgrunt]

Ulysisgrunt (Catalans) 29/40 victory
vs. bloodphoenix Latins 34/34

A well fought game.

[fogman]

fogman (byzantines) 10/34 vs ulysisgrunt (ottomans) 35/34.

[fogman]

"BALKANIZE"
verb (used with object), Balkanized, Balkanizing.
1. to divide (a country, territory, etc.) into small, quarrelsome, ineffectual states.
2. (often lowercase) to divide (groups, areas, etc.) into contending and usually ineffectual factions.
3. (submitted by BloodPhoenix) to have your FOG army in a "Lord of the Balkans" game broken into small, ineffectual groups.

I've been enjoying the Tournament, but I suspect I'm out of my depth! The games so far have left me feeling "Balkan-ized!"

the first tournament is always a bit painful.
I suspect you will enjoy lords of history more because the scenario design there doesn't allow players to do whatever they want. In a dag setup where players do whatever they want like here, knowing the little gamey tricks is paramount to winning. I've already removed light troops (used in all sorts of devastating but totally unrealistic ways by experienced players) but it's not enough to give it some semblance of realism.

[JocaRamiro]

It would be interesting to know the design principles used to set up the battles and define the forces. Personally, I prefer staged scenarios to DAG battles, so I must not be one of those experienced ahistorical players.

After the fact, we might want to dissect the strengths of the different armies.

[JocaRamiro]

And JocaRamiro's Bulgarians defeated - in the end narrowly - UlysisGrunt's (sp) Byzantines.

Our goal was to spread the field, with the main push on the left, and to get the nobles into the action, with the heavy infantry hanging back, and the archers trying to figure out how to make themselves useful. the battle descended into a melee distressingly quickly. Some how the savage Bulgarians emerged on top.

[JocaRamiro]

And JocaRamiro's Bulgarians defeated - in the end narrowly - UlysisGrunt's (sp) Byzantines.

Our goal was to spread the field, with the main push on the left, and to get the nobles into the action, with the heavy infantry hanging back, and the archers trying to figure out how to make themselves useful. the battle descended into a melee distressingly quickly. Some how the savage Bulgarians emerged on top.

[fogman]

It would be interesting to know the design principles used to set up the battles and define the forces. Personally, I prefer staged scenarios to DAG battles, so I must not be one of those experienced ahistorical players.

Initially because the armies were given constraints (for example, among other things, upper limits for total bgs and lights: lords of italy introduced a 45/10 limit for 500 pts) and as those constraints got more and more elaborate to achieve better historicity and less mismatches, it came to a point where test armies were created to make sure they could actually be built. But I found that players still maximize or minimize certain units in unrealistic proportions which led me to the present format where armies are pre-set according to:

size: 500 pts, no more than 50 bgs.
spread: no more than 5-6 Bgs difference between two armies that fight each other.
lights: no light troops.
more realistic proportions between different types of troops: subjective but grounded in research.

also in the present format, i don't need to use DAG as the scenario editor allows more flexibility. but more importantly, I can create more realistic maps than the random ones in DAG games which are mostly implausible. As a corollary, there is no longer the initiative die that has a huge influence in DAG games if armies are dissimilar.

originally the series features paired (mirror) games but the problem is that with 6 players, each player will play 10 games that all involve one same army (5 with, 5 against). the current format does away with being stuck with one army since each player will play exactly the same armies the same number of times as everybody else. Last but not least, only armies that historically fought each other are set to fight each other.

a word on balance: each scenario is tested (me playing against myself obsessively!) until each side is able to inflict at least 85% casualties on the other. little tweaks in army composition and the map are usually needed to get to that point. But because of the more open nature of the fighting in these DAG scenarios, as opposed to the events-based design of the historical scenarios, perfect balance is more difficult. As a result, games are usually much tighter in Lords of History than here.

[fogman]

epirots (fogman) 26/40 vs serbs (batesmotel) 35/35
serbs (fogman) 15/35 vs bulgarians (bloodphoenix) 39/34

I made good use of the "let-their-expensive-troops-kill-cheap-decoy-troops-then-hit-them-in-the-rear-when-they-pursue" trick. Needless to say, this is more in keeping with german defense in depth doctrine on the eastern front circa 1943 than medieval warfare.

[batesmotel]

epirots (fogman) 26/40 vs serbs (batesmotel) 35/35
serbs (fogman) 15/35 vs bulgarians (bloodphoenix) 39/34

I made good use of the "let-their-expensive-troops-kill-cheap-decoy-troops-then-hit-them-in-the-rear-when-they-pursue" trick. Needless to say, this is more in keeping with german defense in depth doctrine on the eastern front circa 1943 than medieval warfare.

Steppe armies certainly made use of the concept of letting their opponents rout or feigned rout troops in order to force themselves to over extend and expose them selves to being flanked and defeated in detail, so defense in depth is certainly not something only appropriate to 1943. Historically armies from the Romans on frequently fought in multiple lines for similar reasons so again this isn't inappropriate or anachronistic as a tactic for an ancient/medieval battle.

And I definitely walked into the trap with the Serbs .

Chris

[batesmotel]

batesmotel(Catalans) 31/40 beat iandavidsmith (Latin Greek) 34/34

A tough match for the Catalans with little terrain on the map but in the end they were able to catch enough of the Latin foot to pull out the win. Thanks for a tense and interesting game.

Chris