Slitherine

Ok, a little hoepfully constructive rant as my games are done and the tourney winds down.
And thank you very much to Pete for the excellent tourney, as well as to my opponents.

Now…….
I'm sure this has been discussed before, as it is the elephant in the room of the High Medieval tournament, but I have not seen it, so…..

So I bring the early Swiss freedom fighters of Laupen, Sempach, and Morgarten - halberdiers, we can not bring Swiss pike because we haven't switched to that weapon yet.
But my first 3 opponents, the Italians, Low Countries, and French ordonnance, DO bring Swiss pike.
Now this is not a sour grapes whining session, I did just fine in those games thank you, but had I run into The Germans or Santa Hermanidad I could have run into Swiss pike supercharging non- Swiss armies 5 times.
This is absurd historically and very annoying game wise.

It is preposterous to suggest that, particularly in the pre-Burgundian War mid 15th century, all the armies of Continental Western Europe- Germans, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Italians - had at their disposal as needed a large body of Swiss pike to anchor their line.
And the whole point of Ancients gaming, the 'How would I as Caesar do against you as Alexander?' thing, is based on bringing a historically representative army and utilizing its strengths while dealing with its weaknesses.
For example, Condottiere armies had a nice smorgasbord of useful troops to select from, but when the French and Spanish with their Swiss, lansknechts, and colunellas showed up, the lack of any powerful shock infantry was a big problem. But hey, give em Swiss and problem solved.
Similarly the Low Countries yeoman style burghers were quite tenacious and capable of defending a position, but they had the problem that they could not project force offensively. Again, give em Swiss and they no longer have the problem they actually had.

I realize the Lists are not going to change, but would humbly suggest that in future competitions the restriction ' No Swiss allies allowed' should be the default option. -Tom

Yuknoom wrote: I realize the Lists are not going to change, but would humbly suggest that in future competitions the restriction ' No Swiss allies allowed' should be the default option. -Tom

I take your point entirely from a historical point of view, Yuknoom, but I think there are probably many other examples of such anomalies that could be raised throughout the various army lists. Therefore, I am loathe to interfere in the way that you suggest for the Swiss allies because other players may wish me to introduce similar restrictions elsewhere. It would all become a bit of a nightmare to organise, I'm afraid.

voskarp wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:...

ii) Theming the High Middle Ages section so that in alternate seasons divisions are specifically based on only one geographical region. So armies might only be western European (Storm of Arrows), eastern European/Central Asian (Eternal Empire), or Middle Eastern (Swords and Scimitars). The purpose of this would be to provide more historical match-ups. A variation of this idea would be to say that Division A would be, say, Storm of Arrows, Division B would be Swords and Scimitars and so on. It would also be possible to further restrict the choice of armies within the geographical regions to absolutely ensure there were many historical match-ups.

...

I find the first suggestion acceptable and the second terrible since it would force players in to books that they may not enjoy (or even have).

I find a split into High and Late Middle Ages better, or East and West as second choice.

If the number of sections will be too many, alternating each season would work, I think.

I have been thinking about this a bit more, Oskar. I don't think I can really do anything until the High Middle Ages section starts to attract 60 players regularly (like Classical Antiquity does) so that I can split it into two sections of three divisions (as will happen when Classical Antiquity is split). Once we get sixty players then the most likely split will be on an east/west geographical basis.

The idea would be to split Classical Antiquity into "Early Antiquity" (up to about 100BC) and "Later Antiquity" (to 500AD) to provide more historical match-ups. It is expected that there would be two sections with three divisions in each.

Early Antiquity

FoG DAG
Mid-Republican Roman (early) 280 – 203 BC
Later Carthaginian (in Italy) 216 – 203 BC

RoR DAG
Mid-Republican Roman (later) 202 – 106 BC
Gallic (early Lowland) 400 – 201 BC
Gallic (early Hill Tribes) 400 – 201 BC
Gallic (later Lowland) 200 – 50 BC
Gallic (later Hill Tribes) 200 – 50 BC
Pyrrhic 280 – 275 BC
Pyrrhic (in Italy) 280 – 275 BC
Pyrrhic (in Greece) 274 – 272 BC
Later Carthaginian (pre-235BC) 275 – 236 BC
Later Carthaginian (post-235BC) 235 – 201 BC
Later Carthaginian (in Africa) 202 BC
Later Carthaginian (3rd Punic) 200 – 146 BC
Illyrian 385 BC
Illyrian (common) 400 BC – 9 AD
Spanish (Iberian) 300 – 1 BC
Spanish (Celtiberian) 300 – 1 BC
Later Macedonian 208 – 148 BC
Attalid Pergamene 190 – 129 BC
Later Seleucid (pre-166BC) 205 – 167 BC
Later Seleucid (post-166BC) 166 – 63 BC
Later Ptolemaic (Greek) 166 – 56 BC
Pontic (early) 132 – 85 BC
Early Armenian 331 – 252 BC
Parthian 250 BC – 225 AD *****
Parthian (Saka Campaign) 129 BC
Hatran 126 BC – 225 AD *****
Bosporan (early) 348 – 300 BC
Illyrian (common) 400 BC – 9 AD
Spanish (Iberian) 300 – 1 BC
Spanish (Celtiberian) 300 – 1 BC
Parthian 250 BC – 225 AD *****
Early Armenian (Khosrov I) 228 – 226 AD *****
Suren Indo-Parthian 95 BC – 75 AD *****
Hatran 126 BC – 225 AD *****
Bosporan (later) 42 – 100 AD *****
Bosporan (218 – 284 AD) *****

IF DAG
Early Hoplite Greek 700 – 451 BC
Later Hoplite Greek 450 – 279 BC
Classical Spartan 700 – 451 BC
Later Spartan 369 – 368 BC
Early Colonial Greek 700 – 451 BC
Later Colonial Greek 450 – 279 BC
Thessalian 450 – 279 BC
Early Achaemenid Persian (Cyrus)
Early Achaemenid Persian (Darius)
Early Achaemenid Persian (Greek wars)
Early Achaemenid Persian (Plataea)
Early Achaemenid Persian (later)
Thracian 450 – 300 BC
Early Gatae 450 – 300 BC
Later Gatae 250 BC – 25 AD
Lydian 546 BC
26th Dynasty Egyptian 650 – 570 BC
28th-30th Dynasty Egyptian 405 – 343 BC
Kyrenean Greek (a) 550 – 480 BC
Kyrenean Greek (b) 313 – 308 BC
Kyrenean Greek (c) 279 – 276 BC
Early Carthaginian 550 – 275 BC
Skythian 313 BC
Saka 129 BC
Classical Indian 500 – 321 BC
Maurya Indian 320 – 180 BC
Late Achaemenid Persian 420 – 329 BC
Late Achaemenid Persian (Darius 331BC)
Late Achaemenid Persian (Bessos 329BC)
Early Syracusan 399 – 322 BC
Syracusan 310 – 308 BC
Late Syracusan 275 – 211 BC
Alexandrian Macedonian 355 – 329 BC
Later Alexandrian Macedonian 326 – 325 BC
Ipsos Alliance Successor 301 BC
Lysimachid Successor 323 – 281 BC
Macedonian Successor 279 – 261 BC
Ptolemaic Successor 217 – 167 BC
Seleucid Successor 279 – 206 BC
Early Sarmatian 350 – 100 BC
Rhoxolani Sarmatian 350 – 100 BC
Galatian (Macedonian Invasion) 280 – 279 BC
Galatian (Seleucid War) 273 BC
Galatian 189 BC
Provincial Galatian 62 – 25 BC
Hellenistic Achaian 146 BC
Hellenistic Eleian 207 BC
Hellenistic Spartan 279 – 228 BC
Later Hellenistic Spartan 227 – 221 BC
Hellenistic Athenian 279 – 146 BC
Graeco-Bactrian 189 BC
Graeco-Bactrian (Mounted) 189 BC
Indo-Greek 170 BC – 10 AD
Later Gatae 250 BC – 25 AD
Thracian Client 25 BC – 46 AD *****
Gupta Indian 320 – 450 AD *****
Indo-Greek 170 BC – 10 AD

Later Antiquity

ROR DAG
Late Republican Roman 105 – 25 BC
Late Republican Roman (Brutus & Cassius) 55 – 46 BC
Spanish (Lusitanian) 80 – 72 BC
Numidian (Juba I) 55 – 46 BC
Numidian (Bogus) 47 BC
Later Ptolemaic (Roman) 55 – 30 BC
Pontic (late) 84 – 63 BC
Spartacus Slave Revolt (HF) 73 – 71 BC
Spartacus Slave Revolt (MF) 73 – 71 BC
Early Armenian (Tigran the Great) 83 – 69 BC
Suren Indo-Parthian 95 BC – 75 AD
Later Jewish (Hycranus II) 66 – 64 BC
Later Jewish 48BC – 47BC
Later Jewish (Antigonus) 40 – 38 BC
Bosporan (mid) 84 BC – 10 AD
Numidian (Juba II) 3 – 6 AD

LT DAG
Indo-Skythian 130 – 1 BC
Ancient British 60 BC – 90 AD
Ancient British (Cassivellaunus) 60 BC – 90 AD
Early Scots-Irish 60 BC – 480 AD
Dacian 100 BC – 106 AD
Principate Roman (early) 25 BC – 99 AD
Principate Roman (100-196)
Principate Roman (197-217)
Principate Roman (228-259)
Principate Roman (260-284)
Dominate Roman (Western early) 284 – 379 AD
Dominate Roman (Western late) 389 – 425 AD
Dominate Roman (Eastern early) 284 – 379 AD
Dominate Roman (Eastern late) 389 – 425 AD
Foederate Roman (Western) 451 – 493 AD
Foederate Roman (Eastern) 467 – 493 AD
Indo-Skythian 130 – 1 BC
Kushan (early) 25 – 227 AD
Kushan (late) 300 – 490 AD
Early German 26 – 100AD
Tencteri 26 – 100AD
Batavian 26 – 100AD
Ancient British 60 BC – 90 AD
Ancient British (Cassivellaunus) 60 BC – 90 AD
Early Scots-Irish 60 BC – 480 AD
Dacian 100 BC – 106 AD
Later Sarmatian 50 – 350 AD
Early Alan 50 – 650 AD
Jewish Revolt 66 – 135 AD
Caledonian 25 – 230 AD
Early Pictish 250 – 490 AD
Sassanid Persian (early) 224 – 349 AD
Sassanid Persian (mid) 350 – 370 AD
Early Visigothic 380 – 425 AD
Early Vandal 378 – 425 AD
Palmyran 258 – 273 AD
Early Frankish 260 – 496 AD
Early Quadi 260 – 496 AD
Early Alamanni 260 – 496 AD
Early Limigantes 260 – 496 AD
Early Suebi 380 – 496 AD
Early Anglo-Saxon 260 – 525 AD
Early Ostrogothic 260 – 490 AD
Herul 260 – 490 AD
Sciri 260 – 490 AD
Gepid 260 – 567 AD
Early Lombard 260 – 567 AD
Western Hunnic (Uldin) 408 AD
Western Hunnic (Attila) 433 – 453 AD
Hephthalite Hunnic 360 – 550 AD
Early Alan 50 – 650 AD
Early Anglo-Saxon 260 – 525 AD
Gepid 260 – 567 AD
Early Lombard 260 – 567 AD

DAF DAG
Later Visigothic (early) 419-476AD

My vote is No and I will tell you why. In the old Imperial classification there are no decent spear/pike infantry armies so everyone chose Lancer armies who are able to easily ride over the legion/warband armies of the period. If Classical and Imperial are mixed, Lancer armies will not dominate everything because of the pike threat.

One big Classical Period = rock/paper/scissors
Separate Classical and Imperial = paper/scissors (no rock)

The idea would be to limit the number of armies available within each section so that historical match-ups occurred a bit more often than they do now. So for example, for High Middle Ages we could say one for one season that only 15th century armies (mainly Storm of Arrows and Eternal Empire) would be available for selection.

This season the themed event used a number of my 16thC early Renaissance scenarios. I have written well over 100 scenarios and could provide further themed selections in future e.g. Hundred Years War, War of the Roses, Ottoman expansion, and Great Medieval Battles.

I would particularly welcome comments from those players who entered the themed event this time.

ianiow wrote:My vote is No and I will tell you why. In the old Imperial classification there are no decent spear/pike infantry armies so everyone chose Lancer armies who are able to easily ride over the legion/warband armies of the period. If Classical and Imperial are mixed, Lancer armies will not dominate everything because of the pike threat.

One big Classical Period = rock/paper/scissors
Separate Classical and Imperial = paper/scissors (no rock)

I understand your point here, Ian. Would the split work better if restrictions were put on the number of lancers an army could have? I have just looked at the Sciri and if you were to say that they could only have (say) 12 armoured lancers then they are forced to pick allies with foot contingents. I would need to look at more armies first (which I will do later today) to see if such a restriction would be viable.

Ian, I have just looked at the lists in Legions Triumphant and if we were to set an upper limit of 12x "superior cavalry" in the proposed Late Antiquity section it would work out OK for all the armies, except the Herul. We would have to make them unavailable. Does this allay your concerns about uneven match-ups?

gents...another option would be to do an Early Classic, and a Broad Classic.
as i really like the spear era, and options for combined arms (pontic, macedon etc) vs. heavy spear or hvy impact. there's an aweful lot of classic interest, so i think you'd fill em both, and address both perspectives.
klay

klayeckles wrote:gents...another option would be to do an Early Classic, and a Broad Classic.
as i really like the spear era, and options for combined arms (pontic, macedon etc) vs. heavy spear or hvy impact. there's an aweful lot of classic interest, so i think you'd fill em both, and address both perspectives.
klay

I agree.

stockwellpete wrote:Ian, I have just looked at the lists in Legions Triumphant and if we were to set an upper limit of 12x "superior cavalry" in the proposed Late Antiquity section it would work out OK for all the armies, except the Herul. We would have to make them unavailable. Does this allay your concerns about uneven match-ups?

This might work but it sounds drastic (but then no more drastic than amending the 'super armies' I guess). If you go down this road I think everyone should get a vote on it. I will have a look at the lists and see what this ruling might mean for the lancer armies and their opponents. Cheers.

Just one example where the proposed new restriction on lancer armies is being used . . .

Early Ostrogoths from Legions Triumph

i) an unrestricted selection might be . . .

1x field commander, 1x troop commander
4x armoured cavalry
17x cavalry
6x LF archers
3x Huns (superior)

30 units

ii) a restricted selection might be . . .

1x field commander, 1x troop commander (Vandal ally)
4x armoured cavalry
7x cavalry
6x LF archers
3x Huns (superior)
1x Vandal Noble cavalry
12x Vandal warriors
1x Vandal LF archer
3x Vandal LF javelinmen

37 units

I think that would give a better-balanced contest against the legion and warband armies that are in Legions Triumphant. And it still would be possible to pick a completely Ostrogoth army, maybe something like this . . .

1x field commander, 1x troop commander
4x armoured cavalry
8x cavalry
18x MF archers
10x LF archers
2x LH Huns (superior)
1x fortified camp

42 units

If you read this account of Adrianople you can see that the Ostrogoths were quite capable of fighting as infantry so historically the representation of the Ostrogoths in FOG is somewhat debatable .

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/adrianople.html

I have also made a scenario (inspired by a novel!) of an encounter between migrating Ostrogoths and the Gepids at the Ulcea river crossing where both armies substantially fight on foot . . .

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... 20PWv1.rar

I am just starting to look through to see what might be offered for the themed event in Season 4. It looks like the poll is going to be in favour of using scenarios again. The themed event uses six scenarios each time and I will add more choices over the next few days.

i) Late Antiquity theme - Vienna 487AD, River Ulcea 488, Verona 489, Adda 490, Frigidus 394 and Chalons 451.

ii) War of the Roses theme - Northampton 1460, Mortimers Cross 1461, Towton 1461, Barnet 1471, Tewkesbury 1471 and Bosworth Field 1485.

iii) Ottoman theme - Bapheus 1302, Dimbos 1303, Pelekanon 1329, Varna 1444, Nicopolis 1396 and Ankara 1402. (Kosovo Field 1389 has already been used in a tournament)

iv) Anglo-French theme - Tinchebrai 1106, Bouvines 1214, Verneuil 1424, Poitiers 1356, Agincourt 1415 and Crecy 1346.

Although I don't play scenarios as a rule I genuinely enjoyed this seasons games. They were well thought out and surprisingly balanced (mostly). I would like to advise that you try to avoid maps where both sides start the game on hills. In fact I'd like to avoid maps with large defendable hills altogether. Also I prefer games where both sides have an equal chance of winning. When one side is doomed to lose and all you can do is make sure you don't lose as much as your opponent in the mirror game, it's still a LOSS and a blot on the old copybook

Definitely no.

Offer a Theme for those who want it.

The reason for not having Opens is to keep the knight armies and the older armies in separate competitions so timid armies are not afraid to come out and play. Quite enough. As said above, the classical armies intimidate lancer armies and lancer armies unnerve soft infantry armies if they catch them in the open, with enough mixes including allies to take various tacks on mixed arms.

MikeK wrote:Definitely no.

Offer a Theme for those who want it.

The reason for not having Opens is to keep the knight armies and the older armies in separate competitions so timid armies are not afraid to come out and play. Quite enough. As said above, the classical armies intimidate lancer armies and lancer armies unnerve soft infantry armies if they catch them in the open, with enough mixes including allies to take various tacks on mixed arms.

Hello Mike. I think it is quite clear from the voting in the polls that a majority of players would like to see more historical match-ups (including theming of sections) offered by the FOG Digital League. Competitions run by other players, such as Jonathan4290 and fogman, which provide a much narrower historical focus, are well-supported too. The splitting of Classical Antiquity into Early and Late periods is really just restoring the situation that prevailed in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (LOEG) which preceded the FOG Digital League. So this change is almost certain to happen now unless there is a drastic change in the polling. The polls will close on Sunday August 10th.

The discussion will then move onto whether restrictions need to be introduced on the lancer armies that are very powerful in the Late Antiquity period. I have been asked to run a separate poll about this specific question and I will do this.

You will be pleased to note that the knock-out tournament, The Slitherine Trophy, has absolutely no historical theming and can see ancient armies fighting it out against medieval opponents.

ianiow wrote:Although I don't play scenarios as a rule I genuinely enjoyed this seasons games. They were well thought out and surprisingly balanced (mostly). I would like to advise that you try to avoid maps where both sides start the game on hills. In fact I'd like to avoid maps with large defendable hills altogether. Also I prefer games where both sides have an equal chance of winning. When one side is doomed to lose and all you can do is make sure you don't lose as much as your opponent in the mirror game, it's still a LOSS and a blot on the old copybook

I think it is fair to say that some of my scenarios are best played as "paired games" (e.g. Bannockburn 1314) because they were very one-sided in real life and it is hard to portray them as equal contests. One option would be not to use a scenario like that at all, but sometimes that would be a bit odd, say, if the series was an Anglo-Scottish battles one. For many of the scenarios I have done there are optional historical rules written for them, but unfortunately Slitherine chose not to include them in the official versions. Maybe I could start providing them as an option for players to use, as I did in the Flodden semi-final matches this time?