Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
That's it, Tom and raizer. Please go ahead with Caledonians and Tencteri. If either of you cannot start this promptly then please let me know. Cheers.raizer wrote:yes we are noobs
btw Tom we are looking at cales vs tencts...I can do this any time and russ and I are in progress but as you said, he is out of pocket to 10-8
OK Bob, that's fine. Make sure it is a paired game you play though - Tom has put two challenges on the system for the Tencteri but none for the Caledonians (it should be one of each unless one of these Tencteri games is for somebody else).raizer wrote:tom and I will have this wrapped up by tues/wed at the latest
bob
I'm not sure why most of the Khwarazmian armies have been much smaller (30ish) than the opposing Cuman ones (40ish). From the results for all the games so far, my first guess is that is the overwhelming key for why the Khwarazmians have lost. (The Fedem/Stockwell results in BGs don't seem to be posted but I suspect the Khwarazmian armies were substantially smaller there as well.) My feeling so far is that it is the Khwarazmian lists chosen were more naff than the Cumans rather than the basic list being worse. (Given my choice I would take the Khwarazmians over the Cumans in a game.)stockwellpete wrote:Latest scores: final of Swords and Scimitars
Khwarazmian versus Cumans 1-4
Match 1 RussProv v raizer COMPLETED
Match 2 TGM v batesmotel IN PROGRESS
Match 3 Fedem v stockwellpete COMPLETED
So the Cumans have won this tie with just one match to be completed and the Khwarazmians will represent LT in the finals of NAFF 2011.
Yes, I can see what you mean by looking at the lists. The Khwarazmians can choose many more "superior" cavalry than the Cumans as well as an elephant - but perhaps players have overdone it a bit and then got enveloped by larger Cuman armies. My games with Fedem have dropped off the system now and I can't remember if the Cuman armies were larger or not. Perhaps Fedem can remember?batesmotel wrote: I'm not sure why most of the Khwarazmian armies have been much smaller (30ish) than the opposing Cuman ones (40ish). From the results for all the games so far, my first guess is that is the overwhelming key for why the Khwarazmians have lost. (The Fedem/Stockwell results in BGs don't seem to be posted but I suspect the Khwarazmian armies were substantially smaller there as well.) My feeling so far is that it is the Khwarazmian lists chosen were more naff than the Cumans rather than the basic list being worse. (Given my choice I would take the Khwarazmians over the Cumans in a game.)
Chris
And it's that knock-out element that makes it even more fun.Unfortunately I dont remember...stockwellpete wrote:Yes, I can see what you mean by looking at the lists. The Khwarazmians can choose many more "superior" cavalry than the Cumans as well as an elephant - but perhaps players have overdone it a bit and then got enveloped by larger Cuman armies. My games with Fedem have dropped off the system now and I can't remember if the Cuman armies were larger or not. Perhaps Fedem can remember?batesmotel wrote: I'm not sure why most of the Khwarazmian armies have been much smaller (30ish) than the opposing Cuman ones (40ish). From the results for all the games so far, my first guess is that is the overwhelming key for why the Khwarazmians have lost. (The Fedem/Stockwell results in BGs don't seem to be posted but I suspect the Khwarazmian armies were substantially smaller there as well.) My feeling so far is that it is the Khwarazmian lists chosen were more naff than the Cumans rather than the basic list being worse. (Given my choice I would take the Khwarazmians over the Cumans in a game.)
Chris
Anyway, it is not against the rules for the players to be naff as well!
.) The poor Khwarazmian elephant spent most of the game disrupted and frefusing to charge, and finally helped gang up with two other units to break a LF in multiple rounds of combat. Definitely one of those days!
