Slitherine

timmy1 wrote:Phil, these results seem to suggest that the really unlikely choice is any list with only undrilled non-shooting HF/MF. If you can with with one of those it would be doubly impressive.

You mean like John Munro's Norse-Irish that came 2nd in the later period at Britcon last year?

Yep. :)

Thanks to all our opponants for 4 super games. Congtatulations to :Ian Stewart & Richard Collins
Especially to Richard who put his unprotected cavalry in two ranks took 3 hits, dropped a level and a base and the look he got from Ian

nikgaukroger wrote:

timmy1 wrote:Phil, these results seem to suggest that the really unlikely choice is any list with only undrilled non-shooting HF/MF. If you can with with one of those it would be doubly impressive.

You mean like John Munro's Norse-Irish that came 2nd in the later period at Britcon last year?

One from dozens doesn' t really prove much, especially when you consider, that even in this example (of your choice):

- The winning army was Ottoman Turk
- the top 10 included 2 more ottomans, 2 serbians and a Timurid
- the norse-irish played 2 ottomans and managed to score 9-36: they did beat a Timurid but also beat three foot armies

the only other army in the same competition of a similiar nature(scots isles & highlands) finished mid table.

nikgaukroger wrote:THE RESULTS
Richard & Thoman Bodley Scott, Sasanid Persian 550AD - 20
Mike Blake & John Soper, Later Seleukid 165BC - 26
Paul Burton & John Dennis, Dacian 85AD - 21

Good to see Nik's job with the Zimbabwean electoral commission has influenced the positions

azrael86 wrote:One from dozens doesn' t really prove much, especially when you consider, that even in this example (of your choice):

- The winning army was Ottoman Turk
- the top 10 included 2 more ottomans, 2 serbians and a Timurid
- the norse-irish played 2 ottomans and managed to score 9-36: they did beat a Timurid but also beat three foot armies

the only other army in the same competition of a similiar nature(scots isles & highlands) finished mid table.

What is the point you are trying to make here. You seem bitter about something????????

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:One from dozens doesn' t really prove much, especially when you consider, that even in this example (of your choice):

- The winning army was Ottoman Turk
- the top 10 included 2 more ottomans, 2 serbians and a Timurid
- the norse-irish played 2 ottomans and managed to score 9-36: they did beat a Timurid but also beat three foot armies

the only other army in the same competition of a similiar nature(scots isles & highlands) finished mid table.

What is the point you are trying to make here. You seem bitter about something????????

Maybe I mistook this for another "ah but X happened once so that proves it" responses. Not to denigrate an excellent placing (and cahones, I considered norse irish last year and decided it would to be too vulnerable) but the fact remains that we are playing rock/paper/scissors but certain armies get to use a red-hot rock, whilst others can only have blunt scissors(most of these armies have been given their own section at Britcon to be fair).

Ah, got it. But I do think some armies will always remain pooh, and not in the Winnie way. I think Ottoman suffers from not having to take the huge amounts of crap that used to stand at the back, from the list people take all the good stuff. But that's human nature. But conversly people take all the crap with the Irish. As you said, rock paper, chainsaws.

titanu wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:THE RESULTS
Richard & Thomas Bodley Scott, Sasanid Persian 550AD - 20
Mike Blake & John Soper, Later Seleukid 165BC - 26
Paul Burton & John Dennis, Dacian 85AD - 21

Good to see Nik's job with the Zimbabwean electoral commission has influenced the positions

'Tis the score that is wrong, not the positions. In fact we scored a magnificent 29 points. I am just debating whether to fall on my sword.

philqw78 wrote:Ah, got it. But I do think some armies will always remain pooh, and not in the Winnie way. I think Ottoman suffers from not having to take the huge amounts of crap that used to stand at the back, from the list people take all the good stuff. But that's human nature. But conversly people take all the crap with the Irish. As you said, rock paper, chainsaws.

I think you meant benefits?

I'm not suggesting Irish should be a super army, there are dozens of armies (largely in eotD) that have been treated far worse. But that the actually mediocre army of a superpower like the Ottomans is so much more successful than the more obvious candidates like Mongol, Carolingian and arab conquest.

rbodleyscott wrote: I am just debating whether to fall on my sword.

Do us all a favour

rbodleyscott wrote:I am just debating whether to fall on my sword.

If you had done that on Sunday we could have all shouted: Physician, heal thyself - bom bom