Dead games removed

[CheerfullyInsane]

The issue is people prefer to accept than issue challenges. Who knows why - something to do with being in control and we're having trouble working out a way to deal with it.

I'm new - but already I prefer to accept rather than issue challenges. This is because I am only interested in playing genuine "historical match-ups". I read a lot of history so for me the fascination is to recreate fairly realistic armies and scenarios. So I am not at all interested in fighting against, "killer armies" full of 15th C Swiss pikes or classical Roman legionaries when I have created, say, an early medieval Anglo-Irish army (a bit of a military backwater at that time, but very interesting nonetheless). There is no historical value in it - plus the Anglo-Irish are completely outclassed from the start.

If there was a way that I could issue open challenges for "historical match-ups" then I would be more inclined to initiate games.

Well, you can mitigate that by by ticking the box stating that opponents can only use armies from the same army book.
It won't eliminate the odd occurrence like e.g. Irish vs. Persians, nor will it completely avoid the issue that some armies are basically just poorly matched, but it will keep the weirdness to a minimum.
Or you can do what you're already doing, using the PMs to set up games

Lars

[Xiggy]

As far as outclassed. You might be suprised what armies do well against others. Most of the top generals are using armies that look weak on paper, but actually do well. The Anglo-Irish are suprisingly tough when played by some of the top FOG players.

[stockwellpete]

Well, you can mitigate that by by ticking the box stating that opponents can only use armies from the same army book.
It won't eliminate the odd occurrence like e.g. Irish vs. Persians, nor will it completely avoid the issue that some armies are basically just poorly matched, but it will keep the weirdness to a minimum.
Or you can do what you're already doing, using the PMs to set up games

Lars

Yes, that's right. I suppose that I am a bit of a stickler for historical detail and I just prefer to get things as accurate as possible. Not everybody is the same and there is no reason why they should be.

[stockwellpete]

As far as outclassed. You might be suprised what armies do well against others. Most of the top generals are using armies that look weak on paper, but actually do well. The Anglo-Irish are suprisingly tough when played by some of the top FOG players.

Erm, yes. I actually won the battle that I was referring to. I did feel that my Anglo-Irish were largely outclassed so I forlornly charged everything headlong at the centre of my opponent's line - and I managed to kill the C-in-C!! So after that, I found things a bit easier and won narrowly despite having one of my flanks completely destroyed. Sheer luck though, I feel.

The Anglo-Irish are an interesting army - their cavalry is very strong, if a bit imptuous, and their match up with the Medieval Irish makes for some fascinating encounters. The Medieval Welsh army is also similar in its behaviours to the Anglo-Irish.

I take your point entirely about the top players - the key thing, it seems to me, is how the various components of your army work together in relation to the terrain - if you can get that right then you can make up for weaker units in your army to a certain extent.