Slitherine

Hey Anders

Yes he definitely has potential and is quite keen. Also competitive, he has been badly beaten quite a bit now but wants to learn. Another possibility for the European side in furture Comp Cups. Teach him well, Grandmaster Hidde

ericdoman1 wrote:What it bottles down to is if you do feel a bit down about the game because you are losing. Ask for help and then listen to whomever is helping you and do what they tell you. I have done this now with quite a few players.

It is not really so much being worried about losing, Eric - it is having to play a number of matches when you know you really don't stand a chance unless you get incredible dice. As you know, I have been using the Welsh army a lot recently at various sizes as I am going to try and make a second campaign game around Glyndwr's Revolt (1400-15) - I have lost quite a few of these games but they have all been enjoyable. Similarly, I think Chris (Batesmotel) will beat me 3-0 in our friendly Venetian versus Hungarian series but they have been very interesting too.

In terms of LOEG, I have said in the past that the "A" divisions should always be 10 players so that the players who finish lower down at least have the consolation of being in the "top ten" for that book. Of course, an alternative way to go would be to have the "A" divisions organised as a smaller group of the very best players (say 6) who play paired games. The one who comes bottom is relegated and the winner of Division B (10 players) gets promoted for the next season. That way you would not have a number of "B" division players acting as "cannon fodder" in Division "A" - and so there would be no need at all for LOEG to consider having a handicapping system.

One other thing, which might be described rather ridiculously as the "Philosophy of FOG" - what I mean is, the different ways in which players approach the game. I can think of three basic approaches although there might be more. Firstly, there is what I call the "power player" - a very competitive type who seeks to get maximum advantage from the lists and plays very hard to win, particularly in the tournaments. They also are very well-versed on the intricacies of the rules and follow the combat and morale calculations closely during a game. Secondly, there is the historical player ( ) who is much more concerned with historical accuracy and simulation. This type of player will pick armies that reflect their understanding of the historical reality rather than ahistorical armies that are designed primarily to win the game (e.g. picking a WotR Yorkist army full of foot knights when really it was substantially made up of bill and bow levies). And thirdly, there is the player who just plays for fun and who does not enter tournaments. They also are likely to find posts like this one absolutely hilarious.

All valid points and i will come onto those shortly.

This is an open forum/link and so my comment was for everybody and I was making a valid point about how players can improve their game, if they are willing to ask for help.

So many players do not, are not willing to swallow their pride and never play again.

As for your Div A idea. Nope keep it at 10. Hidde, ianiow, PB, davo, myself etc all started as very poor players and based on speaking and asking for help from others we have improved. That is the reason for the divisions. In a previous post Fedem was correct.

I can not think of a 4th option BUT I would classify myself as being all 3, some players may only be 1 or 2.

It is one of those things with an ANcient set of rules it covers 1000s of years and so it is very difficult to have a true historical game unless you reduce it to Games which only involve armies from the Punic Wars, 100 YW, Alexander's campaigns (this would be my area of knowledge). Alexander's Companions/Agema were absolutely formidable. In this game they can be quite easily beaten by average cav wielding a bloody bow. Alexander's phalangites were incredibly manouverable and could quite easily catch cav in the open if they got close enough. You try turning a couple of hundred cav, when you have a 1000 men charging at you, full sprint and screaming, making as much noise as possible. Horses would seriously panic and then absolute chaos (same tactics used by the Almughavars agst the Turks I believe).

I think the hsitorical scenarios that people like you, frankpowerful and so on have devised have been very good if not outstanding. Pavia to me is still the best I have played and that is no BS. I tried playing agst the computer but well you can guess what happened there. There were a series of Arthurian battles which again were excellent.

The beauty of these is not only the reenactment but can you change the course of history appeal, LOVE IT.

This game enables you to have power players just based on the system itself. I have played numerous TT games where command control was vital, rather than having a mass of individual units, placing single units of knights behind your foot block and so on. Because it is not really historical you play the game not against it.

I prefer this wide open option, approx 4000 years of armies and a huge variety. That is why I have never really been interested in Napoleonics, ACW etc

As for the fun players. Great stuff and that is why I have used some of the worst armies in this game just for fun and a bit of a challenge. Again I have been playing TT games for a long time and there are fun players BUT I know they would prefer to win rather than lose

By the way made a msitake in a previous comment. I said I didn't like historical scenarios, that was wrong.

What I meant to say is I do not like non-historical scenarios.

Eric (Burgundians) 22/38 vs Fedem (French Ordonance) 43/39

I managed to pull out some of my units on my right flank and reach the hills and safety while winning on the left flank, if I had not this game would have been very close.

Challenge for Fedem on the system, password is "wearepeasants".

I have all 4 battles up, password "pikes"

Gives you some clues about my army........

I will wait to see the outcome of our KO game if that's OK Chris. 2 games vs you at the same time will prob give me a serious headache, "My Brain, My Brain"

davouthojo wrote:I have all 4 battles up, password "pikes"

Gives you some clues about my army........

Shouldn't that be 5?
But you can pick up one of mine. No one else does.
I've played/play two and have three challenges posted=5

Mike is back today, Anders - so he should be joining us shortly. I have got games running against Fedem and davouthojo so I think the tournament is proceeding at a good pace.

It's ok. I just wanted to poke the slackers a bit
By the way, I wonder if perhaps you should make a statement about the tournament and "dodgy rear attacks".
I take it you despise them and therefore you can make a ruling they aren't allowed.
Just so everyone is clear about that.
What about our game. Is the result valid?

hidde wrote:It's ok. I just wanted to poke the slackers a bit
By the way, I wonder if perhaps you should make a statement about the tournament and "dodgy rear attacks".
I take it you despise them and therefore you can make a ruling they aren't allowed.
Just so everyone is clear about that.
What about our game. Is the result valid?

Hmm . . . I could order a steward's enquiry into our game, couldn't I? And you probably did do me out of another turn, not that it would have made any difference to the final result.

I am actually not that bothered about "dodgy rear attacks". I won't use them - I think other players just have to make up their own mind whether to or not. Hopefully Slitherine will clarify the position shortly. I am more upset about people choosing maps with arid terrain really - we are meant to be in northern Europe in this tournament.

Lovely beaches in Wales:)

I can see three challenges from Anders and three from Chris on the system for this tournament. Can you pick these up please, chaps - even if you cannot start the game for a day or two? Saves re-posting and messing about. Thanks.

Hi Pete

I am playing Anders at the mo. Have just accepted Chris' challenge and should have a challenge up for Mike/Triarius.

Will prob be another 2 or 3 turns before Chris and I finish our KO game and then we can start the med game

We have had 3 results wiped from our screens . . .

ericdoman1 29/38 beat hidde 38/33
Fedem 30/35 beat stockwellpete 39/38
stockwellpete 33/38 beat davouthojo 41/38 (-ish)

Can you just check these scores please?

Ajudication - for the games finished yesterday (as above) the results will stand. For games in progress I will leave it up to the two players concerned to decide. You may decide to re-start completely or you may wish to continue from where you were on Monday evening (for example, if you were in the very early stages of the battle). If there is any difference of opinion between two players about a game - will you please re-start the game right from the beginning again.

It was 38/33 for hidde but that was a bizarre crash.

Nevr seen that before

Message now obsolete.

because of the crash?

Fedem wrote:because of the crash?

Yes, maybe it is two crashes now and we need to know the reason. If it is the hackers again then presumably Slitherine will need stronger security measures. Until we know the exact situation and that effective security measures have been taken, I don't think there is any point continuing as our games are not secure.