Slitherine

Ok I'm in!


(10)

I will join a second section if the first one fills up and there is need of a good punching bag.

I have already joined 3 other sections though and my psyche can only take so many beat downs.

I'm like Flynn and I'm in!
1. Arab (city) 300-633 AD
2. Sassinad Persian 591-628
3. Hepthalite 350-570 AD
4. Frank 496-599 AD

1.Arab (City) 300-633 AD
2 Sassanids 477-590 AD (or earlier if required)
3 Palmyran 258-273
4 Hephthalites 350-570 AD

Around thirty individual reminders have been sent out this morning and an open invitation to new players has been posted in the main forum. Hopefully we can increase the number of players in the tournament over the weekend.

Hi Pete, i would like to enter if still room.

Ian

I've put this data into a couple of spreadsheets to see if any super-armies leap out... I've highlighted a few that seem extra-competitive but of course the missing bit is the player and their skill level. A good player can win with an average army.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Zardoz02 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:24 am I've put this data into a couple of spreadsheets to see if any super-armies leap out... I've highlighted a few that seem extra-competitive but of course the missing bit is the player and their skill level. A good player can win with an average army.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Nice.

I guess one can fairly safely say that one would be handicapping oneself if one picked an army that scored less than 50%.

But some of the better players like to do that from time to time. It is called "hubris" and they usually revert to a more competitive army in the next season, after having their arse handed to them!

Sometimes of course, they have found a hidden gem and triumph with it. Then, next season, a lot of less skilled players jump on the band-wagon and have their arses handed to them.

76mm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:42 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:06 am I am sure they could do with some emotional support, but it would a bit bizarre if they were a "good" army.

Nobody's saying that they should be a "good" army, but if they had some normal medium troops (Thracians, etc.) and/or a couple of superior troops, it would make them more competitive and probably more realistic, if anything (no medium Thracians among the slaves?!). They are fun to play but very difficult to win with.

I would disagree with that comment I have won plenty of times with them although the last patch didnt do them any favour's however int he last League i took too many risks so paid for it plus some rounds of some sad rng however they are effective enough in their own right...better than the Anglo Saxons that's for sure!

rexhurley wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:06 pm I would disagree with that comment I have won plenty of times with them although the last patch didnt do them any favour's however int he last League i took too many risks so paid for it plus some rounds of some sad rng however they are effective enough in their own right...better than the Anglo Saxons that's for sure!

Interesting...which armies have you won with them against? I have only played them against Romans and find it very difficult to win against them.

rexhurley wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:06 pm

76mm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:42 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:06 am I am sure they could do with some emotional support, but it would a bit bizarre if they were a "good" army.

Nobody's saying that they should be a "good" army, but if they had some normal medium troops (Thracians, etc.) and/or a couple of superior troops, it would make them more competitive and probably more realistic, if anything (no medium Thracians among the slaves?!). They are fun to play but very difficult to win with.

I would disagree with that comment I have won plenty of times with them although the last patch didnt do them any favours

Hi Rex,

The only troops affected by the patch nerf were the "Poorly Armed Rabble", of which the list only allows 2 units anyway.

The "Poorly-Armed Slaves" were in fact unaffected by the patch because they have an impact capability, and therefore do not count as non-combat troops. Hence they are not affected in any way by the nerf.

Any increase in double cohesion drops for the "Poorly-Armed Slaves" that you saw after the patch was due to RNG.

Zardoz02 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:24 am I've put this data into a couple of spreadsheets to see if any super-armies leap out... I've highlighted a few that seem extra-competitive but of course the missing bit is the player and their skill level. A good player can win with an average army.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I am just seeing this. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm in, with the following choices:

1. Indo-Greeks 175 BC-10 AD
2. Roman 105-25 BC
3. Macedonian 260-148 BC
4. Carthaginian (Hannibal in Italy) 216-203 BC

I shall compete

1. Macedonian 320-261 BC
2. Ptolemaic 320-167
3. Pergamene 190-129 BC
4. Roman 105-25BC

I'm in with the following choices:

1. Roman 285-378 AD
2. Germanic/Gothic Horse Tribes 260-476 AD
3. Hunnic 376-476 AD
4. Romano-British 407-599 AD

I'm in with the following choices:

1. Byzantine 551-578 AD
2. Sassanid Persian 591-628 AD
3. Arab (Bedouin) 300-636 AD
4. Indian 546-599 AD

First foray into Late Antiquity:

1. Sassanid 350-476
2. Roman 379-424
3. Frank 496-599
4. Byzantine 493-550

Please count me in. Here is a list of my army choices, in order:

Spartan (550-461BC)
Greeks (550-461BC)
Romans (199-106BC)
Ptolemaics (320-167BC)

Thanks.


(30)