Slitherine

Name Played Won Lost Renown
keyth 2 1 1 492 (but dead )
Tiavals 1 1 0 470
Aristides 1 1 0 304
Sarpedon 1 0 1 253
batesmotel 0 0 0 250
blbrowning 0 0 0 250
phlewis 1 0 1 228
Turk1964 2 1 1 210

The scores so far...

Tiavals wrote:Aristides, ever heard of a Pyrrhic Victory? You might win but still lose.

Indeed! Losses can be crucial, I agree.
But Pyrrhus had a small resource base whereas the people and senate of Rome had oodles of chaps willing and able to take up the pilum, so the latter could afford the losses and the former could not. There are many examples of close battles with high casualties on both sides that proved decisive for the victor despite their high losses.

Part of my job is forseeing potential problems before they actually occur, so this may be mis-application; I'm new to these forums - some places encourage discussion and analysis, some 'just wannna play'.

(I fear a tendency may crop up to play cautiously rather than 'going for a win'...)

keyth wrote:Name Played Won Lost Renown
keyth 2 1 1 492 (but dead )

Cruel!

I think all your points are valid ones. We could come up with many different scoring mechanisms and each would encourage certain 'behaviours'. So here we call it 'renown' for flavour but it's just points

The current mechanism is intended to encourage 'good' wins rather than winning regardless - keeping your break points low, not getting looted and not losing commanders will significantly increase your score. I don't want to particularly reward a string of 35/36 victories over a string of 37/36 defeats for example It's not a true league and is not meant to be - the open nature means that some players will fight more battles than others (and some will get killed off early! ). Hopefully it's a fun context to play FoG battles in, and somewhere where we can all have a laugh with some friendly trash-talk and bragging rights.

Aristides wrote:

keyth wrote:Name Played Won Lost Renown
keyth 2 1 1 492 (but dead )

Cruel!

The Fates have a dark sense of humour, but I can see the funny side

Thanks for posting the leader board Keyth. Looks like i need to retrain my army and Appoint a more dynamic commander Can one change an army that one has chosen unwisely? My other choice i fear will not take the punishment of my first

Cheers Turk

Turk1964 wrote:Thanks for posting the leader board Keyth. Looks like i need to retrain my army and Appoint a more dynamic commander Can one change an army that one has chosen unwisely? My other choice i fear will not take the punishment of my first

Cheers Turk

I would say that swapping one army is OK - we are here to have fun after all - but that's your lot (until you score enough renown to 'unlock' more lists). I'll add a 'one swap' rule to the Campaign notes.

Cheers.

Thanks Keyth If its ok i will change the Ghazivads to the Early Nikes . I think the Ghazis are fairly well outclassed unless the right terrain turns up .

Cheers Turk

Turk1964 wrote:Thanks Keyth If its ok i will change the Ghazivads to the Early Nikes . I think the Ghazis are fairly well outclassed unless the right terrain turns up .

Cheers Turk

Wow. I would say the exact opposite. Early Nikes are useless if there's any rough terrain, and the Ghaznavids are superb in any sort of terrain. Funny how people hold so different opinions.

I was thinking the same - in the last few weeks I've managed something like 7 out of 8 wins against the Nikes, mostly using Early Southern Slavs or Arab Conquest(later). But then there are armies that are considered strong that I lose with on a depressingly regular basis!

Also, some armies are far harder to use successfully than others. The ghaz r great if you know how to use them (I don't - yet) and i think the Nikes can be superb in the right hands. But it's also true that choice of battlefield can be crucial...

I was thinking along the lines of Arab conquest,but decided on the early Nikes as a reserve for my Khazars. But then How do you know in advance what terrain an opponent will put up? Most seem to have mainly cav armies in this contest and if you come across the Arab Conquest super army well your in trouble My theory really is to get better using cavalry armies as i am not that good with them. I am not as skillfull as some are with cav but enjoy the challange

Cheers Turk

I hate armies that don't have MF. When you happen to fight in a battle that is in bad terrain, there's nothing you can do except die. If possible, I always like to have at least some MF to use in terrain, plus due to their speed they are good for other stuff. The Nikes have no MF, so I've been badly crushed as them. They are cool, especially the later Nikes, since they get Elite Catapracts and Varangians, which are awesome. And if you have MF and are going against an enemy that doesn't, you can safely choose a Very Crowded map, and you'll have an advantage even if he chooses the map. I normally play armies that are versatile and don't have to take a lot of HF or Cav if you don't want to, at least if I want to win. MF can win against HF in flat terrain, but HF can't win against MF in poor terrain. I like to have a little bit of everything, some lancers, some horse archers, some normal archers, some HF and plenty of MF, and some elephants if possible. The Ghaznavids fit perfectly for that. But I've been playing a bit too much as them(and I'm "saving" them for LOEG), so I decided to take some other armies this time. The Hamdanids aren't that different from them anyway.

Tiavals wrote:I hate armies that don't have MF... and some elephants if possible. The Ghaznavids fit perfectly for that. But I've been playing a bit too much as them(and I'm "saving" them for LOEG), so I decided to take some other armies this time. The Hamdanids aren't that different from them anyway.

I agree that some MF is to be recommended, not just for terrain but for speed like catching archers etc. But with big-MF armies I do think a lot depends on the terrain. Even if you choose very crowded, if your opponent chooses very open and chooses the map you can have a battlefield with v. little BG. If ur opponent has a lot of lancers your Sup MI may have to hide in BG (extra +1 for mtd v MI impact, plus -1 to cohesion).

Jury is still out about Els for me - they're expensive and vuln. to missiles.
While we'r chatting, I have to say Pks seem way overpriced to me.

I must admit that so far I have not done very well with the Later Nikephorians. The Skutatoi have been particularly brittle so far. The Hamdanids seem to work better for me overall. I really like the Early Comnenan Byzantines much better than the Nikes (sadly they are not available for this campaign).

Pat Lewis

Thanks for all your comments guys i appreciate all your input I guess ive given myself a real challange with the Early Nikes Ah well see what happens i may get lucky

Mr. Turk, I see you have a 500 point challenge. For whom?

blbrowning

Gday Blbrowing. The challange you see i have set for Flatsix518 a practise run tyou may say. I cant attack anyone in this comp as i have had my 1 attack if you wish to attack me you must declare it here and send me a challange

Cheers Turk

Thank you Mr Turk. I will challenge the batesmotel as the motel has no record of play. Password bates.

blbrowning

Wait, I'm confused - you guys (bl & bates) haven't even started the first round yet? Are we still waiting for bates' action then?