Slitherine

Ancient british

Hi,

I I'll pick Seleucid 300-206 BC

Ian

I'll take Hepthalites

I'll try Roman 379.

I'm in !

wait a little for my army.....
A+

I would like to join but can I come back later and tell you what army when I have time to consider options. Yes OK (stockwellpete)

Thank you

I'm in, with the Thracians.

I'm in and will play Gallic 300 BC -101 BC

Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.

Is there still a spot open? Yes, you have been entered. (stockwellpete)

I would pick Macedonian (328BC-321BC) if it is so

bbogensc wrote:Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.

The Palmyrian list is probably "mixed" rather than specifically what you mean by a "mounted" list (it can field some good-quality infantry and a core of massed bowmen) but I'd argue it is strongest as a mounted/primarily mounted list and has been chosen by me and at least one other entrant. I'm not suggesting it's a top-tier pick - I'm personally playing them because I wanted to avoid a comfortable infantry-focused list and I quite enjoyed them in the tournament - but there's therefore at least a few examples of horse-focused armies selected. (But also, in fairness to your argument, I did pick this list specifically over the most horse-heavy lists because I just don't get them, c.f. my thread on playing Huns vs. Romans, and wanted something with a bit more flexibility).

On that, though, I'm not sure the issue with horse-heavy armies is a factor of pursuit mechanics. I'd argue it's a combination of:
1) Infantry armies are overall easier/more intuitive to play;
2) Combined-arms are typically stronger than one-trick armies, and combined-arms lists tend still to be infantry-leaning, e.g. Romans);
3) The tournament rules encourage a flexible army list which can face any opponent (exacerbating point 2); and maybe also
4) A lot of the horse-heavy armies are in the most recent DLC, which I suspect means overall lower levels of experience with them (exacerbating point 1 above).

I'd also argue that horse-heavy armies are weaker than infantry heavy armies in general. Horse units tend to be a lot less durable, while their propensity for disengaging enemy infantry units means that it can be difficult to get proper flanking attacks as you can't reliably get your units to pin enemy infantry down. This is part of the reason why I've picked the Palmyrian list specifically: they get a small number of heavy infantry choices and also a good number of cataphract choices they can use as an anvil where required. But ultimately, I think that's an issue with list composition rather than game mechanics or unit abilities, the same way that not seeing anyone playing e.g. Iberia or Italian Hill Tribes doesn't mean medium foot need a buff.

(I'd concede an exception for regular, as opposed to light, horse archers which I don't personally find very effective as they are. But that's as likely to be a factor of my skill with them as anything else.)

Since it is probably only for one game(:)), I will try the Kushans since I desperately need some practice with cavalry armies. I beat the AI quite handily but in PBEM I appear sorely lacking.

Thanks for organizing this !
I'm in with the Kingdom of Soissons.

Hephthalite for me please

bbogensc wrote:Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.

Be careful what you wish for. Playing against armies that are predominately all Horse Archers can be absolutely infuriating.

I have now decided to limit the number of entries to 64 players as I don't think we will reach the next "magic number" beyond that which would be 128. I want to avoid a situation where a large number of players get first round byes and then have to wait anther 2 weeks before their first match. I think we have a good chance of reaching 64 players.

Count me in. I'll have a look at armies later on today.

Edit: Dacians 89-106AD please

Still looking at armies but will sign up now due to limited space