Slitherine

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:23 pm**

General Shapur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:52 pm I would like it to be possible to choose an ally that may change in each game. This way one can make up for deficiencies in an army vs a variety of opponents. Do you think this is doable?

Possible make a selection of 2 allies to choose from up front as another option. Although I would note that some armies only have one or two possible allies anyway.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:40 pm**

General Shapur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:52 pm I would like it to be possible to choose an ally that may change in each game. This way one can make up for deficiencies in an army vs a variety of opponents. Do you think this is doable?

No, not as the game is currently structured as you have to specify the ally when making a challenge. In FOG1 you were able to change your allies for each game.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:41 pm**

edb1815 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:23 pm
Possible make a selection of 2 allies to choose from up front as another option. Although I would note that some armies only have one or two possible allies anyway.

That wouldn't work either for the same reason.

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:03 pm**

rexhurley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:39 pm Division B

rexhurley (Numidian/Moors) defeats devoncop (Antiginod) 42/17. Tough game and the wily Greek knew not to hide in the open so withdrew to a wood in a far corner and hunkered the pikes down in squares. it almost worked as I didn't have the room to work in I needed however finally after 7 turns of heroic resistance the medium infantry snapped causing a cascade across 4 units giving me the win. Thank you for battling to the end Ian you almost got the draw

Sounds like Rorke's Drift

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:12 pm**

Division A

CheAhn (Roman) beat NikiforosFocas (Jews) 45-20

Cheers

Posted: **Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:08 pm**

Division C

GDod Galatian 280 BC-63 AD beats Barrold713 - Moorish 55 BC-6 AD. Score 54% - 24%

in a staunch determined attack midst a hail of missiles.Thanks for the game B

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:17 am**

Division B

rexhurley (Numidian/Moors) challenges:

IMC (Romans 105-25BC)

Morbio (Ptolemic 55-30BC)

pw = javman

PM Sent

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:20 am**

Division B

rexhurley (Numidian/Moors) challenges:

IMC (Galatian 280-63BC)

Morbio (IndoGreek 175-10BC)

pw = javman

PM Sent

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:45 am**

Division C

MorkinTheFree - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC defeated Bluefin - Frank 496-599 AD with score 58-23.

Results recorded up to here.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:11 am**

Group 3

oscarius (Pyrrhus 280-272 BC) beats dkalenda (Carthaginian 280-263 BC) as no turn has been submitted in seven days with no explanation

EDIT: scratch that, we decided to give dkalenda some extra grace time on the organiser's advice and he has made his way back to us.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:08 am**

Division C

Sunnyboy (Jewish 167-164 BC) beat DzonVejn (Indian 500 BC-319 AD) 62-42

Another hard slog, the righteous fury of the Jewish army crashed head on into a storm of arrows and rampaging (as well as rallying) pachyderms. Despite inflicting heavy casualties on the advancing Jewish host, the Indian bowman were no match for the zealots when contact was made.

Thanks for the game!

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:30 am**

sunnyboy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:08 am rampaging (as well as rallying) pachyderms.

You too?!?!? I don't know what Dzon feeds his elephants, but they rally from routing faster than my pikes can break them. Loading every turn is to be assaulted by a riotous cacophony of rally horns.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:34 am**

Not sold on the ally option myself for the league, potential to have several quite similar armies in each division. Currently in Early Middle Ages B we have two armies with Viking allies, a Viking army and a Rus army. With the potential for Viking allies on a number of other army lists.

I see the limiting of selection to one army per nation as a strength of the league. It provides a degree of variety and complexity to the competition. I find it both challenging and rewarding to deal with a mismatch that favours your opponent.

The poll indicates the ally option is overwhelmingly popular, one suggestion would be to provide a similar limit on allies from a single nation as exists currently for army selection.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:57 am**

sunnyboy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:34 am Not sold on the ally option myself for the league, potential to have several quite similar armies in each division. Currently in Early Middle Ages B we have two armies with Viking allies, a Viking army and a Rus army. With the potential for Viking allies on a number of other army lists.

I see the of limiting selection to one army per nation as a strength of the league. It provides a degree of variety and complexity to the competition. I find it both challenging and rewarding to deal with a mismatch that favours your opponent.

The poll indicates the ally option is overwhelmingly popular, one suggestion would be to provide a similar limit on allies from a single nation as exists currently for army selection.

Actually, thats a good point. Perhaps an army taking allies can be handicapped by a number of points to make up for the added flexibility. Thus people may need to consider if that flexibility is worth it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:31 am**

Div C

desertedfox - Byzantine 988-1041 AD defeated edb1815 Arab (North Africa) 1000-1160(Byzantine 988-1041 ally) 47 to 21.

Thx 4 a gg.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:54 am**

Division A

youngr (Romans) beat ulysisgrunt (Jewish) 63-44

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:58 am**

Div B

Sennacherib ( Andalusian) defeat Devoncop ( Dailami ) 57 to 32

Thanks for the game !

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:21 am**

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:58 am Div B

Sennacherib ( Andalusian) defeat Devoncop ( Dailami ) 57 to 32

Thanks for the game !

Despite the traditional "run for the hills" approach of the Dailami once their arrows run out and things go pear shaped for their medium infantry the Andalucian Cavalry and supermen combined in the last couple of turns remaining to catch some Dailami stragglers.

Well played to my opponent and my truly appalling record against archer heavy armies continues unabated

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:32 am**

I think one ally for the whole tournament is the way to do it as is the case now.

There is sufficient flexibility already in my view.

I have a concern that limiting allies to those different from the main force would be somewhat arbitrary . Yes some players have taken Vikings with Irish Viking allies which is powerful in the open but they are taking a big risk of they get dealt a mountainous hilly map.

Posted: **Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:32 am**

sunnyboy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 2:34 am The poll indicates the ally option is overwhelmingly popular, one suggestion would be to provide a similar limit on allies from a single nation as exists currently for army selection.

Yes, that would be possible to do,

Slitherine

The Dustbin

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .

Re: Classical Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Themed Event: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature

Re: Poll on new "Allies" feature