Forum
https://forum.slitherine.com/
I blame the fool who's taking Carthaginians to Rome...fredrik wrote:I blame Ogge.Kreufeldt wrote:Are there FoG-groupes in Italy? How come we don't have any up here? What are we doing wrong?fredrik wrote:That's alright I'm only in it for the booze and the groupies anyway.
It would have been worse to take the Gallic Senoni tribe, the Visigoths or the Landscheknets! (or how it's spelled...)fredrik wrote:I'm surprised to see that I'm the only one who appreciated the symmetry of taking the Carthaginians to Rome...
Nice mix, it means that army lists are balanced , very good jib for the developer !philqw78 wrote:Arab Conquest 1
Catalan Company 2
Condotta Italian 1
Dominate Roman 1
Early Medieval German 1
Early North African Dynasties 1
Early Sucessor 1
Komnenan Byzantine 1
Late Republican Roman 1
Later Carthaginian 1
Later Crusader 1
Later Hungarian 1
Later Lithuanian 2
Later Ottoman Turkish 2
Later Seleucid 2
Middle Hungarian 1
Norse Irish 1
Ordonnance French 1
Principate Roman 1
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian 1
Sassanid Persian 2
Skythian 1
Tatar 1
War of the Roses English 2
Good mix
Ah, but just like Hannibal you'll be standing outside the walls, stamping your feet in frustrationfredrik wrote:I'm surprised to see that I'm the only one who appreciated the symmetry of taking the Carthaginians to Rome...
I recommend a doppio ristretto corretto...urbanbunny1 wrote:Hope there is a good barrista nearby, going to need a ristretto to get the brain firing.
Hard to avoid if you are Italian. Unless you mean same army match up.Moro wrote:no problem for an army-date based first round. But, whethever criteria you choose, I think It would be better avoid same nation match!
Beer, Italian wines, Beautiful Italian women, food, wargames, pretty much in that order.Moro wrote:What do you think about?
Hi Dave,dave_r wrote:Because I am sad and have nothing better to do, I looked at a copy of the world rankings and where possible plugged in the rankings. The results came out as follows:
This should just about conclusively prove that combined rankings don't workCode: Select all
Player Army Country Ranking (world) Phil Powell Catalan Company GB 8 Dave Ruddock Skythian GB 10 Rafa Tortosa Catalan Company Sp 14 Dave Allen Middle Hungarian GB 21 Carlos Garcia Early Successor Sp 70 Jean-Yves Cassas Sassanid Persian Fr 75 Tim Porter Dominate Roman GB 666 Marlia Guglielmo Later Hungarian It 124 Walter Ierman Principate Roman It 191 Nicola Linguerri Later Seleucid It 207 Ivan Monedero Italian Condotta Sp 228 Pedro Sanchez Later Ottoman Turkish Sp 241 Sergio Monteleone Komnenan Byzantine It 269 Stephen Hammond Tatar GB 284 Angelo Autolino Later Crusader It 291 Javier Bueno WoTR Sp 306 Roberto Ricamo Early Medieval German It 307 Brian Holmes Later Lithuanian GB 342 Andrea Rocchi Santa Hooey Doo Dah It 359 Fredrik Olausson Later Carthaginian Sw Simon LeRay-Meyer French Ordonnance Au Andrea Lo Moro Norse Irish It Virtus Ruestes Later Republican Roman Sp Tomas Lidholm Later Lithuanian Sw Matteo Pasi Later Ottoman Turkish It Martin Cullell-Young WoTR Sp Fabrizio Baratto Later Seleucid It Scheele Gomez Arab Conquest Sp John Fasoulas Early North African Dynasties Gr Listner Bodo Sassanid Persian Ge
Whenever I tried to get Tim Porters Ranking it just returned 666. How strange. Only one Dominate Roman - I am presuming it is the 19 BG Monster.
Good spread of armies - six armies picked twice being the most popular vote. Haven't bothered to break it down by book...
Me too I presume the monster with 19 BG's (if I'm not wrong the armies won Britcon 2008) ................ so it could be great playing against him in Steppe or agricultural.dave_r wrote: Whenever I tried to get Tim Porters Ranking it just returned 666. How strange. Only one Dominate Roman - I am presuming it is the 19 BG Monster.
As a personnal preference I would not like to play against another Catalan army, as I think its a very good army. But playing in period, with armies designed to fight each other, is a better way as it means if 2 closely matched armies play good play is more important than armypeterrjohnston wrote:As there are only a maximum of 2 of any army, I can easily avoid them playing each other in the first round, if that is a concern.
Although historically civil wars have always been popular
I completely agree with you and Gug, historical matches (on the basis of the Army Books) should be more balanced for the first round, even if each player would predict the opponenet checking the list of the players (for example Dominate Roman vs Principate Roman)peterrjohnston wrote:As there are only a maximum of 2 of any army, I can easily avoid them playing each other in the first round, if that is a concern.
Although historically civil wars have always been popular
What do you think of this proposal:philqw78 wrote:As a personnal preference I would not like to play against another Catalan army, as I think its a very good army. But playing in period, with armies designed to fight each other, is a better way as it means if 2 closely matched armies play good play is more important than armypeterrjohnston wrote:As there are only a maximum of 2 of any army, I can easily avoid them playing each other in the first round, if that is a concern.
Although historically civil wars have always been popular
and players from other countries only Italian red wine or grappa 
. ) will be used for the first boundI think I'd be more than happy with that. A nice early start to sort the men from the boys. Thats providing italians actually can drink.sergiomonteleone wrote:What do you think of this proposal:
the night of the 9th all the FOG players will go in a pub for making a race, Italians can drink only beer
The rankig of this race (the one who drinks more will be the winner and each player will receive points on the basis of how much he will able to drink
Sergio
