Slitherine

FEEDBACK, BACK-FEED & DISCUSSION

I am creating a discussion thread after several good suggestions, also to keep the challenge thread cleaner.

This is my first tournament, and yes I made some mistakes, but I wanted to give you a few points about my thinking behind the choices.
1. I personally enjoy the large map and large army battles tremendously. Less stakes in individual units, more room for maneuver, more importance of formational play, more variety and "umpf" in the armies. I find the early maneuvering gives you much more varied engagements, I find you can try more daring movements, for example sending a force through bad terrain, or dashing light infantry across an open plain.... studying the battles of the era and visiting several sites at length (e.g. Ipsos) they were more like this rather than just the short-straight charge and parry.

2. I decreased 58x58 to 48x48 quickly when I learned people have lag at those size.

3. I originally planned to randomly assign terrain to each battle, but it was a lot of work and my extensive testing of Pot Luck brough great results.
4. The era was characterized by precious, rapidly-depleting armies and irreplicable native Macedonians as they were still kings of the field, BUT innovation and greater and greater use of a great variety of other troops and allies probably won the day.

5. My selection of lists is based 3 parts on strict history, my knowledge of the armies involved, and to a small part selecting army lists which can substitute the major factions missing (e.g. Media, Atropatene (yes separate), Persis, what I would call Upper Satrapies, Drangiane, Cretans etc. etc.) and some units which would have added major flavour to the battles (e.g. Chrysaspides and Chalkaspides leading to 4-5 tiers of phalanx, Agema, Epilektoi, Hetairoi, and Nisaioi, Politikoi, Median Hillmen, Kappadoccian Medium Cavalry, Median Longchophoroi (skirmishers strong at melee)).
6. I was thrilled by the signups and tried to respond quickly to emerging issues and questions, I hope this was decent. Karvon the Great was frustrated at the changes but he jumped on the tournament and outpaced me

7. Most importantly thank you all and I look forward to your comments! Please send them in triplicate to PO Box 5323543 on recycled paper.... (some of you know me by now)

Disclaimer: images are not mine, most come from Ancientbattles.com and in some cases author's work is attributed on image

Thanks. I assume the triplicate request is a joke ......isn't it?

Congratulations on this tournament which was an inspired idea - super big armies and plenty of pikes with decent helpings of cavalry, elephants and other troop types. As a lover of traditional ancient battles this is my ideal.

I wasn't sure about the inclusion of the Xenos armies but can see it does add some variety and the tournament will be a useful test of how successful they fit into the overall competition.

Early days I know but in discussion with another player we both thought the early Roman civil war period would be another great period to choose for this scale of competition.

As I told you during our game, I like the BIG armies, your research is very good, I have not won a game but then I have only played other really good players! So for me it's all about the experience and the learning curve!
I would say this tournament is excellent!

It is something different and enjoyable.

I don’t see much difference in manoeuvring to be honest. I don’t think the FoG 2 engine is designed for long manoeuvres. Armies are still facing each other and fighting over central ground. It just takes longer to get going in combat.

I also don’t think there is much difference in army size. 2000 pts doesn’t feel so different from 1600 pts to me. 5 more pike/infantry units and an armoured cavalry unit.

For players with older machines, larger armies and larger maps might be unworkable.

I like the deeper maps as it gives more of the maneuver to contact feel and provides more value to lights for scouting.

I'm a bit indifferent to the allies option; I think it potentially delays and complicates set up some. I have been surprised by opponents decisions regarding these.

Yes, scouting is more important. Even then, I was quite surprised how far back you can see with light inf/cav. There is no real surprise element.

Fighting enormus numbers of lights and evading mounted does not become less tedious on a bigger deeper map, nor does it do much for the all important Diadochi vibe(TM). I was happy for a chance to throw the Samnites about but I only used them because it was required, otherwise I would've used my vanilla list then and throughout the tourney as I see it as the whole point and draw of the tourney.

We may also need some guidance on how unanswered challenges are to be delt with.

Ironclad wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 2:49 pm Thanks. I assume the triplicate request is a joke ......isn't it?

Congratulations on this tournament which was an inspired idea - super big armies and plenty of pikes with decent helpings of cavalry, elephants and other troop types. As a lover of traditional ancient battles this is my ideal.

I wasn't sure about the inclusion of the Xenos armies but can see it does add some variety and the tournament will be a useful test of how successful they fit into the overall competition.

Early days I know but in discussion with another player we both thought the early Roman civil war period would be another great period to choose for this scale of competition.

You read my hidden mind as Early Civil War was my plan for the early fall! Thanks for great feedback Ironclad sir!

markleslie wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 3:59 am Fighting enormus numbers of lights and evading mounted does not become less tedious on a bigger deeper map, nor does it do much for the all important Diadochi vibe(TM). I was happy for a chance to throw the Samnites about but I only used them because it was required, otherwise I would've used my vanilla list then and throughout the tourney as I see it as the whole point and draw of the tourney.

We may also need some guidance on how unanswered challenges are to be delt with.

Dully noted. The xenos armies are to really challenge the evil-good players like you or Karvon for instance. Even if almost forcing defeat, I ended up having an excellent Xenos on Xenos battle with jaerho that certainly brought flavour. The main reason I introduced them was historical, we are now learning that there were more battles between allies than the numerically-limited Macedons (at least in the 4 Diadochi wars (3 official one misnamed).

SimonLancaster wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 11:20 pm Yes, scouting is more important. Even then, I was quite surprised how far back you can see with light inf/cav. There is no real surprise element.

On 58x58 more, and terrain changes that as you can mask movement as I managed to do versus Ed Dantes (see AAR of the Bald Knoll). It won me the battle, I also managed to mask my movements through forests and swamps (entering them before he spotted) versus Gort, but am about to lose that battle.

As I previously noted the attraction of this tournament for me was, that based as it was on large pike based armies (or alternatively those with high proportion of other types of close order infantry) it would encourage traditional classic battles. Tbh I was hoping that this would discourage the temptation to employ some of the formations and techniques that sometimes emerge in competition games which whilst often game winning are frequently far removed from battles described in the sources.

In any future tournament of this type I suggest that if Xenos armies are included, those chosen avoid those that permit a mainly cavalry/light force total or if that is considered impractical or ahistorical introduce house limits to ensure a minimum base proportion of close order infantry to provide a more balanced army.

What kind of cavalry amounts are we talking about? Most pike armies have a fairly reasonable amount of cavalry. I guess at 2000 pts you would get one or two more.

One example is 16 or more close order cavalry with 10-14 light cavalry.

Ironclad wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 8:16 pm One example is 16 or more close order cavalry with 10-14 light cavalry.

You are talking about a Parthian/Saka list or something similar?

I thought you were talking about one of the base pike armies.

SimonLancaster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 5:33 am

Ironclad wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 8:16 pm One example is 16 or more close order cavalry with 10-14 light cavalry.

You are talking about a Parthian/Saka list or something similar?

I thought you were talking about one of the base pike armies.

No as stated I was referring to the Xenos armies inclusion.

Ironclad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 9:29 am

SimonLancaster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 5:33 am

Ironclad wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 8:16 pm One example is 16 or more close order cavalry with 10-14 light cavalry.

You are talking about a Parthian/Saka list or something similar?

I thought you were talking about one of the base pike armies.

No as stated I was referring to the Xenos armies inclusion.

One of the pike armies had access to 16 cav and up to 14 light cav!? That is surprising. I will have to check the lists.

I went through the lists. None of the pike armies have so much cavalry. Closest I can find is Seleucid. 15 cavalry and 9 light cavalry max. However, when you look at the list overall, you can only take 7 pike units and 3 Thureo max. It then drops to Irregular Foot. For this army, it makes sense to have extra cavalry, I think.

Simon you misunderstand me. The issue I raised was not a reference to the standard pike armies but to the Xenos armies inclusion using the 2000 point totals in this tournament. The specific example I used was taken from the Graeco-Bactrian in the Xenos list but I was aware that a few of the other Xenos armies had high cavalry/light proportions too. Hence my suggestion that if the Xenos list continued to be used this type of army be either excluded or alternatively (if possible) be subject to a basic minimum number of close order infantry.

Ironclad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:33 am Simon you misunderstand me. The issue I raised was not a reference to the standard pike armies but to the Xenos armies inclusion using the 2000 point totals in this tournament. The specific example I used was taken from the Graeco-Bactrian in the Xenos list but I was aware that a few of the other Xenos armies had high cavalry/light proportions too. Hence my suggestion that if the Xenos list continued to be used this type of army be either excluded or alternatively (if possible) be subject to a basic minimum number of close order infantry.

Okay, I am with you. That list has 20 cav and 18 light cav max.

Perhaps next time these type of armies could be included just as allies. I wouldn’t be in favour of limiting the unit choice. That army only has access to four pike, four Thureo, and the rest is Irregular Foot. It relies on its cavalry to do anything.

Just a quick heads up. My computer stopped working and I've ordered a new power adapter which will hopefully fix the problem. However it won't arrive for about a week. So, I'll be offline for a little bit.

Karvon

Ironclad wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 12:24 am As I previously noted the attraction of this tournament for me was, that based as it was on large pike based armies (or alternatively those with high proportion of other types of close order infantry) it would encourage traditional classic battles. Tbh I was hoping that this would discourage the temptation to employ some of the formations and techniques that sometimes emerge in competition games which whilst often game winning are frequently far removed from battles described in the sources.

In any future tournament of this type I suggest that if Xenos armies are included, those chosen avoid those that permit a mainly cavalry/light force total or if that is considered impractical or ahistorical introduce house limits to ensure a minimum base proportion of close order infantry to provide a more balanced army.

Noted, and I could be swayed by this. (Am likely to be)

SimonLancaster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:13 pm

Ironclad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:33 am Simon you misunderstand me. The issue I raised was not a reference to the standard pike armies but to the Xenos armies inclusion using the 2000 point totals in this tournament. The specific example I used was taken from the Graeco-Bactrian in the Xenos list but I was aware that a few of the other Xenos armies had high cavalry/light proportions too. Hence my suggestion that if the Xenos list continued to be used this type of army be either excluded or alternatively (if possible) be subject to a basic minimum number of close order infantry.

Okay, I am with you. That list has 20 cav and 18 light cav max.

Perhaps next time these type of armies could be included just as allies. I wouldn’t be in favour of limiting the unit choice. That army only has access to four pike, four Thureo, and the rest is Irregular Foot. It relies on its cavalry to do anything.

I am not convinced, in the period there were not so many mixed battles, there were Satraps with local forces attacking Macedon formations (and sometimes winning). I could take away the horse armies as they stayed passive until around the 240s when they started incursion South more and more frequently.

What determines a tie???
Thanks!
gort7078