Slitherine

Any chance there will be a tourney featuring Very Large instead of Medium battles? Having played a few Medium battles in anticipation of the tourney, I like the Very Large ones much better, and really the turns usually don't take much longer to play... I find that the play style in Very Large battles is different, you can be more profligate with your troops, as I tend to be!

76mm wrote:Any chance there will be a tourney featuring Very Large instead of Medium battles? Having played a few Medium battles in anticipation of the tourney, I like the Very Large ones much better, and really the turns usually don't take much longer to play... I find that the play style in Very Large battles is different, you can be more profligate with your troops, as I tend to be!

I guess we can ask for opinions on this. Anyone?

I think some of us (who are new to the Byzantine Games style) try getting used to the system, after a while i think large-very large armies with wide-v.wide maps will be default for some as they seem more fun with more real feeling. As long as in vlarge armies we could have balanced meetings-some units are not spammed- (with some default-obligatory- units for armies which is great right now!) these battles will be more and more fun compared to the medium ones. Some more time then we will be ready for the large tourneys ^^

76mm wrote:Any chance there will be a tourney featuring Very Large instead of Medium battles? Having played a few Medium battles in anticipation of the tourney, I like the Very Large ones much better, and really the turns usually don't take much longer to play... I find that the play style in Very Large battles is different, you can be more profligate with your troops, as I tend to be!

+1 as far as the OP is concerned.
Very Large/Very wide does give an epic feel to things

Lancier wrote:As long as in vlarge armies we could have balanced meetings-some units are not spammed- (

I agree that it is important to have balanced games in Very Large battles, otherwise the slaughter can get a little tedious. But there are no shortage of more-or-less balanced matchups, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Also, I guess it is not possible to use specific (as opposed to random) maps in tourneys? It seems that with "mirrored" games it would be much fairer if both of the games used the same map--otherwise battle results can be as much a result of the luck of the draw (for the map) rather than player skill?

Larger army sizes cuts down on variance which is nice but they do take longer to play. I guess its a function of whether we are willing to accept higher timeout rates etc. Also not all lists are equal vis a vis one another across size of force and maps.

I like the very large forces on very width maps more as the medium ones.

I haven't played any very large battles so I don't know how the maps turn out in this situation.

But I would not be in favour of very large battles if this means the flanks get tight and we are forced to fight a head on slugging match.

Najanaja wrote: But I would not be in favour of very large battles if this means the flanks get tight and we are forced to fight a head on slugging match.

Flanks are not tight at all, there it plenty of room for maneuver. Try one in solitaire play and see!

Najanaja wrote:I haven't played any very large battles so I don't know how the maps turn out in this situation.

But I would not be in favour of very large battles if this means the flanks get tight and we are forced to fight a head on slugging match.

The maps get wider if you use larger armies.