Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

[antisocialmunky]

I don't mind just using the Multi EDU. :_|

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

While ím amazed by all the discussion here to get the tourney at its very best(keep up the good work ) I had a small question on the side; on the actual multiplaying part: are working cdkeys/gamecds neccesary? It's been a few years since the game released and I personally lost my install cd and manual like 2 years ago(does rome even have such a protection, actually?) so...would that cause problems?

On money part: I'd personally prefer to play with a historical army of roman troops, not 14 extordinari or stuff like that, eventhough a tournament in general is amazing[should be monthly done indeed!] the idea was to find out which one was better ''historically''(;)) so I wouldn't wanna ''pwn all ya naabs with my l33ttroops'', you know

I just bought R:TW Gold Edition for either $14.99 or $19.99 about a month ago because my original CD (almost 6 years old now) finally got its last scratch and couldn't install any more clean versions. In Gold you get Vanilla RTW and BI fully patched and just waiting for a clean EB 1.2 install, so it's worth the investment just to go by Gamestop or your local equivalent and purchase a new version and its corresponding CD key.

[Gabeed]

No upgrades, I'll be sure to add that to the rules.
Now here's a suggestion. What say we limit unit recruitment to each faction's respective roster as posted on the EB website. E.G.: for Makedonia

Honestly, I was thinking the same thing, and it would be the easiest and most straightforward way to determine who gets what. Just stick to the lists that EB has already given us!

[HasdrubalBarca]

I'm in for something against the Romans, Seleucids or Macedonians preferably.

[rootje]

I just bought R:TW Gold Edition for either $14.99 or $19.99 about a month ago because my original CD (almost 6 years old now) finally got its last scratch and couldn't install any more clean versions. In Gold you get Vanilla RTW and BI fully patched and just waiting for a clean EB 1.2 install, so it's worth the investment just to go by Gamestop or your local equivalent and purchase a new version and its corresponding CD key.

Sure thanks for the tip I'll do a quick search online wether i can score a discount version and otherwise i;ll go bargain hunting in old gameshops :). So it's neccesary to have a cdkey for BI aswell? As i'm currently playing on the alex.exe for gameplay reasons..could I just get a gold version and do a second clean install just for multiplaying? Hope i can get everything to work perfectly for the tourney(s ;)

[Macilrille]

I got the RTW Gold on sale here in Denmark for $14, which is extremely cheap for a game here, and recommendable as the Gold version runs much smoother.

Anyway this tournament is a very good idea, if I succeed in updating to 1.2 I will play Rome, but 5 tries have not succeeded and as you might have noticed I am busy these days (no nagging on Danish rivers etc ;-)).

An important point is that if done right and in good spirits this will also lead to greater friendship and comradeship here, opponents has a way of often becoming friends in games.

BTW, we need not do the tournament to resolve which culture was superior at building empires and waging wars, history already proved that ;-)

[rootje]

Sure thanks for the tip I'll do a quick search online wether i can score a discount version and otherwise i;ll go bargain hunting in old gameshops :). So it's neccesary to have a cdkey for BI aswell? As i'm currently playing on the alex.exe for gameplay reasons..could I just get a gold version and do a second clean install just for multiplaying? Hope i can get everything to work perfectly for the tourney(s ;)

An update: found a normal rtw game for 6 euros which could be delivered in 3 days, or a gold version for 9 euros with the same delivery rate. As I currently play on ''games aquired in another way '' I probably wouldn't use the games for anyhing else than a clean multiplayer install (thats possibly,right?) so my question then would be; which one to pick?

[Tolg]

No upgrades, I'll be sure to add that to the rules.
And Rootje, yes you do need a valid CD key.

Now here's a suggestion. What say we limit unit recruitment to each faction's respective roster as posted on the EB website. E.G.: for Makedonia

I concur.

Let me address the issue of the "tournament" format... first of all, let's not kid ourselves. This will not conclusively decide whether the Greeks were better than the Romans or no, alright? So let's get that out of our heads.

Even if we know that it won't solve the matter, we can still act as if we didn't know. You can call it "roleplay" if you want. After all this is just for fun. (And of course for the pride of the participants and of their respective factions. ;) )

Personally, I think that systematically eliminating all the armies of any given culture is a good way to solve the dispute. Plus, it makes it easier for us to decide on a winning side (rather than one winner) and it would probably be more enjoyable for the participants as well.

I don't think there can be an easier way to determine the winning side then to count the battles they have won. There are only 3 possible outcomes: The Greeks have the most wins, the Romans have the most wins or a draw. (There's nothing bad about a draw, it just shows that both parties were equally strong.)

Oh, and... I really like the idea of a "Battle Royale", if our participants' engines and Internet connections allow it.
Would be a nice addition to the general carnage.

I like the idea as well, but I doubt that it will be possible. (Unless perhaps if you use small unit size.)


Off Topic: I bought my 2nd RTW gold disc for 5€ a few weeks ago. Just in case as my first one is still working.

Edit: @rootje: Take the gold edition. 3€ isn't much of a difference and you might regret it later if you need/want BI later on.

[Βελισάριος]

Alright, so... unless anyone has any other objections (supported by valid arguments, please), we'll go with the roster provided by the EB time online.

Which means I need to get my caffeine and start editing the EDU...

[Gabeed]

Has the jury decided how much money should be used to buy troops? That info is that last thing the tourney players require to start planning for our army compositions.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Has the jury decided how much money should be used to buy troops? That info is that last thing the tourney players require to start planning for our army compositions.

We haven't hammered out all the details yet; but I would suggest you practice making armies using 40k, 50k, and possibly 60k. These amounts again, are arbitrary ATM and not set in stone; but 40-50 appeared to be what most contestants thought to be a good number, with some saying that a Successor General could use all 50k without even filling up a full stack or having a well-balanced army of decent size.

[IrishHitman]

If we can't show which side is definitely better, we can at least make a study of it.

A tournament setting will just ruin the entire point.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

If we can't show which side is definitely better, we can at least make a study of it.

A tournament setting will just ruin the entire point.

I´m sorry man but i don´t think it´s possible to do it because we lack the tools for such a study. If TW engine was as accurate as possible then i would agree with you about the possibility of doing such study.

[IrishHitman]

I´m sorry man but i don´t think it´s possible to do it because we lack the tools for such a study. If TW engine was as accurate as possible then i would agree with you about the possibility of doing such study.

It's not a historical study, it's a RTW study.
Which is better on the EB mod, in other words.

[Βελισάριος]

Again, Irish... I'm open to suggestions. What do you propose we do instead?

And the point wasn't really to see which of the factions is better. That's an issue no amount of study will satisfy for anyone. It's more a matter of whether Legionary armies are more efficient than Phalanxes.
And again, I support the idea that having a number of battles between Hellenic generals of the various factions again Roman generals will settle this to some extent. It's not so much a tournament in the classic sense, since we (probably) won't have only one winner, but the culture that remains "standing" at the end is declared victorious.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

It's not a historical study, it's a RTW study.
Which is better on the EB mod, in other words.

At this terms i agree with you.

[Maion Maroneios]

OK, here are some suggestions I have cooked up for the army composition and limitation of the armies of the Hellenes.

Epeiros - 1 type of army (Reformed Pyrrhic)

Infantry: A mixture of phalanx with flexible infantry and phalanx as a solid line. This means basically the main line should be phalanx-infantry-phalanx-infantry etc. Illyrians can and should be used by any extent (Illyrioi Thorakitai/Thureophoroi, Illyrioi Parktioi) as flankers, as well as traditional Thureophoroi/Thorakitai, Peltastai and Hoplitai (Haploi and normal). As for mercenaries, use of Pezoi Brettioi and Samnitai is acceptable, as historically they helped Pyrrhos in his campaigns.

Cavalry: Heavy cavalry about 4 units max. Campanians excluded. 1 unit of Elephantes Indikoi maximum.

Ranged: 4 units of missile troops (including Kretikoi/Rhodioi Sphendonetai and excluding Akontistai) maximum.

Makedonia - 2 types of armies (Late Alexandrian, Reformed)

Late Alexandrian Army

Infantry: A solid line of phalanx troops (about 8) of mixed quality (Deuteroi, Pezhetairoi, Misthophoroi Pezhetairoi, Argyraspides). Thureophoroi, Agrianikoi Pelekophoroi, Peltastai (including Thraikioi), Hoplitai (Haploi and normal) for flankers.

Cavalry: 4 units max. More accurate, it should be even less, about 2-3. This includes the Strategos.

Ranged: 4 units of missile troops (including Kretikoi/Rhodioi Sphendonetai and excluding Akontistai) maximum.

Reformed Army

Same as previous, but instead of Pezhetairoi you have the Hysteroi guys. And quite many of them as well (about 4 out of 8). Also, use more mercenaries than normally, with Thraikioi and Illyrioi being the norm.

Koinon Hellenon - 2 types of armies (Iphikratean, Reformed 'Successor')

Iphikratean

Infantry: Iphikratides or hoplites as a 4-6 unit solid main line, as well as 2 elite hoplites (including Strategos). Normal hoplites can be used as flankers as well as Thorakitai/Thureophoroi/Peltastai (and Thraikioi).

Cavalry: About 2-3 units (Hippeis, Hippakontistai). No Thessalikoi.

Ranged: 4 Toxotai/Sphendonetai (including Kretikoi/Rhodioi Sphendonetai and excluding Akontistai).

Reformed 'Successor' Army

Koinon Phalangitai and Misthophoroi Pezhetairoi (2 maximum) as a main line, as well as the same flankers as the Iphikratean one. Hoplites and Iphs can be included. 2 elites as well (Strategos included). Xystophoroi can be used as well, but 1 unit maximum. 2-3 units of cavalry all in all.

I'll come back for the Diadochoi, but first I'll list here the possible matchups:

Epeiros vs Romani --> Reformed Pyrrhic - Camillan
Makedonia vs Romani --> Late Alexandrian - Polybian or Reformed - Polybian
Koinon Hellenon vs Romani --> Traditional vs Polybian or Reformed Iphikratean

Maion

[Maion Maroneios]

Just a little extra thing I remembered. We should apply for a special subforum to be created for us and hold this tournament on a basis we should decide. This can lots of fun, making videos and the like in the future.

Maion

[rootje]

My RTW-gold just came in the post so I'm ready to rock, should I just do a second install with key when the tourney comes up or do I need to reinstall my basic playing install? hope not as I use alexander to play :P. Any help on this would be appriacted also I'm really looking forward to this, havn't played TW games in mutiplayer for years because in my experience most people just tried to ''leetkid;'and there wasn't much tactcs in it, just spamming elite units. With this community I have faith in a wonderfull tourney though :D!

[paullus]

Just a thought, but if you're using 14 un-upgraded units, you probably don't need more than about 35k. otherwise you get into rather silly unit additions. it should be that, as a successor army for example, if you decide you want elephants and hypaspistai, you have to suffer in the composition of your phalanx to be able to field those units.

As a lead historian for EB, might I offer a few thoughts on some of the limits you might impose on elites and non-phalanx/legion troops? I'd require that 9 units on each roster be phalanx/legion troops, unless you find that too restrictive or burdensome. That does mean that the successor armies will be, numerically, a good bit larger than their Roman counterparts. is that ok?

Obviously you want to have some choice in how a roster looks, but a historical 14-unit roman army migth appear as follows:

1x equites
2x velites/leves
3x hastati
3x principes
3x triarii
with two "extra" units, either both extraordinarii units (but not two of either), or two missile units, or another cav unit, etc.
you might also allow replacing one of each from the 3 traditional units with a comparable "allied" unit.

for the Successors, with 14 units:

1x hetairoi/gen
2x agema/silvershield (and no more than 2)
4x pezhetairoi/klerouchoi
3x deuteroi/pantodapoi/machimoi
to which you can add no more than 2 additional cavalry, none of which may be hetairoi, and no more than 2 missile units, and no more than 1 unit of hypaspistai equivalents.

i hope that can be helpful, this seems like a great idea.

[rootje]

My 2 cents on the idea topic: maybe a second league division for people that can actually handle 14+ and huge unitsizes, I think alot of players here actually do have great pcs and it would rock to use some of that potential for the most overwhelming confrontatons of both sides, in my opinion. I'd love to see a force of 2000+ pikes walk up to my line while my hastati prepare to unleash doom from the sky ;)!

[Βελισάριος]

My, my... this has taken an interesting twist.
Paullus, thank you kindly. It definitely is nice to know we have the support of an EB member.

After having read the last few posts, I started brewing an idea.
I am a firm supporter of historical accuracy. History has always been one of my main hobbies. On the other hand, when it comes to PC games I don't always expect much and versatility and fairness are important for me as well.

So I think we should have two leagues. I'd even like to go with three but we lack the participants for that.
The two leagues, or "books" as I'd like to call them would be:

"The Myths" and "The Histories"

In Myths, we should have 20-stack armies with the sharpest and shiniest unit roster with units that may never have been on the same battlefield in the numbers we'll spawn them.
It will be up to the respective participants to decide if they can support Large or Huge armies.

In the Histories, we should go with 14-stack "historical" armies in accordance with the suggestions kindly provided by Maion and Paullus.

Additionally, in "Myths" there will be a strict Greek vs. Roman rule. The culture surviving at the end wins. Then, if it's the Greeks they can slaughter each other over the prize and if it's the Romans they can have a civil war.
In "Histories" we should go with the earlier mentioned "bracket" tournament and so we might see Greek vs. Greek and possibly (though unlikely since there aren't so many participants yet) Roman vs. Roman... because, let's face it, if there's one thing the Greeks were better at than fighting off invaders, it was fighting each other. And Romans will always want to be Imperator.

[rootje]

That sounds like a great idea, both serves the goal of having fun as to achieve the goal we had set when this tournament was invented. I'd be happy to play both, keep up the good work guys!

[Tolg]

I'm not sure about the two "books" yet. I'd like to hear a few more opinions and (more important!) pros and cons about them.


Generally, I like "The Histories" better, though I'm still reluctant to give up the Romans vs Greeks idea, especially since this is "book" supposed to be historical (After all the roman civil war was much later then most of their wars against the Greeks (Except perhaps the war against Pontos and a few others I don't know about).

Now some thoughts on the different tournament systems:

Format:

x) Name of the system

About: How it is done (Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing) and perhaps some more thoughts which don't fit into any other category.

Advantages: The advantages of the system IMO(or things that imo could be seen as advantages by others) . Feel free to add more.

Disadvantages: Tells its own tale.

Solutions: Possible solutions for the problems stated above (Problems with the solutions in brackets).

1) the Single-elimination tournament

How to: Two players fight each other once (pairings chosen by some random means), the looser is out of the tournament. Players keep competing with each other till all participants of one of the two sides are out.

Advantages:

• Fewer battles.
• Weak players are sorted out very fast.
• No draws.
• It is possible to determine 1 single player as the winner.

Disadvantages:

• Only one battle for weak players / players who meet are strong foe or are just unlucky in the first round.
• Unfair if one side has more players than the other one.
• A single strong player can (and will) make his side win, irrespective of the performance of the other players of his side.
• Weak "team spirit". (Result of the point above.)

Solutions:

• Multiple lives for the players of the less numerous faction (Unfair if not all players (of one side) can get the same amount of lives).

2) The "Bracket" system

About: c&p'd from Tiberius Claudius Marcellus' post:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I suggest that we use a Bracket system similar to NCAA basketball, and have a "2 loss knockout", thereby guaranteeing each participant at least 2 battles.

For instance if we had 16 contestants, we would divide them into the "Blue" bracket and the "Red" bracket, each with 8 teams. Players play each other in their respective brackets and whittle the competition down until we come to a final battle between the champion of "blue" and the champion of "red".

Seeding would be chosen at random by one of the judges "out of a hat" style. When a player suffers a loss they would be "recast" into the pool to be drawn against another opponent with a loss in the same colored bracket. They would then fight battles as normal and continue on in the tournament. If a player suffers 2 losses then they are eliminated from the tournament. This way, a player who had a bad game can still win the tournament. If a player with one loss plays against an undefeated contestant for the championship, then that player will have to defeat the undefeated player twice to have the better record of victories.

Advantages:

• At least two battles for each player.
• Weak players are sorted out fast.
• Weak players have a higher chance to battle another weak player at least once.
• Unlucky players can still win or at least last longer.
• No draws.
• It is possible to determine 1 single player as the winner.
• Moderate number of battles

Disadvantages:

• Few battles for weak players.
• More complicated then the other systems.
• Doesn't go well with the Romans vs Greeks idea. (e.g. one side having more players with one loss than the other.
• A single strong player can (and will) make his side win, irrespective of the performance of the other players of his side.
• Weak "team spirit". (Result of the point above.)
• Unfair if one side has more players than the other one.

Solutions:

• Multiple lives for the players of the less numerous faction (Unfair if not all players (of one side) can get the same amount of lives).

3) The Point System:

About: Each player fights all players of the other side. The number of victories of each side is counted, the side with the most victories wins the tournament.

Advantages:

• Fewer problems with unequal numbers of contestants, though of course equal numbers are still preferable. (2 Romans vs 100 Greeks will still mean 200 chances for both side to score)
• Long tournament.
• Even the weakest player is guaranteed to have the set number of battles (number of "imperatores" x number of "strategoi" = number of battles)
• Draws possible.
• Winning sides rather then winning players.
• Victories from all (or most) players are needed to make one side win.
• Small prices (= titles), like the ones mentioned by Irish earlier, are easier to decide upon.

Disadvantages:

• Long tournament
• Draws possible. (Both points are meant to be mentioned twice.)
• No single winner.
• Weak players won't be "knocked out" at all.

Solutions: ---


I don't speak ancient Greek, somebody please tell me the proper plural of "strategos".

Edit: Having a subforum for tournaments would be really nice. Otherwise there is the danger of this section being flooded with numerous tournament related topics soon. ^^'

[IrishHitman]

Again, Irish... I'm open to suggestions. What do you propose we do instead?

And the point wasn't really to see which of the factions is better. That's an issue no amount of study will satisfy for anyone. It's more a matter of whether Legionary armies are more efficient than Phalanxes.
And again, I support the idea that having a number of battles between Hellenic generals of the various factions again Roman generals will settle this to some extent. It's not so much a tournament in the classic sense, since we (probably) won't have only one winner, but the culture that remains "standing" at the end is declared victorious.

That's why I made my suggestion to counteract the knockout format.
Plenty of 1v1 and 2v2 games, with stats, wins/losses and replays (if possible) posted for the jury to consider. The overall winner and individual team/player award are considered.

All we need to establish now is how many games do we want to play.

[HunGeneral]

I think that "Two Books" Idea sounds nice. IF it could Work I don't know. We might just make things more complicated but if the mutliplaying participators would be interrested and there enough of them to take part in that aswell we should try it.

Bracket system... well I don't know. It should be tested in practice first.

[Gabeed]

I don't speak ancient Greek, somebody please tell me the proper plural of "strategos".

strategoi.

[Βελισάριος]

Righto.
Taking all of the above into consideration, let's come up with a system to please everybody (or mostly everybody).

First, let's break it down to the essentials... what we want is to a.) give everyone a chance to fight and b.) have a clear winner to settle the legion vs. phalanx original dispute.
Here's how I think we can accomplish both.

First we should start simplistic so I propose a "point system", UEFA-style league, where everyone gets to play 3 battles. Opponents and maps will be randomly selected by the jury.
At the end of this, if there are any ties, we'll have a semi-final round. Then, the Roman Imperator and Greek Strategos with the most points are selected, given some time to prepare and then they will decide, beyond all doubt, which culture is the winner in one open-field battle for the "Nike-Victoria" cup (=p).

Additionally, we can include awards for: best ambush-tactician, best cavalry commander, and some of the others which were already suggested above.

I'd still like to implement the "two books" system, but we can do this in the next tournament. Let's try this one first, and find all the chinks in proverbial armour and then we can elaborate by including more stages/events, etc.
Preferrably, by then we will also have more participants.

Agreed?

P.S.:

Just a little extra thing I remembered. We should apply for a special subforum to be created for us and hold this tournament on a basis we should decide. This can lots of fun, making videos and the like in the future.

Maion

We should definittely do this.
But we'll have to draw some more attention first. A score of siggies and videos after the tournament is concluded might help.

[HunGeneral]

I agree.

Well it is really better if we try the "two books" system later. Right now lets concentrate on the main-tournament.

I also support the idea of awards. The subforum is also a great Idea. However I have no idea what we need for that but as Burebista said - with more interrest it will come together.

[Tolg]

I don't really get what you mean with "semi-finals", I'll just try to make a suggestion based on your one:

1. All players compete in a set number of matches. Some kind of point system is used (How does the UEFA system work btw? I'm not a soccer fan. ), the side with the most points wins the faction tournament.
2. Every player with more then a certain amount of points (preferably only those with the highest score, but we need to make sure there's a decent number of particapants) automatically qualyfies for the second round of the tournament. This would be a knock-out tournament to decide who's the best individual general. The second round could either be Greeks vs Romans or mixed.


I think for the moment we need a list of all players who have applied so far. (I could list everyone who applied on the forums, but I don't know if there are some who applied per pm only.)


An important questions to discuss:

How many matches are there going to be if we go with the point system? Remember that there should be equal numbers of games for all players.