Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

[Βελισάριος]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/StaringContestcopy.jpg

Hear ye, hear ye!

There has been a bit of a discussion recently on the topic of which faction most deserves to have their capital sacked. Then somehow it drifted from the Red Death vs the Yellow Death to "my pilum is bigger than your sarissa" . How it got there is beyond my comprehension but bitter words and threats have been exchanged, culture and military prowess offended, excuses offered and so on.

I propose we settle this the old fashioned way: one on one legionary army vs. phalanx formation in an online tournament.

This will most likely not settle the matter of "The Romans were better than the Greeks" but at least it will give everyone a chance to be a good sport and have a great time wreaking havoc among enemy armies.

My proposal for this tournament is simple: pit (say) 5 Roman generals against 5 Hellenic strategous (from any Hellenic faction), have them engage in one on one battles until one of the two cultures has been completely annihilated from the tournament.
Alternatively, we could have stages: siege, open field, ambush with factions alternatively attacking and defending cities, key positions, etc.

There should, of course, be a jury for this and a board to promote and make sure common sense and good old sportsmanship are making this a fun time for everyone.

So who would be interested? Who among you thinks himself worthy to defend his favourite ancient culture's prowess on the battlefield? Grab your Gladius, your Xiphos, your Scutum and your Aspis and defend your faction's honour!

The Rulebook:

Hellenic factions to be represented: Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon, Makedonia, Arche Seleukeia, Ptolemaioi, Pontos.

Baktria will not be allowed as a participant faction.


EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament. That is to say clean install, no additional mods, all fixes.


Roman reforms limitations
In the interest of historical accurateness Roman reformed units shall be limited when fighting Epeiros to Camillan, against Koinon Hellenon, and Makedonia to Polybian and Marian when engaging an army of Ptolemaioi, Arche Seleukeia, and Pontos.

So:
Camillan vs. Epeiros
Polybian vs. Koinon Hellenon, Makedonia
Marian vs. Arche Seleukeia, Pontos, Ptolemaioi

Furthermore, versions of units from earlier reforms than the one the army should be fighting in will not be accepted (i.e. Camillan Triarii in Polybian Armies, Camillan Principes idem, etc.) nor are “earlier” units to be accepted in later, reformed armies, for example Rorarii in Polybian armies, Hastati, Principes, Triarii in Marian. In-game, the unit description will say whether a unit is Camillan, Polybian or Marian.
Exceptions: Accensi in Polybian, Velites in Marian.

(for a detailed list, see EB website (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions.html))

Unit limitation I Unit recruitment shall be limited to those units published on the EB website for each respective faction.
Check here (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions.html).


Unit limitation II
Elephant units are limited to 1 for Epeiros, 2 for Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi (if you honestly think you can afford it).
Missile unit number shall be limited to 6 (that includes: Sphendonetai, Toxotai of any kind, Akontistai, Velites and Accensi. Peltastai fall under a different category. Missile cavalry will be count as cavalry.)

Legion and Phalanx unit minimum
Each army must have at least a number of 6 Legionary (Hastati, Principes, Cohors Reformata) or Phalanx (Phalangitai, Hoplitai) units in its makeup.

Allied/Mercenary units
The ratio of faction/mercenary units is 2-1, and this is for all infantry units and 1-1 for cavalry units. (e.g.: 2 Eqvites Romani & 2 Eqvites Extraordinarii; 2 Hetairoi & 2 Mistophoroi Thraikioi Prodromoi, et cetera)

Concerning cavalry
Maximum cavalry units is 4, of which maximum 2 heavy cavalry. (Cavalry "general" units do no count- i.e. Somatophylakes Strategou/Eqvites Consulari)

Historical army formation
(yes, gentlemen, that means levies)
After careful debating, the jury has decided on the following ratio for Levy-Standard-Elite units respectively: 2-3-1, this is for all units except cavalry.
Levy: Any unit priced under 1200 mnai or that has “levy” in its unit description (e.g.: Accensi, Rorarii, Akontistai, Illyrian Costal Levies, Hoplitai Haploi, Phalangitai Deuteroi/Pantadapoi/Machimoi, etc.)

Standard units (or the rank-and-file/backbone of the army): Any unit priced between 1200 and 2900 mnai or that does not have the words “levy” or “elite” in its description. (e.g.: Hoplitai, Pezhetairoi, Peltastai, Thureophoroi, Thorakitai, Principes, etc.)

Elite: Any unit priced over 2900 mnai, that is a better version of a standard unit (reforms notwithstanding) or that has the word “elite” in its description. E.g.: Pedites Extraordinarii, Spartiatai/Epilektoi Hoplitai, Argyraspides, Macedonian Reformed Phalanx, Ptolemaic Basilikon Agema, Ptolemaic Klerouchikon Agema, Hypaspistai, Peltastai Makedonikoi/Pheraspides, Thorakitai Agematos Basilikou, Thraikioi Rhompaiaphoroi, Toxotai Kretikoi/Syriakoi, Sphendonetai Rhodioi. ("General" units do nout count as elites for the purpose of this count.)

For Roman armies, this is a little different, which means:
Camillan/Polybian: 2 Light infantry (Velites, Accensi, Hastati Samnitici, Rorarii) – 2 Hastati – 2 Principes – 1 Triarii -1 Pedites Extraordinarii/Other elite unit.

Marian: 1 Antesignani – 1 Cohors Evocata – 2 Cohors Reformata (with only one Prima Cohors Reformata per army.)

Unit number limitations
None whatsoever. Go crazy with your 20-stack!


Funds available40.000 Mnai.


Battle replays
The replay file should be universally available after the battle, so everyone could get a taste of the action. It will be up to the jury to then make up an AAR of sorts with screenies and comments added for flavour.


No Upgrades At least no more than 1 bronze chevron.


Match-up
Point system, 2 match-ups per participant.
Victory points awarded for victory (1 pt each). At the end the Imperator and Strategos with the most points will fight the final battle to decide the winner.

In the event of a tie, there will be an additional knock-out round to decide the two contestants for the final round.


Mini-rules:

A. Tie-breaker tier: in the event of an unresolved battle (draw), and if the two parties have not settled on a re-match, the jury will decide on the winner and the following will be taken into consideration.
No charging through your own lines.
If you have elephants, notify your opponent before the battle.
A-historical or ridiculous phalanx manoeuvres, such as charging towards enemy then lowering sarissas just before impact, 180-degree turns while engaged in combat.

B. Disqualification Tier. You break 'em, you bought the farm.
“Phalanx Penetration” exploit (ordering unit to charge behind phalanx unit to bypass spears).
Under no circumstances can you deploy your troops at the end of the field against the "red line" that contours the battlefield so that your flanks are protected by the imaginary red line.
If an army is surrounded (particularly a phalanx box) the one encircled must push through in a reasonable amount of time or otherwise forfeit.
The surrounding army must completely encircle its opponent (i.e. all soldiers must be shoulder to shoulder forming a circle -or polygon, if you will- around the enemy army).
If an army is left with only cavalry units then it should engage the enemy in a reasonable amount of time or otherwise forfeit.


And Additional prizes will be awarded for:
Best Cavalry Commander,
Best Ambush,
Best Phalanx Formation (as in, combination of units for maximum efficiency),
Best Legionary Formation,
The special “Herodotus” Prize for most historically accurate army formation,
The special “Nike-Victoria” award for the undefeated generals of the first stage,
The “Butcher” award for most kills with least casualties,
The “Menander” award for funniest moment.


Extensive Multiplayer Guide (by Tolg):
This guide is written so that anyone can understand it. Please just ignore the obvious bits.


I. Guide to play EB over the Internet using RTW online game feature


Make sure that you have a clean install of: RTW + Patch 1.3 + Patch 1.5
EB 1.1
EB 1.2
The EB 1.2 Fixes (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=109936)
(Installed in this order)
Check if your firewall allows RTW to access the Internet.
Start EB using the multiplayer .exe
Click "Multiplayer"
Click "Online Battles"
If it asks you to enter your CD key, click "Change CD key" and enter the key of your copy of RTW Afterwards click "Online battles" again.
When it asks you to enter your name do so (preferably the name you use on the forums so your opponent can recognize you)
You should now be in the Lobby and your screen should look somewhat like this: https://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk465/abzuEnuma/RomeTW2009-02-1917-48-24-16.jpg In order to play an online battle, one player has to "host" a game and the other one has to "join" it.
a) If you're the one joining just check all the three servers (Chat Lobby, Competitive and Friendly) in the box at the bottom right for a yellow game name, if there are multiple ones check the host's name by placing your cursor on top of the game's entry in the list.
b) If you're the one hosting, click the icon with the two screens. Your screen will look like this: https://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk465/abzuEnuma/RomeTW2009-02-1917-48-38-89.jpg. Enter a name for your game, select the max. number of players and the unit scale and then press "Host Custom Battle". (You don't need a password) Afterwards do what you would do if you were setting up a sp custom battle.
After both players have joined select your factions, press the arrow in the corner at the bottom right, set up your armies press the arrow again and FIGHT!
Don't forget to save the replay once you're done!


II. Guide to play EB over the Internet using Hamachi

See step 1) and 2) of the previous guide.
Download Hamachi (http://en.softonic.com/s/hamachi)
Install Hamachi and read it's tutorial. It only tales ~2 minutes but helps a lot.
a) Create a Hamachi network (press the triangul button at the bottom left of the Hamachi window, select create network, enter the name and a password and hit OK)
b) Join the network that was created by your opponent. (The triangular button again, join network and enter name and pw of the network)
Now it gets tricky:
Cut your main internet connection.
Start EB using the mp .exe and click "Multiplayer" and "Lan Battle"
Minimize your game (Alt + Tab or Alt + Esc)
Reenable your Internet connection
return to the game and do as described in the previous guide (Step 8).
Don't forget to save the replay once you're done!



Historical army make-up guides for participants:
(these are guidelines and not to be taken as actual rules)

Maion's Makedonia, Epeiros and Koinon Hellenon:

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


[B]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.

IrishHitman's "stricter" Late Alexandrian army:

I agree with this for the most part, although I'd impose stricter controls on the late Alexandrian army, like this:

Late Alexandrian:
2 Argyraspides, 2 Pezhetairoi, 3 levy.
1 Hypaspist unit, 1 Thracian peltasts and 1 Agrianian unit min.
I may include 1 Illyrian peltast unit as well, if they exist in EB.
I guess a regular peltast unit could fill the unit gap on that one.

Min 1 - Max 2 Companions, Min 1 - Max 2 Thessalians.

Min 1 Cretan archers.

The last four slots should be filled with League of Corinth (Southern Greek) troops, of various stripe.
Hoplites mostly, though I'd also place some medium cavalry in there for accuracy as I'll explain*.

If my reading of JR Hamilton's introduction to Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander is correct, then that should present the most realistic Alexandrian army.

Though the cavalry is still disproportionately large if the max is used... By a factor of two.
Hamilton states that when Alexander crossed the Hellespont, he had 30-43 thousand infantry (including ranged) and 4-5 thousand cavalry. The proportion would have stayed the same until Alexander dismissed his Thessalians in Media, and Persian melee/horse archer battalions were formed.

The proportion between Companian and Thessalian cavalry is stated as exactly equal at 1,800 each, with the League cavalry making up the rest*.


Signatures for contestants:

Imperatores:
"Slightly Hellenic"
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/SlightlyHelleniccopy.jpg

Strategoi:
"Hellenic Warmachine" (Koinon Hellenon)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/WarmachineII.jpg[/img]

"Athena would be proud" (Koinon Hellenon)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Warmachine.jpg[/img]

"Form up!" (Epeiros)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Formationcopy.jpg

"Ippeus (The Horseman)" (Makedonia)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/TheHorsemancopy.jpg

[duncan.gill]

Isn't there going to be problems given that whatever terrain that you choose for the map will advantage one army over the other? Also if the army is just going to be Phalanx vs just Legions then wouldn't the legions win because the Phalanx wouldn't be able to access the more mobile troops to protect the flanks?

[Tolg]

Also if the army is just going to be Phalanx vs just Legions then wouldn't the legions win because the Phalanx wouldn't be able to access the more mobile troops to protect the flanks?

He didn't say that there may only be phalangites or only legionaries. Each general should be free to use whatever he wants, as long as the core of the army are legionaries/a phalanx. And of course using too many non-factional troops would beat the purpose as well.



Isn't there going to be problems given that whatever terrain that you choose for the map will advantage one army over the other?

What about rematches with the position reversed? (I assume they are decided depending on who's the attacker)

I like the idea though I've always been a cavalry commander and hence won't participate myself.

[Maion Maroneios]

This is a very interesting idea, when I get my new laptop I may consider installing a clean version of EB 1.2 and fire Multiplayer. I'll fight as Makedonia.

Maion

P.S.: Btw, a sarissa is bigger that a pilum, you know:inquisitive:

[Sarkiss]

interesting idea... the only thing it shouldnt be presented as Romani vs KH (that would be legionaries vs hoplitai), but Romani vs Macedon ~;)

[Maion Maroneios]

interesting idea... the only thing it shouldnt be presented as Romani vs KH (that would be legionaries vs hoplitai), but Romani vs Macedon ~;)
I second that. So it will be legionaries vs phalangites. Oh, I'm so eager to kick some Romaioi butt:evil2:

Maion

[Βελισάριος]

To address the issues at hand:

1. Of course it won't be just legion vs. only phalanx units. The phalanx would get slaughtered... unless the Roman general is a complete moron or the Greek a "divine tactician".
And we'll have a restricted roster... i.e. no mercenary units unless they're of the same culture as your faction (i.e.: no elephants for the Romans, no Samnite mercs for the Greeks, etc.)

2. It was never the issue whether it be legion vs hoplitai or phalangitai phalanx... just phalanx. I for one think each Greek culture should be represented. Alternatively, in the interest of fairness we could have a poll to determine which Hellenic culture should represent the lot.

And yes, I know a sarissa is bigger than a pilum. That was the intended pun.

Oh, and is there anyway we can get an easily unistallable patch/minimod to rearrange that multiplayer unit roster because it's giving me the willies.

[rootje]

Sounds like a wonderfull idea, also should be a hell of a lot of fun to try and use the actual tactics used back in the day[as much as that's possible in the RTW engine].

I'd like to get some more info on what's specificly neccesary to play online etc, iff it's do-able i'd like to represent the true reds :beam:. Hopefully this tourny will take some time to set up so I can just get enough time to reach marian reforms in my grand roman campaign and get used to them after almost 100 years of the old checkerboard <3

[Tolg]

2. It was never the issue whether it be legion vs hoplitai or phalangitai phalanx... just phalanx. I for one think each Greek culture should be represented. Alternatively, in the interest of fairness we could have a poll to determine which Hellenic culture should represent the lot.


I think Macedonia should represent the phalangitai, they are the most traditional faction in terms of Alexandros Megas-like warfare, Epeiros was considered to be a barbarian faction, the seleucids use too many asian units, the ptolemaioi too many egyptian ones, Bactria has HAs and lacks elite phalanx, and Pontos doesn't even use normal hetaroi bodyguards (of course Bactria doesn't either).

Edit: The Hoplitai were already outdated by 272BC and they don't even fight as phalanx due to engine limitations. (Or due to too many difficulties with the animations.)

[machinor]

Nice idea. If this is going to happen, please make a video of the battles and put the best of them on youtube. So everyone can enjoy.

[Βελισάριος]

I have every intention of making this tournament happen. There are a few issues that need be sorted out in advance, of course, princely at this point: unit roster and Hellenic representation. So Rootje and all, you'll have enough time to get used to any tactics you want (oh, and... the checkerboard never gets old!).

Firstly Those interested in being members of the jury, please PM me so we can confer on a few topics.

Second I'd like to have an artwork team to design prizes/trophies/custom signatures for the participant and winners. I think that would add some flair to the whole thing.

Third and very important Regarding the issue of which faction to represent the Greeks: Epeiros were, indeed, considered barbarians and they have a score of barbarian units to show for that. Seleukids, Ptolemaioi, Pontos and Baktria have too many Asian/Egyptian units despite being technically Hellenic cultures.

That leaves Makedonia and Koinon Hellenoi. Admittedly, Alexandros (everyone's favourite butcher) was a divine tactician and Phillip's Phalangitai were the creme de la creme of Greek infantrymen, I don't think the Hoplitai were obsolete, they did adapt and Spartan Hoplites were this widely regarded as the best soldiers in the world (be it boastfully or otherwise). Admittedly, if you pit Phalangitai against Hoplitai in one on one head-on combat, I'd have my money on the Makedonian phalanx, but remember the issue here is mobility. Now which of the two do you think is more mobile?

Oh, and I will ask participants to save and send the recorded battles for our viewers to enjoy. After-Action Reports and commentaries will be issued by the jury at the end of a battle.

[antisocialmunky]

I think that any faction with a phalanx tradition that the Romans actually fought should be eligible as long as most of the infantry core is phalangites.

That means Epeiros, Pontus, Makedonia, KH, AS, Ptolomies, and Pontus.

Also, you need to have a list of eligible maps unless you just want to play on Irish Marshland which of course gives a big advantage to the phalanx due to flat nothingness.

[Gabeed]

*Bursts through tent flap heroically, the sun shining in*

Ptolemaic strategos, volunteering.





(I could be any of the other Diodochi, if need be)

[IrishHitman]

Makedonia signed up, provided the time is convenient.

DAMN ROMANS, STEALING GREEK SUPREMACY.

[Dutchhoplite]

This sounds very interesting :yes:

[Phalanx300]

It does indeed, even though we already know who is the superior one, the Hellenes ofcourse :sweatdrop:. But we might as well give these Romani barbarians a fair chance to show them the light:whip:.


Anyways, should there be a rule which makes people use Historical correct tactics and armies?


And maybe some minirules like: No charging cavalry through your own line, not changing from enemy with Phalangites if engaged?



I'm not sure if I join this, if I would I would most certainly join as the Koinen Hellenon. The Greek City States are after all the most supreme force ever to have existed:idea2:. Sparta stands unrivaled troughout the world!:yes:

[Gabeed]

Regarding army rules, I would hope merely putting a limit on elephant, horse, and archer units would be sufficient, along with a required amount of legions/phalangitai. Some creativity needs to be allowed, after all.

[Dutchhoplite]

With some creativity you even can create "early", "middle and "late" Phalanx armies.

[desert]

I propose that all participants in the competition be required to record their games and upload them to youtube!

[Ibrahim]

I propose that all participants in the competition be required to record their games and upload them to youtube!

here here!!

I'll try to get on the online battle-I've yet to see if comcast blocks me or not. I've Pmed Burebista.

so, what day? I prefer saturday.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

In order to give as much as possible the most needed accurancy we could limit the units eligible depending on the factions that will fight. For intance, if Makedonia will face the romans, the roman general would not be able to use marian legions because at that time the makedonia state was already part of the roman empire.

Just an idea.

[Ibrahim]

In order to give as much as possible the most needed accurancy we could limit the units eligible depending on the factions that will fight. For intance, if Makedonia will face the romans, the roman general would not be able to use marian legions because at that time the makedonia state was already part of the roman empire.

Just an idea.

that's not a bad idea. not bad at all. in fact, perfect.

[Βελισάριος]

Thank you all for your support and interest!

I'm pleased to let you know we already have (half) a jury, so things are well under way.
What we would really, really need at this moment are some more players to represent the Romans. So if you know any Rome fanatics who'd like to defend Roman arms... do let them know, please.

Regarding the issue of limitations: I like the idea of no Marian units when fighting Makedonia, though due to the EB system that may be both unnecessary and unfair.

So far, the only "limitations" I can think of would be on non-factional mercenary units and, of course... the fact that Romans msut have legionnary units and the Hellenes, the phalanx. Otherwise, it is completely at the general's discretion as to how he organises his army. A detailed list of faction rosters will be issued following a debate among jury members with your opinions, of course.

Any other suggestions you may have, feel free to post them here or PM myself. Any info and feedback are more than welcome!

Once again, thank you all. And... GET ME SOME ROMANS!
Peace :hippie:

[antisocialmunky]

... I wouldn't mind getting the replay files either. That's probably better than Youtube's blurryness.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I'd volunteer for the Romani!

[Ibrahim]

I'd volunteer for the Romani!

well then: PM Burebista (you have to)

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

Aye Aye Captain!:pirate2:

[Βελισάριος]

Well, you don't have to PM me... I keep a close eye on this thread.
Anyway, yes I'm glad to have another Roman general.

So let's see, then... so far, we have in the Red corner, representing zee Romans:
Rootje
The guy with a Monty Python name, We shall fwee...Wodewick

And in the orange-black-yellow-silver-etc. corner, representing the Greeks:
Gabeed [as the Yellow Death]
IrishHitman [As the Bl... no, wait, that name's taken]
Maion Maroneios [as Makedonia, when he gets his laptop]

Phalanx300 ? Tolg? (you know, Makedonia have some nice cavarly if that's your cup of tea and so do the Romans)

Who else would be interested? I'd like at least 4 on each side.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

4 on each side?
Do the signers have enough hardware so that they dont lag out??

[Tolg]

You can count me in as a substitute in case you don't find enough participants, though my abilities as an infantry commander are probably below average, meaning the the other side would have an advantage.

I could play either with the Romans or with a Greek faction. (Of course I'd like to use Hellenic Cataphracts, but they might be a bit unfair. lol)


BTW, what is the jury supposed to do?

[Ibrahim]

You can count me in as a substitute in case you don't find enough participants, though my abilities as an infantry commander are probably below average, meaning the the other side would have an advantage.

I could play either with the Romans or with a Greek faction. (Of course I'd like to use Hellenic Cataphracts, but they might be a bit unfair. lol)


BTW, what is the jury supposed to do?

we judge as "impartial" observers I guess.

[Tolg]

Yes, but what do you judge? If someone has broken the rules of the tournament or not?

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

The rules are being hammered out as we speak! As one of the jury, I submitted a list of suggestions for rules/tournament mechanics to Burebista about an hour ago. We will keep you posted! :-D

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament


Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms


Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.


The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.

By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.


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.


Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

[Ibrahim]

The rules are being hammered out as we speak! As one of the jury, I submitted a list of suggestions for rules/tournament mechanics to Burebista about an hour ago. We will keep you posted! :-D

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament


Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms


Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.


The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.

By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.


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.


Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

good start. I have reservations towards army size limit, as considering huge or large sizes is typical for the player, and phalanxes are always 122 (or 244) men (large and huge, respectively), even with 14 units, there will be a lag.

[Gabeed]

These rules all sound good, it'll be interesting to hear how much money we get for troops.

My laptop can handle huge battles with considerable ease.

[Tolg]

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament


No objections.



Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms


No objections either, just wondering if the reforms really are an advantage (provided that one may only choose units available during the same era e.g. only Polybian ones if he decides to fight with Polybian reforms etc.)




Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow Internet connections or slow computers.


What does historical mean? Aren't all EB units historical anyway? And reformed units are already ruled out...
I agree with the 14 units limit, though my computer could easily take 20 units each.



The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.
By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.


Sry, but my fraps trial can only take 30 second videos. Why can't we just use the battle replays?



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.


Perhaps we should either increase the number of battles or restrict the selection of the maps?
Because even the best players don't have much of a chance when fighting an enemy with a huge height advantage. If you're unlucky 2 times, you're out...



Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

No objections, although I think you'll have a hard time determining who's at fault...

Edit: Are there some common rules for multiplayer battles? e.g. limiting the number of slingers?

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I don't like the idea of Rome having just Camillian. It should have the correct reform depending on it's opponent, i.e Epirus vs Camillian, KH and Maks vs polybians and others Marian.

[Maion Maroneios]

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament
Agreed on this one.


Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms
I don't quite agree on that. We could prevent the Romans from using Reformed armies according to the faction they face. For instance, when fighting Makedonia they should have Camillan or Polybian troops. Not sure about the latter, however. When fighting the Ptolemaioi or Seleukeis, however, they can (theoretically) use the Marian troops as well, but for that to happen the aforementioned factions facing the Romans will have to use a reformed 'Romanized' army.


Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.
The maximum unit number can be further discussed later on, so for now I suggest we say that each individual uses as many units as the other. Unless of course, one of the two decides he wants less units. Another things we should have to discuss, is unit experience. While it would be best to have no units with experience or armor upgrades, if we simulate a Makedonian-Roman war, the Romans should have experienced troops, representing the veterans of the Punic Wars.


The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.
Yes, I agree for one of the the two posting only the replay file. Taking pictures and putting together a representation (sort of an AAR) of the actual battle can be done by 3rd people.


By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.
Agreed.


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".
We could do something like that, but even more simple. Just use a Tree Diagram of some sort, which I can show you when I find an according picture on the net.


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.
I believe we shouldn't make this all too complex. IMO, when a player is eliminated, he should be eliminated. This means, out of the tournament. Otherwise, it will take much too long to prepare everything.


Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.
You'll have to define a 'fault' here, I believe. I don't think there are many ways to make 'faults', since the only thing the contestants have to do is fight. Also, don't restrict the time for preparation for anyone. I mean, someone might not be able to participate due to RL issues for one day, but may do so another. We can simply have the individual contestants participating in a specific chosen (by the judges randomly) fight post their army composition on a thread so we can check for mistakes or inaccuracies. When they get the OK, they can go on with fighting. When done, they can simply post the replay file on the same created thread.

Maion

[Dutchhoplite]

I don't like the idea of Rome having just Camillian. It should have the correct reform depending on it's opponent, i.e Epirus vs Camillian, KH and Maks vs polybians and others Marian.

Seleucids vs polybians too ;)

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

Seleucids vs polybians too ;)

I stand correxted, Magnesia et al were before the marians, although weren't the legions by this time becoming 'heavier' i.e les hastati and more princeps? or am it talking out of my *insert city in Iberia*?

[seienchin]

Now Im confused, why are the polybian or marian troops better then the camillan??
Triarii for example are strongest in the camillan era or am I wrong`?:book:

[rootje]

Triari tend to be better mainly due to the phalanx mod which gives them the ultra charge, but the fact that the hastati get swords in polyban is a big bonus vs phalanx formations which could break the fight in the end.

[Tolg]

More importantly, the Greek factions have a much broader choice of units, you should let the Romans use different units from time to time, even if it's just so that they don't get bored.


Edit: So how much money is going to be used? I would propose 20,000 although this doesn't allow the Greeks to use much medium phalanx. But any more would mean that there will be lots of elites in the Roman armies.

[Βελισάριος]

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament


Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms


Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.


The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.

By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.


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.


Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

Right, nicely done, sir. Ave! Got the polemic going there :)
So here's my :2cents:


First of all, I think we all agree that EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament. That is to say clean install, no additional mods.
But I would like to bring one particular mod to your attention: Ferromancer's Barbarion Invasion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=95664) mod which I find to be quite handy for the following reasons:

It eliminates banners and the green arrows to make it all look more realistic. (but other mods can do that as well, I think)
It offers earlier "phalanx" units the ability to form "shield wall" formation, which makes sense if you think about it since they actually did. This brings the Greeks up to par with some of the phalangitai units when it comes to keeping enemy infantry at bay. It also makes the Triarii more useful.
Night battles FTW! With torches and everything for that added effect.


Only disadvantage is that not everyone has Barbarian Invasion installed. So at this point I'd like a show of hands from those interested in participating if they have it or nay.

Unit roster limitations.
272 BC is too early in the game and makes it quite boring, frankly. I'd like to see the crème de la crème of each faction brought on the field.
In the interest of historical accurateness we should probably limit Roman reforms when fighting Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon and Makedonia to Polybian and I think it's safe to say that Ptolemaioi, Seleukids, Baktrians can and should have to put up with Marian units, as some of you have already pointed out. Except maybe the Seleukids?

But in all fairness, I suspect the EB system makes up for that with later "reformed" units for some of the faction. Except for Epeiros, I think most of the other Hellenic factions get some "Marian" units of their own, isn't that corrrect?

The main limitation that I propose is on non-factional mercenary units.


For Romans, this means they can use Samnite mercenaries (Samn. Heavy infantry and Samn. Spearmen). If a Roman general hires a unit of Phalangitai, he'd be automatically disqualified, I think we can all agree on that. Same if the Greeks decide to hire a unit of Samnite Heavy Infantry.

The Koinon Hellenon are an interesting case, because they could hire a mercenary Phalangitai Deuteroi unit. Should this be allowed or not?

And, of course, the age-old question... do we allow Elephants or not? Be they mercenary or otherwise.

Army make-up limitations
I think this doesn't really matter. The Greeks are renown for their love of being outnumbered when fighting a battle. Players should state beforehand what their computer limitations are. If some PC or Internet technical issues come in the way, then unit size should be limited to "Large" instead of "Huge" (though battles are a lot more fun in the latter case).

The way we can easily settle this is by having a "warm-up" round where participants can battle each other or someone else they can find online and see for themselves what their PCs limitations are, after which they should inform the jury.

Battle replays
The replay file should be universally available after the battle, so everyone could get a taste of the action. It will be up to the jury to then make up an AAR of sorts (good idea, Maion) with screenies and comments added for flavour.

Someone with a working FRAPS could even make a video with soundtrack and everything.

Match-up
The bracket system, though usually "basic" for most tournamets/play-offs/cups would not necessarily work in this case because at one point we would have Roman vs. Roman or Greek vs. Greek which is not necessarily the point of this tournament.

Therefore, I propose a simple, roll-the-dice random distribution of adversaries, with each contestant from their respective cultural block having a number and then pairing them up by rolling the good ol' d6 (or whichever is suited for the situation).
This works if we have the same number of participants for each culture. Not so much if we have, say, 6 Romans and 5 Greeks. In which case, what do we do with the other Roman?

Now, regardless of the number of generals on each side, I think the good old fashioned one-on-one, last-man-standing, individual deathmatch works best. We pit Greek against Roman and Roman against Greek randomly until one of the cultures has been annihilated. It will be up to the jury to make sure everyone gets the same chance to demonstrate their military panache, which is to say every general should have roughly the same number of battles.

And, as has been pointed out already, when you lose, you lose... a player that has been defeated will have been completely eliminated, better luck next month.

Furthermore, I propose this tournament be held over a period of one or two weeks, giving players time to set up appropriate times for their battles with the last week being perhaps for runners up, special prizes, etc.

Does that seem fair enough for everybody?

EDIT: I forgot about the finance issue. Thanks, Tolg! Like I said, I'd like every unit to be sharp n' shiny out there. So is 100.000 ok for everyone? Too much? Maybe 50k? Discuss, please.

[Phalanx300]

Burebista, if I am to join this then I would like it the most to play as the Koinen Hellenon, if thats allowed. Seeing the great Spartan and Greek and Hoplite fan I am :idea2:.

My second choice would be the Macedonians/Epeirots.

And as a third one I gues Rome :help:. Btw, I also somehow like the Hastati/Principes/Triarii system more then the Legionarries somehow:idea2:. I'm I the only one?:sweatdrop:




Also, maybe it will be possible to have a 0.2 density for the Hoplite units? It lets them fight in a more dense formation with more soldiers being able to attack at the front(as it was).

It also allows them to be flexible, not these static blocks as portrayed by guard mode(yes no guard mode needed then).

Which brings me to my next question -> If 0.2 density wont be used, will guard mode be required? Seeing as guard mode makes units fight even worse, Hoplites were lethal at the front however that isn't too well portrayed in EB in my opinion.


Edit: Seeing the above post,

I have Barbarian Invasion and wouldn't object to use it, though I gues not everyone has it.

And Greeks not being able to have Italic units, I agree, except for Epeiros! They had many Italic allies when Pyrrhus invaded Italy and show those Romani Barbarians who's boss!

And the Epeirots should be able to have elephants, Seleucids as well.

Though max 1 elephant should be used.




On vanilla I usually go by these rules at 20.000 to have somewhat more Historical armies for my taste:

Max 5 cavalry, max 5 peltasts/archers/slingers, no artillery except max 1 ballista, max 1 elephant, max 1 chariot.

[Tolg]

Right, nicely done, sir. Ave! Got the polemic going there :)
So here's my :2cents:


First of all, I think we all agree that EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament. That is to say clean install, no additional mods.
But I would like to bring one particular mod to your attention: Ferromancer's Barbarion Invasion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=95664) mod which I find to be quite handy for the following reasons:

It eliminates banners and the green arrows to make it all look more realistic. (but other mods can do that as well, I think)
It offers earlier "phalanx" units the ability to form "shield wall" formation, which makes sense if you think about it since they actually did. This brings the Greeks up to par with some of the phalangitai units when it comes to keeping enemy infantry at bay. It also makes the Triarii more useful.
Night battles FTW! With torches and everything for that added effect.


Only disadvantage is that not everyone has Barbarian Invasion installed. So at this point I'd like a show of hands from those interested in participating if they have it or nay.

Unit roster limitations.
272 BC is too early in the game and makes it quite boring, frankly. I'd like to see the crème de la crème of each faction brought on the field.
In the interest of historical accurateness we should probably limit Roman reforms when fighting Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon and Makedonia to Polybian and I think it's safe to say that Ptolemaioi, Seleukids, Baktrians can and should have to put up with Marian units, as some of you have already pointed out. Except maybe the Seleukids?

But in all fairness, I suspect the EB system makes up for that with later "reformed" units for some of the faction. Except for Epeiros, I think most of the other Hellenic factions get some "Marian" units of their own, isn't that correct?

The main limitation that I propose is on non-factional mercenary units.


For Romans, this means they can use Samnite mercenaries (Samn. Heavy infantry and Samn. Spearmen). If a Roman general hires a unit of Phalangitai, he'd be automatically disqualified, I think we can all agree on that. Same if the Greeks decide to hire a unit of Samnite Heavy Infantry.

The Koinon Hellenon are an interesting case, because they could hire a mercenary Phalangitai Deuteroi unit. Should this be allowed or not?

And, of course, the age-old question... do we allow Elephants or not? Be they mercenary or otherwise.

Army make-up limitations
I think this doesn't really matter. The Greeks are renown for their love of being outnumbered when fighting a battle. Players should state beforehand what their computer limitations are. If some PC or Internet technical issues come in the way, then unit size should be limited to "Large" instead of "Huge" (though battles are a lot more fun in the latter case).

The way we can easily settle this is by having a "warm-up" round where participants can battle each other or someone else they can find online and see for themselves what their PCs limitations are, after which they should inform the jury.

Battle replays
The replay file should be universally available after the battle, so everyone could get a taste of the action. It will be up to the jury to then make up an AAR of sorts (good idea, Maion) with screenies and comments added for flavour.

Someone with a working FRAPS could even make a video with soundtrack and everything.

Match-up
The bracket system, though usually "basic" for most tournamets/play-offs/cups would not necessarily work in this case because at one point we would have Roman vs. Roman or Greek vs. Greek which is not necessarily the point of this tournament.

Therefore, I propose a simple, roll-the-dice random distribution of adversaries, with each contestant from their respective cultural block having a number and then pairing them up by rolling the good ol' d6 (or whichever is suited for the situation).
This works if we have the same number of participants for each culture. Not so much if we have, say, 6 Romans and 5 Greeks. In which case, what do we do with the other Roman?

Now, regardless of the number of generals on each side, I think the good old fashioned one-on-one, last-man-standing, individual deathmatch works best. We pit Greek against Roman and Roman against Greek randomly until one of the cultures has been annihilated. It will be up to the jury to make sure everyone gets the same chance to demonstrate their military panache, which is to say every general should have roughly the same number of battles.

And, as has been pointed out already, when you lose, you lose... a player that has been defeated will have been completely eliminated, better luck next month.

Furthermore, I propose this tournament be held over a period of one or two weeks, giving players time to set up appropriate times for their battles with the last week being perhaps for runners up, special prizes, etc.

Does that seem fair enough for everybody?

EDIT: I forgot about the finance issue. Thanks, Tolg! Like I said, I'd like every unit to be sharp n' shiny out there. So is 100.000 ok for everyone? Too much? Maybe 50k? Discuss, please.

I must say, I like this rules much more then the previous ones. My opinion:


I don't think the KH players shouldn't even want to use Phalangites, they wanted to fight with Spartans etc. otherwise they should Macedonia or Seleuceia. No Phalangites imo.

This is just an idea, tell me what you think about it: We could allow the use of Elephants (at least for some factions) but only if you notify your enemy of it prior to the battle. This way he can prepare for it and we can expect some interesting battles when one players is trying to massacre the enemy's infantry while the other one is trying to pincushion his elephants before he can do so.

I liked the idea of having only 14 units per army - it makes the battles less messy - but I don't mind 20 units either. (Though I think this point should be reconsidered if it turns out the way that most battles are going to be "large".)

Perhaps we can use a point system rather then a knock out system? Each player has a designated number of battles e.g. one time against each member of the other team or against half of the team etc. (depending on how many participants there are and how many battles they are willing to play), and the team with the most victories wins?

Having one player more in one team then in the other isn't much of a problem, I'm participating as a substitute, if the numbers are equal I will remain as a mere spectator (or as a judge if needed) if they aren't I will fight for the smaller team.

I don't know about special "prices" (What did you have in mind?) but I like the idea of the tournament being one or two weeks long. Most of us have RL issues that can prevent them from playing and we probably life in different time zones, making it even more difficult to find a time when both are free.

About the money: 100,000 is far to much, I have a hard time using up even the 50,000 with the Romans and (though less extreme) with the KH. 40000 seams more appropriate, even if we want to use only elite units.
EDIT: Less money for Polybian/Camillian battles, otherwise the romans will have no way to use it up.


I got RTW gold btw.

Edit: 1) I don't think you need a rule limiting the use of cavalry, more then 5 units of them won't leave you any money for your other units (Unless it's some kind of useless light cavalry). If we allow the use 5 units of slingers the KH will win by default. Because Rhodians are better then Accensi and the rest is cannon/slinger fodder. I'm against restricting the use of archers (except perhaps cretian ones) and skirmishers, if someone can use more then 6 of them without losing due to the lack of infantry or cavalry I'd like to see it. Same goes for ballistae, they aren't worth their money anyway. The use of more then 2 units of elephants shouldn't make sense either if the enemy is warned. no clue about carriots, never faught them much.

2) Also the greeks should have to use at least 6 or 8 units of phalanx. (The romans don't have much of choice anyway.)

[Gabeed]

I agree with 40000 for armies. 100,000 and 50,000 are too high, and 20,000 would be too small--for example, a Seleukid king with that money on hand would only be able to buy one group of elephants and 3 pantodopoi.

I would appreciate a list of what units I can or cannot use as a Ptolemy, though I think it'll be difficult to determine. Many of my "mercenary" troops are either actual faction troops (the Galatian klerouch swordsmen) or merely regional troops from the immediate south (Mamichoi and Ethiopian swordsmen). I think I should be able to access them. But I think other mercenary units, such as the Cretan archers, should be up to the jury's preference.

[Βελισάριος]

Quotations, quotations, quotations... I like this. Makes us look all scholarly and sh** :P

Firstly, Phalanx300... great idea with the 0.2 density. This way, members without BI don't need the shieldwall.


I must say, I like this rules much more then the previous ones.

Hey, we all do our part. I made a collection of all the opinions expressed before me and added my own.



I don't think the KH players shouldn't even want to use Phalangites, they wanted to fight with Spartans etc. otherwise they should Macedonia or Seleuceia. No Phalangites imo.

You may have a point there, but I say we leave this to each general according to his style. After all, we should create opportunities.



This is just an idea, tell me what you think about it: We could allow the use of Elephants (at least for some factions) but only if you notify your enemy of it prior to the battle. This way he can prepare for it and we can expect some interesting battles when one players is trying to massacre the enemy's infantry while the other one is trying to pincushion his elephants before he can do so.


I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this. Perhaps from my fellow members of the jury.
I just can't imagine Hannibal or Pyrrhos giving due notice: "Scipio, my boy, I'm bringing some elephants so make sure your skirmishers are ready!"



I liked the idea of having only 14 units per army - it makes the battles less messy - but I don't mind 20 units either. (Though I think this point should be reconsidered if it turns out the way that most battles are going to be "large".)


Again, it's a matter of versatility. If there are technical issues, set unit scale to Large or even Normal in extreme cases. But the checkerboard and even Greek tactical formations would work better if you're playing with a full deck, do you know what I mean?
Besides, abuse of elite units falls under the monetary issue.



Perhaps we can use a point system rather then a knock out system? Each player has a designated number of battles e.g. one time against each member of the other team or against half of the team etc. (depending on how many participants there are and how many battles they are willing to play), and the team with the most victories wins?


Now, this is a matter of realism... no points systems in 272 BC, after all.



Having one player more in one team then in the other isn't much of a problem, I'm participating as a substitute, if the numbers are equal I will remain as a mere spectator (or as a judge if needed) if they aren't I will fight for the smaller team.


Like I said... the elimination process would take care of that problem.



I don't know about special "prices" (What did you have in mind?) but I like the idea of the tournament being one or two weeks long. Most of us have RL issues that can prevent them from playing and we probably life in different time zones, making it even more difficult to find a time when both are free.


Prizes, you mean? What I had in mind would be something along the lines of "best cavalry commander", "best use of artillery and/or archers", for a few examples.


About the money: 100,000 is far to much, I have a hard time using up even the 50,000 with the Romans and (though less extreme) with the KH. 40000 seams more appropriate, even if we want to use only elite units.
EDIT: Less money for Polybian/Camillian battles, otherwise the romans will have no way to use it up.


I see. I think we'll need to do some research on this.

And as for limiting the use of any unit within the formation, I disagree.
If, for example, a Greek general spawns Rhodian slingers like a lunatic, a successful cavalry charge will scatter them likes leaves, leaving the Greek with maybe a few isolated hoplites here and there, nearly defenseless.

Each General will play to their strengths, obviously. Some are more flexible than others, that's the whole point of leadership on a battlefield... you can go with tried and true or you can be creative.
Therefore, I do not agree with limitations on a general's combat style.

Now, then... unless there are more issues, we'll round all suggestions up and as soon as we get our fifth and last member of the jury we'll vote on them and then the "rulebook" will be posted presently.


D'oh... blimey, I'm rude.
Please allow me to introduce the members of the jury.
A round of applause for:
Maion Maroneios
HunGeneral
Tiberius Claudius Marcellus
And myself

A very able team of historians and EB fans.
Again, I thank them all for their contribution and support. You can already see the results.

[HunGeneral]

I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this. Perhaps from my fellow members of the jury.
I just can't imagine Hannibal or Pyrrhos giving due notice: "Scipio, my boy, I'm bringing some elephants so make sure your skirmishers are ready!"

Well I think Phalanx300 has a point there - in most cases Elephants were used only as psycological weapon. Therefore an invading army that has some of them might spread a news like this: "We have monsters on our side larger than any house built by man, so terrifiing that Hercules himself fled from there site when he reached the end of the world, so powerful that even the strongest of men are squashed under there feet kuje beetles ad the strongest walls fall before them. See know that all who dare oppose us are dead and all who wish to save ther lives must bow before our feet." or something like that.

After all making the enemy believe that he can't win is a half victory already:idea2:

There is even a legend that Hannibal once offered one Roman they had captured that if he can defeat one of the "beasts" he will be released. Somewhow that roman managed to kill the elephant and the Carthaginians did set him free. However Hannibal soon sent a few of his best Horsemen after the roman so they kill him before he could tell what he had experienced.

I can't say if this legend is true or only based on fiction but it still shows well how important the belief that the Elephant can not be beaten was for there effective use.

Maybe a player should reveal if he has elephants and we could claim it to an "effecient spy network" - after all hiding Elelphants all the time is impossible:dizzy2:

I wonder what others think about it...

[Tolg]

Ugg. After reading some of the text you quoted I can but wonder what language I was writing. in. :embarassed:




I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this. Perhaps from my fellow members of the jury.
I just can't imagine Hannibal or Pyrrhos giving due notice: "Scipio, my boy, I'm bringing some elephants so make sure your skirmishers are ready!"


I think roman spies/scouts could hardly not have noticed Pyrrhos loading his elephants on his ships, bringing them to italy, unloading them at the italian coast and bringing them to the battlefield. Tell me if I'm wrong.




Now, this is a matter of realism... no points systems in 272 BC, after all.


No one ever said that this tournament had to be 100% historically. I thought it was to "settle the question of "my pilum is bigger than your sarissa" the old fashioned way"?




I see. I think we'll need to do some research on this.

I did. I'll sum up the outcome later in my post.



And as for limiting the use of any unit within the formation, I disagree.
If, for example, a Greek general spawns Rhodian slingers like a lunatic, a successful cavalry charge will scatter them likes leaves, leaving the Greek with maybe a few isolated hoplites here and there, nearly defenseless.


8 units of Rhodian slingers in loose formations will likely erase those proud cavaliers before they even come close to your slingers and the few survivors will hardly do any damage especially if there are a few hundreds of Spartians waiting behind them. I just hope uses such noob-like tactics in the actual tournament.



KLike I said, I tried to make armies using 50000 denari with the Romans, the KH, the Seleucids, Epeiros, Ptolemeia and Macedonia. I didn't use any experience or weapon upgrades having heard that they disrupt the balancing of the unit stats.

-Romans:

Camillian & Polybian: The most reasonable army that uses ~ 50000:

1x Equites Consulares
7x Eqvites Extraordinarii
12x Pedites Extraordinarii


Marian: It is possible to make proper armies, though only by spamming cavalry or Antesignani



-Koinon Hellenon: Can easily use 50000 but only buy spamming top-tier cavalry or by relying heavily upon Spartians or Epilektoi. Possible. but imo somewhat undesirable. They are supposed to be the strongest and bravest soldiers in the world, not the standard.


-The successors: Can easily create 14 units armies worth 50000 denari. Even without using Elephants.

[IrishHitman]

4 on each side?
Do the signers have enough hardware so that they dont lag out??

A good question.

However, I think the battles should be fought as the following:
Each Romani player plays each Greek player once, or teams divided into 2v2s, with each pair fighting each other twice. (Increasing the accuracy by multitude.) On the 2v2 fights, we could vary the terrain between pro-phalanx and pro-legion.

A massive once off battle would be good, but the 3v3 or 4v4 team who works together best will win, not who has the better army. While the "who is a better commander" element will still happen on 1v1 and 2v2, but not to the point of spoiling the results. That said, having the massive once off battle anyway for the laugh is a good idea.

I disagree with the tournament-style format strongly.
This is about finding out which side is best, not which player is best.
Therefore, having a tournament at all is not the best way to get the accurate, all-ending result needed.

As for the prizes decided by a jury, here's my suggestions:
- Best Romani Commander/Team (Most victories)
- Best Hellenic Commander/team (Most victories)
- Best Romani infantry commander (Best use of infantry)
- Best Hellenic infantry commander (Best use of infantry)
- Best Romani cavalry commander (Best use of cavalry)
- Best Hellenic cavalry commander (Best use of cavalry)
- Best Romani ranged commander (Best use of archers/javelinmen/slingers)
- Best Hellenic ranged commander (Best use of archers/javelinmen/slingers)
- Best use of historical tactics to achieve victory.
- Guerrilla Warrior award (Most effective use of ambushes & retreats to achieve victory)
- Comedy award
- Slaughterer award (Most kills with least amount of casualties)
- Lamb award (?) (Teh l0s3r)

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

A good question.

However, I think the battles should be fought as the following:
Each Romani player plays each Greek player once, or teams divided into 2v2s, with each pair fighting each other twice. (Increasing the accuracy by multitude.) On the 2v2 fights, we could vary the terrain between pro-phalanx and pro-legion.

A massive once off battle would be good, but the 3v3 or 4v4 team who works together best will win, not who has the better army. While the "who is a better commander" element will still happen on 1v1 and 2v2, but not to the point of spoiling the results. That said, having the massive once off battle anyway for the laugh is a good idea.

I disagree with the tournament-style format strongly.
This is about finding out which side is best, not which player is best.
Therefore, having a tournament at all is not the best way to get the accurate, all-ending result needed.

As for the prizes decided by a jury, here's my suggestions:
- Best Romani Commander/Team (Most victories)
- Best Hellenic Commander/team (Most victories)
- Best Romani infantry commander (Best use of infantry)
- Best Hellenic infantry commander (Best use of infantry)
- Best Romani cavalry commander (Best use of cavalry)
- Best Hellenic cavalry commander (Best use of cavalry)
- Best Romani ranged commander (Best use of archers/javelinmen/slingers)
- Best Hellenic ranged commander (Best use of archers/javelinmen/slingers)
- Best use of historical tactics to achieve victory.
- Guerrilla Warrior award (Most effective use of ambushes & retreats to achieve victory)
- Comedy award
- Slaughterer award (Most kills with least amount of casualties)
- Lamb award (?) (Teh l0s3r)

i bleieve the format is fine since you cannot expect to find which side is best for the fact TW engine is not historical accurate you can only hope(maybe) to find which player is the best.
Best use of historical tactics to achieve victory, this can become quite nasty since there´re very few tactical possibilities avaibable. It´s not much of problem for the phalanks once their tactics are simple( one single impregnable unit) as for the maniple their wide range of tactics will not be seen.

[Potocello]

if you still have room i would mind being KH or some other Greek faction. if that's closed i could be Romani i guess.

when would this start? i have a week of vacation next week so i'll have a lot of time but right now im kinda swamped with work.

[Tolg]

As you can probably tell from my previous posts I'm more in favour of Irish's idea.

Neither can you judge who's the superior strategos/imperator with a single battle nor can you judge which is the superior faction/culture.

The later however was the original idea of this tournament, it's what makes it different from all other tournaments before or yet to come. And even if you want to keep it historical: This is a tournament and not a war. What happens between the battles can't be realistic anyway. (Unless you think that the ancient people were using Voodoo magic to resurrect their dead soldiers.)


Sry, if this didn't make any sense at all, I've slept about 5 hours in the last 48 hours. *Goes to bed*

[Ibrahim]

As you can probably tell from my previous posts I'm more in favour of Irish's idea.

Neither can you judge who's the superior strategos/imperator with a single battle nor can you judge which is the superior faction/culture.

The later however was the original idea of this tournament, it's what makes it different from all other tournaments before or yet to come. And even if you want to keep it historical: This is a tournament and not a war. What happens between the battles can't be realistic anyway. (Unless you think that the ancient people were using Voodoo magic to resurrect their dead soldiers.)


Sry, if this didn't make any sense at all, I've slept about 5 hours in the last 48 hours. *Goes to bed*

yeah, Irish's Idea was indeed the best. we should go by that one, or a similar format.

[Turnus]

I'm interested in this, preferably as a Phalanx faction (either Pontos or Arche Seleukia). Perhaps (if there are enough people) we could have a match-up as follows:

Epeiros vs. Camillan Roman
Makedon vs. Polybian Roman
Arche Seleukia/Koinon Hellenon vs. Polybian Roman
Pontos vs. Marian Roman
Ptolemaioi vs. Marian Roman

Thus we could use all of the factions against variations of Romans. Also, why must there be a 14 unit limit? Doesn't this restrict factions that used a large number of light troops, such as Pontos, Seleukia and Ptolemaioi? The contest is legion vs. phalanx, but it's only fair that the armies represent their historical use. Should the armies be wholly free for the player to choose? Perhaps we should have a preset % of the army, with the remainder left up to the player. Not sure if you like these ideas, but I'd love to battle whatever the case (is it fine that I live in Australia?).

[Βελισάριος]

Right, I took all of what you've said into consideration. A lot of good ideas, thank you all!

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.

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.

Now, if tournament doesn't suit you, I'm open to suggestions.

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.

[rootje]

While ím amazed by all the discussion here to get the tourney at its very best(keep up the good work :beam:) 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 :book:

[antisocialmunky]

Don't forget: NO UPGRADES. Eb is not balanced for upgrades. I think that the Reforms should be faction based. Romans vs Seleucids should have Polybian++ because the Seleucid Empire existed into that period.

[Βελισάριος]

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 (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_makedonia_units.html)

I'm thinking there should be some additional mercenary units, but my brain has been fried by trying to edit evey unit's availability option... I'm officially a zombie.

[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 :beam:) 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 :book:

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 (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_makedonia_units.html)


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! :yes:

[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 ;) :laugh4:

[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 ;) :laugh4:

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 :sweatdrop:'' 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 (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_makedonia_units.html)



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... :dizzy2:

[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:
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...:inquisitive: 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. :sweatdrop: ), 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.

[Βελισάριος]

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

Sorry I didn't make that too clear. I was in a bit of a hurry.


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. :sweatdrop: ), the side with the most points wins the faction tournament.

By UEFA-style I guess I meant match-ups with points awarded at the end and a hierarchy based on the points. I think, since we don't really have draws we could go for 1 point for victory, nil if you lose.


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.

Not a bad idea.
Similar to what I had in mind for my 'semi-final'. Only in my version it would still be point-based so we could have a one-on-one for the final battle.
And I figured we could use a second round only in the event of a tie between players. Alternatively, we could go with your version and pick 2-3 generals from each side. This, of course, depends on how many participants we have.


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.)

Yes, do that please. And I'll post the list on the first message of the topic so we can have it there.


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.

Like I said in my post, I think 3 should do. Enough for everyone to be entertained, not too many so it doesn't drag on for months. We have to keep in mind that RL usually comes first.

[Tolg]

Romans:
-Rootje
-We shall fwee...Wodewick
-Macilrille (Rome, if he gets EB 1.2 to work)

Greeks:
-Gabeed (Ptolemaioi)
-IrishHitman (Macedonia - Unless I got the pun wrong)
-Phalanx300 (KH > Macedonia/Epeiros > Rome)
-Hasdrubal Barca (Seleuceia or Macedonia)
-Potocello (KH > any other Greeks > Rome)
-Turnus (as a "phalanx faction")


-Maion Maroneios (Macedonia) is probably out as he is now a member of the jury.


Edit: Is there anybody here who could make us some sigs? Propaganda. ^^

[Macilrille]

RL Issues will preclude me doing anything more than the occasional historical research, sorry. That is as big a problem as 1.2 not working...

[BurningEGO]

Damn, i would love to participate in an online mini-tournament, but i am a total noob multiplayer wise, since i never fought one single battle online.

I would most likely get trounced by smarter folk. So i hope someone is kind enough to upload the battle movies so the newbies here can watch. :clown:

[Potocello]

haha love the propaganda sig idea. maybe we could make this tournament like a monthly thing. each month we could have different match up between factions.

i'm getting excited for this to start =)

[Tolg]

Damn, i would love to participate in an online mini-tournament, but i am a total noob multiplayer wise, since i never fought one single battle online.


There's always a first time. You can get better. :2thumbsup:

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

Damn, i would love to participate in an online mini-tournament, but i am a total noob multiplayer wise, since i never fought one single battle online.

I would most likely get trounced by smarter folk. So i hope someone is kind enough to upload the battle movies so the newbies here can watch. :clown:

Hey, I've never battled online, and yet I'm jumping in the deep end. So what if you lose, at least you lose against an opponent with a brain!:sweatdrop:

[alexanderthegreater]

I sOOOOOOOOOOOOOO want te be in. Ive never played MP much in the original game (it mainly got down to everyone using massed praetorian cavalry or massed urban cohort or ART or ELE)
And in EB i just got lost in the wonderful campaign.
Im ready to take the jump now, as these two juggernauts of war meet.

Ill play as a roman since there seems to be a shortage.

Btw, do you need 1.2 or are 1.1 and 1.2 online compatible? otherwise ill download. (didnt want to because of save game compatibility)

[Tolg]

You need EB 1.2

If you want to continue your campaign you can just un- and reistall EB (Try if it works if you just unistall EB 1.2, but I don't think it will). I know it takes some time, but not as much as too start your campaign all over again.


The updated player list:


Romans:
-Rootje
-We shall fwee...Wodewick
-alexanderthegreater

-Macilrille (Rome, if he gets EB 1.2 to work)

Greeks:
-Gabeed (Ptolemaioi)
-IrishHitman (Macedonia)
-Phalanx300 (KH > Macedonia/Epeiros > Rome)
-Hasdrubal Barca (Seleuceia or Macedonia)
-Potocello (KH > any other Greeks > Rome)
-Turnus (as a "phalanx faction")

[antisocialmunky]

...1.2 is installed ontop of 1.1 IIRC.

[Βελισάριος]

That's right. You install 1.1 then 1.2
If that still doesn't work... you should check FAQs or post a thread in the Technical Help section. That sounds really strange.

And addressing another issue... I think it should be alright for jury members to participate as well. After all, there are five of us so there are still 4 left to "judge" the other's performance.

After all, everyone should have a go at this. And if the Romans are still short I think I'll jump in as a Roman general.

Hopefully tonight we'll be able to have a little demo tournament among jury members and see how it works. I'm pretty excited, actually.

[Tolg]

And addressing another issue... I think it should be alright for jury members to participate as well. After all, there are five of us so there are still 4 left to "judge" the other's performance.

After all, everyone should have a go at this. And if the Romans are still short I think I'll jump in as a Roman general.

Hopefully tonight we'll be able to have a little demo tournament among jury members and see how it works. I'm pretty excited, actually.

It certainly have some advantages if we could participate as well. If Burebista and I play as Romans and Maion Maroneios as Macedonia we would have 5 Romans and 7 Greeks meaning that if one of the later changes sides we have even teams and most of our problems are solved.

On the other hand I don't want there to be any doubt about the objectivity of the jury.


Perhaps we should turn this thread into a poll (if that's possible) to sound the public opinion on this matter...

[alexanderthegreater]

You need EB 1.2

If you want to continue your campaign you can just un- and reistall EB (Try if it works if you just unistall EB 1.2, but I don't think it will). I know it takes some time, but not as much as too start your campaign all over again.



Right. I am installing 1.2 right now. Thanks for the tip of un- and reinstalling. Wouldnt want to lose my roman empire to an update, would I?

As to unit roster limitations, I seriously suggest we don't spam slingers. Theyre overpowered to the point that I'd call it ahistorical.

Hamilcar for example seems to have used them on sicily to disrupt/slowdown/demoralize the romans. There is a large difference between a slowdown and a mowdown.

I think historically large armies made slingers less effective since you could only take out a small percentage before your foe closed in. But because in RTW the unit numbers are only a fraction of reality (although for gaming standards really huge) that made slingers overpowered. My point is that slingers are portrayed historical in EB, but since the numbers are ahistorical there is an imbalance.

Think of it this way: when fighting 1 on 1 would you prefer a sarissa or a slinger? a slinger id say. (even though id suck with a slinger)
But when fighting with 30.000 against 30.000? bring on the sarissas!


Hopefully tonight we'll be able to have a little demo tournament among jury members and see how it works. I'm pretty excited, actually.

I'd love to join in if you're ok, just to get some practice.

[Βελισάριος]

Hey, sure. Not like it's the Buena Vista social club.
Anyone's welcome to join.

[Gabeed]

Hey, sure. Not like it's the Buena Vista social club.
Anyone's welcome to join.

Woohoo, scrimmage! I might be available tonight, around what time are you guys going to be online? And we're using 1.2 with no further mods or additions currently, yes?

[alexanderthegreater]

not sure what timezone youre in, but in mine its evening so would any of you want to have a friendly match right now? im online as Alexanderthegreater so im on the top of the alphabetical list in the lobby.

Oh yes, EB v1.2 with no mods.

[Gabeed]

Well, I have to do a clean install of EB 1.2, after that I'll look for you.

[alexanderthegreater]

Had some compatibility issues bcos i didnt had the fixes. Wont be able to play today because of it ;(

[TWFanatic]

Need another imperator? Sign me up.

Will we be using hamachi? :inquisitive:

[Βελισάριος]

Actually... we'd be in need of two more, to tell you the truth.
And, of course, you're more than welcome to join!

I think hamachi would work nicely, yes. But Tolg and HunGeneral had a go at it today with regular online match-up and it seems to have gone rather well.
It's Makedonia 1- Romans nil so far.

I seem to have some rotten luck, their game appeared "Not Compatible". I still don't know why.

[antisocialmunky]

Tip for Romani: Since your legions are cheap, buy some expensive elephants to punch through those pikes.

[Potocello]

how is getting the subforum going? that would be awesome if we had one =]

[Ibrahim]

where is the video for the first battles?:help:

[alexanderthegreater]

Actually... we'd be in need of two more, to tell you the truth.
I seem to have some rotten luck, their game appeared "Not Compatible". I still don't know why.

As to the non-compatibility issue (which I suffered from too yesterday) Tolg kindly pointed out to me that i hadn't downloaded the 1.2 bug fixes.

[Silence Hunter]

I just read this interesting thread and thought of sharing my idea of tournament system.

For an iliustratory purposes I will be using a completely random number of participants on both sides. Say there is 5 Roman generals and 7 Hellenistic strategoi.

First stage:

Because there are less Romans they all get to fight two battles. Their opponents are randomly chosen from among the strategoi.

First round (example):
Roman 1 - Strategos 3
Roman 2 - Strategos 7
Roman 3 - Strategos 2
Roman 4 - Strategos 4
Roman 5 - Strategos 6

As you see the opponent is randomly chosen. However two strategoi (1 and 5) had no battles yet. So they are on priority for the second round.

Second round:
Roman 1 - Strategos 7
Roman 2 - Strategos 6
Roman 3 - Strategos 1
Roman 4 - Strategos 5
Roman 5 - Strategos 2

Now the two strategos who had no battles yet gets a random Roman opponent. The remaining romans get random opponents from the 4 remaining strategoi (7-2(had no battles yet)-1(already fought against)=4).

For each victory Team and player is awarded 1 point. The team with the most points wins the First stage (legion vs phalanx) of the tournament.

Second stage:

Lets say there are 2 Roman generals who got 2 points (won both of their battles) and there are 2 Strategoi who also have 2 points.

First round:
Roman 1 - Strategos 1
Roman 2 - Strategos 2

Second round:
Roman 1 - Strategos 2
Roman 2 - Strategos 1

Each player fight his two opponents and gets 1 point for each victory. the player with most points wins the Best General part of of the tournament. With this stage of the tournament there are lots of possible variations, such as draws, uneven numbers of generals on both sides, etc. however all of these issues can be sorted.

Third stage:
Massive 3vs3 or 4vs4 battle for fun and to close the tournament.

[rootje]

Ah one weekend I'm away and the first matches are already being played,ha!

I keep feeling abit stupid for asking but I just lack the experience of setting up a TW game online...how to ''fix'' my currentsetup?

Currently have:

Rome+alex installed,playing on alex.exe and 1.2 EB with phalanx mod

to play online I could use my RTW Gold edition, is it possible to install the game twice, or maybe on an external harddisc? I think Rome total war could be played without ''registration error'' on a external harddisc,not sure.

Please enlighten me with a step by step path onto total pwnage without losing the abilty to resume my grand campaign :)!

[Tolg]

Will we be using hamachi? :inquisitive:

I think that should be up to the players. Wichever works better for you.



how is getting the subforum going? that would be awesome if we had one =]

Not sure how to approach this topic. :sweatdrop: (Recommondations appreciated)

For the moment I'll try to increase the popularity of the tournament by adding a "cry for help" in my sig, asking for skilled photoshop masters to make us some sigs and trying to get more players to join.


where is the video for the first battles?:help:

I'll upload it later. Any suggestions on which site I should use to upload it?


I just read this interesting thread and thought of sharing my idea of tournament system.

For an iliustratory purposes I will be using a completely random number of participants on both sides. Say there is 5 Roman generals and 7 Hellenistic strategoi.

First stage:

Because there are less Romans they all get to fight two battles. Their opponents are randomly chosen from among the strategoi.

First round (example):
Roman 1 - Strategos 3
Roman 2 - Strategos 7
Roman 3 - Strategos 2
Roman 4 - Strategos 4
Roman 5 - Strategos 6

As you see the opponent is randomly chosen. However two strategoi (1 and 5) had no battles yet. So they are on priority for the second round.

Second round:
Roman 1 - Strategos 7
Roman 2 - Strategos 6
Roman 3 - Strategos 1
Roman 4 - Strategos 5
Roman 5 - Strategos 2

Now the two strategos who had no battles yet gets a random Roman opponent. The remaining romans get random opponents from the 4 remaining strategoi (7-2(had no battles yet)-1(already fought against)=4).

For each victory Team and player is awarded 1 point. The team with the most points wins the First stage (legion vs phalanx) of the tournament.

Second stage:

Lets say there are 2 Roman generals who got 2 points (won both of their battles) and there are 2 Strategoi who also have 2 points.

First round:
Roman 1 - Strategos 1
Roman 2 - Strategos 2

Second round:
Roman 1 - Strategos 2
Roman 2 - Strategos 1

Each player fight his two opponents and gets 1 point for each victory. the player with most points wins the Best General part of of the tournament. With this stage of the tournament there are lots of possible variations, such as draws, uneven numbers of generals on both sides, etc. however all of these issues can be sorted.

Third stage:
Massive 3vs3 or 4vs4 battle for fun and to close the tournament.

That's pretty close to what Burebista and I had in mind. And likely to the format that's going to be used.


I just read this interesting thread

If it's so interesting why don't I see your name on the player list yet? ;)


Ah one weekend I'm away and the first matches are already being played,ha!

Don't worry, it was only a test anyway.


I keep feeling abit stupid for asking but I just lack the experience of setting up a TW game online...how to ''fix'' my currentsetup?

Currently have:

Rome+alex installed,playing on alex.exe and 1.2 EB with phalanx mod

to play online I could use my RTW Gold edition, is it possible to install the game twice, or maybe on an external harddisc? I think Rome total war could be played without ''registration error'' on a external harddisc,not sure.

Please enlighten me with a step by step path onto total pwnage without losing the abilty to resume my grand campaign :)!

I don't think installing RTW twice will work. (Perhaps if you do it on another computer, but I doubt it.)

You only need Alex.exe to play EB using it, don't you? This means it should be posssible to backup alex.exe and your savegames, uninstall EB, reinstall it play your mp matches and then reinstall the files needed to play it on alex.exe. On the other hand I'm probably not the right person to answer as I just gave up trying to make EB run on alex (didn't get it to work with trivial script...)


The updated player list:


Romans:
-Rootje
-We shall fwee...Wodewick
-alexanderthegreater
-TWFanatic

-Macilrille (Rome, if he gets EB 1.2 to work)

Greeks:
-Gabeed (Ptolemaioi)
-IrishHitman (Macedonia)
-Phalanx300 (KH > Macedonia/Epeiros > Rome)
-Hasdrubal Barca (Seleuceia or Macedonia)
-Potocello (KH > any other Greeks > Rome)
-Turnus (as a "phalanx faction")

[Silence Hunter]

If it's so interesting why don't I see your name on the player list yet? ;)

I would love to participate but I'm very busy the next two weeks (Uni, parties, competitions, etc).

[Macilrille]

Repeating myself here, but I think this tournament will bring us together as we tell tales and grudgingly respect each other. That is, if it is done in good spirits and with sportsmanship.

Good idea to make it. Perhaps at some point people who prefers Suebi, Casse or whatever can participate as well.

[antisocialmunky]

I wish Wursti made a Phalanx Strong video along with his Legion Strong video. That would work quite well for this thread. :-D

That is unless someone wants to make some sort of propaganda video spoof for this contest.

[Tolg]

Repeating myself here, but I think this tournament will bring us together as we tell tales and grudgingly respect each other. That is, if it is done in good spirits and with sportsmanship.

Good idea to make it. Perhaps at some point people who prefers Suebi, Casse or whatever can participate as well.

If this time goes well I'd love to do it like Potocello said: A monthly (or perhaps every second month depending how much time is needed for the preparations and the battles itself) tournament with different factions each month. (e.g. Celts VS Germans, Barbaroi Vs "civilized" people, HA-factions against each other etc.)



And here's the replay of our test battle: Link (http://www.mediafire.com/file/zjwtzyjmwng/TT01Rom.T-Mac.H.rpy)

[antisocialmunky]

That battle confuses me...

[Βελισάριος]

Who is this... Wursti person? Some videos would definitely be nice.

In the meantime, I borrowed Photoshop from a friend and started fiddling with it.
Here's what I came up with so far:
Nevermind...

There'll be more to come. And if you'd like a personalised one I could do that.
In the meantime, I'd like any screenshots you can throw at me. With mighty charges, furious clashes, fearsome fighting... anything as long as it has Roman, Hellenic units or (especially) both.

[antisocialmunky]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiuWcv-Rp5M by Wurstiworks

[Potocello]

thats pretty cool Burebista

[alexanderthegreater]

It seems to me we have 4 roman and 6 greek generals. If anyone would chance side we'd be even.

[Maion Maroneios]

Nice sig you cooked up there, Burebista, though there is a spelling mistake that's quite striking. Hellenes is written as ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ in Greek, the second 'e' is a long one, also named 'eta'. The rest are plain epsilons.

Maion

[alexanderthegreater]

Here's a screenshot:

http://www.freewebs.com/files_rings/rtw_ss.bmp
:whip: Stop, in the name of Rome!

Btw, one rule of the tournament obviously is that the hellenic generals need to use phalanxes. But as to the koinon hellenon, do hoplite phalanxes count or just the ones that have the "can form a phalanx" ability?

[HunGeneral]

http://www.freewebs.com/files_rings/rtw_ss.bmp
:whip: Stop, in the name of Rome!

:laugh4::laugh4:.
Now thats a good one:thumbsup:

[alexanderthegreater]

I was playing as the greeks taking rhegion in that screenshot. I seriously lold when seeing that guy blocking my way.

Then i ordered my scythian and kretan archers take him down.

[Tolg]

Here's a screenshot:

http://www.freewebs.com/files_rings/rtw_ss.bmp
:whip: Stop, in the name of Rome!

Btw, one rule of the tournament obviously is that the hellenic generals need to use phalanxes. But as to the koinon hellenon, do hoplite phalanxes count or just the ones that have the "can form a phalanx" ability?

I suggest you post that one in the screenshot competition, I'd definitely vote for you. O.o

[IrishHitman]

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.
[/CENTER]

I agree with this for the most part, although I'd impose stricter controls on the late Alexandrian army, like this:

Late Alexandrian:
2 Argyraspides, 2 Pezhetairoi, 3 levy.
1 Hypaspist unit, 1 Thracian peltasts and 1 Agrianian unit min.
I may include 1 Illyrian peltast unit as well, if they exist in EB.
I guess a regular peltast unit could fill the unit gap on that one.

Min 1 - Max 2 Companions, Min 1 - Max 2 Thessalians.

Min 1 Cretan archers.

The last four slots should be filled with League of Corinth (Southern Greek) troops, of various stripe.
Hoplites mostly, though I'd also place some medium cavalry in there for accuracy as I'll explain*.

If my reading of JR Hamilton's introduction to Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander is correct, then that should present the most realistic Alexandrian army.

Though the cavalry is still disproportionately large if the max is used... By a factor of two.
Hamilton states that when Alexander crossed the Hellespont, he had 30-43 thousand infantry (including ranged) and 4-5 thousand cavalry. The proportion would have stayed the same until Alexander dismissed his Thessalians in Media, and Persian melee/horse archer battalions were formed.

The proportion between Companian and Thessalian cavalry is stated as exactly equal at 1,800 each, with the League cavalry making up the rest*.

[alexanderthegreater]

I agree with this for the most part, although I'd impose stricter controls on the late Alexandrian army, like this:

Late Alexandrian:
2 Argyraspides, 2 Pezhetairoi, 3 levy.
1 Hypaspist unit, 1 Thracian peltasts and 1 Agrianian unit min.
I may include 1 Illyrian peltast unit as well, if they exist in EB.
I guess a regular peltast unit could fill the unit gap on that one.

Min 1 - Max 2 Companions, Min 1 - Max 2 Thessalians.

Min 1 Cretan archers.

The last four slots should be filled with League of Corinth (Southern Greek) troops, of various stripe.
Hoplites mostly, though I'd also place some medium cavalry in there for accuracy as I'll explain*.

If my reading of JR Hamilton's introduction to Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander is correct, then that should present the most realistic Alexandrian army.

Though the cavalry is still disproportionately large if the max is used... By a factor of two.
Hamilton states that when Alexander crossed the Hellespont, he had 30-43 thousand infantry (including ranged) and 4-5 thousand cavalry. The proportion would have stayed the same until Alexander dismissed his Thessalians in Media, and Persian melee/horse archer battalions were formed.

The proportion between Companian and Thessalian cavalry is stated as exactly equal at 1,800 each, with the League cavalry making up the rest*.

I think this is wayyyy to strict, we have to allow some creativity to the generals and we don't want every matchup to be the same. I would say:

Min 6 phalanx/legionaires
Max 4 cavalry
Max 4 missile
Max 1 ele/art
No upgrades in armor or exp

with about 30 000 mnai max - thats more than enough to have about 16 units - which seems like the right army size

[IrishHitman]

I think this is wayyyy to strict, we have to allow some creativity to the generals and we don't want every matchup to be the same. I would say:

Min 6 phalanx/legionaires
Max 4 cavalry
Max 4 missile
Max 1 ele/art

with about 30 000 - 40 000 mnai.

We're talking about Macedonia, not AS.
So Eles are out.

I was suggesting an (semi-)accurate unit roster, it doesn't have to be adopted.
That said, I'd use that roster anyway, it's very flexible in terms of what you can do with it.

[Cbvani]

What about post marian troops? Post marian elite light infantry are always game changers in my games, and I use them extensively. They just mow down enemy cavalry like nobody's business.

[soup_alex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiuWcv-Rp5M by Wurstiworks
Nice; has anyone else seen the (TES: Oblivion) Imperial Legion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o2gf7jJhYs) spoof?



In the meantime, I borrowed Photoshop from a friend and started fiddling with it.
Here's what I came up with so far:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Clash_sigcopy.jpg
Nice!

Personally, I was thinking of something more along the lines of...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/alexbassist/hhill.png

[Βελισάριος]

Nice sig you cooked up there, Burebista, though there is a spelling mistake that's quite striking. Hellenes is written as ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ in Greek, the second 'e' is a long one, also named 'eta'. The rest are plain epsilons.

Maion

Drat, drat... triple drat! I knew there was a mistake in there.
I'll get right on it. Thank you, Maion!

And as for the unit roster limitations... think of them more as guidelines than actual rules. That's all I'm saying.
I should have the results from the rule-voting soon. Stay tuned.

[IrishHitman]

Drat, drat... triple drat! I knew there was a mistake in there.
I'll get right on it. Thank you, Maion!

And as for the unit roster limitations... think of them more as guidelines than actual rules. That's all I'm saying.
I should have the results from the rule-voting soon. Stay tuned.

Can you tell the jury to have a look at my idea?
And perhaps get a Romani player to come up with a similar roster for the Romans?

[Βελισάριος]

We all read the thread, so your suggestions are always recorded and properly discussed.
Again, I have to thank you all for your input, you've all contributed so much to this project.

And here's the (corrected) signature as a thanks to all of you:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Clash_sig.jpg

I'm sorry about the first one, I'd seen ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ somewhere but instead of using the traditional c&p I transcribed it and thus the error. Thanks again, Maion, for the correction: :balloon3: for you for all the continued support, and :balloon3: to all the members of the jury: HunGeneral, Tolg and Tribunus Claudius Marcellus for all their effort and help.

By the end of the week we should have the complete rulebook sorted out and I will post it on the first page of the thread as soon as we're done.

All that's left now is to advertise and gain some popularity... I'm sorry you have to make do with my Photoshop skills (or lack thereof) for now, and I'll appreciate all the help with screenies and anyway you can.
By the way, Alex, that one's hilarious!

[soup_alex]

Ah cheers, Burebista—It's been a rotten sort of day, so that really means something. Glad you could overlook the natty white borders, too.

Damn it, I'm really keen to participate in the tournament, but university activities are more likely a priority, unfortunately. Another factor would be that I'm currently engaged in a 1.1 Qarthadastim campaign (hey, if the Romani versus Hellenes matches go well, is there a chance of having a similar versus Carthage tournament in the future? I know something of the type has been suggested, I would just like to publicly announce my support for such an enterprise and could it please permit Carthage oh please oh please etc.); to say nothing of my poor general ability at making tactical decisions in real-time (or against human adversaries, or using Roman or Hellenic armies).

Anyway, I realise that I haven't contributed to this thread until now, and I just thought I'd chip in to at least say it looks like a bloody terrific idea and I hope it goes well.

[Maion Maroneios]

We all read the thread, so your suggestions are always recorded and properly discussed.
Again, I have to thank you all for your input, you've all contributed so much to this project.

And here's the (corrected) signature as a thanks to all of you:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Clash_sig.jpg

I'm sorry about the first one, I'd seen ΕΛΛΗΝΕΣ somewhere but instead of using the traditional c&p I transcribed it and thus the error. Thanks again, Maion, for the correction: :balloon3: for you for all the continued support, and :balloon3: to all the members of the jury: HunGeneral, Tolg and Tribunus Claudius Marcellus for all their effort and help.

By the end of the week we should have the complete rulebook sorted out and I will post it on the first page of the thread as soon as we're done.

All that's left now is to advertise and gain some popularity... I'm sorry you have to make do with my Photoshop skills (or lack thereof) for now, and I'll appreciate all the help with screenies and anyway you can.
By the way, Alex, that one's hilarious!
You're most welcome for the help and thanks for the balloon as well:beam: I'll add it to my sig ASAP.

EDIT: Have you considered my suggestion of requesting the creation of a sub-forum specifically for this tournament? I believe this would make things easier, so no messing too much with the EB fora.

Maion

[Tolg]

EDIT: Have you considered my suggestion of requesting the creation of a sub-forum specifically for this tournament? I believe this would make things easier, so no messing too much with the EB fora.

Maion


We discussed it and everyone seemed to be favor of it (In fact I don't think that we're gonna have much of an other choice if we're really gonna turn this into a monthly thing), the only problem is that we don't really know how to approach this topic with the forum administration. (Or at least I don't and nobody else has made any suggestions despite me asking for them).
One of the reasons for making the sigs is to increase popularity of the tournament and thus our chances to actually get one if we ask for it.

If you have any other ideas please tell us about them.

[Phalanx300]

Maybe it would be better to have a whole subforum dedicated to EB multiplayer, in which this tournement would also be.



And maybe we could do a all faction tournament after this one? Putting Historical armies from all factions against eachother. (Also there is a EB preview which focusses on Historical formations, and in Historical battles you can also get a idea about it from some battles)

[alexanderthegreater]

Maybe it would be better to have a whole subforum dedicated to EB multiplayer, in which this tournement would also be.



And maybe we could do a all faction tournament after this one? Putting Historical armies from all factions against eachother. (Also there is a EB preview which focusses on Historical formations, and in Historical battles you can also get a idea about it from some battles)

Id love a subforum for EB multiplayer. Could be useful not only for tournaments but also for just finding ppl to match up with.

[HunGeneral]

A subforum would be really good.

Nice signature you made Burebista:2thumbsup: and thanks for the baloon.

Here have one for it and for starting this whole concept: :balloon2:

[the man with no name]

I might join as the romani or ther Hellenes. The problem is that my fraps only works for 30 secs. and I have never used this recording stuff before so you guys i guess have 3 options for me.

a) teach me how to use the fraps/ other recording stuff
b) excuse me for not having a recording
c) (i would hate this 1) don't let me in

and btw a :balloon2: for burebista for an exellent, spectacular, and amazing idea!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::smash::smash::smash:

Edit: yeah maybe i over did it

[Βελισάριος]

Wow, I'm overwhelmed... thanks for all the balloons!

And, Nameless Dude... all the jury needs from participants is the replay file (you have the option of saving the recording of a battle after you finish it), then we can handle recordings should we choose to make a video, or screenshots for an AAR of sorts.
The Replay file will be universally available and posted on the thread mainpage (or on a separate therad if we get the sub-forum).

And, of course, you are more than welcome to join!
Would it be ok if I asked you to join as a Roman?

[Potocello]

i'm free to play online now, would anyone want to do a test run?

[alexanderthegreater]

Sure. EBv1.2 with fixes and no mods?

[Potocello]

yep. are you still available?

EDIT: I have a server up if anyone wants to join

[Phalanx300]

All this discussion on version and fixes is confusing me a bit.



Now what will we especially need for this tournament:

Europa Barbarorum Patched all the way to EB1.2,
The EB1.2 Fixes
No modified files for multiplayer

Is this all or will we need some more things?:sweatdrop:

[Βελισάριος]

We have reached a decision on the version to be used. It's vanilla EB 1.2 with all official fixes.
No additional fixes or minimods of any sort.

Most of the other issues are still in dispute with a solution to be reached (hopefully) soon.

In the meantime, I encourage you all to have some online battles of your own (in Legion vs. Phalanx style) and, if possible, to give us the replays so we may see the results and research the issue further.

[alexanderthegreater]

potocello u still have ur server up?

anyone available right now?

[Phalanx300]

I would like a multiplayer game right now:2thumbsup:.

[alexanderthegreater]

Im hosting a server right now. Plz join

[Phalanx300]

Ok I´m coming, does take a while for EB to start up though.

[Βελισάριος]

Don't forget to upload your replays! :beam:

Oh, and take some pretty screenies!

[alexanderthegreater]

Im having compatibility issues again! :wall:
Strangely I have EBv1.2 vanilla with fixes and never installed anything else, never changed anything. Phalanx300 that tried to join me did modify somthing so that sparta had no walls (hes changing that back now) but since this is the third time i have compatibility issues im getting suspicious.

Im no expert, anyone now anything I might have don wrong?

EDIT:
Ive been checking my software information, and apparantly my computer claims that I have EB installed over RTW1.3 instead of 1.5.
So im gonna uninstall everything then reinstall it all again- over 1.5.
Hopefully that will do it, if it works i may be playing tomorrow.

If not im afraid my participation in this tournament will be in the balance.

[Potocello]

Hey guys, me and Tolg are playing right now via Hamachi. The server is Europa Barbarorum and the password is greecevsrome

Tolg is uploading some replays, i will upload mine later. Tolg won twice :( Rome:2 Greece: 0
Sorry Greece.

[Potocello]

Im having compatibility issues again! :wall:
Strangely I have EBv1.2 vanilla with fixes and never installed anything else, never changed anything. Phalanx300 that tried to join me did modify somthing so that sparta had no walls (hes changing that back now) but since this is the third time i have compatibility issues im getting suspicious.

Im no expert, anyone now anything I might have don wrong?

What version is your RTW? It should be 1.5. I don't know if this is the issue though

[Βελισάριος]

Let me guess... every game appears in red font and when you click it it says something about BI version 1.3-somethingsomething.

I have that problem and it's beyond me what to do with it.

[Potocello]

If you are playing EB and everything appears red it's because those games are vanilla RTW not EB. You should check and see what version your vanilla RTW is. The BI version 1.3 error you're getting is due to version issues i think. At least that's how it was for me.

[Tolg]

As Potocello promised, here are the replays:

First battle: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ylndmtnowlm/TT02Rom.T-KH.Pc.rpy

Second battle: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ancioz2djwi/TT03Rom.T-KH.Pc.rpy


And here's the folder I'm going to upload all replays into:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0a9fee385100bc772fb2ca15d7ea42d9b91b115ca96a738f5621d66e282a0ee8

I'll post a detailed guide on how to play multiplayer battles (with and without Hamachi) later today.

[alexanderthegreater]

Ok, I need to get this straight.
So I install:
RTW.
then RTW 1.3
then RTW 1.5
then EB1.0
then EB1.1
then EB1.2
Then all 3 fixes.

Anything I missed/anything else?

[Potocello]

No that looks right, that's weird that you're having issues. :embarassed:

[Tolg]

I don't think that you're supposed to install EB 1.0.

EB 1.1 and EB 1.2 (+ fixes) is all you need...

[alexanderthegreater]

Probably due to me lacking 1.5. I think I remember installing 1.3 then planning to install 1.5, but later I forgot i hadnt installed the latter yet and I installed EB.

I think I know a good maxim for my sig now: Errare humanum est
(Or if youve read Asterix in Latin: "Errare Romanum est" - Obelix

[Potocello]

Oh well if you haven't installed 1.5 that's your issue. It's a quick download.

[soup_alex]

May I be cheeky and ask to which folder replay files should be copied if one wants to use them? :embarassed:
I can't seem to find an obvious candidate, and the folder containing a "default.rpy" (or something like that) didn't work...

[Tolg]

The replay folder (like the saves folder) doesn't show up if you've never saved a replay before. You can either just save a replay of some random custom battle or you can save them in "Rome - Total War\EB\replays".

[Phalanx300]

Or you can create a map in the EB map called: replays


Anyways, anyone willing for a Game?

Btw, Burebista do you have Gold Edition? I have as well yet I play using Rome, maybe thats part of the problem?

[Tolg]

@ Phalanx you can try joining our hamachi network. Name: Europa Barbarorum Pw: greecevsrome

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I didn't know this could become so productive. At first I thought it would degenerate into a "Romaioi barbaroi vs. Phalanxes" mud slinging.

Well I hope this post doesn't set a bad precedent either :smash:.

[Phalanx300]

Ok I'm in the Hamachi group now:idea2:.

[Tolg]

I didn't know this could become so productive. At first I thought it would degenerate into a "Romaioi barbaroi vs. Phalanxes" mud slinging.

Well I hope this post doesn't set a bad precedent either :smash:.

We won't let this happen.

[Βελισάριος]

Alexanderthegreater... you need to install the 1.5 patch, yes. That way, you'll surely be able to connect.

I thought I already had it, but then I had it re-installed and it works now.
Unfortunately, due to some technical difficulties, our 2v2 battle didn't work.

And Basileos ton Ellenon... as Tolg said, we'll try our best not to start tossing poo at each other.

[Phalanx300]

I agree, stones work better then poo:2thumbsup:.

But yeah, to bad our 2v2 battle didn't worked, it was just reaching the point of battle.:sweatdrop:

[Gabeed]

So are we using EB 1.2, with nothing else added, or should I be looking for some official fixes somewhere?

[Phalanx300]

Yes EB1.2 but then also with the official fixes, there are 3 of em which you will have to extract.

[Potocello]

Ah what a shame that was that our battle didn't work. If you guys are free tomorrow, i would love to give it another go.

[machinor]

Quick question: Do I have to switch to MP mode to watch the replays or do they also work in campaign mode?

[Olaf Blackeyes]

When do we get to see who winzorz!?!!

[the man with no name]

Wow, I'm overwhelmed... thanks for all the balloons!

And, Nameless Dude... all the jury needs from participants is the replay file (you have the option of saving the recording of a battle after you finish it), then we can handle recordings should we choose to make a video, or screenshots for an AAR of sorts.
The Replay file will be universally available and posted on the thread mainpage (or on a separate therad if we get the sub-forum).

And, of course, you are more than welcome to join!
Would it be ok if I asked you to join as a Roman?


Btw the man with no name is the guy, who Clint Eastwood plays in alot of westerns. He is 1 bad ass bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



No problamo. When, i'm very forgetful and i have scouts and church, so i need specific times plz.

[soup_alex]

Btw the man with no name is the guy, who Clint Eastwood plays in alot of westerns.
Also, to some, "Blondie" ~;)


[edit: Sod, didn't see your posts. Thanks Tolg & Phalanx300 for clearing that up for me.]

[antisocialmunky]

Quick question: Do I have to switch to MP mode to watch the replays or do they also work in campaign mode?

No as multiplayer has no replay option.

[Βελισάριος]

Signatures for everyone!
These are for each contestant, if he wishes to use it:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/SlightlyHelleniccopy.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/WarmachineII.jpg

Maion, I need you to confirm that I spelled "Strategos" right.

Obviously, the other Hellenic factions will need to be represented, but one at a time.

[Gabeed]

Woohoo, thanks!

And the spelling of strategos is indeed correct.

[Maion Maroneios]

Great stuff mate and yes, it's correct:yes:

Maion

[Ibrahim]

so when wioll the recordings be available (if possible)?

[IrishHitman]

Can someone post an updated guide to getting on multiplayer?

[Βελισάριος]

The replays have already been posted.

As for geeting on Multiplayer, you need: RTW vanilla v1.5, EB 1.2 with all fixes, and a good internet connection.
Afterwards, you just start the game from where it says "EB Configuration", select "Multiplayer" then go on Online Battles, or LAN Battles if you're using Hamachi.

[IrishHitman]

The replays have already been posted.

As for geeting on Multiplayer, you need: RTW vanilla v1.5, EB 1.2 with all fixes, and a good internet connection.
Afterwards, you just start the game from where it says "EB Configuration", select "Multiplayer" then go on Online Battles, or LAN Battles if you're using Hamachi.

Lovely, see you on it I suppose/
Do you need Gamespy?

[Phalanx300]

Installing Hamachi might be easier, though when hamachi is installed gamespy doesn't work anymore for some reason. :inquisitive:

[Potocello]

Installing Hamachi might be easier, though when hamachi is installed gamespy doesn't work anymore for some reason. :inquisitive:

Really? Couldn't you just turn Hamachi off to use gamespy?

Would anyone want to play later?

[Phalanx300]

No that doesn't work either, at least for me it doesn't. As long as it is installed I can't use gamespy.:shame:

Anyways, I'm willing to play:2thumbsup:. And Potocello I've noticed in those last 2 replays that you put your Hoplites in guard mode, in guard mode they will fight worse.

Maybe some rules need to be decided on the Hoplites since they are a bit underpowerd in EB(in terms of formation).

[Tolg]

Can someone post an updated guide to getting on multiplayer?

Here you go:

This guide is written so that anyone can understand it. Please just ignore the obvious bits.


I. Guide to play EB over the Internet using RTW online game feature


Make sure that you have a clean install of: RTW + Patch 1.3 + Patch 1.5
EB 1.1
EB 1.2
The EB 1.2 Fixes (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=109936)
(Installed in this order)
Check if your firewall allows RTW to access the Internet.
Start EB using the multiplayer .exe
Click "Multiplayer"
Click "Online Battles"
If it asks you to enter your CD key, click "Change CD key" and enter the key of your copy of RTW Afterwards click "Online battles" again.
When it asks you to enter your name do so (preferably the name you use on the forums so your opponent can recognize you)
You should now be in the Lobby and your screen should look somewhat like this: https://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk465/abzuEnuma/RomeTW2009-02-1917-48-24-16.jpg In order to play an online battle, one player has to "host" a game and the other one has to "join" it.
a) If you're the one joining just check all the three servers (Chat Lobby, Competitive and Friendly) in the box at the bottom right for a yellow game name, if there are multiple ones check the host's name by placing your cursor on top of the game's entry in the list.
b) If you're the one hosting, click the icon with the two screens. Your screen will look like this: https://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk465/abzuEnuma/RomeTW2009-02-1917-48-38-89.jpg. Enter a name for your game, select the max. number of players and the unit scale and then press "Host Custom Battle". (You don't need a password) Afterwards do what you would do if you were setting up a sp custom battle.
After both players have joined select your factions, press the arrow in the corner at the bottom right, set up your armies press the arrow again and FIGHT!
Don't forget to save the replay once your done!


II. Guide to play EB over the Internet using Hamachi

See step 1) and 2) of the previous guide.
Download Hamachi (http://en.softonic.com/s/hamachi)
Install Hamachi and read it's tutorial. It only tales ~2 minutes but helps a lot.
a) Create a Hamachi network (press the triangul button at the bottom left of the Hamachi window, select create network, enter the name and a password and hit OK)
b) Join the network that was created by your opponent. (The triangular button again, join network and enter name and pw of the network)
Now it get's tricky:
Cut your main internet connection.
Start EB using the mp .exe and click "Multiplayer" and "Lan Battle"
Minimize your game (Alt + Tab or Alt + Esc)
Reenable your Internet connection
return to the game and do as described in the previous guide (Step 8).
[B]Don't forget to save the replay once your done!

[Potocello]

No that doesn't work either, at least for me it doesn't. As long as it is installed I can't use gamespy.:shame:

Anyways, I'm willing to play:2thumbsup:. And Potocello I've noticed in those last 2 replays that you put your Hoplites in guard mode, in guard mode they will fight worse.

Maybe some rules need to be decided on the Hoplites since they are a bit underpowerd in EB(in terms of formation).

Do they really fight worse? That's a shame they look more realistic that way. No more guard mode then.

Phalanx300 i can play in like two hourse if you're still wanting to.

[IrishHitman]

Alright, who wants to fight?


Do they really fight worse? That's a shame they look more realistic that way. No more guard mode then.

Phalanx300 i can play in like two hourse if you're still wanting to.

They only fight worse if they become surrounded (which non-guard mode generally creates).
In a wider formation to your opponent, guard more works better, provided you have decent troops.

[Phalanx300]

Do they really fight worse? That's a shame they look more realistic that way. No more guard mode then.

Phalanx300 i can play in like two hourse if you're still wanting to.

Yes they do, and it is a shame. Guard mode is more used for a defensive force to hold their ground, not for a agressive Hoplite Phalanx. I personally use the 0.2 density to represent the Hoplite Phalanx better though it can't be used of other players don't have it as well.

And play in two hours is fine:idea2:, right now is fine as well.:sweatdrop:


Irish, with fighting worse I mean kill-death ratio.

And I'm ready to play now, I have Hamachi installed though.

[alexanderthegreater]

I just reinstalled everything yesterday.
But checking the recent posts on this thread---
My non-compatibility issue was apparantly because i didnt use the MP.exe but started EB with the SP.exe
I had a shortcut to that so i never started from the original folder and hence didnt find out there even was a mp. exe.
That solves that mystery.
Anyone in for a quick game now? can do it in the next half hour.

PS on gamespy im afraid.

[Tolg]

Two new replays from the tournament test are up:



2vs2

IrishHitman + Potocello VS Tolg + Phalanx300
(Macedonia + Koinon Hellenon) VS (Rome + Rome)

http://www.mediafire.com/?gf01kyd1n5g

Result: Draw


1vs1vs1vs

IrishHitman (Macedonia -left game early) - Potocello (KH) - Tolg (Rome) - Phalanx (Epeiros)

http://www.mediafire.com/?azzmdyjnwyy



CPU attacked me but was repelled easily, then Phalanx attacked Potocello but lost (the only interesting part of the battle then we called it a draw or as I prefer it to say, unresolved. (Unlike the 2vs2, which we called a draw because no one thought that he still had a realistic chance to win, this one just got boring.)

[antisocialmunky]

Guard mode only works better for heavily armed units against non-AP heavy units where you don't order them to attack. Otherwise non-guard works better. I still usually use guard on my hoplites though. Guard without attack is mainly for tiring the enemy and then killing them all with non-guard mode. If you're fighting AP units or untis that take forever to tire out, non-guard can be a better option.

Still hoplites and Roman infantry feel at home in guardmode.

[the man with no name]

Signatures for everyone!
These are for each contestant, if he wishes to use it:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/SlightlyHelleniccopy.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/WarmachineII.jpg

How do you make sigs? I ask cuz im new to the forums. In advance thank you to whoever tells me. Also i'm skiing this weekend so I hope this isn't inconvient for you cuz I can't battle any 1.

[Potocello]

You have to use a program like photoshop to make signatures no name.

[antisocialmunky]

I just watched the 2vs2 replay. It was pretty cool especially because it was on normal. The team work could have been better on both team's parts but it was a fairly respectable battle especially when red finally attacked.

It is not without critiques though. You guys seem too scared of engaging the phalanx. And while I would normally agree to be cautious because they are ahrd to kill when they are just sitting there. It is actually fairly easy to break through one with proper mass. I think that maroon actually could have done better by breaking through the center or going further to the right to turn the phalanx.

Don't be scared to fight against a phalanx, its not that bad with the proper concentration of force. I put together a little demonstration for you:

http://files.filefront.com/PunchingHolerpy/;13327674;/fileinfo.html

Mind you it is the AI but it didn't do that poorly. He couldn't have saved its center anyways.

[Βελισάριος]

I guess they have the same fear, or rather frustration as I do... losing troops. I get so frustrated sometimes if I lose too many soldiers that I'll exit a battle and start again. I'm crazy like that sometimes.

On another note... more siggies for Hellenic Strategoi:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Formationcopy.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/TheHorsemancopy.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Thunder_wulf_X/Europa%20Barbarorum/Warmachine.jpg

With a promise for a few Roman signatures to follow.

Oh, and... Ptolemaic and Seleukid fans will have to give me some screenshots to work with. I find myself lacking in that area.

[Dutchhoplite]

What replays??

[Tolg]

What replays??


If your asking for the replays of the test tournament, they're here (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0a9fee385100bc772fb2ca15d7ea42d9b91b115ca96a738f5621d66e282a0ee8).

[Potocello]

Just to make it clear, which factions are allowed in this tournament?

[IrishHitman]

I just watched the 2vs2 replay. It was pretty cool especially because it was on normal. The team work could have been better on both team's parts but it was a fairly respectable battle especially when red finally attacked.

It is not without critiques though. You guys seem too scared of engaging the phalanx. And while I would normally agree to be cautious because they are ahrd to kill when they are just sitting there. It is actually fairly easy to break through one with proper mass. I think that maroon actually could have done better by breaking through the center or going further to the right to turn the phalanx.

Don't be scared to fight against a phalanx, its not that bad with the proper concentration of force. I put together a little demonstration for you:

http://files.filefront.com/PunchingHolerpy/;13327674;/fileinfo.html

Mind you it is the AI but it didn't do that poorly. He couldn't have saved its center anyways.

Excuse me, but I, as the Macedonia player, was first to attack.
With devastating effect on Phalanx's line.
I had Phalanx's units in a rout when Poto's (KH) line collapsed.

[Phalanx300]

I seemed to be in a whole other battle, that was weird.

Also, when I click the replays it says I have a wrong version so they might look different? Is it because I use single player to watch em and used multiplayer to play em? Or am I just the only one having problems? :whip:

[Tolg]

I seemed to be in a whole other battle, that was weird.

Also, when I click the replays it says I have a wrong version so they might look different? Is it because I use single player to watch em and used multiplayer to play em? :whip:

That's normal, just like you said it's because of the two different shortcuts. I get the "error" as well, but my replays look exactly the way they are supposed to.

[Potocello]

Phalanx would you mind posting your replays? When we played it seemed like you were playing a completely separate game, it would be interesting to see what you saw.

[IrishHitman]

Let's have another round of 2v2s tonight.

[Tolg]

So, here's the replay of the 1v1 between Irish (Rome, Marian) and Burebista (Ptolemaioi):

Mediafire (http://www.mediafire.com/file/yntow3izymj/PtolemaioivRomani.rpy)

And here's the folder with all the replays: Folder (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0a9fee385100bc772fb2ca15d7ea42d9b91b115ca96a738f5621d66e282a0ee8)

[Βελισάριος]

But I have to mention Irish is a Makedonian player so Romans aren't his cup of tea, and I'm an avid Greek commander (as in KH), I don't really like Phalangitai.

And I'm signing up for the 2v2!
We should have someone with a ver good connection to host it, though.

[Tolg]

I'm up for the 2v2 as well.

I think my connection is pretty good BTW.

[Phalanx300]

Phalanx would you mind posting your replays? When we played it seemed like you were playing a completely separate game, it would be interesting to see what you saw.

Yeah, though when I watched the uploaded replay by Tolg it was the same as the battle I experienced somehow?:inquisitive:

[antisocialmunky]

Excuse me, but I, as the Macedonia player, was first to attack.
With devastating effect on Phalanx's line.
I had Phalanx's units in a rout when Poto's (KH) line collapsed.

Really? Maybe one but in the replay I saw, you held the line great and routed the whole maroon Roman army though you Kelto-hellenic hoplites got cut up pretty good. My main critique was for the Roman players. The Romans don't need to be that wary of pointy sticks.

I'm not trying to Monday night quarter back you guys. You guys are doing great since real time multiplayer is hard. :smash:

[IrishHitman]

Really? Maybe one but in the replay I saw, you held the line great and routed the whole maroon Roman army though you Kelto-hellenic hoplites got cut up pretty good. My main critique was for the Roman players. The Romans don't need to be that wary of pointy sticks.

I'm not trying to Monday night quarter back you guys. You guys are doing great since real time multiplayer is hard. :smash:

It may have looked like the Maroon Romans attacked first.
I let them approach so I could engage them with my phalanx without them running away, and it was a matter of a few paces forward to attack.

We've just finished another battle, that really got me on the edge of my seat.
Very very close.

[Tolg]

It was close, though I was well aware that I was at a disadvantage. Anyway, here's the replay:



Burebista + Tolg (Rome) VS Irish + Phalanx (Macedonia):

http://www.mediafire.com/?t5wzzzfwzez

[IrishHitman]

It was close, though I was well aware that I was at a disadvantage. Anyway, here's the replay:



Burebista + Tolg (Rome) VS Irish + Phalanx (Macedonia):

http://www.mediafire.com/?t5wzzzfwzez

My interpretation of the battle:

Tolg and Bure were divided, while I quickly linked up with Phalanx.
While Phalanx took on Bure (who was at a disadvantage), I denied Tolg access to reinforce him.

Phalanx defeated Bure (which I didn't get the chance to observe due to Tolg) while a long stand off continued on a wide front to the right flank of the first battle area. Tolg began to flank my phalanx, and I moved my phalanx forward to prevent it.
A large fight ensued.

Cavalry skirmishes continued throughout, with Tolg's Triarii chasing my cavalry everywhere, giving his own cavalry a chance to attack the back of my pikes. Luckily, I moved a free pike unit in, trapped his cavalry, and hit it with my own from behind. By now, Phalanx had come to my aid to fish the battle out of the fire, and the routing Roman cavalry combined with being surrounded caused a general rout of the rest of the Roman forces.

[antisocialmunky]

I wonder if having one guy control all the infantry and the other guy control all the cavalry would work better :-p

[Potocello]

I wonder if having one guy control all the infantry and the other guy control all the cavalry would work better :-p

that could be a good idea but there would be a lot of cavalry on the field. I'm picturing 20 units of companions which doesn't seem fair to me.

[the man with no name]

You have to use a program like photoshop to make signatures no name.

That sucks I don't have any of those. Unless Word works, which i doubt it does.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, it doesn't have to be all the cavalry. One guy is in charge of holding the line and the other guy is in charge of flanking the line. Divide up the duties of hammer and anvil.

Also, @ the last replay:

It was pretty much like the other 2 vs 2 until Tolg went nuts and killed nearly 1.5 armies.

[Potocello]

Tolg is unbeatable i'm convinced...

[Phalanx300]

Yes he pretty much is, he certainly knows how to lead the Romans to victory.


Irish and I played another 1V1 battle.

He was Makedonia and I was the Romani. The battle started with some positioning, he succesfully retreated his line by using some Hoplitai to cover his main line. After that I moved in to release all my missles, then I engaged the front with Hastati and moved my Principes to the flanks where they were winning against his Hoplitai. There were continious small cavalry fights between my equites and his hetairoi where my velites and some triarii helped. After a some fighting his flanks were treatened and he moved some center units to the flanks and I used surviving Hastati to try to stop them. In the end my right was destroyed, except for some units which I quickly moved to my left. With my cavalry and velites I was able to chase his Hetairoi away and with all my units was able to completely destroy his left. After that he formed a noob box/napoleonic box or however it is called, I tried to assault it but 5 almost full units of pezhetairoi in a box with 1 in the center formed in a box is not going to get beaten by some depleted hastati/principes/triarii and velites and cavalry. His cavalry did some hammer and anvil and in the end my army was destroyed. Against a box it is mission impossible.

[antisocialmunky]

Boxes suck unless you have elephants.

[IrishHitman]

Phalanx300 (Rome) vs. IrishHitman (Makedonia)

Victory to IrishHitman (ish).

http://www.mediafire.com/?jynyhyzuwyi

Large cavalry skirmishes.
Bugged areas that prevented an advance in formation of my pikes, played straight into Phalanx300's hands. In order to secure victory, I had to use my last resort, an infantry square, au Napoleon..

Phalanx should have won in all fairness.


Yes he pretty much is, he certainly knows how to lead the Romans to victory.


Irish and I played another 1V1 battle.

He was Makedonia and I was the Romani. The battle started with some positioning, he succesfully retreated his line by using some Hoplitai to cover his main line. After that I moved in to release all my missles, then I engaged the front with Hastati and moved my Principes to the flanks where they were winning against his Hoplitai. There were continious small cavalry fights between my equites and his hetairoi where my velites and some triarii helped. After a some fighting his flanks were treatened and he moved some center units to the flanks and I used surviving Hastati to try to stop them. In the end my right was destroyed, except for some units which I quickly moved to my left. With my cavalry and velites I was able to chase his Hetairoi away and with all my units was able to completely destroy his left. After that he formed a noob box/napoleonic box or however it is called, I tried to assault it but 5 almost full units of pezhetairoi in a box with 1 in the center formed in a box is not going to get beaten by some depleted hastati/principes/triarii and velites and cavalry. His cavalry did some hammer and anvil and in the end my army was destroyed. Against a box it is mission impossible.

Agreed.
Though I'd hardly call it a noob box.

[Phalanx300]

A nice battle none the less.:sweatdrop:

[IrishHitman]

A nice battle none the less.:sweatdrop:

Without that fifth unit in the centre, you would have murdered the main unit you were attacking.
They were already out of formation by the time I used my cav.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Yes he pretty much is, he certainly knows how to lead the Romans to victory.


Irish and I played another 1V1 battle.

He was Makedonia and I was the Romani. The battle started with some positioning, he succesfully retreated his line by using some Hoplitai to cover his main line. After that I moved in to release all my missles, then I engaged the front with Hastati and moved my Principes to the flanks where they were winning against his Hoplitai. There were continious small cavalry fights between my equites and his hetairoi where my velites and some triarii helped. After a some fighting his flanks were treatened and he moved some center units to the flanks and I used surviving Hastati to try to stop them. In the end my right was destroyed, except for some units which I quickly moved to my left. With my cavalry and velites I was able to chase his Hetairoi away and with all my units was able to completely destroy his left. After that he formed a noob box/napoleonic box or however it is called, I tried to assault it but 5 almost full units of pezhetairoi in a box with 1 in the center formed in a box is not going to get beaten by some depleted hastati/principes/triarii and velites and cavalry. His cavalry did some hammer and anvil and in the end my army was destroyed. Against a box it is mission impossible.

Seems a very interesting battle (left flank, rgith flank). About this box, it´s not a feasible formation in real life, is it?

[Phalanx300]

Agreed.
Though I'd hardly call it a noob box.

Its how such a tactic is called on vanilla multiplayer, I used to play alot of vanilla multiplayer:book:. As the name suggests, its mosty used by noobs. :sweatdrop: Strategically it is a good tactic though, Alexander also used some sort of semi box at Gaugamela.


About this box, it´s not a feasible formation in real life, is it?

I doubt that in the middle of battle Phalangites would be able to form a box, at Cynophefalai(sp) it took very long to just form up lines, let alone a box.

[IrishHitman]

Its how such a tactic is called on vanilla multiplayer, I used to play alot of vanilla multiplayer:book:. As the name suggests, its mosty used by noobs. :sweatdrop: Strategically it is a good tactic though, Alexander also used some sort of semi box at Gaugamela.

I doubt that in the middle of battle Phalangites would be able to form a box, at Cynophefalai(sp) it took very long to just form up lines, let alone a box.

It's called a noob box by those who let their enemy form one......

[Phalanx300]

It's called a noob box by those who let their enemy form one......

Not really, considering alot of vanilla players who use it form in in deployment phase. And game wise there is no way one can beat it without elephants or artillery(though in EB very toned down I gues?)

[IrishHitman]

Not really, considering alot of vanilla players who use it form in in deployment phase. And game wise there is no way one can beat it without elephants or artillery(though in EB very toned down I gues?)

Phalanx almost beat mine with a heavy combined attack on one side.
Only intervention by my cavalry and a centre unit to delay the fall saved me.

He almost had it beat.
EB pikes don't hold back the enemy as effectively as in RTW vanilla.

[Aemilius Paulus]

EB pikes don't hold back the enemy as effectively as in RTW vanilla.
:jawdrop::jawdrop:
You are kidding us right??? The EB phalanxes are near invincible. Please, someone help me out here. RTW phalanxes are ultra easy to get through, while the EB ones seem to employ some sort of magic to hold back just about anything excpet heavy cavalry.

[BurningEGO]

Hell, the box aint noob, but it is an extremely lame tactic!

Irish, you little lamer. :smash:

[A Very Super Market]

I don't like doing that. For me, if I can't form an effect phalanx line, I consider the battle lost. Though I wonder if a looser box formation would be acceptable?

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

I am bringing it up with the other judges:

If a player gets into a box the battle should be considered a loss for that player IF the enemy is able to surround them.

This would be the result in a real battle, because no commander would assault such a monstrosity, and if they could surround it, no army could escape.

The definitions that I am giving them are that "Surrounded" would mean that at least 4 main infantry units and at least 2 other units of any type are stationary and physically touching each other to form a "ring" of sorts that encircles the "boxed" enemy.

We'll see what the judges vote on.

[IrishHitman]

I am bringing it up with the other judges:

If a player gets into a box the battle should be considered a loss for that player IF the enemy is able to surround them.

This would be the result in a real battle, because no commander would assault such a monstrosity, and if they could surround it, no army could escape.

The definitions that I am giving them are that "Surrounded" would mean that at least 4 main infantry units and at least 2 other units of any type are stationary and physically touching each other to form a "ring" of sorts that encircles the "boxed" enemy.

We'll see what the judges vote on.

I would argue in favour of a time limit before that.
A box still contains a reasonable amount of fighting power anyway, give the player a few mins to launch an attack from the box formation.


You are kidding us right??? The EB phalanxes are near invincible. Please, someone help me out here. RTW phalanxes are ultra easy to get through, while the EB ones seem to employ some sort of magic to hold back just about anything excpet heavy cavalry.
Tell that to the RTW vanilla boxes, which are pretty much invincible.
Even to heavy cav. RTW vanilla phalanx formations don't break up as easily is why.

[Potocello]

I am bringing it up with the other judges:

If a player gets into a box the battle should be considered a loss for that player IF the enemy is able to surround them.

This would be the result in a real battle, because no commander would assault such a monstrosity, and if they could surround it, no army could escape.

The definitions that I am giving them are that "Surrounded" would mean that at least 4 main infantry units and at least 2 other units of any type are stationary and physically touching each other to form a "ring" of sorts that encircles the "boxed" enemy.

We'll see what the judges vote on.

I would have to agree with this because after a while the boxed in guys would either have to attack or die of starvation or suicide or something... I think that if you make a box you have to formulate an attack or you lose.

[antisocialmunky]

I think something like this happenedi n one of the Syrian Wars(Battle of Raphia) where the Seleucids formed a box. It worked alright until the Elephants inside the box panicked.

[IrishHitman]

Potocello (Roman Republic) vs. IrishHitman (Kingdom of Makedonia)

http://www.mediafire.com/?jinlmugqzq5

Victory to IrishHitman.

A good battle, could have went either way.
Engaged the Roman line, the battle went to the flanks (as it usually does when playing with Mak), and I eventually destroyed the Roman centre, and used the remaining troops to rout the rest.

A rematch soon.

[antisocialmunky]

So what is it?
(Hellens, Draws, Romans)
3-2-0?

[Potocello]

I think these are just test games so we can work out the kinks. But Rome has defiantly won more with Tolg so i don't know that to score is.

[IrishHitman]

I think these are just test games so we can work out the kinks. But Rome has defiantly won more with Tolg so i don't know that to score is.

3-2-3 maybe?
When he played against me, it was one draw and one defeat for him.
(Thank you again Phalanx for saving my ass in the defeat of Tolg and Bure).

Anyway, the second match:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mat01xyoday

Potocello vs. IrishHitman
Same factions as the first.

Another victory for me, won in a similar way to the last one, except more emphasis on cavalry.
He attack the rear of my phalanx with infantry, my cavalry charged them, and routed them.

The third match:

Potocello (Kingdom of Makedonia) vs. IrishHitman (Roman Republic)

I was soundly beaten by Poto.
Raped would be a less polite but more accurate term.

Poto has the replay for that.

[Potocello]

Me vs Irish this was our third game. He won twice as Makedonia, I lost twice as Rome. Third game i beat Irishhitman

Here's the replay file.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LDFUR4JD

He tried to flank me but i split up my forces and isolated his two flanks. I was able to kill his general early on and hammer and anvil one of his flanks to cause a mass rout. I then moved my forces to help out the other flank and another rout was caused.

Good games to Irishhitman.

[antisocialmunky]

I'm surprised not more Romans are buying Samnites or Ligurians to act as flank guards. You have those Massilians too. Ligurians come with more men and Massilians carry swords and spears. Also don't forget Camillian Triarii are better than Polybians. :-D

Have you guys also played with those Ligurian or Campanian cavalry?