Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ontestcopy.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:

1. Hellenic factions to be represented: Epeiros, Koinon Hellenon, Makedonia, Arche Seleukeia, Ptolemaioi, Pontos.
   
   Baktria will not be allowed as a participant faction.
   
   
2. EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament. That is to say clean install, no additional mods, all fixes.
   
   
3. 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)
   
4. Unit limitation I Unit recruitment shall be limited to those units published on the EB website for each respective faction.
   Check here.
   
   
5. 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.)
   
   
6. 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.
   
7. 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)
   
8. 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)
   
9. 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.)
   
10. Unit number limitations
    None whatsoever. Go crazy with your 20-stack!
    
    
11. Funds available40.000 Mnai.
    
    
12. 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.
    
    
13. No Upgrades At least no more than 1 bronze chevron.
    
    
14. 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:
  1. Best Cavalry Commander,
  2. Best Ambush,
  3. Best Phalanx Formation (as in, combination of units for maximum efficiency),
  4. Best Legionary Formation,
  5. The special “Herodotus” Prize for most historically accurate army formation,
  6. The special “Nike-Victoria” award for the undefeated generals of the first stage,
  7. The “Butcher” award for most kills with least casualties,
  8. The “Menander” award for funniest moment.

Extensive Multiplayer Guide (by Tolg):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

1. 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
   
   (Installed in this order)
2. Check if your firewall allows RTW to access the Internet.
3. Start EB using the multiplayer .exe
4. Click "Multiplayer"
5. Click "Online Battles"
6. If it asks you to enter your CD key, click "Change CD key" and enter the key of your copy of RTW
7. Afterwards click "Online battles" again.
8. When it asks you to enter your name do so (preferably the name you use on the forums so your opponent can recognize you)
9. You should now be in the Lobby and your screen should look somewhat like this:
   Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

   https://i311.photobucket.com/albums/...7-48-24-16.jpg
   In order to play an online battle, one player has to "host" a game and the other one has to "join" it.
10. 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:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    https://i311.photobucket.com/albums/...7-48-38-89.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.
11. 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!
12. Don't forget to save the replay once you're done!

II. Guide to play EB over the Internet using Hamachi

1. See step 1) and 2) of the previous guide.
2. Download Hamachi
3. Install Hamachi and read it's tutorial. It only tales ~2 minutes but helps a lot.
4. 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)
5. Now it gets tricky:
6. Cut your main internet connection.
7. Start EB using the mp .exe and click "Multiplayer" and "Lan Battle"
8. Minimize your game (Alt + Tab or Alt + Esc)
9. Reenable your Internet connection
10. return to the game and do as described in the previous guide (Step 8).
11. [B]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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

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.

---

IrishHitman's "stricter" Late Alexandrian army:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Imperatores:
"Slightly Hellenic"
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...lleniccopy.jpg

Strategoi:
"Hellenic Warmachine" (Koinon Hellenon)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rmachineII.jpg[/img]

"Athena would be proud" (Koinon Hellenon)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...Warmachine.jpg[/img]

"Form up!" (Epeiros)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...mationcopy.jpg

"Ippeus (The Horseman)" (Makedonia)
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rsemancopy.jpg

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarkiss

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

Ptolemaic strategos, volunteering.





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

Makedonia signed up, provided the time is convenient.

DAMN ROMANS, STEALING GREEK SUPREMACY.

This sounds very interesting :yes:

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:

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desert

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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:

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

I'd volunteer for the Romani!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by We shall fwee...Wodewick

I'd volunteer for the Romani!

---

well then: PM Burebista (you have to)

Aye Aye Captain!:pirate2:

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.

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

we judge as "impartial" observers I guess.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament

---

No objections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• 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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• 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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament

---

Agreed on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Seleucids vs polybians too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite

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*?

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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

• 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 mod which I find to be quite handy for the following reasons:
  
  1. It eliminates banners and the green arrows to make it all look more realistic. (but other mods can do that as well, I think)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  
  
  1. 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.
     
  2. The Koinon Hellenon are an interesting case, because they could hire a mercenary Phalangitai Deuteroi unit. Should this be allowed or not?
     
  3. 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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 mod which I find to be quite handy for the following reasons:
  
  1. It eliminates banners and the green arrows to make it all look more realistic. (but other mods can do that as well, I think)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  
  
  1. 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.
     
  2. The Koinon Hellenon are an interesting case, because they could hire a mercenary Phalangitai Deuteroi unit. Should this be allowed or not?
     
  3. 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.)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tolg

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.

Quote:

---

• 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.

Quote:

---

• 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!"

Quote:

---

• 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.

Quote:

---

• 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.

Quote:

---

• 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.

Quote:

---

• 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.

Quote:

---

• 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf Blackeyes

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

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.

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.

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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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*

---

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

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?).

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.

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:

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.

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

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

I'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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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:

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 ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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

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

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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. ;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burebista

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucio Domicio Aureliano

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishHitman

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.

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

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

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!

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.