Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

[Maion Maroneios]

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

Epeiros - 1 type of army (Reformed Pyrrhic)

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

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

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

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

Late Alexandrian Army

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

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

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

Reformed Army

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

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

Iphikratean

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

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

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

Reformed 'Successor' Army

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

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

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

Maion

[Maion Maroneios]

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

Maion

[rootje]

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

[paullus]

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

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

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

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

for the Successors, with 14 units:

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

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

[rootje]

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

[Βελισάριος]

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

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

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

"The Myths" and "The Histories"

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

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

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

[rootje]

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

[Tolg]

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


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

Now some thoughts on the different tournament systems:

Format:

x) Name of the system

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

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

Disadvantages: Tells its own tale.

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

1) the Single-elimination tournament

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Solutions:

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

2) The "Bracket" system

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Solutions:

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

3) The Point System:

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Solutions: ---


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

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

[Gabeed]

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

strategoi.

[IrishHitman]

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

Late Alexandrian Army

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

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

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

Reformed Army

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

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

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

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

Min 1 Cretan archers.

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

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

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

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

[alexanderthegreater]

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

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

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

Min 1 Cretan archers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IrishHitman]

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

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

with about 30 000 - 40 000 mnai.

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

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