Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

[Βελισάριος]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[HunGeneral]

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

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

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

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

I wonder what others think about it...

[Tolg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

-Romans:

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

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


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



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


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

[IrishHitman]

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

A good question.

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

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

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

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

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

A good question.

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

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

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

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

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

[Potocello]

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

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

[Tolg]

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

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

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


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

[Ibrahim]

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

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

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


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

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

[Turnus]

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

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

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

[Βελισάριος]

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

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

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

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

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