Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

[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?).

[rootje]

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

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

[antisocialmunky]

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

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

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

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

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

[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.