Legion vs. Phalanx online tournament

[Ibrahim]

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

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


BTW, what is the jury supposed to do?

we judge as "impartial" observers I guess.

[Tolg]

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

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

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

• EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament
  
  
• Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms
  
  
• Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.
  
  
• The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.
  
  By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.
  
  
• I suggest that we use a Bracket system similar to NCAA basketball, and have a "2 loss knockout", thereby guaranteeing each participant at least 2 battles.
  
  For instance if we had 16 contestants, we would divide them into the "Blue" bracket and the "Red" bracket, each with 8 teams. Players play each other in their respective brackets and whittle the competition down until we come to a final battle between the champion of "blue" and the champion of "red".
  
  Seeding would be chosen at random by one of the judges "out of a hat" style. When a player suffers a loss they would be "recast" into the pool to be drawn against another opponent with a loss in the same colored bracket. They would then fight battles as normal and continue on in the tournament. If a player suffers 2 losses then they are eliminated from the tournament. This way, a player who had a bad game can still win the tournament. If a player with one loss plays against an undefeated contestant for the championship, then that player will have to defeat the undefeated player twice to have the better record of victories.
  
  
• Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

[Ibrahim]

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

• EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament
  
  
• Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms
  
  
• Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.
  
  
• The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.
  
  By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.
  
  
• I suggest that we use a Bracket system similar to NCAA basketball, and have a "2 loss knockout", thereby guaranteeing each participant at least 2 battles.
  
  For instance if we had 16 contestants, we would divide them into the "Blue" bracket and the "Red" bracket, each with 8 teams. Players play each other in their respective brackets and whittle the competition down until we come to a final battle between the champion of "blue" and the champion of "red".
  
  Seeding would be chosen at random by one of the judges "out of a hat" style. When a player suffers a loss they would be "recast" into the pool to be drawn against another opponent with a loss in the same colored bracket. They would then fight battles as normal and continue on in the tournament. If a player suffers 2 losses then they are eliminated from the tournament. This way, a player who had a bad game can still win the tournament. If a player with one loss plays against an undefeated contestant for the championship, then that player will have to defeat the undefeated player twice to have the better record of victories.
  
  
• Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

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

[Gabeed]

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

My laptop can handle huge battles with considerable ease.

[Tolg]

• EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament

No objections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I suggest that we use a Bracket system similar to NCAA basketball, and have a "2 loss knockout", thereby guaranteeing each participant at least 2 battles.
  
  For instance if we had 16 contestants, we would divide them into the "Blue" bracket and the "Red" bracket, each with 8 teams. Players play each other in their respective brackets and whittle the competition down until we come to a final battle between the champion of "blue" and the champion of "red".
  
  Seeding would be chosen at random by one of the judges "out of a hat" style. When a player suffers a loss they would be "recast" into the pool to be drawn against another opponent with a loss in the same colored bracket. They would then fight battles as normal and continue on in the tournament. If a player suffers 2 losses then they are eliminated from the tournament. This way, a player who had a bad game can still win the tournament. If a player with one loss plays against an undefeated contestant for the championship, then that player will have to defeat the undefeated player twice to have the better record of victories.

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

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

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

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

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

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

[Maion Maroneios]

EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament

Agreed on this one.

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

I don't quite agree on that. We could prevent the Romans from using Reformed armies according to the faction they face. For instance, when fighting Makedonia they should have Camillan or Polybian troops. Not sure about the latter, however. When fighting the Ptolemaioi or Seleukeis, however, they can (theoretically) use the Marian troops as well, but for that to happen the aforementioned factions facing the Romans will have to use a reformed 'Romanized' army.

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

The maximum unit number can be further discussed later on, so for now I suggest we say that each individual uses as many units as the other. Unless of course, one of the two decides he wants less units. Another things we should have to discuss, is unit experience. While it would be best to have no units with experience or armor upgrades, if we simulate a Makedonian-Roman war, the Romans should have experienced troops, representing the veterans of the Punic Wars.

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

Yes, I agree for one of the the two posting only the replay file. Taking pictures and putting together a representation (sort of an AAR) of the actual battle can be done by 3rd people.

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You'll have to define a 'fault' here, I believe. I don't think there are many ways to make 'faults', since the only thing the contestants have to do is fight. Also, don't restrict the time for preparation for anyone. I mean, someone might not be able to participate due to RL issues for one day, but may do so another. We can simply have the individual contestants participating in a specific chosen (by the judges randomly) fight post their army composition on a thread so we can check for mistakes or inaccuracies. When they get the OK, they can go on with fighting. When done, they can simply post the replay file on the same created thread.

Maion

[Dutchhoplite]

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

Seleucids vs polybians too ;)

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

Seleucids vs polybians too ;)

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

[seienchin]

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

[rootje]

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

[Tolg]

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


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

[Βελισάριος]

• EB v 1.2 shall be used for this tournament
  
  
• Unit roster should be limited to those units available @ 272 BC which would limit the extreme Roman advantage of Reforms
  
  
• Army makeup will be up to the individual generals; but must be completely historical for 272 BC, with a total unit limit of 14 (That arbitrary number, IMO, allows for a large enough army to have flexibility and make up for weak units; but won't overload players w/ slow internet connections or slow computers.
  
  
• The tournament could be played on multiplayer with each player recording the battle w/ Fraps (or some similar program) and posting that saved file online, w/ an e-mail notification sent to each of the judges. The map, weather, and time of day would be chosen randomly by the AI. Siege/city battles are not allowed.
  
  By having each player record the battle, we can be sure that the battle was indeed fought between the two contestants and not between a shill or the AI.
  
  
• I suggest that we use a Bracket system similar to NCAA basketball, and have a "2 loss knockout", thereby guaranteeing each participant at least 2 battles.
  
  For instance if we had 16 contestants, we would divide them into the "Blue" bracket and the "Red" bracket, each with 8 teams. Players play each other in their respective brackets and whittle the competition down until we come to a final battle between the champion of "blue" and the champion of "red".
  
  Seeding would be chosen at random by one of the judges "out of a hat" style. When a player suffers a loss they would be "recast" into the pool to be drawn against another opponent with a loss in the same colored bracket. They would then fight battles as normal and continue on in the tournament. If a player suffers 2 losses then they are eliminated from the tournament. This way, a player who had a bad game can still win the tournament. If a player with one loss plays against an undefeated contestant for the championship, then that player will have to defeat the undefeated player twice to have the better record of victories.
  
  
• Players would have 48 hours to cooperate together to fight their battle. Judges would then have 24 hours to review the battle and post their findings in the to-be-created forum thread. If players are unable to fight their battle in the allotted 48 hour period then the judges shall convene to determine which player, if any, is at fault. If a player (or both players) is (are) found at fault then they will be "awarded" a loss and will be redrawn to fight according to the rules stated above. If no player is found to be at fault, then the battle shall be fought with the chosen armies on "auto resolve" by each of the judges. The side with the majority of wins by the judges wins the battle.

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

• 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.

[Phalanx300]

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

My second choice would be the Macedonians/Epeirots.

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




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

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

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


Edit: Seeing the above post,

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

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

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

Though max 1 elephant should be used.




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

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

[Tolg]

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

• 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.)

[Gabeed]

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

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

[Βελισάριος]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[HunGeneral]

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

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

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

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.

[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.

[Βελισάριος]

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

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

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.