OT2019 Round 5

logfiles


easy to see why the Ancients deck needed to be updated for Medieval

der_mandarin wrote: Is this the final round before playoffs?

Yes, exactly it is!

Game 1

Armada01 (Persians): 6 banners
Giulio (Parthian): 5 banners

Game 2

Armada01 (Parthian: 4 banners
Giulio (Persian): 6 banners

I didn't particularly like this scenario and I think Tony shares my feeling. WIth such brittle cavalry units, everything is decided by a roll of dice: your charge eliminates the enemy cataphracts? You won. It doesn't? You lose. Also, the strategy is quite one-way: the first to be lucky enough to have a cavalry charge, charges the other, hoping that the other player cannot reply. This is basically it Apart a few random eliminations of unsupported light cavs units based on the ability to roll two banners. Said that the game is fast and I enjoyed playing with Tony.

mk20336 wrote:

der_mandarin wrote: Is this the final round before playoffs?

Yes, exactly it is!

Given a large number of players this year, I think that according to the rules, we should have a sixth round.

Mark-McG wrote: easy to see why the Ancients deck needed to be updated for Medieval

very true. In fact I'd be curious to see a re-edition of this scenario for Medieval. I suspect that it would play better with the new rules...

Game 1
Tomek (Parthia): 6
Viridovilas (Persia): 5

That was a long battle with lots of arrows flying both ways. Amazing how much ammunition was inside the quivers. The Parthians managed to hold the initiative for most of the game - shooting volleys and running back when hit, always supported. Then Persia moved more aggressively and the catharacts on both flanks got themselves into confrontation. Two leaders down and a stolen victory with two banners close combat attack by light cavalry.

Game 2
Tomek (Persia): 6
Viridovilas (Parthia): 1

Standard development. Persia moved in the infantry, Parthia killed some of it, then a Mounted Charge opened the center and a nice series of flank command cards managed to seal the victory.

Of course I am a bit biased but I liked playing this scenario and these gambling cavalry attacks. I had an excellent opponent and that multiplied the fun factor.

That's technically correct, Giulio. I think there are just over 32 players. It's difficult to plan at the beginning of such a long tournament what the final numbers are going to be because there were late additions and there are always dropouts. The 32 cutoff is a little arbitrary. The purpose of the Swiss system is to create a statistically fair ranking system by the end of the final preliminary round and that makes most sense at the mid-ranges of the player bands, not so much for numbers near the cutoff marks. There should be a clear ranking by the end of this round. Happy to go to a 6th but it shouldn't be necessary, unless Mark and everyone else is keen (depends on player fatigue.....well done, everyone, for so many going the distance so far! )

Timing wise, I'd prefer to stay with 5 rounds, but I was intending to see how tight the ratings are at the end of this round.
Ideally, if there is a clear top 8 by points, that would be it.

Carthage (Parthians) - Polonus100 (Persians) 5-6

Polonus100 (Parthians) - Carthage (Persians) 6-4

Two very tight games, where Fortuna waged to both sides, but finally was on the side of my catharphacts - Persians in first and Parthians in second game.

Game 1
LeonardoAngelo (Parf)- Gileforn (persia) 1-6

Game 2
Gileforn (parf) - LeonardoAngelo (pers) 3-6