forum.wgcwar.com

Gentlemen,

A solo tournament, inspired by the recent World Cup, was put together and played. Following, please see the “Reader’s Digest” version of match listings for the Round of 16 and subsequent contests. (Pool Play, using 32 armies, seemed overly ambitious if not impractical.)

Game 1 Sogdians vs Akkadian
Game 2 Later French Ordonnance vs California Coastal First Nations
Game 3 Early Swiss vs Emirate of Granada
Game 4 Early Bronze Age Highlanders vs Early Patrician Roman (East)
Game 5 Later Philistine vs Early Medieval Scandinavian
Game 6 Free Company vs Golden Horde & Successors
Game 7 Later Emishi vs Suren Indo-Parthian
Game 8 Early Ming Chinese vs Campanian

Quarterfinal Game 1 Suren Indo-Parthian vs Later Philistine
Quarterfinal Game 2 Later French Ordonnance vs Early Swiss
Quarterfinal Game 3 Early Patrician Roman (East) vs Akkadian
Quarterfinal Game 4 Campanian vs Free Company

Semifinal Game 1 Campanian vs Suren Indo-Parthian
Semifinal Game 2 Early Swiss vs Early Patrician Roman (East)

Final Game Suren Indo-Parthian vs Early Patrician Roman (East)

Tournament Winner: Suren Indo-Parthian
Second Place: Early Patrician Roman (East)
There was no Third Place Game, but my money would have been placed on the Swiss.

A full report (with maps!) can be read, reviewed or skimmed and perhaps commented upon here: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com ... d%20Cup%22


Thanks for taking the time.

Chris

Suren Indo-Parthian is one of my favorite armies

I had to look it up.

A horse bow army won. Any implications of this?

Bill

Hi Bill,

Agreed, Were it not for the roll of the army selection dice, I would have never know of the Suren Indo-Parthian list either.

As for the implications, well . . . I am not sure if I am the best resource or judge.

Horse Bow, at least in numbers, seems to be pretty effective at attacking an enemy wing and dismantling it.

In recent campaigns engagements (the campaign discontinued BTW FWIW), the Sassanid Horse Bow really did a number on a couple of Middle Imperial Roman armies.

Going back to the "tournament," perhaps it was just luck of the draw/scheduling in conjunction with some really good dice. I am not sure, like I said.

Reason for more testing by those more experienced?

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Chris

Chris,

You are too modest considering the number or rules that you have played/tested.

The additional troop types in Triumph! including horse bow, jav cav and bad horse is part of the reason I was attracted to Triumph! over other rules. In the play testing they had to adjust some of the attributes of the mounted types to get them to work right.

No campaign?

Bill

Chris,

I am LOL as I make a visit to the Fanticus Forum and note that Horse Bow is being discussed ad nauseam!

Bill

Cheers Bill,

Given the choice, I would take modesty over being immodest every time.

Agreed. It seems universal that all ancient wargaming rules have to make compromises for the sake of playability, for the game. Finding that balance between historical accuracy and fun on the tabletop is vexing. (Currently considering taking another look at tinkering with Tactica II . . . )

Yeah, apologies. The campaign was discontinued. (There might be something of interest for you and others, possibly, at https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com ... 20Part%202, however.)
Coincidentally, just happened upon Aaron Bell's most recent and thought-provoking post.

I am not a frequenter of the Fanaticus site. That is another coincidence and curious, too. I suppose certain troop types get their moment(s) in the sun every once in a while.

I would not be surprised to find that this troop type had been discussed equally ad nauseam over on the Society of Ancient forum.

Cheers & good gaming,

Chris