Vae Victis - Romans vs. Etruscans: Ongoing

[ilpars]

At the end of Year 2 map. All armies goes home for winter.
At start of year 3 Etruscans have 4 diplomacy rolls (city or faction) without using momentum bonus.

[ilpars]

Now is a good time for talking about rule change suggestions.

My suggestions is adding at the end of Allegiance at page 3:

Allegiance level of +2 at the time during Planning Season when Armies are raised allows the Major Faction to raise an Army from the Non-Major Faction. However, if the Allegiance level at any time thereafter falls below 0, the Non-Major Faction Army must be immediately removed from the map. Such removal is not considered an Elimination and does not boost Momentum to any Major Faction.

This factions are allied to the major power that they have +2 allegiance for that year as long as their allegiance did not drop below 0. All allies of a major power are also allies of each other. All cities and army of an allied faction are friendly to their allies and hostile to the enemy major power and its allies. If a minor faction allied status end all the cities they captured from other factions became neutral cities. City diplomacy can be used against cities captured by minor powers.

Also in paralel to that change The status of a City from the perspective of a Major Faction is as follows (on page 3) :
•Friendly: Controlled by that Major Faction or it's allies
•Hostile: Controlled by the other Major Faction or it's allies
•Neutral: Controlled by no Major Faction or their allies

[Maeglyr]

I'm agree with this change.

Just one thing :

If a minor faction allied status end all the cities they captured from other factions became neutral cities. City diplomacy can be used against cities captured by minor powers.

The rules say already that non-majors factions cannot take control of a city. A successful siege makes the city neutral.

page 3.png (36.15 KiB) Viewed 627 times

[Chris Townsend]

A lot of this discussion about minor power city status came up trying to understand the supply rules.

The change above would mean that a city controlled by a hostile (+2) minor power would block enemy supply, which makes sense to me. Since it is only the original four cities (for each minor power), that seems manageable.

I think that it is also clear that the major powers remain required to trace supply to their own capitals.

There is also an issue with tracing supply to a neutral minor city of another minor faction. I think that minor powers should only be able to trace supply to their original four cities. Otherwise there is the prospect of an unrealistically long march through the eastern hills, all the time in supply.

I think that it is correct that a neutral city does not block supply. But perhaps a way of fixing both the above and the risk of an Etruscan or Roman army taking that same hill route is to say that a neutral city belonging to a neutral (i.e. a faction not at +2) minor faction also blocks supply. Though I note that there might be some interesting additional dynamics if a +1 faction allowed its friendly major power to trace supply through its cities (as well as providing the option of being used as allies in a battle).

If agreed, we can figure out how to write the above as rules.

[teodor6100]

A few things.

I agree that factions that have +2 allegiance should be considered allies and the army and city they control should be hostile to the other major power, thus, supply routes should be taken into consideration by armies even when fighting in theaters of war against minor factions.

I would suggest that minor factions should be able to conquer via siege any hostile settlement (except the capital, which they should only be able to turn neutral) and keep it theirs, this mechanic would allow theaters of war with minor factions to be more important. Right now they can only turn cities to neutral, if a side has spent a military operation to siege a city and then took it, then it should belong to them, making it harder to retake by the major faction and making it a consideration when it comes to supply routes and army reinforcements for minor factions, as well as being able to deploy in next year an army in any of the large cities it took. I think this can play into the fact that minor factions have reasons to join a side and interests too.

I was inclined to agree with what chris said about supply routes of minor factions not being able to go through neutral settlements, but after taking a look at the map this would place any potential samnite army at a major disadvantage, since the closest major faction settlement to them runs through a settlement belonging to the hill tribes. So I would say that supplies should be able to pass through neutral settlements from the faction capital regardless if we talk about minor faction armies or major. I don't see a issue with long marches to be honest, because it means a military operation has been spent in order to move an army from one place to another.

[Chris Townsend]

I'm not arguing hard for my solution, either could work, but I note that the Samnite problem could be also solved by a road connecting Tarracina and Aquinum and/or Casinum. I have no idea as to the historical accuracy of such a road.

[teodor6100]

A road could work out, yeah.

[DIVM]

About minor factions conquering cities, I believe some middle ground could be achieved while adding some new dynamics that make minor factions more interesting:
-Minor factions conquest of major factions cities turn them to neutral. (no changes)
-Minor factions conquest of other minor factions turn those cities to the minor faction that conquered it (becoming ally city).
-When a major faction retakes a minor faction city (using their own army -not an ally army- or through diplomacy) belonging originally to a different minor faction then:
a) If neutral minor faction, can choose to give it back and add +1 allegiance.
b) If ally, can choose to give it back (and maybe DR to add +1 allegiance?) or keep it (and maybd DR to reduce -1 allegiance).

I believe this way minor factions could be boosted in their mechanics and overall importance while avoiding overcharging them and having an ally army conquering several major cities in what should be at its core a Romans vs Etruscans fight.

[teodor6100]

Would be much easier to reach a common ground if we would talk to each other on a call on discord or something, but I guess that would be difficult to happen. How do we make progress? there are some items that I see.

-we all seem to agree that cities which belong to non-major factions but are allegiant +2 to one side at the start of a year should pose considerations in terms of army supply for the other major faction.

-do we want minor factions to be able to siege and then own cities of major factions? what about minor faction cities taken by another minor faction?

-do we introduce new mechanics for when a major faction retakes a city that belonged to another non-major faction?

-do we make a road that connects the samnites to Taracina?

Should minor factions armies be cut off the most direct supply route when neutral settlements are in the way of that route to their capital?

Is there something that I missed?

[DIVM]

I think teodor6100 listed well all points. Probably we should vote on them, separately per point? In favor, against and neutral (accepting whichever decision the majority supports).
Should we take majority as 2/3 needed to be in favor if there's opposition (would need 4 in favor when 2 or 1 are against it)?

Once we decide what to change, writing down the details or new mechanics should be fairly simple.

[ilpars]

Also I suggested that all cities of active minor powers are friendly to allied power and hostile to the enemy power.
I think this one also suggested: All minor powers only take supplies from one of their cities but not from their allied power.
(these may have been included in Theodore's list but not I am not sure)

I think voting all suggestions and adding the ones that have 4 yes votes is a good idea.

[Chris Townsend]

I agree with voting. We could, perhaps, do it by PM (with reply all) instead of hear, but it doesn't matter which way to me.

I would note that one approach to conflict resolution is to encourage those opposed to (strongly?) state their reasons, as that may carry weight even if a majority vote for.

[ilpars]

How to vote:
Option 1: List all discuss points 1 by 1 and vote for them
Option 2: Treat them as packages as many are related and vote to implement 1 of them.

[ilpars]

Listing all suggestions:
1. From Ahmet: This factions are allied to the major power that they have +2 allegiance for that year as long as their allegiance did not drop below 0. All allies of a major power are also allies of each other. All cities and army of an allied faction are friendly to their allies and hostile to the enemy major power and its allies. If a minor faction allied status end all the cities they captured from other factions became neutral cities. City diplomacy can be used against cities captured by minor powers.

Also in paralel to that change The status of a City from the perspective of a Major Faction is as follows (on page 3) :
•Friendly: Controlled by that Major Faction or it's allies
•Hostile: Controlled by the other Major Faction or it's allies
•Neutral: Controlled by no Major Faction or their allies

Maeglyr pointed out that itis already in the rules that non-majors factions cannot take control of a city. A successful siege makes the city neutral.

Chris's addition: major powers remain required to trace supply to their own capitals. minor powers should only be able to trace supply to their original four cities. A neutral city does not block supply.

1a. Chris's optional option that can be added to the above: a neutral city belonging to a neutral (i.e. a faction not at +2) minor faction also blocks supply. Though I note that there might be some interesting additional dynamics if a +1 faction allowed its friendly major power to trace supply through its cities (as well as providing the option of being used as allies in a battle).

2. Teodor's 1st Suggestion: minor factions should be able to conquer via siege any hostile settlement (except the capital, which they should only be able to turn neutral) and keep it theirs, this mechanic would allow theaters of war with minor factions to be more important. Right now they can only turn cities to neutral, if a side has spent a military operation to siege a city and then took it, then it should belong to them, making it harder to retake by the major faction and making it a consideration when it comes to supply routes and army reinforcements for minor factions, as well as being able to deploy in next year an army in any of the large cities it took. I think this can play into the fact that minor factions have reasons to join a side and interests too.

3.Teodor's 2nd Suggestion:I was inclined to agree with what chris said about supply routes of minor factions not being able to go through neutral settlements, but after taking a look at the map this would place any potential samnite army at a major disadvantage, since the closest major faction settlement to them runs through a settlement belonging to the hill tribes. (If my and Chris's 1st suggestions is agreed on, Samnite army will take supply from any of its own home cities and neutral cities will not cut supply lines. So this paragraph will not be a problem IMO unless I miss something.)

4. DIVM's suggestion: About minor factions conquering cities, I believe some middle ground could be achieved while adding some new dynamics that make minor factions more interesting:
-Minor factions conquest of major factions cities turn them to neutral. (no changes)
-Minor factions conquest of other minor factions turn those cities to the minor faction that conquered it (becoming ally city).
-When a major faction retakes a minor faction city (using their own army -not an ally army- or through diplomacy) belonging originally to a different minor faction then:
a) If neutral minor faction, can choose to give it back and add +1 allegiance.
b) If ally, can choose to give it back (and maybe DR to add +1 allegiance?) or keep it (and maybd DR to reduce -1 allegiance).

I believe this way minor factions could be boosted in their mechanics and overall importance while avoiding overcharging them and having an ally army conquering several major cities in what should be at its core a Romans vs Etruscans fight.

5. New Road suggestion between Tarracina-Aquinum-Casinum (for Samnite suply if neutral cities cut supplies)

Do I miss anything? If not we can vote all suggestions like below. Reasons are optional.
1.Yes because ...
1a. No because ...
...

[Chris Townsend]

Someone has to start the voting, so here goes:

1. Yes.
1a. No
2. No.
3. not really an option, but a reason for saying no to 1a.
4. No.
5. No (not needed because I vote against my own suggestion of 1a).

Overall, I propose to just make the change (1.) that solves the problem we discovered last year.

I actually like some of the other ideas for minor powers (1a, 2. and 4.), but I think that they are a distraction from the focus of this game, which is firmly Romans versus Etruscans.

[DIVM]

Here goes my vote, pretty much same as Chris except supporting my point 4 to create new dynamics with Minor Factions:

1. Yes
1a. No
2. No. (since I choose to vote Yes to point 4)
3. No (since 1a is No already, this isn't needed)
4. Yes
5. No (since 1a is No already, this isn't needed)


SO far:
#1- = 2 Yes / 0 No
#2- = 0 Yes / 2 No
#3- = 0 Yes / 2 No
#4- = 1 Yes / 1 No
#5- = 0 Yes / 2 No

[Maeglyr]

1. Yes.
1a. No, if the minor faction isn't allied with the other major, trade's continue !
2. Yes, why not ?
3. Agree but not a suggestion.
4. No. It's interesting but I think it's too many new rules.
5. We have enough road, so no.