The Lost World Campaign

[pantherboy]

Can a player be forced to sue for peace due to National moral collapse or a series of defeats in the field? I'd like to see some limit on continuous fighting if suffering defeats.

[rbodleyscott]

Can a player be forced to sue for peace due to National moral collapse or a series of defeats in the field? I'd like to see some limit on continuous fighting if suffering defeats.

Running out of troops might put a damper on such activity.

[pantherboy]

If such a system isn't implemented I can raise 1pt armies to defend with and keep replacing it to perpetuate the war.

[Blathergut]

If such a system isn't implemented I can raise 1pt armies to defend with and keep replacing it to perpetuate the war.

I think you will run out of states. A 1pt army defending a state will lose it.

It seems basically we each have 7 states = 7 main armies. These armies will shrink as they fight until an army and state is finally lost. You'd have to raise a new army and attack the conquered state.

I don't see much point in ganging up on one country. Each attacker will still face a full army. True, if they all take a state, the player will be short income, but you never know where you might have friends!!!!

[batesmotel]

How do you block the enemy army if you have to choose a province to defend? Only a 1 in 7 chance of guessing where they went. Wouldn't it be easier to nominate how large your defending force versus each invader?

This proposal certainly sounds more rational to me than playing guessing games for 7 provinces. So how is this going to work?

[pantherboy]

After the first battle and assuming you are both still fighting you then load and amend your selection for how many points you have left plus any more you muster.

It's upto you & your treasury how you save you honour (I'm far too polite to suggest something here Richard) - if you want to defend with a small army hoping reports of a large army entering your territory are false then go for it. If you lost you could muster more for the next battle. I just wanted players to be able to bluff & brag etc.

From the way I read it I raise a 1pt army it loses but I continue the war and fight again with another 1pt army.

[iandavidsmith]

Our Harps are important to us
It soothes our angry soul
recently there have been a reduction
in catgut to fill our quota
perhaps panther gut would serve us well.
My friends , my musicians

TO WARRRrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Blathergut]

After the first battle and assuming you are both still fighting you then load and amend your selection for how many points you have left plus any more you muster.

It's upto you & your treasury how you save you honour (I'm far too polite to suggest something here Richard) - if you want to defend with a small army hoping reports of a large army entering your territory are false then go for it. If you lost you could muster more for the next battle. I just wanted players to be able to bluff & brag etc.

From the way I read it I raise a 1pt army it loses but I continue the war and fight again with another 1pt army.

You don't get to raise a new army during a war for a specific state. You raise the initial army and fight only with that until you lose the state. It will regain some of its battle losses depending on whether you won, lost, gods...etc.

[pantherboy]

But I can resign the battle also. And what if I build a 20pt army to lose? I can bleed points off and replace them to continue fighting. Also how do we fight with an army that has less points then the minimum to field it? You can't edit below the minimums. I feel that armies should have a minimum size and if they drop below this number then they surrender. In this way if an army is decimated in a single battle it can cause an automatic surrender before reinforcements arrive thus making it risky to field small armies.

Also defeating an opponent should entail some enforced period of peace between the nations.

[Blathergut]

But I can resign the battle also. And what if I build a 20pt army to lose? I can bleed points off and replace them to continue fighting. Also how do we fight with an army that has less points then the minimum to field it? You can't edit below the minimums. I feel that armies should have a minimum size and if they drop below this number then they surrender. In this way if an army is decimated in a single battle it can cause an automatic surrender before reinforcements arrive thus making it risky to field small armies.

Also defeating an opponent should entail some enforced period of peace between the nations.

1. If you resign you lose the state. End of war.
2. I would think the great god will end the conflict if it's past the point of continuing. I suspect we'll get a 2nd round before someone loses a state. Maybe a third. By then, one or both armies will be past the point of fighting. So, PG probably will be the one to decide when an army is too small to continue the war. Random events may also kick in!
3. So, I don't think we'd ever be able to fight with something below maybe 300pts or so?
4. Enforced peace? Why? How many armies did Hannibal destroy but never got that. Romans just kept throwing another out.

[pantherboy]

In regards to Hannibal he occupied Southern Italy for 15 years and simply lacked the forces to conquer all of Rome. Wouldn't this be the equivalent of winning over one territory from an opponent? He won 3 major decisive battles which forced Rome to take a guerilla war though they would lose a number of armies and consuls in the future campaigning versus Hannibal. I would envisage this part to be the owning player attempting to reconquer the territory by sending in small armies hoping to drain the enemies treasury with defense.

[petergarnett]

When war is declared the attacker raises his army upto a max of 650 points. The defender does the same but also decides which area to defend. The 2 battle, repeatedly if need be, until one gives up & makes peace.

If you resign you lose the battle but can fight again in another battle, i.e. you didn't like the terrain, or you merely wanted to deploy your army & check out the opposition.

However each lost battle (including any resigned) lowers your national morale & raises that of your opponent.

Perhaps we'd be better describing each fight for an area as a campaign.

As posted earlier today I don't like the idea of adding to your army points during such a campaign as players will merely keep topping upto 650 points. However we may need to revisit this.

I fail to see what you could achieve merely putting up 1 point armies!

Please bear in mind also that in DAG there are minimums.

[Scarz]

Here is the latest "map." I think I have it current now with the new country and country names. Please let me know if you want to change your country name or if there is an error.

[/url]

[pantherboy]

Putting up a small force means that the opponent must maintain an army until you give up which will drain their treasury. Lets say they opt to invde with 650pts and you defend with 20pts. You resign each fight. At the end of the season they must pay 650 gold while you pay 10 gold. As long as your national morale holds you can do this endlessly. Also I invade said player with 650pts and he defended with 650pts. He has a total cost from the combined fighting which outweighs me. As long as I win my battles in his territory I should be breaking even on the National morale scale. He should go bankrupt first which would allow me to win the war.

[Xiccarph]

Excuse me, but at what point is a state lost to the opposition?

[petergarnett]

Wrong way round pantherboy - after that many defeats it's your country which will be bankrupt & his will be rich. National morale alters the money raised in taxes.
Morale is also changed by each defeat & by each victory.
Equally I check for civil disorder, slave revolts etc based upon national morale

[Blathergut]

The minimum I can do w Ptolemaic is about 160pts...1 commander and the minimum cav + pikes.

Maybe 250-300 or something like that for area finally conquered? Or just let the great god decide?

[pantherboy]

Wrong way round pantherboy - after that many defeats it's your country which will be bankrupt & his will be rich. National morale alters the money raised in taxes.
Morale is also changed by each defeat & by each victory.
Equally I check for civil disorder, slave revolts etc based upon national morale

But he'll have suffered the same number of defeats if I'm winning in my counter invasion so wouldn't we be equal?

[Blathergut]

Since none have taken Him up on His offer, He scans the maps for a suitable victim...

[TheGrayMouser]

We offered every hospitality to the emissary of the nation of Egypt, even allowing him to leave our lands with his head still attached to his shoulders. It is clear however, that the Egyptian leader is obviously using the acts of 'supposed' diplomacy as a way to control, coerce, and enslave all of those who are the one, true free peoples. We the Nervii, do not take kindly to such acts, which reak more of the crazed ramblings of a lunatic dictator than an honest offering of peace. See how the refusal is accepted? All we stated was that at this time it was not in our interest to develop an alliance when the Nervii preferred to see to our lands and our people over the calculations of foreign war. But we will not be pushed far. We will not sit idly by as such tyranny marches against our people. And we call for all of those who consider themselves to be believes in sovereignty, independence, and freedom to note this day... For this is the day where we forge a line between those who are willing to stand idly by as the Egyptians, under no real justification, declared war on an independent state of allied tribes and brought chaos into our world. Ask yourself, for those who have not allied with this Egyptian maniac - how long will it be until a simple refusal of an alliance puts yourself in the sights of his war-mongering ways?

If you are interested in standing against this oppressive abuses, I do not require an alliance -- only request humbly that as I drive his invading force from my Nervii lands, that you occupy his armies at home - disrupt his lines of communication - cut his supplies... Raid his towns and villages. Break him apart piece meal as he over-extends his far-reaching hand into territories that are not his and that he has no business claiming.

I will humbly join any kingdoms or lands in an alliance after they show to me (and the rest of the world) that they will stand against this foe - which is by far the greatest threat to freedom and peace in our time.


Remember who first calls out the dogs of war... Remember the Nervii!

It is with great repugnance that our peoples must interupt their familial duties to respond to the the barbourous rantings of so upstart a peoples. You dare insult our ally, the Noble house of Egypt and thus the people of Rome. Although it is well known that the Egyptians are effite and rouge their eyes, they are a civilized nation and can brook no tolerance for unwashed barbarian threats and insults.
You claim a defensive war, yet call upon all nations to wage war on Egypt and her allies? As it is unlikly you can read our dispatches we will not waste effort with niceties. The largest army that your meager lands can support will march as soon as our sacred familial duties are are completed.