The Lost World Campaign

[Ironclad]

Clearly any feeble pretext will suffice when the rapacious greed of the Roman senate is concerned.

O tempora, o mores!

Your petty protests are meaningless in the face of righteous behaviour. We thank our great ally Rome for joining in the war - in this they are behaving as honorary Greeks should.

Death to Kappadokian oppression and imitation Persians!

[rbodleyscott]

In the spirit of our true Macedonian heritage and the great Alexander we fight with FOW on - none of your imitation Persian practices for us. (Of course I might feel differently when I see the new FOW in action along with the double moves!).

Well I already issued the challenge as per my previous post, which means that our Persian practices prevail. Double moves is on, FOW is off.

It is up to you to demonstrate your resolve and accept the challenge, lest your undefended province be conquered without a fight.

Nice try, but if the so recently introduced double moves are obligatory, so should FOW which has been with us now for a long time.

Well it has never been obligatory before, and I never use it - mainly because of the inability to take back cocked up moves.

I would strongly object to being forced to use it, as it spoils my enjoyment of the game.

[Ironclad]

Well I already issued the challenge as per my previous post, which means that our Persian practices prevail. Double moves is on, FOW is off.

It is up to you to demonstrate your resolve and accept the challenge, lest your undefended province be conquered without a fight.

Nice try, but if the so recently introduced double moves are obligatory, so should FOW which has been with us now for a long time.

Well it has never been obligatory before, and I never use it - mainly because of the inability to take back cocked up moves.

I would strongly object to being forced to use it as it spoils my enjoyment of the game.

It can't be that bad can it? I make numerous cockups with it (keep forgetting to think/look before I move) but have just accepted it as part of the improved game and under this patch its supposed to be better than before.

[rbodleyscott]

It can't be that bad can it? I make numerous cockups with it (keep forgetting to think/look before I move) but have just accepted it as part of the improved game and under this patch its supposed to be better than before.

I prefer to play without it. Each to their own.

[TheGrayMouser]

boys boys , you both have lumbering pike/ lancer armies, fog wont make a differnece either way

That being said it should be player agreement, barring that I would say the attacker choses if for no other reason they are setting up the challenge (possesion being 9/10's of the law)

I dont think Peter wants to put absolute restrictions on the game for things like this, plus the less meddling from the Gods is good for us mortals

[TheGrayMouser]

Holy cow, just realized something, how will causaulties for the second battles be effected by the new 300 men per units across the board?

It seems it would actually balance out better but maybe not.......
Always thought heavy infantry armies lossed out on the recalcs but now maybe lighter high BP armies will be punished....

[Ironclad]

boys boys , you both have lumbering pike/ lancer armies, fog wont make a differnece either way

That being said it should be player agreement, barring that I would say the attacker choses if for no other reason they are setting up the challenge (possesion being 9/10's of the law)

I dont think Peter wants to put absolute restrictions on the game for things like this, plus the less meddling from the Gods is good for us mortals

OK I will go with the attacker chooses if no agreement.

So RBS your challenge has been accepted (with FOW off).

[petergarnett]

A few points:-

I'm hoping to massage figures for the change to 300 men units. Should only effect those few campaigns which were left open over winter.

Blood Alliance - once more may I warn all concerned that you cannot refuse to aid a blood ally even if that starts a war with another such blood ally, which effects morale as the peasants don't like to see families ar war

Build Phase is over - thanks for all the PM's. PR events had immediate effect but city builds will only be finished in the Fall. So if you built a new city please understand it will not be on the map until complete (& assuming you still owe the area)

Double Moves - lets make them mandatory as no-one objected. However FoW is still down to the players to agree. Like rbs whilst I wish I could use it I make too many silly mistakes as I click on the wrong hex

Event cards will be PM'd to you next. They have to be used before Summer phase or are lost. Please do check your card in the players guide as I made some changes

[batesmotel]

Holy cow, just realized something, how will causaulties for the second battles be effected by the new 300 men per units across the board?

It seems it would actually balance out better but maybe not.......
Always thought heavy infantry armies lossed out on the recalcs but now maybe lighter high BP armies will be punished....

The effect of the original calculation was to place a premium on killing the higher personnel count BGs versus lower count ones, e.g. killing/inflicting casualties on HF was worth 3 times as much as the same percentage casualties on LF. With the new consistent number of personnel all BGs are equal. The previous system didn't really penalize or help armies with lots of heavy troops versus those with lots of lights, since the bigger troop counts for the heavy troops also boosted the overall troop count proportionately.

Chris

[petergarnett]

All of which means I'll probably have to base my calc on BG's lost for battles started after this patch. Therefore a player will want to break as many BG's as possible whilst losing as few as possible.

Most players have been posted battle results for both men and BG's lost already.

[iversonjm]

All of which means I'll probably have to base my calc on BG's lost for battles started after this patch. Therefore a player will want to break as many BG's as possible whilst losing as few as possible.

Most players have been posted battle results for both men and BG's lost already.

For the battle calculations from Fall that we are still waiting on (i.e. the ones where I massacred hordes of heavy foot), will you be using the new or the old system?

Just curious....

[iversonjm]

King Mithridates of Kappadokia wishes to announce that, in honour of his royal Achaemenid ancestors, the Kingdom of Kappadokia will be fielding Early Achaemenid Persians when Immortal Fire arrives.

The Horde will also be using the EAPs once IF comes out, so all you Persian haters can come and get me.

[batesmotel]

All of which means I'll probably have to base my calc on BG's lost for battles started after this patch. Therefore a player will want to break as many BG's as possible whilst losing as few as possible.

Most players have been posted battle results for both men and BG's lost already.

Why change from doing it based on casualties? Going to BGs lost will make it easier on armies with a higher percentage of high grade troops since they will have fewer BGs lost due to auto-break. And it would mean that there would be no penalty for casualties suffered in BGs that weren't broken or fragmented at the end of the game. I think it still makes sense to go with the number of casualties out of the total army strength rather than just with BGs lost.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

All of which means I'll probably have to base my calc on BG's lost for battles started after this patch. Therefore a player will want to break as many BG's as possible whilst losing as few as possible.

Most players have been posted battle results for both men and BG's lost already.

Hey Peter, I dont see that working out to well, for the following:
Most battles are pretty close (at least for me!)

35/40 42/42 for example if you did it the same way the victor would only have like 47% of his army for battle # 2 and the loser would have 20%


The old way is probobly the best and despite my above post Chris is of cours correct in that mathematically it doesnt matter (although intuitively I think it does because of PLAY style)

[Morbio]

All,

There have been a number of declarations of war over the last few days, but I've received no PMs from the defenders, nor posts in this forum, telling me where the battles are taking place. Please don't forget to let me know otherwise I can't keep the map up to date.

Thanks

[Blathergut]

I find all the verbose yammerings amusing but very difficult to understand as far as who is attacking/invading who and where.

Maybe everyone should make a point of just stating the key details: Your country and # vs opponent's country and # and then defender should post where the battle will take place by copying that line and adding to it.

[Morbio]

The latest map has just been posted. Please review and let me know of any missing battles, thanks

[petergarnett]

Re army losses - I can keep it as is but merely thought that with every BG being 300 men it was just as easy to base it on BG's.

I happy either way on this point.

May I back up Morbio's post above - when invaded you must keep him informed of where you are defending otherwise we are going to have real problems.

[deadtorius]

All is getting too quiet around here...
Xiccarph I have been informed that your people bathe and pee in the great river that flows from your lands through my own. This is an insult that can not be ignored any longer. I hereby slap you with the Papyrus of War, suitably soaked in the urine of a pregnant camel (for that extra stench you cant get anywhere else)
Battle will be posted PW: riverpee

[Blathergut]

... ...is still trying to figure out just which of his blood allies is blood allied with who!!.. ..