"240 BC Grand Campaign"

[vakarr]

Regarding the first proposal devoncop already specified why it is impossible.
About the second I'm not of that idea given the fact that the army has to remain that of the conquering nation.
When the Romans invaded Macedon they continued to rely on the legion and not switched to the phalanx and the same happened in Gauls or in Spain or everywhere in the world. And it was alos the same for Alexander when he conquered the east!

No, it wasn't, Alexander's army changed radically as he conquered more territory. He kept the core troops (such as pikemen) it's true but added locals such as Persian cavalry and elephants. The Romans also kept the legion as the core of the army but added all sorts of other troops (eg eastern archers) as they became available.

[devoncop]

Regarding the first proposal devoncop already specified why it is impossible.
About the second I'm not of that idea given the fact that the army has to remain that of the conquering nation.
When the Romans invaded Macedon they continued to rely on the legion and not switched to the phalanx and the same happened in Gauls or in Spain or everywhere in the world. And it was alos the same for Alexander when he conquered the east!

No, it wasn't, Alexander's army changed radically as he conquered more territory. He kept the core troops (such as pikemen) it's true but added locals such as Persian cavalry and elephants. The Romans also kept the legion as the core of the army but added all sorts of other troops (eg eastern archers) as they became available.

Vakarr

What you say is very true, both Alexander and Rome in general utilised more and more auxiliary troops as the empire expanded. The current system of FOG2 simply doesn't facilitate an ad hoc addition to army lists however of extra units. I can understand why to an extent as army balance could be radically upset and in any case certain auxiliaries are already modelled such as Italian Foot of Spanish scutarri.
The use of an entirely native army from the newly conquered province to take on another adjoining one I can see may be an option but maybe this change would be best in any new campaign.

As an aside I also have concerns over the "winner after 14 turns rule" as skirmish heavy armies will have a huge advantage in early turns....may be another case of a rule change brought in as a result of an isolated problem causing more widespread ones.......we shall see.

[Lysimachos]

About the second I'm not of that idea given the fact that the army has to remain that of the conquering nation.
When the Romans invaded Macedon they continued to rely on the legion and not switched to the phalanx and the same happened in Gauls or in Spain or everywhere in the world. And it was alos the same for Alexander when he conquered the east!

Generally I agree with you, but if the next campaign is longer you could consider one wrinkle to give players a bit more variety, if desired: Any attack by one player on another (ie, empire vs empire) would need to use your main troop type, representing your main army. But if you attack an independent province, you could use the provincial army of an adjacent province that you control, which would represent a local, limited offensive.

Pretty soon we'll have a fifty-page rulebook, but the campaign could get even more interesting as it evolves.

I devised the independent attacks as a way of giving each player the chance of using different armies (and also harassing opponents on the other end of the map!).
But your suggestion is interesting, and could be implemented in the new campaign.
At the moment I'm collecting a lot of ideas so that finally it could look as a real kick ass!

[Lysimachos]

Regarding the first proposal devoncop already specified why it is impossible.
About the second I'm not of that idea given the fact that the army has to remain that of the conquering nation.
When the Romans invaded Macedon they continued to rely on the legion and not switched to the phalanx and the same happened in Gauls or in Spain or everywhere in the world. And it was alos the same for Alexander when he conquered the east!

No, it wasn't, Alexander's army changed radically as he conquered more territory. He kept the core troops (such as pikemen) it's true but added locals such as Persian cavalry and elephants. The Romans also kept the legion as the core of the army but added all sorts of other troops (eg eastern archers) as they became available.

Vakarr

What you say is very true, both Alexander and Rome in general utilised more and more auxiliary troops as the empire expanded. The current system of FOG2 simply doesn't facilitate an ad hoc addition to army lists however of extra units. I can understand why to an extent as army balance could be radically upset and in any case certain auxiliaries are already modelled such as Italian Foot of Spanish scutarri.
The use of an entirely native army from the newly conquered province to take on another adjoining one I can see may be an option but maybe this change would be best in any new campaign.

I totally agree with devoncop.
Unfortunately the current version of Fog2 doesn't allow to model army in the way vakarr suggests.
So that, having to choose between the typical army nation and that of a conquered province I definetely choose the first.
But, as I said just above, 76 mm suggestion of a limited use of another army in specifical situations may be allowed.
Just let me a little of time to think about it ...

[Lysimachos]

14 round games are too short because it is not enough time to flank your opponent with any medium or heavy foot. If you have cavalry then good for you, but this time restriction lets you do nothing with your foot soldiers except a head-on march. This restriction makes the game much less interesting by limiting the options of every player.

With a short game the terrain is just a lottery and either you win or you lose based on chance. A longer game allows for a wider range of tactics that players must adapt to. In a longer game you can take advantage of terrain by maneuvering for it which is a test of deployment and understanding of terrain mechanics. It can be very interesting discovering how different players respond to these opportunities or challenges.

I don't agree with changing the default length of the battles dramatically based on a single bad outcome. The vast majority of the battles that people have been fighting have been decisive.

In place of the 14 round rule I propose this: A player may petition in the thread for a victory to be declared after 14 turns if his opponent if refusing to engage him. Each case will be decided by Lysimachos.

I've played several battles against the AI set on 14 turns and they fared well.
There is anyway plenty of time for maneuvering and flanking the opponent's army, while casualties can easily arrive to a percentage of 40 or 45.
Horse shooting armies may have a little initial advantage given their superior firepower but in order to gain more than a 5% advantage in casualties they are also required to close in at some stage making the battle a bit more interesting than just chasing them all over the map with no real fun in the game.

Let's try the rule for at least 20 days and watch the results.
I'm sure we will be really satisfied, trust me!

[Lysimachos]

Parthia will invade and raid baggage trains in Margiana from Parthia.

Trogilus,
you can't have an escort baggage battle against a parthian army, given the fact that the rules states:
"The commander of a numidian, libyan, arab, parthian, skythian and saka army, whether if attacked or attacking in an agricultural or desert province, may force the opponent who leads an army that's not included in the same aforementioned armies to play an escort baggage train module with him as the attacker."

The idea is that only a lighter army is able to attack the baggage of an heavier one.
You can have a normal open battle or flank marches, advance guard or remove the head battle types.

The duty of defending Margiana falls on shadowblack.

[Lysimachos]

The defense of Margiana is a duty of vakarr

The defense of Apulia is a duty of Trogilus

[vakarr]

The defense of Margiana is a duty of vakarr

The defense of Apulia is a duty of Trogilus

However, in a previous post you said: "The duty of defending Margiana falls on shadowblack."

Margiana seems well defended!!! Who else is fighting for Margiana?

[Lysimachos]

The defense of Margiana is a duty of vakarr

The defense of Apulia is a duty of Trogilus

However, in a previous post you said: "The duty of defending Margiana falls on shadowblack."

Margiana seems well defended!!! Who else is fighting for Margiana?

Sorry, I forgot of having already identified who had to defend Margiana.
So, following the alphabetical order:
- Margiana will be defended by shadowblack
- Apulia will be defended by Trogilus
- vakarr will enter in the fray with the next defense.

[76mm]

Lysimachus, sorry for another idea, but i wanted to mention one more: for diplomatic reasons, i think it would be cooler if players didn’t know who was sponsoring independent attacks—more room for double-crossing, etc. Players could send their sponsored indepedent attack orders to you via pm, and you could announce the attack, and the assigned attacker, in this thread.

To make things even cooler, you could have the indentity of the sponsor revealed, but only under certain circumstances—-maybe if the indepedent attack is defeafed, or maybe just a straight % chance, etc.

[devoncop]

Lysimachus, sorry for another idea, but i wanted to mention one more: for diplomatic reasons, i think it would be cooler if players didn’t know who was sponsoring independent attacks—more room for double-crossing, etc. Players could send their sponsored indepedent attack orders to you via pm, and you could announce the attack, and the assigned attacker, in this thread.

To make things even cooler, you could have the indentity of the sponsor revealed, but only under certain circumstances—-maybe if the indepedent attack is defeafed, or maybe just a straight % chance, etc.

+1
Like that idea. Though given the expenditure and current treasuries of all nations are revealed publicly it would probably be obvious.

Also such attacks would probably have to take place in "radio silence" on the chat as my warped sense of humour would reveal my identity very quickly once I start rambling

[shadowblack]

With the 14 turn rule, maybe a casualty percentage requirement could be set at that point, which if not reached finishes the battle at that point due to inaction. So, if neither side has inflicted, say 15 or 20% casualties by that time it's considered over. I for one would feel quite aggrieved if I lost a battle 40-35 because it finished on turn 14. This seems like a rule inflicted on everyone because one person has had a problem.

[devoncop]

With the 14 turn rule, maybe a casualty percentage requirement could be set at that point, which if not reached finishes the battle at that point due to inaction. So, if neither side has inflicted, say 15 or 20% casualties by that time it's considered over. I for one would feel quite aggrieved if I lost a battle 40-35 because it finished on turn 14. This seems like a rule inflicted on everyone because one person has had a problem.

Agreed.

The huge strength of the FOG2 system is the ability of battles to ebb and flow as plans succeed (or are thwarted) ...if a battle is a motion picture then an arbitrary turn number deciding the victor is like taking a freeze frame of the movie half an hour before the end just before the villain has the tables turned on them and the hero rides off into the sunset.... ......(yes, I like John Ford Westerns !!!)

[76mm]

I for one would feel quite aggrieved if I lost a battle 40-35 because it finished on turn 14. This seems like a rule inflicted on everyone because one person has had a problem.

For the record, I agree with you and didn't request this 14 turn/5% rule change. I like the concept that if one side is "not fighting" then the game can end early and the fighting side can collect "booty" from ravaging the countryside, but think that the definition of "not fighting" should be tweaked. I mentioned above that my suggest would be that a game could be ended early on turn 14 if X% casualties had not been reached (5%? 10%?). The percentage would need to reflect a clash of the main bodies, rather than skirmishers, so could get tricky.

[Ironclad]

Challenge up for Trogilus pw Mars

Rome v Apulia

[Aryaman]

IMO it should be on agreement by the players, ideally the defending player makes it clear he is going to play a waiting game and if the attacker is not willing to risk an attack on a good defensive position, cancel the game. Should be just one turn.

[vakarr]

News from the Galatian front- the Imperial Pontic Armed Forces have wiped out all the cavalry and light forces in the Galatian Defence Force and total victory only requires the mopping up of some recalcitrant war bands. Losses have been light, with only 36% of our brave warriors being unable to return home. Enemy losses have been enormous and currently stand at around 35%. Meanwhile the perfidious pikemen of the deranged Antiochus have clashed with our victorious army in Bithynia and soon the invader will discover the folly of declaring war on our peace loving nation.

[devoncop]

After braving a hail of arrows and javelins the victorious Western Ptolemaic Army has prevailed and won the battle of Crn Province securing Ptolemy's western border.

Score 44% to 15%.

Thanks to my gallant opponent Ironclad who did a great job with a weak hand !

[vakarr]

Pontus sends its heartiest congratulations to King Ptolemy on his magnificent victory in the desert!

[devoncop]

Ptolemy thanks the King and people of Pontus for their good wishes and both nations can be pleased with progress as the first campaigning season draws to an end....