420 AD Grand Campaign

[bbogensc]

Unfortunately, apologies, I'm going to drop.

The new map and fewer players means I will be playing the same battle (Vandal vs Eastern Rome) each round again and again for months.

I just played this battle (lancers v late romans) in the legions tourney and the Roman darts weapon means you cannot charge these units with cav. Maybe its possibleon certain maps, but its not my cup of tea.

[Lysimachos]

Hi Lysimachos. The Traitor card rule specifically says it functions not as an attack. The province is conquered without a battle. This happens immediately also. The rules you have cited relate to cross battles.

Hi mate,
I understand your point but, on the other hands, it is neither written in the rule that the Traitor card is liable to cause the calling off of an attack already launched, and in motion, only waiting to see if the defender draw a Scouts or Reinforcements Card.
It is like the army is already on his way to Trinacria, just waiting to give battle.
So it's more a question of logic, seeming to me quite strange that while the target province of an attack may fall to the invader the starting point of the same attack is liable to be conquered while an army is still marching there, so reversing the initial situation.
Anyway I agree with you that rules are not specific on the point (it's really difficult to imagine in advance every situation may arise from the moves) so I'm open to different point of views.
Maybe the question could be decided with a majority vote of all the players ...

[Lysimachos]

Unfortunately, apologies, I'm going to drop.

The new map and fewer players means I will be playing the same battle (Vandal vs Eastern Rome) each round again and again for months.

I just played this battle (lancers v late romans) in the legions tourney and the Roman darts weapon means you cannot charge these units with cav. Maybe its possibleon certain maps, but its not my cup of tea.

Really sorry about such news.
You're right pointing out that Vandals woud have to fight sometimes with the Romans but there are also many independent provinces with different armies (Numidian, Spanish, Germanic foot Tribes) that can be targeted and with independent attacks you could play all over the map using Rhoxolani, Bosporan, Parthian, Saka, Mountain Indian, Indo-Parthian and so on).
Moreover the turns are just 6 so I think it's uncertain that you would play more than 2 o 3 times the same battle.
For example, as a Roman, I'm interested too in having different kind of matches and not only confronting the Vandals.
So hope you may still change your mind!

[bbogensc]

Thanks for your note. The German Horse Tribes is really going to be hard to use in a campaign for several reasons, especially terrain, and without the Visigoth faction on the map. I also am not interested in playing a later Roman battle over and over with lancers and warband only. Its not my cup of tea. My appraisal of the strategy is that Rome should attack Vandals on all 6 turns, degrading the army and just rack up VPs, if Vandal gets lucky in one battle, then just stay in the rough ground and draw it out.

On the cards, I'm not seeing the ambiguity you do in the rule. I practiced law in Europe and also in the US and its just a cultural difference in reading rules and no fault on your side in my view as it happens all the time. I dontvwant to argue, so im just going to drop for both these reasons. Good luck! I wish you the best in the game.

[Lysimachos]

Thanks for your note. The German Horse Tribes is really going to be hard to use in a campaign for several reasons, especially terrain, and without the Visigoth faction on the map. I also am not interested in playing a later Roman battle over and over with lancers and warband only. Its not my cup of tea. My appraisal of the strategy is that Rome should attack Vandals on all 6 turns, degrading the army and just rack up VPs, if Vandal gets lucky in one battle, then just stay in the rough ground and draw it out.

On the cards, I'm not seeing the ambiguity you do in the rule. I practiced law in Europe and also in the US and its just a cultural difference in reading rules and no fault on your side in my view as it happens all the time. I dontvwant to argue, so im just going to drop for both these reasons. Good luck! I wish you the best in the game.

Ok mate,
it's obviously up to you to decide whether to stay or not.
Just remain assured that no quarrel was in sight. It's only a game, not a trial!
Thank's anyway for having a try.
Hope to cross soon the swords with you on the battlefield with FoGII ...

[Lysimachos]

Hi all,
TheGrayMouser has PMed me asking to take the Vandals so the roster is complete again!
He just need some time to read the rules and then he will post his orders.

[Lysimachos]

In the meanwhile I'm going to edit the rules in order to clarify what was said yesterday, inserting the following statement.

"The effects of every card and random events will always take immediately place."

"The effects of actions will take immediately place, saved the fact that they will not be liable to influence:
- the outcome of an attack already launched during that same turn against the player,
- to authorize the player to launch an attack otherwise impossible
(so, for example, if someone is the 3rd player and the 2nd has attacked him, his Provincial Levy action won't influence the size of the army in that battle but, if the 5th player will launch another attack against him, he will have the possibility of using the effects of the Provincial Levy / in the same situation if the 2nd player build a fleet during his turn he will not be authorized to immediately launch an amphibious attack vs the 3rd player, but the same fleet will be liable to defend the province in the case of an attack by the 5th player)."

"A province used as the starting point of an attack won't be liable to be the target of another attack neither will suffer the effect of Local Insurrection and Traitor cards."

[TheGrayMouser]

OK

Turn One The "Geezer" Gaeseric of the Vandals orders the following:

*Spy Card steals Traitor card after a long mission in Kush
*Traitor Card used on TRD
*Indie attack from CLT into TRC 1/2
*Vandal Army attack AFR into ind. NMD 1
*Fleet built at SRD 1/2
*Shrines built 1/2

Some comments

Vandals have no direct sea access to Italy, !!

Any house rules in capture the head? ie CnC must be in a front line combat unit? or cant hide in a bush in the corner?

To be clear, we are not using the regular victory conditions? How does one determine at WHAT POINT the game over. Example I end my turn and Im winning 38 to 45, is it over ? or do I send it to my oponent and he gets a rally and causes me some damages and now its 45 to 38... Does he play send it back, and then,,..... See what I mean? Or is it sudden death....

Just to understand, what is the thought process behind it? ( I'm guessing to speed up play?)

[Lysimachos]

Some comments

Vandals have no direct sea access to Italy, !!

Any house rules in capture the head? ie CnC must be in a front line combat unit? or cant hide in a bush in the corner?

To be clear, we are not using the regular victory conditions? How does one determine at WHAT POINT the game over. Example I end my turn and Im winning 38 to 45, is it over ? or do I send it to my oponent and he gets a rally and causes me some damages and now its 45 to 38... Does he play send it back, and then,,..... See what I mean? Or is it sudden death....

Just to understand, what is the thought process behind it? ( I'm guessing to speed up play?)

1) Vandals are making a lot of mess in Hispania, though!

2) In fact there is no house rule about Remove the Head battles. Suggestions are welcomed!

3) Victory conditions have been changed to speed up battles and also to make them more historical. Generally an ancient army crumbled when loosing 30-35% of his force and the rest of casualties occured during the rout. Moreover it is really painful to run the last turns of battles where only few units survived and maybe are also scattered all over the map ...

[TheGrayMouser]

Ok, is it sudden death though? I guess it’s trust based as it could be the end of the turn and you get your opponent to 40% and declare victory when you send the turn? I believe when you send it and your opponent opens , the game goes thru it’s routine and so a unit coul rally...

[Lysimachos]

Ok, is it sudden death though? I guess it’s trust based as it could be the end of the turn and you get your opponent to 40% and declare victory when you send the turn? I believe when you send it and your opponent opens , the game goes thru it’s routine and so a unit coul rally...

It's sudden death.
Simpler and immediately comprehensible!

By the way I was also wondering to implement another rule about attacks, having noticed that during the length of a campaign one player will costantly or at least many times make his move after the same opponent (for example the Kushans in 5 turns on 6 will play after the Huns).
In order to avoid that the 1st player continues to attack the same province if defeated, denying any opportunity of an enemy counterattack, I think it should be prohibited to reiterate the same attack during the next turn.
If someone disagree please let me know.

[Kabill]

Ok, is it sudden death though? I guess it’s trust based as it could be the end of the turn and you get your opponent to 40% and declare victory when you send the turn? I believe when you send it and your opponent opens , the game goes thru it’s routine and so a unit coul rally...

Personally, I'd run it as 45% or more routed at the beginning of a player's turn, i.e. when a player opens up their game, if either side is 45% routed by the time they can take actions, then the game ends. That feels to me the least ambiguous way of calling it, since both players will then have seen the route score tick over 45%. And while I don't expect anyone to cheat, it will be easy enough to see if someone keeps playing past when the game should have ended because when the turn comes back, they'll see in the replay that it never dipped back below 45%.

One small wrinkle though - a game could end before reaching 45% if they are strongly ahead. But I guess that doesn't matter - if someone's winning by such a big margin then they'd likely make it to 45% before their opponent anyway.

Regarding remove the head: I'm honestly not convinced any house rules are required. Especially in a large battle, it's easy enough to keep your general in a reserve unit or otherwise out of trouble while nevertheless staying close to the action. If your opponent is in a position to attack your general in a way you can't avoid, it probably means you're going to lose by route % anyway. So I don't see any particular merit in keeping your C-in-C hidden in a forest somewhere.

(However, if you want to make remove the head battles a bit different, I could see if I could finish my mod for multiplayer use that buffs C-in-Cs to make it more worthwhile deploying them.)

[TheGrayMouser]

Ok, is it sudden death though? I guess it’s trust based as it could be the end of the turn and you get your opponent to 40% and declare victory when you send the turn? I believe when you send it and your opponent opens , the game goes thru it’s routine and so a unit coul rally...

It's sudden death.
Simpler and immediately comprehensible!

HAHA, I suppose but I wouldnt have asked twice
(Kabill was more articulate about what could go awry but I'm ready to move on.)

As for remove the head: If I was gong to merely suggest a house rule it would be CnC needs be in a front line unit ie heavy cavalry or heavy infantry or Pac.( or chariot I suppose if any exist in 420AD) and must deploy in the front line. Just to make it interesting and give purpose to forcing that type of battle.

Cheers!

[Lysimachos]

Having read the sharp consideration of Kabill I really think we should go with his advice that the battle ends with 45% or more routed units at the beginning of a player's turn, i.e. when a player opens up his game, while if either side is 45% routed by that time then the game is a tie.

Otherwise, about the Remove the Head module battle I think that we should go with the idea of TheGrayMouser that a CiC needs to be deployed in a front line unit just to make things interesting and give purpose to forcing that type of battle.

That said I'm going to re-edit the rules inserting these statement and that regarding the prohibition of reiterating an attack against the same province by the same player during the next turn, while waiting the orders from hidde and then Cunningcairn and kleyeckles, after which we'll be able to start the first battles.

[Lysimachos]

While waiting the orders of hidde and other players the following matches are already liable to begin:

Romans (Lysimachos) vs Vandals (TheGrayMouser) in Trinacria

Sassanids (Kabill) vs Arabs (Cunningcairn) in Gerrhaea (desert map)

Palmyran (Kabill) vs Romans (Lysimachos) in Syria

Germanic Foot Tribes (TheGrayMouser) vs Romans (Lysimachos) in Tarraconensis

Vandals (TheGrayMouser) vs Numidian (hidde) in Numidia


* Cunningcairn and hidde have been selected in alphabetical order to lead independent armies fighting vs Sassanids and Vandals as per the rules

[Lysimachos]

Generals, it's time to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

The attackers must launch the challenges taking care of the size of each army (in this case there will be no problem because all the hosts will fight with 1600 pts.)

Challenge up for TheGrayMouser
PW: Honorius

[hidde]

I've been pressed for time lately so probably haven't read the rules as thoroughly as I should have.
I'll try to make my turn anyhow.

Hephtalites Turn 1:

(1) Spy card: I belive the only card I can steal is Mercenaries. If I'm allowed to keep my card and not use it I want to do that. Otherwise I take the Mercenaries.
(2) Build bridges.
(3) Build shrines.
(4) Land attack Frg to Prp (Kushans)

I hope this is correct!

[Cunningcairn]

Hun Turn 1
1 action - invade Hys / Hystria / dacian 89-106 ad
½ action – build shrine
1 action – build bridges

I too hope this is correct

[TheGrayMouser]

While waiting the orders of hidde and other players the following matches are already liable to begin:

Challenges Up

Germanic Foot Tribes (TheGrayMouser) vs Romans (Lysimachos) in Tarraconensis
password: Spain

Vandals (TheGrayMouser) vs Numidian (hidde) in Numidia
password: Javelin

[Lysimachos]

(1) Spy card: I belive the only card I can steal is Mercenaries. If I'm allowed to keep my card and not use it I want to do that. Otherwise I take the Mercenaries.

That's correct, Mercenaries are the only card to steal at the moment.
But if you like you can hold the Spy card in your hand and play it when suitable