Unfortified Camps

[BrianC]

Most of our little group's games are spent trying to kill enemy units. In our first few games, we did expend units and time trying to get into the enemie's camp and party time it. For whatever reasons, most of our games ignore those camps in favor of going after enemy units. No one has agreed to not go after the opponent's camp it has just happened to be the norm to not.

Thats how our games have been too. Unless I am already winning I cannot justify sending a BG to sack an enemy camp. I have gained a much better appreciation for how long it takes BGs to move around the battlefield and was surprised at how long it actually takes to get to a place that seems not too far off. But if your a few attrition points away and can spare a BG then by all means, it could turn the tide in your favour. My strategy simply focuses on defeating the enemy in the field first, sack camps second. Of course if my opponent is reading this I will probably have to mix things up

[shall]

Pleased to hear all of that. Our objective was to make killing the enemy the priority and that camp sacking can complete a win if you get space to do it; but that its a risky 2 APs to go for in the middle of a good tussle.

Sounds like "mission accomplished" in the overall balance.

Si

[grahambriggs]

With small armies, say 11 BGs or less, it pays to have the camp fortified as it's loss can be quite a blow in terms of attrition points. For larger armies, it's rare an enemy BG will get near enough unmolested. If in doubt put it in terrain which delay it's sacking by another turn or two.

Julian

I tried this with my 11BG Early persians at Britcon this year. I found that in 6 games the fortifications saved the camp once, four time the camp was sacked and once it wasn't attacked. The problem was that the enemy were getting to the camp and having long eonough to chew on it with weak troops that the camp went.

Once I gave up on that idea and spent the 24 points on troops instead I find I lose the camp less.

Regards

Graham