Slitherine

The Alemanni scouts have some how outfoxed their Imperial opponents and have found an appropriate battlefield and the Alemanni horde is deployed and now await the decadent opposing Imperial horde that must use blindfolded scouts if they use any at all.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:The Alemanni scouts have some how outfoxed their Imperial opponents and have found an appropriate battlefield and the Alemanni horde is deployed and now await the decadent opposing Imperial horde that must use blindfolded scouts if they use any at all.

Chris

I have a deep sense of forboding in regards to what map you might have chosen for this battle... Hopefully you chose open terrian as per the map rules

The Eastern & Western Roman forces can operate in each other's territory?

Yes, roman armies can operate freely....the only impact of the territories is which empire gets penalised for pillaging

davouthojo wrote:Yes, roman armies can operate freely....the only impact of the territories is which empire gets penalised for pillaging

This was one of my reasons for suggesting the change to allow each barbarian player one move per turn. Otherwise I suspect ift may be too easy for the Romans to concentrate.

Chris

At the moment it seems the hairies have a hard row to hoe! Maybe some penalty for having to rely upon the other emperor to save your derriere!!!

I hoped the romans would be on top initially.....but look at the replacement rates.....next year the romans will add 60 points, the barbarians will add 250......

ehehehe

If I skulker back across the border to home, can I stash my ill-gotten loot and store it? Or, when I come back across the border, if I lose a battle/camp, do I also lose the 100k loot?

Blathergut wrote:If I skulker back across the border to home, can I stash my ill-gotten loot and store it? Or, when I come back across the border, if I lose a battle/camp, do I also lose the 100k loot?

Thats my understanding, since you have no proper banks to store it you need to bring it with you on raids

Can't I bury it and kill the diggers and then kill the guards....

Blathergut wrote:Can't I bury it and kill the diggers and then kill the guards....

.....and then kill yourself?

Pulling together some of the questions together

On winning....roman vs roman and barbarian vs barbarian totals was only for fun, I was hoping that the main opponent would be across the border, the loot/prestige total vs your partners are for bragging rights.....maybe lets just dump the peer-to-peer element.

On paying off barbarians.....the intention was for the Romans to be able to, when faced by 2 barbarian tribes, pay one off to focus on beating up the other. Let me know any ideas to make this dynamic make sense for the players, or drop this aspect if it doesn't work.

On whether the romans can win long term....
The reinforcements schedule was intended as a balancing mechanism to keep both sides in the game - most campaigns reinforce success, making it obvious which side will win after a few rounds.
The secret sauce for the romans is the emergency levies. With 8 prestige racked up, the Western roman could reinforce his army 200 points if he wanted...but then he wont get to play with all superior troops......
Lets suck it and see. I can foresee that the 50 recruits per year for barbarians might not be sustainable if they keep suffering losses at this rate...the young bucks won't want to sign up to be legionary meat.....
Romans do need to watch their casualty rate though.....risk of Pyrrhic victories. Reduced casualties for the winner...possible, a little more admin, would tilt balance to the romans. Romans don't need to attack by the way....on a draw, the barbarians have to retreat back across the border....draws not good for Roman prestige though

On barbarian loot.......in real life, the loot would be spread among the tribe, spent on wine, women and song.......so would not be taken out on the next raid. So only loot taken on the current outing is vulnerable.....in which case can make the rule harsher...50% (rounded up) of loot gathered on the current raid is lost (does provide an incentive for going home voluntarily). And Romans don't accept IOUs from barbarians against future loot, so can't go negative.

davouthojo wrote:Pulling together some of the questions together

On winning....roman vs roman and barbarian vs barbarian totals was only for fun, I was hoping that the main opponent would be across the border, the loot/prestige total vs your partners are for bragging rights.....maybe lets just dump the peer-to-peer element.

On paying off barbarians.....the intention was for the Romans to be able to, when faced by 2 barbarian tribes, pay one off to focus on beating up the other. Let me know any ideas to make this dynamic make sense for the players, or drop this aspect if it doesn't work.

On whether the romans can win long term....
The reinforcements schedule was intended as a balancing mechanism to keep both sides in the game - most campaigns reinforce success, making it obvious which side will win after a few rounds.
The secret sauce for the romans is the emergency levies. With 8 prestige racked up, the Western roman could reinforce his army 200 points if he wanted...but then he wont get to play with all superior troops......
Lets suck it and see. I can foresee that the 50 recruits per year for barbarians might not be sustainable if they keep suffering losses at this rate...the young bucks won't want to sign up to be legionary meat.....
Romans do need to watch their casualty rate though.....risk of Pyrrhic victories. Reduced casualties for the winner...possible, a little more admin, would tilt balance to the romans. Romans don't need to attack by the way....on a draw, the barbarians have to retreat back across the border....draws not good for Roman prestige though

On barbarian loot.......in real life, the loot would be spread among the tribe, spent on wine, women and song.......so would not be taken out on the next raid. So only loot taken on the current outing is vulnerable.....in which case can make the rule harsher...50% (rounded up) of loot gathered on the current raid is lost (does provide an incentive for going home voluntarily). And Romans don't accept IOUs from barbarians against future loot, so can't go negative.

Some good points D, althought not sure about the suck it and see commentary , has never worked with the Mrs
My only opinion (which I mentioned before) is perhaps bribes shouldnt cost the Romans prestige but $ , Romans would of course only have finite cash...I think it would add a nice dynamic, Romans could have more inner wheelings and dealings with individual barb. players etc....
Lets rock!, I think you got my turns, come on slackers make your moves!

I have mine in...sneaky roman...i should have plundered you again!!

maybe give the roman scum prestige points for actually getting stolen plunder back before it's carted off into hairylands

maybe incentive for the hairies to fight...maybe something like, for every 100pts of romans you manage to slaughter you gain 10pts to your army?

Stashes his plunder in a very secret spot....avoids the kill-the-then-kill-the...just carries it out himself in small loads as he uh....visits his favourite bush.

Makes shameless posting just to see if he gets new threads.