Slitherine

New Rules available via link in first post

The rules have been updated to incorporate items discussed here and a few clarifications. Questions, suggestions, etc. welcomed! Updates are in blue text for easy identification.

Edit: I opted for a more drastic re-write in the end. Follow the link and look for Behemoth_2.docx. I've also uploaded the current map and Behemoth_Manager spreadsheet.

Results for Early Summer 1642

Parliament
11 Victory Points: London(3), Bristol(2), Reigate(1), Influence SE (5)
Manpower: 2200

Royalist
3 Victory Points: Truro(1), Sheffield(1), Newcastle(10
Manpower: 2500

Depending on how this plays out, initial VP for London and Bristol may need to revisited...

keyth wrote:New Rules available via link in first post

The rules have been updated to incorporate items discussed here and a few clarifications. Questions, suggestions, etc. welcomed! Updates are in blue text for easy identification.

Edit: I opted for a more drastic re-write in the end. Follow the link and look for Behemoth_2.docx. I've also uploaded the current map and Behemoth_Manager spreadsheet.

You need to change the protection on the file so the world can access it . Updated rules that only Keyth can access don't help much.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:

keyth wrote:New Rules available via link in first post

The rules have been updated to incorporate items discussed here and a few clarifications. Questions, suggestions, etc. welcomed! Updates are in blue text for easy identification.

Edit: I opted for a more drastic re-write in the end. Follow the link and look for Behemoth_2.docx. I've also uploaded the current map and Behemoth_Manager spreadsheet.

You need to change the protection on the file so the world can access it . Updated rules that only Keyth can access don't help much.

Chris

Weird, it should have inherited the properties from the folder... Give this one a go:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=4 ... ile%2cdocx

Edit: It was also uploaded on a very slow, dodgy hotel 'net connection... may need to re-upload it if this doesn't work.

Is the 2200 available to be spent anywhere?

Blathergut wrote:Is the 2200 available to be spent anywhere?

As long as a unit is in supply, you can reinforce it (replace lost casualties). If you create a new unit(s), they can be max. 1200 points and must be created at an Arsenal.

What happens if an army is at 1178 or something such? Can the game manage that or do we round up?

Keyth,

your chart of the current state of the armies has a slight mistake, waldorf has no loses when he should have 120, warlord156 has 120 lost when he should have none.

Andre

keyth wrote:
Weird, it should have inherited the properties from the folder... Give this one a go:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=4 ... ile%2cdocx

Edit: It was also uploaded on a very slow, dodgy hotel 'net connection... may need to re-upload it if this doesn't work.

This one worked. Not sure why the other one didn't.

Chris

awesum4 wrote:Keyth,

your chart of the current state of the armies has a slight mistake, waldorf has no loses when he should have 120, warlord156 has 120 lost when he should have none.

Andre

Doh! All these people beginning with 'W'... I'll get it updated. Well spotted, thanks

Blathergut wrote:What happens if an army is at 1178 or something such? Can the game manage that or do we round up?

The game engine only works in increments of 100. Thus far, in the rules and the one battle where this has been relevant, the method has been to always round down. I'm starting to think that this may be overly punitive; 100 can make a big difference (especially for the smaller armies) and I can see that having to fight at 1100 when you actually got much closer to 1200 is a bit harsh.

What do people think? Standard rounding to the nearest hundred (so 51+ is up and 50- is down)?

Standard rounding works for me. I think an 1178MP army having to battle as if it were 1100MP army is just plain wrong.

There is one other important change in the rules that may not be immediately apparent; I've removed the cost to change army list. I don't think it actually adds anything except an unnecessary points tax and some extra admin. Players are encouraged to change obsolete lists (by the lack of reinforcements) once they are past their 'sell by' date, so adding a cost to change as well seems a bit unreasonable.

comment and question

? Can new armies be raised in "odd increments" ie can I raise a 900 point army? Nothing in the new and improved rules suggest one cannot but.....

Comment: the army rounding from their true value due to limits in the game engine coupled with the points noted as lost ie the casualties are confusing

For example, the VII army is noted as having 254 casualties(refit to whole, 1200) OR it is has 946 men. If it goes into battle it would only get 900 points though
If I wanted to be a cheap ass, I could just refit that army with 204 points , making it 1150, and it rounds up to 1200 if it fights a battle!
Is that OK? I doubt its the intent but "rounding the casualties" ist (ie rounding the VII to 300 casualties that would needed to be bought back to get back to 1200) really seems unfair that having armies with remaining men xx49 or lower vs armies that have xx50 or higher basically lose up to 49 VP's, while the other gains up to 50 VP, combine the two and that is a huge advantage obtained by only being a few points off in casualties ie a 1049 men vs 1051 (2 men obtain the strength of 100)...

TheGrayMouser wrote:comment and question

? Can new armies be raised in "odd increments" ie can I raise a 900 point army? Nothing in the new and improved rules suggest one cannot but.....

You can raise any sized army between 600 and 1200 points.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Comment: the army rounding from their true value due to limits in the game engine coupled with the points noted as lost ie the casualties are confusing

For example, the VII army is noted as having 254 casualties(refit to whole, 1200) OR it is has 946 men. If it goes into battle it would only get 900 points though
If I wanted to be a cheap ass, I could just refit that army with 204 points , making it 1150, and it rounds up to 1200 if it fights a battle!
Is that OK? I doubt its the intent but "rounding the casualties" ist (ie rounding the VII to 300 casualties that would needed to be bought back to get back to 1200) really seems unfair that having armies with remaining men xx49 or lower vs armies that have xx50 or higher basically lose up to 49 VP's, while the other gains up to 50 VP, combine the two and that is a huge advantage obtained by only being a few points off in casualties ie a 1049 men vs 1051 (2 men obtain the strength of 100)...

It's because of people like you that we have reams of rules In all seriousness, it's a very good point. Rule clarification has been added and will be uploaded:

"All reinforcement must take an Army to a round 100 value, unless using the odd remainder of Manpower for a turn."

keyth wrote:

awesum4 wrote:Keyth,

your chart of the current state of the armies has a slight mistake, waldorf has no loses when he should have 120, warlord156 has 120 lost when he should have none.

Andre

Doh! All these people beginning with 'W'... I'll get it updated. Well spotted, thanks

Now corrected.

Went looking for the 42 outcome map. Found it I think (it had es title inside but not in the outside file name) but no units showed, nor the towns - just the backing map. The other two map files produced the same result. I haven't got excel just open office but previously it allowed me to see all the details on the earlier maps. But not now. Any suggestions for what I can do to rectify this?

Ironclad wrote:Went looking for the 42 outcome map. Found it I think (it had es title inside but not in the outside file name) but no units showed, nor the towns - just the backing map. The other two map files produced the same result. I haven't got excel just open office but previously it allowed me to see all the details on the earlier maps. But not now. Any suggestions for what I can do to rectify this?

Did you view it online or download the file and then open it? I know that web viewers don't support the layers. The file format hasn't changed in any way that I am aware of.

Thanks. You are right, I did download them before. In fact I had already downloaded that ES moves file as its dated 10 June. Does that mean there isn't a later one that shows the positions after the battle outcomes?

Ironclad wrote:Thanks. You are right, I did download them before. In fact I had already downloaded that ES moves file as its dated 10 June. Does that mean there isn't a later one that shows the positions after the battle outcomes?

There is a 'final' version on the link. I'll remove all but the latest version to avoid confusion, will do it once I get to the airport if French taxi drivers haven't blockaded it!

Edit: having run the blockade of lamb-burning communists, there is now only the current map available.