Slitherine

Further update of the bloodbath that is Phoenicia........

Losses now are at 33% for each side after the Jewish forces hit the right of the Ptolemaic line at right angles causing chaos and panicking a Raw Phalanx into rout despite a General desperately exhorting them to hold. This panic then spread to an adjacent warband and disrupted them.

Mopping up operations by two more Ptolemaic phalanxes on the successful left now being concluded they are hurrying to repair the line. Four units of Jewish medium infantry forming the right of the new Jewish line stand invulnerable in rocky ground meaning only the Jewish left can be tackled....Dusk is rapidly approaching and it may yet be there will be no knockout blow........

It really seems a bloodbath festival but, to say the truth, it is happening in Phoenicia and not in Mysia!

Nothing wrong with a bit of disinformation.......keeps everybody off guard

Previous misinformation corrected !!

Hi all, guys!
Having had some time to review the rules and the actual trend of the campaign, as it has gone up till now, I think we lack a deeper strategic level.
In order to achieve this we would need to revert to a classical turn based campaign, which could give us the chance of having many more actions at the same time in a neat and clear way.
Today I made some testing just to see the overall sustainability of this different set of rules and it seems that starting with 300 talents, a stability level of 8 and a prestige level of 4 and modifying the costs of actions and the effects of military victories and defeats as explained later in the text could help us in giving everyone many more strategical options, without rendering the game too much complex.
In other words I’m speaking about the possibility of introducing seven different types of actions:
- 7 Urban Architectures, affecting the prestige level
- 4 Religious Buildings, affecting the stability level
- 6 Commercial Structures, affecting the incomes
- 2 Fiscal Measures, affecting either the stability level or the finances
- 3 Logistical Assets, (fleets, fortifications and siege trains),
- 2 Military Actions (land attacks and amphibious attacks),
- 2 Covert Operations (independent and external attacks).
Every player, at the beginning of his turn, would firstly collect his incomes in the measure allowed by his commercial structures, and then could make a maximum of 4 actions (no more than one for each of the seven types already mentioned / meaning, for example, that someone couldn’t built two commercial structures during the same turn and, in a compulsory way, always starting form the cheaper to the more expensive).
This should make for a game where every player would have to balance carefully his moves, focusing only on some particular aspects (military, prestige, commercial) or making each of them progressing in a balanced manner.
Verified that only vakarr and devoncop have made 6 moves up till now (and could eventually remove two of them) and that:
- Temples could be transformed in Shrines,
- Academies could be transformed in Statues,
- Paved Roads coul be transformed in Roads,
if the majority of the players agree, we could revert to this new set of rules, giving each of you the possibility of completing the actions of the first turn still not done up to the 4 now allowed for those who haven’t still made them.
Down here, in short, are the revised rules (with costs of actions generally decreased) and effects of military victories and defeats (a bit more varied).
As you will see now money comes expecially from Commercial Structures while VP derives from military prowess and some particular buildings.
Let me know your feelings about it!

Short list of action's costs & benefits
Urban Architectures
20t / Statues / 1 prestige level
20t / Gymnasia / 1 prestige level
40t / Theatres / 2 prestige level
40t / Thermal Baths / 2 prestige level
60t / Academies / 2 prestige level + 1 VP
60t / Library / 2 prestige levels + 1VP
80 / Royal Palace / 2 prestige levels + 2VP

Religious Buildings
20t / Shrines / 1 stability pt.
40t / Temples / 2 stability pts.
60t / Sanctuaries / 2 stability pts. +1 VP
80t / Templar Complexes / 2 stability pts. + 2 VP

Commercial Structures
20t / Roads / 10t every turn
40t / Caravansary / 20t every turn
60t / Bridges / 30t every turn
80t / Paved Roads / 40t every turn
100t / Merchant’s Quartes / 50t every turn
120t / Trade Routes / 60t every turn

Fiscal Measures
60t / Tax Exemptions / 3 stability level
3 stability level / Tax Increase / 60t

Logistical Assets
20t / Siege Trains / 31-90 fortification’s seizure
40t / Fleets / amphibious attacks
60t / Fortifications / 1-45 siege failure

Military Actions
50t / Land Attacks
60t / Amphibious Attack

Covert Operations
20t / Independent & External Attacks (prestige 1/4)
30t / Independent & External Attacks (prestige 5-8)
40t / Independent & External Attacks (prestige 9 and more)

Victories & Defeats
victory in land or amphibious battle as attacker / 2 VP + 2 other VP if province conquered + 1 stability level and 40t gained
defeat in land or amphibious battle as attacker / loss of 1 stability and 1 prestige level

victory in land or amphibious battle as defender / 2VP + 1 stability pt. and 20t gained
defeat in land or amphibious battle as defender / loss of province, of 1 stability and 1 prestige level & of 40t

victory in independent or external battle as attacker / province becomes independent
defeat in independent or external battle as attacker / province remains in the ownership of the defending player

victory in independent battle as defender/ province remains independent
defeat in independent battle as defender / province falls in the ownership of the attacking player

I have no issue with the changes but would suggest the Campaign needs restarting if that is what happens as my actions and I suspect those of other players were based on the original rules. It is inevitable either myself and Vakkar (who have made six moves) or others (who have made less ) would be disadvantaged by the new restrictions on numbers of actions.

I have to say I actually like the fact there are now hard choices to make though.

We will see what others think.

Cheers


Ian

If everybody agree we could take as valid all the attacks already finished and ongoing giving the chance of modifying the other kind of actions ...

I'm open to adopting the new rules. We are still in week 1 of a very long campaign, so I'm not even concerned if transitioning to the new ruleset were to put me at a disadvantage.

There are number of things that I don't yet understand, however:

1. How long are the turns going to be? What happens when some combat is not yet resolved when the next turn begins?

2. Are all the new buildings available for construction immediately, e.g. could I build the royal palace, templar complexes and trade routes in turn 1?

3. Does "defeat in independent battle as defender / province falls in the ownership of the attacking player" mean that if cathargo were to incite a covert operation in india, it would own a province there if successful?

I don't think you should change the rules so radically right now - the game finishes in February,, which isn't very long, let it run until then, and then start a new game with the new rules. The current simple rules are good for people who don't want to spend too much time on the campaign, or can't play regularly, and maybe we should ask all players to vote on allowing such a change.

I prefer the non turn based dynamic nature of the first ruleset because it's more flexible for people's different schedules. I would also like to preserve the ongoing games if possible.

Having said that, I'm okay with whatever the rest of you want to do.

Having thought about it, like Vakarr and Trogilus I would vote to continue with the original rules and implement the new set in a new Campaign subsequently if you were willing to do that.

As they say though I will go with whatever is decided.

For me the same logic applies as to games generally. I will always favour a turn based system and in a campaign like this that makes things much clearer both for players and for GM. Tbh I did wonder how it was going to be possible to keep track of what was happening and ensure any necessary rule compliance/clarifications in the flexible framework originally envisaged.

Reluctantly, I have to withdraw from the campaign. I will have very little gaming time over the next few weeks. The time I have I will spend on my own campaign. Thanks very much for considering me!

Mac

mceochaidh wrote:Reluctantly, I have to withdraw from the campaign. I will have very little gaming time over the next few weeks. The time I have I will spend on my own campaign. Thanks very much for considering me!

Mac

Sorry to hear the news, mceochaidh, but I understand what time shortage means!
I hope all the best for your campaign.
Then, if 76mm wants to step in, the Macedonian Kingdom falls in his hands.

With regards to the new set of rules it seems that you guys prefer to carry on with the original format.
Mine was only a proposal so let's go on as we started till the end!

I'm in, I'll take the Macedonian crown!

I'd like to attack Aetolia from Thessalia--who is the defender?

[EDIT] Whoever is playing Aetolia, I set up a challenge, password is "newking"

The Jewish Rebels report smashing the Ptolomaic army sent against them (50-61) and will crush any further attempts to subjugate independent Judea!

The task of defending Aetolia from the Macedonian onslaught falls to Varity!

76mm wrote:The Jewish Rebels report smashing the Ptolomaic army sent against them (50-61) and will crush any further attempts to subjugate independent Judea!

Phoenicia's disobedience will be remembered.

They may think they have seen blood..........nothing compared to what may soon descend....

Ptolemy plots.........

Land attacks seems to be cursed at the moment.
Only vakarr with the Pontics was able to defeat the defender.

It's a period of uprising and insurrections, where authority seems to fade in the fogs generated by disobedience and misdemeanour ...