420 AD Grand Campaign

[Lysimachos]

Having finished tha last battle of the first turn it's time to start with the drawing of cards for the second turn.
Here are the results:

Clipboard01.png (912.05 KiB) Viewed 2956 times

Hephtalites 63
Huns 11
Kushans 55
Romans 71
Sassanids 97
Vandals 15

Which means:
Hephtalites / Ambush
Huns / Spy
Kushans / Bodyguard
Romans / Reinforcements
Sassanids / Scouts
Vandals / Spy

[Lysimachos]

And here are the results of the Random Events:

Clipboard01.png (1.03 MiB) Viewed 2956 times

Hephtalites 89
Huns 13
Kushans 94
Romans 57
Sassanids 40
Vandals 57

Which means:
Hephtalites / Agrarian Improvements / +50t
Huns / Political Scandal / -1 prestige level
Kushans / Commercial Efforts / commercial structures built (if not still present) or upgraded
Romans / Food Distributions / +1 stability level
Sassanids / Plague / -50t
Vandals / Food Distributions / +1 stability level

[Lysimachos]

The actions of the second turn must be sent in this order:

Sassanids,
Vandals,
Hephtalites,
Huns,
Kushans,
Romans

[AlexDetrojan]

Lysimachos, where is the summary thread to be found? I'd like to look at the map and such...
Thanks
Alex

[Kabill]

Sassanid Turn 2:
- Build Roads (1 Action)
- Attack Muscat from Gerrhaea (1 Action)
- Build Ramparts in Drangiana (1/2 Action)
- Build Ramparts in Gedrosia (1/2 Action)

--

@AlexDetrojan: on the first page there is a map which has been updated, 5th post (scroll past the first map - that hasn't been updated. Actually, it is worth removing that now?)

@Lysimachos: I noticed in my update summary that the failed independent attack is down as costing me 1 stability, prestige and 30 army points, but the rules post suggests this should just be -1 prestige. See:

defeat in independent provinces vs nation battles as attacker ## -1 PL

[Lysimachos]

Lysimachos, where is the summary thread to be found? I'd like to look at the map and such...
Thanks
Alex

It is in the first page of this thread

[Lysimachos]

on the first page there is a map which has been updated, 5th post (scroll past the first map - that hasn't been updated. Actually, it is worth removing that now?)

The first map shows the initial disposition of provinces and it is worth retaining it just to appreciate at the end of the game how the situation changed, which player expandend his dominions and which lost terrain ...

[Lysimachos]

I noticed in my update summary that the failed independent attack is down as costing me 1 stability, prestige and 30 army points, but the rules post suggests this should just be -1 prestige. See:

defeat in independent provinces vs nation battles as attacker ## -1 PL

You're right Kabill.
This is my mistake and I strongly apologize for it.

Unfortunately I treated it as a defeat in nation vs independent provinces battle instead a defeat in independent provinces vs nation battle.
And the same I did about the defeat of the Vandals in their Indipendent attack from Celtiberia to Tarraconensis
Give me a while (this evening I'm terribly busy) and I'll amend the mistakes!

[TheGrayMouser]

I noticed in my update summary that the failed independent attack is down as costing me 1 stability, prestige and 30 army points, but the rules post suggests this should just be -1 prestige. See:

defeat in independent provinces vs nation battles as attacker ## -1 PL

You're right Kabill.
This is my mistake and I strongly apologize for it.

Unfortunately I treated it as a defeat in nation vs independent provinces battle instead a defeat in independent provinces vs nation battle.
And the same I did about the defeat of the Vandals in their Indipendent attack from Celtiberia to Tarraconensis
Give me a while (this evening I'm terribly busy) and I'll amend the mistakes!

Ill wait to you update before I post my moves as this appears will affect the "action points" I have this round.

[Kabill]

You're right Kabill.
This is my mistake and I strongly apologize for it.

Unfortunately I treated it as a defeat in nation vs independent provinces battle instead a defeat in independent provinces vs nation battle.
And the same I did about the defeat of the Vandals in their Indipendent attack from Celtiberia to Tarraconensis
Give me a while (this evening I'm terribly busy) and I'll amend the mistakes!

No trouble - honestly wasn't sure if it was wrong or whether it was a missing update from a previous version of the rules or something like that. It doesn't affect any of my actions so my orders above stand.

[klayeckles]

I noticed in my update summary that the failed independent attack is down as costing me 1 stability, prestige and 30 army points, but the rules post suggests this should just be -1 prestige. See:

defeat in independent provinces vs nation battles as attacker ## -1 PL

You're right Kabill.
This is my mistake and I strongly apologize for it.

Unfortunately I treated it as a defeat in nation vs independent provinces battle instead a defeat in independent provinces vs nation battle.
And the same I did about the defeat of the Vandals in their Indipendent attack from Celtiberia to Tarraconensis
Give me a while (this evening I'm terribly busy) and I'll amend the mistakes!

this whole section was challenging for me ...so i wrote it all down, and found a matrix/chart would make this more clear:

attacker/outcome.......defender.......result attacker.....result defender
nation wins..................nation...........1S 1P 1V 30A.......-1S -1P -30A
nation loses.................nation...........-1S -1P -30A ........1S 1P 1V 30A
nation Wins..................independent....1S 1P 1V 30A.........none
nation Loses.................independent....-1S -1P -30A .........1V
ind. Wins.....................nation............1P 1V..................-1S -1P -30A
Ind. loses....................nation.............-1P ....................1S 1P 1V 30A

[TheGrayMouser]

TGM moves:

Use spy to steal Reinforcements card from Rome

Invade Br from Trn(use reinforcement card) this should result in vandal army of 1650 vs Rome 1630, once you update the score page. 1 ap

Build bridges 1ap

Build fleet trn. 1/2 ap

[Lysimachos]

Ok guys, the situation has been updated and now is time for hidde to make his moves!

P.S.
Just a (not asked) clarification for TheGrayMouser:
there is no need to build a fleet in Trinacria to invade Bruttium because this two provinces are directly adjacent.

[Lysimachos]

The arab army in Muscat that will fight the Sassanids will be led by TheGrayMouser.

Just set up the challenge remembering that the Sassanids will fight with a 1630 pts. army

[TheGrayMouser]

Ok guys, the situation has been updated and now is time for hidde to make his moves!

P.S.
Just a (not asked) clarification for TheGrayMouser:
there is no need to build a fleet in Trinacria to invade Bruttium because this two provinces are directly adjacent.

Thanks, I know, but the Vandals like boats though so we'll keep it as is (plus not much to else to spend 1/2 an AP on)

[hidde]

Hephtalite Turn 2:
- Build Roads (1 Action)
- Attack Bct from Sgd (1 Action)
- Build Ramparts in Frg (1/2 Action)
- Build Gymnasia (1/2 Action)

Question; Is there any advantage for me using the ambush card? Have never played that kind of battle so unsure of using it if there's no clear advantge

[Kabill]

Hephtalite Turn 2:
- Build Roads (1 Action)
- Attack Bct from Sgd (1 Action)
- Build Ramparts in Frg (1/2 Action)
- Build Gymnasia (1/2 Action)

Question; Is there any advantage for me using the ambush card? Have never played that kind of battle so unsure of using it if there's no clear advantge

I've played it once, against the AI. The defender has a number of wagon units they need to escort past the attacker's line. The attacker starts with a lower value army on the field, but gets reinforcements that from from the sides of the map after a few turns (or maybe they set up some units there, I don't remember exactly). I'm not sure whether that gives the attacker an overall points advantage, or whether the advantage is purely in positioning.

Against the AI, I was playing as the defender, and I found it very easy just by sending a few units to block their flanking forces, and then pinned their main line while I wheeled my carts very slowly to the end zone. However, I expect the AI would be significantly less adept at the scenario than a human attacker would be. Also, the attacking army was an infantry-focused force, which meant it was difficult for them to catch my troops with their flanking force, meaning I de facto had a points advantage during the key part of the battle.

I expect, therefore, that it would be a good scenario to use as a mobile (horse-focused) attacker, especially one with a lot of light horse, but less so otherwise. I guess it would work best against "elite" foot armies (i.e. those which focus on high-cost infantry units) as I think they would struggle to defend the carts due to smaller numbers. It might also work well against more typical foot-based armies, and possibly horse-based armies as well because the defender loses some of their mobility as they need to defend the carts, and horse can be quite unpredictable which means you may be able to draw them away through evasions/pursuits and slip some light horse through to attack the baggage. It would also be useful against an opponent you think might be more skilled, as they likely won't have much experience with the scenario either so it will level the playing field somewhat.

[Lysimachos]

In my opinion the baggage train module generally clearly favors the attacker, because the defender has to shift the whole of his attention on saving the carts, that are very slow and substantially defenseless.
And an horse army is quite well apt in inflicting heavy damages in this kind of scenario ...

[Lysimachos]

The Hephtalites Land Attack from Sogdiana to Bactria will be countered by klayeckles leading the Parthians.

Remember that the Hephtalites will fight with a 1570 pts. army.

TGM is allowed to start his attack in Bruttium. The Romans are eagerly waiting the arrival of his Vandals to appropriately greet them ...

[hidde]

Thanks for the answers...seems I have an army well suited for ambush. Can I use the ambush card at this point?