The Lost World Campaign

[davouthojo]

It has been a busy weekend for Clan Braveheart........

After fighting off Egypt's invasion of Glenlivet, we follow up his withdrawal with an invasion, crossing the territory of our generous ally Carthage.
SOA Challenge posted for variety, password "bubblefree"

Not wanting to embarrass our Covenanter allies, our forces following up the Roman withdrawal were granted a pass through Canaan.
ROR Challenge posted, password "freedom"

Despite getting our butt kicked in the first battle of Muck in the Tuam Confederacy, we will persevere with our invasion.
We are not known as stupid for nothing! Awaiting new strengths

Map is correct with our battle in Broome, Westralia and Cortoriacum in Nervii

Corrections to map:
1) Phangoria has been repulsed from Laphroig
2) Egypt has been repulsed from Glenlivet
3) After 2 successful battles, Lemnos had been liberated from the Delian empire and is part of the Clan lands.

Final new Declaration of War: It has long concerned us that Revoltus the slave kingdom is living in tyranny, not freedom. Rhodes has kindly let us through their territory to liberate them! New challenge posted, password "revolting"

Freedom marches on!

William Wallace

[Blathergut]

Awaiting word on whether Carthage will continue the invasion of Egypt.

[petergarnett]

Mytilene is indeed under siege by rbs & a relief army has been dispatched by triarius. I need to catch up with all the battles so posted over last 2 days & figure out if the army arrives in time.

Also Fall is shorter than Summer (to state the obvious) so we may already be at the point where I start rolling for end of season.

In the rush to welcome davidfagnand he has been over-invaded. The capital area of a player may not be attacked unless all other areas have been lost (rule is there to prevent this kind of death by numbers). So whomever is invading that area - you're not

May I also take this opportunity to thank Morbio for stepping into Scar's maproom & using Scar's crayons so well - I can't tell the difference myself.

[Triarii]

William Wallace has sent his parchment and refuses to correct the awful mispelling that is whisky or to pay an appropriate levy to depart Muck.
The forces of Tuam are once more marching to the uplifting sound of the uilleann pipes in Muck.
Not only must we eject the scottish interlopers and correct their spelling but we shall now instruct them in the sound of proper pipes.

Er... Just need to be reminded how to work out remaining points per army.

There will be much keening around the hearths of the crofts of Clan Brave.
Their forces have been defeated on the slopes of Slieve Muck.
Many flagons of whisky have been correctly re-labelled whiskey.

Defenders (won)
Tuam (Anglo-Irish) 12,380/53,500 25/54
vs
Attackers (loss)
Clan Brave (Highlands and Islands) 28,240/75,000 59/55

Tuam awaits Clan Brave's parchment either suing for peace and guaranteeing withdrawal from Tuam with payment of 600 florins reparation.
or a further challenge from the much depleted army in the province of Muck

[TheGrayMouser]

The clans wrote:
"Not wanting to embarrass our Covenanter allies, our forces following up the Roman withdrawal were granted a pass through Canaan.
ROR Challenge posted, password "freedom""

We shall meet you on the plains of Liguria (or more likley the swamps as you won the initiative by a massive amt!)

I see the Hiddeous one has a different idea what a non aggrerssion pact means than us honerable Romans, allowing barbarians passage thru their lands to reach us.....

[batesmotel]

Having discovered that the bogs of Laphroig produce a beverage with a taste like salty mud, Phanagoria tours has decided to offer its next tour to the sunnier climes of Utopia. Challenge issued with password "utopian". Destination province is Olympus since we wish to verify if this is the new abode of the Panther.

Bessus
Shahanshah of Phanagoria

[Blathergut]

Egypt (5) will meet the invasion of Clan Brave (23) in Barren Cliffs for battle the first.

[Triarii]

A kern, fleet of foot, has been sent to drop a parchment Declaring War at the feet of the leader of the Canaanites who have so cravenly and basely violated the lands of our allies of the Delian Confederation.
Confident the kern will not take the 40 years to find Canaan that the people of Canaan did, an army of Tuam has set forth through the lands of the Delian Confederation and is invading Canaan.

Challenge posted - password 'milkandhoney' No spaces no capitals!

[hidde]

The clans wrote:
"Not wanting to embarrass our Covenanter allies, our forces following up the Roman withdrawal were granted a pass through Canaan.
ROR Challenge posted, password "freedom""

We shall meet you on the plains of Liguria (or more likley the swamps as you won the initiative by a massive amt!)

I see the Hiddeous one has a different idea what a non aggrerssion pact means than us honerable Romans, allowing barbarians passage thru their lands to reach us.....

Someone in my staff must have misinterpret my directives. For your appeasement, he shall be flogged.
Non aggression pact you say. Truth is I plain forgot. Still can't recollect this. Maybe just an uneasy truce is more like it.

[TheGrayMouser]

The clans wrote:
"Not wanting to embarrass our Covenanter allies, our forces following up the Roman withdrawal were granted a pass through Canaan.
ROR Challenge posted, password "freedom""

We shall meet you on the plains of Liguria (or more likley the swamps as you won the initiative by a massive amt!)

I see the Hiddeous one has a different idea what a non aggrerssion pact means than us honerable Romans, allowing barbarians passage thru their lands to reach us.....

Someone in my staff must have misinterpret my directives. For your appeasement, he shall be flogged.
Non aggression pact you say. Truth is I plain forgot. Still can't recollect this. Maybe just an uneasy truce is more like it.

Dont mind us, just flapping the diplomatic feathers so to speak

[Blathergut]

Consider a situation where the defender doesn't want to fight the invader (in this example, Highlanders vs Ord Burg) because of sheer numbers. Defender positions himself very well and attacker doesn't see any chance of taking him frontally so decides not to fight as well.

Fair enough...until this is repeated a second or third time.

Could the rules allow for the defender to call for a second army? Either his own or an ally? To help relieve the situation and catch the attacker between two armies? Would give the defender some incentive to try and hold out but the attacker some incentive to get the job done?

And possibly allow the attacker the same?

[TheGrayMouser]

Consider a situation where the defender doesn't want to fight the invader (in this example, Highlanders vs Ord Burg) because of sheer numbers. Defender positions himself very well and attacker doesn't see any chance of taking him frontally so decides not to fight as well.

Fair enough...until this is repeated a second or third time.

Could the rules allow for the defender to call for a second army? Either his own or an ally? To help relieve the situation and catch the attacker between two armies? Would give the defender some incentive to try and hold out but the attacker some incentive to get the job done?

And possibly allow the attacker the same?

I dont know if I fully understands but it sounds like your opponent just isnt coming to "get you" on the tactical map?
How are you completeing battles? running out of time(turns) or resigning?

I thought Peters rules were that if both players agreed that a map was unsuitable a new battle could be started, it would be by mutual consent.
I dont believe there is any rule that someone has to actually attack on the tactical map.. Howver if both players just sit there well... would be real boring
I think the spirit would be the invader needs to eventually try to win by attacking the defender that is hunkering down on a hill or whatnot....
I would think that after 1 or 2 "standoffs" the attacker would just need to go home (the general s fired, troops low on supplies etc)

[claymore58]

Consider a situation where the defender doesn't want to fight the invader (in this example, Highlanders vs Ord Burg) because of sheer numbers. Defender positions himself very well and attacker doesn't see any chance of taking him frontally so decides not to fight as well.

Fair enough...until this is repeated a second or third time.

Could the rules allow for the defender to call for a second army? Either his own or an ally? To help relieve the situation and catch the attacker between two armies? Would give the defender some incentive to try and hold out but the attacker some incentive to get the job done?

And possibly allow the attacker the same?

I dont know if I fully understands but it sounds like your opponent just isnt coming to "get you" on the tactical map?
How are you completeing battles? running out of time(turns) or resigning?

I thought Peters rules were that if both players agreed that a map was unsuitable a new battle could be started, it would be by mutual consent.
I dont believe there is any rule that someone has to actually attack on the tactical map.. Howver if both players just sit there well... would be real boring
I think the spirit would be the invader needs to eventually try to win by attacking the defender that is hunkering down on a hill or whatnot....
I would think that after 1 or 2 "standoffs" the attacker would just need to go home (the general s fired, troops low on supplies etc)

Too bad we cannot assign victory points to terrain objectives. Such as exit road - roads that lead to the capital should be covered by the defender. Baggage camp should be worth way more as that is were the treasury, stores etc are kept. If that is lost it should have a major impact on the next battle ie less army build points. My 2 cents.

[petergarnett]

The purpose of the campaign is to support & put into context the battles players fight using DAG - not the reverse. As already quoted if one or both players on turn one of a FoG battle are not happy with the tactical map then the game can be resigned with no ill effects. However I had not envisoned this being repeated which I think is what is being said.

Many times an army would march out of camp to offer battle but the other side refused but I'm not convinced armies would continually keep moving to another location in the hope of finding a better battlefield.

Therefore the rule should be that the option to resign a battle due to the map is restricted to once only per 'battle' per side, defined here as 2 players looking to beat each other up. So if the attacker opts out of one map the defender could on the next map but not the attacker again.

Consider a situation where the defender doesn't want to fight the invader (in this example, Highlanders vs Ord Burg) because of sheer numbers. Defender positions himself very well and attacker doesn't see any chance of taking him frontally so decides not to fight as well.

Fair enough...until this is repeated a second or third time.

Could the rules allow for the defender to call for a second army? Either his own or an ally? To help relieve the situation and catch the attacker between two armies? Would give the defender some incentive to try and hold out but the attacker some incentive to get the job done?

And possibly allow the attacker the same?

I dont know if I fully understands but it sounds like your opponent just isnt coming to "get you" on the tactical map?
How are you completeing battles? running out of time(turns) or resigning?

I thought Peters rules were that if both players agreed that a map was unsuitable a new battle could be started, it would be by mutual consent.
I dont believe there is any rule that someone has to actually attack on the tactical map.. Howver if both players just sit there well... would be real boring
I think the spirit would be the invader needs to eventually try to win by attacking the defender that is hunkering down on a hill or whatnot....
I would think that after 1 or 2 "standoffs" the attacker would just need to go home (the general s fired, troops low on supplies etc)

[Ironclad]

The purpose of the campaign is to support & put into context the battles players fight using DAG - not the reverse. As already quoted if one or both players on turn one of a FoG battle are not happy with the tactical map then the game can be resigned with no ill effects. However I had not envisoned this being repeated which I think is what is being said.

Many times an army would march out of camp to offer battle but the other side refused but I'm not convinced armies would continually keep moving to another location in the hope of finding a better battlefield.

Therefore the rule should be that the option to resign a battle due to the map is restricted to once only per 'battle' per side, defined here as 2 players looking to beat each other up. So if the attacker opts out of one map the defender could on the next map but not the attacker again.

This is news to me. I thought resignations had been made very expensive in moral loss to stop early resignations. Now each person is being allowed one resignation each if they don't like the terrain. Isn't it swings and roundabouts - sometimes you will get highly benificial terrain, other times it may be lousy for your army, but shouldn't you just get on and play it anyway.

[petergarnett]

This is news to me. I thought resignations had been made very expensive in moral loss to stop early resignations. Now each person is being allowed one resignation each if they don't like the terrain. Isn't it swings and roundabouts - sometimes you will get highly benificial terrain, other times it may be lousy for your army, but shouldn't you just get on and play it anyway.

Resigning a battle that has reached the 2nd turn onwards is very costly on morale.

The above caters for a situation where a map is just not good for an enjoyable game - that was my point about the campaign supporting the FoG battles & not the other way around. There are a couple of maps where for a particular pair of armies one side has practically won from the word go. Hence we introduced the option to resign on turn one rather than be forced to lose.

It should be a very rare occurance.

[batesmotel]

The purpose of the campaign is to support & put into context the battles players fight using DAG - not the reverse. As already quoted if one or both players on turn one of a FoG battle are not happy with the tactical map then the game can be resigned with no ill effects. However I had not envisoned this being repeated which I think is what is being said.

Many times an army would march out of camp to offer battle but the other side refused but I'm not convinced armies would continually keep moving to another location in the hope of finding a better battlefield.

Therefore the rule should be that the option to resign a battle due to the map is restricted to once only per 'battle' per side, defined here as 2 players looking to beat each other up. So if the attacker opts out of one map the defender could on the next map but not the attacker again.

This is news to me. I thought resignations had been made very expensive in moral loss to stop early resignations. Now each person is being allowed one resignation each if they don't like the terrain. Isn't it swings and roundabouts - sometimes you will get highly benificial terrain, other times it may be lousy for your army, but shouldn't you just get on and play it anyway.

I think the option to quit a battle and restart was only intended to apply if both players agree that the terrain is unsuitable, not if just one does. If it's a mutual agreement I don't see anything wrong and also there really isn't anything the campaign moderator can do if both players just end the battle without fighting and start a second one to replace it. It's a different issue if one or both players decide to sit on the defensive after choosing to fight on a given map.

Maybe all invasions should be treated as a best of 3 series of battles where a tie goes to the defender and the attacker must then withdraw.

Chris

[petergarnett]

The rule is there for when 2 players don't agree. Almost never used I'd like to think!

[batesmotel]

The rule is there for when 2 players don't agree. Almost never used I'd like to think!

You must have posted your previous response saying that the rule was for when the players disagree while I was writing mine. I'll need to remember this for future battles after learning my lesson from invading the bogs of Laphroig! The map had this wide band of rivers/marsh/woods across the width of the map. If I'd remembered this rule, I certainly would have opted to relocate the battle to a better map.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Peter, I think this is going to be a problem as I already see different interpretations of what you are ruling.

Chris makes a great point : if 2 players get a map neither likes they can restart ad infinitum and there is nothing you can do about it (nor would you ever know, or need to know!)

If just one doesn’t like? That is a problem, however that is not , I think what Blathergut is having an issue with , at least directly. His issue is a player invading is just sitting there (likely do to the map and Blaths defensive deployment)

My 3 cents:

The onus is on the invader to attack, regardless of how well the defender is entrenched. If the invader realizes it is a lost cause he can RESIGN

*The resign counts as a defeat for the campaign, but not as a defeat for national moral

*When the second battle is fought, if the invader loses , the invasion is over (the 2 defeat rule)


In the end the invader has the duty to “try to win” the defender has the luxery of playing “not to lose”

In the end if players disagree over a map its like what I tell my kids “you get what you get and you don’t get upset”