Slitherine

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:54 pm**

TheGrayMouser wrote: The onus is on the invader to attack, regardless of how well the defender is entrenched. WHY? The onus is on the invader is win 2 battles - in each of those battles he can be the defender (like Hannibal at the Trebbia). As you quite rightly say I have no control over DAG (nor should I have).
*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”

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:36 pm**

The Fall season has now ended - Winter next during which no new battles may be started (with the one exception of the relief army attacking - triarius v rbs).

Please fight & finish all existing battles & post the results.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:37 pm**

Yes:

What do we do if neither side does anything? One sits in words and one sits out? Or whatever situation. In the end, you'd sit for 24 turns or so and end up a bloodless draw.

Fine once.

But what if it happens again? What if I don't want to fight the endless hordes of Illyrians and position myself so he doesn't want to come at me, take the casualties, then have to fight a second battle with less?

Maybe there should be some incentive to the attacker to get the job done. Or, like mentioned, if after 3 draws...

But I get well they'll just attack again. Just was thoughts. I can see the draws happening until one side gains a battlefield advantage.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm**

I appear to have called down the wrath of the Great One

However i press forward:
Peter I specifically didnt bring historical examples because as you said the battles are to be in context of the campain.
The invader should have the onus to attack
I really dont like the idea that each player gets to 'resign' one battle per campain, should be mutual consent or not at all...
If they do resign because the map isnt to their ADVANATGE, or in Blathers situation where Blather wants to defend and his opponent wants to defend , then the invader should suffer the penalty if he doesnt "get on with it"
My example solution i think would work well, its simple, gives the attacker a choice and isnt too harsh either...

End of season ?
Peter I am at war w macedon, our ist battle (which i sent out on the ist day of the season isnt even completed yet, appears we are on differnt time zones)
Am I not allowed to fight battle 2 in the continuation of the campaign?

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:15 pm**

TheGrayMouser wrote:I appear to have called down the wrath of the Great One Absolutely not - it's the silent ones i'm wary of

However i press forward:
Peter I specifically didnt bring historical examples because as you said the battles are to be in context of the campain.
The invader should have the onus to attack
I really dont like the idea that each player gets to 'resign' one battle per campain, should be mutual consent or not at all...
If they do resign because the map isnt to their ADVANATGE, or in Blathers situation where Blather wants to defend and his opponent wants to defend , then the invader should suffer the penalty if he doesnt "get on with it"
My example solution i think would work well, its simple, gives the attacker a choice and isnt too harsh either... But your way makes no allowance for a situation where a map hands victory to one side before play even starts & your opponent doesn't agree.

End of season ?
Peter I am at war w macedon, our ist battle (which i sent out on the ist day of the season isnt even completed yet, appears we are on differnt time zones)
Am I not allowed to fight battle 2 in the continuation of the campaign? The 2nd battle will take place in the Spring - this has no effect on the battle but we need to do the Winter season (allows us to get all on-going battles resolved for end of a year).

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:25 pm**

I can't see how to answer this one without laughing!

Wish I could get yourself & Gray on a live video link to check that you are not trying to wind me up here.

How about reporting such an occurance to me & I shall roll to randomly select which area I delete from each player.

I'm sorry but I can't foil all the players all the time

Please do not take my answer as meaning to cause any offense as it certainly is not meant that way.

Blathergut wrote:Yes:

What do we do if neither side does anything? One sits in words and one sits out? Or whatever situation. In the end, you'd sit for 24 turns or so and end up a bloodless draw.

Fine once.

But what if it happens again? What if I don't want to fight the endless hordes of Illyrians and position myself so he doesn't want to come at me, take the casualties, then have to fight a second battle with less?

Maybe there should be some incentive to the attacker to get the job done. Or, like mentioned, if after 3 draws...

But I get well they'll just attack again. Just was thoughts. I can see the draws happening until one side gains a battlefield advantage.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:50 pm**

Blathergut, I thought we mutually agreed to restart, because the battle would be no fun? No intention to game the system, just a desire to avoid long boring battles. We could have gone ahead with a 24 turns game of attrition, exchanging missile fire while I tried to whittle down the very strong defensive position with fortifications you were in. No fun though. I don't think you will get such a good position again.

From the above discussion there seem two alternative positions:
1) Attacker must attack, live with what they get for terrain and ties count as a defender victory in the campaign
2) If neither player is prepared to attack, restart once

I think Peters proposal will work fine.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:09 pm**

Interesting considerations here. I would think the invader should have some incentives to attack or else retire. It defies logic that an invader should be allowed to camp on the battlefield. If he doesn't carry the fight to the enemy, I would think his troops might start to doubt their leader and become demoralised.

It is also reasonable that the invader should not be able to resign due to a bad map without penalty. Some maps make for boring games, but then so do some player's choice of army. For an invader to say, "I wish to resign because this map favors the defender too much," and get to try another map is laughable. I would think the invader should either try to win on that map or go home in some disgrace.

After all, some players field gimicky armies that are hard to beat and boring to fight against, and they get to pick the country to invade knowing their shooty army is going to stomp that heavy infantry army. Can the defender say "I don't wish to fight this army because it favors the attacker too much?" Nope, you're stuck. If anything, the defender should be allowed to resign without penalty unitl a favorable map comes up. That's the ability to pick where you stand your ground and is a defensive advantage.

Deeter on a rant

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:14 pm**

I've had several games where I drove pikes up steep hills because the opponent wouldn't move off and we'd have had no game. I lost...but played.

My point was just, you may get games where both sides dance and refuse to join. I just wondered if it had happened to many and how the rules might be tweaked to prevent it.

Davout...wasn't our game in particular...more wondering about many that had happened. What if I hadn't drove the pikes up?

What made the game with Highlanders vs Burgundians a bit diff was one side had bows but very few troops, the other had very few bows but endless troops...and neither wanted to join. We could have played 24 turns and drawed. I just wondered how many times that should happen (if it does much at all?) and whether there should be some burden on the attacker to do something.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:35 pm**

petergarnett wrote:I can't see how to answer this one without laughing!

Wish I could get yourself & Gray on a live video link to check that you are not trying to wind me up here.

How about reporting such an occurance to me & I shall roll to randomly select which area I delete from each player.

I'm sorry but I can't foil all the players all the time

Please do not take my answer as meaning to cause any offense as it certainly is not meant that way.

Blathergut wrote:Yes:

What do we do if neither side does anything? One sits in words and one sits out? Or whatever situation. In the end, you'd sit for 24 turns or so and end up a bloodless draw.

Fine once.

But what if it happens again? What if I don't want to fight the endless hordes of Illyrians and position myself so he doesn't want to come at me, take the casualties, then have to fight a second battle with less?

Maybe there should be some incentive to the attacker to get the job done. Or, like mentioned, if after 3 draws...

But I get well they'll just attack again. Just was thoughts. I can see the draws happening until one side gains a battlefield advantage.

Not sure why these concerns would bring mirth to the Gods...
I have never had a map that I would want to resign on just because it didnt favour me.. That just isnt fair to armies that either count on open or closed terrain... You just suck it up and do the best you can....
I stand by my reasoning and others (Deeter, Blath) seem to feel the same, the invader needs to attack or leave..
That is map oriented reasoning

Now what about what a player does in the battle?
Example
In a second battle vs Armenia( i was the invader) i had a huge ap advantage, my clever oppoenet placed his army in a map corner on a hill and basically waited...
I , as the agressor , well, I went up after him, it was a very tough battle and i easily could have lost....
Are you saying i should have resigned the batle to get a better map where he didnt have a hill to defend on?
or are you saying i could have just sat there and waited 29 turns without moving ?
Yuk , I wont play that way even if the rules allow it.

(ducks for lightning bolts surely forthcoming)

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:14 pm**

We introduced a rule to stop players from just resigning games where they had simply used a tiny army & aimed to resign at the start of a campaign, or where half way through a battle they resigned to avoid losses. Rule was to have a major impact on national morale.

There was then some concern over players being forced to fight a full length battle where the map made for a poor battle, i.e. no fun. From memory this option was by mutual consent.

After that someone raised what happens if the map is really poor & I want to leave the battlefield & try elsewhere so we modified the rule again to a player can resign on the first turn ........ etc etc

All I would like is to avoid a situation where a player of a DAG battle is forced to fight a boring battle due to some campaign rule. Mutual consent was my first choice.

I really think we are making this far more complicated than it actually is and trying to have a rule for everything is not a good way forward.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:36 pm**

You could see it as, if the defender wants to be done with the invader, he has to do something about it, so sitting isn't really a solution.

But if the attacker had some incentive, i.e., after 3 draws then go home and lose some face for not being successful, then it could change things a bit. Defender would have the option of fighting a purely defensive battle and the attacker would have to eventually do something about it.

But, just ideas. The campaign has been fun...bloody!!!...but fun.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:52 pm**

petergarnett wrote:The Fall season has now ended - Winter next during which no new battles may be started (with the one exception of the relief army attacking - triarius v rbs).

Please fight & finish all existing battles & post the results.

To the beat of bodhran and wail of uilleann pipes the forces of Tuam have marched into Mitylene.
The Kappadokians will be ejected from these previously peaceful lands to the joy of all Delians and with the incidental fattening of the coffers of Tuam with Delian danegeld.

Challenge posted - password 'Mafeking'

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:09 pm**

petergarnett wrote:The Fall season has now ended - Winter next during which no new battles may be started (with the one exception of the relief army attacking - triarius v rbs).

Please fight & finish all existing battles & post the results.

I have four battles going at the moment. One almost finished, two with quite a lot left to do and one just started.
Mention this as maybe you would like to know it can take a while.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:49 pm**

petergarnett wrote:The Fall season has now ended - Winter next during which no new battles may be started (with the one exception of the relief army attacking - triarius v rbs).

Please fight & finish all existing battles & post the results.

Are all existing campaigns assume to be terminated with the coming of winter or do the armies involved remain in the field but not fight during winter? If armies remain in the field, do they then resume the fight in the Spring with the current win-loss record continued from the previous fall? Can they be topped off or not?

Chris

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:56 pm**

I'm late to this discussion, but wish to share my two penneth.... or two cents for the Americans

I guess this, like so many FoG discussions, boils down to whether we view this as a game, a representation of history or some combination thereof.

If we take the historical route, then history tells us that many commanders took one look at what was being offered and thought: 'You've got to be havin' a larf!' and walked away with their army, both sides would move around until a mutually acceptable battlefield was found and then battle commenced. Yes, sometimes armies just stumbled into each other,e.g. Cynoscephalae, and they fought with the ground they were on, others were ambushes too, and occasionally bad commanders just took what was offered. But I'd like to think that most reasonable commanders made a judgement call before fighting.

If we take the game route, then we just decide that you take what you are given and play it. We can rationalise it by saying that you have stumbled across each other, or have been ambushed, or we just accept it's a game and these are the cards you have been dealt.

Or we could take the combination view, where we give each commander the option to refuse 1 battlefield, but then you play whatever is given. This is the option that Peter is preferring.

I tend to agree with Peter.

As a commander I wouldn't want to fight on a battlefield that didn't suit my chosen army, but from a game perspective I wouldn't want to spend days whereby each commander is refusing battlefields that don't favour them. So, the refuse once option seems a good compromise. The commander has some influence, but not much. It could be that a commander will refuse something that isn't right and gets something worse!

I also take GrayMouser's perspective. There should be some incentive on the invader. I suggest that if the invader hasn't achieved a victory in 3 battles, then he should be forced to go home - think of it as running out of supplies.

In reality, I think we are discussing a more theoretical than real occurrence. It's a bit like the discussions we've had about a LF giving 20% casualties to an Elite Legion - yes it is 'unrealistic', but it can happen and might do every 1,000 melees. In all the games we've played then I can't believe we've had this stand-off situation more than a few times. I know I only had it once and started off trying to win by missile attrition, but then got sucked into melee by anarchy.... and lost

So, my suggestion is that we accept the '1 refusal per commander in turn 1' option.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:15 pm**

Ghee if only I could have said all of that about 10 posts ago

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:30 pm**

batesmotel wrote:Are all existing campaigns assume to be terminated with the coming of winter or do the armies involved remain in the field but not fight during winter? If armies remain in the field, do they then resume the fight in the Spring with the current win-loss record continued from the previous fall? Can they be topped off or not?

Chris

Armies remain in place whilst all current battles resolved. At that point it's the depth of winter & players need to consider whether to pay double to keep an army in place (thus maintaining any win record) or to send the army home (points back into treasury). If an invader pays to keep an army in place then the defender must either do the same, withdraw into a city, or concede the area.

Players should also consider the coming Winter phase:-
BDM - I'll inform each royal house of it's family members, any births or deaths, and you can then conduct any special blood diplomacy for marriages between royal houses. Such marriages are binding for the life of the couple, may produce off-spring, and if an ally calls upon a blood alliance to send a relief army it cannot be refused (even if the ally would have to fight another to reach you).

The normal diplomacy starts again in the Spring with all existing non-blood alliances dissolved. I erroneously placed a diplomay phase in the Winter & have only just spotted it. Will remove it from the players guide.

Final part of Winter is allocation of Random Events - I will be modifying these in light of feedback from players.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:33 am**

I have two battles on-going; both first rounds.

Am waiting to hear from CharlesR if he will be attacking a second time. Does the coming of winter mean this invasion stops at this point?

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:13 am**

hidde wrote:
petergarnett wrote:The Fall season has now ended - Winter next during which no new battles may be started (with the one exception of the relief army attacking - triarius v rbs).

Please fight & finish all existing battles & post the results.
I have four battles going at the moment. One almost finished, two with quite a lot left to do and one just started.
Mention this as maybe you would like to know it can take a while.

We need a smaller world - real one that is, not The Lost World. The tyranny of Time Zones, hey

Slitherine

The Lost World Campaign