Slitherine

Cunningcairn wrote:Cunningcairn's Ptolemaic 320 to 167BC army has conquered Jewish 47 defeating RexHurley's Jewish 110 to 64BC by 34% to 61%.

I think this means that the Ptolemaic's take Jewish 47 without losing an army. This battle was a 1 x 1 battle so does that mean the 20% casualty does not apply and only applies to 1 x 2 and higher as below?

* If 1x1 ATTACKER WINS (over 60% in rout %). Attacker loses army. Attacker takes province.
* If 1x2 (or higher) ATTACKER WINS, Attacker loses 1 army for each 20% of army lost on total casualties results page (not rout percentage), but not reduced to less than 1. Attacker takes province.

No in a 1x1 you have to be under 25% you were at 31 so loose it

In Gaul, attacker loses 1 army on draw bc defender had only 1 army.

In Judea, attacker keeps the army bc CC won by 25% rule with only 34% casualties. Rexhurley, in your battle last turn you won by the 60% rule with casualties exceeding 35%.

For army depletion, non-core faction armies will be lost first. Then, armies furthest away from the home provinces.

bbogensc wrote:For army depletion, non-core faction armies will be lost first. Then, armies furthest away from the home provinces.

Can I make an alternative (simpler) suggestion that you lose armies that match the type you were fighting with first? E.g. If I invade with a Spanish and Iberian army and choose to use the Spanish list in the battle, then I lose my Spanish army first (reflecting the fact that they bore the brunt of the battle). There are a few reasons for this:

1) Except where you have three armies, each of different factions, and lose two of them, you don't need any further rules about which armies are lost first, which is a lot simpler (and I'd be inclined to suggest further that, in that specific exception, the player simply chooses the second army that is lost).

2) It avoids using weaker army lists as "meat shields" to protect stronger ones. E.g. I would consider in most circumstances the Spanish army list to be stronger than the Iberian one. So if I were using more than one army, I would ideally coordinate such that I have mixed Spanish/Iberian armies rather than all Spanish and all Iberian, since that allows me to use the Spanish army list in all my battles but not risk losing them (unless I lose completely, of course). You could argue that this strategy is a feature, but I don't personally feel it adds very much of value to the game vs. the micromanagement it implies.

3) On the reverse, it also adds a bit more consideration to which army list to use, i.e. you might decide to use the weaker list over the stronger list so that you lose the weaker army first if you take too much damage (e.g. I may decide to fight a 2x1 battle using Iberia rather than Spain because I'll probably win even with a weaker list, and if I botch it I lose the less valuable army first). That for me is an interesting choice to make when selecting the force for a battle, making it more than just trying to match the best army list against the opposing army.

A good suggestion that makes sense. However, we need a rule where the moderator can determine the result easily and without delay, or going back and forth with the player by PM. Here, I dont know for sure what armies were fought with since its attacker's choice, and this will often be the case. So, just for easy admin with a predictable rule that players can plan for should suffice.

Numidian light troops, commanded by Morbio, held off the Carthaginian invasion. Battle indecisive at the end of the day.

Carthage 24% loss. Numidia 36% loss.

Bosporan (Ludendorf) defeats Kyrenean Greek (gamercb). Attacking army lost. 13-51. Province held. (Not sure which one.)

Dacians (Nosy_Rat) defeat Bosporans (shadowblack) 10 to 40% and conquer province 29.

Ludendorf wrote:Bosporan (Ludendorf) defeats Kyrenean Greek (gamercb). Attacking army lost. 13-51. Province held. (Not sure which one.)

The Kyrenean allies of the Antigonids attacked the Bosporans in area 28 only to find the defenders hiding in the woods this time. Being mainly heavy foot with chariots, this was not a good scenario but they pressed on gallantly and tried to drive the defenders out only to suffer terrible losses. Well played Ludendorf.

Kappadocia defeats Seleucid 60-41. Kapp loses 1 army on casualties, Seleucid loses 3. Province held.

Kappadocia may still be taken by a NEW PLAYER if anyone wants to join.

Persia defeats Arabia 61-42. Province captured by Persia, attacking army lost.

Note: Slave Revolt also invaded Arabia but the tiebreaks alternate and Slave won a tiebreak last turn.

Battle results are all in with the exception of 2.

I am now prepping Turn 3.

Gamercb v paulmcneil (lysimachid)
Rexhurley v imc (arabia)

Please post a screenshot of where you are in the battle or send results. Turn 3 strategic move will go forward shortly.

Najanaja wrote:Numidian light troops, commanded by Morbio, held off the Carthaginian invasion. Battle indecisive at the end of the day.

Carthage 24% loss. Numidia 36% loss.

A somewhat frustrating encounter for Carthage that was summarised by the famous contradictory battle cry of the Numidians: "Charge!... Retreat!".

My apologies to Najanaja for such a tedious game for you.

P.S. I did have some MF BTW... it's just that you never saw them!

Begin Turn 3. Strategic move orders due by 1300 GMT 4.27. See attached Turn 3 Campaign Map.

Note: Battles from Turn 2 are still ongoing in Arabia (41) and Lysimachid (33). These battles are unlikely to effect the next strategic move very much so we are moving forward with Turn 3 now. Check the posts for resolution of these battles in the next day or so. These will automatically be scored as a draw if not posting is made by either player, or adjudicated by the moderator if a posting is made.

If Antigonid wins in 33 it will take the province with normal rules in force.

If Slave wins the battle in Arabia it will keep its army and this will appear in Slave province 42 (losing the tiebreak). If Slave loses or draws the army will be lost. Note: As a gameplay rule, the tiebreaks alternate so each player should not win or lose 2 tiebreaks in a row. Slave Revolt won a tiebreak with Nabatean last turn so will not win consecutive tiebreaks.

bbogensc wrote:Persia defeats Arabia 61-42. Province captured by Persia, attacking army lost.

Note: Slave Revolt also invaded Arabia but the tiebreaks alternate and Slave won a tiebreak last turn.

Even if I win by more than 25%?

The tiebreaks alternate by player. So the same player will not win or lose on tie twice in a row.

bbogensc wrote:The tiebreaks alternate by player. So the same player will not win or lose on tie twice in a row.

You have a contradiction in your own rules then, extract from main rules on first post:

Detailed Strategic Rules:

* If cross invasion then armies meet at the border, then either player may set up battle (first in time prevails send PM to opponent).
* If the same player invades a province from 2 separate provinces, then armies are aggregated for force size and 1 battle is fought.
* If multiple players invade the same province, DEFENDER plays all battles simultaneously. If both Attackers prevail, then the Attacker with the higher differential in rout percentage in the battle gets to keep the province. If 3 players attack the same province then all 3 will play a battle and the player with the best rout differential will take the province.
* On the tiebreak procedure where multiple players attack the same province, where both attackers WIN, the loser gets to keep the army and it goes back to the originating province irrespective of the amount of loses it incurred (the battle is treated as a provisional). However, if either attacking player loses, or if both lose, the losing armies are eliminated (similar to the Saxons beating the Vikings before losing to the Normans in 1066).
* If any armies return to a province that has been lost during the turn, they are eliminated.
* A neutral province will automatically rebuild its army if it lost due to a draw battle, but never to exceed 1 army, and that neutral army only defends.
* The attacking human player MAY CHOOSE the army era of a defending NEUTRAL player in setting up the battle.

Tiebreak Procedures

* Neither player should lose or win 2 tiebreaks or adjudications in a row
* Army break point diff
* If player tied or lost against a neutral in the prior turn
* Toss of coin

Sorry, is not a contradiction. The tiebreak rule covers ties. The battle rules cover battles.

As a result of winning the tie last turn, you have more armies than anyone else in the game right now, and 4 provinces.

I'll update this rule again on the next revision to make it more clear. The ties need to alternate, also close adjudications need to alternate, to make it work.

Also, going forward you will need to let me set the matches and determine the game schedule, in the fairest way I can. You'll have to give me some latitude to do this.

bbogensc wrote:Sorry, is not a contradiction. The tiebreak rule covers ties. The battle rules cover battles.

As a result of winning the tie last turn, you have more armies than anyone else in the game right now, and 4 provinces.

I read it as a contradiction because your battle rules quite clearly state the winner by margin takes the province...........then there is this one as well which will be important later in the game If 3 players attack the same province then all 3 will play a battle and the player with the best rout differential will take the province so you can't use the tiebreak rule in the way you say as that negates this one.....

As for your second sentence was that really necessary to say in public? plus I'm not the only one with four provinces there are four players with that many.