Slitherine

Ive tried to make the rules as clear and detailed as possible. I cannot field so many rule complaints (by PM and otherwise), however, as we have 17 players in the campaign. None of the rules at issue seem to have any effect on your game position and are just hypotheticals, so Im not sure how to respond.

I also cannot guarantee that your opponents will finish the match in 7 days. The matches were assigned this turn to avoid the possibility of thrown matches (where the neutral player was allied with the attacker). I did the best I could in that respect.

Regarding the map. How do we tell who owns a province if there are no armies in it?

I ask the question because I'd like to know if I'm invading a player owned country rather than a neutral country.

Thanks.

Every player-owned province should have a build army on it like a boardgame. The problem isvwhere a province gets captured and the attacking army lost. In that case, province should have a green checkmark.

bbogensc wrote:Every player-owned province should have a build army on it like a boardgame. The problem isvwhere a province gets captured and the attacking army lost. In that case, province should have a green checkmark.

So the green check mark tells me someone owns it, I just won't know who. Is that correct?

Another question regarding the army key...

De is Germania?
G is Galatia or is this Gaul? What is the code for the other country?

Thanks.

De=deutschland, germania. Galatia=G. Gaul is neutral and does not have a code.

rexhurley wrote:

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.

First, let me say it is no easy take to be a moderater in a game with people in all corners of the globe; Especially when you have to put yourself "out there" to form rules which will be studied and scrutinized by other intelligent people all looking to form an empire fighting battles in the way we have all read about and studied. I appreciate the effort, and I am happy to be able play the part of a Rome where you all want to rewrite history and crush a power than just wants to spread its good culture.

I am going to add my voice here but I want to make it clear that I am doing so because I would like to have a fun time at this new campaign component (for me) of FOG game play. Since this is competitive, and in the end one must prevail, it is important that there be a clear set of expectations. I am concerned by the issue rexhurley has raised on rule relationship. Both the battle rule and tie rule are clear, but taken together, they cause a relationship that becomes illogical. Consider this, two counties attack another and both win. The province goes to winner A with the larger differential. Then the same two countries attack another province and both win again with winner A having a larger differential again. It really does not follow that Winner B is given the province even though the B army achieved a win via an inferior result. In the end awards are best tied to generalship, not a sense of strategic balance, in my view ( the strategic balance is best at the front end with the connectivity rules and so forth). The battle rule ought to take precedence in this context; the general earn the right to territory as he devastated more enemies. That makes more sense to me.

I will play on despite this relationship I find troubling because this is your campaign and i am needed to fall on my sword as you all line up at my borders. I realize that this is a passion in motion and other things will arise and be considered. One long term suggestion might be that the campaign length be shorten so that lessons learned in the initial scrum can be incorporated. Perhaps it is 13 territories or 15 turns? A friendly suggestion.

I am playing the campaign to play against new players in different battles. I want to seize territories and would like to win (not very likely) but having the opportunity to play against any of you is my main goal. Napoleon did not believe in good strategic generals, he wanted lucky generals and there is a lot of luck in this game. You can have a good strategy but if the game decides your cavalry will evade or your unit will double drop, that strategy can fall apart quickly.

I am happy for allow bbogensc to tell me when I win a territory or when I lose one. If he needs to override a rule to keep the campaign motoring along with us all getting the chance for some good battles, then I would support him. He has put himself out to organise this so let's thank him and get on with the battles. And if he is a she I apologies for using he....

Colin

[quote="gamercb"]
I am happy for allow bbogensc to tell me when I win a territory or when I lose one. If he needs to override a rule to keep the campaign motoring along with us all getting the chance for some good battles, then I would support him. He has put himself out to organise this so let's thank him and get on with the battles. And if he is a she I apologies for using he....
Colin[/quote]

+1 to that

[quote="Morbio"][quote="Najanaja"]Numidian light troops, commanded by Morbio, held off the Carthaginian invasion. Battle indecisive at the end of the day.


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

Well, I was very suspiciuos of that. Your numbers on the field didn't seem quite enough so I tried to keep away from the woods near you baseline.

It isn't a FOG game without experiencing the paranoia instilled by a simple patch of forest.

Morbio you should be able to tell who has captured a province in that turn from the battle results postings.

Nyczar I dont have any relationships at all and none you should find troubling. Im about as neutral as a moderator could be i think. Not sure how things migrated to that direction, strange.

[quote="Ludendorf"]It isn't a FOG game without experiencing the paranoia instilled by a simple patch of forest.[/quote]

Adieu gentlemen I am leaving the game at the request of the GM against my desire see you all around in future events, Leagues and Knockout tournaments.

Thanks rexhurley, sorry I was not able to resolve all of your concerns.

The slave provinces will be divided bw the adjacent players 1 each (syracuse, antigonid, nabatean) effective on the next turn. The remaining province will become neutral. On this strategic move no attacks on these provinces.

bbogensc wrote:Thanks rexhurley, sorry I was not able to resolve all of your concerns.

The slave provinces will be divided bw the adjacent players 1 each (syracuse, antigonid, nabatean) effective on the next turn. The remaining province will become neutral. On this strategic move no attacks on these provinces.

What happens to the Slave armies are they also given to these players?

rexhurley wrote:Adieu gentlemen I am leaving the game at the request of the GM against my desire see you all around in future events, Leagues and Knockout tournaments.

Sorry to see you go Rex.

No, the 8 or 9 slave armies are eliminated. Each of the provinces will have 1 army of the player allocated beginning on Turn 4.

Antigonid (gamercb) invasion Lysimachid (paulmcneil) is repulsed. 60-50.

Slave Revolt draws in Arabia on time more than 1/2 way through game, game essentially even. Both armies are eliminated.