Slitherine

I'm for keeping the 'take the head' rule. It really captures the flavor of the times. Maybe in the future tournaments we could lessen its impact a bit. The first time the C-in-C dies in battle he is wounded instead and inactive for 1 turn. Second time it's Elysium.

Re the second point, I'm all for it - this is how we did it previously in TYME tournament.

MadMaxBot (Goths) defeats TomoeGozen (Romans V) 6-21 CC killed victory

In an amazing turn of events the underdog Goths have pulled victory from what would have surely been a crushing defeat. They sailed from their homeland to raid & plunder only to crash upon the full might of the Roman army. With no cavalry to support their raiding army, doom was at hand. While the Romans had just gotten busy with some fine butchery work, the brave Augustus wanting to lead by example, foolishly put himself in harms way & as fate will have her say........fell......upon the battlefied.......his last thoughts were......why me.....ughh.

The point of the scenario kill the head is to just keep your CC out of the battle . Hide him, have him run , shift him to a non threatened unit. Use him behind the line strictly to rally disrupted units. I think everyone is so used to playing open battle they just treat him like any of the other Generals & hope for the best. Its not worth it to risk him & lose the campaign over one province...or a raided province. You have three other generals. Pretend that's all you can use. I have played games where my CC was attached to a fresh heavy infantry unit or armored cavalry unit. Charge a disrupted medium & bam..... the CC falls. I've seen it too many times. I know its difficult to watch a unit disrupt & fragment then rout when that leadership boost might have saved him but sacrifices must be made. When I won that African province in TWINM my CC held back the entire match & not once did I put him in battle. In fact my CC has not once gotten his hands dirty in any of my campaign battles. Its either play this way or we just go back to open battle.

Perhaps losing the entire campaign & all your provinces is too harsh. For the sake of the game play, keep the remove the head & the only consequence if the CC falls is you just lose that province. That is punishment enough. Or designate just one home province as the Capital province & if the CC falls defending it then the campaign is lost. To keep that element of high risk without every battle being possible disaster for the player.

The current Remove the Head rule may in fact be too harsh for a tournament, i.e., to be eliminated if your C-in-C falls in battle. At the same time Remove the Head is a nice scenario and highly suitable for the battles of these types of usurper and civil war tournaments.

So I'm thinking something like this: getting a C-in-C killed in battle should be worse than a "normal" loss, but not immediately disastrous. However, for "repeat offenders", it should be increasingly punishing. So...:
1st time a faction's C-in-C falls in battle and thus loses the battle and the province-at-stake, 1 more province is lost to the opponent.
2nd time a faction's C-in-C falls in battle and thus loses the battle and the province-at-stake, 2 provinces (in addition to the province-at-stake) are lost to the opponent.
3rd time a faction's C-in-C falls in battle and thus loses the battle and the province-at-stake, 3 provinces (in addition to the province-at-stake) are lost to the opponent.
etc.

Thus, it will get increasingly worse to lose your C-in-C. First time not that bad, but thereafter... boom, Boom, BOOM! In raids though only thing that happens if C-in-C falls is that the battle is lost and the province becoming looted.

The rules have been changed accordingly, with the last bullet points of conquest and raid under the Effects of battle outcome section to read as follows:

...
Conquest

• If any of the Augustii (as represented by the C-in-C's of the two Roman factions) falls in battle, the battle ends immediately (and automatically since played as Remove the Head scenario) with the killed Augustus as the loser and, in addition to his lost province-at-stake, will lose a number of additional provinces (equal to the total number of times the loser's C-in-C has fallen in battle; 1 additional province first time, 2 additional province second time, etc.) to be taken over by the victor of the battle at the end of the round.
  • These additional provinces must be connected to the victor's provinces, directly or through other additional provinces, whether by land or by sea.

...
Raid

• If the Augustus (as represented by the C-in-C of the Roman faction) falls in battle, the battle ends immediately (and automatically since played as Remove the Head scenario) with the killed Augustus as the loser, much like if the C-in-C of the non-Roman faction falls in battle, with the only additional effect being to increase the total number of times the losing Roman faction's C-in-C has fallen in battle by 1.

...

Under the circumstances I probably should not complain about the suggested rule changes but I agree with my worthy opponent , madmaxbot, if you don't want your CinC to die don't put him in the line of fire.

I am quite happy to use the original rules and be out of the campaign, it was my choice to commit my CinC knowing the potential consequences. It's a major part of this campaigns structure.I like the drama and 'story' the rule creates.

One thing I think might be worth considering though is that in each round you pick the CinC in ONE of your battles to be your main man. Then , if you still risk his life you've only got yourself to blame.

TomoeGozen wrote:

MadMaxBot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:45 pm MadMaxBot (Goths) defeats TomoeGozen (Romans V) 6-21 CC killed victory

The 6-21: who did incur which?

I was winning...

TomoeGozen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:07 pm I was winning...

Ok: well now you still can!

Well when I originally came up with the scenario the idea was that it was going to be a much larger pool of players. And the Remove the Head rule was supposed to cycle defeated Roman players into taking over control of barbarian factions and continue to play in the tournament. The intent was to cycle the players through playing as two or more different armies over the course of the tournament to prevent the games from getting stale. Not sure if that is still relevant with so few players.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:26 pm Well when I originally came up with the scenario the idea was that it was going to be a much larger pool of players. And the Remove the Head rule was supposed to cycle defeated Roman players into taking over control of barbarian factions and continue to play in the tournament. The intent was to cycle the players through playing as two or more different armies over the course of the tournament to prevent the games from getting stale. Not sure if that is still relevant with so few players.

No, it's not: the rules have been adapted to fit fewer players who will play Roman as well as non-Roman factions in the same round. Your idea was nice, although I prefer for all players to actually represent Roman factions in a Roman civil war scenario. Plus it seems very difficult to assemble a large pool of players to an open-ended tournament (i.e., not really knowing how long the tournament will last or how many battles to be played simultaneously). Probably because they want to avoid over committing.

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:23 pm 1A. olin0111 (Romans IV) versus TomoeGozen (Romans V) in Syria XXIII.

olin0111 defeats TomoeGozen's Palmyrans 61-40

My cavalry managed to roll Palmyran left flank early in the battle but then went on a happy pursuit. Meanwhile TomoeGozen's forces proceeded to systematically crash my left flank. I was able to roll the enemy centre as well and then shift forces on the edangered front. Also some of my cavalry decided they may come back and join the fight after all. Eventually I was able to stabilize the situation and inflict enough damage to cause mass rout.

TomoeGozen, thanks for the game!

TomoeGozen (Goths) defeats olin0111 (Romans IV) 41-14.

A successful raid in to Roman territory by the Goths resulting in much plundering and pillaging. Times are good for the barbarians

olin0111 (Sassanids) defeats TomoeGozen's Palmyrans 53-24
and plunder the province of Arabia (XXVI)

Battle was nicknamed by the soldiers "The Battle of the Hills" as there was almost nothing but hills and rough ground with very little space for heavy cavalry or infantry to maneuver.

Aetius39 (Romans 1) defeats Kronenblatt (Romans 2) 54-14 in Germania

Good slugfest between Romans, a few good flanks, plus a lot of light infantry attacks, gave Romans 1 the upper hand. GG Kronenblatt as usual!^^

And...

Aetius39 (Romans I) beat kronenblatt (Romans II) 60-36 in Mauretania XXVIII.

(At least my C-in-C's do not fall in battle; always something... )

MadMaxBot (56% incurred) drew with kronenblatt (50%) in Italia XIII.

1A. olin0111 (Romans IV) versus TomoeGozen (Romans V) in Syria XXIII. => olin0111 (40% incurred) beat TomoeGozen (61%).
1B. olin0111 (Sassanids with Armenian allies) versus TomoeGozen (Romans V) in Arabia XXVI. => olin0111 (24% incurred) beat TomoeGozen (53%).
2A. MadMaxBot (Romans III) versus kronenblatt (Romans II) in Italia XIII. => MadMaxBot (56% incurred) drew with kronenblatt (50%).
2B. MadMaxBot (Goths without cavalry) versus TomoeGozen (Romans V) in Cappadocia XXI. => MadMaxBot (6% incurred) beat TomoeGozen (21%), due to C-in-C falling in battle (1st time).
3A. kronenblatt (Romans II) versus Aetius39 (Romans I) in Germania Superior VI. => Aetius39 (14% incurred) beat kronenblatt (54%).
3B. kronenblatt (Goths) versus MadMaxBot (Romans III) in Dacia XI. => kronenblatt (16% incurred) beat MadMaxBot (41%).
4A. TomoeGozen (Romans V) versus kronenblatt (Romans II) in Africa XXIX. => TomoeGozen (10% incurred) beat kronenblatt (10%), due to C-in-C falling in battle (1st time).
4B. TomoeGozen (Goths) versus olin0111 (Romans IV) in Moesia Inferior XII. => TomoeGozen (14% incurred) beat olin0111 (41%).
5A. Aetius39 (Romans I) versus kronenblatt (Romans II) in Mauretania XXVIII. => Aetius39 (36% incurred) beat kronenblatt (60%).
5B. Aetius39 (Iazyges) versus MadMaxBot (Romans III) in Pannonia X. => MadMaxBot (21% incurred) beat Aetius39 (50%), due to C-in-C falling in battle ((not counted since not Roman faction).

All battles now concluded.

3B kronenblatt (Goths) versus MadMaxBot (Romans III) in raid in Dacia XI now concluded.

=> kronenblatt (16% incurred) beat MadMaxBot (41%).