100 YW Campaign - Battle Phase
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
Great questions. Once again, if enough players want a rule to work a certain way, we can always change it, so these answers are from the rules as currently written, and how I saw the campaign progressing.Aryaman wrote:I would like some clarification to the rules on Battles and armies
a) For instance, you build an army and fight a battle with it, then after the battle is fought and losses deducted, you have some building points left, do you have total liberty to rebuild your army with different units for the following battle?
b) I would like to see some additional penalty for the losing side, accounting for the natural desertion that a defeated army suffers after battle.
c) Are we bound to historical armies? I mean, as Castile, for instance, you have to build your army using tha castilian army provided in the game? What are the historical constrictions regarding army building? What about the historical period?
d) A suggestion, why not adding a Navarrese faction? There will be a Navarrese army in the SoA game I think
A. I would prefer that the army stay as it was, and deduct the points. Then in the next battle, when more points are deducted... this way we can more simulate losses, and an army can not morph into a different army between battles. When the army comes back to a home province, and has new troops added, it can add whatever it needs with new build points.
B. Lets keep this one open and talk again when we have more players lined up. Currently there are ways you can lose whole armies by way of retreats, and maybe some additional losses per percentage is warranted, but I don't want to go overboard on that to start, but I agree, its just finding the right balance.
C. I would like us to use the historical armies. I think that is what will set the campaign apart from others that are not really historically based. But having not seen them, I am not sure if it will work, so I didn't address it in the rules. As for the period, we can pick whatever time period best suits the armies and our tastes. Again, if the majority of players don't want to use historical armies, we could change that.
D. Navarrese sounds fine. What area were they in? And will we have to lose another Kingdom or can they be squeezed in?
Plenty of room, welcome. I am sure your request can be fulfilled, as there are a few more minor houses with only two starting areas. I envisioned us handing out the Kingdoms once we were full on players, and knew if historical armies would work or not. Also, a couple of the Kingdoms are on the large size, and I am sure someone won't mind controlling these larger Kingdoms. Otherwise, minus requests, I was just going to hand them out randomly.hidde wrote:I would like a lesser realm as well if you're still recruiting.
Great! The two players playing England and France will really help drive the game with alliances and conducting the war, trying to keep the minor houses in line etc. I am not sure on the time frame, I guess we could put a limit on it. Just an aside, if each season took a week, it would only take us 7 years or so to finish the hundred years war!hidde wrote:It's only England or France I don't want to be responsible for, really. Any other is fine..what the heck, I can take one of them if necessary
Another thing, is there a time limit(100 years?:shock:) or some kind of winning condition?
I think the best way to end it is when France gets knocked out, or all the Kingdoms agree to end the war (ie one side has gotten so powerful its over for the most part).
Yes, the colors denote which faction the area is with. Blue for France, red for England and the neutrals got their own colors.76mm wrote:What do the colored "eggs" on the map symbolize? Which kingdoms are initially allied to whom, and who is neutral?
Last edited by Scarz on Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ok, I have added them. I went ahead and made them neutral and added their own province. The map has also been updated for them.Aryaman wrote:Scar wrote:You can give him Gascony, starting as neutral or allied to FranceAryaman wrote: D. Navarrese sounds fine. What area were they in? And will we have to lose another Kingdom or can they be squeezed in?
-
zumHeuriger
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:12 am
- and I'm still very interested in playing.-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Players so far:
Max
Lupus
Aryaman
hidde
Blathergut
Dedtorius
davouthojo
zumHeuriger
Scar
Amaz Ed
Currently we are two players short for all the allied and main Kingdoms. Both Luxemburg and House of Hainault can be removed, if need be, and probably not be missed. So about 4 players more and we are good to go, 6 or so more and we will have a full house.
Max
Lupus
Aryaman
hidde
Blathergut
Dedtorius
davouthojo
zumHeuriger
Scar
Amaz Ed
Currently we are two players short for all the allied and main Kingdoms. Both Luxemburg and House of Hainault can be removed, if need be, and probably not be missed. So about 4 players more and we are good to go, 6 or so more and we will have a full house.
Last edited by Scarz on Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
davouthojo
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:49 pm
- Location: Hong Kong
As promised, i had a good read of the campaign rules. Great starting point - and the map is very good!
A few thoughts:
Diplomatic system
How to avoid one alliance collapsing diplomatically? As it stands, the moment one alliance starts to be on top, the pressure mounts for the losing side’s allies to revolt. When one revolts, the incentive for the next one to revolt increases – the alliance (and the campaign) will collapse very quickly. It would be better for a longer lasting campaign to have some balancing mechanism instead, that slows down and weakens the victors. Any ideas?
Battles
Is there a limit to army size? I think the campaign will be great if it generates interesting, relatively equal DAG battles. I seem to remember the English armies wandered around achieving very little until the French chose to offer battle. Most armies could avoid combat unless they thought they could win – so most battles would be fairly even, or they wouldn’t happen at all. It will make it more fun if we avoid the “killer stack” tactic too. Maybe make it more abstract with “standard” armies of 500 points? Armies could be automatically replenished up to full strength at the end of the season for the appropriate mark cost, turning a heavy defeat into a big hit to the treasury, but not knocking you out the game.
Any defensive advantage in terrain? Given DAG limitations, all I can think of is to require the attacker to set up in the back 2 hex rows. Any other ideas?
I’d have disproportionate retreat casualties if there is a big margin of victory – if it was a close fought thing, the victors would be too exhausted to pursue closely.
If invading a province, maybe fight a series of 3 battles? Maybe with reinforcements in between? Would make it more epic – and since you only start with a couple of provinces, losing one is a big deal.
Intelligence
What do we know about enemy forces? Location? Leader? Numbers? Or exact force composition?
Would we have to order possible retreats to castles or other provinces in advance or can we see the enemy army first?
Upkeep/build balance
Do you pay upkeep every season? 4 times a year? So 700 marks times 3 provinces annual income will support a standing army of 500 points (without recruitment)? If annual upkeep costs 4 times builds, it makes sense to uses a disposable troop strategy- build, then get them killed immediately. I think armies in this time tended to husband their troops and found it hard to raise more. I think builds should cost 4-5 times more than annual upkeep.
I seem to remember the English having to raise taxes for their overseas adventure. So maybe attacking armies should have double or triple the upkeep of those sitting at home at their barons expense?
Pillaging
Pillaging too cheap – only lose 80 marks from an annual income of 700 for a small city province that is pillaged every season?
Leaders? Normal costs, or something special? Need a 2 or 3 flag leader for every army formed?
Sieges/Cities
Large city symbol hold out longer than small city symbol? Bigger difference in income (15% difference doesn’t seem significant)? Can we leave garrisons in castles, or do they have to be part of the 1-3 army limit?
Just a few ideas to contribute to the pot. Are there simple campaign rules for FOG miniatures we can steal ideas from?
A few thoughts:
Diplomatic system
How to avoid one alliance collapsing diplomatically? As it stands, the moment one alliance starts to be on top, the pressure mounts for the losing side’s allies to revolt. When one revolts, the incentive for the next one to revolt increases – the alliance (and the campaign) will collapse very quickly. It would be better for a longer lasting campaign to have some balancing mechanism instead, that slows down and weakens the victors. Any ideas?
Battles
Is there a limit to army size? I think the campaign will be great if it generates interesting, relatively equal DAG battles. I seem to remember the English armies wandered around achieving very little until the French chose to offer battle. Most armies could avoid combat unless they thought they could win – so most battles would be fairly even, or they wouldn’t happen at all. It will make it more fun if we avoid the “killer stack” tactic too. Maybe make it more abstract with “standard” armies of 500 points? Armies could be automatically replenished up to full strength at the end of the season for the appropriate mark cost, turning a heavy defeat into a big hit to the treasury, but not knocking you out the game.
Any defensive advantage in terrain? Given DAG limitations, all I can think of is to require the attacker to set up in the back 2 hex rows. Any other ideas?
I’d have disproportionate retreat casualties if there is a big margin of victory – if it was a close fought thing, the victors would be too exhausted to pursue closely.
If invading a province, maybe fight a series of 3 battles? Maybe with reinforcements in between? Would make it more epic – and since you only start with a couple of provinces, losing one is a big deal.
Intelligence
What do we know about enemy forces? Location? Leader? Numbers? Or exact force composition?
Would we have to order possible retreats to castles or other provinces in advance or can we see the enemy army first?
Upkeep/build balance
Do you pay upkeep every season? 4 times a year? So 700 marks times 3 provinces annual income will support a standing army of 500 points (without recruitment)? If annual upkeep costs 4 times builds, it makes sense to uses a disposable troop strategy- build, then get them killed immediately. I think armies in this time tended to husband their troops and found it hard to raise more. I think builds should cost 4-5 times more than annual upkeep.
I seem to remember the English having to raise taxes for their overseas adventure. So maybe attacking armies should have double or triple the upkeep of those sitting at home at their barons expense?
Pillaging
Pillaging too cheap – only lose 80 marks from an annual income of 700 for a small city province that is pillaged every season?
Leaders? Normal costs, or something special? Need a 2 or 3 flag leader for every army formed?
Sieges/Cities
Large city symbol hold out longer than small city symbol? Bigger difference in income (15% difference doesn’t seem significant)? Can we leave garrisons in castles, or do they have to be part of the 1-3 army limit?
Just a few ideas to contribute to the pot. Are there simple campaign rules for FOG miniatures we can steal ideas from?
