Slitherine

Jilu wrote:Or at the start of the game one (1) BG is assigned as camp defenders.
that unit cannot move unless a general joins them.

That was more or less my idea. If you want to make it more simple, you can have four categories: unfortified undefendend camp, fortified undefended camp, unfortified defended camp, fortified defended camp and different dice rolls for every of them although I like your idea more as there can't be tricky combinations. Actually deploying the miniatures does not seem necessary to me. I think that no matter the number of enemies, a BG defending a camp should be allowed to do it and I would rather require a certain number of bases (I have in mind the triarii being left in the camp to protect it).

I think the "free intercept" idea might be the way to go as then you just use the existing combat rules.

I think I would mandate the defenders to be in contact with the camp, perhaps it should only be the rear edge. One could assume that any BG with its rear edge touching the camp (edge or corner) is notionally inside the camp defending it. If an enemy BG contacts the camp then they are moved back and the defending BG (if not already in CC) is placed between them and the camp (without changing formation). They fight in the next impact phase. Defenders count as not in open terrain. Defenders count behind fortifications if the camp is fortified. Otherwise the combat is normal. If defenders are broken, the camp is automatically sacked (even if fortified). Defenders can be shot at normally. Defenders do not pursue and cannot break off, but can move away from the camp voluntarily.

We may be looking at a lot of rules for little gain here. What about byzantine camps that had artillery in them?

philqw78 wrote:We may be looking at a lot of rules for little gain here.

Yes, I was starting to think that.

Not sure how many players would "double down" to dedicate a BG for camp defense.

Usually a BG is too good to be relegated to camp guard OR is too flimsy to provide much defense, instead serving up 4 VP instead of 2 VP.

The fortifications/terrain bonus might be worth it, I suppose.

Might it also be good to discount the VP loss of baggage guards, so that sacking a defended camp yields 3 VP instead of 4 VP?

Otherwise, not a lot of value in slaving a BG to camp guard duty.

lawrenceg wrote:

philqw78 wrote:We may be looking at a lot of rules for little gain here.

Yes, I was starting to think that.

Although we do get to say 'these chaps are my camp defenders"!

azrael86 wrote:Although we do get to say 'these chaps are my camp defenders"!

Surely worth it now.

They defend your campness?

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Although we do get to say 'these chaps are my camp defenders"!

Surely worth it now.

They defend your campness?

Suspect Mr Briggs could say it with the most aplomb

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Although we do get to say 'these chaps are my camp defenders"!

Surely worth it now.

They defend your campness?

No, that would be 'these are my campness defenders'.

My camp defenders defend me in a camp way.

lawrenceg wrote:No, that would be 'these are my campness defenders'.

My camp defenders defend me in a camp way.

Of course your Campness

philqw78 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:No, that would be 'these are my campness defenders'.

My camp defenders defend me in a camp way.

Of course your Campness

I want bonnie langford as a camp defender...