Slitherine

Put me down for:

1) Nikephorian Byzantine(early)
2) Dailami (Buyids)

Chris

1) Nikephorian Byzantine (Later)
2)Dynastic Bedouin Hamdanid

Pat lewis

Room for one more, or full up?

Aristides wrote:Room for one more, or full up?

Plenty of room

So, we have:

keyth Arab Conquest(later) Dailami(Buyids)
batesmotel Nikephorian Byzantine(early) Dailami(Buyids)
Tiavals Bedouin Dynasties(Hamdanid of Aleppo) Lombard
blbrowning Arab Conquest(later) Dailami(Buyids)
Turk1964 Western Turkish(Later Khazar) Ghaznavid
phlewis Nikephorian Byzantine(later) Dynastic Bedouin Hamdanid
Sarpedon Nikephorian Byzantine(later) Ghaznavid

And Aristides TBA.

Once we have his army choices, please feel free to launch your assault for Spring 1025 by announcing it here. You do not need to state which army list you will use. The attacker should host the battle. One thing that isn't clear in the original post, you can only 'Take the field' in one battle per season.

I'll take Later Nike and Ghaz, please.
Looks like a great campaign system...

Well I'm working on a map because I think it's nicer to have one instead of a graph! What with scanners, paint software and work, the map may not appear for a few days.

So it's Spring, 1025 A.D. Each player should announce which other player they are attacking and host a 500 point game. Remember that you can only take the field in one battle per season, so you may want to save that Inspired leader just in case you face multiple attackers! There is no requirement to declare which army you are using and do not have to display the army list in the challenge.

As this system is relatively untried, I'm happy for us to discuss rules etc. as we go along... we may find that some of the initial values are a bit out of whack.

Spring 1025.

Keyth attacks Pat (phlewis) mainly because I haven't played you before

I'll put the game up now, password 'phlewis'.

Spring 1025.
Turk1964 attacks Sarpendon I also havent played you before

Challange set Password = cracker

Cheers Turk

It might be to have an order of declaration of attacks; as it stands, it would make sense to wait and see who was attacking whom before deciding (especially later in the campaign).

I also have a query about the basic mechanism of the campaign. What makes it different than just a regular tournament is the fact you can choose whom to attack, and also that some players will play more games than others (because they are attacked). These two rules, potentially especially the latter, create some interesting volatility.

The idea behind declaring attacks is i assume so that players can gang up on the leader.
But the top players will WANT to be attacked as many times as possible because it will give them more scope to win renown. In real campaigns, if attacked by several foes at once, defeat is more likely because one's resources are stretched. But as one can defend as many battles as one wants in a season with one's entire army in the current system, so to speak, this is not the case. If the leader is attacked by several players, that leader may just pull way ahead as he has the opportunity to win several games more than the others.

Maybe it would make sense that if a player is attacked more than once, he must fight with a 40 pt penalty (per attacker?) or some such - this would simulate several faction leaders combining vs the top dog.

Just my two nomismai...

Hi Aristides,

I think all you points are potentially valid and the simple answer is 'I don't know how it's going to work yet'

I think the open nature of the challenges should be self-levelling after a turn or two, though it may be a good idea to have attacks declared in 'scoreboard order' once we are a turn or two into the campaign and can see some real numbers. The mistake I made with a previous campaign was to have too many rules at the beginning without knowing how well they would work in practice. So, while I think that we may well end up using most or all of your suggestions, I'd like to see how things go for a couple of turns before we start 'tweaking' the numbers.

Thanks for the ideas, all feedback is good

Yes, you're right - it's all a bit theoretical at the moment!

I just found myself analysing my own thoughts when considering whom to attack; and while playing vs. someone 'I've never played before' is fine for motivation for the first round, I wondered what reasons I would have for choosing an opponent later on...

(still considering...)

I've also done some thinking - reasons to attack:

1. You have to
2. Kicking someone while they're down, to put them out of the game or make them vassal
3. Hoping to give a near-rival in points a good thrashing so that you can narrow the points gap/overtake them/show them who's boss
4. Even if you're not a 'top of the scoreboard' contender, going after top dog to drag them down.

So I think it will be entirely situational.

Spring 1025

phlewis attacks blbrowning

password: browning

Pat Lewis

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=40461478 ... 6F26%21208

Here is the basic map. I'll assign colours to people shortly - it's just a visual indicator of how we're doing!

At what point do you state how many points you're using in the battle? Do I say "I attack blahblah with x points", or is it apparent only after the battle has begun? And only if the enemy bothers to count?

Also, is there any reason not to take your leader to the first fight? You might not get a chance if you don't.

Tiavals wrote:At what point do you state how many points you're using in the battle? Do I say "I attack blahblah with x points", or is it apparent only after the battle has begun? And only if the enemy bothers to count?

Also, is there any reason not to take your leader to the first fight? You might not get a chance if you don't.

You don't need to declare points beforehand and I think we can trust each other to own up

About your leader, there is a risk of getting knocked straight out if he gets killed - risk vs. reward!

Spring 1025

Tiavals attacks keyth

Password: keyth

Reason: To make a vassal out of the scumbag.

Ok Keyth i have the first result for you to annaliese

Turk1964 Western Turkish(Later Khazar) V Sarpendon Ghaznavid

Turk1964 29/37 defeated Sarpendon 29/29

My unit average 13.51 round up =14 Sarpendon Unit average 17.24 round down 17

So let me see if i can figure out who gets what

Turk1964 29 x14 =406 /2 =203 250 -203 =47 renown + Win 80% AV =50 total= 97

Sarpendon 29x 17= 493/2=246.5 250-246.5= 4.5 renown

Is this Right?

The Win 80% AV implies that you used an army of just 400 points. Is this the case?