Gustav Vasa -- Phase 5: Planning orders

[stockwellpete]

I am not able to download the scenario for our battle, Chris. Something about "encryption" that I do not understand. Are you able to download it?

[cavehobbit]

Anyone else having trouble? I'm using a Mac, but I tried downloading and extracting using a PC with Windows XP and it worked ok...

[hidde]

Downloading and extracting, no problem. But where should I put the files?
I tried two different places but couldn't get it to show in neither historical or custom?

[batesmotel]

I extracted the "GV - campaign -Westra Gotaland" folder to My Documents\Slitherine\FieldOfGlory Scenarios\ (on Windows) and then the scenario showed up as a custom scenario called "GV - campaign -Westra Gotaland". Once you've done that and posted a scenario challenge, I don't think your opponent even has to install it to play, just accept the challenge.

Chris

[hidde]

I extracted the "GV - campaign -Westra Gotaland" folder to My Documents\Slitherine\FieldOfGlory Scenarios\ (on Windows) and then the scenario showed up as a custom scenario called "GV - campaign -Westra Gotaland". Once you've done that and posted a scenario challenge, I don't think your opponent even has to install it to play, just accept the challenge.

Chris

Chris, that's what I did.
Hm, I'll do it again and see if it turns out differently.

[cavehobbit]

I am not able to download the scenario for our battle, Chris. Something about "encryption" that I do not understand. Are you able to download it?

Pete, you still having problems downloading?

Anders, sorry I should have written an instruction...

[stockwellpete]

I am not able to download the scenario for our battle, Chris. Something about "encryption" that I do not understand. Are you able to download it?

Pete, you still having problems downloading?

Anders, sorry I should have written an instruction...

Yes, it is not working for me. Not sure what to do about it either.

[stockwellpete]

Right, I have managed to get it. I couldn't get any other scenarios this morning either from other designers but I solved this problem by "extracting" before I put the file in the FOG scenario folder. I moved the file to the Slitherine folder, then I "extracted", then I moved it to FOG Scenario folder and they showed up OK on my list. I then did the same for the Swedish campaign scenario and also clicked "ignore" for the bit about encryption and it worked. Thanks Pers-Anders for your help. This might be helpful to Anders too.

[cavehobbit]

Great!

[hidde]

No need for help. I fixed it on my own
Not sure I can explain but after extracting I got the folder GV Campaign-Vestmanland and within it two others; the MAC version and the PC version.
I copied the PC version and put only that one in My Documents\Slitherine\FieldOfGlory Scenarios. Voila!
If that make sense...

[stockwellpete]

No need for help. I fixed it on my own
Not sure I can explain but after extracting I got the folder GV Campaign-Vestmanland and within it two others; the MAC version and the PC version.
I copied the PC version and put only that one in My Documents\Slitherine\FieldOfGlory Scenarios. Voila!
If that make sense...

Yes, there is a MACOSX file that comes with the download but when I clicked "Ignore" that MACOSX file does not go in my FOG Scenario folder so the Swedish file looks like all the others now.

EDIT: I have just noticed that the MACOSX file has made its way into FOG Scenario folder but it is sitting on its own so I have just deleted it now and I still have the campaign scenario in my games list.

[cavehobbit]

Hmm... I will create .zip files without the MACOSX folder in the future.

Sorry for all the trouble this has caused...

[cavehobbit]

Battle of Örebro castle now ready: viewtopic.php?f=98&t=43888&p=417593#p417593

I hope there's no MACOSX folder that will confuse things this time...

[stockwellpete]

Me and Chris are on turn 10. The score in break points is 0-0 - I think it might be a draw.

[cavehobbit]

It seems that 15 turns might be a bit too short for a battle, especially for the attacking side. In Chris and Pete's battle in Westra Götaland the first impact happened first in turn 9. We will play this phase's battles and then decide if it needs to be adjusted and how many turns a battle needs to be.

Any comments/thoughts/ideas are welcome.

[stockwellpete]

It seems that 15 turns might be a bit too short for a battle, especially for the attacking side. In Chris and Pete's battle in Westra Götaland the first impact happened first in turn 9. We will play this phase's battles and then decide if it needs to be adjusted and how many turns a battle needs to be.

Any comments/thoughts/ideas are welcome.

But I do love a draw! Especially over 24 turns with very low losses! If you watch cricket you will understand this point of view!

I think maybe 18 turns would be OK, possibly smaller maps or closer deployment on the existing maps. In our game Chris mentioned that a second "troop" commander would better allow for flanking moves. It has been too easy for me to adopt a defensive posture in our game. Because we have a second attack scheduled by the Danes on this province all I am concerned about is holding out with as few losses as possible for the second battle. A bit boring but tactically sensible maybe, seeing as Chris beats me more often than not.

Looked at Orebro castle scenario. Attacker has no chance at all in my view. Not necessarily wrong historically - Engelbrecht took the castle in the century before but I don't know how long it took him. To successfully assault attacker would probably need 2:1 advantage in similar units to be successful. The big cannon is in the wrong place though as it can only really shoot at enemy units once they enter the castle (if they ever do). I will look at my Bamburgh Castle scenario from my WotR campaign and continue this point shortly . . . yes, I thought so, the attacking Yorkists had 19 units and the defending Lancastrians have 10 units so 2:1 should be enough to edge the game.

It is all a matter of taste I know, but I would be inclined to have smaller castles with less guns. Renaissance castles tended to have the big gun emplacements and Orebro wasn't developed in that way until 50 years later. Also, is there any way to bring the character of the surrounding countryside into the scenario? Orebro was situated at an important crossing point so could we have "a river runs through it"? Maybe then the attacking force has to split into contingents to surround the castle? And maybe then a sortie from the defenders is a tactical possibility? I am just chucking ideas out. Here is my attempt at Bamburgh Castle 1464 . . .

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... mpaign.rar

Btw, Orebro castle today. Fantastic looking building . . .

http://www.360cities.net/image/orebro-c ... -7.40,55.1

[voskarp]

Battle of Örebro castle now ready: viewtopic.php?f=98&t=43888&p=417593#p417593

I hope there's no MACOSX folder that will confuse things this time...

No problem for me, but I'm on a Mac too (of course! ).

Challenge posted, password: orebro

[batesmotel]

To expand on my comment about adding a TC, one TC isn't enough to double move the attacker's force unless it's in a mob formation around the commander. Providing an additional TC as an unnamed subordinate or upgrading unnamed commanders to FCs would eliminate one more element that tends to delay the attacker from closing with the defender.

Chris

[cavehobbit]

A draw as it is now is a win for the defending side. I wonder if it is possible to give a draw another result, like both armies stay in the province an neither side has control of the province. The next phase the armies will continue fighting? What complicates such an idea is the current situation in Westra Götaland where another Danish army attacking in a 'second wave'. But the attacking side in a draw game may choose to retreat, either to allow another army to attack (if such an order was given) or if the commander think his army has suffered too much losses to stay and fight in the next phase.

It is possible to have smaller maps and/or closer deployment, I've had this thought as well.

Castles are tricky in many ways. They are suppose to be easy to defend, but still, for playability, an attack shouldn't be doomed to fail even before a game begins. There is the possibility to lay a siege for three phases and then attack (this could be changed to two phases?). The defenders will have less advantage (but still they have the walls).
One idea would be to allow the attacking army to have up to 35 BG's when attacking a castle (i.e. the max number of BG's in an army). It won't be a 2:1 advantage if the castle garrison is 20, but still the odds would be better... Maybe the bonus artillery pieces are a bit too much? The walls maybe are bonus enough?

I will try to bring the surrounding countryside into the scenarios as best as I can. Some of the maps are loosely based on actual sites of battles.
Yes, I remember Bamburgh Castle from you WotR campaign and it was much smaller then my Örebro. I'm not sure which model is best?
The picture of Örebro Castle is the result from when Gustav Vasa's son Karl IX rebuilt the castle. Sadly not many medieval Swedish castles remains. Most of them are rebuilt during the Renaissance.

To expand on my comment about adding a TC, one TC isn't enough to double move the attacker's force unless it's in a mob formation around the commander. Providing an additional TC as an unnamed subordinate or upgrading unnamed commanders to FCs would eliminate one more element that tends to delay the attacker from closing with the defender.

Armies with a Noble as leader could be FC, while all other BG's would still be TC if they would be leaders (i.e. no Noble present). This gives Nobles an extra role and make them more important.

[stockwellpete]

Castles are tricky in many ways. They are suppose to be easy to defend, but still, for playability, an attack shouldn't be doomed to fail even before a game begins. There is the possibility to lay a siege for three phases and then attack (this could be changed to two phases?). The defenders will have less advantage (but still they have the walls).
One idea would be to allow the attacking army to have up to 35 BG's when attacking a castle (i.e. the max number of BG's in an army). It won't be a 2:1 advantage if the castle garrison is 20, but still the odds would be better... Maybe the bonus artillery pieces are a bit too much? The walls maybe are bonus enough?

I will try to bring the surrounding countryside into the scenarios as best as I can. Some of the maps are loosely based on actual sites of battles.
Yes, I remember Bamburgh Castle from you WotR campaign and it was much smaller then my Örebro. I'm not sure which model is best?

There is certainly more than one acceptable way to go about castles, Pers-Anders. I tend to favour the smaller maps because castles, in terms of the actual area they cover, are relatively small when compared to other types of battlefields. So space should be limited and troops should be very close together, in my opinion. In FOG terms the scenario should really test how players use that limited space to bring their missile and melee troops to bear on the enemy at different stages of the battle.

With regards to this campaign, maybe you could have 4 larger castles and 4 smaller castles with different troop maximums allocated to the two categories? The biggest ones would be more resistant to siege, the smaller ones less so. Maybe there could be restrictions on the number of missile units the attacker could have so that the walls give greater protection to the defenders? I do think there is too much artillery at the moment. Maybe 2x organ guns for the bigger castles and just 1 for the smaller ones? And maybe the besiegers should have an organ gun too perhaps? It all adds to the atmosphere.