The Great Rebellion Campaign

[deadtorius]

Well lads looks like our haggis is supply is guaranteed for this month. Congratulations to general RBS. Let's hope the clans men don't forget whose in charge and reject the scented hanky waving kings men.

[KiwiWarlord]

Some of us, that's me down near Antarctica, can't compete with the speed that you Northern folk play.
If I am holding up the Campaign feel free to offer me a commission to the Commissariat allowing a local to lead my Lads.

[Blathergut]

Some of us, that's me down near Antarctica, can't compete with the speed that you Northern folk play.
If I am holding up the Campaign feel free to offer me a commission to the Commissariat allowing a local to lead my Lads.

No rush to anything at all. Glad to be beating on you!!!

[deadtorius]

I checked with the commisariat, I'm afraid they don't have any openings. Looks like you will have to continue to lead your lads, slowly if need be.

[Waldorf]

I am sorry to report that Parliament suffered losses in both the Mid-West (66/53) and Anglia (45/16). Congratulations to ironclad.

Prithee may I suggest I be given something more modest to protect, like perhaps the Outer Hebrides?

[Ironclad]

Thanks to Waldorf for such hard fought battles; the one in the Mid-West was incredibly close and I was very fortunate to win. Indeed I was speculating on the chance of a draw and went into the final turn convinced that Parliamentary success was on the cards. Results as noted above with differences of Mid-West (13%) and Anglia (29%) for the Royalists fielding Edgehill armies v Parliament's 42/43.

[Blathergut]

**Mid-Battle Note Scribbled Hastily from somewhere in the south-west.**

Not sure what Warlord is feeding his troops but even charging fragmented units they just stand there and take the beating! OiiIiiIiiIiii!!!!!!!!! Definitely need mid-battle bubblette!!!! My horse, my horse, my horse for a bubblette!!!!!...uh....wait....don't want to end up like that dude, now, do we??!!!??? Charges back in.

[Ironclad]

To reflect the Civil War's localism why don't we restrict movement to only one of a player's two commanders each turn; the other staying put. My original thought was to reduce CinC workload but with seven being an odd number and seven fixed commands reducing/hindering movement scope it might not help that much. However if this was introduced we could build in some extra flexibility by allowing a player's second commander to move by paying an extra 100 bonus points (this being additional to any normal movement bonus points cost).

[rbodleyscott]

Espionage
A Commander-in-Chief may add a note to his dispositions saying something along the lines of 'Using epionage this turn'. This costs 400 bonus points and allows the CiC to swap two opposing generals that are no more than two spaces apart.

Wouldn't it make more sense to be allowed to swap two of your own generals after seeing the enemy general dispositions? Or be allowed to reassign bonus points after seeing their dispositions.

[keyth]

Espionage
A Commander-in-Chief may add a note to his dispositions saying something along the lines of 'Using epionage this turn'. This costs 400 bonus points and allows the CiC to swap two opposing generals that are no more than two spaces apart.

Wouldn't it make more sense to be allowed to swap two of your own generals after seeing the enemy general dispositions? Or be allowed to reassign bonus points after seeing their dispositions.

Yes, it would - this is why I like to share my ideas that have been dreamed up in a haze of Kronenbourg while sat in a Parisian hotel

[keyth]

To reflect the Civil War's localism why don't we restrict movement to only one of a player's two commanders each turn; the other staying put. My original thought was to reduce CinC workload but with seven being an odd number and seven fixed commands reducing/hindering movement scope it might not help that much. However if this was introduced we could build in some extra flexibility by allowing a player's second commander to move by paying an extra 100 bonus points (this being additional to any normal movement bonus points cost).

I like the idea - will think on it and publish something soon

[Ironclad]

To reflect the Civil War's localism why don't we restrict movement to only one of a player's two commanders each turn; the other staying put. My original thought was to reduce CinC workload but with seven being an odd number and seven fixed commands reducing/hindering movement scope it might not help that much. However if this was introduced we could build in some extra flexibility by allowing a player's second commander to move by paying an extra 100 bonus points (this being additional to any normal movement bonus points cost).

I like the idea - will think on it and publish something soon

To compound this one could make these paired selections by die roll or equivalent with the CinC left with the power to overide a couple if he wishes. An alternative approach would be to let the CinC decide them but then use a die roll check to see if any are frustrated (ie reversing the movement/stay choice).

[KiwiWarlord]

**Mid-Battle Note Scribbled Hastily from somewhere in the south-west.**

Not sure what Warlord is feeding his troops but even charging fragmented units they just stand there and take the beating!

My Lads are fed Kiwi Marmite on Vogel's Bread with a generous coating of Kiwi Butter, washed down with generous tankards of Cloudy Bay Cab Sav. Helps the Boys chase all of those white hankies.....

[keyth]

**Mid-Battle Note Scribbled Hastily from somewhere in the south-west.**

Not sure what Warlord is feeding his troops but even charging fragmented units they just stand there and take the beating!

My Lads are fed Kiwi Marmite on Vogel's Bread with a generous coating of Kiwi Butter, washed down with generous tankard of Cloudy Bay Cab Sav. Helps the Boys chase all of those white hankies.....

Mmmmm, Cloudy Bay

[Blathergut]

Well, you're doing something right. I have no idea how units go from steady to broken in one turn just by seeing a unit break, and something like 6 or 8 units all went at once, with almost no enemy contact.

[ulysisgrunt]

Disaster!
My Parliamentary army was doing well.....
then we were tied....
then my entire center dissolved in one turn!!!
Ulysisgrunt 52; Doyley 25!

Aaargh!

[Doyley50]

Despite stiff resistance from the Parliamentarian General Ulysisgrunt's men, and initial success by the Roundhead cavalry on my left wing, Right prevailed and the traitors and rebels were scattered as chaff before the wind. The South West is in safe once more. God save the King!

[rbodleyscott]

Well, you're doing something right. I have no idea how units go from steady to broken in one turn just by seeing a unit break, and something like 6 or 8 units all went at once, with almost no enemy contact.

Fairly easily: Units test if an adjacent unit breaks and can drop up to 2 cohesion levels. If one of them breaks, any units adjacent to it test again (unlike in FOGR where they test only once when multiple nearby units break, with a negative modifier). So it is possible for units to go straight from steady to routed by seeing another unit rout as a result of the first rout.

This is working as designed - several units being swept away in panic when one is routed did happen quite frequently in historical battles.

[keyth]

To reflect the Civil War's localism why don't we restrict movement to only one of a player's two commanders each turn; the other staying put. My original thought was to reduce CinC workload but with seven being an odd number and seven fixed commands reducing/hindering movement scope it might not help that much. However if this was introduced we could build in some extra flexibility by allowing a player's second commander to move by paying an extra 100 bonus points (this being additional to any normal movement bonus points cost).

I like the idea - will think on it and publish something soon

To compound this one could make these paired selections by die roll or equivalent with the CinC left with the power to overide a couple if he wishes. An alternative approach would be to let the CinC decide them but then use a die roll check to see if any are frustrated (ie reversing the movement/stay choice).

Bundling a few ideas together that hopefully deliver on strategy while keeping management as light as possible:

Each player is a lord of one region controlled by his faction at the start of the campaign (we can shoehorn this in to the current campaign if we run with it) and will normally be the defender of that region. So each player will have one home and one away game each turn. A CiC can use espionage to switch defenders after dispositions have been made. Maybe have a points cost to permanently switch a local command?

If we introduce this then movement would only apply to the 'away' generals.

[Ironclad]

Looks good and the introduction of home regions allow scope for further deepening later if wanted/practicable .