100 YW Campaign - Battle Phase

[Scarz]

I understood it to be we are limited to the specific number of armies. So:

Luxembourg will always have one army maximum on the board. Burgundy also just one. Otherwise, it would be like the LW campaign with endless hordes of armies everywhere.

Can we recruit 4 times in a year? Or just in winter?

Thats correct, the army limit is the maximum number of armies you can have on the map at any one time.

You can recruit 4 times a year, as long as the army is on a home province or allied province.

Winter is when you collect your income from taxes.

[Scarz]

Hmmm. I thought the limits mentioned were for the campaign. Scar?

Yes, army max is the maximum per kingdom. So for example France gets a max of three. England a max of two. Most of the larger Kingdoms like Normandy and Burgundy (but not now, Lorraine takes one leaving Burgundy with just one)get two. The smaller provinces just get one army.

[Scarz]

Ah, reading again it seems that it is the maximum, but if you had built less than the maximum at the opening of the campaign you could build the other armies later. Maybe it's possible to lose an army? And it would certainly be possible to disband an army, so that would explain the 100SM build cost.

Correct on both counts here. If you built less than your max at the begining, you can build the others in recruitment phase. If you lose an army, there are times this could happen, then you would be forced to form a new one, pay the fee to form an army, and then 2 silver per build point. Once built, your upkeep is one silver per build point, but each kingdom gets a certain number of free points equal to their original build amounts. For example, Genoa started with 400 build points, thus only pays upkeep on 401 and above. So if they have a 500 point army, they pay 100 sm in upkeep.

[Scarz]

Sorry for being quiet on the forum all day, when there were lots of questions, just got home!

[hidde]

You can recruit 4 times a year, as long as the army is on a home province or allied province.

Must it stay in that province for the turn or can it move? Or must it be in a friendly province at the start of a turn or at the end of a move?

[Scarz]

You can recruit 4 times a year, as long as the army is on a home province or allied province.

Must it stay in that province for the turn or can it move? Or must it be in a friendly province at the start of a turn or at the end of a move?

Just has to be in the home or allied province during the phase. So, you could move from an enemy province to a home province during the movement phase, then recruit in the following recruitment phase.

[Scarz]

RULE QUESTIONS

I just wanted to clarify a few rules, as we are getting some questions as we go. I know everything sounds a bit confusing right now, but I think by the end of this season or the next, everyone will have the hang of the rules. Also, there are a few things that you guys keep thinking of that never occured to me. So as we go, I may have to make rulings and do things that are not specifically in the rules. Please know I will make them in the interest of simplicity and to try and stay with the flavor of our 100YW campaign. And thanks for all your patience, everyone has been great as we have gotten moving, off like a herd of turtles!

Armies: Each kingdom is limited to the number of armies. Some kingdoms, like France, get three, some bigger kingdoms get two, and most get only one. The list of how many a kingdom gets is in the rules.

Also, the turn sequence for each season is as follows:

1. Declare alliance
2. movement
3. battles
4. retreats
5. pay upkeep
6. income (only in winter seasons)
7. recruitment

We will follow the sequence very strictly as eveyone gets the hang of it. Once we are all more familiar with the rules, I expect we will move through them much faster. Also, once everyone sees how for example retreats work, then when the battle ends. the battle losers might send me the province they will retreat to with the battle report. Then we can move quickly past that phase.

As always, please ask if you ever have a question.

Mark

[Blathergut]

SO, just to be certain:

Upkeep is paid in winter before income is collect? So if I did not have enough $$ to pay upkeep, thikning my new income would cover it, I'd end up losing part of my army before income actually came in?

[Scarz]

SO, just to be certain:

Upkeep is paid in winter before income is collect? So if I did not have enough $$ to pay upkeep, thikning my new income would cover it, I'd end up losing part of my army before income actually came in?

Yes, upkeep comes before income for winter season. I think you guys will all find that there is insufficient money this first year to grow your armies to really much more than what you start with. I think when I calculated a small Kingdom, of 400 build points and an 800 silver treasury, they could support 125 new points for this first year. Thats if no troops were lost, which would reduce the costs of seasonal upkeep, no one pillaged their provinces, which would cost money, and they didn't spend any money on a seige or such.

But the next winter, when the new war taxes have been imposed, everyone will feel fairly rich. Say Burgundy for example, counting Lorraine, will get 2200 silver, not counting Lorriane 1500. I have not calculated it out, but looks like they could easily get 200 build points added to their army. That would cost 400 in startup costs, and 200 season x four seasons for a total of 1200. They woulkd then have a surplus of 300 for sieges etc.

Money should be tight, as there was never enough in the 100YW, and it will take a bit of planning on each kingdoms part to make sure they can afford the troops they hire/recruit.

Also, I suspect that some kingdoms might decide to max out their armies, march them off for an immediate attack thinking they will lose lots of troops and not have to pay as much in upkeep. But what if the enemy refuses battle, and just marches off? Then you will get stuck with paying those troops, and it could wipe out the kingdom's treasury in one or two seasons.

[Blathergut]

k..much clearer now...thanks for the detailed explanations!!

[deadtorius]

Hmmm perhaps Scar was more devious with our accounting than we had thought at first. I see that you have cleverly made it so we will be forced to take breaks in the conflict just as our historical counterparts did. From what I have read long term wars generally bankrupted the countries involved, sometimes carrying those financial difficulties on to the next generation or so.

[RyanDG]

Hmmm perhaps Scar was more devious with our accounting than we had thought at first. I see that you have cleverly made it so we will be forced to take breaks in the conflict just as our historical counterparts did. From what I have read long term wars generally bankrupted the countries involved, sometimes carrying those financial difficulties on to the next generation or so.

There's a very specific reason why I only took 1 army to start as opposed to the two I had available.

[Scarz]

Hmmm perhaps Scar was more devious with our accounting than we had thought at first. I see that you have cleverly made it so we will be forced to take breaks in the conflict just as our historical counterparts did. From what I have read long term wars generally bankrupted the countries involved, sometimes carrying those financial difficulties on to the next generation or so.

I hope so, its all part of the master plan...

I really wanted Kingdoms to have to save a bit of money before they marched off on any grand campaigns. Just keeping the army paid, and supplied in seiges can bankrupt you if your not careful, even if the enemy was no where in sight.

I am also reserving the right to further diminish income for everyone if it seems there is too much being spread around as we go.

I think you hit it right on the head about the stops and starts of the 100YW. Say England for example, might raise a grand army after prolonged inactivity and money raising, then march off for a couple seasons, only to go limping home, having accomplished very little. Then they would lick their wounds for a while, save up the money needed for more recruits and mercenaries and supplies, then go off on another campaign.

[Aryaman]

An army retreats into a castle after a battle and the enemy start besieging it, can it recruit that same season in the besieged province? what about following seasons?

[Scarz]

An army retreats into a castle after a battle and the enemy start besieging it, can it recruit that same season in the besieged province? what about following seasons?

This is one I have struggled with, and to be honest have not decided what the best answer is to the situation. The rules are silent on this, and there is a chance we might get an odd or unfair result here to a player in games terms. Maybe we should open this up for some opinions from everyone.

It seems the answer should be no, if your under seige, you don't get to recruit. But that will really hurt a small kingdom that has only one army, as they are dependant upon an ally to come to their aid. But, I think this is the only way to work it, otherwise the army that retreats into a castle will just poor a bunch of points into their army, and then sally out and attack the besieger.

What do you guys think?

[Aryaman]

An army retreats into a castle after a battle and the enemy start besieging it, can it recruit that same season in the besieged province? what about following seasons?

But, I think this is the only way to work it, otherwise the army that retreats into a castle will just poor a bunch of points into their army, and then sally out and attack the besieger.

What do you guys think?

That is exactly what I think, other than that the only solution I can think is that we could limit recruitment to winter season

[Scarz]

An army retreats into a castle after a battle and the enemy start besieging it, can it recruit that same season in the besieged province? what about following seasons?

But, I think this is the only way to work it, otherwise the army that retreats into a castle will just poor a bunch of points into their army, and then sally out and attack the besieger.
What do you guys think?

That is exactly what I think, other than that the only solution I can think is that we could limit recruitment to winter season

Even if we limit recruitment to winter, the beseiged kingdom would still get to load up their army during the four season timeframe for seige success and sally out. I guess if you retreat into a castle your in dire strights, and will be calling for aid, or maybe you lost a close battle, and plan on resuming the fight next turn with the besieging army and didn't want to retreat out of the province.

I will give this question a bit more time to get some more opinions, but I think the best way is to say no to recruitment for besieged armies. Also, the rule for upkeep halves income for a besieged province as it is, so it makes sense to me.

[Amaz_Ed]

I don't really see that not allowing recruitment in a province that is under seige is a problem. You mention small factions having only one army, but isn't this the point of the diplomatic aspect of the game? Allies will not only want to make sure that they are not weakened by the loss of an ally, they will almost always be keen to pin down a besieging army between themselves and the besieged forces. I see the race to relieve, or stop the relief of, a besieged army being one of the more exciting parts of the campaign.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't really see that not allowing recruitment in a province that is under seige is a problem. You mention small factions having only one army, but isn't this the point of the diplomatic aspect of the game? Allies will not only want to make sure that they are not weakened by the loss of an ally, they will almost always be keen to pin down a besieging army between themselves and the besieged forces. I see the race to relieve, or stop the relief of, a besieged army being one of the more exciting parts of the campaign.

As a small power caught up in the affairs of the mighty, we do not want to anger w our opinions, however methinks it makes sense that a besieged army cannot recruit.
Lord Bar

[Scarz]

I don't really see that not allowing recruitment in a province that is under seige is a problem. You mention small factions having only one army, but isn't this the point of the diplomatic aspect of the game? Allies will not only want to make sure that they are not weakened by the loss of an ally, they will almost always be keen to pin down a besieging army between themselves and the besieged forces. I see the race to relieve, or stop the relief of, a besieged army being one of the more exciting parts of the campaign.

Good points. And I agree.