The Great Rebellion Campaign

[Aryaman]

I have to say I am not happy with the idea of a draw result, I am afraid it could encourage that kind of waiting game you found. What I would like would be some kind of penalty for players unwilling to fight in an open battle, after all that is why it is an open battle and not an attack or defence battle., maybe a disruption effect for units not moving into contact.

[shawkhan2]

A short word from the dull and mirthless Cowards:

In our recent battle culminating in the defeat of the Rank Royalists under the Leadership of their renowned General Cavehobbit, some explanation may be in order.

We had lined up our army in a straight line awaiting the honorable onset of a frontal attack.
Instead, the dastardly Royalists began a march across the field of battle from our left to our extreme right flank.
At first I assumed they were retreating at the sight of our most righteous Host basking in the Glow of religious fervor. We took the opportunity indeed to begin our regular three hour service of morning mattins.

Instead of continuing off the field, the devious Cavehobbit ascended a hill and began a concentrated fire on the exposed corner of our lines, fearing to engage the majority of our troops. Who is the coward here, I would argue.

Breaking a few of my rightmost P&S, I fear that some of my men were sent to their creator not having finished their morning devotions.

Despairing of expecting honorable behavior from the decadent Royalists, we had decided to advance on both flanks to begin an encircling maneuver when certain Royalist musketeers advanced on us from the North waving their white hankies which we at first mistook for white flags of surrender. Holding our fire we were taken by surprise when intense musket fire was received instead of negotiations.

Angered by this dishonorable behavior our Noble(although commoners) troops advanced, gradually getting the upper hand, although our right flank was disorganized when Chuck's men sent some of their camp followers on to the field to cavort and caper about in their unmentionables. Naturally our men were forced to avert their eyes from this wanton display and so could not fire accurately, thus leading to their downfall.

As night fell, my men on the right flank refused to break, while my left flank troops continued to advance, breaking unit after unit of the despicable decadent would-be dictators detachments.

Unfortunately, just as the Royalist troops were running away in near panic, the time for evening vespers arrived and we were forced to delay final retribution for another time. Te Deum!

[KiwiWarlord]

Result from Central-West just in.

Royalist, 53%, defeat Parliament, 60%.

Hard fought encounter, no sitting behind hedges here...

[cavehobbit]

I have to say I am not happy with the idea of a draw result, I am afraid it could encourage that kind of waiting game you found. What I would like would be some kind of penalty for players unwilling to fight in an open battle, after all that is why it is an open battle and not an attack or defence battle., maybe a disruption effect for units not moving into contact.

I agree that a draw result might not be the best option in all cases. Especially if it would encourage players deploy their force far away from the enemy and then stay there, not trying to win. But in battles where there has been close and bloody fightings, where both sides have suffered nearly the same number of losses, then I think if would be hard to decide a winner. So in a game ending with losses of 50% vs 55% I see no problem with this being treated as a draw as both sides have lost such a large part of their army. But in games ending 0% vs 0% both could be treated as losers rather than having a draw as both sides have probably not tried to win. I remember a game you and I played in one of the first P&S tournaments, I think it ended 0% vs 0%. Neither of us wanted to risk attacking as the the terrain between our lines would be to disadvantage for the attacking side (that's at least how I interpreted the situation). Looking back I think we should have agreed to restart the game and hoped for a better map. I think such gentlemen agreements should be encouraged by tournament organisers to allow more fun battles
I don't have a solution to what conditions should tell if a game would end in a draw. All I say is that personally I think is that in some games both sides should be treated as winners, i.e. a draw, after having a close and hard fought battle.

[Aryaman]

Aryaman won 53% vs 60% Warlord (+7%)
General Aryaman reports from Central-West
We found the rebel army deployed for battle on a even terrain, ancored his left flank in some woods. After some exchange of volleys, a well executed attack by Warlord routed my entire left flank, cavaliers included. With my faith in victory rather shaken, I proceded with a determined attack with my right flank, fortunately my brave troops, after some slow progress, finally routed the enemy in front and turned to the center, and in a fierce exchange of blows with the enemy the just cause of our beloved sovereign prevailed. God save the king!

[Blathergut]

Sometimes a draw is more desirable (if, for example, you are sitting in a region with 1 or 2 points of fervor in your favour) than risking an attack at disadvantageous odds (like my last game with ids, where the parliament line was drawn up initially entirely behind hedges from far left flank to far right flank. I had no reason to plunge headlong into that.

[keyth]

All results are in! From the looks of things there were some properly good punch-ups

I am endeavouring to get the remaining admin done today so we are set for 1643...

[keyth]

OK, admin up to date and new rules and stuff added (highlighted in red in the first post). These are all pretty much still open for discussion!

A few further comments on the new stuff:

Each player has one region automatically assigned by virtue of their home region. Their CiC should assign their away/attacking army to a home region of the enemy faction. For Early 1643 general's away armies can be placed in any enemy region - no points costs to move for this turn.

Bonus points will be accrued from this turn forward.

Any questions, suggestions, etc please ask!

[Ironclad]

Thanks Keith. Will have a look at your new stuff shortly. Just to note that Mid-West result should be 4 (5-1 for Royalist victory).

[Ironclad]

Map updates. First of all a reminder of the position at Early 1642.

[Ironclad]

Here is Late 1642:

[keyth]

Thanks Keith. Will have a look at your new stuff shortly. Just to note that Mid-West result should be 4 (5-1 for Royalist victory).

Well spotted, thanks - typo on my part while moving numbers between tabs on the spreadsheet. Will update later on! I'm going to be moving to MS Access soon for single point of entry for results so errors like this should be avoided.

Liking the maps!

[Ironclad]

Thanks. Sorry just spotted another (correct on map) Lowlands droppped to 0 from -1 after the Parliamentary victory of 1. You have the results reversed in your table - the Scots won with 39% to the Royalists 45%.

[Doyley50]

Um,while looking very interesting, the new rules do seem a tad complicated. I wonder if I might be allowed to step down from my stint as C in C when the time comes?

[keyth]

No problem It's simpler than it sounds - probably needs a few examples!

[ulysisgrunt]

Looking at the map, perhaps I should check the ferry schedules out of Dover and look into some long-term leases in Amsterdam?

No! We re-enter the fray with greater resolve.

[keyth]

Thanks. Sorry just spotted another (correct on map) Lowlands droppped to 0 from -1 after the Parliamentary victory of 1. You have the results reversed in your table - the Scots won with 39% to the Royalists 45%.

Thanks for checking - that'll teach me to try to collate everything in a hurry! Will correct and re-publish later

[Ironclad]

Easy enough done - I did the same myself when tracking the results to update the map.

[shawkhan2]

I would think that the obvious solution to bloodless draws is to penalize the generals involved.
This was a time of Honour.
Any general refusing to fight when required would be chastised.
I think any battle with less than 5% overall casualties on either side should result in the general losing one point of his score, and the size force he is allowed to recruit for his next battle could be lowered, as a general lacking charisma, not to mention machismo, would be unlikely to recruit as well as a general of renown. This would affect both generals in a battle. My one draw result with minimal casualties I found the least exciting game I have ever played and would like to avoid it in the future if possible.

Rather than the complicated system of bonus points proposed, it might be easier to allow higher-ranking generals to simply recruit more troops, perhaps 5 points worth per each point of his score?

As far as movement is concerned, armies would march all over the area in a campaign season, although I think they would have greater attrition in unfriendly areas.The movement system proposed confuses me no end as it now stands.

Using the home region system, a simple attrition system based on the distance from the home region might be more appropriate.

Just brainstorming here, so feel free to disagree.

[rbodleyscott]

Rather than the complicated system of bonus points proposed, it might be easier to allow higher-ranking generals to simply recruit more troops, perhaps 5 points worth per each point of his score?

That would make it impossible for lower ranked generals to beat them. (And the program will only allow the points to be altered in multiples of 100).