76mm wrote:I also wanted to make a suggestion about independent attacks...frankly, under currently rules they are pretty pointless, because most of the independent armies cannot be expected to defeat one of the empire armies in a straight-up fight--their main chance is if the player/empire attacks them in unfavorable terrain.
The problem is that the player/empire has no incentive to attack at all in these battles--if he just sits back and gets a draw, that leaves the status quo, which is fine with him, and certainly better than a defeat.
But if you think about what these independent attacks are supposed to represent--I think they are meant to represent raids on the player/empire's economy, not a deliberate attack on the player/empire's main army. In this case, it is the player/empire that needs a win--to drive the raiders/invaders from his territory--not the independent attacker. If the player/empire does not defeat the independent invaders in battle, then he should suffer loss in gold representing the continued ravaging of his countryside by the undefeated invader. Also, it might make sense that any independent attack which is launched costs the defending player/empire X gold, to represent the countryside being ravaged before the arrival of the main army. When the army arrives and does not defeat the independent invader, more gold would be lost as described above.
In other words, give the player/empire an incentive to attack and win in these battles rather than sit back and get a draw. Otherwise, there is not really any point in launching an independent attack.
The reasoning of 76mm is substantially correct.
At the moment we've had only three independent attacks because they're quite costly and don't give the players who launches them any direct advantage, allowing only the loss of the defeated player's province in the case of a succesfull attack.
A first flaw in the rules I found reviewing them after the remarks of 76mm is that the defending players should also loose 1 stability pt. and 30t, as it always happens in the other cases of a defeat leading to the loss of a province.
A second flaw is that the attacker should gain something for a victory. Given the fact that this kind of attacks are substantially managed by an independent province it would prove senseless to give money to the player because the plunder wouldn't have been made by his army. But, having sponsored the attack as an ally and supporter of the independent province, it should seem fair to give him a +1 prestige level bonus and also a +1VP for having led the independent army to victory.
At the same time, observing that a land attack which costs 60t may deliver a +4 VP and a +1 stability pt., it should be necessary to lower the cost of independent attacks, which may allow to collect only a +1 prestige level bonus and a +1VP, respectively, from 40 to 20, from 50 to 25, from 60 to 30 and from 80 to 40.
This rule change, as a whole, should make independent attacks much more viable, spicing a lot the game!
