Slitherine

Lysimachos wrote: About what to do of the game already played with a 16 turn limit or still ongoing with this rule I remain open to every of your suggestions (remake the games or count them as valid).

I suggest that already completed games be left as is, and any on-going short games be completed, but any new games go back to the standard length/victory conditions.

As to the original "no-fight" issue, it would be good to have an understanding of how this will be addressed in future games. I think there might need to be different rules governing whether a player/empire is fighting on his own territory, or attacking another...not sure.

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.

76mm wrote:I also wanted to make a suggestion about independent attacks...snip....

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.

I agree, I have very little hope of beating the Seleucid army with the independent province armies available, and there is no direct benefit to me of such an attack if I succeed (indeed it will cost me money which is probably wasted). However the benefit is the possibility of reducing the number of provinces owned by that player plus they do lose some money.

Victory for Rome in Apulia after a tough fight before the valiant foe conceded.

Thanks Trogilus for a good game.

I think the whole concept of independents is in the root of the problem, palyers sometimes are forced to pick armies they don't like, and then even if you are defeated you don't lose anything.
So I concur with 76mm that some incentive is required for the players to play for victory. I would like to add some other ideas.
Make victory conditions the same for all matches, so a player playing an independent takes 2 vps for victory
Draws would be penalized /1 for each player, so you don't gain anything by sitting in the corner of the map

Thank you for inviting me to occupy the throne of Ptolemy.
I take up the challenge.
What is expected of me today?
Many thanks
Danny Weitz

Ulysisgrunt wrote:Thank you for inviting me to occupy the throne of Ptolemy.
I take up the challenge.
What is expected of me today?
Many thanks
Danny Weitz

Welcome Danny!
Your ascension to the throne of the Ptolemies put you in command of one of the mightiest nations in play at the moment, given the outstanding results achieved by devoncop.
All the rules are on page 1 of the thread as also the actual situation of the kingdom, that I summarize also here:

Ptolemaic Kingdom
(ulysisgrunt/Milano)
Political Assets
Stability +7
Prestige +3
Talents 210
Buildings
Academies
Temples
Paved Roads
Military Assets
Fortifications in Marmarica
Fleet in Marmarica
Fortifications in Cyrenaica
Victory Points
Bt 8 / PA 10 / Bg 2 / MA 3 / Total 23

No actions are ongoing at the moment so you are allowed to launch:
- 1 land or amphibious attack,
- 1 independent or external attack,
- any other move of your pleasure.

Good luck!

Aryaman wrote:I think the whole concept of independents is in the root of the problem, palyers sometimes are forced to pick armies they don't like, and then even if you are defeated you don't lose anything.
So I concur with 76mm that some incentive is required for the players to play for victory. I would like to add some other ideas.
Make victory conditions the same for all matches, so a player playing an independent takes 2 vps for victory
Draws would be penalized /1 for each player, so you don't gain anything by sitting in the corner of the map

I don't think there's any need for an extra motive for players to play for victory, after all if you pay a lot of money to be allowed to attack from that province and if you win the enemy player suffers a loss of money and a province and victory point penalty. I also think that forcing players to use rubbish armies is great, I'd never see them on the battlefield otherwise! It was fun fighting two lots of rubbish infantry vs each other.

vakarr wrote:...and if you win the enemy player suffers a loss of money and a province and victory point penalty.

But that's the point--for most of the independent armies, attacking one of the "imperial" armies is an exercise in futility, you are not going to win if the imperial player decides he wants to play for a draw. And he has no incentive to do otherwise.

76mm wrote:

vakarr wrote:...and if you win the enemy player suffers a loss of money and a province and victory point penalty.

But that's the point--for most of the independent armies, attacking one of the "imperial" armies is an exercise in futility, you are not going to win if the imperial player decides he wants to play for a draw. And he has no incentive to do otherwise.

Would like to see how that is done on an open battlefield. Even with significant terrain, usually any troops sitting in a corner facing in two directions should be seen as an invitation to attack them.

vakarr wrote:

Aryaman wrote:I think the whole concept of independents is in the root of the problem, palyers sometimes are forced to pick armies they don't like, and then even if you are defeated you don't lose anything.
So I concur with 76mm that some incentive is required for the players to play for victory. I would like to add some other ideas.
Make victory conditions the same for all matches, so a player playing an independent takes 2 vps for victory
Draws would be penalized /1 for each player, so you don't gain anything by sitting in the corner of the map

I don't think there's any need for an extra motive for players to play for victory, after all if you pay a lot of money to be allowed to attack from that province and if you win the enemy player suffers a loss of money and a province and victory point penalty. I also think that forcing players to use rubbish armies is great, I'd never see them on the battlefield otherwise! It was fun fighting two lots of rubbish infantry vs each other.

If you play to defend a province you win simply by not losing, I think fighting should be encouraged in that case.
BTW what about those gloriouspastures, I don´t see your challenge, did you set it up?

After a brief encounter during which the defending Mountain Indian army made good use of some patches of rough terrain distributed all over the battlefield the Graeco Bactrians attacking Gandhara withdrew to their homeland.

The independent province is therefore still free.

76mm wrote:As to the original "no-fight" issue, it would be good to have an understanding of how this will be addressed in future games. I think there might need to be different rules governing whether a player/empire is fighting on his own territory, or attacking another...not sure.

The issue has already been fixed some days ago changing the rule on the matter in this way:
"When the battle ends with a draw or if there has been no close combat between non lights troops in the first 6 turns and the attackers calls off his attack, the attacking nation will earn 30t for ravaging the country, taking them from the treasury of the attacked province if it is in the ownership of one of the players."

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!

76mm wrote:I suggest that already completed games be left as is, and any on-going short games be completed, but any new games go back to the standard length/victory conditions.

That's sensible and we'll do so!

Aryaman wrote:I think the whole concept of independents is in the root of the problem, players sometimes are forced to pick armies they don't like, and then even if you are defeated you don't lose anything.
So I concur with 76mm that some incentive is required for the players to play for victory. I would like to add some other ideas.
Make victory conditions the same for all matches, so a player playing an independent takes 2 vps for victory
Draws would be penalized /1 for each player, so you don't gain anything by sitting in the corner of the map

Also this statements are substantially correct and I think that they will be addressed with the same rule changes I mentioned above.
Draws are already penalized by gaining no VP so on this subject I don't think there will be any change.

Aryaman wrote:

vakarr wrote:
Challenges created for Varity (Cappadocia vs Pontus) and Aryaman (Galatians vs Seleucids), password gloriouspastures

Sorry, I can´t see your challenge

Sorry challenge created

Ptolemaics are invading Phoenicia!!!

Ulysisgrunt wrote:Ptolemaics are invading Phoenicia!!!

Though in this case is obvious, the attacker has always to declare from which of his province the attack is coming.
The task of defending Phoenicia falls, in alphabetical order, to Aryaman.

The caravan of the pious pilgrims coming from Arachosia has finally reached the major city of Paropamisadae where it was welcomed by the feasting populations.
Some bad mannered mountaineers tried to ruin the peaceful atmosphere but were beaten 40% to 13% in the plains at the foot of Himalaya by a terrifying charge of elephants and with the help of the Gods that inspired fear in their gloomy hearts.
The caravan will now rest for a while preaching the doctrines of the Buddha and waiting orders from Ashoka the Great, Emperor of the Mauryans.