Re: DiSp: Dividing the Spoils - Tournament 1
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:31 am
And your satrapy-at-stake is then Phrygia.
Karvon: Which army will you be using?
deeter: it's your turn now.deeter wrote:
And your satrapy-at-stake is then Phrygia.
Karvon: Which army will you be using?
deeter: it's your turn now.deeter wrote:
Seems OKkronenblatt wrote:Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:51 pm Hello guys.
The first tournament of Dividing the Spoils is (or may be) approaching its end now. Personally this has been a really fun and exciting tournament (hope you've liked it too!) but there's always room and need for improvement, so I'd like to hear from you what you liked and didn't like (along with constructive suggestions). Among the specific aspects that are under review to be changed for next tournament are the following:
1. Declaration orders to be determined by incurred (i.e., suffered) casualties, with the lower the value, the earlier the declaration. (Currently inflicted casualties are used.)
I am against this, because, though it might be realistic, it is a positive feedback mechanism which will be depressing for a player who already probably lost a province last round. If anything, the system should put dampers on the conquerors, not punish the player who lost a province. (This is from a game design point of view, not a realism point of view). Plus it is a PITA to have to remember to set up a battle with unequal points.2. A player's Force Points (FP) in a round's battle(s) to be adjusted somewhat by his incurred casualties in the battles of the previous round. (Currently FP are fixed at 1600.)
I am not too bothered either way about this one.3. A player defending against several enemy coalition partners will be able to gain the attacker's satrapy-at-stake, if he's the victor in at least one of the battles and the loser in none. (Currently he needs to be victor in all battles.)
I don't like this one.4. Coalitions to be more dynamic and less rigid in the sense that they can be entered and abandoned instantaneously within a round or maybe not even formalised, just involving aiding other players' attacks; allowing more dynamic diplomacy á la the DIPLOMACY board game. (Currently changes are becoming effective the round after having been announced.)
I don't like this one. I really like the wonky armies in the current version. They are also almost certainly more realistic for the early wars of the diadochi.5. Armies to a larger extent be based on Macedonian/Hellenistic units, still with regional variations and each satrapy army being unique. (Currently some satrapy armies consists very little of Macedonian/Hellenistic units.) For your convenience, a suggestion can be downloaded HERE, to be extracted into the CAMPAIGNS folder for single-player.
Use the realistic province type, don't artificially make the terrain easier. It is also worth noting that the wonky army lists in the current version are admirably suited to dealing with any type of terrain.6. Choice of map terrain to be agricultural to a larger extent in more satrapies. (Currently only one alternative per satrapy, and only 6 out of 24 are agricultural; 2 being steppe, and 2 desert.)
Thanks, Richard. Any suggestions on changes or other thoughts?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:23 pm Response to Andréas's questionnaire:
Seems OKkronenblatt wrote:Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:51 pm Hello guys.
The first tournament of Dividing the Spoils is (or may be) approaching its end now. Personally this has been a really fun and exciting tournament (hope you've liked it too!) but there's always room and need for improvement, so I'd like to hear from you what you liked and didn't like (along with constructive suggestions). Among the specific aspects that are under review to be changed for next tournament are the following:
1. Declaration orders to be determined by incurred (i.e., suffered) casualties, with the lower the value, the earlier the declaration. (Currently inflicted casualties are used.)
I am against this, because, though it might be realistic, it is a positive feedback mechanism which will be depressing for a player who already probably lost a province last round. If anything, the system should put dampers on the conquerors, not punish the player who lost a province. (This is from a game design point of view, not a realism point of view). Plus it is a PITA to have to remember to set up a battle with unequal points.2. A player's Force Points (FP) in a round's battle(s) to be adjusted somewhat by his incurred casualties in the battles of the previous round. (Currently FP are fixed at 1600.)
You could just as easily say that the conqueror (who presumably had smaller losses) should lose points for his next battle because he has to garrison the conquered territory!
Much easier on everyone to simply ignore this issue and use equal points armies throughout.
I am not too bothered either way about this one.3. A player defending against several enemy coalition partners will be able to gain the attacker's satrapy-at-stake, if he's the victor in at least one of the battles and the loser in none. (Currently he needs to be victor in all battles.)
I don't like this one.4. Coalitions to be more dynamic and less rigid in the sense that they can be entered and abandoned instantaneously within a round or maybe not even formalised, just involving aiding other players' attacks; allowing more dynamic diplomacy á la the DIPLOMACY board game. (Currently changes are becoming effective the round after having been announced.)
I don't like this one. I really like the wonky armies in the current version. They are also almost certainly more realistic for the early wars of the diadochi.5. Armies to a larger extent be based on Macedonian/Hellenistic units, still with regional variations and each satrapy army being unique. (Currently some satrapy armies consists very little of Macedonian/Hellenistic units.) For your convenience, a suggestion can be downloaded HERE, to be extracted into the CAMPAIGNS folder for single-player.
Use the realistic province type, don't artificially make the terrain easier. It is also worth noting that the wonky army lists in the current version are admirably suited to dealing with any type of terrain.6. Choice of map terrain to be agricultural to a larger extent in more satrapies. (Currently only one alternative per satrapy, and only 6 out of 24 are agricultural; 2 being steppe, and 2 desert.)
Any particular sources for that?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:23 pm... I really like the wonky armies in the current version. They are also almost certainly more realistic for the early wars of the diadochi...kronenblatt wrote:Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:51 pm 5. Armies to a larger extent be based on Macedonian/Hellenistic units, still with regional variations and each satrapy army being unique. (Currently some satrapy armies consists very little of Macedonian/Hellenistic units.) For your convenience, a suggestion can be downloaded HERE, to be extracted into the CAMPAIGNS folder for single-player.
Not really, but Seleukos in his early days certainly seems to have raised a lot of local troops to supplement the few Macedonian troops he had available. I don't really know about the western satrapies, but I suspect the current lists aren't far off for the Eastern satrapies.kronenblatt wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:56 pmAny particular sources for that?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:23 pm... I really like the wonky armies in the current version. They are also almost certainly more realistic for the early wars of the diadochi...kronenblatt wrote:Sun Feb 21, 2021 12:51 pm 5. Armies to a larger extent be based on Macedonian/Hellenistic units, still with regional variations and each satrapy army being unique. (Currently some satrapy armies consists very little of Macedonian/Hellenistic units.) For your convenience, a suggestion can be downloaded HERE, to be extracted into the CAMPAIGNS folder for single-player.
OK, which were your scores when concluding the game as a draw?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:56 am rbodleyscott and Deeter have agreed a draw in Media.
rbodleyscott the More Cautious
It was actually 9-3 in my favour, if you need to know the score. We managed to trap and rout a couple of his non-light units.