Slitherine

Geffalrus and I have also looked at other ways of promoting aggressive behaviour in the games through adjusting the victory conditions and the introduction of a simple Glory concept for us Diadochi being Alexander wannabes. What do you guys think?

Ending and winning the tournament

• A player who doesn’t control any satrapies has lost and is irrevocably eliminated from the tournament, independent of his Glory.

• The tournament ends as soon as at least one of the following conditions (whichever is the earlier) is fulfilled at the end of a round:
  1. a player controls more than half of the satrapies (i.e., 13 or more), with that player being the winner of the tournament, or
  2. the C-in-C of all non-eliminated players have fallen (at least once) in battle, with the non-eliminated player having the highest Glory being the winner of the tournament.

• In the case of both 1 and 2 having been fulfilled, condition 1 will determine the winner of the tournament.

• Glory aims at reflecting that the Diadochi were all men trying to be like Alexander the Great, and part of his mystique was due to his vast and daring conquests and victories as well as his bravery in battle. As such, they are fighting in the vain pursuit of intangibles like fame and reputation, not only of land and satrapies.

• Players therefore accumulate Glory at the end of each round, as follows:
  • from each battle that the player has fought that round:
    • inflicted casualties, plus
    • 40 if he was the victor of the battle, plus
    • 10 if his C-in-C fell in battle.
  • from each Satrapy that the player controls:
    • 5.

In the original rules the incentive was to keep the C in C safe, with this there is an advantage to having him killed. Shouldn't it be an advantage to kill the enemy C in C and preserve your own ?
The Glory for battles gives a potential advantage to the player who is attacked most, maybe it is not important but I think the rules were fine as they were.

tyronec wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 9:19 am In the original rules the incentive was to keep the C in C safe, with this there is an advantage to having him killed. Shouldn't it be an advantage to kill the enemy C in C and preserve your own ?

It's that paradox of the Diadochi attempting to emulate Alexander the Great and his famed courage (recklessness?) in battle that we looked at capturing when tinkering with the new victory conditions. Sure, you gain some Score if the C-in-C gets killed, but on the other hand there's a clear disadvantage in the actual battle. Delicate balance...

tyronec wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 9:19 am The Glory for battles gives a potential advantage to the player who is attacked most.

That's a valid point: maybe the average of all battles a player fought in a round (instead of the sum).

tyronec wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 9:19 am In the original rules the incentive was to keep the C in C safe, with this there is an advantage to having him killed. Shouldn't it be an advantage to kill the enemy C in C and preserve your own ?
The Glory for battles gives a potential advantage to the player who is attacked most, maybe it is not important but I think the rules were fine as they were.

Just to add additional context - the Diadochi were all men trying quite literally to be another Alexander. To that end, they needed to try and be as close to him as possible. We can't really model Leonnatus being related to him, or everyone trying to marry his sister Cleopatra, but we can model how the Hellenistic model of generalship was to lead from the front and get into the fighting. Alexander was famous not just for leading the charge, but also for the wounds he took. So in my mind, losing your CinC represents your general taking a wound major enough to remove him from the battle. Taking a wound is clear proof of the general being in combat, and thus incentivizes the player to risk their CinC and take advantage of that 50 poa and cohesion proximity boost.

You're right in pointing out that the previous incentive was to keep your CinC safe, but this doesn't match how generals in this period operated. Leading from the front was certainly risky, but the rewards presumably outweighed that risk. At the Battle of the Hellespont, Craterus led from the front because he believed that no Macedonian would dare attack him and would instead switch sides. Unfortunately Eumenes countered by sending only Cappadochian nobles against him. At the same time, Eumenes and Neoptolemus sought each other out on the battlefield and dueled each other to the death, presumably because they just really hated each other. So this point reward for losing your CinC is our attempt to both encourage aggressive CinC use and replicate aggressive generalship in this era.

In general, Glory is supposed to represent some of the non-territory dynamics of conflict in this time civil war. Everyone's goal was to prove themselves to be The Strongest and thus the clear heir to Alexander's Empire (or at least the clear regent for his son). Showing yourself to be brave and glorious had important benefits off the battlefield. In the cutthroat world of the Diadochi, an impressively brave Successor could find themselves attracting large numbers of mercenaries, marriage offers from royal family members, and even switching the allegiance of whole Macedonian pike divisions.

In game terms, Glory is also supposed to pull in some of the competitive dynamics we saw in tourneys like the Digital League and TDC. My own experience was that the pursuit of points made players more willing to be aggressive instead of passive. It was better to fight and potentially win between 10 and 40 points, rather than sit for a draw and get 0.

The Glory points system is fine with me.

The bonus for having your general killed I am not in favor of. It is not historical, a faction which lost their leader would be disadvantaged by the succession and having the new guy take over. And it could well have an odd impact during battles if players on occasions are trying to get their C in C killed.

If you could come up with something where players benefited from leaders performing heroic acts then all well and good, but I can't see how to do that without a game mod.

tyronec wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:50 am The bonus for having your general killed I am not in favor of. It is not historical, a faction which lost their leader would be disadvantaged by the succession and having the new guy take over.

It is not literally him getting killed. "Only" wounded and incapacitated for the duration of the battle.

tyronec wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:50 am And it could well have an odd impact during battles if players on occasions are trying to get their C in C killed.

Sure, why not? It would benefit them with 10 Score but may well cause negative effects in the battle itself, outweighing those 10 Score. And as we all know the hard way who have been playing An Empire in Flames , it's easier said than done to get a C-in-C killed when you want to. To a large extent stochastic, but seems to occur more frequently when you don't want to.

Anyway, we'll see how it turns out.

tyronec wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 9:50 am The Glory points system is fine with me.

The bonus for having your general killed I am not in favor of. It is not historical, a faction which lost their leader would be disadvantaged by the succession and having the new guy take over. And it could well have an odd impact during battles if players on occasions are trying to get their C in C killed.

If you could come up with something where players benefited from leaders performing heroic acts then all well and good, but I can't see how to do that without a game mod.

To be clear, I would also much prefer a system that rewarded the risking, rather than the death of the CinC. However, that's just not possible within the limitations of the game. We'd need something like a passive Glory generation each round of combat for the CinC, which is a pretty major mod. To rationalize the appearance of the CinC dying, we can look at it through the lens of the Battle of Heraclea wherein Pyrrhus of Epirus lent his distinctive armor to a trusted subordinate, that man was targeted by the Romans and killed, leading to some disorder in the Epeirote army. It took Pyrrhus revealing himself in person to stabilize the situation. In game terms that seems like having a CinC death but then passing all the cohesion checks. Viewing the CinC death as a wound similar to Alexander taking an arrow assaulting a Sogdian city would also be an option.

From a practical standpoint, you're not getting a ton of points from intentionally losing your CinC compared to what you risk from losing the battle. I've done my best to murder Aetius39's CinC in all of our battles in the AEIF, and all I've gotten for my troubles is my own CinC stubbing his toe and dying during a victorious round of combat.

No disagreement with you on the historicals and that the leaders were important in this period.
The other rule changes I can live with but am not keen on fighting battles where there a bonus for getting your own C in C killed and a penalty for killing the opponents one.

tyronec wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 3:19 pm No disagreement with you on the historicals and that the leaders were important in this period.
The other rule changes I can live with but am not keen on fighting battles where there a bonus for getting your own C in C killed and a penalty for killing the opponents one.

You feel really strongly about this?

Well I wouldn't have entered for the campaign with the proposed C in C rule.

tyronec wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:05 pm Well I wouldn't have entered for the campaign with the proposed C in C rule.

That particular part is not such a big issue for me, so let's skip it then.

Thanks.

I'm fine with skipping as well. It's not exactly crucial for the Glory system to work.

Map 1

Armchairbaron's army of Indike defeated Ulysisgrunt's army of Paropamisadai by 19 points. Score 64-45.
My CinC has fallen in battle.

My army from Areia invaded Karmania and defeated Armchairbaron 62-48.
excellent game.

kronenblatt attacks Armchairbaron using the army of Aigyptos with Arab allies. Attacker satrapy Persis, defender satrapy Parthyaia.

=> kronenblatt defeats Armchairbaron 60-38.

Aetius39 attacks tyronec using the army of Karmania. Attacker satrapy Karmania, defender satrapy Persis.

The score in this battle is standing even at 22-22, though I would say that Aetius has the advantage.
Screenshot attached at the start of my turn.
I can play it out, however we are only up to turn 12.

tyronec wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:19 pm

Aetius39 attacks tyronec using the army of Karmania. Attacker satrapy Karmania, defender satrapy Persis.

The score in this battle is standing even at 22-22, though I would say that Aetius has the advantage.
Screenshot attached at the start of my turn.
I can play it out, however we are only up to turn 12.
Pikes.jpg

How many turns per turn can the two of you manage going forward, you think?

Well at the present rate of play it could take quite a while. I can commit to making a move a day, not more for now with the TDC about to start.
My preference would be to adjudicate it, I am likely going to lose the province anyway so a loss or a draw makes little difference.

tyronec wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:17 pm Well at the present rate of play it could take quite a while. I can commit to making a move a day, not more for now with the TDC about to start.
My preference would be to adjudicate it, I am likely going to lose the province anyway so a loss or a draw makes little difference.

One turn per day each is fine, so you can continue. Then we’ll take a summer break anyway.