100 YW Campaign - Battle Phase

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

If any place are left I would like to take one!!

[Scarz]

I would like to participate in this campaign. A regulation be published?. At the moment know the game mechanics.

Thanks

Welcome to the campaign.

[Scarz]

[quote="76mm"]If any small neutral countries are available I guess I'll take one.[/quot

I am happy to see you decided to join us. Maybe I will get my revenge from that Alexander game.

[Scarz]

If any place are left I would like to take one!!

Welcome to the campaign.

[Scarz]

Players:

Max
Lupus
Aryaman
hidde
Blathergut
Dedtorius
davouthojo
zumHeuriger
Scar
Amaz Ed
Marvin_the_Arvn
76mm
kokono
RyanDG

We have 14 players, and there are 15 slots, so we are just two shy of a full house.

[Scarz]

As promised, i had a good read of the campaign rules. Great starting point - and the map is very good!

A few thoughts:

Diplomatic system
How to avoid one alliance collapsing diplomatically? As it stands, the moment one alliance starts to be on top, the pressure mounts for the losing side’s allies to revolt. When one revolts, the incentive for the next one to revolt increases – the alliance (and the campaign) will collapse very quickly. It would be better for a longer lasting campaign to have some balancing mechanism instead, that slows down and weakens the victors. Any ideas?

Just a few ideas to contribute to the pot. Are there simple campaign rules for FOG miniatures we can steal ideas from?

Great questions/issues. I will give you my two cents, and please if anyone else has any thoughts please jump right in.

First I want to keep the record keeping down to a minimum if I can. So all rules etc need to be campaign manager friendly!

For the diplomatic, I had never really thought of everyone jumping ship to either England or France, and I see your point. We can make two of the bigger Kingdoms always aligned which might help. But to be honest, I hate to artificially limit what a Kingdom can do. Maybe making the cost of rebellion higher.

TCon't next post...

[Scarz]

Battles

I don't see a limit on the army size, except what you can afford. I think I posted a few back that I was a bit worried about the income being off, and I have been worried that the income may be set too high as it is. So we may cut that in half and see how that goes.

The rules are pretty generous about avoiding a battle if you don't want to fight one. You can hide in a province castle (if on home turf) or run to a connected home/ally province. SO it will probably be very rare that you get forced to fight a battle if you want to avoid one. Also the income may get played with as we go. I really want each kingdom to be restricted more by their purse than by the rules on army size. Also once armies leave home ground, they are somewhat on their own until they return, as they can not recruit fresh troops in enemy territory.

But as always, if a problem jumps up as we go, we can fix it. I see most armies being around 400-500 points. Maybe France or another large Kingdom would be able to field a larger army, but then they would have fewer. And the English could just run away from it and then head in and siege their castles and pillage their land while this one huge army stumbles along.

[Scarz]

Intelligence

For record keeping, I am going to have each person name their army(s). I will show a symbol on the map for each army, so you will see it move around. Also, once you have fought it, you can tell all your allies how big it is. While movement will be simultanious, if you end up in a location with an enemy army, and have the option to retreat or castle up, you can pick that option, kind of an inbetween step is how I see it working.

Upkeep/build balance
"I seem to remember the English having to raise taxes for their overseas adventure. So maybe attacking armies should have double or triple the upkeep of those sitting at home at their barons expense?"

Some great points here. But England had so many possessions on the mainland, not sure its worth the record keeping to make it more expensive on them. Up keep is at the end of each season, and income is only in winter if I remember correctly. But if we change the income amounts this would have to be rethought.

Pillaging
"Pillaging too cheap – only lose 80 marks from an annual income of 700 for a small city province that is pillaged every season?
Leaders? Normal costs, or something special? Need a 2 or 3 flag leader for every army formed?"

I thought that was high! We can make that one bigger, anyone else have an opinion? It can really add up quick if you have three armies in your provinces and they are all pillaging each season!

[Scarz]

Sieges/Cities
"Large city symbol hold out longer than small city symbol? Bigger difference in income (15% difference doesn’t seem significant)? Can we leave garrisons in castles, or do they have to be part of the 1-3 army limit?"

To keep the record keeping down, there are no garrisions, just the armies. The siege rules are very abstract. Also the bigger city symbol is really just showing which provinces are more lucrative. But, they would probably have bigger castles. We could always make those take six seasons of siege. But 4 seems like a long time already. Anyone else have a thought here?

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Welcome to the campaign.

Awesome, thanks.

Most of the rules seem good to me.

With regards to money you could make armies cost x2 or x3 to create and x1 to maintain as this could make players act more carefully with their armies?

Historically campaigns are difficult to replay with games like this as unless you want to reinact the problems of supply and disease your never going to get the kind of caution and setbacks that the real wars had.

[Aryaman]

I wonder if some money could be pillaged when the enemy camp is looted, so thatthere is more incentive to protect your camp in battle and go after the enemy camp

[Scarz]

Welcome to the campaign.

Awesome, thanks.

Most of the rules seem good to me.

With regards to money you could make armies cost x2 or x3 to create and x1 to maintain as this could make players act more carefully with their armies?

Historically campaigns are difficult to replay with games like this as unless you want to reinact the problems of supply and disease your never going to get the kind of caution and setbacks that the real wars had.

I like this idea, davouthojo proposed the same thing. It might also insure the unit sizes are appropriate.

RULE CHANGE
I will change the campaign rules, to make the intitial build cost of a unit 2 Silver Marks per build point. The new campaign rules will be re-published just before we kick this thing off, with any changes made through discussions. We are almost there, and can start handing out Kingdoms once we get two more players.

[Scarz]

I wonder if some money could be pillaged when the enemy camp is looted, so thatthere is more incentive to protect your camp in battle and go after the enemy camp

I am mixed on this idea. Lets see how the money works when we get started. If we need a way to limit income a bit more, we can bring this one in.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Another way around the stacking of armies game is to have a limit of how many armies/points can be in a hex at any one time. You could even set this so it only applies on the 2nd season of armies being in the same area so to allow the concentration of large armies for one major battle. You could even allow armies over the limit but enforce a 10% point loss per turn from lack of supplies/plague etc.

You could set the limit at 1000 points?

I see this as the land only being able to support so many people at any one time.

The problem is it adds another rule

[Scarz]

Historically, I suspect that money plundered would end up in the plunderer's pocket rather than given to the General and used to fund fresh troops.

Too true! But wasn't the King or Monarch there, to make sure he got his cut. But only a portion finds it way home so we should be ok here.

[Scarz]

Another way around the stacking of armies game is to have a limit of how many armies/points can be in a hex at any one time. You could even set this so it only applies on the 2nd season of armies being in the same area so to allow the concentration of large armies for one major battle. You could even allow armies over the limit but enforce a 10% point loss per turn from lack of supplies/plague etc.

You could set the limit at 1000 points?

I see this as the land only being able to support so many people at any one time.

The problem is it adds another rule

That's a good way to limit the sizes. But I figured most people wouldn't go to far from their home areas, for fear an army would come in and seige a castle or pillage their lands. I figured that there would be some coordination, such as two players deciding to attack one province, especially if there is a large enemy army present, so point taken. Lets give it a season, and then if there is a problem we will change things to fix it.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Sounds like a plan, im more than happy to change things on the go.

[davouthojo]

A probably groundless concern - has anyone tested playing forces of different point totals through Multiplayer? Do you just use the bigger army's size and the smaller force doesn't spend all the points? That hasn't worked for me when I tried to handicap myself against the AI, but I've never tried it in multiplayer.

[RyanDG]

I'm up for participating. If I did my math right, there's one slot open -- right?