Italian Wars Campaign Gameplay

[TheGrayMouser]

HI stumbled upon a hoste of questions:

1) I assume an army or navy can only really do one action per "phase" So an army or navy could : bribe adjacent garrsion, then advance, (as one is an expedniture the other an army move...) It could not, however, convert then advance, correct?

2) If player A has a garrison and the adjacent province has an enemy army ( or garrison) can player A bride, or can only armies/navies bribe?

3) I hate to say this but if I understand the retreat rules, I dont think I like them and believe they nullify why we are fighting out battles in P&S in the first place.

Lets look at the current situation map in central Italy, for sake of argument lets say the Popes Perugian Army 2 does not exist nor does Sienna 1 ( but province ownership is as it is).
In a turn, Rome 3 advance into Perugia, as does Florentine 2. Battle will be fought and a random dice will determine whom got there first.(lets say the Florentines) After a hard fought p&S battle that could take 2 weeks to finish, Rome wins the battle. The defeated Florentines must retreat. They can: retreat into the fortress in Perugia where they can sit out a siege. They can retreat into Spoleto, Urbino or Patrimony . (Basicially squeeze into enemy terrain behind the lines which potentially screws the victor.) There are no supply lines, after all to make this a bad thing. Even more perplexing, they can retreat into Sienna and for the price of a defeat, gain a province and city!... The only place they cant retreat is Rome..(the origin of advancing army rule)

Ive read the rules several times and feel free to call me stupid if the above isnt the case. Maybe mid game there are so many armies swampng the map that this is not an issue? I feel like you could easily "game the game" and purposely lose the P&S battle to pull off a double move where you put the victor in a worse situation! It would make much more sense if you could only retreat into one of your own territory(s) except for the conditions already set forth in the rules.
I apoligise for bringing this up this late in the process, it wasn't until I really started moving armies in my mind that I saw what i think I see. Am I misreading the rules? Guilty of reading while drunk? Overreacting if not? I play regardless, but if a battle was resolved by the flick of a dice like the board game, it wouldnt feel so dreary to win a hard fought P&S battle and then have the broken defeated mercenary army retreat into and conquer your adjacent capitol

[w_michael]

1) I assume an army or navy can only really do one action per "phase" So an army or navy could : bribe adjacent garrsion, then advance, (as one is an expedniture the other an army move...) It could not, however, convert then advance, correct?
Correct, sort of. Bribes may only be directed into provinces or seas that are adjacent to the player’s own military units, but that is not an action by the military unit. Military units may only receive one Military Order.

2) If player A has a garrison and the adjacent province has an enemy army ( or garrison) can player A bride, or can only armies/navies bribe?
The rules say military unit, so Garrisons are sufficient to bribe into an adjacent province. It doesn't specify that the unit must be able to move into the province. I've always assumed that the military units is just a jumping off point for that agents offering the bribe.

3) I hate to say this but if I understand the retreat rules, I dont think I like them and believe they nullify why we are fighting out battles in P&S in the first place.

Lets look at the current situation map in central Italy, for sake of argument lets say the Popes Perugian Army 2 does not exist nor does Sienna 1 ( but province ownership is as it is).
In a turn, Rome 3 advance into Perugia, as does Florentine 2. Battle will be fought and a random dice will determine whom got there first.(lets say the Florentines) After a hard fought p&S battle that could take 2 weeks to finish, Rome wins the battle. The defeated Florentines must retreat. They can: retreat into the fortress in Perugia where they can sit out a siege. They can retreat into Spoleto, Urbino or Patrimony . (Basicially squeeze into enemy terrain behind the lines which potentially screws the victor.) There are no supply lines, after all to make this a bad thing. Even more perplexing, they can retreat into Sienna and for the price of a defeat, gain a province and city!... The only place they cant retreat is Rome..(the origin of advancing army rule)

Ive read the rules several times and feel free to call me stupid if the above isnt the case. Maybe mid game there are so many armies swampng the map that this is not an issue? I feel like you could easily "game the game" and purposely lose the P&S battle to pull off a double move where you put the victor in a worse situation! It would make much more sense if you could only retreat into one of your own territory(s) except for the conditions already set forth in the rules.
I apoligise for bringing this up this late in the process, it wasn't until I really started moving armies in my mind that I saw what i think I see. Am I misreading the rules? Guilty of reading while drunk? Overreacting if not? I play regardless, but if a battle was resolved by the flick of a dice like the board game, it wouldnt feel so dreary to win a hard fought P&S battle and then have the broken defeated mercenary army retreat into and conquer your adjacent capitol
I've reviewed the original rules and my transcription is accurate. Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment about retreat paths. What do you think about restricting retreats to friendly or autonomous controlled provinces? Unoccupied seas are considered autonomous for retreat purposes.

[GDod]

His Imperial Majesty and Bard.jpg (2.69 KiB) Viewed 3140 times

I've reviewed the original rules and my transcription is accurate. Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment about retreat paths. What do you think about restricting retreats to friendly or autonomous controlled provinces? Unoccupied seas are considered autonomous for retreat purposes.

Suggestion : Why not just remove the army or navy if you loose an engagement [as they can rebuild it in the following years build phase {in a province with a city} if they still have the required provinces]? Then definitely a disadvantage to loose as they will need to recover the following year and their new army may not be still "in the frontline" so to speak

[awesum4]

I know the rules for retreats sound weird, but from a historical perspective they are probably accurate in some cases. These armies are mercenaries, they owe no real loyalty to any city. If they lose they are possibly unemployed, so after defeat they are best to stick together and simply ravage whichever area they are in, who cares who owns it, until someone regains control by offering them employment (probably their original employer but not necessarily).
I think the rule writers deliberately wrote the rules that way, to reflect the uncertainty of the times.

You could amend the rules to give a priority to retreating into an area controlled by their employer. I also think an army that is beaten in an already owned province should retreat into a fortified city if there is one, and become a garrison, and this should be the first priority for retreat.

I disagree with disbanding the army outright, Siena only has to lose one battle and its removed from the game. Its too catastrophic a result, some of these battles will go right down to the wire, especially between 2 Italian armies...should one that loses 60% be destroyed while it's opponent that loses 59% is immediately rebuilt to full strength. If 2 armies lose over 60% in the same turn should both be disbanded?

[TheGrayMouser]

Sorry for kicking the can!

My opinion: as much as I like the idea of defeat causing elimination in most circumstances, I think it too much of a change and methinks in a few turns when players have $, armies will begin disappearing left and right with bribes/conversions and we will wish defeated armies stay on board.

Awesome comment on defeated armies causing mahem is true but the issue is they don’t go rogue, they are completely remain in the defeated players control.

I think allowing defeated armies to move into autonomous provinces opens the door to gamey play. Also , these neutral weren’t helpless and certainly could close city gates etc verse broken mauraders.

I will stand by my opinion that a defeated army can only retreat into a province that it owns.

Fleets: they should not get special treatment. The Armada: defeated yet not broken, yet no friendly coast to retire to, sunk by Posiedin.

[Pixel]

We also must remember that the plague will remove units as we play.

[w_michael]

a) I think that we can all agree that the first retreat priority for an army is to convert to a garrison in an empty fortified city in the battle province. That garrison can convert back to an army and fight the battle for the province again on the next turn.

b) I think that we can all agree that the second retreat priority for an army is to a friendly controlled province that does not already contain an army.

c) If an army has just one support in a battle then they have a 200 FP (or 17%) advantage in FP. I think that translates into real battle outcomes to be a much bigger advantage (we will have to see). I am reluctant, therefore, to just eliminate a unit that loses a battle. An outmatched army eventually runs out of places to retreat to, or the owner runs out of fund to supply it.

d) You already cannot retreat into an autonomous province with a garrison, so it would have to be completely unoccupied.

e) You might sail a fleet to a sea that is not adjacent to one of your provinces to transport an army or to support an ally. I don't like the idea of eliminating the losing fleet when they have sea room to retreat.

Diplomacy and Machiavelli have always used these retreat rules, yet people continue to play and enjoy them. Let's implement the retreat priorities (a) and (b), and then revisit this topic after we have played a while and see how it works in practice.

[TheGrayMouser]

a) I think that we can all agree that the first retreat priority for an army is to convert to a garrison in an empty fortified city in the battle province. That garrison can convert back to an army and fight the battle for the province again on the next turn.

b) I think that we can all agree that the second retreat priority for an army is to a friendly controlled province that does not already contain an army.

c) If an army has just one support in a battle then they have a 200 FP (or 17%) advantage in FP. I think that translates into real battle outcomes to be a much bigger advantage (we will have to see). I am reluctant, therefore, to just eliminate a unit that loses a battle. An outmatched army eventually runs out of places to retreat to, or the owner runs out of fund to supply it.

d) You already cannot retreat into an autonomous province with a garrison, so it would have to be completely unoccupied.

e) You might sail a fleet to a sea that is not adjacent to one of your provinces to transport an army or to support an ally. I don't like the idea of eliminating the losing fleet when they have sea room to retreat.

Diplomacy and Machiavelli have always used these retreat rules, yet people continue to play and enjoy them. Let's implement the retreat priorities (a) and (b), and then revisit this topic after we have played a while and see how it works in practice.

I am good with this , just to be clear though, you are using the word priority. If neither of A or B or d exist would a defeated army still be allowed to enter another players controlled province?

[awesum4]

in situation A the army should not be able to convert to an army again. Otherwise you fight a battle and lose, become a garrison, convert and fight a battle and lose, become a garrison, convert and fight a battle....you cannot be forced out of a province with an empty fortified city.

A field army that loses retreats and becomes a garrison must not be able to convert as long as there is an enemy army in the province. They hole up in the city and hope either help arrives, the enemy gets bored and moves away...or they themselves lose the siege.

If you attack a province with an army and a fortified city in it you will take 3 moves at least to capture it....first season you beat the army, second season you besiege it, at the end of the 3rd season you capture it......that's a whole year

[w_michael]

in situation A the army should not be able to convert to an army again. Otherwise you fight a battle and lose, become a garrison, convert and fight a battle and lose, become a garrison, convert and fight a battle....you cannot be forced out of a province with an empty fortified city.

A field army that loses retreats and becomes a garrison must not be able to convert as long as there is an enemy army in the province. They hole up in the city and hope either help arrives, the enemy gets bored and moves away...or they themselves lose the siege.

If you attack a province with an army and a fortified city in it you will take 3 moves at least to capture it....first season you beat the army, second season you besiege it, at the end of the 3rd season you capture it......that's a whole year

Good point. I agree. I checked the rules and a Garrison cannot convert to anything if besieged, so on the turn following the battle the winner orders his unit to Besiege and that changes the Garrison's Convert order to Hold.

[w_michael]

I am good with this , just to be clear though, you are using the word priority. If neither of A or B or d exist would a defeated army still be allowed to enter another players controlled province?

The rules give the retreating player full discretion regarding the retreat destination. I'm suggesting (a) and (b) as a compromise, but areas not controlled by the retreating player are valid as a last resort (both autonomous and enemy controlled).

[awesum4]

I have no problem with retreats being A then B then retreating players choice....

[awesum4]

provided the fortified city and the retreating army are owned by the same player prior to the battle. The army has its baggage and camp followers and treasure stored in the city, and guards who would keep the gates open. The city would close its gates to any other army. You cannot capture a city by invading the province, losing the battle and retreating into the city.

[w_michael]

provided the fortified city and the retreating army are owned by the same player prior to the battle. The army has its baggage and camp followers and treasure stored in the city, and guards who would keep the gates open. The city would close its gates to any other army. You cannot capture a city by invading the province, losing the battle and retreating into the city.

Yes. The first priority retreat should be only to a fortified city that the retreating player owned at the beginning of the battle.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hi Will, I sent my moves but as yet still in my out box. Just want to make sure your in box isn't full

( I know mine is almost full just after a few days of diplomacy!)

[w_michael]

Hi Will, I sent my moves but as yet still in my out box. Just want to make sure your in box isn't full

( I know mine is almost full just after a few days of diplomacy!)

Orders received and they are legal. Sorry, I was away overnight.

I've cleaned out my inbox.

I've added the retreat priorities to the rules:

Note that we have agreed to use the following retreat priorities:
a. If the retreating unit is in a province which contains an unoccupied, friendly controlled fortified city, the retreating unit is converted into a Garrison and placed in the city.
b. The unit retreats to a friendly controlled province, unoccupied by a friendly Army or Fleet, that was not a battle site this turn.
c. The unit retreats to another area, or is eliminated and removed from the map, as per the rules above.

Still waiting on orders from: Genoa.

[w_michael]

Here are the orders that I received:
Papacy
A1 H
A2 H
A3 Advance Tivoli
F1 Advance Upper Adriatic

Austria
A1 [Tyrolia] advances to Como
A2 [Austria] advances to Slavonia

Florence
E1 M Gift Milan 1d
A1 Supports Arezzo (in favor of Florentine A2)
A2 Supports Sienna (in favor of Sienna A1)
F1 Advance Piombino

Milan
E1 M 5d Borrow 5d from banks (bring treasury to 12d) will pay back next year @ 20% thus 7d owed next summer
E2 H Tyrolia 12d. Expenditure order 2 to disband the player Gdods Army Unit in Tyrolia 12 ducats spent.
A2 A Tyrolia: Milan army 2 advance into Tyrolia
A1 A Turin: Milan Army 1 advances into Turin

France
F1 A Provence (s)
A1 A Turin

Turks
Fleet 1, to Lower Adriatic ( TF1 A Lower Adriatic )
Fleet 2, to Western Med (TF2A Western Med )
Army 1, Hold Albania (TA1H Albania )

Sienna
A1 H

Naples
Army1 Advance to Aquilia
Army2 Advance to Otranto
Fleet1 Advance to Gulf of Naples
Fleet2 Advance to Eastern Tyrrhenian

Genoa
No orders received

Venice
Army1 A Ferrara
Army2 A Brescia
Army3 A Friuli
Fleet1 A Croatia S
Garrison1 C F2

[w_michael]

Expense Orders occur first, so Florence transfers 1d to Milan. Milan spends 12d to disband Austrian Army 1.

Movement orders are self explanatory on the following campaign map.

There is one battle in Turin where both France and Milan advance armies to capture the province. I rolled a die and the French Army arrives first so are deemed to be the defender and Milan is the attacker. France wasn't in the province at the start of the turn so it will be an Open Battle. You have 15 days to complete the battle (Tue. Feb. 6th).

Changes in provincial control will be determined after the battle and any retreat is resolved.

The Spring 1499 Record sheet has been updated (page 1).

Spring 1499 Moves & Combat

P&S_Machiavelli_1499SpringMoves.jpg (1.22 MiB) Viewed 2991 times

[w_michael]

I've tweeked the retreat priorities again by adding a new, first priority. Units should retreat back to where they came from as the first priority if possible. I don't think that there will be any objections to this addition.

Note that we have agreed to use the following retreat priorities:
a. If the retreating unit moved into the battle area that turn, it will retreat to the area it came from if possible.
b. If the retreating unit is in a province which contains an unoccupied, friendly controlled fortified city, the retreating unit is converted into a Garrison and placed in the city. The fortified city must be a port for a Fleet to be able to convert to a Garrison.
c. The unit retreats to a friendly controlled province, unoccupied by a friendly Army or Fleet, that was not a battle site this turn.
d. The unit retreats to another area, or is eliminated and removed from the map, as per the rules above.

I also wanted to point out that there is a good example of how two Fleets can transport an Army a long distance next turn. This is not a recommendation of game play or diplomacy; just an example so that everyone is clear on the rules. Naples now has Fleet 1 in the Gulf of Naples, Fleet 2 in the Eastern Tyrrhenian Sea, and Army 1 in Otranto. Naples could write the following orders:

F1 T A1
F2 T A1
A1 A Piombino

Of course if any enemy fleet advanced into either the Gulf of Naples or the Eastern Tyrrhenian Sea the Neapolitan Fleet in that sea would have their Transport order changed to Hold and Army 1 would remain in Otranto.

[w_michael]

I've been think about Fleet combat and the best that you can do is to make the enemy Fleet retreat. It is only destroyed in the unlikely event that there is no legal area to retreat to. The combat is resolved by both players rolling a die, with the higher score winning. You add +1 to your score for every Fleet in your Force that you outnumber the Fleets in the enemy Force.

There won't be any Battles of Lepanto under that scheme so I thought of a way to add a chance of a decisive victory. The die roll works just as before, but if the winner scores twice as much as the loser then the Fleet of the loser is destroyed instead of retreating. Supporting units are not destroyed. For example a 4 to 3 is a retreat, but 4 to 2 removes the Fleet instead.

What do you think?