Slitherine

2nd Alamo

The noble Texans lost again at the Alamo to the Morbians. Although they only inflicted 10% their own army, after a further loss of 25%, is now said to be as small as a Hollywood cast-list and there are rumours of a change to the script-writer at the very least.

Disaster for Arrakis

In Pernambuco the forces of Arrakis were heavily defeated by the Pantherites losing a tear-forming 43% to the defenders 18%. Surely retreat can be the only option for Arrakians now!

Meanwhile the Parthians again failed to force the Crimeans out of their lands. Losing 36% against double their number (56,000 v 28,000) they were only able to inflict 9% in return. Can Parthia take anymore of such punishment![/b]

Newest map changes, all losses of my territories. As always, let me know if there are any mistakes or changes that need to be made.



Utopia or Eupatoria? All those Euro countries sound the same to Texas ears. Fixed above.

Shouldn't Lubbock now be part of Utopia?

Deeter Magnus

Meanwhile the Parthians again failed to force the Crimeans out of their lands. Losing 36% against double their number (56,000 v 28,000) they were only able to inflict 9% in return. Can Parthia take anymore of such punishment!

Parthia will never surrender! We are currently trimming down our army in order to give ourselves more room to manouevre...

Newest Map with Numbers:

Latest News Just In

Fresh by carrion pigeon:-

No utopian dream for the Texans as Utopia wins a double victory. Their invading army defeats the Texans but with fairly low causualties of 15% & 20% respectively.
Meanwhile in defence of their own territory the Utopians inflict a further 30% whilst losing only 16% themselves.

The Texans concede Lubbock to end the war explaining that 'less is more' in Texan eyes and 'just you wait until you see our skyscrapers next year - Elite Heavily Armoured Towers'

Elsewhere in the West Indies the Rhomians drink from the bitter cup of defeat as Morbius invades and beats their army 17% to 32%. The Morbians await the Rhomulans next move.

Late Spring!

Each turn (a battle result = a turn) I've been rolling to see if the season ends but not so far.

Scar & I have been chatting about how best to keep track of who is fighting whom. His map is doing a great job making the campaign more visual but we are not getting notice all the time of when a war starts or ends. In addition I don't think having the map plus the players table meets the requirement.

I've also had DoW's with no resulting battle.

So therefore DEFENDERS ONLY please could you PM Scar with who is currently invading one of your areas (obviously name the invading country and your area). He has kindly offered to add that to the map - after the name of the area he will put the player number of the invader.

Once we have that upto date you should PM Scar with the future DoW's not me - I only need the battle results and any peace deals. This is best placed in the other thread for Battle Results rather than a PM to me.

I'll remove the 'at war with' part of the player table and will instead add the national morale colour.

Hopefully this will both reduce the time you need to spend informing us and make the info on what is going on a lot clearer.

I'm hoping the season ends very soon as from Friday onwards I'm away on a business trip for 7 days.

petergarnett wrote:Late Spring!

Each turn (a battle result = a turn) I've been rolling to see if the season ends but not so far.

I'm hoping the season ends very soon as from Friday onwards I'm away on a business trip for 7 days.

I owe you one DOW...and a defense...but haven\t been able to up here in the wilds...will wait until summer starts and I'm back on the weekend

This is the latest map. Please note the we now have an indicator on battles at provinces. Please PM me the areas you are defending, or attacking, so I can flush the map out.

I see that I'm at war with Rhodes and that is correct but the battles hasn't started since I'm waiting for the summer season.
I also started two other war but likewise only here at the forum.
How come this one is indicated?
Edit: eh, ianiow must have pm you(pm to myself..think before posting).

PS Damn the summer..I will post the challenges later this evening or tomorrow at the latest.

Im in complete agreement with hidde. Fighting in Spring is soooo 'last season'. Best to wait until Summer to start the blood and slaughter - far more civilised.

(plus, neither of us want to pay our troops maintainance!!)

Just time to mention the latest 3 battles reported have not ended the season. I'll PM the army sizes now.

Sadly away for the next 7 days.

Eupatoria has a Pantherite army in Polemonium.

I have an army in one of the Pantherite provinces, no matter to me which one.

I have an army in one of the Parthian provences, again not particular.

I am assuming Amaz_Ed will continue the fight in Parthia, Challenge coming soon.

Map Moving to Main Page

The map is far enough along now, so it will move to the main campaign page. When I receive updates, I will just keep changing the map in the main page.

Xiccarph wrote:I am assuming Amaz_Ed will continue the fight in Parthia, Challenge coming soon.

Correct!

I issued three challenges some hours ago. It then occured to me that I havn't seen, or missed if we are playing with or without FOW.
I checked the FOW option since I feel most players prefers that. Personaly I'm not overly thrilled with the new LOS-function.
I don't think it add very much to the game and it prohibits you from taking back moves. Which I do quite often.
I'm pedantic when it comes to position BG:s and I still have trouble to figure out wich way undrilled cavallry will be facing after some moves
Anyhow, no biggie but is there a consensus about what to use in the campaign?

Making alliances more meaningful in combat.

At present alliances act as simple non-aggression pacts of one year's duration. Allies gain no advantage from one another when attacking or defending against the same enemy.
The latter is able to take on each ally, one at a time, with a full strength army and each conflict operates in total isolation from the other.

To change this I propose that allies be permitted to attack the same enemy province, or to provide assistance to an ally in a province under attack.

If the defending player has an ally or allies, they would have the option of joining in the defence of the province.

This could involve a number of different combinations.

If the defender on his own faced 2 or more enemy allies, he would choose which of them to fight first. The battle would be fought in the normal way (ie up to maximum of 650 points).
If the war continued, the next battle would be fought against the next allied power (if there were several allied powers to fight, the attackers would choose who would fight next in sequence).
The defender would fight the battle with those points left to him after the first battle whereas his new attacker would be able to field up to a full 650 point army.
After that battle, if the war continued, the defender would either fight any further remaining allied attackers, in turn (with his reducing army),
or if all enemy allies had been fought, a second cycle of battles would start; same sequence and each army would fight with those points remaining.

If the defender had an equal number of allies to the enemy. He would choose which of the attackers to fight, and the other powers would fight each other.
If there are enough opponents to generate 3 or more first battles, the attacking coalition would have the choice of who fights whom in the other battles.
Each set of opponents, would continue to fight battles in the normal way (with reducing strength until one gives up).
If the defender gives up first, the province is lost and no more battles are fought there.
If one of the other powers engaged gives up, the winning country would then be able to join in one of the other battle combinations
in support of the ally fighting that battle sequence. The procedure would then follow that outlined above.

If one side starts with more allies than the enemy, the side with the surplus number of allies would be able to choose which battle(s)
his extra ally (ies) would be involved with. So for example if 2 allies engaged 3 enemy allies, one battle would be 2 against 1, and the other 1 against 1.

The war for that province would continue, until either the defender gives up, or all the attacking powers give up.

hidde wrote:I issued three challenges some hours ago. It then occured to me that I havn't seen, or missed if we are playing with or without FOW.
I checked the FOW option since I feel most players prefers that. Personaly I'm not overly thrilled with the new LOS-function.
I don't think it add very much to the game and it prohibits you from taking back moves. Which I do quite often.
I'm pedantic when it comes to position BG:s and I still have trouble to figure out wich way undrilled cavallry will be facing after some moves
Anyhow, no biggie but is there a consensus about what to use in the campaign?

I guess the only way to get a consensus is to have people chime in..

I am for playing w FOG on However, w house rule of no shooting thru lights.....

BTW I think if you look at the little grayed out arrow that shows a cav. units move path will indicate its facing in its final hex its a little tricking but basicaly if your unit is facing due North and you want to move it max movement up and to the left it likly will face northwest, if you only move a couple hexes to the left and fowrd it will likly stay facing due north

Ironclad wrote:Making alliances more meaningful in combat.

At present alliances act as simple non-aggression pacts of one year's duration. Allies gain no advantage from one another when attacking or defending against the same enemy.
The latter is able to take on each ally, one at a time, with a full strength army and each conflict operates in total isolation from the other.

To change this I propose that allies be permitted to attack the same enemy province, or to provide assistance to an ally in a province under attack.

If the defending player has an ally or allies, they would have the option of joining in the defence of the province.

This could involve a number of different combinations.

If the defender on his own faced 2 or more enemy allies, he would choose which of them to fight first. The battle would be fought in the normal way (ie up to maximum of 650 points).
If the war continued, the next battle would be fought against the next allied power (if there were several allied powers to fight, the attackers would choose who would fight next in sequence).
The defender would fight the battle with those points left to him after the first battle whereas his new attacker would be able to field up to a full 650 point army.
After that battle, if the war continued, the defender would either fight any further remaining allied attackers, in turn (with his reducing army),
or if all enemy allies had been fought, a second cycle of battles would start; same sequence and each army would fight with those points remaining.

If the defender had an equal number of allies to the enemy. He would choose which of the attackers to fight, and the other powers would fight each other.
If there are enough opponents to generate 3 or more first battles, the attacking coalition would have the choice of who fights whom in the other battles.
Each set of opponents, would continue to fight battles in the normal way (with reducing strength until one gives up).
If the defender gives up first, the province is lost and no more battles are fought there.
If one of the other powers engaged gives up, the winning country would then be able to join in one of the other battle combinations
in support of the ally fighting that battle sequence. The procedure would then follow that outlined above.

If one side starts with more allies than the enemy, the side with the surplus number of allies would be able to choose which battle(s)
his extra ally (ies) would be involved with. So for example if 2 allies engaged 3 enemy allies, one battle would be 2 against 1, and the other 1 against 1.

The war for that province would continue, until either the defender gives up, or all the attacking powers give up.

Hey Ironclad I like the gist of what you are proposing ie having alliances be more meaningful and also provide a risk/reward for having one, however i dont know if what you have would work out for the following reasons
*I think tracking these battles and coordinating the sequence could be difficult, its hard enough to organize simple diplomacy as it is due to time dilation, if you have several opponents and battles going on... Battles that should have been resolved sequencially first often arnt due to players schedules, time zone differences etc
*Also, even though its an abstraction, I guess you could ask why can two allies fit two 650 ap armies in a territory but the defender only allowed one 650 ap army?

I also dont think any player(except maybe one) could ever withstand the assault of an army and have to face a full 650 ap allied army w an army reduced in size, even if he wins the ist battle... the effect would be that the attacking alliance would generally always win the war and the province...

I do think alliances should have more of a risk charactor
Heres an idea but obviously would need Peter's aproval as would mean additioanl tracking for him
What if player a and b have an official alliance, B is attacked by c . If by the end of that season, if A does not either send an army to counter invade C, or does not send $ for a 650 ap army then A suffers a national moral hit , basically for being a bad ally....
For game purposes a counter invasion by an ally would not drag an ally in to have to do anything , nor would an ally be forced to do anything if its ally initiates a war on its own (would be neet but likly not fair to have something like this now w all the aliances out there)