Page 23 of 86
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:24 pm
by Morbio
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.
I have mixed views on this. I think that an alliance isn't necessarily a non-agression pact. I can be co-ordinated attacks on a person so that collectively you drain his treasury, or it could be the loan or gift of money to help a nation survive (probably not relevant at this stage because I doubt that money is a factor yet).
However, back to the original point of the post, I'm wondering if this will make it too complex to conquer a zone or to plan the activities? I'm not totally opposed to it, but I wonder if the extra complexity it may bring may make the game less playable?
Another option might be for the ally to loan or fund additional troops? In this way the defending army may be able to have more than 650 points - maybe must be the type of troops the ally could send (i.e. you can't add Imitiation Legionaries if the ally doesn't have them), or maybe the choice is free on the basis the ally is sending or funding mercenaries that could be of any type?
I guess for now, I'd leave the system as is, but wouldn't be opposed to change if everyone is up for it.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:42 pm
by Ironclad
I did consider the option of allowing a power to provide additional points to his ally engaged in battle, but with armies already up to 650 points maximum that didn't provide much scope for a meaningful contribution (say 25% to 50% extra). It seemed simpler to a have system which retained the existing points mechanisms.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:38 pm
by deeter
This from the 100 Years War campaign seems to work with a few slight modifications:
France has an army in a province. Burgundy (allied to France) has an ally in the same province. England moves an army into the province. Either the Burgundy player, or the French player will be declared the battle commander (whomever has the bigger army, and if same size, France/England will always be named in command). The Commander will then accept the allied army's points into his army, and fight the battle. Losses will be distributed equally per the two armies 'combined' armies (even if one is much bigger than the other).
In the event of multiple armies for each side, say England has an army, and an English ally has an army in a province. France then moves an army into the province, and a French ally moves an army into the same province. The two bigger opposing armies will fight a battle on DAG and the two smaller armies will fight a battle on DAG. The winners will then fight a battle on DAG minus the losses from the first battle. Finally, if France and its allies have three armies, England and an ally have one each, then the smallest French ally army will join its points to the two French armies as per the first example.
Deeter
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:51 pm
by Ironclad
Interesting. My first thought was to combine allied armies under an agreed commander, but the combined points total of two combining armies in Lost World would normally be too large for the lists unless very severly depleted. How do you get around that in the Hundred Years war campaign?
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:59 pm
by Scarz
Ironclad wrote:Interesting. My first thought was to combine allied armies under an agreed commander, but the combined points total of two combining armies in Lost World would normally be too large for the lists unless very severly depleted. How do you get around that in the Hundred Years war campaign?
We have not tried it yet, but the army sizes are expected to be much lower, around the 400 point range.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:00 pm
by deeter
There are no army size limits except the max 1000 points in the DAG, but there are severe army number limits, i.e. Major powers can only field a few armies and money is very limited as well...a very well thought-out system. Although not a huge fan of the era, I'm tempted to join in.
Deeter
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:34 pm
by deeter
hidde,
I accepted your challenge and opened the game while I was distracted on the phone. I'm not sure if there was a problem or if you deploy first and I missed it. If there was a problem, can we restart? I'm not thrilled at the prospect of doing battle as the PC deployed me all scattered.
Thanks,
Deeter Magnus
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:55 pm
by maximvs
I quite like the idea of adding (some) of your allied nation's points. Especially as this is limited by the 1000 point ceiling.
Let's face it, if you were able to just field a 1300 point army against your attacker there would be only the tiniest chance of him winning. But having, say half your ally points (which is virtually 1000) there is still scope for him to achieve something.
There is the additional limiting factor of upper limits to specific troops so you can't just field more and more of your best unit type, you get to play with some troops you might not ordinarily pick.
And it does bring more meaning to having an ally.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:13 pm
by Ironclad
The problem is that the 1000 point ceiling is far beyond the number possible with several army lists. Using Seleucids with no allies I have real difficulty beyond 800.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:20 pm
by TheGrayMouser
maximvs wrote:I quite like the idea of adding (some) of your allied nation's points. Especially as this is limited by the 1000 point ceiling.
Let's face it, if you were able to just field a 1300 point army against your attacker there would be only the tiniest chance of him winning. But having, say half your ally points (which is virtually 1000) there is still scope for him to achieve something.
There is the additional limiting factor of upper limits to specific troops so you can't just field more and more of your best unit type, you get to play with some troops you might not ordinarily pick.
And it does bring more meaning to having an ally.
Not sure if i follow this, however the mid republicans are almost topped off at 650 points in # of bgs they can bring into battle, higher ap's might be able to achieve slight better quality, ie more armoured legions as opposed to protected, but at some point even that would max out, i m guessing around 750 ap's..... i know pergamine gets pretty maxed out as well around 650 or so....
Also the issue is troop types.. Why should my enemy who is say a pike heavy army, get to have additional pikes by borrowing ap's from his ally that might be a medium foot or horse archer army....
Again, i guess i dont like the idea that 2 allies can squeeze in 1300 troops or 1000 if you combine allies, into one territory but the defender can only muster 650.00
Do you really think a player can achieve anything w 650 vs a 1000 point army?
I have completed only 1 second battle in this campaign, and have one ongoing but i think the ap differenials are around 50-75 Even that relatively small amount makes a big difference.
My gut tells me that the advantage (or onsequence) of being an ally might better be seen on a strategic level rather than the tactical (see my prior post prior page)
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:50 pm
by deeter
Taking a look at the HYW campaign, I'm guessing 500 pts. would be the norm so adding a few hundred points from an ally would keep within something doable for most army lists.
Deeter
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:46 pm
by hidde
deeter
I deploy first. Just did as a matter of fact, so welcome to do the same...and then to fall in my devious trap
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:51 pm
by Blathergut
hidde...accepting your invasion tonight (in Wastelands) and will post counter-invasion (let Scar know the territory??)
I see from the map it's in NewBlathergutria...is fine with me.
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:00 am
by iversonjm
Scouts report that the scattered remnants of the Parthian army have abandoned their territory to the invading Crimeans. Now, if the Crimeans could only figure which territory they invaded....
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:54 am
by pantherboy
1. In regards to going over the 650 limit then you'd have to change the way the game is played and apply geographical limitations on war and open up a whole new series of rules to conduct wars otherwise 3 nations declare war on someone for an auto win. The systems people are proposing are also rather convuluted and laborious on the administrator.
2. I concur with the idea of abstracting the benefit of alliances.
3. I feel invasions should be cut out and replaced by the term war. Instead of two players setting up concurrent battles they enter into a state of war where geographic positioning is abstracted. If one side is winning then you'd assume that they are driving into the enemies territory and vice versa. If stalemated then they are operating close to their own borders. This would mean maintenance would only rely upon being in the field and not be related to who's country they are in. If someone wins the war then the opposing nation concedes a territory.
4. I feel that there should be an auto capitulation rule tied in to National Morale. If a nation is defeated in battle the administrator checks to see if your nation surrenders. Obviously the higher the national morale the more immune you are to being forced to surrender. Also if morale isvery low you will auto surrender after the first defeat and equally if very high need to sustain a number of defeats before starting to check.
5. Now returning to alliances, if somethng like what I've suggested is implemented then for every alliance you recieve a positive shift in avoiding surrender and for every additional enemy you are at war with a negative shift.
e.g. I was invaded by 6 nations and had no allies. For every nation over the first I would increase my chances to auto surrender should I lose a battle. Invading together doesn't create an alliance but for every nation one of the warring players is allied to will produce a positive shift in resisting auto surrender should a battle be lost.
Cheers,
Steve
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:57 am
by Ironclad
Making alliances more meaningful in combat – part 2
Previously I left unaddressed the question of which member of a successful attacking coalition gets the captured province.
I propose this is:
1. Decided by the coalition members in advance or deferred until after the completion of the war for the province when the contributions of alliance members are known. This could be accompanied by any private arrangements (eg re money transfers, province swaps or whatever) that the allies wish to make.
2. Failing agreement, the ally that causes most damage ie total break point losses to the enemy defender (and his allies) would be awarded the province.
In addition, regardless of any private arrangements, the attacking ally or allies who aren't awarded the province would automatically receive 50% of the first years income from the province. So if 2 allies attacked – one gets the province, and the first year they split income 50/50, if three allies the income in year one is split 50/25/25, and so on. This is provided the province is still held when income distribution occurs.
I did consider a neat variation of this which would require the new owner of the province to pay the others their income share (for services rendered) even if he had lost the province before income distribution but as this would add to the book keeping required, it doesn't seem a runner.
Finally, if a coalition successfully gained a province from an enemy, a further attack by that coalition against the same enemy, wouldn't be permitted until one year had passed. However this wouldn't restrict individual members of the alliance from launching solo attacks against the enemy if they chose (that enemy could of course call on alliance support in his defence if available).
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:34 pm
by Blathergut
Skulkers back to his palace pool...
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:57 pm
by hidde
Blathergut
I guess your waiting for my turn. Sorry, but the challenges has poured in the last days both here and in the leauge. I also had to work this weekend wich was a surprise. I'm at work right now and promise to at least return the first game when I get home 2-3 hours from now. I have no work next week untill thursday if that helps
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:03 pm
by Blathergut
hidde wrote:Blathergut
I guess your waiting for my turn. Sorry, but the challenges has poured in the last days both here and in the leauge. I also had to work this weekend wich was a surprise. I'm at work right now and promise to at least return the first game when I get home 2-3 hours from now. I have no work next week untill thursday if that helps
Hey..no prob. Whenever you can. I skulkered back because RBS beat my derriere quite badly!!!
Just do turns if/whenever. Am in no rush here at all. I appreciate the games.
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:13 pm
by Blathergut
besides...work is always better than no work!!