Slitherine

Oh, I missed that.

Skulkers even further to the far end of the pool and pouts. Calls off the Kappadappa Kampaign.

Blathergut just checked the battle results.... whoo you really got pounded by the Kappadocians. Tough luck on that one, I can only hope that I will end up doing better at the end of the day. Fortunately the Kappadocians won't have to worry about sun stroke I have managed to keep enough arrows in the air that they are blocking out the sun

Some thoughts while we waiting on petergarnett to be back.
About army maintenance-isn't it a bit akward to pay strictly at season changes? I wonder if a cost per battle could be another way to do it.
In addition to the cost for building an army you pay a small upkeep at the start of the first battle. Very low or nothing for the defender and a bit more for the attacker.
If there is to be a second battle both parties pay more(maybe the attacker significant more) and in case of a third battle the cost rises even more.
I think that better resembles the cost of having an army in the field and the avoidance of battle at season changes would be no issue.

I also noticed that most players make a counter-invasion when attacked. Is there a specific reason for that more than the attacked Kingdom being royaly p...ed off?:lol:

The counter invasion is something some do as a matter of policy, you hit me and your going to get hit. I doubt that is much of a deterrent given the nature of the game is taking territory rather than peacful cooperation. It does have the benefit though that if you are good or lucky enough to win both battles you have leverage for negotiations as your opponent has taken two hits to his morale, and you have the upper hand in holding yours and gaining one of theirs. Its also takes you off the hook from deciding who to invade so you don't look like a bad guy.

The downside is that its another army to pay for.

At least thats my take on it, I am sure there are others.

Thanks, I suspected it was something like that.

My own thought is that perhaps war isnt costly enough... As is now whether win or lose, once the war is over you get credited back the surving troop cost... Think about pantherboys battles, how many has he fought , 12? 14 or more? Since his causalties are low and he has won them all, I guestimate that he has only lost $600 or so, once the new tax season is in plus all his new territories he will be well over 20k in his treasury. It seems even a country that wins that many battles but had so many enemies should feel more a of a pinch in the pockets
Perhaps raising an army should be a permanent deduction in 650 (if you raise one of 650), nothing should be returned to you after a victroy or defeat. The cost of war really should only be recuped in increase in national moral or whatver terms you can get at the peace table....

That's why I'd like alliances to be more meaningful. The current system means that a country, especially one with a superior commander/army can hope to take on any number of enemies at the same time as he will be able to field a full strength force against each one as they come singly at him. It doesn''t make any difference whether those powers are allied to each other or not and yet it should. Even the great Napoleon couldn't achieve constant equivalence or better (despite his best efforts) in the face of ever increasing enemy coalitions or closer to our period we have the example of Antigonus eventually being overwhelmed when his Successor opponents finally combined effectively in battle.

TheGrayMouser wrote:My own thought is that perhaps war isnt costly enough... As is now whether win or lose, once the war is over you get credited back the surving troop cost... Think about pantherboys battles, how many has he fought , 12? 14 or more? Since his causalties are low and he has won them all, I guestimate that he has only lost $600 or so, once the new tax season is in plus all his new territories he will be well over 20k in his treasury. It seems even a country that wins that many battles but had so many enemies should feel more a of a pinch in the pockets
Perhaps raising an army should be a permanent deduction in 650 (if you raise one of 650), nothing should be returned to you after a victroy or defeat. The cost of war really should only be recuped in increase in national moral or whatver terms you can get at the peace table....

While I agree in theory with what you write I find myself disagreeing with the principle. I'd hate to think that a player that beats all-comers consistently and suffers few casualties in the process is ultimately beaten because enough people have ganged up on them to drain their treasury. Yes, it is realistic, but it goes against my principles. In my opinion this is a game and the best player should win.

In simple terms I think the primary solution should be for the aggressors to change their tactics or army composition so that they either win battles or inflict greater casualties on the enemy. Yes, this may still ultimately result in a financial victory, but it is more closely linked to performance on the battlefield rather than driving it from higher costs. It's easily said I know, but I know from personal experience that this is the right answer: recently I had 2 battles versus Pantherboy and I was humiliated in both games and both of them were primarily my fault because of my choice of army units and my battlefield tactics (or lack of) . I know that next time we cross swords and pikes that my army will be better and my tactics will be better too. I may not win the next battle, but it will be closer and Pantherboy will suffer more casualties... and eventually I will win!

I agree with you in some respects, and wasnt meaning to pick on the poor panthers either, just was using that as an extreme example that one can engage in a ridiulous amout of wars and not even be scratched economically....
However if the costs of wars was that much higher, if being an ally could be a double edged sword then possibly there would not have been that situation in the ist place...
Just some thoughts

Could we possibly end currently running games and pick up the campaign after we've had a chance to become familiar with the new movement system etc.?

Many positionings and such will have been dependent upon the older movement system.

Blathergut wrote:Could we possibly end currently running games and pick up the campaign after we've had a chance to become familiar with the new movement system etc.?

Many positionings and such will have been dependent upon the older movement system.

I think that existing games should be finished unless both players agree to end them prematurely. (Not quite sure if you were asking to end them immediately or to finish up the existing games.)

Beyond that I suspect it is an excellent time for Peter to declare the end of the Spring season with armies in the field remaining where they are other than any negotiations agreed upon between players. This should allow for everyone to have a little time to play with the new update before the summer campaign season starts.

Chris

Blathergut wrote:Could we possibly end currently running games and pick up the campaign after we've had a chance to become familiar with the new movement system etc.?

Many positionings and such will have been dependent upon the older movement system.

If it is like the last patch, I don't think we have a choice to NOT download it. I loaded up the beta last night and ran a couple of scenario battles. It doesn't take long to get the hang of it. If you need more time just dont pick up any competition challenges until you are ready. I am always up for a friendly challenge match if you like, and I will promise to be gentle on you

ps I fear for the safety if my famous 'smelly camel' brigade now. No more shooting and running away, they can only do one or the other now!

ianiow wrote:

Blathergut wrote:Could we possibly end currently running games and pick up the campaign after we've had a chance to become familiar with the new movement system etc.?

Many positionings and such will have been dependent upon the older movement system.

If it is like the last patch, I don't think we have a choice to NOT download it. I loaded up the beta last night and ran a couple of scenario battles. It doesn't take long to get the hang of it. If you need more time just dont pick up any competition challenges until you are ready. I am always up for a friendly challenge match if you like, and I will promise to be gentle on you

ps I fear for the safety if my famous 'smelly camel' brigade now. No more shooting and running away, they can only do one or the other now!

If you think its bad for your camel brigade, just think how bad it is for an army of cavalry horse archers! Now if they would just make when you evade a bit more rational it might make camel and cavalry archers useful again .

Chris

I would rather just terminate existing games. Units will be in positions where they shouldn't be now, army set up may be different, etc. With such major changes, I'd rather restart battles than try to continue them.

Blathergut wrote:I would rather just terminate existing games. Units will be in positions where they shouldn't be now, army set up may be different, etc. With such major changes, I'd rather restart battles than try to continue them.

I knew there was a reason I should not have made my last move in the battle I just lost to Pantherboy defending my territory. A nice clean reset to fight the battle over would definitely have been preferable. I knew the update was coming and the changes it included, so I consciously did make the move yesterday expecting that the game would finish in a pretty decisive defeat for me in order to avoid problems due to the upgrade.

I would hope that in any battle where the likely outcome isn't clear that the two opponents would be able to agree to cancel the existing battle and then to start it over with the update. Barring that agreement, i do think that it would not be fair to terminate battles that are already under way. It has been clear for a while that the new update is coming and the release date for Storm of Arrows with which it coincides has been relatively stable for at least a month. So this should not be a big surprise for anyone.

Chris

I have several battle still in progress. Im not sure what the state of play is, whether I am winning or losing etc, but I would like to carry on if it is ok with my opponents. It is the whim of the gods that the rules of engagement have changed mid battle, and it is up to us mortals to adapt.

Let me ask this, who currently has a battle going against the Panther Empire?

For any of you that been involved in campaigns where player collusion is allowed, its takes a combination of generalship and politician to win. By politician I mean he who does the work of contacting other players, coordianting strategies, etc. If you want to know who the best general is out of a group then stage a tournament. A campaign usually requires more than that to win, since success tends to breed opposition. My thoughts anyways.

Thanks, X

Xiccarph wrote:Let me ask this, who currently has a battle going against the Panther Empire?

Your stalwart ally is still fighting his defensive battle. Offensive will resume in the summer.

Xiccarph wrote:Let me ask this, who currently has a battle going against the Panther Empire?

For any of you that been involved in campaigns where player collusion is allowed, its takes a combination of generalship and politician to win. By politician I mean he who does the work of contacting other players, coordianting strategies, etc. If you want to know who the best general is out of a group then stage a tournament. A campaign usually requires more than that to win, since success tends to breed opposition. My thoughts anyways.

Thanks, X

I'm wondering if Xiccarph has ancient Spartan blood.... finishing his messages to his comrades in arms with a kiss