Slitherine

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 do not have a battle currently going but have not decided to stop contesting the province he has invaded.

Bessus
Shahanshah of Phanagoria

batesmotel wrote:
I do not have a battle currently going but have not decided to stop contesting the province he has invaded.

He left you enough troops to carry on the fight?

Good for you! If Michael Caine could do it at Rourke's Drift, then so can you!

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

LoL I bear no emnity for anyone. Did I tell you my middle name was Xoxo?

batesmotel wrote:

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 do not have a battle currently going but have not decided to stop contesting the province he has invaded.

Not even now that you army has been rendered almost entirely useless by the patch? (Mine is affected too, but I am guessing not as badly as yours. However, it was a bit tough to have half my cavalry rendered effectively useless in the middle of a battle.).

Ya...there are all kinds of things affected. Hopefully all my opponents will agree and we will end battles and then resume things one way or another when summer rolls around and we've had a chance to try things out.

I know we've known about SOA coming. I had hoped for a fix to evades/routs (but never had a word on that). I had no clue about the changes to movement and shooting.

Don't know how practical this is, but in a campaign game I narrowly lost the battle to a horde army. Before I lost though, I killed all his good troops and huge amounts of the horde. In the next battle, I suppose, he will be able to buy whatever he wants. Shouldn't there be a finite number of special troop replacements?

Deeter

deeter wrote:Don't know how practical this is, but in a campaign game I narrowly lost the battle to a horde army. Before I lost though, I killed all his good troops and huge amounts of the horde. In the next battle, I suppose, he will be able to buy whatever he wants. Shouldn't there be a finite number of special troop replacements?

Deeter

I think, per Peters prior posts, the spirit of the game is to reload the exact same army for battle #2, or 3, and only remove units until your army drops to the correct new AP figure. This is what i have been doing (simply save as the dag army as "battle # 2", and take away the units)
It could become problematic after say battle 3-4 when some lists have minimums of certain units

rbodleyscott wrote:

batesmotel wrote:

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 do not have a battle currently going but have not decided to stop contesting the province he has invaded.

Not even now that you army has been rendered almost entirely useless by the patch? (Mine is affected too, but I am guessing not as badly as yours. However, it was a bit tough to have half my cavalry rendered effectively useless in the middle of a battle.).

Note that I said I had not decided to give up the province. I also haven't decided to keep defending it. I'm currently sitting on the fence waiting to hear from Peter when he's back. One good thing about the Bosporans long term is that they do have a fair number of useful options in the list. It is unfortunate that Legions Triumphant isn't out yet so the Roman ally option isn't available. I do gather than the Empire of the Panthers is being somewhat inconvenienced by suddenly having their MF behave impetuously with the patch. If nothing else, the revised anarchy charge rules actually have improved the behavior of lance armed cavalry and cataphracts since you can have them charge what you want once they are in position rather than having them go off in a random charge and that the back rank will no longer insist on charging through the front is they are deployed in multiple ranks.

Bessos
Shahanshah of Phanagoria

Ah! Thanks for that greymouser. I missed that but will do what you say.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Don't know how practical this is, but in a campaign game I narrowly lost the battle to a horde army. Before I lost though, I killed all his good troops and huge amounts of the horde. In the next battle, I suppose, he will be able to buy whatever he wants. Shouldn't there be a finite number of special troop replacements?

Deeter

I believe he can only buy new stuff for an existing army with the start of a new season. Continuing battle within a season has to be a subset of the original army but he can have as much of the good stuff he had in the original army as his remaining points let him keep. So if the good stuff and horde stuff you killed were troops that had high strengths, e.g. HF, then he will be down a bigger percentage of his strength than if the stuff you killed was low strength, e.g. LF and LH.

Bessus
Shahanshah Phanagoria

Before I lost though, I killed all his good troops and huge amounts of the horde

That should be me since I can't see that the kingdom of Utopia is at war with anyone else. It's true that many of my valiant warriors met a honourable death on the field of battle but let me remind you of your own casulties .
As a matter of fact I'm a bit concerned that I've made a mistake because when I do the math my causalty rate was ~30% and your's ~47%. That's from the number I posted. I'm at work but I will check when I get home so I didn't swopped the numbers by mistake

No worries. What you posted is correct:

Battle of Rhodes

Attacker:
hidde(Jewish)

Defender:
deeter(Seleucid)

Attacker results:
650pts - 57500/17004 - 48/66 - WIN

Defender results:
?pts - 47540/22040 - 49/48 - LOSE

I have PM'ed some diplomacy and awaited your responce.

Deeter

batesmotel wrote:
I believe he can only buy new stuff for an existing army with the start of a new season. Continuing battle within a season has to be a subset of the original army but he can have as much of the good stuff he had in the original army as his remaining points let him keep. So if the good stuff and horde stuff you killed were troops that had high strengths, e.g. HF, then he will be down a bigger percentage of his strength than if the stuff you killed was low strength, e.g. LF and LH.

Bessus
Shahanshah Phanagoria

Not sure this is correct. If it is, I've been doing it wrong and I apologize to my opponents. My understanding was we just spent the reduced points on a new army.

Just re-read the rules and you're right and I'm wrong. My apologies to Panther.

Although I do have a question: aside from buying a couple of units of MF archers, my big change in my second battle against him was to buy fortifications, which seems a reasonable tactical response for an army when shifting to the defensive. Can we get a ruling from the grand poo-bah as to whether one can sacrifice additional units in a subsequent battle in order to purchase fortifications?

You should:

a) Load your original army with which you fought the first battle.

b) Remove enough to bring you down to the new point level. Not buying anything you did not have originally.

c) I don't think there were specifics about which stuff to take as casualties. It makes some sense to say if a guy's elephants were all routed they shouldn't be back, or there should be a few less pikes, but it would be hard to manage. Guess he brought along lots of elephant bandages!!!

iversonjm wrote:

batesmotel wrote:
I believe he can only buy new stuff for an existing army with the start of a new season. Continuing battle within a season has to be a subset of the original army but he can have as much of the good stuff he had in the original army as his remaining points let him keep. So if the good stuff and horde stuff you killed were troops that had high strengths, e.g. HF, then he will be down a bigger percentage of his strength than if the stuff you killed was low strength, e.g. LF and LH.

Bessus
Shahanshah Phanagoria

Not sure this is correct. If it is, I've been doing it wrong and I apologize to my opponents. My understanding was we just spent the reduced points on a new army.

I dont think that is right either.... My understanding is invading or defending a province is to be consider a "campaign"
You continue to fight battles until one or both sides withdrw, make peace etc, at reduced ap's at each next battle.. Now if Peter declares a new season and the battle rages on, you do not get to top off those armies, you keep fighting w the reduced ap's for battles 3, 4 or whatever
The crux is that you now need to pay for that army that still in the field at the beginning of the new season (ie if battle # 1 in spring, your 650 pt army is reduce to 500aps and now battle # 2 is fought in summer, you now have to pay 500 aps , no topping off back to 650)
I think if you could top off their would never be any point in withdrawing, conceding afte a loss, you could just keep sending smaller and smaller armies into the field until a new season is declared and then just "start over"

Thats my understanding. The reduced points are applied to the selected army (from that player's assigned army list) that he started the war within the province. As long as he continues the war he has to decide for each succeeding battle which of the starting units, within the reduced total, he chooses to refight the next battle with.

TheGrayMouser wrote: I dont think that is right either.... My understanding is invading or defending a province is to be consider a "campaign"
You continue to fight battles until one or both sides withdrw, make peace etc, at reduced ap's at each next battle.. Now if Peter declares a new season and the battle rages on, you do not get to top off those armies, you keep fighting w the reduced ap's for battles 3, 4 or whatever
The crux is that you now need to pay for that army that still in the field at the beginning of the new season (ie if battle # 1 in spring, your 650 pt army is reduce to 500aps and now battle # 2 is fought in summer, you now have to pay 500 aps , no topping off back to 650)
I think if you could top off their would never be any point in withdrawing, conceding afte a loss, you could just keep sending smaller and smaller armies into the field until a new season is declared and then just "start over"

I did put the question to Peter as to when and if you could reinforce armies and was told that you could do it in the maintenance phase of a new season. Alternatively, it appears that you can simply raise an entirely new army and commit it to the fight and let the old beat up one disband. This does allow fights to drag out, but at the cost of continued beatings to your national morale. I guess we'll have to wait until he returns for clarification.

Bear with me whilst I work my way through all the posts over the last 7 days.

However on a quick scan - has SoA caused an issue for us or have I misunderstood?

Cheers

It sure changed movement and such, and tactics (esp. ye olde turn-the-heavies-and-run-and-turn-back thingie). It seems like most just plodded thru the games. My battles w hidde are back on...might as well just continue and finish them. But people will need to rethink tactics.