Slitherine

Not buying anything you did not have originally

Oh, I was about to mix freely as long as I stayed below the new point level. Good to know.
About upkeep; because a new season will come soon I must consider the upkeep cost if I continue the war.
If this was just after a season change I wouldn't have to give it any thought. I find that a bit off. As I wrote earlier, why not have a upkeep cost for the next battle regardless if it's just before or after a change in season? Reinforcements could also be a factor. If you want a bigger army than the new points allow you can pay for it. Lets say double cost for the defender and tripple for the attacker. Just throwing out numbers here. It should be thought through to find a level that works.

hidde wrote:

Not buying anything you did not have originally

Oh, I was about to mix freely as long as I stayed below the new point level. Good to know.
About upkeep; because a new season will come soon I must consider the upkeep cost if I continue the war.
If this was just after a season change I wouldn't have to give it any thought. I find that a bit off. As I wrote earlier, why not have a upkeep cost for the next battle regardless if it's just before or after a change in season? Reinforcements could also be a factor. If you want a bigger army than the new points allow you can pay for it. Lets say double cost for the defender and tripple for the attacker. Just throwing out numbers here. It should be thought through to find a level that works.

Heres one thing thats confusing me about the upkeep cost... I raise a 650 ap army and wage war, if I win and have 550 ap remaining my army disbands and I get 550 credited back into my bank... I can however keep the army in field if my opponent doesnt call it quits, I fight with this army (pretend I dont take any casualties) and in the end the only permanent $ loss is the caualties, $100. However if I continue the war over the next season, lets say And I have 500 aps left, i assume 500 is then deducted from my bank. What happens if I then finsh the war and have 450 aps left of army. Do I get 450 back into my account? or do I suffer the original 500 loss for keeping the army in the field over a season permanently... something doesnt quite jibe....

I hate tricky arithmatics - the question above is frying my brain.

In maintenance you pay for all army points still in the field and can also top up armies to 650 points again. You can choose not to pay & lose the army instead (you get the points back in your treasury) but then you also lose the province if defending, or if attacking you lose any advantage you may have had after the first battles.

Once we have cities it should become more important to maintain an army in an area either because you have redrawn into the city or have forced your opponent into one of his.

The advent of cities will also introduce relief armies fighting to defeat the besieging army and that's where it gets interesting - only an ally may send a relief army. I appreciate that this is unhistorical but I want to have purpose to alliances.

If it's a formal alliance for a year your ally may refuse to send a relief army but if it's a blood alliance (through marriage) your ally cannot refuse.

Regarding 2nd, 3rd battles you are only supposed to use the BG's you originally opted for (obviously reduced to your new total). If you are so reduced as to be down to the minimums then that is what you fight with - although you may want to seek peace instead!

In Army Maintenance you also have the option to pay to re-train your military & start any new campaigns with a different army list. With SoA released that hopefully makes it an interesting option too.

I'll post the Random Events info later today (Saturday) once I've had some sleep. Although I have not rolled for campaign end as yet it is impossible for the number of recent battles to not trigger this now.

petergarnett wrote:
Regarding 2nd, 3rd battles you are only supposed to use the BG's you originally opted for (obviously reduced to your new total). If you are so reduced as to be down to the minimums then that is what you fight with - although you may want to seek peace instead!

Welcome back! Question I posed a little while back (no doubt lost in the chatter) was whether you could forego additional units in a 2nd battle and purchase field fortifications. Not quite covered by your response, as field fortifications aren't a BG. The logical argument for doing it is that the natural response of an outnumbered army suddenly put on the defensive would be to dig in.

The answers is also important to me as it determines whether I cheated in my second defensive game against Panther....

I see no issue with purchasing fortications or with selecting fortified camp on a subsequent battle. Provided you are within the new army total & you don't select BG's you didn't have before.

I am withdrawing from the lands of the Pontics, much prefer the home climate.

petergarnett wrote:When war is declared the attacker raises his army upto a max of 650 points. The defender does the same but also decides which area to defend. The 2 battle, repeatedly if need be, until one gives up & makes peace.

If you resign you lose the battle but can fight again in another battle, i.e. you didn't like the terrain, or you merely wanted to deploy your army & check out the opposition.

However each lost battle (including any resigned) lowers your national morale & raises that of your opponent.

Perhaps we'd be better describing each fight for an area as a campaign.

As posted earlier today I don't like the idea of adding to your army points during such a campaign as players will merely keep topping upto 650 points. However we may need to revisit this.I fail to see what you could achieve merely putting up 1 point armies!

Please bear in mind also that in DAG there are minimums.

Hey Peter I apoligize if this changed along the way and I missed it but I was under the asumption of your guidline from above

If i understand correctly, for example I have fought two battles in the province of Haik vs Armeina this spring. My stalwart opponent is likely going to continue the war, summer comes around,,,Both our armies in Haik are much less than 650 aps's each Are you saying at the new season, we can if we wish and have the $ can continue the war and 3rd battle is at 650 aps?? I belive this is contrary to what was said before but no issues if not so. The only gripe i really have is , what was the point of my hard earned victories in both defence and offense if just because it is a new season we are now starting off on equal terms once again...

I suppose the bottom line is you failed to force him to concede the area or make some other peace agreement in time and now your army wants their pay.

You can abandon the campaign & avoid maintenance but he may still want to pursue the war or you can pay your men and carry on. You can only reinforce an army in the Maintenance phase of the season and not during the campaign turns (otherwise everyone would just keep topping upto 650 after every battle).

To me this is the point of having an unknown number of turns - if you knew when a season ended you would avoid costs etc. In the case you quote luck may not have been on your side but if you continue you force him to as well.

petergarnett wrote:I suppose the bottom line is you failed to force him to concede the area or make some other peace agreement in time and now your army wants their pay.

You can abandon the campaign & avoid maintenance but he may still want to pursue the war or you can pay your men and carry on. You can only reinforce an army in the Maintenance phase of the season and not during the campaign turns (otherwise everyone would just keep topping upto 650 after every battle).

To me this is the point of having an unknown number of turns - if you knew when a season ended you would avoid costs etc. In the case you quote luck may not have been on your side but if you continue you force him to as well.

I undertsand and agree with all your points, all that is ambiguous is: if the campaign in Haik continues into the summer (battle #3) , does he(or me) get to top off the armies or not...
Please , yes or no answer


Also, did you just post that we can change army lists every season, including lists from SOA?????

Hmmm...sounds like it...didn't know that! So the moral is, hang on in your province as long as you can...make it to the next season and you top up = even out !!

Blathergut wrote:Hmmm...sounds like it...didn't know that! So the moral is, hang on in your province as long as you can...make it to the next season and you top up = even out !!

I am not so sure , I am waiting to see Peter post a Yes or No answer No more lawyerese please

TheGrayMouser wrote:

petergarnett wrote:I suppose the bottom line is you failed to force him to concede the area or make some other peace agreement in time and now your army wants their pay.

You can abandon the campaign & avoid maintenance but he may still want to pursue the war or you can pay your men and carry on. You can only reinforce an army in the Maintenance phase of the season and not during the campaign turns (otherwise everyone would just keep topping upto 650 after every battle).

To me this is the point of having an unknown number of turns - if you knew when a season ended you would avoid costs etc. In the case you quote luck may not have been on your side but if you continue you force him to as well.

I undertsand and agree with all your points, all that is ambiguous is: if the campaign in Haik continues into the summer (battle #3) , does he(or me) get to top off the armies or not...
Please , yes or no answer


Also, did you just post that we can change army lists every season, including lists from SOA?????

Yes

petergarnett wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:

petergarnett wrote:I suppose the bottom line is you failed to force him to concede the area or make some other peace agreement in time and now your army wants their pay.

You can abandon the campaign & avoid maintenance but he may still want to pursue the war or you can pay your men and carry on. You can only reinforce an army in the Maintenance phase of the season and not during the campaign turns (otherwise everyone would just keep topping upto 650 after every battle).

To me this is the point of having an unknown number of turns - if you knew when a season ended you would avoid costs etc. In the case you quote luck may not have been on your side but if you continue you force him to as well.

I undertsand and agree with all your points, all that is ambiguous is: if the campaign in Haik continues into the summer (battle #3) , does he(or me) get to top off the armies or not...
Please , yes or no answer


Also, did you just post that we can change army lists every season, including lists from SOA?????

Yes

Oh no, you did it to me again!, There were two questions in the above post (sorry i seem obtuse, I deal with contracts at work where exact verbiage is constantly reviewed, torn down reassessed)
is it yes yes ???

I am disbanding my 2 armies for the time being, shall see what summer brings us.

deadtorius wrote:I am disbanding my 2 armies for the time being, shall see what summer brings us.

OK but may I clarify for all that if you are issued a challenge by the other player you must accept it or it's a resignation.

All armies involved in battles on the go at the time a season ends, including ones where the challenge has been issued but not accepted as yet, must be maintained - you cannot disband an army standing on the battlefield which is effectively what a challenge is.

That probably does not apply to your 2 armies deadtorius but on some of the earlier posts about delaying until the season ends players may not have understood this - a challenge is a battle and cannot be avoided. If you don't want to fight then use diplomacy to end the campaign. If you don't want your opponent to end the campaign & disband his army then fight him - issue the challenge.

petergarnett wrote:

deadtorius wrote:I am disbanding my 2 armies for the time being, shall see what summer brings us.

OK but may I clarify for all that if you are issued a challenge by the other player you must accept it or it's a resignation.

All armies involved in battles on the go at the time a season ends, including ones where the challenge has been issued but not accepted as yet, must be maintained - you cannot disband an army standing on the battlefield which is effectively what a challenge is.

That probably does not apply to your 2 armies deadtorius but on some of the earlier posts about delaying until the season ends players may not have understood this - a challenge is a battle and cannot be avoided. If you don't want to fight then use diplomacy to end the campaign. If you don't want your opponent to end the campaign & disband his army then fight him - issue the challenge.

Problem is you can't issue the 2nd challenge without knowing what the points for both sides are.

Ok, I guess this means that my war in Armenia is going to end, I really dont have the mental energy to fight two more battles with 2 armies topped back up to 650 points , fighting 5 battles in a row with the exact same armies is a little tedious.... I certainly dont issue or accept challenges in the DAg in that manner

Do you hear me oh mighty Tiganes of Armenia, we withdraw our troops from your bloodsoaked sandy lands of Haik if you withdraw from Geminiacum. Our victories over you and your ally are like ashes in our mouths....
In true Orwellian prose "Rome is friends w Armenia, Rome has never been at war with Armenia"

Perhaps next time we meet on the field of battle it will be with pikes longbows and bombards
SPQR

PG:

Did I understand right (posted above a bit) that during army maintenance phase:

1) Armies can be brought back up to 650?

2) We can change armies to any others including those in SoA?

In no particular order:-

Gray - yes yes

Pantherboy - my away time has caused this in part. I'll be issuing the new army points this weekend & allowing players time to issue challenges before the turn the season ends is revealed

Blathergut - yes yes

Gray again - I think the lack of cities is spoiling the game currently. Really one of you would have probably retired into the city and been besiged rather than fighting 5 ever smaller battles. The besieging army then possibly has to face another player's army

I'm crashing through the posts now but already suspect that we should use this season to build cities & have them in place for the summer campaign turns rather than fall.

Thanks for bearing with me all - this time of year is always a pain as we have the auditors in & I'm away far more than usual.

petergarnett wrote:In no particular order:-

Gray - yes yes

Pantherboy - my away time has caused this in part. I'll be issuing the new army points this weekend & allowing players time to issue challenges before the turn the season ends is revealed

Blathergut - yes yes

Gray again - I think the lack of cities is spoiling the game currently. Really one of you would have probably retired into the city and been besiged rather than fighting 5 ever smaller battles. The besieging army then possibly has to face another player's army

I'm crashing through the posts now but already suspect that we should use this season to build cities & have them in place for the summer campaign turns rather than fall.

Thanks for bearing with me all - this time of year is always a pain as we have the auditors in & I'm away far more than usual.

Ok I understand, not to specifically use my own real example as if I want the new rule clarifications to favour me, but I wouldnt have needed nor wanted to retreat into a city.... I have 3 victorries vs armenia and my ap advantage if we continue both battles would be enough i feel to give me 2 more victories, odds being very much in my favor... I dont think the cost of being allowed to top off the 2 armies into the next season and the maintamce costs are enough of an incentive to armenia(or any other nation) to ever give up and come to terms, just keep fighting additional battle at a disadvantage until you can top off and try again next season on equal terms...
This is just my opinion and i will play according to the spirit of the new clarification