Slitherine

keyth wrote:Well it's out Have a look around and let me know (when you've had a chance to decide) which army you would like to use.

Sounds good, another 6 hours before I get home to download.

Will there be multiple armies of the same type allowed?

Yes. I see the Isles as a pseudo-European culture where there may be more than one faction with similar/identical armed forces.

No prisoners!

Can you guess what my faction will be?

Paisley wrote:No prisoners!

Can you guess what my faction will be?

1970-71 Delta House list???

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Paisley wrote:No prisoners!

Can you guess what my faction will be?

1970-71 Delta House list???

Ok maybe I am really dating myself with that Animal House referance

Well, i have seen Braveheart like 5 times but cant remember "no prisoners' being yelled but i also know you like bad boy pike armies... methinks you will choose late Scottish,,,

Ordonnance Burgundian

I'll take medieval Early Germans hopefully they arnt glaringly deficient in something....

Im thinking later Germans myself. Tried a few runs with them against the AI, which has not been improved and so far so good. Guess we shall see as time goes on

After playing a few scenarios and goofing around would appear that longbows are pretty darn good... Unfortunalely almost all lists have them except the Germans (although they do have horsearchers and Heavy armour mtd crossbows, nice!)

Put me down for Low Countries(Maximillian). Pikes, pikes,pikes!

Chris

I'll start collating the behind-the-scenes stuff and should be ready to roll next week.

Give me a day or two to look through my options here...

iversonjm wrote:Give me a day or two to look through my options here...

No rush We won't be kicking off until everyone is happy with what is going on.

Cheers,

I would like later Germans, had them out in a few games I like them and my posted name was somewhat Germanic so those are the guys I would like to have.

The latest rules are up - not many changes/additions.

http://cid-404614788b316f26.skydrive.li ... 0Isles.doc

• Trade Missions
• Strategic map with hex identifiers for movement etc.

At the moment the casualty calculations are on hold due to the nature of the latest rout/evade changes where BGs seem to evaporate a lot more often! I think it is best to finalise this once play starts so that we know what sort of numbers we are looking at.

Cheers,

I shall be the Swiss. No prisoners!

As regards casualties... given we're raising based upon points and not numbers of men, surely casualties should be deducted in points also?

Take my recent battle against deeter. The winner 31/44, the loser 44/42.

I'd suggest the loser loses the entire points lost as a percentage of the points fielded. Thus 44/84 or 55%.

The winner should (I think) suffer much less, as was generally the case historically. So half the points lost as a percentage of those fielded. In this case 16/88 or 15%.

Yes, lets do casualties based on AP rather than lives lost please. The current system in the Lost Worlds campaign has all sorts of weird effects. For example, having a heavy foot unit break a LF unit can be a losing proposition even if you break the LF because of the numbers disparity between the units and the fact that casualties end up being calculated by percentage.

Paisley wrote:I shall be the Swiss. No prisoners!

As regards casualties... given we're raising based upon points and not numbers of men, surely casualties should be deducted in points also?

Take my recent battle against deeter. The winner 31/44, the loser 44/42.

I'd suggest the loser loses the entire points lost as a percentage of the points fielded. Thus 44/84 or 55%.

The winner should (I think) suffer much less, as was generally the case historically. So half the points lost as a percentage of those fielded. In this case 16/88 or 15%.

I see no issue with break points being used either but your example puzzles me
What if you won but at 43/44 Based on your calc you would only lose 24% of your ap's
I dont know if people would think that is too low for the winner in a real close battle...
Also break points can be lost by evading off the field, should these count as casualties??
I think the victory screen shows this as a seperate accounting (or maybe it lumps into ran off map/fragged)

Well historically the winners always suffered much less than the losers did (maybe the odd exceptions like Shrewsbury). But losing a battle should be bad and winning should be good. The loser's force would almost always be shattered by the defeat and take considerable time to regroup/rebuild. Not often so the winner. What profit in winning if your force will almost always be just about as badly beaten up as the loser's? So yeah, I'd count them all, evaders included. Going off casualty numbers is flawed because of the medium/light/heavy discrepancy mentioned.

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