Slitherine

If you think about this in a historical way for a moment and think about what the rules are actually trying to represent - then there most likely would have been a "pursuit phase" after the battle where more Swedes would have been killed, so there is a sensible basis for calculating some extra losses; in addition the Danes would have been really keen to capture Ture and the other local nobles who led the "rebel army". So the local elite would almost certainly have fled (to Nerke probably) whereas most of the surviving militiamen would have returned to their farms. But the losses being calculated at the moment seem to me to be way over the top as if some dreadful massacre had taken place even though the battle itself was a close run thing.

Maybe what could be factored in is that provinces that are defeated in battle are less likely to join the rebellion in future. So instead of there being a 20% chance they will not join if Swedish forces enter in future maybe it could be a 40% chance for the rest of the campaign ( to represent demoralisation, losses, lack of local leadership etc)?

What do people think of the castle maps that myself and Pers-Anders have been looking at the last few days. Do you like them?

The castles look good (even better if there would have been stone wall and palisade graphics in the editor...) and the siege effect seems to be reasonable.

Maybe the pictures should be resized to about 50% before posting though?

This campaign has become much more complicated than I thought when I was planning the whole thing

Thanks for all feedback, ideas and suggestions.
And thanks for not dropped put of this campaign (yet), I actually feel a bit bad as if I have fooled you to participate in something that's not finished But I hope we can find solutions to any problems we encounter in the campaign system...

I've been reading you ideas and suggestions, thinking and experimenting a bit and come up with the following:

Maps
Meeting engagements
Map size: 20x30
Turns: 18
Free deployment
Army size: 20 vs 20
I've tested both 20x20 and 20x30. I found that I think 20x30 works best in ME battles and numbers of turns would be 18. I find that's enough on this size.

As you've seen Pete and I have been experimenting with castles and two types of castles: large and small. Most of the castles would be small, only Stockholm and Kalmar are large as they are the two main objectives in the campaign. Attacking castles are supposed to be hard, and in most cases there should be a siege for 1 or 2 phases before the actual attack is done. Walls will be represented by impassable terrain, with a number of gaps representing gates, but also damage done by siege weapons. An undamaged castle has two (or three, Pete and I are still testing) gaps. For each phase of siege another two gaps are added. In addition an undamaged castle has steep hills, while a castle that is under siege will have ordinary hills.

Large castles
Map size: 30x30
Turns: 25
Fixed deployment to allow the attacker to deploy from more than one side.
Army size: 30 vs 25 if attacked without a siege. After 1 phase of siege 30 vs 22, 2 phases of siege 30 vs 19, 3 phases of siege 30 vs 16 etc.

Small castles
Map size: 20x20
Turns: 18
Fixed deployment to allow the attacker to deploy from more than one side.
Army size: 20 vs 15 if attacked without a siege. After 1 phase of siege 20 vs 12, 2 phases of siege 20 vs 9, 3 phases of siege 20 vs 6 etc.

Withdrawing armies and dissolving armies
A. Steve has spotted an error in rule 7.6.6. It should be like Steve writes:

It is obvious that 7.6.6 is meant to read "for that army to withdraw into then the loser's army is dissolved".

My mistake, thanks Steve!

B. I think Steve summarises the situation in Westra Götaland very well:

1. Capture Orebro castle this turn and then retreat to Nerke while your other army occupies the castle. Best solution.
2. Retreat to Nerke while the castle is still in Danish hands and eliminate all the units beyond 35 that exist when the two occupying armies merge.
3. Dissolve and lose half the army and hope to free Westra Gotaland at some later stage.

Option 2 is not something covered by the rules, but the idea is good. It could be a good thing to allow armies to withdraw to a province with a friendly army and merge. It also feel realistic and maybe historical correct, that the survivors of an army seek up another friendly army.
Problem is that if the army of Nerke loses it has to withdraw to a neighbouring province under Swedish control. There's no guarantee there will be a province to withdraw to. It will if army of Gestrikland loses and the army of Dalarna wins, then Dalarna will be free for army of Nerke.
But as army of Nerke is one of the starting armies, starting in Nerke which has a Danish army inside Örebro Castle, it might be a good idea to give the army of Nerke a special rule: If in the opening phase, the army attacks Örebro castle and losing, the army will not withdraw to a neighbouring province. But in all phases after the first it has to. Or, we allow all armies attacking castles and loses to stay in the province but not count as besieging the castle. The latter I think is more realistic.
Regarding option 3, when I read the rules about dissolved armies, it does not say anything about a dissolved army coming back when the province is back in friendly control:

7.7.3 Province armies redeploy in their home provinces. If their home
province is already occupied they will redeploy first when the home
province is unoccupied. If the province has a castle, both the castle and the
province must be occupied for the army not to be able to redeploy.

This would mean that the Danish must stay in the province, otherwise the dissolved army will redeploy and take control of the province again...

When it comes to the 'penalty' for being dissolved. Eliminating half of the remaining army is much. But when playtesting and from your battle in Westra Götaland, even if there was high losses in break points, not many BG's were lost. I think the Danish lost 2 while the Swedish lost 5 in the actual battle. That's not very heavy losses, and I think we need a way of inflicting heavy losses.

cavehobbit wrote:
Maps
Meeting engagements
Map size: 20x30
Turns: 18
Free deployment
Army size: 20 vs 20
I've tested both 20x20 and 20x30. I found that I think 20x30 works best in ME battles and numbers of turns would be 18. I find that's enough on this size.

Yes, I like this idea for phase 2 and beyond.

As you've seen Pete and I have been experimenting with castles and two types of castles: large and small. Most of the castles would be small, only Stockholm and Kalmar are large as they are the two main objectives in the campaign. Attacking castles are supposed to be hard, and in most cases there should be a siege for 1 or 2 phases before the actual attack is done. Walls will be represented by impassable terrain, with a number of gaps representing gates, but also damage done by siege weapons. An undamaged castle has two (or three, Pete and I are still testing) gaps. For each phase of siege another two gaps are added. In addition an undamaged castle has steep hills, while a castle that is under siege will have ordinary hills.

Large castles
Map size: 30x30
Turns: 25
Fixed deployment to allow the attacker to deploy from more than one side.
Army size: 30 vs 25 if attacked without a siege. After 1 phase of siege 30 vs 22, 2 phases of siege 30 vs 19, 3 phases of siege 30 vs 16 etc.

Small castles
Map size: 20x20
Turns: 18
Fixed deployment to allow the attacker to deploy from more than one side.
Army size: 20 vs 15 if attacked without a siege. After 1 phase of siege 20 vs 12, 2 phases of siege 20 vs 9, 3 phases of siege 20 vs 6 etc.

Very interesting experiments under way on the castles. I would actually think about a maximum length of siege at either 2 or 3 months. Not only would the castle defenders degrade due to food shortages, poor sanitary conditions etc but so would the attackers too after a certain amount of time, particularly in a Swedish winter!

I don't know what to say about dissolving armies and the rest of it. It seems to me that defeated armies would disperse - the local nobles and knights would flee, the farmers would just go home and the province would be a bit less likely to join the rebellion again in future.

My impression was that an army that attacks a castle will not be forced to withdraw if they fail. I think a siegeing army should have two choices.

1. Start/continue/cancel a siege.
2. Assault the castle but forgo developing the siege that turn. Victory carries the castle but a loss simply squanders the chance to have advanced the siege that turn.

Might there be a "siege season"? Say April to September? No sieges allowed October to March as it is too cold. Castles could still be assaulted though.

The Army of Gestrikland marched to the outskirts of Västerås, had a quick peek at the Army of Westmanland and sheepishly asked to be allowed to go back home. Permission granted.
A messenger were sent to Dalarna with instructions to ask Gustav Vasa not to attempt anything foolish

hidde wrote:The Army of Gestrikland marched to the outskirts of Västerås, had a quick peek at the Army of Westmanland and sheepishly asked to be allowed to go back home. Permission granted.
A messenger were sent to Dalarna with instructions to ask Gustav Vasa not to attempt anything foolish

Gustav is appalled at the news. He sent your army in first to weaken the garrison so that he could then swan in afterwards and claim a magnificent victory. It is things like this that could make him be reconciled to Kalmar.

The army attacking Örebro castle has reconsidered as well and turned tail.

voskarp wrote:The army attacking Örebro castle has reconsidered as well and turned tail.

That is OK, Lord Oskar. At least some of my nobles know how to follow orders!

My impression was that an army that attacks a castle will not be forced to withdraw if they fail. I think a siegeing army should have two choices.

1. Start/continue/cancel a siege.
2. Assault the castle but forgo developing the siege that turn. Victory carries the castle but a loss simply squanders the chance to have advanced the siege that turn.

Sadly I don't remember my exact intentions when I wrote the rules (over six months ago), but I think these two choices are very good!

Might there be a "siege season"? Say April to September? No sieges allowed October to March as it is too cold. Castles could still be assaulted though.

The idea is interesting and realistic. But I think we should keep the rules as simple as possible at this point. But I think this could be included in a future version of the campaign rules.


I will soon come up with a list of rule changes suggestions for next phase.

stockwellpete wrote:

hidde wrote:The Army of Gestrikland marched to the outskirts of Västerås, had a quick peek at the Army of Westmanland and sheepishly asked to be allowed to go back home. Permission granted.
A messenger were sent to Dalarna with instructions to ask Gustav Vasa not to attempt anything foolish

Gustav is appalled at the news. He sent your army in first to weaken the garrison so that he could then swan in afterwards and claim a magnificent victory. It is things like this that could make him be reconciled to Kalmar.

What will Gustav and his Army of Dalarna do? Will they march into Westmanland or will they stay in Dalarna?

cavehobbit wrote:What will Gustav and his Army of Dalarna do? Will they march into Westmanland or will they stay in Dalarna?

Well, if we march in there and attack the castle, provided we are not defeated then Westmanland will join the rebellion? Is that correct? If so, Gustav is marching into Westmanland (and Lord Anders is going to the dungeon!).

stockwellpete wrote:

cavehobbit wrote:What will Gustav and his Army of Dalarna do? Will they march into Westmanland or will they stay in Dalarna?

Well, if we march in there and attack the castle, provided we are not defeated then Westmanland will join the rebellion? Is that correct? If so, Gustav is marching into Westmanland (and Lord Anders is going to the dungeon!).

I think a province with a castle under siege has to count as either under control of the castle occupant or under neither sides control otherwise castles cease to have any significance in the campaign. So therefore the province should not join the Swedes while the castle is in Danish hands.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: I think a province with a castle under siege has to count as either under control of the castle occupant or under neither sides control otherwise castles cease to have any significance in the campaign. So therefore the province should not join the Swedes while the castle is in Danish hands.

Hmm . . . but Rule 8.11 states, "If enemy army occupy the castle in a province, the other side’s army must stay in that province to gain control of the province. Once the army in the province leave the province, the control of the province change side to the army occupying the castle."

Get the lawyers!!

stockwellpete wrote:

batesmotel wrote: I think a province with a castle under siege has to count as either under control of the castle occupant or under neither sides control otherwise castles cease to have any significance in the campaign. So therefore the province should not join the Swedes while the castle is in Danish hands.

Hmm . . . but Rule 8.11 states, "If enemy army occupy the castle in a province, the other side’s army must stay in that province to gain control of the province. Once the army in the province leave the province, the control of the province change side to the army occupying the castle."

Get the lawyers!!

Why not a duel? On horseback in shining armour, lance and shield in the morning mist?

Actually, Pete is right, rule 8.11 (should be 8.1.1, my mistake) is quite clear I think. And I had a pm discussion with Steve and Pete during the order phase where this was clarified and both sides agreed:

First of all, if the Swedish side gets control over the province of Westmanland then both the the armies of Westmanland and Helsingland will join Gustav Vasa's rebellion. That's what makes it such a key province in the opening phases. To control the province the Swedish side needs to have an army in the province at the end of the phase. If the Danish got an army in the castle, does not matter. My intention was that an army hiding behind the walls can't control the province if the enemy have an army present in the province. The army outside the castle is the one controlling the people in the province.
Does this make sense?

But why should the Danish choose to stay in the castle, what would they benefit from staying and not move outside the castle to try and repels any attackers? One advantage would be to tie up one of the Swedish armies for a number of phases, and if the Swedish army would leave the province the Danish will get control again.

Ok, so Gustav is sending his army into Westmanland. I will send my army details to you now.

Ok so the Danes control the Castle at Orebro and the Swedish simply sat and looked then turned tail. They decided it was to hard a task to take the castle but do they control the province of Nerke? Why would a force occupying a castle want to attack an army on the outside its walls? You wouldn't do so unless you had a much larger army. If no one is going to attack a Castle then what's the point of the campaign? Sure you can say the attacker is besieging the Castle but both players will simply look at each other and then decide a draw is in order and nothing has really happened.

Turk1964 wrote:Ok so the Danes control the Castle at Orebro and the Swedish simply sat and looked then turned tail. They decided it was to hard a task to take the castle but do they control the province of Nerke? Why would a force occupying a castle want to attack an army on the outside its walls? You wouldn't do so unless you had a much larger army. If no one is going to attack a Castle then what's the point of the campaign? Sure you can say the attacker is besieging the Castle but both players will simply look at each other and then decide a draw is in order and nothing has really happened.

The Swedes control it at the moment because we were in the province at the start of the game. If our army moves out of Nerke then the province is then under Danish control so the effect of the castle at the moment is to restrict our movement. If you look at it the other way round, the point of a castle is to control the surrounding district, having a strongpoint and sending patrols out in all directions to collect taxes etc. If it is besieged then it cannot function as fully as it should and it is not really controlling anything. I think, because we didn't know what the castles were like, our Swedish team were a bit unfocussed with our orders. If the castle maps that Pers-Anders and myself are working on are accepted by everyone then we will all know in future that a preparatory period of siege before an assault is the best way to take a castle - a direct assault without a period of siege will need quite a bit of luck to succeed. Actually, what we should have done in our first move was to just put the two castles under siege.

A castle army might come out and attack if they thought they could defeat the army outside. As we go through the campaign the various contingents will start getting battered and become understrength and so besieging armies might not be at full strength.