Slitherine

Wouldn't it be more likely, if no casualties are handed out, that both armies would be in that same place? Have them both occupy the location and fight/move away next turn? Maybe there should be a minimum percentage that needs to be inflicted to cause an army to retreat? If you only take 4% you'd hardly be inclined to run. This would give incentive to fight, perhaps, but also incentive to just hold and occupy an opposing army while other things happen nearby. If you don't want to be held in place, then you'd best come at me and move me.

I understand most losses in renaissance warfare didn't occur on the battlefield but as a result of disease and desertion. With the crappy supply and hygiene systems at the time few armies could sit in place for any length of time. If two armies camp facing each other in close proximity they both start to deteriorate, and the larger the army the greater its loses. So if the army being intercepted doesn't have to win the battlefield and both remain in place then they should both suffer say 20% casualties due to disease and desertion, and that should increase by 10% for each move they stay there. So their side then has to either keep supplying fresh troops to make up losses or withdraw.
Are there any examples from the ECW of two armies sitting around for weeks like this? Other than in a siege I can't think of any. I think in almost every case one of the sides (and not always the one that lost most casualties in the battle) withdrew, leaving the battlefield to the other. Sometimes both withdrew as they'd run out of ammo and food.
The campaign rules don't allow two friendly armies to occupy the same area, how can two enemies safely do so?

I have just been well and truly trounced by Turenne and his Royalists. R-9% P-46% 37% . I shall attempt to tot up casualties etc later today. Thanks for the game Turenne.

Doyley50 wrote:I have just been well and truly trounced by Turenne and his Royalists. R-9% P-46% 37% . I shall attempt to tot up casualties etc later today. Thanks for the game Turenne.

I have a magic spreadsheet that does all of this for us, so no need to do any hard sums I can plug in the results and everything just appears (including a text string of who beat whom and where that I can cut and paste to the forum ) :

1642 Early Summer: Royalist victory at Scarborough for the IX Borderers under General turenne against the 5th Northern under General Doyley50

Attacker Army Faction IMP % Cas RMP
turenne IX Borderers Royalist 1200 9 W 108 1156.8

Defender Army Faction IMP % Cas RMP
Doyley50 5th Northern Parliament 1200 46 L 552 813.6

The formatting is a bit rubbish - I'll share the spreadsheet on the same link as the rules. IMP - Initial Manpower, % casualties, actual casualties, and RMP - Remaining Manpower (which needs to be rounded).

Blathergut wrote:Wouldn't it be more likely, if no casualties are handed out, that both armies would be in that same place? Have them both occupy the location and fight/move away next turn? Maybe there should be a minimum percentage that needs to be inflicted to cause an army to retreat? If you only take 4% you'd hardly be inclined to run. This would give incentive to fight, perhaps, but also incentive to just hold and occupy an opposing army while other things happen nearby. If you don't want to be held in place, then you'd best come at me and move me.

In a two-player game, where such things could be resolved quickly, this would be possible. Once you scale that up to twenty players, the potential knock-on effects become very big indeed. With just one player per faction, marching in two 600 armies and fight as a single 1200 army would work; it doesn't for us. There are a number of abstractions we have to live with, mostly due to how orders are given and executed, which exist to make the game manageable and hopefully flow reasonably well.

That said, I am always happy to hear suggestions and ideas about the system. Even if they can't always be included in the 'Big Game', I will add them to the section in the rules for two-player games where some of the constraints can be removed.

Thank you also Doyley 50 - I had luck that you failed a cavalry that could charge the flank of your infantry line.

The Parliamentarian forces of Aryaman have been prevented from reaching Reading - but at what cost?

rbodleyscott (Royalist 53%) won vs Aryaman (Parliament 61%).

A few more victories like this and the King's cause will be lost.

rbodleyscott wrote:The Parliamentarian forces of Aryaman have been prevented from reaching Reading - but at what cost?

rbodleyscott (Royalist 53%) won vs Aryaman (Parliament 61%).

A few more victories like this and the King's cause will be lost.

Fear not, many of our dead can be re-animated by the Kings seer.

Victories in the North and South (congrats RBS and Turrenne), but what news from Lord Keyth in the midlands?

Hopefully dead on the battlefield!!!!

Blathergut wrote:Hopefully dead on the battlefield!!!!

I would love to say that it all hangs in the balance but my foot is doing a grand job of disrupting whenever someone claps their hands loudly, let alone shoots at them...

1642 Early Summer: Royalist victory at Reading for the VII South Eastern under General rbodleyscott against the 1st South Eastern under General Aryaman

General rbodleyscott took 636 casualties and now has 946 men. General Aryaman took 732 casualties and now has 688 men.

Results and their effects will be added to the first page.

I have added Behemoth_Manager.xlsx to the downloads link for anyone who is interested in the behind the scenes stuff.

Keyth, when an army garrisoning an arsenal or fortified town is attacked it is given extra forces for that battle. How are the losses attributed after the battle? Are the first 100, 200, 300 loses taken from the extras or the original or is it proportional? Andre

awesum4 wrote:Keyth, when an army garrisoning an arsenal or fortified town is attacked it is given extra forces for that battle. How are the losses attributed after the battle? Are the first 100, 200, 300 loses taken from the extras or the original or is it proportional? Andre

Another very good question! The losses will be spread proportionally. I will add this as another clarification to the rules

Sirs,

I do most vigorously pat my floppy hat, throw my scented hanky in the air and wave my beloved poodle above my head, at my lords Turenne and Rbodleyscott, for their great triumphs in the recent pass. This does indeed prove that Dieu is definitely on mon Droit.

No doubt the genteel ladies of Reading and the not quite so genteel ladies of Scarborough are at this moment loosening their stays in anticipation of the triumphant possession of their parts by our conquering heroes who have ensured this emerald land is fit for Kings, Aristocrats and Higher clergy.

Andre Devereux, 4th Earl of Cornish Pasties

A discussion has begun in the Royalist command tent that is drifting into the area of rules changes so I am sharing it here for general consumption:

TheGrayMouser wrote:
I wondering if having an army potentially have to fight two battles in one turn is a little harsh. If not for the fact that Turrennes army captured a fortified town, he would be at a disadvantage in #'s
It also makes for confusing strategy decisions where "reactionary forces" (that potentially can attack/intercept in any direction) trump dedicated planned moves by both sides
Possible change: when army A and enemy Army b both have orders to move into the same town, garrisons would be exempt/forbidden from intercepting into that town? (emphasis on intercepting into a "town" that meets that condition. This would keep in theme that players can not give orders in expectation of other outcomes preceding that.
Ie use a spoiler army to cripple enemy army and then moved army to mop up all in one turn... Could this make the turn resolution quicker?

We are in the land of not-entirely-foreseen consequences at the moment I am not entirely against an army having to fight more than once but only if it is a by-product rather than the aim of movement. After all, it will become entirely possible to be outnumbered by one army, let alone being tag-teamed by two!

Initial thoughts:
I like the idea of armies being ordered to lie in wait, though perhaps this needs to be focused, i.e. 'Watch the Reading road', so it is more of a targeted ambush than a 360 degree ZOC. Add a limitation that there can only be one ambush/patrol per town and that takes care of the multiple intercept situation. Also, this would allow garrisons to be outflanked and bypassed. This would then logically lead to no ambush/patrol on a route that you will advance down this turn, preventing the double-tap.

Edit: will post this on the main forum too, for general discussion.

The battle of Bedford is over. The Parliamentarian 4th South Eastern (8%) defeted the Royalist IV Midlands (47%). After some shooting and melee, most of the Royalist infantry broke in a single turn.
Thank for the game, Keyth.

cavehobbit wrote:The battle of Bedford is over. The Parliamentarian 4th South Eastern (8%) defeted the Royalist IV Midlands (47%). After some shooting and melee, most of the Royalist infantry broke in a single turn.
Thank for the game, Keyth.

I never liked Bedford anyway...

So that's all the battles. Now what happens?

Can damaged armies 'fill up'? Can they go beyond their original 1200 points?

What happens at Hull? Can the two armies stack or combine if not?

Isn't there still a battle at Scarborough between Turenne's army in defense of the town against the attack from Waldorf? Presumably Deadtorious has occupied Reading