Slitherine

Cunningcairn wrote:Hun Turn 1
1 action - invade Hys / Hystria / dacian 89-106 ad

Hi mate,
everything's correct but you should also specify if your attack is starting from Dacia or Scythia!

Kabill has been appointed in alphabetical order to lead the Dacian in Hystria against the Huns of Cunningcairn

We now lack only the orders of klayecles to fulfill the 1st turn order phase!

In the meanwhile also Cunningcairn can start his attack, while hidde has to wait until the orders of the Kushans have been sent.

Lysimachos wrote:

Cunningcairn wrote:Hun Turn 1
1 action - invade Hys / Hystria / dacian 89-106 ad

Hi mate,
everything's correct but you should also specify if your attack is starting from Dacia or Scythia!

I'll attack from Scythia.

Challenge posted for kabill PW dacian

Lysimachos wrote:We now lack only the orders of klayecles to fulfill the 1st turn order phase!

In the meanwhile also Cunningcairn can start his attack, while hidde has to wait until the orders of the Kushans have been sent.

just got back in town, and am furiously reading rules and posts....soon

klayeckles wrote: just got back in town, and am furiously reading rules and posts....soon

Don't miss to read the ratings thread if you haven't
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 01&t=80847

Just a shot from the battle between Visigoths and Romans in Tarraconensis (Hispania)

hidde wrote:

klayeckles wrote: just got back in town, and am furiously reading rules and posts....soon

Don't miss to read the ratings thread if you haven't
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 01&t=80847

beautifully done...
i'm the blind squirrel that found the acorn!

And here's a picture of the Palmyran host attacking the Romans in Syria

Lysimachos wrote:And here's a picture of the Palmyran host attacking the Romans in Syria

I can't tell you how weird that looks from your side. I wasn't even sure it was our battle at first!

Well that's all decidedly unfriendly... i haven't even taken the throne yet and spies are stealing my traitors..and then those BARBARIAN Hephtalites Led by Hidde the Destroyer are marching in to my territories before i had time to even sample my 40 wives or 128 concubines...And he has the audacity to cut off my ability to attack Bactria--which I THOUGHT was our sworn mutual enemy! Spies--stolen Traitors--Broken Alliances--abandoned concubines...this is a travesty! Bring me my travel caravan...Scribes...take down these orders:
ORDER NUMBER 0.0: kill the spy that stole my traitor, and make sure to get the name of the guy that sent him BEFORE he's dead.
ORDER NUMBER 1/2: Build a shrine in my honor
ORDER NUMBER 1: Build a bridge in my honor
ORDER NUMBER 1x2: Lead my armies into Arc from Stg
SPECIAL REQUEST To WIFE NUMBER 17: please stop hitting me...and i would really appreciate it if you would order wife 18 to pack some of that good wine we got as a gift from our fantastic friends the Sassanids for the caravan, and hey send them concubine number 122 (the one with the 11 toes) as a token of my appreciation. and while you're at it, send them that map of the short cut thru MRG to Hephtalite teritory.

so i did a review of the rules and seems the bugs are pretty worked out and i must say...GREAT EFFORT. i've done a few of these types of games, and it can be a lot of work...and like herding drunken cats. fortunately this is a great bunch of gamers so it should go pretty smooth.

i do have a couple comments.
First, i like that we are trying to get some variety in the types of battles. but i do have a concern about "The head" and the baggage train.
for the remove the Head...depending on the nation, there are limited types of troops the commander can be placed with and some might have a decided advantage...(a cav that is mobile and/or is prone to flee vs a foot troop) so we might want to think about that a little.

second. for the baggage train raids...giving three nations the complete ability to force a baggage train battle is pretty rough. i think those nations might find it a very desirable option. i wonder if it is something where they have a limited chance (a dice role)...otherwise we could see every battle against a certain nation as a baggage battle. so here is my proposal:
the player with the raiding option roles a die...on a 1-3 they are successful, and fight a battle as per normal rules (meaning the defender gets a 10% bonus in troops automatically in the skirmish battle program). IF THEY FAIL (on a 4-6) it is an open battle (or the battle their opponent chose) and they must reduce their force size by 100pts (to simulate scouts and raiders not arriving in time for the battle). i could also imagine a modifier to the die roll of -1 if it takes place on original home territory of the raider. haven't play tested it...and look for thoughts and improvements.

klayeckles wrote:so i did a review of the rules and seems the bugs are pretty worked out and i must say...GREAT EFFORT. i've done a few of these types of games, and it can be a lot of work...and like herding drunken cats. fortunately this is a great bunch of gamers so it should go pretty smooth.

i do have a couple comments.
First, i like that we are trying to get some variety in the types of battles. but i do have a concern about "The head" and the baggage train.
for the remove the Head...depending on the nation, there are limited types of troops the commander can be placed with and some might have a decided advantage...(a cav that is mobile and/or is prone to flee vs a foot troop) so we might want to think about that a little.

second. for the baggage train raids...giving three nations the complete ability to force a baggage train battle is pretty rough. i think those nations might find it a very desirable option. i wonder if it is something where they have a limited chance (a dice role)...otherwise we could see every battle against a certain nation as a baggage battle. so here is my proposal:
the player with the raiding option roles a die...on a 1-3 they are successful, and fight a battle as per normal rules (meaning the defender gets a 10% bonus in troops automatically in the skirmish battle program). IF THEY FAIL (on a 4-6) it is an open battle (or the battle their opponent chose) and they must reduce their force size by 100pts (to simulate scouts and raiders not arriving in time for the battle). i could also imagine a modifier to the die roll of -1 if it takes place on original home territory of the raider. haven't play tested it...and look for thoughts and improvements.

Two very interesting comments klayeckles.

About the first I think that some of the aforementioned problems are not so great given that:
- also predominantly foot armies have superior horse units that could be used by the CiC,
- though prone to flee a cavalry units has to be repostioned to the first line immediately by the player, otherwise incurring in the loss of the match.
But I understand that this would open an endless field of options and disputes that is maybe better to let every player do what he prefers, either placing his CiC in the first. second or third line or also in a distant wood.

About the second, having rethinked about the mechanism, I agree with you.
We could solve the problem limiting the chance of a baggage train battle to situation where the Huns, Hephtalites and Sassanids are attacked and not when attacking.
Moreover a dice roll should be used to determine if they succeed in the option having a failure with 1-4 and a success with 5-6.
In the case of a failure, though, no reduction of their armies should occur.

Lysimachos wrote:About the second, having rethinked about the mechanism, I agree with you.
We could solve the problem limiting the chance of a baggage train battle to situation where the Huns, Hephtalites and Sassanids are attacked and not when attacking.
Moreover a dice roll should be used to determine if they succeed in the option having a failure with 1-4 and a success with 5-6.
In the case of a failure, though, no reduction of their armies should occur.

I'm personally happy with that - it adds a bit of flavour without it completely taking over.

On an entirely different topic, what's the outcome of a battle where both players surpass 45% rout on the same turn? Is that treated as a draw (i.e. status quo) or are there any negative repercussions for the combatants? Hasn't come up (yet) but I've just finished my first battle and it was sufficiently close that it made me wonder.

Kabill wrote: On an entirely different topic, what's the outcome of a battle where both players surpass 45% rout on the same turn? Is that treated as a draw (i.e. status quo) or are there any negative repercussions for the combatants? Hasn't come up (yet) but I've just finished my first battle and it was sufficiently close that it made me wonder.

Per the rules, when a battle ends with both sides having 45% of their troops routed the game will be considered a tie.
A draw, instead, occurs when neither army reaches the rout threshold.
Moreover, if there has been no close combat between non lights troops in the first 6 turns, the attacker is allowed to call off his attack and the match will be considered a draw.
When the battle ends with a draw or a tie the attacking player will earn 25t for ravaging the country (obviously only when leading his own army and not an independent one), while the defender will loose the same amount of money (of course only if defending his homeland and not while leading an independent army in a defensive battle).

Thanks, sorry, I missed that line.

hidde and klayckles are allowed to launch their attacks.
The defense of Arachosia falls on my shoulder because klayeckles, the next in alphabetical order to fulfil the duty, is obviously not liable to defend the province by ... himself!

P.S.
The Roman Emperor is wondering whether the Kushan ruler would gift him his concubine number 122 just in order to see if she's got some other physical skills beyond the 11th toe ...

The Sassanid invasion of Gerrhaea is led by a promising but novice commander assigned by the Emperor to test his abilities. His inexperience shows through - caught in column on the march, it is fortunate that the Sassanid army is comprised entirely of horse, allowing them to respond to a rapid advance on the left flank by a host of horse and camels. On impact, a number of light Sassanid troops panic and withdraw, seemingly lacking confidence in their commander. But in the ensuring melee, the Arab soldiers are clearly outmatched by the fighting prowess of the expert Sassanid horse archers, and when a host of elephants join the fray they quickly retire. On the right, things go less well for the Sassanids. Trusting the armour and expertise of his cataphracts, the commander deploys them to engage the large array of irregular troops advancing across the sands. In the end, they do their job, but they perform much less well than anticipated. Just in time, the courage of the Arab force wavers and they begin to retreat, moments before the Arab cataphracts are themselves put to flight. In the end, the Sassanids hold the field, but by a narrow margin. Still, it is enough for the victorious commander to keep his head, and he is resolved to ensure he is better prepared for his future battles.

The Sassanid invasion of Gerrhaea is successful. There was a bit of confusion over the 45% threshold but I think the final total was something like 39-47. Thanks again to Cunningcairn for the battle.
Things I have learned:
- Camels are much less strong against horse than I thought
- Cataphracts are much less strong against Irregular Foot than I thought

The mighty Hephtalite empire is now entering puny Kushan in pursuit of glory and to bring concubine 122 before the Emperor who has heard rumours of exeptional skills...
Password=crushans