The Lost World Campaign

[hidde]

If we play out the current wars and some kingdoms ends up with provinces that's not adjacent to their own perhaps one could say it was seaborn invasions.
And in the future each player could have the opportunity to do that at a hefty cost. Or maybe that complicates things again

[Ironclad]

Maybe the sea has been replaced by the discovery of a vast system of tunnels built by a long ago power. This allows you to travel to non-neignbouring countries at a hefty price ie cost of digger units and secret route maps, or free or reduced travel costs courtesy of random events. Maybe there is a gatekeeper card that allows the possessor to block tunnel access to enemy forays.

[TheGrayMouser]

Maybe the sea has been replaced by the discovery of a vast system of tunnels built by a long ago power. This allows you to travel to non-neignbouring countries at a hefty price ie cost of digger units and secret route maps, or free or reduced travel costs courtesy of random events. Maybe there is a gatekeeper card that allows the possessor to block tunnel access to enemy forays.

" We can not allow, a mine shaft gap"
General Buck Turgidson

[petergarnett]

I don't know - I pop for out a brief tour of eastern Scotland and the whole lost world changes

The grid was a simple way to position players together in order that you could make more meaningful alliances. It was not supposed to be a geographical map showing how areas relate to each other. To do that we would need a lot more admin tracking where armies are & I'm not up for that I'm afraid - hard enough knowing who is at war with whom.

Morbio - that map is great. If you want to volunteer to maintain it then fine by me (& that doesn't mean I don't fully appreciate Scar's help so far).

I had postioned each of you on the grid randomly (used 1d20) to mix things up a bit & to place the 2-3 new players at the bottom where they would be close to other new-comers.

Best I wait to hear from Morbio whether he fully appreciates what he may be taking on here!

As mentioned the majority want to move to 500 point army max. Regarding SoA I'd like to stick with what I proposed earlier - each player may use one army from each expansion at most. So if you just want to stick to RoR then you should be able to do so by issuing a RoR only challenge. The only exception would be a player who only owns SoA - I don't think that is the case yet but it may occur later on. See post below for more on this.

I would be very reluctant to do a complete re-set of the campaign, i.e. everyone back to 7 areas. However I do think that where you are fighting someone at the moment you and you opponent should agree to one of :-
A) abandon the battle as if it never happened (or finish it for fun only), no effect on either player, or
B) fight to the end of the battle and agree to end the war at that point (you decide the terms) but the war must end

This is because I think we need to take a moment to get this Summer phase right before we start fighting again and we haven't even agreed on the map in theory!

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, alot I could respond to above but I will keep this short:
By limiting the ability of making war only againt your neighbors on a grid, makes the game much more limiting than I think your intent is... After all you are now allowing changing armies and using SOA, which I dont think any single player had the expectation of when the campaign started.... This adds flexibility and variety and makes the players who want these things happy, my own opinions are already noted regarding that ..
However now I cant play against over 60 % of the players because of my random spot on a grid... even less since my allies next to me even further boxes me in...

Could we not just do something that allows war vs your neighbors and against countries you dont border?
Perhaps raising an army costs your treasury immediely and permanently, no money is crdedited back when disband
Attacking a neighbor costs as is $1 per ap, however if you choose to invade a far off enemy, (abstarcted that you are venturing overseas, or under tunnels:) ) it costs double $ (the defender of course would not sufer this)
simple and no more difficult to track then it has been...

Sorry if this sounds like whininess or insurrection

[Morbio]

I have some thoughts and solutions to this, but I want to pass them by Peter before opening them up for wider discussion. I want to respect the fact that this is Peter's idea and whatever changes we might like to make really need Peter's support, particularly considering any administrative workload this may create.

Hopefully more can be shared soon

[petergarnett]

DAG Army Lists

I'll post this in the player guide thread later as well:-

You may use an army from each FoG expansion you own. However before each battle you should check which armies you opponent uses (this will be on the players table) and offer battle in light of that.

Examples

Both you and your opponent use RoR and SoA - you can issue a challenge using either of your armies
You have both RoR & SoA but your opponent only has RoR - you may only issue a challenge using RoR
You only have SoA and you opponent only has RoR - you fight with your SoA army & he with his RoR army - or both join the peace corps

That should cover all eventualities and permit new armies as further expansions come out (he said knowing someone is going to prove otherwise ).

The change to 500 point armies means a slight change to the rules. In line with earlier posts / discussions we are going to have 2 players fight only one war against each other so no more counter-invasions. If the invader can win 2 battles and there is no outstanding siege then he takes the area. The defender can concede the area earlier if he chooses to but cannot carry onto a third consecutive battle. Where a city is involved it means that if as defender you lose a battle your choice is to fight again or withdraw into the city. If you fight again and lose then the area is conceded. And if you fight again and win then the attacker must withdraw - using 500 point armies after 2 battles there will not be enough left to carry on fighting IMO. Any 2nd battle in this area must use the same armies and reduce them as usual.

If/when the attacker withdraws then the defender may carry the war into one of his opponents area. Both sides get new army at 500 points.

Hope that makes sense.

Going to have a proper read of all the posts / PM's now and figure out where we are.

[petergarnett]

Hmm, alot I could respond to above but I will keep this short:
By limiting the ability of making war only againt your neighbors on a grid, makes the game much more limiting than I think your intent is... After all you are now allowing changing armies and using SOA, which I dont think any single player had the expectation of when the campaign started.... This adds flexibility and variety and makes the players who want these things happy, my own opinions are already noted regarding that ..
However now I cant play against over 60 % of the players because of my random spot on a grid... even less since my allies next to me even further boxes me in...

Could we not just do something that allows war vs your neighbors and against countries you dont border?
Perhaps raising an army costs your treasury immediely and permanently, no money is crdedited back when disband
Attacking a neighbor costs as is $1 per ap, however if you choose to invade a far off enemy, (abstarcted that you are venturing overseas, or under tunnels:) ) it costs double $ (the defender of course would not sufer this)
simple and no more difficult to track then it has been...

Sorry if this sounds like whininess or insurrection

Dear whinning insurrectionist

I think this will be covered by getting permission from an ally (or not an ally) to march through their grid to attack a more distant player. It's another reason why I'm not keen on a full map as it will get too involved. So if you want to fight someone far from your own position on the grid you need agreement to go through others to get there. Such agreement may involve trustworthy allies and may also involve bribes etc to non-allies.

I'm kinda with you though Gray - we should keep it simple & flexible.

[iversonjm]

What happens if the player that crosses allied territory loses? Does the ally then lose territory?

[petergarnett]

If you withdraw then it is back into your own territory. If your opponent wants to reach you then he will permission to cross through the other players.

[iversonjm]

That would mean that attacking through an ally is a no-risk proposition. If you attack your own neighbor and lose two games, you lose a province. If you attack an allies' neighbor and lose two games, nothing happens. Seems that I always want to attack through an ally.

[Xiccarph]

That would mean that attacking through an ally is a no-risk proposition. If you attack your own neighbor and lose two games, you lose a province. If you attack an allies' neighbor and lose two games, nothing happens. Seems that I always want to attack through an ally.

Huh? If you attack your neighbor you are fighting over his province right? So how do you lose a province? Ditto if you attack after crossign an allies territory. What did I miss?

[RyanDG]

I'm trying to get a handle on the changes that are being made. Have all the new rules/additions been added to the player's guide thread?

[petergarnett]

Ryan (& I suspect a few others) - I'm just about to edit the player guide to reflect the changes. Also if anyone wants a Word version please let me know.

After looking at Morbio's map and good idea's I afraid I am sticking to the simple grid - I just cannot commit the time to a map like that as it entails knowing which armies are where and when. I'd like to thank you Morbio for the work - my not using it does not distract from how good it is.

So you should all know, from Scar's map in the Player Guide thread, the 8 players you are adjacent to.

Ken has given me the details of his country which I'm sending to Scar.

Make your alliances - remember some alliances are already in place. PM the new ones to me. Also any cities to be built and any money spent on PR if you've not do that as yet.

Everyone's treasury is still very healthy - that will not change until Fall.

I'm drawing the random events next & will PM you later today (GMT) with your card.

Any more questions please?

[pantherboy]

So how much money do I have in my treasury?

Also I think it is an error to have the war regulated to a single province in an abstract game. You cannot take into account strategic movement nor initial dispositions and field intelligence. Little is risked by attacking as if you lose it just resets and your opponent needs another two contiguous wins. Game wise it is best for me to declare 9 invasions so that I only need to defeat my opponents twice in a row otherwise I have to fight them off and counterinvade. Also how do you know we wouldn't have percieved an invasion coming and met them on the borders? I prefer the idea that the attacker nominates the 2 provinces in contention and then after the first battle either player can retire to a defensive position in a city or sue for peace or fight the second battle hoping to win but risking their province if they lose.

[pantherboy]

Also I'd like to see some period of enforced peace if a nation surrenders. Those that have ceded me territory should be immune to invasion I feel for X years or seasons and vice versa. Otherwise I attack continuosly an army list that can't handle Illyrians (and a couple do exist such as armenians). Also this would promote looking for fresh opponents. In addition any nation you defeat should automatically grant passage to your forces to invade further away (until your enforced peace expires). This would give someone an added incentive to win a war.

[petergarnett]

So how much money do I have in my treasury?

Also I think it is an error to have the war regulated to a single province in an abstract game. You cannot take into account strategic movement nor initial dispositions and field intelligence. Little is risked by attacking as if you lose it just resets and your opponent needs another two contiguous wins. Game wise it is best for me to declare 9 invasions so that I only need to defeat my opponents twice in a row otherwise I have to fight them off and counterinvade. Also how do you know we wouldn't have percieved an invasion coming and met them on the borders? I prefer the idea that the attacker nominates the 2 provinces in contention and then after the first battle either player can retire to a defensive position in a city or sue for peace or fight the second battle hoping to win but risking their province if they lose.

The only change is that now you are merely adjacent to 8 others when before it was to all others. To fight anyone other than those 8 you need to consider how to reach them abstractly. As before you fight over a single area at a time - although we had allowed a counter-attack at the same time before but that led to too many 'campaigns' at any one time.

An area is nominated so that you know what will be conceded if the defender loses and the defender nominates the area so that he does not have the first attacker who comes along select his best area.

A war carries on until peace is made - having taken one area you can carry on attacking another. The rule for a defender conceding or losing an area after 2 defeats is there to stop endless battles caused by one side refusing to stop.

[petergarnett]

Also I'd like to see some period of enforced peace if a nation surrenders. Those that have ceded me territory should be immune to invasion I feel for X years or seasons and vice versa. Otherwise I attack continuosly an army list that can't handle Illyrians (and a couple do exist such as armenians). Also this would promote looking for fresh opponents. In addition any nation you defeat should automatically grant passage to your forces to invade further away (until your enforced peace expires). This would give someone an added incentive to win a war.

No rule for this - if you want that then make peace on that basis. PM me that a condition of the peace was that you would not be attacked again for 2 years or whatever & I'll umpire that agreement.

[petergarnett]

Players Guide now updated.

Any more alliances or building before I do the random draw at 9PM (GMT) ?

[petergarnett]

OK drawing the random event cards now - will PM you your card.

May I also introduce KenPortner the ruler of Septa - I'm sure that he is open to offers of alliance / bribery as well as being keen to fight you all.

Hyperboria has been torn apart by internal strife and no longer exists as an enitity - the lands are in turmoil currently so out of bounds. My thansk to keyth to taking part and I wish him well in his own campaign.