Kingdom of the Isles Campaign

[Paisley]

Ideally I think yes. But one could argue that (with certain exceptions) only part of the total potential levy of all kinds has been raised and so elites were fielded in proportion and can therefore be replaced in proportion. One reason I favour playing with larger armies is that it forces one to use poorer troops (if the list has any...). Otherwise it's quite easy to concentrate on one's best.

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

I 100% agree with you historically, and would have no problem if the campaign played out that way either.... I just recall In the lost Isle campaign though, that a lot of players thought anything aproaching those #'s was too harsh

Its too bad the game doesnt give you a snapshot of both forces on the unit level after words with the status ie unit destroyed @ 50%, routed off table, routed but still on the table at battle end etc etc
If it did it would be quite easy to have a really realistic system of counting the cost of the battle for defeated/victor.

[deeter]

It would be even cooler if the program did it for you and presented the bill.

Deeter

[Paisley]

I 100% agree with you historically, and would have no problem if the campaign played out that way either.... I just recall In the lost Isle campaign though, that a lot of players thought anything aproaching those #'s was too harsh

I think it'd be okay game wise as long as other factors put a brake on too rapid expansion, follow ups (so no steamroller effect). Otherwise it seems to me that both sides will almst certainly be too much weakened by battle. I mean most games I play are pretty even, it's not often there's more than a dozen points in it.

I suppose I'd just like battles to feel decisive and not like Pyrrhic victories (I mean even Pyrrhus was actually in a much better state than the defeated Romans in that his force was essentially cohesive) or that I have to fight an endless stream of battles with ever decreasing forces against ever decreasing forces

[deeter]

I think this campaign is very very loose and guess it will become less so in time. That said, in reality a losing army would be pretty much out of business for months at a time unless locked up in a fort.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I think many victories in the field in the end often didnt matter or wernt really decisive as the victors/losers squandered the chances immedietly afterwords by either not following up w rapid consolidation, dillydathering w the local ladies (Henry of Navarre in the late 16th century, cant remember the name of the war, think was the war of the 3 Henries) or refusing to believe realty and settle.....
Also a victory in the field didnt mean every city fortification, garrison and or castle immedielty submitted and they often had to be reduced over a long period of time...

I agree there does need to be something at the strategic level to prevent a steamroller effect, but without the rules in front of me now cannot think of anything that might work out easily..
In a very feudal society, it would seem that following defeat the local nobility would really be the ones who determined in the end if an area was "conquered", ie if they felt they would get a good deal at switching their nominal suzerzainty , they wouldnt generally hesitate to do so.. If for some reason it was personal or other things were at stake they might very well defend every last castle w extreme persiverance and eventually the victor of the field battle might find he can no longer invest the time and energy and simply leave.
Wonder if an easy way something like this could be incorporated into the campain.

[Paisley]

Sure, the victors may not have followed up for a bunch of reasons. But seldom because their army had suffered anything like as much as the vanquished in terms of casualties. As I say, I'd prefer winner's casualties to be limited to around 25% max and losers to be essentially 50%+. (via the halving/doubling mechanism). A drawn battle could merely take the 'straight' battlegroup loss percentages.

[TheGrayMouser]

Sure, the victors may not have followed up for a bunch of reasons. But seldom because their army had suffered anything like as much as the vanquished in terms of casualties. As I say, I'd prefer winner's casualties to be limited to around 25% max and losers to be essentially 50%+. (via the halving/doubling mechanism). A drawn battle could merely take the 'straight' battlegroup loss percentages.

Exactly, so how does one in a campaign setting prevent a steamroller effect that is logical, historical yet practical for gameplay reasons

[keyth]

Sure, the victors may not have followed up for a bunch of reasons. But seldom because their army had suffered anything like as much as the vanquished in terms of casualties. As I say, I'd prefer winner's casualties to be limited to around 25% max and losers to be essentially 50%+. (via the halving/doubling mechanism). A drawn battle could merely take the 'straight' battlegroup loss percentages.

Exactly, so how does one in a campaign setting prevent a steamroller effect that is logical, historical yet practical for gameplay reasons

If you want to hold what you have taken, you have to occupy the territory. If you choose to roll forward, you will need to leave a garrison, thereby reducing the number of points available for your field army. This should have some sort of braking affect and prevent too many blitzkrieg situations. If you want to go raiding and battling, a la the English in the HYW, that's fine. You may degrade your opponent's armies but you aren't going to conquer any territory at that point in time.

With regards to the casualties debate, you have all made a number of interesting points. I think using BGs broken is a more fair and representative method, not only due to the relative unit sizes but due to the new 'destruction' effects on routers - I like the way it is handled in game, but it would seriously skew casualty numbers. I think we all agree that if you lose it should be a bad thing. In reality, you would most likely lose many more troops in the rout *after* the game ends. I think a fairly serious penalty should be in order. I would still like to reflect that in certain circumstances, a victory would be sufficiently pyrrhic to prevent an immediate continuation of combat operations.

With regards to restricting the levy of certain troop types due to getting them killed, it's a nice idea but I'm not sure it is possible to accurately chart the casualties or to enforce it in the DAG due to minima for certain types.

To finish, nothing in the rules or mechanics of the game is set in stone. I think that a lot of the assumptions I have made will need to be revisited and reassessed as they are destruct-tested I'd like this to be the starting point for a generic campaign system that can be revised for different periods and for historical and ahistorical campaigns; we are the guinea-pigs for the first draft

Thanks for all the input so far!

Cheers,

[keyth]

No rush on this, but I thought I'd confirm your options so far and let you know what I need from who

• Paisley: Hector Paisley, Duke of Argyle. Please could I have the names of two faction heirs, five counties and which Swiss list you would like to use.
• Blathergut: Blathergut, Duke of Limerick. Please could I have the names of two faction heirs. Using Ordonnance Burgundian. County names received.
• Deadtorius: Herzog Hummel of Brunchweister. Please could I have the names of two faction heirs and five counties. Using Medieval German (later).
• TheGrayMouser: Konrad die Graue, Markgraf of Gotland. Please could I have the names of two faction heirs and five counties. Using Medieval German (early).
• iversonjm: Earl of Middleton. Please could I have the names of two faction heirs, five counties and which list you would like to use.
• Triarius: Earl of Connaught. Please could I have the names of two faction heirs, five counties and which list you would like to use.
• batesmotel: Please could I have the names of your faction, two faction heirs, five counties. Using Low Counties (Maximillian).
• petergarnett: Please could I have the names of your faction, two faction heirs, five counties and which list you would like to use.

Thanks

[Paisley]

Number One Son: Manfred Paisley
Number Two Son: Herman Paisley

Counties: Carrick, Strathearn, Lennox, Lothian, Mar.

Burgundian War Swiss. No prisoners!

What is the position on using allies within a list?

[TheGrayMouser]

Sons:
Udo
Gero

Counties:
Nordmark
Ostland
Greifswald
Friesland
Billungmark

[Blathergut]

Heirs:

Portork the Promiscuous
Hormious the Harranger

[deadtorius]

Heir 1 My brother Barone Otto Hummel (mom always liked him better)
heir 2 My son Graf Junger Hummel

Counties:
Falstein
Olden Kirchen
Wasserland
Brunchwerst
Ost Weister

[keyth]

Thanks all for the information.

What is the position on using allies within a list?

I'm leaning towards letting you all use the lists as they are and assume allies are mercenaries that you have available, unless a convocation motion bans certain mercenary nationalities. Perhaps there could also be an Influence or Morale penalty (minor) for using 'foreigners' in internal Isles affairs. What do you think?

[Paisley]

I don't mind really. In a way, I'd like 'pure' armies, but lists as listed is much simpler.

[keyth]

When all the lists are in I'll take a definitive view on this - some armies without using allies may struggle to reach the points threshold. If everyone can field decent sized 'pure' armies, then I would definitely consider a penalty of some sort for using allies.

[TheGrayMouser]

When all the lists are in I'll take a definitive view on this - some armies without using allies may struggle to reach the points threshold. If everyone can field decent sized 'pure' armies, then I would definitely consider a penalty of some sort for using allies.

Hmm, if you think allies wont be allowed or will have a penalty, I'd probobly like to reconsider the list I chose. After playing a little w SoA , pikes and longbows appear to dominate
The Germans , Early or late, have neither unless they take an Ally, Swiss, and at least get 1 out of those two unit types.....

I'm fine with whatever is decided, just let me know if its ok to reconsider the army if you dont allow allies...

EDIT*******

Never mind, I'll keep Early Germans no matter what you decide for allies, I'll just have to use opertational/diplomatic inginuity(treachery ) to keep alive.

[keyth]

I've been having a look at the armies and I think it's only fair to let them play as listed, unless a political event should change things. Some armies only really tick with allies.

[keyth]

I've been thinking about casualties while play-testing some of your army selections against the AI. How does this sound:

Example 1

The Lancastrians beat the Yorkists, 15/32 to 33/32 in a 600 point battle.

So, the Yorkists have lost 103% of their break total to the Lancastrian's 47%

We will halve the loser's 'loss percentage', in this case 52%, and add 10% if the loss was in a 'home' territory and add 20% in 'enemy' territory. So assuming that this is a home loss, 62% of the army is lost, leaving 228 points.
We will quarter the winner's 'loss percentage, in this case 12%. There is no adjustment as the winner has been left in command of the field. So in this case, 12% of the army is lost, leaving 528 points.


Example 2

The Lancastrians beat the Yorkists at home, 28/32 to 36/32 in a 600 point battle. This is 88% to 113%

The Yorkists lose 56% + 20% leaving 144 points.
The Lancastrians lose 22% leaving 468 points.


Do these numbers look OK?