Slitherine

w_michael wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote:Not sure if it matters but I thought this was supposed to be an autofill tournament? The game Pete set up was a picked list. I personally don't mind either way, I just wanted to clarify. I am willing to play it out in any case.

The campaign rules suggest using Auto Force Selection, but if both players want to use the Default Force Selection then that is OK with me. Personally, I don't like the min-maxing of armies against a specific enemy, especially when the battlefield terrain is known. It doesn't seem realistic to me.

Sorry, I completely overlooked that point.

One bad point about auto selection is that you have no control over how many generals you get. In my game vs Danny, I have 4 cav/1 MF and got 4 generals, Danny has 3 cav/20+ MF and only got 2 generals.

I think 4 generals per army is the way to go.

ianiow wrote:One bad point about auto selection is that you have no control over how many generals you get. In my game vs Danny, I have 4 cav/1 MF and got 4 generals, Danny has 3 cav/20+ MF and only got 2 generals.

I think 4 generals per army is the way to go.

That is a good point. The generation of generals is arcane. It is based on the number of non-light mounted units you have and how they are deployed, but they are free. Can a 1,000 force point army with 1 or 2 generals defeat a 1,200 force point army with 4 generals? I don't know the answer, but it is certainly more difficult than if you started with the full slate of 4 generals.

Play with Default Force Selection, and I will modify the campaign rules accordingly. I never intended for the attacker to have an insurmountable task.

w_michael wrote:

ianiow wrote:One bad point about auto selection is that you have no control over how many generals you get. In my game vs Danny, I have 4 cav/1 MF and got 4 generals, Danny has 3 cav/20+ MF and only got 2 generals.

I think 4 generals per army is the way to go.

That is a good point. The generation of generals is arcane. It is based on the number of non-light mounted units you have and how they are deployed, but they are free. Can a 1,000 force point army with 1 or 2 generals defeat a 1,200 force point army with 4 generals? I don't know the answer, but it is certainly more difficult than if you started with the full slate of 4 generals.

Play with Default Force Selection, and I will modify the campaign rules accordingly. I never intended for the attacker to have an insurmountable task.

Personally I'm fine with auto selection. At least its random. I just wanted to make the point about the clunky distribution of generals mechanism.

ianiow wrote:

w_michael wrote:

ianiow wrote:One bad point about auto selection is that you have no control over how many generals you get. In my game vs Danny, I have 4 cav/1 MF and got 4 generals, Danny has 3 cav/20+ MF and only got 2 generals.

I think 4 generals per army is the way to go.

That is a good point. The generation of generals is arcane. It is based on the number of non-light mounted units you have and how they are deployed, but they are free. Can a 1,000 force point army with 1 or 2 generals defeat a 1,200 force point army with 4 generals? I don't know the answer, but it is certainly more difficult than if you started with the full slate of 4 generals.

Play with Default Force Selection, and I will modify the campaign rules accordingly. I never intended for the attacker to have an insurmountable task.

Personally I'm fine with auto selection. At least its random. I just wanted to make the point about the clunky distribution of generals mechanism.

Well we are definitely going to do something to make it less of a chancy business. We have 3 or more options as to how to deal with it and just need to decide which to implement.

I was under the impression that this was an auto select tournament and have been hosting my battles as such. I suppose starting next round I can set it to default.

SnuggleBunnies wrote:I was under the impression that this was an auto select tournament and have been hosting my battles as such. I suppose starting next round I can set it to default.

It is supposed to be autoselect. I for one am happy with that.

If everyone is fine with Auto Force Selection then let's keep it. That it certainly my preference.

Either way works for me.

Auto is my preference as well.

SnuggleBunnies wrote:Auto is my preference as well.

..
Good. I mistakenly thought that Auto determining the number of generals was decisive. I am not hearing that.

w_michael wrote:

SnuggleBunnies wrote:Auto is my preference as well.

..
Good. I mistakenly thought that Auto determining the number of generals was decisive. I am not hearing that.

Really the number of generals is a red herring. They don't make that much difference.

(Which is not to say that we are not going to do something about it. We are).

rbodleyscott wrote:(Which is not to say that we are not going to do something about it. We are).

That is what I like about you and Slitherine. You are willing to consider modifications if they are reasonable, can work with the game engine, and will make the game better.

w_michael wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Really the number of generals is a red herring. They don't make that much difference.

(Which is not to say that we are not going to do something about it. We are).

We may find out in your battle with 1,200 FP vs. 1,000 FP, if there is a lack of generals on the attacker's side. Good luck to both of you.

And may the Lord have mercy on our souls?

Mountain Indians have repulsed Hsiung-nu 38-62. 1 Hsiung-nu sub general fled the field, 1 sub general fell in battle. The Hsiung-nu C in C was still merrily hacking down my javelinmen as the battle ended.

SnuggleBunnies wrote:Mountain Indians have repulsed Hsiung-nu 38-62. 1 Hsiung-nu sub general fled the field, 1 sub general fell in battle. The Hsiung-nu C in C was still merrily hacking down my javelinmen as the battle ended.

I've recorded the results on the Turn 2 Scoring table. The Mountain Indians don't show a lot of initiative, but they know how to defend their mountain fastness.

Atropatene (Ulysisgrunt) (27% loss)has crushed the Parthian(ianiow) invaders(53%loss)
The Parthians lost all 4 of their generals......

Ptolomeic invasion of Selucid's realm was crushed 40-8. Ptolomey lost 1 sub general

I will now seek a pardon from the Great hidde for my failure.

MikeC_81 wrote:Ptolomeic invasion of Selucid's realm was crushed 40-8. Ptolomey lost 1 sub general

I will now seek a pardon from the Great hidde for my failure.

Is a punitive attack next year(turn) within the rules?

hidde wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote:Ptolomeic invasion of Selucid's realm was crushed 40-8. Ptolomey lost 1 sub general

I will now seek a pardon from the Great hidde for my failure.

Is a punitive attack next year(turn) within the rules?

I'm afraid not. Vassals are not always enthusiastic supporters of their overlord, but there is an incentive to win in every battle. The pressure is on you now to win your invasion. If not then you and several other empires are contenders to win the campaign.

All results recorded so far on the Turn 2 Scoring table.