Slitherine

one thing is in V1 how do you defend a camp?

As you cannot put troops in the camp with some armies it is almost impossible.

Try to defend a camp with undrilled foot....

Jilu wrote:one thing is in V1 how do you defend a camp?

As you cannot put troops in the camp with some armies it is almost impossible.

Try to defend a camp with undrilled foot....

Put 8 undrilled foot in a single line in contact with the camp and facing it, with two and a half bases sticking out each end.

If a sneaky 4 LH gets to you they can't cause a test by shooting and you will out-dice them in any melee. They will have difficulty reaching the camp due to your restricted area. IF they do manage it, the chances are you will be able to flank charge them immediately afterwards.

lawrenceg wrote:

Jilu wrote:one thing is in V1 how do you defend a camp?

As you cannot put troops in the camp with some armies it is almost impossible.

Try to defend a camp with undrilled foot....

Put 8 undrilled foot in a single line in contact with the camp and facing it, with two and a half bases sticking out each end.

If a sneaky 4 LH gets to you they can't cause a test by shooting and you will out-dice them in any melee. They will have difficulty reaching the camp due to your restricted area. IF they do manage it, the chances are you will be able to flank charge them immediately afterwards.

This is sneaky but risky:

- The 4 LH could instead charge your MF in the flank. they've a reasonable chance of beating your foot.

- undrilled foot facing the wrong way might attract more than just 4 LH.

- the LH could loot the camp and only test to stop sacking if in your JAP, so that they move next and stop you getting a flank charge.

The normal ways to defend a camp are:

- fortify it (expensive)

- put a BG close to it that can move to close off any skirmisher threat - mob or rubbish MF are quite good for this.

- put your army between it and the enemy. As you fight the enemy, they either have to break through frontally (in which case you have more worries than the camp!) or take a long time going round your flank.

I usually find myslef having to decide on the first move whether I am going to defend my camp or not. Sometimes it gets abandoned, sometimes defended.

Unless you are playing against someone with a lot of LH, or you are deployed very defensively, then it's usually not worth it. Even if they get to it, troops sacking a camp may well be out of the game for several moves, and it's only 2 pts.

Having said that, there are occasions when camp defenders are worthwhile. Sometimes you have troops who are just too weak to deploy forwards - and even 6 poor MF or HF will likely stop LH. Don't forget terrain to slow attackers. Probably the best would be 2 bg's of 4 Poor MF Lt Spr, cost - 16pts, deployed

// \\
//AAA\\
AAA

Sadly I sometimes use the camp to attract the enemy put it over to one side over 6mu from the edge and then don't put anything in front with luck half your enemies army is out the game as you swamp the other side nice and sneeky........... rule two in the Manchester sneeky move book.... Edited by Dave R

We did consider an option of allowing a BG to go into the baggage to defend it. To be fair we all felt it wasn't worth the added complexity, so all three of us probably start slightly against such an addition but FWIW .....

The general idea was

• Troopsdefending a camp are just removed from the table and considered part of the camp now
  Count as a combat in rough terrain rather than automatically sacked, fought using normal rules.
  Benefit from TFs is it is fortified
  If defenders are routed the camp is then sacked.

If no BG joins baggage to defend it current rules apply.

Not worth effort as we suggested? Or worth a little additional character to allow defended camps?

Si

Or would people just put all their poor foot inside, or worse a few BG of poor LF.

philqw78 wrote:Or would people just put all their poor foot inside, or worse a few BG of poor LF.

An undefended camp stuffed full of poor LF? I think I'd target the baggage like it was Christmas time!

But I think Simon was proposing a single BG. Although it would add colour, is it worth it or realistic?

You can place a BG or multiple BGs to defend the camp as it is. To go back to the OP's point, if the attack comes from a different direction before they can react, why should they be able to react better just by being in the camp? If you want to defend the camp properly, then one should use the techniques Graham points out. This seems like a non-issue to me.

shall wrote:We did consider an option of allowing a BG to go into the baggage to defend it. To be fair we all felt it wasn't worth the added complexity, so all three of us probably start slightly against such an addition but FWIW .....

The general idea was

• Troopsdefending a camp are just removed from the table and considered part of the camp now
  Count as a combat in rough terrain rather than automatically sacked, fought using normal rules.
  Benefit from TFs is it is fortified
  If defenders are routed the camp is then sacked.

If no BG joins baggage to defend it current rules apply.

Not worth effort as we suggested? Or worth a little additional character to allow defended camps?

Si

I think I'd still deploy my mob outside the camp. I can run away from scary things and block skirmishers then.

shall wrote:We did consider an option of allowing a BG to go into the baggage to defend it. To be fair we all felt it wasn't worth the added complexity, so all three of us probably start slightly against such an addition but FWIW .....

The general idea was

• Troopsdefending a camp are just removed from the table and considered part of the camp now
  Count as a combat in rough terrain rather than automatically sacked, fought using normal rules.
  Benefit from TFs is it is fortified
  If defenders are routed the camp is then sacked.

If no BG joins baggage to defend it current rules apply.

Not worth effort as we suggested? Or worth a little additional character to allow defended camps?

Si

So if I defend with a 12-base, do all 12 bases get dice in melee? Can they shoot and in which direction(s)?

I think this could be more complicated in practice than it looks.

Simpler just to say the camp is passable to all troops, counts as rough terrain, and is sacked if enemy is in contact and no unbroken friends are in the camp. Looters can move and fight in but can't leave the enemy camp without a CMT (analogous to v1).

Even simpler to say a camp cannot be sacked if any friends are in contact with it. Then the onus is on the attacker to go round and kill the defending BG, rather than the current situation where defenders must manouevre to interpose themselves between attackers and camp - too difficult when attackers are often LH and defenders some sort of cheap undrilled MF or mob.

lawrenceg wrote:Even simpler to say a camp cannot be sacked if any friends are in contact with it. Then the onus is on the attacker to go round and kill the defending BG, rather than the current situation where defenders must manouevre to interpose themselves between attackers and camp - too difficult when attackers are often LH and defenders some sort of cheap undrilled MF or mob.

I like this although it should be cannot be sacked if any enemy are in contact with it. (depending if you are sacker or sackee). But then people would put a small BG of LF or cheap LH in contact with the camp furthest from the threatened side. Then just let them be chased off, saving the camp for another turn at least.

philqw78 wrote:I like this although it should be cannot be sacked if any enemy are in contact with it. (depending if you are sacker or sackee). But then people would put a small BG of LF or cheap LH in contact with the camp furthest from the threatened side. Then just let them be chased off, saving the camp for another turn at least.

I could see it getting ridiculously benny-hill style with multiple cheap skirmishers running away and others moving back into contact. Daft.

I would go for something easy instead of allowing getting in and out of the camp. As Peter says, many Benny Hill situation can arise. For example, let's say that onliy 8 bases or more of medium or heavy foot (which means that you can use one or several BG up to that number) can defend the camp. Once a unit is deployed within the camp it can't leave it. Then consider every side of the camp as 1 base if you want to resolve the full combat or use a single die as it is now.

Just testing waters we have been through in private ... useful reactions ... similar to ours.

Si

And why not:
enemy camp cannot be looted as long as there is a enemy BG within 2 MU from any side of the camp.
and /or any unit within 2 MU from the camp have +1 on CMT (to defend the camp)

Something might be possible using some small variation of the "orb" rules to defend camps. Basically let anyone for "orb" in camp and count a quarter of their bases facing each direction. If camp is fortified they count as behind fortifications.

not sure it is worth it but that would be pretty easy to implement.

Orb in the open is not easy to implement. Many very experienced players get it wrong and lose the game for you when playing doubles. Well at lteast one. RUDDOCK.

So I am reading from this some mechanism that is simple to stop camps being looted with decent friends nearby.,,,

Could go for a "can't be looted if friends inside 2MU (type, steadyetc. to be defined)" or perhaps some sort of intercept concept where a BG within 2MU of camp can place itself between attackers and the camp as long as it isn't already in a restricted area.

Latter would mean that to stop looting the BG would have to have a chance vs attackers - so Mob could stop LH but not Cataphracts - and leaves it as a choice to defend or not. Also means 2 BGs cannot be stopped by 1 BG (slight vision of LF on a wooded steep hil stopping 3 BGs of cataphracts from sacking an unfortified camp - feels like there might be some serious terrain cheese int he former simple version).

Further thoughts welcome. Personally find this a modest change but a nice one in some form - will see what the other two authors think about it.

S

shall wrote:So I am reading from this some mechanism that is simple to stop camps being looted with decent friends nearby.,,,

Could go for a "can't be looted if friends inside 2MU (type, steadyetc. to be defined)" or perhaps some sort of intercept concept where a BG within 2MU of camp can place itself between attackers and the camp as long as it isn't already in a restricted area.

YAY !

shall wrote:Latter would mean that to stop looting the BG would have to have a chance vs attackers - so Mob could stop LH but not Cataphracts - and leaves it as a choice to defend or not. Also means 2 BGs cannot be stopped by 1 BG (slight vision of LF on a wooded steep hil stopping 3 BGs of cataphracts from sacking an unfortified camp - feels like there might be some serious terrain cheese int he former simple version).

Further thoughts welcome. Personally find this a modest change but a nice one in some form - will see what the other two authors think about it.

S

I think that would complicate things a bit.
Simply moving the defending units to face the attacking units would be easier.
The attackers charge the defending units (these must make the minimum move necessary to face the enemy 90° or 180° turn) and then the next turns of the game will decide if the attacker can take the bagage.
This is to be refined of course.

And why not : a unit assigned to bagage defense cannot move other than above unless a general joins it.

Or at the start of the game one (1) BG is assigned as camp defenders.
that unit cannot move unless a general joins them.
If the camp is attacked the unit is placed in place of the camp (moving the camp the necessary distance to place the unit - same as stakes but the other way around).
The defending unit may not be larger than the edge of the camp being attacked during impact and melee (so may not feed beyond that edge) and must put 'overflow bases behind the first two ranks.
So if the side edge is attacked maximum 2 front bases may defend.
if the front edge of the camp is attacked 4 bases in front rank.
If the camp is attacked on different sides...the defender will have to fight both with all the penalities