Slitherine

Not sure if this has been noted, but the current value of camps kinda sucks.

Currently, there is an inverse relationship between number of BGs and camp importance. If you have a big army, you can almost ignore the loss of your camp.

Rather than assign a fixed value for the camp, why not have it scale with the size of the army? Or, have the loss of a camp create a different effect altogether.

Scalable value could be a ratio of the total BG (say 1:5 rounded off?). So 9-12 BG armies have camps worth 2 AP, 13-17 BG armies have camps worth 3 AP, 18-22 BG armies have camps worth 4 AP, etc.

Another approach might be to increase the loss value of broken/destroyed BGs if the camp is lost. If the camp is destroyed, each BG lost becomes -3 AP, and every 2 BGs (rounded down) run off the table (if that does not otherwise change from the current -1 AP) becomes -3 AP.

Or remove AP from camp loss entirely, and impose a CT test or modifier across the army if the camp is lost.

Other ideas?

I would scale the AP loss so that is it consistent across army sizes.

It would still need to be something simple. Making it a % of army size adds calculations with decimal places. Oooh er. Make loss of camp a minus to ALL CT and CMT from then on.

Manouver armies would want to protect it; large BG armies would need to protect it, their quality being lower; better quality armies would not find it such a burden, it would affect all BG/armies equally, it could even be applied to straggling for flank marches.

I can't see a loss of camp making much difference to whether an army breaks on the field or not. But i can see it would have an impact on the scale of any victory by removing the logistical support for the army. So I would suggest (assuming the 25-0 scoring):

- no attrition point changes for losing the camp

- a lost camp transfers 3 points from the loser of the camp to those who sacked it, if there are any points left to transfer. If both camps are sacked no effect.

This would mean that the army would not be affected by the loss of the camp (it's too busy fighting) but the general would have to give it some consideration.

Both Henry V at Agincourt and Alexander at Gaugamela had to think about their camp and take action to protect it, though it would have had no immediate effect on the main army.

grahambriggs wrote:I can't see a loss of camp making much difference to whether an army breaks on the field or not. But i can see it would have an impact on the scale of any victory by removing the logistical support for the army. So I would suggest (assuming the 25-0 scoring):

- no attrition point changes for losing the camp

- a lost camp transfers 3 points from the loser of the camp to those who sacked it, if there are any points left to transfer. If both camps are sacked no effect.

I think that Graham is right: I don't see much impact during the battle but more in the aftermath. Taking the enemy camp could be as important as, for example, Lysimacus was released to their enemies in exchange of the bagage took during the battle. One of Pyrrhus victory led to many wounded being lost because the camp had been sacked. Thus, I see the loss of the camp had an impact but maybe in how final points are allocated. It can then produce Pyrrhic victories.

In the other hand, I think that spike is "about right" when assuming the loss of the camp in a relative way rather in an absolute as it is right now.

Strategos69 wrote:
In the other hand, I think that spike is freaking genius and truly a gift to mankind when assuming the loss of the camp in a relative way rather in an absolute as it is right now.

FTFY

spikemesq wrote:

Strategos69 wrote:
In the other hand, I think that spike is freaking genius and truly a gift to mankind when assuming the loss of the camp in a relative way rather in an absolute as it is right now.

FTFY

hehehehe

already fixed although alternative wordings are welcomed

About camp I'd love to see a fortified camp unsackable by mounted or LF and only with a 5,6 (or even a 6) by MF or HF

I think the camp contributing to army break is an important game mechanism representing some strategic aspect and given at least a minor objective on teh table. Certainly armies cared about them.

That why many armies fortified them!
I don't remember of a fortified camp sacked by light or cavalry when the battle was fought.
After the batlle, it's an another story....

ethan wrote:I think the camp contributing to army break is an important game mechanism representing some strategic aspect and given at least a minor objective on teh table. Certainly armies cared about them.

It depends on the wording, but let's say that taking the enemies camp is worth 2 points that you add to your score and the opponent deducts. If you won by 12-9, actually you end uo losing 10-11. That is actually a Pyrrhic victory. The loss of the camp counts but it does not stop the game. The importance would be even greater but with no impact in the army rout. For small armies with heavy infantry you can lose your camp, the lights and the battle is over even if your heavies did not fight. That is why I also think that core units should count more for the attrition points.

Strategos69 wrote:

ethan wrote:I think the camp contributing to army break is an important game mechanism representing some strategic aspect and given at least a minor objective on teh table. Certainly armies cared about them.

It depends on the wording, but let's say that taking the enemies camp is worth 2 points that you add to your score and the opponent deducts. If you won by 12-9, actually you end uo losing 10-11. That is actually a Pyrrhic victory. The loss of the camp counts but it does not stop the game. The importance would be even greater but with no impact in the army rout. For small armies with heavy infantry you can lose your camp, the lights and the battle is over even if your heavies did not fight. That is why I also think that core units should count more for the attrition points.

This whole line of reasoning assumes the the current tournament scoring system is one we would always have and best represents game outcomes. Significant parts of the world do not use this scoring system and this would enshrine it as an integral part of the rules.

ethan wrote: This whole line of reasoning assumes the the current tournament scoring system is one we would always have and best represents game outcomes. Significant parts of the world do not use this scoring system and this would enshrine it as an integral part of the rules.

Actually my concern is not about tournaments but losing a game where my HF did not fight. In a Syracusan army I would have 3 units of skirmishers, 2 of cavalry and 6 of HF. If I lose my camp, my army would rout when I lose all the troops my general would not care for (the lights and the mercenary mounted). For other armies, though, they can lose the camp and, as they have plenty of BG, they don't care.

Strategos69 wrote:

ethan wrote: This whole line of reasoning assumes the the current tournament scoring system is one we would always have and best represents game outcomes. Significant parts of the world do not use this scoring system and this would enshrine it as an integral part of the rules.

Actually my concern is not about tournaments but losing a game where my HF did not fight. In a Syracusan army I would have 3 units of skirmishers, 2 of cavalry and 6 of HF. If I lose my camp, my army would rout when I lose all the troops my general would not care for (the lights and the mercenary mounted). For other armies, though, they can lose the camp and, as they have plenty of BG, they don't care.

At some periods the cavalry for the Syracusans are native and probably as much key units as the Hoplites. If you don't want an army that can be broken without engaging the HF or other key units, your best bet is to make sure that the majority of your units (by more than just 1) are those key units. Hence the emphasis for anyone playing the Republican Roman lists is generally to max out on Legionaries.

Chris

ethan wrote: Significant parts of the world do not use this scoring system

Where? ITC, a single competition, but then ITC is odd. You have to be invited

I like the idea of the camps break points being proportional to the size of armies, btw I think that is what happens in FOG digital.

Also the fortified camp is too expensive for what is worth right now, for 24 points you are better off buying a "couple of mobile camps", aka poor LF javelin BGs