Slitherine

can we have the vp for a sacked camp the same for all armies. why is a roman fortified camp worth less than a barbarian hordes.

Just make it 1% of pts value.

gazxtrix wrote:can we have the vp for a sacked camp the same for all armies. why is a roman fortified camp worth less than a barbarian hordes.

Just make it 1% of pts value.

Originally the camp was worth 2 point regardless of army size as it is in the TT rules. This was changed to 10% of the army's AP value (essentially number of BGs) due to the number of BGs running much higher in most DAG games than in TT ones and was felt to be a fair mechanism to have the camp represent a constant portion of what it takes to break an army rather than a flat value or a proportion of points for the army size. This means that losing the camp for a horde army is as significant as it is for one composed of higher priced troops rather than being completely ignorable.

I would like to see regular camps sacked the very second they are hit with a bg, imediate bp loss and if that player(the sacker) hits end turn and the enemy is at or over its BP, the game ends there and then .
Why? I realise its a sequence thing but honestly i do think current "sack mechanics" are a little buggy. Units get hung up on camps , they dont disapeear when they should , units evade into camps and dont appear to have any effect etc. but are stuck , but sometimes they can move..
Just clean it up and when an enemy BG touches, poof, camp gone and points allocated
(you could still have that unit frozen for turn )



Another justification is that it would make the purchase of fortified camps something to consider, basically the only times you see them are in really large ap fights where players take the upgrade as there is nothing else to buy, or the armies where the fort camp is obligatory. Would make the loss of 16 aps actually mean something for those armies if a non fort camp has that absolute vulnerability.

I like the 10% rule, but it does not seem to be working right. I hit a camp yesterday in a 500pt game and only got 3pts for it.

The number of DAG points is irrelevant - it's 10% of the army break points.

I too feel 10% is the right amount for a camp, and agree with TGM that the way points are awared is wrong.

Deeter

I agree with TGM..the sacking of camps is a little too random. I've had games where I've sat of an unprotected camp for 5 turns and got no result..where as other times a unit of LF turns up and instantly sacks the camp. I don't really understand the logic behind a cohesion test being the determinant of the camp being sacked. Furthermore the price differential for a fortified camp is simply a waste of points relative to the unfortified variety.

I'd agree with the instant sack for unprotected camp as a way of addressing the undue randomness of the sacking process and the differential v fortified. Furthermore I would suggest that the fortified camp include an unprotected mob element and they get to fight behind field fortifications. Once that mob unit is destroyed the camp is sacked. This would give you at least a couple of turns of defense. I'd possibly drop the fortified camp to say 8 or 10 points as well. I've always figured it was just a means to handicapping Roman armies.

I agree with gaz

Particularly with a 41 point typical ROR army - compared to a 29 point roman army - why is the say Carthaginian camp worth 2 points more? And of course you never see a 40 point army - as you go back and adjust the army to save that break point?????

I also think all camps should have some level of defence. I see silly things happen (and have done them in desperation) where you send a unit of light cav off to attack the camp. Hardly historically accurate.

People here often say they are seeking the game to reflect the period - yet this is one thing that is not accurate. From what I have read it was usually a sizable force that raided a camp - not one unit of light cav, that doesn't have anything better to do.

jonno wrote:I agree with gaz

Particularly with a 41 point typical ROR army - compared to a 29 point roman army - why is the say Carthaginian camp worth 2 points more? And of course you never see a 40 point army - as you go back and adjust the army to save that break point?????

I also think all camps should have some level of defence. I see silly things happen (and have done them in desperation) where you send a unit of light cav off to attack the camp. Hardly historically accurate.

People here often say they are seeking the game to reflect the period - yet this is one thing that is not accurate. From what I have read it was usually a sizable force that raided a camp - not one unit of light cav, that doesn't have anything better to do.

Not to sound rude , all tongue in cheek here , but could you translate what Gaztrix meant? " 1 % of points value" ??

to be honest i never attempted to determine the "rounding" of 10% in game terms for camp points. Nor would i make an army a specific size to deny a point to my opponent in case the camp is sacked (never even thought about it, not saying it isnt clever though:) )

As for camps and protection, well thats what MOBS are for !

The rules say the fortified camp is for an intrinsic garrison. For 16 points I want some superior legions stationed there.

And of course in SOA drilled / trained troops should not be permitted to loot camps - it is something no gentleman would allow.

The English of course are exempt from this rule.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

jonno wrote:I agree with gaz

Particularly with a 41 point typical ROR army - compared to a 29 point roman army - why is the say Carthaginian camp worth 2 points more? And of course you never see a 40 point army - as you go back and adjust the army to save that break point?????

I also think all camps should have some level of defence. I see silly things happen (and have done them in desperation) where you send a unit of light cav off to attack the camp. Hardly historically accurate.

People here often say they are seeking the game to reflect the period - yet this is one thing that is not accurate. From what I have read it was usually a sizable force that raided a camp - not one unit of light cav, that doesn't have anything better to do.

Not to sound rude , all tongue in cheek here , but could you translate what Gaztrix meant? " 1 % of points value" ??

to be honest i never attempted to determine the "rounding" of 10% in game terms for camp points. Nor would i make an army a specific size to deny a point to my opponent in case the camp is sacked (never even thought about it, not saying it isnt clever though:) )

As for camps and protection, well thats what MOBS are for !

I believe Gazxtrix suggestion would mean that the camp for a 500 point DAG army would be worth 5 points regardless of the number of AP (BGs) in the army.

As for rounding, a 39 AP army losing its camp would need to lose another 36 points to break. At 40 AP, it would lose 4 points for its camp and need to lose another 36 points to break. Doesn't seem anything significant would be gained by "rounding".

Chris

Yes thats what i meant by 1%, ie 5 pts for a 500 pt army list, 4 for a 400pt army regardless of the number of BG.


. Sorry for non-reply but i'm not being notified of posts.

Since you 16 points for a fortified camp, should you not get more points for taking it? Maybe at 50 percent rounded up?

gazxtrix wrote:Yes thats what i meant by 1%, ie 5 pts for a 500 pt army list, 4 for a 400pt army regardless of the number of BG.


. Sorry for non-reply but i'm not being notified of posts.

The problem with that is one 500 ap army might have 28 bp's whereas another 60 ! 5 bp's lost for the former is a crushing blow, the other a trifle. Larger armies dont miss their camp "lady friends" any less than a smaller army

To follow TGM's tongue in cheek response....

why not scrap the camps altogether. I have never seen the logic in it and let's face it we all want to win Mano-a-Mano, not in some cowardly underhand manner by sneaking around and looting a camp.