Slitherine

I've come up with a campaign format that is a bit abstract (no strat map) and is all about gaining renown to become Warlord. If you're interested please take a look at the first draft for the campaign:

To Tame a Land
A Campaign for Field of Glory
Decline and Fall

Background
The Emperor is old and frail, his grip upon affairs weakens. Already there have been a few small uprisings, not full-blown rebellion, but anarchy none the less for that. What the Land needs is a strong hand at the Emperor’s side, a Warlord who can keep the people united and foreign threats at bay. The Noble Houses have issued the call to arms and civil war is at hand...

The Campaign
To win the campaign a player must amass 2500 Renown, thereby gaining the support of the Emperor’s Council and the people to become Warlord. Renown is gained and lost on the battlefields of the civil war.

Each player starts with 250 Renown. Should this drop below zero, the player’s faction no longer has enough support to continue in the civil war. They may choose to be knocked out of the game, or they may become a vassal of a surviving player (see below). Their new overlord gains renown for acquiring a vassal.

Each turn represents one season. Seasons have no particular effect on the game, they are just a way of keeping track of time. A player must attack one other faction during their turn.

The Map
The map is a graphical representation of the current levels of support for each faction. It has no strategic function in the campaign but is there for flavour. Each ‘block’ of 250 renown above 250 will cause a previously neutral province to declare for the player.

All players start with one province that they will keep, unless they drop below zero renown. A second province is acquired at 500, the third at 750, etc. If a player should drop back below a threshold, a province will revert to neutral or declare for another player.

Armies and Battles
Each Faction (player) starts with two available army lists from ‘Decline and Fall’. Either list may be used in each battle and can be tailored as required; army composition is not fixed in any way.

Further lists will become available as Renown increases, and more forces flock to the Faction’s banner. The thresholds for an additional list are 750 and 1500 Renown.

Battles should be fought with Fog of war and Double moves ON. The attacker should host a 500 point battle. Either player may opt to use fewer points to gain extra renown (see below). Commanders may only be ‘Field’ or ‘Troop’ unless the player chooses to take the field. In this case they must select an Inspired commander but, if the commander is killed, the player is knocked out of the campaign. Taking the field also scores extra renown (see below).

Vassals
If a player chooses to become a vassal, they should take direction from their ‘overlord’ when deciding who to attack. Renown gained or lost by the vassal is halved and added to their overlord’s score. An overlord may choose to abandon a vassal, but must allow them to fight at least one battle. Abandoning a vassal is a sign of poor judgement and loses the overlord 25 renown.

So the vassal is under no compunction to be loyal, but nor will an overlord be forced to put up with a serpent for an underling. An abandoned vassal may offer his services to any surviving faction. If no offer is accepted, the vassal is knocked out.

Scoring Renown
Battles are where Renown is won and lost. The calculation uses the average BG points value of the army. Decimals up to 0.4 round down, 0.5 and above round up. So an army with 40 BGs has an APV of 500 divided by 40 (12.5), which rounds to 13.

Battle +250 – ((number of break points lost * APV)/2)
Own camp looted -50
Enemy commander killed, Troop +10
Enemy commander killed, Field +25
Enemy commander killed, Inspired +50
Winning with 90% PV +20
Winning with 80% PV +50
Winning with 70% PV +100
Taking the field +50
Resigning a battle -(100 + (number of break points lost * APV)/2))

Gaining a vassal +25
Abandoning a vassal -25

Other Rules
You cannot attack a faction that is more than (number of players/2) positions below you on the leader board on consecutive turns. However, you may instruct a vassal to do so.

Example: with six players, the player in the lead could not attack 5th or 6th place on consecutive turns, they would have to fight 2nd, 3rd or 4th place before they could look further down the scoreboard.



If, after reading all that, you are still interested, let me know! I know I have form for a non-starter in the past (Kingdom of the Isles) but I've learned my lesson and have realised that simple is the way forward!

Hi Keyth,

Count me in. Simple is definitely the right way to do a campaign. (The Isles rules certainly weren't that . )

As a question, do the two lists from D&F that you start with mean just choosing two fixed lists from a single army list, e.g. Nikephorian Byzantine, ot two fixed lists from any two D&F lists, or just that your can choose an army list for each battle but initially only using a DAG army from one of two lists?

Chris

Hi Chris,

The Isles taught me much... it's a solid system if you have a few hours per day for maintenance, but is far, far, far too complex for a casual online campaign and became a monster even before we started

Good question on the lists. It's option 3 - in each battle you may select up to a 500 point force from either of your two available lists. This keeps bookkeeping minimal as there is no requirement to track the exact composition of each army - I get the number of break points from the final score and can do all necessary scoring from that figure, adjusted by any of the specific Renown-gaining measures that a player may have taken.

In case you (or anyone for that matter ) was wondering 'why two lists?', it's to give a slight random element, as you will never know exactly what you are about to face, and also to give a bit of a break to those who discover that one of their choices is a complete dog. In the unlikely event that a player feels they have two lists that are completely uncompetitive, I think that upon agreement of a majority of players, they should be allowed to change one. It's meant to be fun after all!

I'm thinking of using a stylised map of the Byzantine Empire around 1000AD, with cities/provinces being randomly assigned to players as populations declare for them as their renown increases. I guess I prefer a coloured map to a bar chart, even though that is all it will be doing

If there are enough interested parties, we could potentially form faction teams... not thought this through yet, just throwing it out there.

Cheers!

Questions:

1. Each Faction (player) starts with two available army lists from ‘Decline and Fall’. Further lists may become available as Renown increases, and more forces flock to the Faction’s banner.

"May" - why make it a mystery. Just state the levels when they become available. Otherwise the players are left to wonder.

2. If a player chooses to become a vassal, they should take direction from their ‘overlord’ when deciding who to attack.

Why would a player decide to do this? Sounds like the players can just "ally" with each other and decide to knock off the guy in the lead.

3. Battle +250 – ((number of break points lost * APV)/2)

Show me two examples of this please. I am not following how losing less is better than losing more. And why does this have to be so complicated?

I am interested in the campaign but I want to know how this all works first.

I am very interested in this. But a few questions:

a) Do the lists have to be thematically meaningful? If the time period is supposed to be 1000AD, does that mean we should choose lists that are near that period, or just anything we like from DAF?

b) Are allies allowed in the armies?

c) What's to stop you from always choosing the player you think is the weakest against your armies when you attack?

Old_Warrior wrote:Questions:

1. Each Faction (player) starts with two available army lists from ‘Decline and Fall’. Further lists may become available as Renown increases, and more forces flock to the Faction’s banner.

"May" - why make it a mystery. Just state the levels when they become available. Otherwise the players are left to wonder.

This is just a first draft - there will be some additions and clarifications before 'kick off', and this will be one of them. I am happy for input on numbers/thresholds/etc.

Old_Warrior wrote:2. If a player chooses to become a vassal, they should take direction from their ‘overlord’ when deciding who to attack.

Why would a player decide to do this? Sounds like the players can just "ally" with each other and decide to knock off the guy in the lead.

Players would only choose to become a vassal if their renown had dropped below zero and they were essentially knocked out. It is a way of keeping the player in the campaign (if they so wish) and creating a different dynamic. As mentioned above, happy to discuss any suggested amendments. And yes, there is nothing stopping 'live' players ganging up on the leader(s).

Old_Warrior wrote:3. Battle +250 – ((number of break points lost * APV)/2)

Show me two examples of this please. I am not following how losing less is better than losing more. And why does this have to be so complicated?

I am interested in the campaign but I want to know how this all works first.

I'll put together a couple of examples later and post them. While it looks a bit daunting at first, it's not too bad especially when you have it plugged into a spreadsheet I think it is a reasonably fair reflection of how relatively well or badly you have done in a battle. I'll expand a bit when I post the examples.

Thanks for the questions!

Tiavals wrote:I am very interested in this. But a few questions:

a) Do the lists have to be thematically meaningful? If the time period is supposed to be 1000AD, does that mean we should choose lists that are near that period, or just anything we like from DAF?

b) Are allies allowed in the armies?

c) What's to stop you from always choosing the player you think is the weakest against your armies when you attack?

More good questions.

a) No, the date is just a framework for flavour.

b) My gut feel is 'why not?' but happy to take advice and suggestions on board.

c) One thing I've thought of to add to the rules is a restriction or renown hit for repeatedly attacking the same player if they are 'x' places below you in the scoreboard. The exact numbers would be determined by the number of players.

Also, if we can come up with an uncomplicated mechanism, it would be good (IMHO) to reduce the renown scored when fighting a faction that is doing significantly less well. I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement, but I like it as an idea.

Thanks for the interest.

My choices for armies are:

Bedouin dynasties(Hamdanid of Aleppo)
Lombard


Can other people take the same armies, or is it first come first serve?

To be as fair and inclusive as possible, I think all armies should be open to all players. I am leaning towards Arab Conquest(Later) and Early Southern Slav(Later), but not 100% sure yet.

OK, so here goes for some examples and the rationale behind the scoring!

(number of break points lost * APV)/2

Rather than trying to score each BG routed/fragged/destroyed individually, it makes sense to look at the average value of a BG within an army, to keep things simple. So we start by dividing the total value of the army by the number of BGs.

Example: For this campaign, 500 points will be the most common army value. Let's say we have an army of 40 BGs: 500 / 40 = 12.5, rounds up to an average of 13 points per unit.

As we all know, to beat an army you must exceed its break point by routing or fragging half the BGs so two break points equate to a routed BG. If we multiply break points by the average unit cost then divide by 2 (because of the 2 BPs to a 'broken' BG), we get a reasonably fair 'cost' for the broken element of an army.

Example: We win with our 40 BG army and are 14/40 at the finish. The first element of our score is 14 * 13 (the average points value) = 182, which we divide by 2 because our 14 break points equates to 7 broken BGs = 91.

As we are using 500 point armies, 250 points is our 'breaking point'. If you win a battle, using the calculation above, you will have lost less than 250 points; if you lose, it will be more than 250 points. This is why we use 250 as our 'base score' for a battle.

Example: Continuing from above, if we have no other modifiers (camp looted, commanders killed, etc.) then we would score 250 - 91 renown for our victory, a total of 159.

If our opponent was fielding 47 BGs and lost 50, their score would break down as follows:

500 / 47 for average points value = 10.63, rounds up to 11.
50 break points * 11 = 550, which we divide by 2 = 275
With no other modifiers, 250 - 275 = -25 renown

So relative to the loser, the winner has increased his renown by 159 + 25 = 184. How he has fared against the other players depends on the quality of their victories or losses.

To summarise: Kill lots of them, don't lose many of yours. Sack their camp. Kill their commanders. Lamentation of women is optional in these enlightened, post-Schwarzenegger Conan days.

Original post edited to incorporate clarifications and a few additions.

I'll play. Let me know when you begin.

blbrowning

And then there were four, maybe five Welcome aboard.

Gday Keyth you can count me in as well if thats ok

Turk1964 wrote:Gday Keyth you can count me in as well if thats ok

Absolutely! Good to have you.

So far we have:
keyth
batesmotel
Tiavals
blbrowning
Turk1964

With a possible:
Old_Warrior

Ideally we could do with a few more players, so I'll see if the weekend brings any our way. If not, we can look to start next week.

I would like to play.

phlewis wrote:I would like to play.

Excellent! I will try to get the map together in the next few days (it's not vital but it's nice to have )

Could everyone who hasn't done so please post which two army lists they would like to start with?

I'll be using Arab Conquest(later) and Dailami(Buyids).

Arab conquest later and dailami buyid, yep also.

Blbrowning

I would like to join as well please. My army choices - (a) Nikephorian Byzantine (Later), (b) Ghaznavid.
Thanks,
Sarpedon.

The armies i will be choosing are Western Turkish(Later Khazar) and Ghazinavid