Discussion for 'To Tame a Land B.C.'

[keyth]

This thread is for suggestions and discussions for the upcoming 'To Tame a Land B.C.' campaign, using Immortal Fire armies. New players are welcome!

Each player will choose a culture which dictates which armies they can use:

African
Late Dynastic Egyptian
Early Carthaginian
Kyrenean Greek

Barbarians
Thracian
Skythian or Saka
Early Sarmatian
Galatian

Hellenes
Classical Greek
Syracusan
Hellenistic Greek

Indian
Classical Indian
Graeco-Bactrian
Indo-Greek

Macedonian
Alexandrian Macedonian
Early Successor

Asiatic
Early Achaemenid Persian
Lydian
Late Achaemenid Persian

[keyth]

Smaller army sizes: we will start with 300 - 400 point armies and maybe have seasonal shifts to occasionally use larger forces.

[Turk1964]

My proposal is for there to be a restriction on commanders. If we are going to limit the armies to 300-400 points then maximum 1 Field Commander or 2 troop commanders. As armies get bigger then allow 1 more FC plus 1 or 2 troop commanders. If we are to make the contest more challanging then restricting commanders would really improve the skill involved.I think this would make everyone really think about troop selection.

[Tiavals]

The 400 point, or even 300 point limit sounds interesting. Luck is a bigger factor, which will even the odds between the players, since even a single poor morale check might mean the end of your army.

A limit on commanders might be good. Otherwise most would just take one inspired and be done with it, since it can probably cover their whole army. If you can't take an inspired commander, there's more variance in the commanders. Unless of course we use the same method as in the normal To tame a land, where losing your IC would be bad.

[keyth]

Devil's advocate: with fewer points available, won't more than two commanders or an IC become a bit of a luxury item anyway? As Tiavals says, losing an IC is bad news too.

Not against the idea at all, just throwing out a different view

[keyth]

Are there any 'power armies' in IF that should be restricted or banned? For instance I would happily ban Swiss from an SoA campaign...

[Turk1964]

If we can restict the use of an inspired commander on the smaller armies then it would make players think about their troop selection more. Otherwise everyone will be choosing an IC to see if they can get advantage from winning initiative and this could make a huge difference to the battle.When larger armies are available then IC can be used but if killed a penalty should occur so befitting the loss.I think the current scoring method is ok but maybe some refining could be done . Such as 50 pts for the win,at the momment if both scores are close then not much is gained from the win. Most of us are at a similar skill level so a win in my opinion should be more rewarding.

Cheers Turk

[Turk1964]

Are there any 'power armies' in IF that should be restricted or banned? For instance I would happily ban Swiss from an SoA campaign...

Actually i believe IF has probably the most even armies. The 2 standout armies if you were going to ban any would maybe be Classical Spartan and Galatian but they are both beatable so i would say see what everyone else feels.

[keyth]

Happy to hear other opinions but I am dead against a significant 'win bonus'. In my ever so humble opinion the scoring system is quite elegant and rewards a good win already. I strongly believe that a narrow victory/defeat should be reflected in the scores for both players.

I think no ICs unless armies are >= 500 points is a good starting point.

[batesmotel]

Happy to hear other opinions but I am dead against a significant 'win bonus'. In my ever so humble opinion the scoring system is quite elegant and rewards a good win already. I strongly believe that a narrow victory/defeat should be reflected in the scores for both players.

I think no ICs unless armies are >= 500 points is a good starting point.

Given the cost of an IC, I think they should be allowed in the smaller point games along with the current loss of availability if the IC is lost. With smaller point totals, using an IC will make a bigger difference for the size of your army than it does in games with larger armies, and in addition, keeping an IC's BG out of combat will also represent the loss of more of an army's strength than in a larger game.

Also, since 300-400 point games will tend to involve more maneuver, using a single IC instead of more cheaper commanders will make it much harder for an army to maneuver around a flank or to deploy a separate reserve to react to the opponents maneuvers. Also, with smaller armies that are unable to fill a map wall to wall, winning the initiative is probably to determine the map used is also less of a factor. (For what it's worth, I most often don't use an IC in games below 600 points any way, so I won't be upset if I'm not allowed to get one in the smaller games. On the other hand, I'd be happy to allow my opponents the option to make that choice .)

Chris

[keyth]

I've had a bit of a change around with the regions. Here is the specific army lists by region:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=40461478 ... 6F26%21216

Let me know what you think.

Chris, like the UK government, I am doing U-turns at the moment I guess ICs are their own cost, risk and reward, so maybe just let people spend their points as they see fit...

[batesmotel]

Keyth,

The Thracian Client and the Galatian provincial probably don't belong with the other armies since they cover the period when these armies are Roman clients. If you do include these, you should also include the Later successor armies from RoR which are contemporaneous or earlier than the client kingdom armies. Bosporan(early) would be a possible addition to the Hellenic group if you want to include RoR armies.

Chris

[keyth]

Yes, I was thinking about them, especially the Thracian Client because hard-ass legions creep in. I'm happy to exclude them as anachronisms.

[batesmotel]

I'm not sure the Gupta Indian belong either. The list does nominally start at 320 A.D. although it doesn't really include any killer troops that would unbalance the competition.

Chris

[keyth]

I looked at the Gupta dates and thought it was best to keep them in as they have no real killers - and without them the Indian region is pretty light on armies. By the way, I am happy for other suggestions on region/cultural army choices - I just went with a broad brush approach in a spare half hour

[keyth]

A thought about points:

Spring (mustering): 400 points
Summer (all troops gathered): 500 points
Autumn (desertions due to harvest etc.): 300 points
Winter: rest and refit

This caters for all tastes and gives some variety. Comments please!

[Turk1964]

That looks just jim dandy Keyth

[Aristides]

I agree with bates - ICs are what they are: useful and expensive. In smaller games i don't think theyre any better - you can cover more of your army, but they take up a bigger % of ur army - and u'll be several bgs behind compared to if you took a lesser leader (and argubaly this might mean more in the larger scale battles).

I rlly like the season/pts idea! Personally i would vote for 350/400/300 as we're all playing many 500 games atm and it would give the campiagn a real theme (games completed quicker too).

I actually thnk the EAP are borderline super-army (esp. the plataea version) and maybe the galatians. Looking through the army list groupings, the asiatic and barbarian players have the best armies. The southerners and imo the greeks are pretty weak.

I wonder whether it might be a good idea to have the attacker have to declare his army so the defender can choose which to defend with - would increase the number of different armies used.

[macsen]

From what I see you have 6 lists, does that mean only 6 players? Or can there be teams with more than one player per list?

As too the IC I think leave it up to the player. In the game we played an IC instead of the two commanders I used would have stiffled my flanking move.

[keyth]

More than one player per list - the more the merrier