Slitherine

Here is a link to the campaign rules: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UY8tjY ... sp=sharing

The full sized campaign map, with starting units, can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ujRgxh ... sp=sharing

Please review them and let me know any comments or suggestions that you may have. I'll post a signup start date and time next week so that each of the 10 major powers can be assigned on a first come, first served basis.

The board game is a lot of fun, so I expect that this will be too.

OK, there is a small problem. I set up a skirmish battle with Florence: Italian 1494 - 1530 vs. Sienna: Italian 1494 - 1530. Both sides have the same national flag, so it is not easy to distinguish one side's units from another. Will this be too big of a problem to proceed?

William, it is not ideal but if the armies aren't too huge it should still be playable. In the early stages of the battle it should be fairly clear which are your troops, i.e all those moving away from you. Once battle is joined it will get harder, but there is a "next unmoved unit" button which will allow you to scroll through your units, and it will show which units it can shoot or charge(enemy) and which it can't (friends). It replicates the fog of war which exists in a time of mercenary armies, one year you fight for Florence, the next you fight against Florence.

I'm game even if there is no workaround but since there are multiple states using those armies... Some eyesoreness and friendly fire in battle might be the norm... BTW , I got carpal tunnel just trying to get Italian versus Italian line ups in the HUGE army list in the ExtraNations mod!

We could edit the Mod files to add in an Italian Army "B" with a different flag ( and perhaps // out the superfluous armies in that mod to make setting up battles easier... ) The coding IMHO would be easy, the making of a new flag ( perhaps a Milanese flag?) not so much for me...

TheGrayMouser wrote:I'm game even if there is no workaround but since there are multiple states using those armies... Some eyesoreness and friendly fire in battle might be the norm... BTW , I got carpal tunnel just trying to get Italian versus Italian line ups in the HUGE army list in the ExtraNations mod!

We could edit the Mod files to add in an Italian Army "B" with a different flag ( and perhaps // out the superfluous armies in that mod to make setting up battles easier... ) The coding IMHO would be easy, the making of a new flag ( perhaps a Milanese flag?) not so much for me...

I know what you mean about the number of armies in Extra Nations v3 list. I think that the Age of Machiavelli list might work, but there is no specific Venetian list so they would have to use the generic Italian list.

I like your suggestion of a new mod for the campaign that weeds out the extra nations and makes a "B" Italian list with a replacement flag. That is beyond my capabilities, but if it can be created we will use the new campaign list. It was hard enough to figure out how to have nations on the same "side" fight each other.

w_michael wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:I'm game even if there is no workaround but since there are multiple states using those armies... Some eyesoreness and friendly fire in battle might be the norm... BTW , I got carpal tunnel just trying to get Italian versus Italian line ups in the HUGE army list in the ExtraNations mod!

We could edit the Mod files to add in an Italian Army "B" with a different flag ( and perhaps // out the superfluous armies in that mod to make setting up battles easier... ) The coding IMHO would be easy, the making of a new flag ( perhaps a Milanese flag?) not so much for me...

I know what you mean about the number of armies in Extra Nations v3 list. I think that the Age of Machiavelli list might work, but there is no specific Venetian list so they would have to use the generic Italian list.

I like your suggestion of a new mod for the campaign that weeds out the extra nations and makes a "B" Italian list with a replacement flag. That is beyond my capabilities, but if it can be created we will use the new campaign list. It was hard enough to figure out how to have nations on the same "side" fight each other.

I'll play around with it this weekend to see if I can even do either of the things I suggested!

I believe this would be a decent flag? (which should be MIlan's) I THINK the current flag is the Papal flag but I'm not sure... If so would be sorta of a northern versus southern thing and a good contrast.

So here is what is looks like in game. I could try to find a better resolution flag on the internet ( I didnt draw that one...) At least I was able to figure out what alpha channel so I petty sure It can do all the Disrupted etc symbol overlays... the tattered flags likely will be a chore but doable. Should I continue? ( and can anyone confirm that this is really an Milanese flag? The internet often fibs...

That looks pretty nice!
It is the definitely the Sforza coat of arms.

See:
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/19373/view/1/11/
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/19373/
http://bibliotecaestense.beniculturali. ... y-003.html


Codex de sphaera (estense) - 1469. Allegory of Sforza family's Coat of Arms. Biblioteca Estense in Modena, Italy.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sforza_Castle

The coat of arms appears in several placed there.

The Duchy of Milan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Milan
It shows that flag. Good work.

I did a bit more digging and found a image of a Duchy of Milan standard captured by the Swiss as represented in a later book.

The banner of Massimiliano Sforza, Count of Pavia and then Duke of Milan, captured by the Swiss around 1512, reproduced in a drawing of 1649.





The flag text is a bit idiomatic — A bon droit: by good right, rightly.

While these obviously aren’t suitable for a P&S flag icon they give a better sense of what the real deal would likely have looked like.

Pixel wrote:I did a bit more digging and found a image of a Duchy of Milan standard captured by the Swiss as represented in a later book.

The banner of Massimiliano Sforza, Count of Pavia and then Duke of Milan, captured by the Swiss around 1512, reproduced in a drawing of 1649.





The flag text is a bit idiomatic — A bon droit: by good right, rightly.

While these obviously aren’t suitable for a P&S flag icon they give a better sense of what the real deal would likely have looked like.

The old Saracen getting devoured by the dragon motif. Details like that makes me want to consider buying and painting minis, if for nothing else than the flags.

OK, I roughened up the edges of the flag a bit, added tatters and the "D and F" symbols.

I'm a surgeon not an artist, so this is likely the best I can do... I was not able to test my high casualties tattered flag (the medium tattered is in the right corner gendarme) as my damn units wouldn't cooperate and routed before any took very high losses LOL.

TGM,

that looks great to me. Both sides are clearly distinguishable.

I'm really looking forward to this, campaigns are fun, add that extra dimension to the battles. The only problem I forsee is when one army gets larger than another (like about 25% more) it becomes almost impossible to win with the smaller army and then the campaign loses interest for the smaller guy (apart from those of us brought up on stories of plucky underdogs, and Scotsmen hiding in damp dark caves)

awesum4 wrote:TGM,

that looks great to me. Both sides are clearly distinguishable.

I'm really looking forward to this, campaigns are fun, add that extra dimension to the battles. The only problem I forsee is when one army gets larger than another (like about 25% more) it becomes almost impossible to win with the smaller army and then the campaign loses interest for the smaller guy (apart from those of us brought up on stories of plucky underdogs, and Scotsmen hiding in damp dark caves)

Looking forward to it too! Based on my understanding, it doesn’t seem too easy to get that numerical advantage. Armies will either be equal 1200 points, 1200 vs 1400 (14%) or 1200 vs 1600 ( 25%). If your foe masses 3 armies, bribe one or assasinate!

awesum4 wrote:TGM,

that looks great to me. Both sides are clearly distinguishable.

I'm really looking forward to this, campaigns are fun, add that extra dimension to the battles. The only problem I forsee is when one army gets larger than another (like about 25% more) it becomes almost impossible to win with the smaller army and then the campaign loses interest for the smaller guy (apart from those of us brought up on stories of plucky underdogs, and Scotsmen hiding in damp dark caves)

The 200 FP addition for each net supporting army is a 16.7% increase in troops (200 / 1,200). I did this to match the same bonus of 16.7% (adding one to the die roll) if the resolution by die roll was used. I didn't want players to choose resolution by die roll because that obviously gave them better odds. It might still do that of course if 17% additional troops increases your chance of winning by more than that 17%. You guys will have to let me know.

I am going to use a virtual die roll anyway, so I can change it to a d12, and make the FP increment 100. It just seems to me that if you have two armies attacking one then a 17% advantage in troops was already a big concession. In the original game (and Diplomacy) being outnumbered is an automatic loss, but we are here to play P&S and not just for the strategic game.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Looking forward to it too! Based on my understanding, it doesn’t seem too easy to get that numerical advantage. Armies will either be equal 1200 points, 1200 vs 1400 (14%) or 1200 vs 1600 ( 25%). If your foe masses 3 armies, bribe one or assasinate!

Famine and plague can open up some unexpected opportunities (or setbacks).

I own the first edition of the board game, but my rules are in storage and unaccessable. I was able to download the second edition rules here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/9994 ... nd-ed-1983
I notice that the 2nd edition only has 8 players, dropping Genoa and Sienna (the two weakest players). If we have 8 or fewer players in the campaign then I will drop them too.

I also found 7 new variant scenarios here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/1000 ... ea-22-1993

I chose the 1499 AD scenario from the 1st ed. because P&S didn't have army lists for earlier scenarios, and because it had all 10 players. If we don't have the full 8-10 players wanting to join, then I suggest that we choose a scenario appropriate for the number of player that we have.

Michael,

I have 4 questions for you to clarify the rules if that's ok.

1/ In a province which has famine all military units are eliminated. Later in the same paragraph it states that a military unit in the province can carry out orders normally. Am i right in presuming this means new units that have arrived in the province after the famine marker has been lifted?

2/ A province that has a famine produces no income, but a fortified city with a garrison produces income as normal. But all military units including garrisons have been eliminated. So is this a mistake and this sentence should be removed?

3/ During the famine resolution phase all military units are eliminated and the famine marker is removed. Presumably this means the famine has disapearred, yet in the expenditure phase you can pay 3d to provide famine relief. Can you explain this please?

4/ Maintaining a unit for a year costs 3d. Raising a new unit also costs 3d. It seems slightly illogical to me that raising and maintaining a new unit is the same cost as simply maintaining one. But I can accept the rationale that if these are all mercenary units and you have simply rehired a unit on the same turn as the previous year.

Thanks,

Andre

awesum4 wrote:Michael,

I have 4 questions for you to clarify the rules if that's ok.

1/ In a province which has famine all military units are eliminated. Later in the same paragraph it states that a military unit in the province can carry out orders normally. Am i right in presuming this means new units that have arrived in the province after the famine marker has been lifted?

2/ A province that has a famine produces no income, but a fortified city with a garrison produces income as normal. But all military units including garrisons have been eliminated. So is this a mistake and this sentence should be removed?

3/ During the famine resolution phase all military units are eliminated and the famine marker is removed. Presumably this means the famine has disapearred, yet in the expenditure phase you can pay 3d to provide famine relief. Can you explain this please?

4/ Maintaining a unit for a year costs 3d. Raising a new unit also costs 3d. It seems slightly illogical to me that raising and maintaining a new unit is the same cost as simply maintaining one. But I can accept the rationale that if these are all mercenary units and you have simply rehired a unit on the same turn as the previous year.

Thanks,

Andre

1/ Famine determination is the first phase of the turn. Order writing and movement execution takes place after that. Famine resolution is the last phase. Everyone will know when they are writing their orders which provinces will suffer from famine, so they will move out of those provinces or suffer the consequences. You can give movement orders to newly raised armies and fleets, but they cannot be raised in a famine province.

2/ Famine resolution doesn't happen until the end of the turn, so the military units still exist in the income phase.

3/ You can spend 3d for famine relief in a province. This immediately removes the Famine Marker, so no units are eliminated in the Famine Resolution Phase. Note that garrisons cannot move so unless there is famine relief they will always succumb to famine.

4/ I think that you are right to think of them as being like mercenaries. You pay them a year's wages when you raise them, and the same every Spring Campaign thereafter unless they are eliminated or disbanded.