Italian Wars Campaign Gameplay

[w_michael]

I've only received orders from two players. It is possible that everyone else is on summer vacation, or perhaps they are just bored with the campaign.

If the latter, let's have a vote whether to continue or declare the winner.

[TheGrayMouser]

Im here (although I can do nothing but hold the fort so to speak...)

[awesum4]

I am happy to continue...but a lot of the excitement has disappeared as players have been eliminated and the two sides have solidified.

[w_michael]

It is time to draw the campaign to an end, and declare Naples (awesum4) the winner with 11 cities. Venice (lascar) came in second with 9 cities.

I hope that everyone had a good time. I think that the original board game rules and map are a good jumping off point, but a few issues need to be addressed to make it a better campaign system for miniatures/P&S combat resolutions. The two main problem that I see are the Money Lender rules that allow an alliance to eliminate players from the game through expenditures, and the lack of decisiveness of battles (armies are completely refreshed between turns) which forces repetitive battles.

The first is an easy fix: I've removed Money Lenders from the rules. You can still bribe an enemy army to disband, but you will have to save the money yourself.

The second is a bit more complicated, but it just involves more book keeping for the moderator (me). Three ducats will raise an army or fleet of 1,200 P&S Force Points. Percentage losses from a battle, as per the P&S final results screen, will be applied to each army. For example, if the winner suffered 10% losses then that army will now have 1,080 FP. Fleets fighting a land battle will suffer FP losses just like a army would. I'll work out a percentage loss table for pure naval battles. Sieges may be resolved faster or slower if there is a disparity in the FP size of the besiegers and the besieged. If the besieging force is smaller than the siege may take longer, and if the besieged forces are smaller then the siege may take less time. Sieges will take no less than one full turn, and no more than three full turns. I'll calculate the percentage difference in FP strengths and compare that to a D100 roll to see if the standard siege length of two full turns is modified.

On Spring turns armies of 400 FP or less only require 1 ducat to supply, armies of 401 - 800 FP require 2 ducats to supply, and armies of more than 800 FP require the full 3 ducats to supply. Armies are reinforced during Spring turns only, and they must be reinforced if there are ducats available in the treasury before any new armies or fleets are raised. One ducat will reinforce an army or fleet by up to 400 FP, with a maximum army/fleet size of 1,200 FP.

How does the above sound? Are there any other issues that you would like to be addressed?

[awesum4]

William,

those changes sound good, will make battles more decisive, and removing the money-lenders is great.

Count me in please for the next run of the campaign.

Andre

[w_michael]

William,

those changes sound good, will make battles more decisive, and removing the money-lenders is great.

Count me in please for the next run of the campaign.

Andre

I'm thinking that my next project might be adapting this system to a 30 Years' War campaign with a Pro-Imperialist team vs. an Anti-Imperialist team. In the mean time, I am adjusting the Machiavelli rules with the ideas presented above.

[ahuyton]

Will

Thanks a lot for running the campaign and giving thought to how the system could be improved. Your changes sound very sensible to me. I did think that the loss of armies through plague was pretty devastating.

A team campaign with preset alliances is a very good idea and I would be very interested in playing a 30YW version.

Alan

[KiwiWarlord]

Many thanks for your time & effort running the campaign Will.
Pity there wasn't another move or two as the Turks were going to take over the Papacy.

[Aryaman]

I would be also very interested on that team campaign, I am currently playing a 1st punic war team campaign and it is very good, players can drop out or get a temporary replacement and the campaign can still go on

[w_michael]

Will

Thanks a lot for running the campaign and giving thought to how the system could be improved. Your changes sound very sensible to me. I did think that the loss of armies through plague was pretty devastating.

A team campaign with preset alliances is a very good idea and I would be very interested in playing a 30YW version.

Alan

That is a good point about the plague. Since FP strengths are going to be introduced for military units, the entire unit doesn't have to be eliminated; perhaps just 25%of the FP strength and then 100% if it doesn't move out of the plagued province that turn. Armies didn't linger in famine or plagued provinces.

[TheGrayMouser]

All these sound good! Thanks for running the show and look forward to the next!