New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

[Ludendorf]

I'm personally ok with a rules change or the rules staying as they are. I just wanted to reply as I figured you'd want some feedback here, Kabill. Do as you will, I am ok with either decision.

[Cunningcairn]

I think the current army losses in draws is wrong. The result is very map dependent and I have fought a number of battles now as defender and attacker when the terrain made it impossible for the attacker to win.
These were defending river crossings and mountain passes. In these games the defenders had fled the battlefield and were cornered. Yet the attackers lost armies which doesn't make sense. NYCzar has developed a great rules set that will overcome this problem and I think should be considered in the next campaign. In this game I think we should just stay with the rules as they are.

[nyczar]

Kabill (and all), in your suggestion I believe you are implying that the 50% loss result (for a draw) would be applied to the entire force amount, not just the four cap that may be involved in a battle. This makes sense to me and I would amend the idea slightly as in an even battle (2x2, 4x4) the attacker does not have a stronger incentive, vis-a-vis the defender to attack. I would amend the idea to be 50%, rounded up, capped at 3 (see edit below) for the defender and 50%, rounded up, plus 1 for the attacker, no cap (and based on total army size, not just those that are participating in the battle).

I think the spirit of our current system, and which influences my thinking in offering this idea, is that the attacker must attack. So in using the army system of our current campaign, i have offered my amendment. Note i am suggesting one system irregardless of if the attacker or defender has an overall army size advantage.

Edit, I thought my idea through a bit more and realized that one could attack 1x4+ and play for a draw. So there would need to be a cap to prevent this as well. So defender losses for a draw would be 50%, rounded up, capped at three and never more than attacker losses.

On another note:

I have always thought that the draw rules had issues. For example, in one of my Battles with RagnarOnetooth, he attacked, 4x4, and we drew but he scored 38% rout to my 18%. Net result was he lost all 4 and I lost none.

The rules set that Cunningcarin references was written because CC shared with me his own strategic rules set and I had this thought about an enhanced tactical system that solved the "army to FOG II force point" translation issue that exist in our current campaign: 1 army equals 1,200 FOG force points but 4 equals only 2,000. I get that gaming always involves abstraction but this has been a nagging intellectual itch from the start. So part of the tactical rules set I developed addressed this and the other part was the issue of draws, which had battle results dependent on rout percentage, but that always favored the defender. My thinking here was based on the age old principle that defenders have an advantage plus the idea that an attacker would be harried in hostile land on their retreat after a draw result. Hence my amendment above.

[gamercb]

I fought cunningcairn as an attacker when he hid in a corner behind mountains. I had to march across the battlefield and around the mountains to get to him. At the end of the game I suffered heavier casualties but had not broken as we reach the time limit. Under the rule, it would have been better for me to hold off attacking him, knowing he would lose all his armies for a draw. I do not think this is what we are trying to achieve with the campaign and the battles so I support the proposed change.

In our last battle, he attacked me. There was a river running down the right side of the battlefield and being an outnumbered defender, I crossed this and defended the four crossing points. In any campaign, this would be a sensible move but, because we drew, I lost all my armies.

I believe the defenders goal is denign the attacker the provence so should not be heavily penalised for making use of the terrain. If you want to attack you should be trying to win.

I support the proposed change.

Colin

[Kabill]

Because I am dumb, I forgot to send out a PM highlighting the new turn and am missing orders from several players at the moment. So I'm extending the deadline to tomorrow morning (9am GMT). Sorry I am apparently not very good at this.

[Kabill]

Turn 11 Battle List:
A bit quieter than last turn but several battles for the Dacians again...

- Kabill (4 armies, Spanish 80-70) attacks Morbio (4 armies, Syracusian 412-281) in Crete - Kabill triumphs with no armies lost

- Ludendorf (4 armies, Galatian 280-63) attacks Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) in Dacia 22 - Nosy_Rat triumphs with no armies lost

- Nyczar (5 armies, Roman 106-25) attacks Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) in Macedonia 25 - Nosy_Rat triumphs with one army lost

- Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) attacks paulmcneil (8 armies, Kappadokian, 260-17) in Kappadokia 30 - Nosy_Rat triumphs with no armies lost

- Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) attacks paulmcneil (8 armies, Jewish Revolt, 66-135) in Jewish 46

- Batesmotel (6 armies, Rome 199) attacks Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) in Dacia 23 - Nosy_Rat trumphs with no armies lost

Battle deadline is 5pm Saturday 18th August.

[Morbio]

I'm wondering, then, whether there's any support for changing it to be a bit more useful, e.g. both attacker and defender lose half of their fighting force, rounding up (i.e. if fighting with one or two armies, lose one; if fighting with three or four armies, lose two), and the defender keeps the province. This still does damage to both sides, but does mean (in particular) that a strong attacking force which fails to defeat a weaker defending force stands to lose more than the defender and so the onus is on them to achieve a victory.

I partially agree, I think losing all armies is harsh, but I don't support the half each approach (rounded up)... I'm trying to rationalise why this would make sense other than to incentivise the attacker, who has an incentive in winning anyway. I can easily see a situation where a hoplite or pike army is outnumbering and attacking a sword & shield foot army, perhaps with a significant MF component. The choice may be to send pikes and hoplites into rough or woodland terrain to dislodge the defenders, yet to do so may be suicidal. Surely in this instance it seems that both commanders may choose not to fight and wait for a more favourable terrain and possible reinforcements.

Perhaps the losses should be guided by the battlefield losses, which makes sense? If the battle was a stand-off (like described above), e.g. <10% losses for both sides, then no armies are lost and both armies return to the previous place and get the chance to be reinforced? If the battle was a fighting draw, e.g. >10% loses by at least one side, then maybe the losses should be determined by battlefield losses (percentages from top left rather than summary screen). These could be percentages of the victory target, either 40 or 60 depending on whether either side has reached or exceeded the 40 target. If the maths give an exact mid-point then I suggest we round down (but we could round up).

Summary of the determination rules
Highest loss percentage < 10%: No losses
Highest loss percentage < 40%: Work out each sides army losses as a percentage of their field losses compared to 40.
Highest loss percentage >= 40%: Work out each sides army losses as a percentage of their field losses compared to 60.
Exact mid-points are rounded down

Some examples;
A 25% battlefield loss, B 15%.
A has 25/40 = 62.5% army loss rounded to nearest complete army. So if A had 1 army it would lose 1 (62.5% is closest to 1/1), 2 armies it would lose 1 (62.5% is closest to 1/2), 3 armies it would lose 2 (62.5% is closest to 2/3), 4 armies would lose 2 armies (62.5% is the mid-point between 2/4 and 3/4 so rounding down applies).
B has 15/40 = 37.5%, so would lose as follows; 1 army loses none (37.5% is 0/1), 2 armies loses 1 (37.5% is 1/2), 3 armies loses 1 (37.5% is 1/3), 4 armies is 1 (37.5% is the mid-point between 1/4 or 2/4 so rounding down applies).

A 50% battlefield loss, B 30%.
A has 50/60 = 83.3% army loss rounded to nearest complete army. So if A had 1 army it would lose 1 (83.3% is closest to 1/1), 2 armies would lose 2 (83.3% is closest to 2/2), 3 armies would lose 2 (83.3% is the mid-point between 2/3 to 3/3), 4 armies would lose 3 (83.3% is closest to 3/4).
B has 30/50 = 50%, so would lose as follows; 1 army loses none (50.0% is a mid-point between 0/1 and 1/1 so rounding down applies), 2 armies loses 1 (50.0% is 1/2), 3 armies loses 1 (50.0% is a mid-point between 1/3 and 2/3 so rounding down applies), 4 armies is 2 (50.0% is 2/4).

All thoughts welcome.

[paulmcneil]

I like the proposed change, much more realistic, onus must be on attacker to have a definitive impact, imagine, Caesar invades Britain 55 BC gets a kicking on beach, Brits withdraw, he chases around gets nowhere, boats half wrecked in storm, but claims a draw and walks into Britain next turn, rather than having to wait 100 years for Claudius and do the job properly.

[Nosy_Rat]

Turn 11 Battle List:
- Nyczar (5 armies, Roman 106-25) attacks Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) in Macedonia 25

I'm pretty sure I should have Macedonian armies in this battle, you can check my turn orders.

[nyczar]

ok, i'll wait until i see confirmation before setting it up.

[nyczar]

All thoughts welcome.

Linking battle draw results to the rout % within a battle is exactly the way I wrote it up in my rules set. One difference from what you propose Morbio is that I have a simplified the result mechanism. I have modified it for our game mechanics and pasted it below. Note, this is in line with my earlier post about draws favoring the defender. I loosely multiplied the midpoint of the ranges by the number of armies to get a starting point point for defender losses and then added one for attacker. This system only considers the number of armies in combat. I am not tied to the exact results, but I think a simplification of how the results are calculated will minimize errors.

Draw results table.JPG (45.18 KiB) Viewed 3410 times

open as well for comments.

[Morbio]

I too thought of summarising the results into a table, but I didn't have time to do it as I was at work. I don't mind if we add one to the attackers losses or not. I'd go with the flow on that one.

[Kabill]

Turn 11 Battle List:
- Nyczar (5 armies, Roman 106-25) attacks Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) in Macedonia 25

I'm pretty sure I should have Macedonian armies in this battle, you can check my turn orders.

Apologies, yes. I thought you'd put Dacian for all of them and so missed it. But should be Macedonian 328-321

[Kabill]

Sorry for double post.

Received orders from batesmotel a bit late as they have been ill. This has added one further battle against Nosy_Rat in Dacia 23. This has been added to the list above.

[nyczar]

Turn 11 Battle List:
- Nyczar (5 armies, Roman 106-25) attacks Nosy_Rat (4 armies, Dacian 89-106) in Macedonia 25

I'm pretty sure I should have Macedonian armies in this battle, you can check my turn orders.

Apologies, yes. I thought you'd put Dacian for all of them and so missed it. But should be Macedonian 328-321

Nosy_Rat, I will set up the game in a few hours when I return home.

[Kabill]

A furious charge sees the Spanish scutarii break into and route the Syracusian hoplites 40-10, capturing them the island of Crete.

[Ludendorf]

(Holds head in hands)

Another glorious defeat for Galatia. I feel like France in (hopefully) the first half of the Hundred Years' War. That's 12 Galatian armies buried under the by now fertile soil of Northern Dacia.

[Nosy_Rat]

Yes, this time glorios Dacian cavalry came in time and swiftly wiped the invaders.
Nosy_Rat (Dacia) defeats Ludendorf (Galatia) 53-25. Only 14% casualties.

[Nosy_Rat]

A new bunch of wins for Dacians and our Macedonian vassals:
- over batesmotel's Romans 53-23, 19% casualties.
- over nyczar's Romans 61-39, 20% casualties.
- over paulmcneil's Kappadokians 41-13, 11% casualties.

[Kabill]

The Dacians are proving quite unstoppable! Just one last battle to resolve now.