”XV century AD – Mediterranean Campaign”

[Lysimachos]

action:

build an acedemy

allied attack fom Calabria into Venetian Apulia

750 dm fog on

password: trifecta

Hi TGM,
are you sure you launched the challenge?
I've had a look but wasn't able to find it ..

[Lysimachos]

LN AT from Epirus to Albania
400 pts. battle FoW and DM on
password. Skanderbeg

Come on Ian, the Venetians are waiting your army on the field!

[iandavidsmith]

LN AT from Epirus to Albania
400 pts. battle FoW and DM on
password. Skanderbeg

Come on Ian, the Venetians are waiting your army on the field!

another Lotto Win !

[kilroy1]

Allied Attack (Mamluks) from Lybia (Early North African Dynasties Zirid army) to Marmarica (Hafsid Kingdom).

550 points, DM on, FOG on.
Password = letmypeoplego.

kilroy

[Triarii]

The Court of His Most Catholic Highness Alfonso the Magnanimous
Court Circular
1.
The court of Alfonso the Magnamimous announces the formation of the All Catholic Orders Holy League (AlCOHoL).
This is a formal alliance of Castille and Aragon formed to promote and export the cultural benefits of the Inquisition to all compass points of the Middle Sea.
An endorsement is anticipated from Castille.

2.
The forces of Aragon have disembarked in Calabria and await the attention of the minor officers of this poor state who are expected to eagerly embrace the cultural advantages and security to be had under the protection of Alfonso the Magnanimous.

3
After the succesful completion of the embassy to Castille forces of Aragon have been reduced to a token presence in Languedoc.

Action 1
LN Attack Sicily to Calabria (disembarked and awaits Calabrian commander on Thursday)
Action 2
LN Attack Aragon to Murcia - will only commence upon receipt of the Great Seal of the realm of Castille endorsing AlCOHoL.

[hidde]

Strange are the ways of the infidels...strike an allience and then attack their allied first thing?!

Abd hidde-al-Aziz III
أنا باليقين وبالسلاح سأفتدي - "With faith and with weapons I shall defend my country".

[ericdoman1]

Ruddy hell Anders, this Arabaic is most impressive.

BTW I may be Eric Sforza, average drilled knights are pants LOL.

Really wanted another rematch with Guido (Lysimachos) as the Empress Jessica Alba(nian) was not impressed with my first encounter.

[Lysimachos]

The Court of His Most Catholic Highness Alfonso the Magnanimous
Court Circular
1.
The court of Alfonso the Magnamimous announces the formation of the All Catholic Orders Holy League (AlCOHoL).
This is a formal alliance of Castille and Aragon formed to promote and export the cultural benefits of the Inquisition to all compass points of the Middle Sea.
An endorsement is anticipated from Castille.

2.
The forces of Aragon have disembarked in Calabria and await the attention of the minor officers of this poor state who are expected to eagerly embrace the cultural advantages and security to be had under the protection of Alfonso the Magnanimous.

3
After the succesful completion of the embassy to Castille forces of Aragon have been reduced to a token presence in Languedoc.

Action 1
LN Attack Sicily to Calabria (disembarked and awaits Calabrian commander on Thursday)
Action 2
LN Attack Aragon to Murcia - will only commence upon receipt of the Great Seal of the realm of Castille endorsing AlCOHoL.

Probably there's something I miss in all these moves.
Before this new statement the 2 actions declared by Aragon where:
- a diplomatic mission to Castile proposing a mutual defence agreement
- an amphibious attack from Sicily to Calabria

Though it's not a problem to swap the mutual defence agreement with an alliance I have to point out that, being these 2 actions already in motion there is no place at the moment for launching the 3rd (i.e. a land attack from Aragon to Murcia)
Moreover I think better to remember that if an alliance is sealed and then one of the party attacks the other during the length of the agreement or refuses to act defensively or offensively when requested the treaty will be immediately cancelled and his Nation’s Prestige will be lowered of 3 levels.

So that, if some attack has to be made, it's better to launch and finish it before signing the alliance, whose action could be called off in the meantime and presented after the completion of the 2nd attack.

[Triarii]

Awaiting information from Castille
Action 1
LN Attack Sicily to Calabria (disembarked and awaits Calabrian commander on Thursday)
Action 2
? TBC

[batesmotel]

Castile makes a LN attack from Navarre to Languedoc. 750 points, DM on, FoW off, pw "tradeoff".

Chris

[Triarii]

Aragon makes a LN Attack Aragon to Murcia
750 points DM off FoW off pw = "deal"

[stockwellpete]

Every suggestion is anyway welcomed and I would be happy to know what each of you really think of the campaign up till now, given that we have only 20 days left before the deadline!

Some of these ideas I have already spoken to Lysimachos about but I'll put them here now for wider consideration. I think there are two things missing from the campaign at the moment . . .

i) it should cost money to fight battles, use navies and make "allied" attacks on your enemies. Maybe something like 100 ducats to equip an army for a battle; 50 ducats to mobilise the fleet, either to fight an enemy fleet or to transport an army for an overseas attack; and maybe 50 ducats to sponsor an "allied" attack.

ii) the game needs a more detailed political instability rule that would allow a "civil war" within a power that was performing badly. The current stability rating could have a trigger point (maybe at 5 or 6) where a civil war would be initiated and a second trigger point could be if a player (using his own faction's army, not including allied attacks) suffered consecutive strategic defeats - in this case, the stability rating of the power would not be taken into account at all. Once a "civil war" had been established you could either use the lottery draw to see if the incumbent ruler survived or whether there was a change of ruler or you could require the player to fight a DAG battle against another player drawn by the lottery (both players using the same DAG army) to resolve the conflict. If the ruler is overthrown (defeated in the battle, drawswould be replayed) then all the provinces that he has conquered previously would revert to independent status (including any he may have conquered from other players). If he is successful his empire remains intact but he is penalised 100 ducats (or more) to represent the damage done to his territory. Note: defeat would not mean the human player would be required to leave the game, it would just mean that his power had undergone political change.

Other suggestions . . .

iii) Building an Academy should be required before diplomatic activity can take place. At the moment a player is allowed three diplomatic agreements at any one time. I would alter this by distinguishing between "diplomatic agreements" and "trade agreements" (building a Merchant's Quarter would still be necessary for these) in future. Players could still be allowed a maximum of three "diplomatic agreements" but they could make an unlimited number of trade agreements. This would help to generate more income in the game to enable players to cope with suggestions i) and ii).

iv) The random event chart for the lottery draw on the first of the month could be revised slightly to allow players the chance to gain bigger financial bonuses e.g. 100 ducats instead of 25 or 50.

v) either a player may only make one attack per campaign with any "allied" power or a player may only make attacks with an "allied" power until such time as that ally is defeated (signalling the breakdown of the relationship). This would prevent unrealistic repeat attacks.

EDIT: just one other thought. Possibly, the stability level of a power should only be affected by strategic defeats (routs) and not tactical defeats (ordered withdrawals).

[stockwellpete]

5. A potted history of the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt 1250-1517

The mamluks were a powerful military caste that were found in many muslim societies. They had originated in the 9th century under the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad and, at that time, they were known as ghilman (meaning slaves). Mamluks were very proud of their slave origins and only those who had been purchased were eligible to attain the highest positions. The privileges associated with being a mamluk were very desirable and many free Egyptians arranged to be sold in order to gain access to the privileges associated with the mamlukes.

Under Saladin and the Ayyubids of Egypt their power greatly increased and they were able to claim the Sultanate in 1250. Their development has many parallels with the rise of the janissaries in the Ottoman Empire.

The first Mamluk dynasty was named Bahri but in 1382 the Circassian Bukri (or Burji, “the tower” of the citadel in Cairo) took over when Barkuk became the Sultan. He fought against Tamerlane until 1405 but he was forced to abdicate in 1412 after repeated rebellions by local emirs. In 1421 the Cypriots attacked Egypt but they were eventually repulsed by Sultan Barsbay who ruled between 1422 and 1438. In 1430 Egypt was severely hit by famine and plague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View_ ... itadel.JPG
Sultan Hassan Mosque (left) along with the later El Rifai Mosque (right) and two Ottoman mosques (foreground) – Cairo

At the time of the fall of Constantinople in 1453 the Mamluke Sultanate in Egypt had friendly relations with the Ottomans but during the reign of Khoshkadam relations began to deteriorate and, under Bayezid II, the Ottomans seized some Egyptian territory, including the cities of Adana and Tarsus.

At the beginning of the 16th century, the Mamluke navy fought a number of large engagements against the Portuguese in the Red Sea because they were interfering in the trade routes to India and Mecca.

The Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was eventually destroyed by the Ottomans, under Selim I, when Sultan Al-Ghawri was killed at the Battle of Merj Dabik in 1515 and then Cairo was captured in 1517. The Burjis actually survived as rulers of Egypt in the 16th century but only as vassals of the Ottoman Empire.

Some Mamluk soldiers . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mamel ... Armour.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Three ... seback.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ottom ... a_1550.jpg

[hidde]

The king has in his infinite wisdom decided that the expansion of the Venetian kuffar merchants must be halted.

Amphibious attack from Cyrenecia to Crete.


Abd hidde-al-Aziz III
أنا باليقين وبالسلاح سأفتدي - "With faith and with weapons I shall defend my country".

[TheGrayMouser]

My own opinions on future campaign rules:

I really like the concept that every action has a risk/reward many things in this campaign are just reward / reward (because of victory conditions)

so
Forts: the idea of a fort is to defend/deter if it does that the reward for building it has been accomplished, however white elephants are historially valid(ie the massively expensive castles in wales built 13c) thus your forts at end game should NOT contribute to victory points

Trade: nothing is guaranteed in life so perhaps the $ earned by both players should be randomized? Imagine setting up a trade route w your "ally" and you get 20 ducats a turn and they get 80? could be interesting in how the relationship with that player turns out ove rthe course of the game. Trade wars, treachery? ha ha

Battles: get rid of tactical vs strategic a win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw... well a draw should have some minor impact on the attcker The real problem is in a campaign your going to have many players of varying skill and the armies themselves might be an issue, albeit a very subjective one...... It seems imbalancing the way it is. For example I think Im pretty damn fortunate to win a battle vs some of the top players once in a while, but unless I crush them at the level of a strat victoy it is hopeless, basically it limits to what you can do strategically.

I agree w stockwell that "allied" attacks should cost something

Allied players and Joint attacks: basically as it is its confusing and I doudt anyone will ever do a joint attack, way too risky in terms of lottery luck and you basically need both players to win victories for it to work... Also it is contrary to the concept of bringing superior forces vs one opponenet . I mean why ally and have an allied army with you when the defender gets two armies automaticlly?
Perhaps it should be something like this: a joint attack causes 2 battles: the defender fights each of the attackers at the same time, just one victory seals the deal, ie the defender loses the province... However the defender would have the option of calling in an ally to thwart the joint attack and then it would be 2 games and 4 players(where you likely have to use total BP's lost to determine a victory loss draw etc in the case of defenders wins one but loses the other)

Alliances: not sure why alliances only give the one proposing it any points , basically it kind of turns it into a point grab ... How about only if there is a large GAP in between two players forming an alliance in prestige and or stability, the one with the low gets some prestige/stablity?. I mean why would Rome at its height be more pestigious by making an ally with some nameless tribe? Howver that nameless tribe certianly could benefit prestige wise from the deal..... Also as has been suggested the one propsing should have to pay some money for diplomatic stroking .

Finally, based on how FOG armies are inherantly unequal, that could be balanced on the starting resources for each player: for example the mamluks, a horse archer army, might be given an xtra territory or two... Venice might have less territory but start w a fleet or two.. Milan maybe starts with an academy or trade hut and a fort...

Cheers!

[stockwellpete]

Battles: get rid of tactical vs strategic a win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw... well a draw should have some minor impact on the attcker The real problem is in a campaign your going to have many players of varying skill and the armies themselves might be an issue, albeit a very subjective one...... It seems imbalancing the way it is. For example I think Im pretty damn fortunate to win a battle vs some of the top players once in a while, but unless I crush them at the level of a strat victoy it is hopeless, basically it limits to what you can do strategically.

Yes, I think there is something here to think about. I actually quite like the two types of win idea (tactical/strategic) but maybe it can be tweaked a bit. At the moment you sometimes have to do a moderately complex mathematical calculation to find out if your win is strategic or tactical. What if instead you said something like - a strategic win can happen in 2 ways - i) if you win a battle and you have 75% or more of your army left or ii) if you win a battle by any margin and you kill (or "disappear," or rout off the map) the enemy C-in-C?

If you introduced the C-in-C element then that would "unblock" the sitation that TGM is referring to in his last sentence above. And killing the enemy leader was important in medieval battles.

[TheGrayMouser]

Battles: get rid of tactical vs strategic a win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw... well a draw should have some minor impact on the attcker The real problem is in a campaign your going to have many players of varying skill and the armies themselves might be an issue, albeit a very subjective one...... It seems imbalancing the way it is. For example I think Im pretty damn fortunate to win a battle vs some of the top players once in a while, but unless I crush them at the level of a strat victoy it is hopeless, basically it limits to what you can do strategically.

Yes, I think there is something here to think about. I actually quite like the two types of win idea (tactical/strategic) but maybe it can be tweaked a bit. At the moment you sometimes have to do a moderately complex mathematical calculation to find out if your win is strategic or tactical. What if instead you said something like - a strategic win can happen in 2 ways - i) if you win a battle and you have 75% or more of your army left or ii) if you win a battle by any margin and you kill (or "disappear," or rout off the map) the enemy C-in-C?

If you introduced the C-in-C element then that would "unblock" the sitation that TGM is referring to in his last sentence above. And killing the enemy leader was important in medieval battles.

Any tweeks of cousre just can be gamed by the players. For example currently the defender doesnt have to worry about winning a battle or even losing a battle he just cant lose "badly" I mean you could literally hunker down in a corner and never engage to play out the clock, use the FOG game mechanics to play out a situation where you arnt trying to win but just not lose... Plus some armies alow light horse to be comanders and it would be easy to never expose your CnC at all.
IMHO the attcker already has a lot of pressue to "get on with it" so why make it almost impossible?

[Triarii]

The Court of His Most Catholic Highness Alfonso the Magnanimous
Court Circular
1.
The forces of Aragon remain suunning themselves and munching olives and tomatos while disembarked in Calabria awaiting the attention of the minor officers of this poor state who are expected to eagerly embrace the cultural advantages and security to be had under the protection of Alfonso the Magnanimous.

2
The court announces a very succesful evacuation of Languedoc in the face of the methodical advance of Castille.
The court also announces the succesful and bloodless occupation of Murcia - the forces of Castille returning to Castille.

3
The court of Alfonso the Magnamimous announces the formal initiation of the All Catholic Orders Holy League (AlCOHoL).
This is an alliance of Castille and Aragon formed to promote and export the cultural benefits of the Inquisition to all compass points of the Middle Sea.
An endorsement is anticipated from Castille.


Action 1
LN Attack Sicily to Calabria (disembarked and awaits Calabrian commander on Thursday)
Action 2
TBC

[Lysimachos]

My own opinions on future campaign rules:

I really like the concept that every action has a risk/reward many things in this campaign are just reward / reward (because of victory conditions)

so
Forts: the idea of a fort is to defend/deter if it does that the reward for building it has been accomplished, however white elephants are historially valid(ie the massively expensive castles in wales built 13c) thus your forts at end game should NOT contribute to victory points

Trade: nothing is guaranteed in life so perhaps the $ earned by both players should be randomized? Imagine setting up a trade route w your "ally" and you get 20 ducats a turn and they get 80? could be interesting in how the relationship with that player turns out ove rthe course of the game. Trade wars, treachery? ha ha

Battles: get rid of tactical vs strategic a win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw... well a draw should have some minor impact on the attcker The real problem is in a campaign your going to have many players of varying skill and the armies themselves might be an issue, albeit a very subjective one...... It seems imbalancing the way it is. For example I think Im pretty damn fortunate to win a battle vs some of the top players once in a while, but unless I crush them at the level of a strat victoy it is hopeless, basically it limits to what you can do strategically.

I agree w stockwell that "allied" attacks should cost something

Allied players and Joint attacks: basically as it is its confusing and I doudt anyone will ever do a joint attack, way too risky in terms of lottery luck and you basically need both players to win victories for it to work... Also it is contrary to the concept of bringing superior forces vs one opponenet . I mean why ally and have an allied army with you when the defender gets two armies automaticlly?
Perhaps it should be something like this: a joint attack causes 2 battles: the defender fights each of the attackers at the same time, just one victory seals the deal, ie the defender loses the province... However the defender would have the option of calling in an ally to thwart the joint attack and then it would be 2 games and 4 players(where you likely have to use total BP's lost to determine a victory loss draw etc in the case of defenders wins one but loses the other)

Alliances: not sure why alliances only give the one proposing it any points , basically it kind of turns it into a point grab ... How about only if there is a large GAP in between two players forming an alliance in prestige and or stability, the one with the low gets some prestige/stablity?. I mean why would Rome at its height be more pestigious by making an ally with some nameless tribe? Howver that nameless tribe certianly could benefit prestige wise from the deal..... Also as has been suggested the one propsing should have to pay some money for diplomatic stroking .

Finally, based on how FOG armies are inherantly unequal, that could be balanced on the starting resources for each player: for example the mamluks, a horse archer army, might be given an xtra territory or two... Venice might have less territory but start w a fleet or two.. Milan maybe starts with an academy or trade hut and a fort...

Cheers!

A lot of interesting thoughts TGM.

Going in order:

1) Reward/reward action:
the idea of risk/reward is in some way planned also in the exsisting rules for all the actions.
Actually, in fact, the cost of each action is balanced having in mind that 25 ducats are the equivalent of 1 VP, that a province has a value of 100 ducats and that each action should give an advantage of approximately 2 VP.
So, for example, an academy costs 75 ducats (3 VP) and earns 5 VP (3 prestige level and VP), a church cost 25 ducats (1 VP) and earns 3 VP (2 prestige level and 1 VP), a fortification costs 50 ducats (2 VP) and earns 3 VP (1 VP and the chance of avoiding the loss of a province calculated 2 VP at 50% of possibilities), a Merchant's Quarter costs 50 ducats (2 VP) but permit to sign trade agreements wich earns 100 ducats (4 VP).
Of course not all the benefits are exactly calculated (because a Merchant's Quarter could permit the signing of 2 or 3 agreements but on the other hand it could be destroyed before sealing 1) but the fundamental idea was this.
Also attack actions try to follow this rule, given that, even if they don't cost anything and have a potential reward of 5 VP (4 VP for conquering the province and 1 stability level), they could also end with a defeat and a -1 VP situation (-1 stability level), giving an average of 2 VP between the two kind of possible outcome.

2) trade agreements:
the concept of different rates of earnings is feasible with the game.
It only crashes with the re-writing of the rules where, for easiness of managment, I was thinking of introducing a minimum fixed amount of money and its multiple to be exchanged (25 ducats, 50, 75, 100 ..)
Maybe we could think about maintaining a 50% - 50% when two nations are of the same size and otherwise a 75% - 25% in favour of the bigger nation.

3) tactical/strategic victories:
though strange it may seem, the rule was designed in order to prevent stronger player from easily conquering the provinces of weaker opponents, and fortifications had the same goal.
A balanced solution could be that of lowering to 10% the difference in BGs which constitutes the threshold between the two kind of victories.

4) cost of attacks
though the proposal is really sound from a practical point of view it doesn't consider the fact that attack actions have an inherent heavy cost in term of time consumation.
A normal action last 4 days and normally gives a sure advantage, whereas an attack may last from about 6 to about 12 days and could end in a defeat.
Applying to them a cost in ducats would mean to dishearten every player from making attacks, which should remain the real core of the game.

5) joint attack:
I totally agree with you that the actual rule is flawed (it was an attempt and clearly didn't work).
Re-writing the rules I was thinking of giving an advantage of 10% in army pts. for a player making an attack in a region where one province at least was owned by an allied player (for example 440 pts army vs 400, 600 vs 550 and 825 vs 750) but also your idea seem very interesting and could be tried.

6) alliances:
the idea of giving 1 prestige pt. to the proponent was devised in order to make diplomatic actions suitable, given the fact that initially nobody was interested in them.
But anyway it doesn't seem senseless, because an accepted proposal means that the proponent has gained on the diplomatic stage a higher level of consideration (the Romans expanding their influence in Germany and otherwise the German tribe showing their capacity of being the party of a diplomatic agreement with a great power)

7) armies
It's a really debatable question that about army strength (for example I really prefer DR-AV-KN instead of UN-SUP-KN), but - instead of giving more resources and provinces to determined nations, I would prefer to intersperse weaker and stronger player (based on the LOEG rankings) in order to have a more stable and balanced map, trying to give better armies to weaker players.

[batesmotel]

The Crown of Castile has acknowledged the superiority of Aragonian arms over our force in Murcia and resigns the battle opposing the Aragonian invasion.

The Crown of Aragon has acknowledged the superiority of Castillian arms over the Aragonian defenders in Languedoc and has resigned the battle opposing the Castillian invasion.

Castile happily accepts the offer to ally with Alfonso the Magnificent in the All Catholic Orders Holy League (AlCOHoL).

Chris