So... as promised... TWO EMPERORS!
A link to the draft rules (v0.8) in pdf HERE. And the tentative map below, with markers, etc.:
The idea is to have two players in each team. How they divide up and change the involvement (operations, battles, etc) will be entirely up to them, to maximise flexibility and make life and things easier. We could also consider bringing in “guest stars” on an ad hoc basis, fighting occasional battles if that makes things even more easy.
I’ll run as admin and will also participate as player in one of the teams. No hidden info, so all safe. 🙂
It's a theater, forces and history that I don't know much about. Perfect opportunity to get educated.
Great! 🥂 (Slightly updated v0.9 of the rules HERE.) This is then the tentative starting situation with Bulgar-controlled Cities having white-black round frames, and Byzantine-controlled Cities red-yellow round frames. And I've also adjusted Victory Score values for each such City. (All neutral Cities have Victory Score of zero.) Thoughts?
EDIT: Maybe Varna should be Bulgar at start? Plus: even neutral Cities should have Victory Scores of 1?
Do neutral cities have any value (supplies, food, etc)?
Do neutral cities have any value (supplies, food, etc)?
No, they need to become friendly to provide supplies (i.e., to where a supply line can be tracked).
But maybe even neutral Cities should have Victory Scores of 1? To provide more incentive to conquer them?
Do neutral cities have any value (supplies, food, etc)?
No, they need to become friendly to provide supplies (i.e., to where a supply line can be tracked).
But maybe even neutral Cities should have Victory Scores of 1? To provide more incentive to conquer them?
It would make them more relevant.
Will the two sides start out with equal forces or will it be in accord with historical balance?
Will the size/combat power (partially accurate for simulation of incomplete intelligence) of armies be visible on the strategic map?
Will we be able to combine or divide armies on the strategic map and will any resulting imbalance of forces there be reflected in the FOG2 battles? In other words, If we are attacked by an army twice the size of ours on the stat map, will we fight a FOG2 battle at a 2:1 disadvantage in forces? I vote yes for this.
Will there be a dice roll for strategic retreat for an army not willing to engage in battle on disadvantaged terms?
Will the two sides start out with equal forces or will it be in accord with historical balance?
Equal forces, with two Armies each, of same status ('Strong'). Plus, later on as part of successful Diplomacy, potentially Armies from Allegiant Non-Major Factions (Magyars, Arabs, Serbs, Croats, Pechenegs).
Will the size/combat power (partially accurate for simulation of incomplete intelligence) of armies be visible on the strategic map?
No, this is a fully transparent campaign, where I'll be administering/GM'ing as well as playing. So no hidden information. 🙂
Will we be able to combine or divide armies on the strategic map and will any resulting imbalance of forces there be reflected in the FOG2 battles? In other words, If we are attacked by an army twice the size of ours on the stat map, will we fight a FOG2 battle at a 2:1 disadvantage in forces? I vote yes for this.
No splits and merger of Armies. Armies stay as are, but they can recover through staying in friendly Cities. Imbalances will be reflected in FPs in FoG2 battles, but not proportionally, then reason being with that such large FP relation (e.g., 2:1) the battle outcome will be a foregone conclusion.
Will there be a dice roll for strategic retreat for an army not willing to engage in battle on disadvantaged terms?
Yes.
Will we be able to combine or divide armies on the strategic map and will any resulting imbalance of forces there be reflected in the FOG2 battles? In other words, If we are attacked by an army twice the size of ours on the stat map, will we fight a FOG2 battle at a 2:1 disadvantage in forces? I vote yes for this.
No splits and merger of Armies. Armies stay as are, but they can recover through staying in friendly Cities. Imbalances will be reflected in FPs in FoG2 battles, but not proportionally, then reason being with that such large FP relation (e.g., 2:1) the battle outcome will be a foregone conclusion.
I think this takes away from the strategic aspect. It makes maneuvering and attacking with 2 armies against one useless.
I suggest a method of avoiding a foregone FOG battle would be to allow the weaker force the option to withdraw but they have to give up the hex without battle.
Will we be able to combine or divide armies on the strategic map and will any resulting imbalance of forces there be reflected in the FOG2 battles? In other words, If we are attacked by an army twice the size of ours on the stat map, will we fight a FOG2 battle at a 2:1 disadvantage in forces? I vote yes for this.
No splits and merger of Armies. Armies stay as are, but they can recover through staying in friendly Cities. Imbalances will be reflected in FPs in FoG2 battles, but not proportionally, then reason being with that such large FP relation (e.g., 2:1) the battle outcome will be a foregone conclusion.
I think this takes away from the strategic aspect. It makes maneuvering and attacking with 2 armies against one useless.
I suggest a method of avoiding a foregone FOG battle would be to allow the weaker force the option to withdraw but they have to give up the hex without battle.
Again, read the rules. 😀
Excellent advice😊
How will the weakened or disarrayed status be determined when setting up the FOG battle?
Excellent advice😊
How will the weakened or disarrayed status be determined when setting up the FOG battle?
I think this takes away from the strategic aspect. It makes maneuvering and attacking with 2 armies against one useless.
I suggest a method of avoiding a foregone FOG battle would be to allow the weaker force the option to withdraw but they have to give up the hex without battle.
Good aspects. I've updated the rules as follows:
This hexagon map over early ancient Italy that I've made some time ago could be used in several nice ways, but I want to see how Duo Autokratores is working and is received first. 🙂
It's suitable for mid-to-late fourth century BC campaigns and a subset of it could involve team play (Romans versus Etruscans with fringe nations á la Gauls, Samnites, Umbrians, Greeks, and more) or an all-one-on-one campaign where each player controls a city state at start and one army, with pre-selected army lists, players selecting to be Samnite, Roman, Etruscan, Greek, etc., and still involving additional fringe nations as allies and outright armies.
@kronenblatt that's a nice map.
Many thanks! Yes, I like it too. And it works well for campaigns: have been used for two or three a couple of years ago.
Also: I got to think about that maybe you're not familiar with the Slitherine forum.
So that if you want inspiration on potential campaigns, here's a LINK to a list of those that I've run on the Slitherine forum. Some have been successes and worked well, many have been fiascos and abandoned (and some in between), but there's always room for adjustments to rules and mechanics to suit tastes, interests, and people's real life schedules and commitments.
So go there and have a look. And don't hesitate to write me here in case you've got questions or ideas. 🙂
@cargol @chiquichops @earl-of-grey @nathangun @otosan @rico (are we really this few? 😟 )