We few, we band of brothers...
@cargol @chiquichops @earl-of-grey @nathangun @otosan @rico (are we really this few? 😟 )
We are The Few Good Men! 😀 😎
The map and board of the Vae Victis campaign, covering the wars between the Romans and the Etruscans in the late fourth century BC over a series of seven Years. In addition to these two Major Factions, there are five Non-Major Factions: Gauls, Samnites, Greeks, Umbrians, and Sabines who can be interacted with diplomatically. Players join one of the two Major Factions and participate as agreed within each Major Faction. There are three different Operations to choose freely from each time: Faction Diplomacy Operation, City Diplomacy Operation, and Army Operation.
And here's a LINK to the 0.96 version of the rules. 🙂 More or less good to go.
I've come to realise that in the more advanced campaigns, casualties in the Field of Glory battles should translate only modestly into losses in the strategic campaign itself, because otherwise too much would seem at risk and players be very cautious in the battles. Battle victory should result in losses, sure, but not dramatic ones, and may instead take the form of other advantages, such as the Momentum mechanism or other diplomacy benefits.
Cannae and Lake Trasimene sure influenced the strategic picture. They made the Romans a lot more hesitant to confront Hannibal.
The problem that I see with using FOG2 is that the 2 sides are always equal in terms of FP. If I somehow concentrate at 2 to 1 odds against the enemy on the strategic map, that is not reflected in the FOG 2 battles.
Your status mechanism in Duo Autok. attempts to address this.
Cannae and Lake Trasimene sure influenced the strategic picture. They made the Romans a lot more hesitant to confront Hannibal.
The problem that I see with using FOG2 is that the 2 sides are always equal in terms of FP. If I somehow concentrate at 2 to 1 odds against the enemy on the strategic map, that is not reflected in the FOG 2 battles.
Your status mechanism in Duo Autok. attempts to address this.
You can adjust each army's strength points when setting up a battle ... trouble is, that unbalanced FOG battles are not much fun and most often a foregone conclusion.
One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
- George Orwell, Homage To Catalonia
Yes, and in my mind there’s also a lot of leverage in FP differences. 50 FP, which may seem small, in a 1200 FP battle could have a large effect due to increased outflanking opportunities, a couple of stronger units in the centre, and so on. Marginal differences having a large impact ‘on the margin’, so to speak. Field of Glory is very much about getting your strongest units fight the enemy’s weakest units, or at least get the unit-on-unit strength differences in your favour.
This reminds me of a series of battles I fought against former FGM player Nelson1812 where we had Pot Luck armies & maps... and our forces were all AutoFill ... it was fun and a different challenge trying to do your best with what you got.
One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
- George Orwell, Homage To Catalonia
There’s a Chaos Tournament at the Slitherine forum being set up currently with pot luck armies at least. 😀
I was looking at it -- turning the Date filters off is probably not a good idea 🤣
One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
- George Orwell, Homage To Catalonia
Cannae and Lake Trasimene sure influenced the strategic picture. They made the Romans a lot more hesitant to confront Hannibal.
The problem that I see with using FOG2 is that the 2 sides are always equal in terms of FP. If I somehow concentrate at 2 to 1 odds against the enemy on the strategic map, that is not reflected in the FOG 2 battles.
Your status mechanism in Duo Autok. attempts to address this.
You can adjust each army's strength points when setting up a battle ... trouble is, that unbalanced FOG battles are not much fun and most often a foregone conclusion.
That's always the friction between simulating realistic strategy and operational warfare and engaging gamers. FOG battles are like chess games. Nobody would want to start a chess game 2 rooks down. In real life warfare, nobody gets a choice based on fun 😉
There needs to be a mechanism to cut out even starting very imbalanced FOG battles but that still imposes a penalty on the strategic side for avoiding "losing" the battle without engaging in a foregone battle in FOG.
Welcome, @ilpars, from the Slitherine forum to us here at FGM!
@cargol @chiquichops @nathangun @otosan @rico
Welcome aboard @ilpars -- good to see a new player join us.
One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
- George Orwell, Homage To Catalonia
Also, here's another campaign; Heredum Caesaris that I'm running with/against Keith/carpenkm, with me being Octavianus and he Marcus Antonius. Apart from the maps being very nice (taken from the Julius Caesar block game), the rules [LINK] are pretty cool as well. I'm presenting this in order to show what can be done campaign wise, with slower-paced and more complex rules (which I love the most 🙂 ). Also, worthwhile noting is that I've created a module for this purpose with the banners being red for Octavianus and golden for Marcus Antonius and with the C-in-C names flexible, depending on whether any of these two rivals or their lieutenants Agrippa or Cleopatra are commanding the battling armies.
