|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 5, 2019 12:11:37 GMT
Does anyone know what factors were considered when coming up with an aggression value for the armies?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Apr 5, 2019 13:54:02 GMT
...must be an other PB secret. If a certain army is known often to be the attacker it as an aggresive one. The Romans are an exception i think...
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 5, 2019 21:26:48 GMT
"AGGRESSION FACTOR
This is a number from 0 to 4, based on how likely the army was historically to invade another nation rather than fighting to defend its homeland."
Based on Phil's theory of ancient warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 5, 2019 22:55:41 GMT
Bob, Happy with that definition as the Purple Book goes.....
However, I am taken with Tony Aguilar’s thoughts about Hannibal. Almost always on foreign soil so - Aggression should be high BUT almost always fought on terrain of his choosing - so Agression should be low.
How is this dealt with?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 6, 2019 11:08:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Apr 8, 2019 3:36:05 GMT
Aggression conflates two situations: who is invading the home terrain of whom and the tactical defender forcing the tactical attacker to fight in the terrain of their choice. I don't think that does a good job of reflecting the dynamics of armies, especially armies with competent generals and good understanding of military techniques, trying to out-manoeuvre each other into favourable positions for a battle, as the Hannibal example shows.
It seems like an easy spot for a house rule "fix".
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2019 11:53:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Apr 8, 2019 13:26:09 GMT
Good point - I'll edit that paragraph to avoid confusion between the subforums.
|
|
