I have just updated the file to incorporate some of the changes: - Strategic initiative after a withdrawal attempt has been changed as per haywire's suggestion. - The higher chance of survival for destroyed elements (5-6 for the loser, 4-6 for the winner) is added as an optional rule. - Exemption from restricted reinforcements is extended to the space adjacent to a player's campaign track end (so spaces 1-2 for invader and 5-6 for defender are now exempt from reinforcement restrictions). - Slight reformatting and correction of typos.
Just a quick update: v4 is now ready (and can be accessed through the same URL). This is essentially a "complete" version and I don't expect to make changes or additions to the rules except for text corrections or to address problems yet to be spotted.
Thanks to your feedback, these are the changes over earlier versions that I have incorporated into the rules: - Higher likelihood of destroyed elements returning (4-6 for the winner, 5-6 for the loser)
- Optional rule: opponent chooses reinforcements when understrength (thanks Stevie)
- An army that successfully withdraws from battle (formerly evasion) gains the initiative, unless the withdrawal attempt was barely successful, in which case the pursuing army retains the initiative (thanks haywire)
Thanks everyone for your comments and feedback and I hope you find the rules entertaining.
Hello - we played a game of this campaign system the weekend before last using Hordes of the Things (Game of Thrones Wildlings vs. Greyjoys). It worked well - the changes you have made for v4 agree with the discussions we had after the game - i.e., we thought it was quite difficult for the defender to get back into the game after losing the opening battle (especially with the 50% AP army break point of HotT). Looking forward to trying it again!
After working on a Spartacus Campaign at the beginning of the year, that included marching and maneuvering on an area map, I cam coming around to the kinds of abstractions in these sorts of campaign systems (this one, and Timurialnk's system). Mine was somewhat based on the rules already in the book, and taking that to the next level. I still thin there is a potential system there, but I think for 2-player (which is most of the campaigning I get to do) I think it is really hard to do much more than a linear or mapless system, without a lot of complexity around maneuvering in 2d vs 1d.
Bravo for this system. I have been playtesting Caesar in Gaul, with the following tweaks:
The Roman's count space 1 as home, and space 2 and 3 as "borderlands". 4 and 5 are Celtae, and 6 is Belgae. Note the '3' space is still used to count "repulses" for Caesar. If he'd had a second Gergovia, that would have been it for him.
The Glorious Tenth: Caesar gets one extra Bd whenever he chooses to reinforce in spaces 2-4 - but he never exceeds 12 elements. This means he gets 3 elements, one of which is Bd, if available.
Legendary Gallic Cavalry: The Celts get an extra 3Cv in their home territories (4-6), if choosing a reinforcement bound.
Used the wounded generals' rule but only for Caesar. (The Celts seemed to have a bazillion mid-level middle manager tribal chieftains eager to take up arms against Rome)
Used the Seasons rule (this helps both Caesar and the Celts stay alive for enough years). Don't use the optional reinforcements rule.
We used to think random reinforcements would be a good thing, however if using the Time of Day, as well as the rallying die rolls, the losses are more random, rather than always exactly 4. We are toying with having one LESS reinforcement in winter to reflect troops deserting, and winter attrition and disease.
We also found no one ever wanted to do a general rout. Seems way too risky.
We thought perhaps the rally die roll could be influenced somehow by the ratio of Cv and LH to the defeated enemy. Then Cv and LH can also screen and cover withdrawals, and conduct pursuit. Very historical.
I'm thinking of extending this to three players, with three linear campaigns (forming a triangle). So each player would be fighting on two fronts. At the moment I'm pondering how best to link the effects of one front on the other. If anyone has any ideas...