Ha!…how could I possibly avoid joining in such a discussion.
But before I list my aggression adjustments, it might be a good idea to look at what the
current aggression values are meant to achieve, and where and why they sometimes fail.
Where The Current Aggression System WorksAlexander the Great invaded Persia, and it was the Persians that chose the battlefields at
the River Granicus, the River Issus, and the flat open plain of Gaugamela.
So we want the battles to be on Persian soil, and the Persians to choose the terrain.
Giving Alexander a high aggression of 4 and the Persians a low aggression of 1 does this.
Where The Current Aggression System FailsThe Hundred Years War was fought in France, but it was the
English, not the
French, that
chose the battlefields of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt (and the French that made rash attacks).
Likewise, Hannibal invaded Italy during the 2nd Punic War, but it was
Hannibal, not the
Romans,
that chose the battlefields at the River Trebia, at Lake Trasimene, and at Cannae (and the Romans
that made the rash attacks).
How Do We Fix It?Now some players will say that having a single aggression factor is too blunt an instrument, and it
should be split into two different factors…one showing where, and the other showing who defends.
Maybe…but let’s first see if we can keep things simple by merely ‘tweaking’ some aggression.
The Hundred Years War: give the English a lower aggression than the French, so they choose the terrain.
(Having an aggression 1 less than your opponent means roughly 4 chances out of 6 of being the defender)“But” I hear you say, “the battles were fought in France!”. My answer to that is so what?
Both sides are Arable, so does it really matter where the battles are being fought?
As wargamers what is important to us is who gets to place the terrain, not in which country we are in.
And to be even more historical, have a time limit, so the
French have to do the attacking before nightfall,
or at least sack the enemy camp, or the English will be classed as the winners if it’s an inconclusive draw.
Hannibal in Italy: give the Carthaginians a lower aggression of 2, so Hannibal chooses the terrain.
“But” I hear you say, “the battles were fought in Italy!”. Again my answer to that is so what?
Hannibal should be Arable (no fleet), so does it really matter where the battles are being fought?
As wargamers what is important to us is who gets to place the terrain, not in which country we are in.
And with the nightfall time limit, it’ll be the
Romans, being the attackers, making the rash advances.
Actually, the Later Carthaginians are a little bit more complex:-
1st Punic War: Carthage had a mighty fleet, so should be Littoral. But they weren’t the invaders.
Carthage had been in Sicily for centuries fighting the Greeks of Syracuse.
It was the
Romans who were the invaders, entering a region they had never been in before.
So Carthage should be Littoral with an aggression of 2.
2nd Punic War: Carthage had lost their fleet in the first war, and had been in Spain for decades.
It was the
Romans who were the invaders, entering a region they had never been in before.
So Carthage should be Arable with an aggression of 2.
As for Hannibal in Italy, see my comments above.
3rd Punic War: Rome were definitely the invaders, so again Carthage should be Arable with an aggression of
1.
Depending on how accurate you want your history to be, you could have Romans as Arable aggression 1
in Italy between 215 to 207 BC, to reflect
Fabius Maximus and his ‘delaying tactics’
(if Carthage has an
aggression of 2, then the Romans with an aggression of 1 will be the defenders 4 times out of 6).ConclusionIf both sides have the same type of home region, then it doesn’t matter where the battle is fought.
It’s who gets to place the terrain, and who should do the attacking, that is important.
