Holien
2.2 Sassanid army II (1570 FP) versus Roman army IV (1630 FP)
Middle Eastern Agricultural 40x32. Sassanid player sets up.
As I understand it Holien has withdrawn from the campaign so the game is a draw.
Persian losses 18% - Roman losses 19%.
As I'm working from memory and not able to access the turn to confirm this is the actual result, if it matters, it may be worth while for Holien to have a peek.
1.2 Gothic army II (1600 FP) versus Roman army I (1600 FP). Aetius39 Vs SpeedyCM Aetius sets up
Aetius (Romans) defeats SpeedyCM (Goths) 43-18
The infantry lines clashed while to the southeast of that the more numerous Gothic cavalry came up against the Roman cavalry and some mediums. The Gothic cavalry managed to be contained while the Roman infantry did what they usually do best. GG!
Creator of "There Can Be Only One" tournaments in Field of Glory 2.
Gothic army I (1630 FP) versus Roman army I (1570 FP).
Edb1815 draws with anderarcros11 as night falls on the battlefield. 41 (Goth) v 39 (Roman)
The outnumbered Romans set up between a large hill and a wood stationing some artillery on the hill in anticipation of the oncoming warbands. The Goths initially sent their much more numerous skirmishers out ahead whilst the warbands waited and the Germanic lancers sought concealment in a large forest on their right flanks. Fortunately, part of this force was spotted by the Roman artillery. A fierce skirmish battle ensued which saw the Romans have to commit some infantry and cavalry to drive off the horde of Germanic archers. This was done with considerable losses among the Gothic lights but at the cost of some Roman cavalry and light horse which charged into the main line pursuing routing archers.
As the sun was getting lower in the sky German lancers emerged from the wood and the warbands rolled forward. The Gothic cavalry force made for the far side of the hill in an attempt to outflank the Roman line which caused the Romans to divert all the remaining cavalry and some extra infantry eventually to that flank. The Roman artillery and archers did cause casualties among the warbands and some advancing cavalry. The Romans has some success in the cavalry battle routing several units but eventually several made it through. The main infantry clash seesawed back and forth but soon losses amongst the less numerous Romans took a toll and breakthroughs were gained. Ultimately before any decisive blows were struck night fell with neither army broken.
Although in game the Goths withdrew from the battlefield, in the campaign I believe this is a draw with both armies retreating 6 hexes. -2 SP loss for the Goths and -1 SP loss for the Romans.
1.1 Gothic army I (1630 FP) versus Roman army I (1570 FP). North European Wooded. => Goths (-2) draw with Romans (-1) 39-41.
1.2 Gothic army II (1600 FP) versus Roman army I (1600 FP). North European Wooded. => Romans (0) defeat Goths (-2) 43-18.
=> Roman victory, with Gothic generals Fritigern and Alatheus being killed. => Gothic army I loses 2 size, Gothic army II loses 2 size, Roman army I loses 1 size.
Battle 2
2.1 Roman army III (1660 FP) versus Sassanid army II (1540 FP). Middle Eastern Agricultural. => Sassanids (0) defeat Romans (-2) 42-12.
2.2 Roman army IV (1630 FP) versus Sassanid army II (1570 FP). Middle Eastern Agricultural. => Romans (0) draw with Sassanids (0) 18-19.
2.3 Roman army IV (1690 FP) versus Sassanid army IV (1510 FP). Desert. => Sassanids (-1) defeat Romans (-2) 55-28.
=> Sassanid victory, with Roman generals Sebastianus and Ricomer being killed. => Roman army III loses 2 size, Roman army IV loses 2 size, Sassanid army IV loses 1 size.
I think it would be helpful, and historically accurate, if a winner also had the option of falling back up to 12 MP to a friendly town or city to resupply following a victory.
Karvon
Chaos Tourney and Little Wars Organizer, TDC V Early Medieval Coordinator
Karvon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:00 pm
I think it would be helpful, and historically accurate, if a winner also had the option of falling back up to 12 MP to a friendly town or city to resupply following a victory.
Karvon
Maybe, but keep in mind that the aim of the campaign itself is primarily to set the stage for FoGII:Ancients games and having victory conditions of gaining territory and towns and cities. So it's not a full-blown strategy board game.
Yes, but if the victor has taken significant losses, he's going to likely retreat to a place where he can resupply rather simply staying in an open and exposed place. Given the time scale, I don't see why the victor can't have the same option as the loser.
Also, given supply and replacement occurs before movement, a loser can replenish his army before the next movement phase if he retreats to a friendly city, whereas the winner cannot, which again hardly seems fair or realistic.
Karvon
Chaos Tourney and Little Wars Organizer, TDC V Early Medieval Coordinator
Karvon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:42 pm
Yes, but if the victor has taken significant losses, he's going to likely retreat to a place where he can resupply rather simply staying in an open and exposed place. Given the time scale, I don't see why the victor can't have the same option as the loser.
Also, given supply and replacement occurs before movement, a loser can replenish his army before the next movement phase if he retreats to a friendly city, whereas the winner cannot, which again hardly seems fair or realistic.
Karvon
The victor will in general have taken fewer losses than the loser anyway. And loser needs to retreat 12 MP strictly away from enemy army in a basically straight line so not necessarily ending up in a friendly town or city.
Given the time scale, I think armies should be able to end the turn back in a friendly city in order to rebuild. Thus, I think the rule might read something like:
A losing army must retreat 12 MP or to the nearest controlled town or city, which ever is greater. A winning army may redeploy up to 12 MP to the nearest controlled town or city.
Otherwise, I suspect a fair number of turns will be spent simply redeploying to a town to city to be able to resupply, which will slow down the tempo of the game. As you're not giving any significant defensive advantage to being in a town or city, battered armies are more likely to retreat well away from enemy armies to be able to resupply in peace, which will mean ceding large areas of land to the enemy.
If that is the effect you are after, then fine.
Karvon
Chaos Tourney and Little Wars Organizer, TDC V Early Medieval Coordinator
markleslie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 3:40 am
If we really want to go all in on realism perhaps then we should add another phase where each army rolls for the outbreak of disease.
Army III, rolls 6, OUTBREAK. Army III rolls on outbreak table, rolls 5, DYSENTERY!
Sure, why not? Maybe for armies that undertake a siege it would be realistic. Disease decimated the Athenian army besieging Syracuse during the Peloponesian Wars, for example. The Assyrians suffered a similar fate while besieging Jerusalem according to Biblical tradition.
Karvon the uber-realist
Chaos Tourney and Little Wars Organizer, TDC V Early Medieval Coordinator