Dividing the Spoils - Tournament 3: Closed

[kronenblatt]

Map I
ulysisgrunt attacks Armchairbaron using the army of Paropamisadai. Attacker satrapy Paropamisadai, defender satrapy Indike.
carpenkm attacks ulysisgrunt using the army of Atropatene with Georgian allies. Attacker satrapy Atropatene, defender satrapy Media.
Armchairbaron attacks ulysisgrunt using the army of Karmania. Attacker satrapy Drangiana, defender satrapy Areia.
kronenblatt attacks Armchairbaron using the army of Aigyptos with Arab allies. Attacker satrapy Persis, defender satrapy Parthyaia.
Map II
tyronec attacks Geffalrus using the army of Aigyptos with Kyrenean Greek allies. Attacker satrapy Aigyptos, defender satrapy Makedonia.
Geffalrus attacks Rosedelio using the army of Thrake with Triballi allies. Attacker satrapy Atropatene, defender satrapy Media.
Rosedelio attacks Aetius39 using the army of Paropamisadai. Attacker satrapy Paropamisadai, defender satrapy Indike.
Aetius39 attacks tyronec using the army of Karmania. Attacker satrapy Karmania, defender satrapy Persis.

Setting up the battles

• Battles are fought using the Dividing the Spoils v4 module and the armies therein (make sure that you've downloaded version 4 of the DiSp2 module for MP battles, see Technical specifications and preparations in the Rules).

• The defender creates the challenge (with himself always as Side B) and thereafter sends a PM to the attacker and makes a post in this thread.

• Module: Dividing the Spoils v4 (click Select another module).

• Armies:
  • The attacker uses the army that he specified in his attack declaration.
  • The defender uses the army of the defender satrapy.

• Scenario: Custom Battle - Open Battle.

• Force size: Large (1600 FP).

• Map size: Wide (40x32).

• Map type: from defender satrapy's available terrains as selected by the defender (see second post of this thread).

• No map re-rolls are allowed.

• No use of Heavy Artillery is allowed.

Resolving and reporting the battles

• Players commit to concluding their battles within four weeks, i.e., by May 29 at the latest.

• Any battles not concluded by then risk being resolved by adjudication.

• The defender reports the outcome of concluded battles in this thread, specifying who won (if any), the casualties, and if any C-in-C's fell during the battle (important since it matters for when tournament will end).
  • Example: Aetius39 beat kronenblatt 48-21, with Aetius 39s C-in-C killed in battle.

For more details, please always look in the Rules.

In case any of you have any questions (which I'm sure you have, no problems ), please post them in this thread in order for everyone else to see the question as well as the answer.

Enjoy!

[tyronec]

Aetius39 attacks tyronec using the army of Karmania. Attacker satrapy Karmania, defender satrapy Persis.
Game set up, pw - Spoils

[Geffalrus]

tyronec attacks Geffalrus using the army of Aigyptos with Kyrenean Greek allies. Attacker satrapy Aigyptos, defender satrapy Makedonia.

Game set up, pw is dividing

[Rosedelio]

Geffalrus attacks Rosedelio using the army of Thrake with Triballi allies. Attacker satrapy Atropatene, defender satrapy Media.
Game set up, pw media

[Aetius39]

Rosedelio attacks Aetius39 using the army of Paropamisadai. Attacker satrapy Paropamisadai, defender satrapy Indike.


Game up, pw is indike

Aetius

[tyronec]

tyronec attacks Geffalrus using the army of Aigyptos with Kyrenean Greek allies. Attacker satrapy Aigyptos, defender satrapy Makedonia.

We have agreed a draw on this one, the terrain mitigated against either army launching an attack.
There was no score.

[kronenblatt]

tyronec attacks Geffalrus using the army of Aigyptos with Kyrenean Greek allies. Attacker satrapy Aigyptos, defender satrapy Makedonia.

We have agreed a draw on this one, the terrain mitigated against either army launching an attack.
There was no score.

Which map type?

[tyronec]

It was hilly. Just happened to have a big hill in the wrong (or right) place.

[Geffalrus]

Geffalrus (Atropatene) attacking Rosedelio (Media) using Thrake (Triballi) agrees to a draw.

The Medes had the Mother Of All Defensive Positions:

Screen_00000949.jpg (382.04 KiB) Viewed 488 times

[kronenblatt]

Oh, so many draws here.

We need to tighten up the rules a bit (as of round 2 of course), with idea of drawing only generally leading to loss of satrapies somewhere:

Opportunistic gains of satrapies

• If there are no victors from any battles in a War at all, i.e., only draws, all the satrapies-at-stake of the War will instead be gained by the one player (if any) not involved in the War and neighbouring any of the satrapies-at-stake of the War, with the fewest controlled satrapies (at the start of the round).

• If there are several such players, the satrapies-at-stake of the War will be gained by the one player of those with the highest (minimum, if the player's having fought more than one battle) casualty difference in his own battles.

• If there is no such player neighbouring any of the satrapies-at-stake of the War, the drawing players will instead lose an equivalent total number of their controlled satrapies (other than those at stake) to a player (neighbouring any of their controlled satrapies and selecting which satrapies to gain), all based on the same criteria as above, i.e., with the fewest controlled satrapies (at the start of the round) and, if a tie, with the highest (minimum, if the player's having fought more than one battle) casualty difference in his own battles.

[tyronec]

Oh, so many draws here.

So I have just had two battles in this campaign and the difficulty is that in both cases the defender chose difficult terrain, mountains in one and hilly in the other. Both maps were such that for at least one side for them to attack it would likely lead to a defeat.

A suggestion would be that if a draw is always going to cause a satrapy loss for both sides than to change the battle set up to use pot luck terrain. At least that would lead to less chance of having a map where the player trying to force a result is at a severe disadvantage.

[kronenblatt]

Oh, so many draws here.

So I have just had two battles in this campaign and the difficulty is that in both cases the defender chose difficult terrain, mountains in one and hilly in the other. Both maps were such that for at least one side for them to attack it would likely lead to a defeat.

A suggestion would be that if a draw is always going to cause a satrapy loss for both sides than to change the battle set up to use pot luck terrain. At least that would lead to less chance of having a map where the player trying to force a result is at a severe disadvantage.

Which map terrain did you choose as defender? It's also up to the defender which map type to be used.

Maybe (instead of pot luck, which I generally dislike in campaigns) we should limit available map types to e.g. Agricultural or even Plain to better suit these pike armies. There will be patches of rough anyway.

[tyronec]

Which map terrain did you choose as defender? It's also up to the defender which map type to be used.

I picked mountains in my game.

The point is if you give the defender the option to choose hills or mountains then there is going to be a higher chance of a map where either one or both sides have the option to sit out on a hill. Forcing both satrapies to go to a third player doesn't really resolve this, it just puts more pressure for players to attack when they see only a small chance of winning. Players will still select mountains/hills in the hope that they get favorable terrain.

[kronenblatt]

Which map terrain did you choose as defender? It's also up to the defender which map type to be used.

The point is if you give the defender the option to choose hills or mountains then there is going to be a higher chance of a map where either one or both sides have the option to sit out on a hill. Forcing both satrapies to go to a third player doesn't really resolve this, it just puts more pressure for players to attack when they see only a small chance of winning. Players will still select mountains/hills in the hope that they get favorable terrain.

I don't really see that point. Why would the defender choose hills or mountains (why did you pick mountains, for example?)? Sure, the attacker can select which army to bring and also use allies (so some disadvantage there for the defender), but if the defender wins, he'll gain the attacker's satrapy. So reward wise it's balanced. And draws will penalise both players, so balanced there as well.

Is your view also that if the attacker were to select map terrain, he would also select mountains or hills in the hope of getting favourable terrain, or does that only apply to the defender? If the latter, maybe then the attacker should be the one selecting the map terrain.

[tyronec]

I picked mountains because my opponent could have better missile and light cav so a restricted map would be better for my army. However as it turned out the mountains were not well placed for me and my opponent had a good hill in his deployment area so it didn't work out well. If the map had been switched around then I would have had the advantage which would have been nice. Am not complaining, I took a calculated risk and it didn't work out.

In the other game there were also 'unassailable' hills on one side of the map.

If you give the option to choose hills/mountains then sometimes players will go for them in the hope of getting favorable terrain and sometimes that will mitigate towards a draw.
However if you then assign those satrapies to players on a distant part of the map then each faction may become non contiguous.
I would prefer to leave the rules as they are OR to go to pot luck maps if all draws means satrapies are reassigned.

[kronenblatt]

If you give the option to choose hills/mountains then sometimes players will go for them in the hope of getting favorable terrain and sometimes that will mitigate towards a draw.

Would that incentive also apply to the same extent if the attacker were to be the one to choose the map terrain? Maybe that could mitigate or at least ease the problem.

However if you then assign those satrapies to players on a distant part of the map then each faction may become non contiguous.

My drafting of the new rules was probably a bit confusing, but this will not happen, since in the first place only players already neighbouring the satrapies-at-stake would be considered. But if there are no such players, the satrapies-at-stake themselves will not change hand but instead the same number of other satrapies neighbouring satrapies already controlled by receiving players. So there won't be any break-up of territory from this.

[tyronec]

Would that incentive also apply to the same extent if the attacker were to be the one to choose the map terrain? Maybe that could mitigate or at least ease the problem.

Maybe. The attacker already has the advantages of choosing both armies and bringing allies.

[kronenblatt]

Would that incentive also apply to the same extent if the attacker were to be the one to choose the map terrain? Maybe that could mitigate or at least ease the problem.

The attacker already has the advantages of choosing both armies and bringing allies.

That aside, would he still be as inclined as the defender to select Hilly or Mountain? Or would he tend to go for Agricultural or Plain to a higher extent? Or maybe that would depend on which allies he can bring?

I'm not thinking about the advantages for the attacker: just which map terrain he'd tend to select. In case we want to reduce the occurrences of the "problematic" map terrains. Unless both players want a certain map terrain, of course. Another solution could then be to have the two players agree on the map terrain, with a certain map type as fallback (typically Agricultural, Plain, Steppe, or Desert) in case they can't agree.

[tyronec]

It might do, am not sure.

I didn't pick Mountains with the intention of creating a stalemate, I did it because I was hoping for a restricted map which would have suited my army. Doing the same attack in reverse I might well have gone for Mountains.

[kronenblatt]

OK, I see. I'll probably go for a setup in which the two players agree on the map terrain, with a certain map type as fallback (typically Agricultural, Plain, Steppe, or Desert) in case they can't agree. Something like this.

(And I'll also allow defenders to select available allies, for the sake of balance.)