Should we ask Agema for a change to SLs

At the moment, six months' in the field can result in needing six months' of recovery time. To me, this can stifle players' willingness to move around. Gloire de Roi has doubled recovery rates in cities, bases and ports. Would this lead to more player actions as the recovery "cost" is reduced?

** I can't seem to edit the poll, so if you want both option 2 & 3, then please vote for both **

Johntindall wrote:At the moment, six months' in the field can result in needing six months' of recovery time. To me, this can stifle players' willingness to move around. Gloire de Roi has doubled recovery rates in cities, bases and ports. Would this lead to more player actions as the recovery "cost" is redcued?

** I can't seem to edit the poll, so if you want both option 2 & 3, then please vote for both **

I think the introduction of the #2 SL recovery rule in Glori for ships in repair yards and armies in large towns (Population 10,000 or above) plus possible extra improvement to sickness level if you had access to medical units/made Glori a faster and a better game. Certainly forced players to look at their logistics, lines of retreat and campaign basis more.

How this can be introduced into RIB my view is that:-

- Ships naval units should repair faster in a proper Port were they have access to timber, replacement oars and sails, skilled ship workers etc than doing running repairs at sea or on some beach.

- As all Roman Legions had their own built in medical staff adding trained medics is not the large improvement it was for many C18 armies so can be ignored. Parthians and other Eastern forces were in same Greek medical tradition but perhaps it could be a allowed upgrade for "Barbarians" able to do a bit of recruiting and wanting to upgrade their new Kingdom.

- It was a common belief that Roman Armies declined in large Eastern cities due to too much drinking/distractions etc and were better off in being toughened up in their own camps. But for ease of game play I think the SL #2 recovery in forces are in a large city (population 10,000 plus) or in a purpose built Legion fortress - Stone built Castrum Fortress.

Think in the East this would encourage a emphasis on the control of various key cities while the the West and on the Danube which lacks major cities it would likely lead to short sharp cross river campaigns then retire back into base camp. Both styles of campaign which seem historic to me.

Interesting vote. The early favourite seems to be Double the recovery rate in town ect. However from memory I believe this is often already applied at Agema’s discretion. Sometimes you can get a reduction of two points instead of one.

The rationale for the new SL levels in LGDR was based on 2 things:

1. Under the old system each unit was given its own individual casualty figure when moving or fighting.  To restore unit strength new recruits had to be sent to that location.  This was incredibly hard to administer, especially when combined with the old limited military change order system.  A relic from this period is the rule (in LGDR) that you can supply fresh recruits to an army (in batches of 1,000) to increase its recovery rate, but it is a very expensive way of doing it.  I don't know whether in practice this means that the drill level of the unit concerned falls or remains as it was.  However, for those like me who remember the old limited orders system, the new 'unlimited' orders and the new SL system makes campaigning across the world possible and in that sense speeds up the game.  As Stuart points out if you rest in a larger town (over 10,000 population), then SL recovery is normally double the rate of smaller towns.  I think that having an army camp (barracks) also helps, as may a hospital.  While it is disappointing to see armies increase their SL level to 3 or 4 before they even meet the enemy (in fact one tactic could be to try and evade battle, hoping to weaken the enemy army by attrition, before then moving in a new force with minimal SL level to finish them off?), it does reflect the historic challenges of keeping formations in supply.

2. That in 1700 armies only campaigned for a limited number of months 'the campaign season' each year, after which they went into winter quarters.  Many of Marlborough's battles ended up with horrendous casualties and by the time they had prepared and fought they could not fight more than one major battle in a campaigning season which obviously slows down the campaigns and allows both sides to recover.

There will also be various other modifiers that players don't see (the impact of morale, equipment, additional supplies being carried by the army, logistics corps, support from nearby towns, etc), all of which only the GM knows the impact of and are probably subject to some random dice roll.

The LGDR rules state that: "Agema can't stress strongly enough that not being in supply is NOT a disaster, but quite normal for the period." and classes SL1-3 as being quite usual.  The jump to SL4-5 is more problematic ("sickness is severely impacting the ability of the force to function"); SL6-8 "the force remains intact, but is pretty useless militarily; recovery is still possible but so are mass desertions, mutinies and even rebellion."; and SL9+ "Oh dear, the force is in a real mess, desertions are probable rather than possible and even moving will be problematic!".

At least with armies you can normally retreat after battle to a safe town to rest so as long as you can avoid huge casualties after battle, you will recover given time.

So while irritating at times I can see the logic of the SL levels as applied in LGDR for armies.  I don't know enough about how this has translated to the Rome game or whether the Roman campaigning season was limited.  If it wasn't then there is perhaps more justification to change it.


For navies the SL system is much more problematic because when ships sink you tend to lose all the crew.  A fleet which sails through a storm (random event) may receive a SL of 4-5 and be blown off course requiring additional time at sea and a higher SL level.  The next month the random dice roll may show that the fleet is lost completely through no fault of the player.  Fleets also suffer through being low on powder after an engagement, so the logistical challenges of resupplying fleets with grain and powder are much greater.  Is this historic?  I suggest not to the same extent as with armies.  

Wooden ships could normally be repaired very quickly (after Trafalgar most British ships were back on patrol within a month).  They carried supplies of timber, rope and sail to make repairs, and there were plenty of skilled carpenters and blacksmiths on board to patch up a ship and keep it afloat. Quite serious structural repairs to the hull and keel could be completed at sea; it was only really complete refitting that required repair yards.  Civilian ports would normally be used to supplying materials for damaged merchant ships, so any captain would make use of friendly ports to make emergency repairs if he could not repair the damage while at sea.  But in the Agema rules, I've never been able to repair a ship successfully at sea - that option just doesn't seem available, and I've had brand new ships sail out of port (SL0) and be sunk by a storm the next month!  Since the rules were written there does seem to have developed more flexibility in how they are applied.  If a fleet is diseased, this is noted separately (as can the condition of the crew for other reasons, rather than the ship), so perhaps the SL level now applies to the overall condition of the ship.  But if that is the case then the 'dangerous' level should be more like SL6 rather than SL4.  And it should be normal for ships to be able to repair at sea to reduce their own SL level to a safe (SL3?) level after bad weather or combat, as part of their normal routine.

Obviously the ships were slightly different in the Rome game, but the same principles apply - galleys were very simple ships and should be quick to repair, although since the Med is a much calmer sea than the Oceans, with many more friendly ports within a few days journey, repairs should be possible without serious interruption to journeys.

Ref James Bond and Papa Clement comments on John Tindalls proposals for Rome is Burning.

Think it should be noted that as James Bond and Papa Clement have said - it is possible to recover more than one sickness level by various means in Glori. But it is not currently possible to recover more than one sickness level in Rome is Burning.

John would seem to be putting forward a proposal that if Rome is Burning copied Glori in allowing units to recover sickness levels quicker this would improve player experience in the Rome game.

Have to admitt that I have not really done much in the way of campaigning in RIB and perhaps the built in Medical support and Roman Roads means that Richard has already designed game so that Roman Legions move a lot faster and will less sickness levels armies in Glori.

But did move a small unit of engineers along a newly re-surfaced road in perfect weather in their home province and gained a sickness level. So in principal I think Johns feedback is well worth consideration by Agema to stop players getting bored and dropping out of game.

As for repair of Roman Galleys v C18 Lineships at sea. Compared to a Lineship a Roman Galley carried a much larger crew compared to the size of the ship which limited its ability to carry the spare timber, masts, cordage, sail cloth etc required to carry out repairs at sea as well as only limited suppliers of food and fresh water required by their hard working crews. Plus if they spent much time at sea they their timbers got water logged and such "slow" galleys suffered a major combat disadvantage against other Galleys which were dry and rested.

This resulted in ancient galley fleets needing to spent much more time in ports or on shore doing repairs and gathering supplies. With majority of really crushing ancient Naval defeats happened when a fleet was caught beached with large parts of crews away from their ships gathering food, water and fire wood. So allowing "repairs" which I assume includes re-supply and resting oarsmen to be conducted quicker in port than on some beach would seem to be reasonable as everything closer to hand.

Stuart Bailey wrote:As for repair of Roman Galleys v C18 Lineships at sea.  Compared to a Lineship a Roman Galley carried a much larger crew compared to the size of the ship which limited its ability to carry the spare timber, masts, cordage, sail cloth etc required to carry out repairs at sea as well as only limited suppliers of food and fresh water required by their hard working crews.  Plus if they spent much time at sea they their timbers got water logged and such "slow" galleys suffered a major combat disadvantage against other Galleys which were dry and rested.

This resulted in ancient galley fleets needing to spent much more time in ports or on shore doing repairs and gathering supplies. With majority of really crushing ancient Naval defeats happened when a fleet was caught beached with large parts of crews away from their ships gathering food, water and fire wood.  So allowing "repairs" which I assume includes re-supply and resting oarsmen to be conducted quicker in port than on some beach would seem to be reasonable as everything closer to hand.

I accept the points on galleys vs SoL, galleys being basically floating platforms for hand to hand combat rather than mobile gun platforms.  They were also treated as more disposable ships which could be quickly rebuilt if lost.  Thinking back to when I played Venice in LGDR and last looked at galleys, the Venetian Arsenal (a bit like a factory for producing galleys) could produce 1 galley/day (somewhat faster than the 2 months in the LGDR rules, or the 8 months for a galleass which seems a bit extreme).  These would probably class as a Roman warship, but the Venetian Arsenal was super efficient with standardised parts kept in stock.  I would still expect that Roman galleys could be repaired very quickly (or rebuilt) with minimal equipment.  

Given the effort the Romans put in to their legions, I would be surprised if they hadn't also addressed the problem of improving the quality of timbers for galleys that were expected to spend a long time at sea.  Not my period so my knowledge is limited, but I do know that the Romans valued practical solutions and shipbuilding is a very practical activity.

I must point out. This discussion is based on Rome rather than Glori. But I have never known sick lists and the lack of grain to be as bad and hard to achieve as it is in game ten Glori. Only this turn in game ten. None of the big nations have achieved a grain surplus.

It looks to me like a deliberate Ploy from Agema to make grain harder to come by and create more sick lists. So Rome could be like game ten in Glori. Does Agema realise it is seriously hurting game play and fun.?

jamesbond007 wrote:I must point out. This discussion is based on Rome rather than Glori. But I have never known sick lists and the lack of grain to be as bad and hard to achieve as it is in game ten Glori. Only this turn in game ten. None of the big nations have achieved a grain surplus.

It looks to me like a deliberate Ploy from Agema to make grain harder to come by and create more sick lists. So Rome could be like game ten in Glori. Does Agema realise it is seriously hurting game play and fun.?

True the TGOK G10 June 1706 newspaper didn't list any of the 'big' nations as having a good harvest.

However before jumping on Agema conspiracy theories I suggest players ask their ministers how they can get surplus grain without having had a good harvest because in all the games I've played it's been possible. It's not always a quick fix but worth it in the long run!

With proper planning I've never had a problem with the way sick lists have increased or decreased, and weatherwise the campaigning season isn't that long so I'd expect more problems at certain times of the year. In fact the same game turn I've been pleasantly surprised by how quick the SL is coming down with preparation and the right conditions in place.

Marshal Bombast wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:I must point out. This discussion is based on Rome rather than Glori. But I have never known sick lists and the lack of grain to be as bad and hard to achieve as it is in game ten Glori. Only this turn in game ten. None of the big nations have achieved a grain surplus.

It looks to me like a deliberate Ploy from Agema to make grain harder to come by and create more sick lists. So Rome could be like game ten in Glori. Does Agema realise it is seriously hurting game play and fun.?

True the TGOK G10 June 1706 newspaper didn't list any of the 'big' nations as having a good harvest.  

However before jumping on Agema conspiracy theories I suggest players ask their ministers how they can get surplus grain without having had a good harvest because in all the games I've played it's been possible. It's not always a quick fix but worth it in the long run!

With proper planning I've never had a problem with the way sick lists have increased or decreased, and weatherwise the campaigning season isn't that long so I'd expect more problems at certain times of the year. In fact the same game turn I've been pleasantly surprised by how quick the SL is coming down with preparation and the right conditions in place.

I have played these games for a great many years. I think I know just about every way to get extra grain, grain surpluses. In other games I have had Billions of grain in surpluses. In g10 I have completed two forest clearances in Spanish mainland and one in Mexico. So three levels of extra farmland completed. Result not a ton extra of grain. That is without irrigation and enclosures all of which increases the chances of a good harvest. Sorry, but this is not the results I get in other games.

Thought long and hard and decided not to vote on the above. I would love to speed the game up, less sick time. I often moan about decisions from Richard ad much as anyone.

However the sick delays are historically accurate but more so, we cannot start telling the referee to change the rules to our satisfaction because if we do, where does it end.? What rule do we want changing next.?

Sadly I feel we must abide by the rules. However painful. Just my point of view. So no vote from me.Sorry.

I am happy with the current rules and will leave it to Agema to amend or delete.

It would be a large amount of work but it would be great to have a comprehensive rulebook incorporating all supplements.

Cheers

Hapsburg wrote:I am happy with the current rules and will leave it to Agema to amend or delete.

It would be a large amount of work but it would be great to have a comprehensive rulebook incorporating all supplements.

Cheers

This is the Rome is Burning thread and this game has only one rulebook and no supplements.

Think question arose because various players sent troops over the Alps back to Italy to deal with a attempted coup and these troops are basically knackered. So everyone is hanging around recovering sickness levels at one SL per turn, unlike in Glori which offers various options to speed up recovery of sickness levels. Such as repair yards for ships, hospitals, extra recruits or the most common being in a land town.

Guess some players more used to Glori expected their rock hard, fairly tea-total legions with built in medical services to recovery sickness levels more quickly in the bathhouses of Rome than in their normal rained on camps on the Rhine and Danube. And certainy quicker than the drunken bums and sickness ridden hordes of Louis XIV or Peter the Great in Glori and have been disappointed to find this is not the case in RIB.

For Roman commanders looking at possible campaigns in the mountains of Decia, the Syrian Desert and the infamously wet and midge invested highlands this is particularly depressing.

Think if Richard unwilling to consider faster recovery as per Glori he needs to come out and confirm that Roman troops gain sickness levels are lot more slowly than C18 troops and if you had tried that march in Glori you would not be recovering you would be dead. Certainly the Guard seems to have marched too Germany and back twice, staged a revolt, fought a battle and got stopped at a defended river crossing then marched round that river crossing and across the mountains in winter before having its horselines raided and attempted rest spoiled.

Ok so its suffered desertions and defeat at river crossing by fairly raw troops would seem to indicate a fairly high sickness level. Or perhaps fact that its riddled by foreign and factional agents and has been used as a political football and rank and file now believe half the Senate want to wipe them out to save money. But I do wonder if many Glori formations would still be in the field at all?

So perhaps this is built into the rules and my Enginners etc getting a sickness level on a afternoon walk was pure bad luck.

Ah, I see, I saw a few posts mentioning game 10 and thought the thread related to glory.

Interestingly following the points made by John and others Richard has made some amendments to the sickness level rules in Rome is Burning:-

1) Unless a military force is actually on the move it will not pick up sickness levels. So the Legions can now sit in their marching camps and not gain sickness levels, horse Nomads can sit in their yurt and other Barbarians can sleep under a bush without gaining additional sickness levels. Tough out door types in the 1st Century AD !!

2) One sickness level at a time can be recovered by giving a standard "rest" order. Troops under such orders will be under a combat disadvantage if engaged but not that bad so I assume units have a few senturies on watch, commanders are in normal place and the rank and file are mostly in tents close too their units, weapons, ships etc so if attacked can at least grap weapons and probably get into some sort of order.

Of course the fact that a military force has been ordered to "rest" probably means that it already has sickness levels which could give it an additional combat disadvantage.

I assume that the degree of combat disadvantage may vary with the type of attack. If a rival military force marches up to your camp in daylight and deploys its artillery while its commanders make speeches you are going to have more time to equip with armour and weapons and respond than if your horse lines are hit by raiders in the middle of the night trying to drive off your horses while everyone graps for weapons etc.

3) A new option in Rome is Burning is now "2. Troops can be ordered to ‘rest until fully recovered’; this order will repeat each month without having to
be issued again, and the troops (or ships, people) will attempt to recover/repair each month until they are back in good health, at which point the order will be deleted. Such an order means the troops can be expected to usually recover faster than normal. However, such rest will leave the troops extremely vulnerable to enemy action while doing so!"

I read this as the RIB version of being in Winter Quarters. Ships are on the beach or in dry dock with crews a fair distance from them in a local tavern or brothel or off in the countryside gathering supplies. Officers are probably off hunting or visiting their mistress and no one can find the buggers while the rank and file are spread round town and probably half of them are lacking weapons.

Basically if you get attacked in this posture its probably going to be a mass slaughter with players fleeing naked out of the back door of their mistresses Villa which their flag ship is sailed off down the Rhine by a bunch of Barbarians (as happened to one historic Roman commander in 69AD).

Accordingly I think most players will only give this order to troops in a friendly and secure location and probably while they are guarded/covered by orther troops. Off course mis-judgements about "friendly" locals and what is friendly and secure territory lead to some of the more spectacular military disasters and you probably do not want to be in this posture in even Rome or Alexandria if the mob riots. However in many circumstances it will speed the game up.

New rules did stress that recovery of sickness levels is never automatic and will still depend of weather, supplies etc. So trying to "rest" in German forests, Highlands of Caladonia, the Steppe or in the Syrian desert etc is probably something best left too the locals.

Hi - just wanted to thank everyone for their input and insights. Richard must have been thinking along same lines because as Stuart explained, he has announced these changes:

"RULE CHANGES: These apply from Iunius 820 onward:

1. Often troops in the open will now not suffer sickness if they are not moving. There are exceptions to this, but as a general rule this will be the case.

2. Troops can be ordered to ‘rest until fully recovered’; this order will repeat each month without having to be issued again, and the troops (or ships, people) will attempt to recover/repair each month until they are back in good health, at which point the order will be deleted. Such an order means the troops can be expected to usually recover faster than normal. However, such rest will leave the troops extremely vulnerable to enemy action while doing so! If rest is ordered by a player on a monthly basis instead rather than using the order ‘rest until fully recovered’ being used, then rest is probably going to happen at a recovery rate of 1 SL per turn, but the troops while still vulnerable are less vulnerable than when using ‘rest until fully recovered’, which will typically permit the recover of 2 SL per turn. Your choice, your risk!

3. Please be aware that other factors can prevent successful rest, for example a lack of supplies locally due to a siege, an outbreak of disease, or bad weather while out in the open, or being surrounded or harassed by enemy forces."

"rest until fully recovered" is my order from Glory   Starting using it a while ago when I had a battalion with a sicklist of 13!

Hapsburg wrote:"rest until fully recovered" is my order from Glory    Starting using it a while ago when I had a battalion with a sicklist of 13!

In Glori its a handy order for players who want to avoid having to issue the same order for five or six turns in a row, esp handy for convoys who have got to destination but have been savaged by storms on route or troops who have been used on construction and were unable to rest earlier.

Major difference between Glori and RIB is that in Glori you really want to get land forces to a large town (Pop 10,000 plus) and basically go into "Winter Quarters" or ships to somewhere with a repair yard and go into dry dock to gain the improved +2 sickness level recovery.

If G7 Spanish Navy you also want somewhere with a Hospital, Grain silo, Cathedral, and good selection of taverns and brothels as well as a repair yard. This is a force which likes its home comforts and trying to re-apply chipped gold leaf at sea or on a beach is a sod.

Difference between Rome is Burning and Glori is that in RIB the order "rest until fully recovered" now seems a lot more specific and can be given anywhere as the camps of Roman Legions tended to be a lot better organized with less based on ad-hoc and civilian support strongest in large cities. Plus its a lot easier to repair galleys than very large lineships even though Glori does not go full difficultly with all ports etc remarkably having masts of the correct size in stock to avoid players having a full Samual Pepys style melt down.

Troops (but not Naval) also seem to move a lot faster in RIB compared to Glori probably due to better roads and lack of heavy guns. But what we may be about is does the lack of guns make sieges slower or faster? II Augusta took Maiden Castle in a day but other ancient period sieges seem to last a lot longer than anything in the WSS.

And at Cannae, I’m about to experience my first battle. What errors, misunderstandings and bloodshed await?!

Johntindall wrote:And at Cannae, I’m about to experience my first battle. What errors, misunderstandings and bloodshed await?!

If looking on the negative side you are about to take a bunch of Balkan levies up against the crack troops of the Roman Empire after getting wet and cold crossing a river.  Then fight a battle in which your opponents have the advantage of height and wind and you have grit blown in your face and a river at your back.

On the positive side it is possible that the Guard are no longer Octavian's hand picked killers the elite of Julius Caesar Army but have turned into a bunch of show ponies and bullies due to too much of the good life and politics in Rome and are now too knackered by marching to Germany and back twice, being repulsed from Rome and then having their horse lines raided to put up much of a fight.  Plus you outnumber them and according to military theory popular in China troops in "death ground" will fight harder to avoid being driven back into that river again.

But the overwelming advantage is that your side is lead by the "Chosen of Mars" while the Guard is lead by a vile traitor who murdered the divine Nero and has been cursed by both men and the Gods.  Cordus is also an generally viewed as an idiot even by his own men, I mean what type of Guard commander decides to rebel when in the middle of Germany and away from the Emperor.

So please, please, please win or the Roman Priesthood and the Pontifex Maximus is going to have a hell of a job trying to explain away your defeat !  Now your are sure you have not raped any Vestal Virgins?  Defiled any alters? Abused and insulted any sacred chickens?  Or a mixture of all three?   If not I am sure the Omens will be good.