Did an edit and moderate rewrite, organizing things better and adding a few explanations. The game is going well. We have three battles engendered. One of Ikea versus the Neverneverlands which will see an army and a brigade pitted against two brigades. Another will see an army and a brigade of Flounce attacking Ikea which will be defended by the gallant actions of the King of Sweeta who has loaned Ikea two brigades. The final one will be a battle between an Army and a brigade of Sweeta attacking Spam (Viva Espamia). In this Sangria IV, King of Spam, is sending a lone brigade against the Sweetans. The reason is the King of Sweeta has brought along his siege brigade. This would render ineffective the use of a fortress by Spam. Mike, who is a canny and crafty players is answering the Sweetan attack with a single brigade, a headquarters brigade, which will give him only two battlefield units and a host of officers. This is a daring and risk move as if the King of Sweeta simply plows forward he is likely to win perhaps 8 or 9 Victory points, perhaps even the campaign if I let it go to a table top action. I probably far more likely will use the abstract resolution which could potentially give Sweeta 5 Victory points.
I am certain Mike will be at the table top battle, so he may have some craft role playing to do and might try to do something innovative or original. I will probably see what sort of act he will put on. It puts me on the horns of a dilemma, that is, how as umpire do I handle it. Technically if I do a straight table top battle Sweeta COULD get 12 Victory points, end the campaign and WIN IT in one fell swoop. I am not mad at Mike for doing this. As a good playtester he's testing the rules to destruction, seeking to find where they don't work. in this case if I decide not to allow the table top battle and use my umpire discretion to throw it into an arbitrary decision, the rules of that decision, made to protect players from a pile on will in this case protect the game from a pile on as well.
I'm half tempted to let it go to a battle to see what Mike has up his sleeve.
Significantly Mike could avoid all this craziness by playing his army and Brigade and making it an even-up fight, but Mike says he wants to preserve his army to do something next turn.
In other items what is interesting is the negotiations going on for alliances and what they wish to do with them. The players are sending me copies of their negotiations and all of them seem to be in the highly realistic position of attempting to entrap others for their own benefit yet not commit themselves to any risk. Much of it is the standard "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" stuff that goes on in war games. The bare-bones nature of the game though cuts through the usual double speak and brings those issues to the for. At the same time while you have all that prevarication going on you have the example of the King of Sweeda who out of the blue and with no warning has tossed his whole country, Gustavus Adolphus like, into the fray to defend the much beset upon Ikea.
Curious how gamers come down on this side or that. I am rather glad I did not go in for the folderol of a diplomatic system like I did in the former game. I shall publish the battle reports of the two battles I do have and the resolution of the defense of the single brigade or the result of the arbitrary roll.
The arbitrary roll most likely will give the victory to the Sweetans but there are long odds it could go to the Spammamanians. We shall have to see.
