Art De La Guerre

[ksnyder]

Would someone be willing to verify the accuracy of this translation? I put it through Google Translate and made some edits, but a few guesses of what the author intended had to be made. I might have been completely wrong with what I decided to use instead.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-zk-VqMe3xJZU1OXzFRUFhPX0k/view?usp=sharing

[thierry.b]

I'm glad to see this translation.
Good job.

_________________
Mes figs

[thierry.b]

English version is now available for download from "playing aids" menu



Thanks a lot Kris
_________________
Mes figs

[Zopenco]

What about the army command value?

2/3 of the value allowed for 200 points armies?

[morglum]

No, the full value of army, but you have only 2 generals...
If, with playing in 120 points, you have some questions or propositions, thank's to send a post!
sorry for my very bad english
have a nice WE
_________________
AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[Dickstick]

Translation still needs detail under
"Routing of the army "
Translated .
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[thierry.b]

[Zopenco]

[quote="morglum"]No, the full value of army, but you have only 2 generals...
If, with playing in 120 points, you have some questions or propositions, thank's to send a post!
sorry for my very bad english
have a nice WE [/quote]

So in 120pts armies you can have two +3 generals? Seems a bit excessive

[Hazelbark]

No the rules say you can only have one strategist.

[Zopenco]

[quote="Hazelbark"]No the rules say you can only have one strategist.[/quote]

Sorry, I was exaggerating (national characteristic!) to make a I point that now I realize it was not very well put forward.

Let's try again.

I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the army corps from 3 to 2 and keep the full army command value as morglum proposed.

For one thing, with two corps you can only spend a maximum of 4 command value points, so +4, +5 and +6 armies will be rated the same in the 120 points game.

On the other end of the scale, a +2 army with only two corps to share the points is in a better situation that one with three corps.

So I propose that 6/5/4/3/2 command value armies will become 4/3/3/2/1

Or, bearing in mind that corps will be more heterogeneous, perhaps a more open-handed allowance of 4/4/3/3/2 would be necessary.

[Dickstick]

What happens in the other direction?
Ie for 300 point armies with four commands.
I thought the standard cv allowance was spread thinner. ?
If I'm correct there would then also be no change dropping to 120 points.

100 point armies have no restrictions (I challenge anyone to find an army with less than +2 cv) so all can have a brilliant commander.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[morglum]

for 300 army points the command value is the same at 200 points.
in 120 points dont forget that the grou frontage is 4 and not 6.
The proposition to reduce command value at 43321 instead 65432 is an interresting idea.
If you test this, thank's for the feed back.

_________________
AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[Zopenco]

[quote="Dickstick"]What happens in the other direction?
Ie for 300 point armies with four commands.
I thought the standard cv allowance was spread thinner. ?
If I'm correct there would then also be no change dropping to 120 points. [/quote]

Even if the cv allowance is spread thinner, in a 300 point game a +6 army has better command & control than a +4 army. In the proposed 120 point game both have the same c&c

[quote="Dickstick"]
100 point armies have no restrictions (I challenge anyone to find an army with less than +2 cv) so all can have a brilliant commander.[/quote]

Personally, I don't find the 100 point game very interesting, but the idea of the 120 point game I think is very promising

[Zopenco]

[quote="morglum"]for 300 army points the command value is the same at 200 points.
in 120 points dont forget that the grou frontage is 4 and not 6.
The proposition to reduce command value at 43321 instead 65432 is an interresting idea.
If you test this, thank's for the feed back.
[/quote]

I'll let you know

[ksnyder]