|
Post by KeirLeslie on Jan 7, 2005 20:51:54 GMT -5
I'm astonished. So many posts... I've just skimmed them, but here are my initial reactions.
Little Rascal:
Sorry, I was refering to the Values mentioned near the end of the Guide. These are the Values of the population, wether they are progressive or conservative etc. They would matter more than the size of the city, as a city of 10 000 religous zealots will take far more punishment than a city with 20 000 oppressed workers. The workers will just run away, whilst the zealots will stay until the bitter end.
Sojourner
I must disagree with you. The number of people needed to control a hex is nowhere near the size of the deployment in Iraq. All that is needed is to control the important locations and avoid antagonizing the locals. The British Raj was ruled by only nine hundred British civil servants. There were, on average, four thousand Indians for every British soldier. Given that the Raj was both highly mutinous and massive-including Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka- it would not seem vital for there to be massive occupational forces where there is a clear technological superiority on the occupying side.
While I disagree with the resources chosen, and the idea that supply routes must be upgraded, I agree with the basic principle. I would merge water and food, to become rations, and I would remove fuel and replace it with ammunition. This reduces the number of resources. Also, there are many units that do not need fuel, frex an Imperial Guard Infantry Division.
Cels:
I agree here. On the whole subject of space/planet interaction, have you read The Algebraist, by Ian M. Banks? Not only is the Mercatoria very similar to the Imperium, but many of the passages about the Summed Fleet and Beyonder engagements are quite applicable to 40K .
Brilliant.
I don't think any one advocates a complete roster. Instead I think we should go with the idea of listing Titans, Ships and Space Marine Companies independently, then Guard Brigades .
I think that that idea is a mistake. If you want fair 40K games a map campaign is wasted. If fair 40K games and a bit of backstory is all that is needed, a tree campaign is a far better way to do it. If you let small forces that lose win, you remove the ability to crush small positions with massive superiority. In effect you allow a player to be lazy, get caught out and then shrug it off.
I agree with the idea of modular design. I think that if you, Cels were to write out some draft rules for the base system, just as an example, it might be quite useful.
I must say I'm very impressed with the originality of most of the ideas.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 22:54:13 GMT -5
I think supply lines are better at explaining things then saying that their is a 'supply range' of how many Hexs. Their has been discussion on this before on prevous pages. Basically working it out adds to the administration between turns. By having supply lines, they move between fixed points and its only a matter of moving a force inbetween these points to 'cut' them off. Well, I'm going to work with the assumption that we're using territories instead of hexes, though the principle is the same. You can still cut off supply lines, even if you don't draw lines on the map. If you look at this example, the red player can cut off the yellow player's Territory #3, by attacking it from Territory #6, 7 or 8. Eventhough the Space Port (grey territory) has a Supply Range of 4, it doesn't matter since Territory #4 is cut off. Movement is the tricky part, yes. But to fix that problem, I need to know whether or not campaign rosters are used. I don't follow. Could you explain in a more detailed manner, and elaborate a bit? What happens if a battallion is damaged, for example? Glad we agree! A lack of supplies would prevent you from attacking from that territory/hex, I guess. In addition, I guess you could receive certain penalties in any games taking place in that territory. Anything from an overall lower leadership to letting the attacker choose who gets the first turn. Again, I'm glad we agree on that I suggest that the Victory conditions depend on the location and setting of the campaign. We could create 10 different campaign scenarios, each with its own map and background, and each with its own objectives. In a campaign written for Dark Eldar vs Imperial players, the objective could be to protect / capture the civilians. In a campaign written for Genestealers vs Imperial players, the objective could be to prevent / ensure that the Genestealer cult's beacons are lit for a certain number of turns. In a campaign written for Orks vs Imperial players, the objective could be to capture the Imperial orbital batteries / hold out till the cavalry arrives.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 23:09:55 GMT -5
I'm astonished. So many posts... It's fun when things start happening, once in a while Very interesting, although this sounds like something that would be wise to put in a seperate rule-module, for extra detail and atmosphere. Not something that is critical for any campaign, in other words. The idea is that (almost?) all military units encountered in the Anargo sector are dependant on supplies. Whether it is rations, fuel, ammunition, medical supplies, fresh blood to keep the daemons happy, souls, or something else entirely. Most of the time (although not always), you'd get these supplies from certain supply bases, such as space ports, rail stations, naval docks, etc. In this regard, it's the same for everyone. The only reason you'd want to differentiate if you have a limited set of resources and/or if you have a campaign roster, so you can keep track of which units are starving, out of fuel, etc. For the time being, I suggest that we create a basic system without getting bogged down with a complex supply-system. I hope everyone can see the point in that. I'm afraid I have not Does it have any important points that we should consider here? But you do realise that this will mean that we need to come up with a system for each side to be equally powerful, right? I can see the point in listing Titans and ships, since those are extremely precious. Space Marines are in the grey zone, but then you can always argue that the hundreds of Space Marines that were slaughtered in the last game were just knocked unconscious by the Bloodthirster I think this sounds uneccesarily complex. In certain scenarios, I can definitely see the potential of having a full overview of the military forces involved, but overall it's not really necessary, and it requires a lot of work in some scenarios. I agree. Like I said above, campaigns aren't supposed to be 100% fair anyway. If you want a completely fair game, go play in a tournament or something Thanks for that. I will try to think of some basic rules, but before I do that, I want to make sure that everyone agrees on the basic direction that we have to take with this system. I don't want to spend hours working out a system, only to find out the whole concept is inappropriate Oh yeah. I hope people are kind enough to help design a simple campaign system, before starting on the 'good stuff'
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 8, 2005 0:12:40 GMT -5
I'd just like to interject briefly with a desire that we keep enough flexibility in the system that it can be applied at different levels, not just the continental. This might be too amibitious, but the idea that we create a broad system that is applicable everywhere just appeals. What about when, for example, we're talking about control of a country, continent or whatever? Isn't it useful to have a smaller resolution there? Perhaps this lies with the difference between the game systems themselves...
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Jan 8, 2005 3:12:19 GMT -5
Might I suggest here that campaigns set in the Anargo Sector and the here and now focus on the Orks in Castellan? Such a campaign might go like this: 1) Listen up Boyz, I got a plan... Morzkraga Barkharg has decided to launch a Waaargh! against the Imperium. However, despite his status as Warlord there is a problem, the other Orks don't want to be the first to attack, knowing that the first on the ground will be the first dead. So, Morzkraga decides to kick things off by launching an attack on an isolated, weak Imperial world. Unbeknownst to him, a Space Marine Strike Cruiser is in the region, and it's Astropaths pick up the Warp signature of the Ork fleet... Depending on the outcome, you could then go on to larger campaigns as the Orks surge across space. Who knows, maybe the Imperium could launch a counter attack? I would say that you could launch attacks, except that the forces would be very weak. I would imagine that morale would decrease, Weapon and Fight Skills would be affected. However, specific penalties could depend on the area and the troops involved. I agree. What I think is important is that people can go "These are the 59 th Dorvastorites, and in the Waaaargh! of M40.99 they fought on this world and this one and on this one." If people don't know where their regiment was, writing fluff becomes a nightmare, and there is a loss of character. Howver I think I will think about this one some more.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 8, 2005 7:17:34 GMT -5
This is one of those times where I'm absolutely convinced that most of my ideas are right, but I lack the oratory ability to convince everyone...
Fair enough about the supplies. We're just arguing semantics, now. I'm not convinced about the mechanism though - I'd prefer to have a specific route rather than simply an area of effect. Firstly - why can't you send supplies beyond that range? Doesn't make sense. Secondly, why can't I attack the supply line itself rather than destroying it at source? This is why I think the route itself should be represented on the map.
With the battles, the point is that it isn't fair. You can't use differently sized forces in 'straight' 40k games, which means that all the game mechanics and scenarios are geared toward equal forces in a straight fight. In a campaign, you don't get that. Forces are often outnumbered. You wouldn't expect an outnumbered and outgunned force to win a straight 40k game, so what's the point of playing it? Every game should have some sort of objective to achieve. If you're the underdog, you should get a 'win' if you can impair a superior force enough that the rest of the army can engage it on an at-least level playing field. If you lose, the enemy army capitalises on its advantage and runs into the main force before they're prepared, for example.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 8, 2005 7:57:53 GMT -5
This is one of those times where I'm absolutely convinced that most of my ideas are right, but I lack the oratory ability to convince everyone... I really hate it when that happens. Most of all because we'll get nowhere, since neither side will sway. How would you represent it on the map? Since your oratory ability is momentarily impaired, perhaps you could draw? The reason a Supply Base would have a certain range instead of an area of effect, is to simplify things. It does come at the expense of realism though, I agree. One alternative could be that we give each Supply Base a value of how many territories it can supply, and then leave it up to the player to determine which territories will receive supplies. This might be a slow solution. You could also divide all territories into 'Regions', with each Supply Base giving supplies to all territories in its appointed 'Region'. The downside with this, again, is lack of realism. The upside is dynamics and speed. As for attacking the supply lines... in a large war, there will be a dozen potential routes for a supply lines. You take out a truck convoy, and the enemy still has dropships, ferries, cargotrains and aircraft coming in with supplies. It's not a simple process of just cutting the supply line, as if supplies came in through a big hose. I agree with KeirLeslie in that this is a mistake. If victory conditions remained the same despite army sizes being different, I would see the point. But if you're going to let a 500 point army win over a 3000 point army, simply because it survives for a set number of turns... you just lose the point of having different army sizes in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 8, 2005 8:08:43 GMT -5
Depends what a 'win' or 'lose' means, doesn't it? If it makes you happier, throw out the win and lose terminology altogether and instead just set objectives. While a small force will never be set an objective of routing or destroying a much larger one, it may nevertheless be expected to hold the line, hold on until reinforcements arrive, or escape off the table. Otherwise, what's the point of fighting the battle? If a small force such as this achieves its objectives in such a game, it may give an advantage to the player if he decides to counterattack using a more substantial force.
There does of course remain the possibility that your small-in-number force just happens to be, say, a space marine first company. In which case, massacring the enemy army is a viable objective.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 8, 2005 8:15:47 GMT -5
Oh yes, I was going to explain supply lines...
Basically as an army moves through different hexes, it can use 'action points' or whatever to establish a supply line in that hex. Supply lines extend 'backwards' to a supply source automatically perhaps, but as an army advances it's a good idea to lay supply lines as they go, to keep them fully operational. If an army outruns its supply lines, that is, it can't trace a continuous path of supply line hexes from its own position to a supply source, it will begin to run out of steam, as it were. The same applies to forces that are isolated or besieged. You can air drop supplies to armies, or perhaps be able to give another army a 'supply run' mission, to replenish them, but this takes commitment of orbital or air assets.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 8, 2005 8:33:25 GMT -5
And assuming that the campaign system does not have a complete list of all military forces involved, and the position of individual formations? How would these supply lines work then?
Your suggestion sounds very realistic, but very complex.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 8, 2005 10:42:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't complicate it so far as to rationalise the 'amount' of supplies required, just to say that if an army marker has an intact supply chain, then it is fully supplied.
The idea of a physical connection stems from the fact that though land you control is generally freely passable, you do have established routes following major roads and so on, which are certified safe, free from mines and so on, are patrolled by rearguard forces, particularly aircraft, and are well known as a safe and standard route for everyone involved - every truck driver knows which junction to take by heart and so on. Finding alternative supply pathways is not impossible but is less convenient.
In general, I work on the principle that you only create extra paperwork for the player when things go wrong. You shouldn't have to think about setting these things up more than is necessary for whatever degree of realism you're aiming for.
Which is what all the debate boils down to, isn't it? You and Leslie, among others, seem to be advocating a system which is simple and highly abstracted for the sake of fun, which is all well and good. I prefer, and I believe Kage agrees from what he's been saying, that the key to a fun game is realism and flexibility. I want lots of opportunity to do everything I would be able to do in real life. Unfortunately this tends to make the system more complex and involve more bookkeeping.
The way I see it, if you're running a map campaign over weeks or months, the fact that high-realism is something of a time sink isn't as much of an issue. Micromanagement is often a huge pain in the arse in computer games, where you want to spend your time getting stuck into the action, but I think with games like this you have a lot more leeway. As long as the system is clear and straightforward to implement, micromanagement shouldn't get in the way of fun too much. Besides, that's what you have a GM for.
Well, I digress. Let's continue with bouncing ideas around, shall we?
I'll take a different approach now and instead ask: How many units are you willing to work with? Is modelling a world's military presence regiment by regiment too much detail, or about right?
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 8, 2005 12:49:34 GMT -5
I'm not advocating simplicity over flexibility. If that's what you think, I urge you to re-read my posts. I'm saying simplicity for the sake of flexibility. Kage has expressed that he wanted a system that could be used on any level, from a small island skirmish to a full planetary invasion with orbital support. I think that the more details we invent, with different types of supply lines, different psychological effects on the population and so on, the more difficult it will be to make a flexible system that makes sense on all scales. With that said... I'm going to try and take a look at a system with limited resources (i.e. batallions), since that's ultimately what I would prefer, if I could just find an easy way to do it. So don't get me wrong; If I could have a dynamic and simple system with lots of details, realism and flexibility, I would take it. The problem is that I seem to put dynamics and simplicity above realism and details. I guess I'm showing my true colours as a wargamer here As for flexibility, we all seem to agree on that. But now I'm the one digressing...
The map is divided into territories, as I have illustrated before. Each player is handed a number of 'Detachments', depending on the size and setting of the scenario, and the number of players. A detachment can represent anything from a company of troops to an ork horde, depending on the scenario. In a campaign turn, the current player can use his detachments to attack the enemy. For each battle won, he can attack one more time. This means, theoretically, that you can win an entire campaign in one campaign turn, if the opponent loses all his battles. Whenever a Detachment is down to 49% strength or less, it is sent away from the front to be recycled. In game terms, this means that it's just lost. There is no set size for a Detachment. 1000 points was suggested, but one of the great things about the BFG campaign, for example, is that you can fight different sized battles. If you don't have time for a huge cruiser clash one day, you can go for a small raid instead. This gives flexibility in that players aren't restricted to battles of a set size, or even a set system. This is the basic skeleton of the system. We can later invent add-on rules that differentiate between infantry detachments, mechanised detachments and armor / Titan detachments. That shouldn't be too hard. How does this sound, for a very basic start?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 8, 2005 14:49:43 GMT -5
Some people once questioned my sticking to the SR hexagonal and triangular maps when people could produce pretty images of a world. It is for this campaign system that I did this. That and the fact that it already harks back to Mighty Empires and other traditional resource management games.
One other thing that should be clear... It should be possible to fight a battle without having to touch the miniatures!
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Jan 8, 2005 16:55:01 GMT -5
Sojurner:
Ah. I see what you mean. Yes, a smaller force could 'win' by doing any of the above, but this victory would then work its way out naturally. If a small force drew a larger one for a campaign turn this could allow reinforcements to arrive, thus making a draw into a victory.
I think this is quite nice, as it shouldn't involve excessive book keeping, given that it will be obvious who is supplied and who is not. One important thing would be to allow an enemy to destroy supply lines from orbit or air. This would force the side with orbital superiority to isolate armies, pretty much at will. I also like the imagery associated with the relief army fighting its way through.
What I have tried to do is to get a simple basis laid down. When we have that done, then we can get on to the more detailed stuff. Believe me, I like detail as much as the next man, but I feel it is important to get a solid base first.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 8, 2005 21:40:03 GMT -5
It is important that we get the basics done first. We start off with level A – The bottom most level of simplicity and work our way up. Everybody including myself has loads of ideas but lets not get too distracted from our main goal here. However saying that we should continue to keep suggesting things, but if everyone thinks its too complex for the basics we should repost it after we have got that sorted out.
Think of it as a resource pool. Nothings fixed, but you draw on it when you need to.
Before the game you draw up the roster for only ONE Battalion, consisting of ether, 500, 1K or 2K worth of points. This is ‘your’ detachment, the mainforce, which you will mainly use during the game. These are the ones which will receive experience for fighting and so forth.
However you also have control over other detachments, but for simplicities sake you do not create a roster for any of these. They are just considered to be moving points, each of the same size of your own detachment. Its only when these markers come into contact with the enemy detachments, is when they mean anything. You can draw up a temporary roster of troops for that battle only, and once its over its not use again. The casualties point value will be deducted from the detachments total point value. So if a detachment, starting value of 1000pts, take 580pts of damage from the value of the units destroyed; 420pts would remain. That would become the point value of that detachment from then on.
Having them as point values mean that when your main detachment is damaged, your troops taken casualties, they can be replace. All you have to do is take away the points from another detachment, using them to ‘buy’ replacement troops. It also means that when you have one of these detachments in that same area as your main force, you can buy reinforcement units to use in the battle in addition to your own troops.
This is why it is done as points rather then having large fixed rosters. It is so much more simplistic. Instead of having to brake up units to fix others, your just managing resources. In my case it’s the fact that their not fixed before hand; so your not spending hours writing down every last unit but doing it as your going along. Its all liquid and malleable rather then set in stone.
The point of this is, of course resource management. A player has to be far more careful on how they use their troops. They cannot just waste them in one huge battle because ultimately it would mean that his force would be severely weakened for the rest of the campaign.
The last advantage this idea has is that point costs are already part of 40K/BFG/Epic; I have not been reinventing the wheel here! Its already apart of the system, its just that I am using it in a new way. Its easier then full campaign rosters but is in effect preforming a very similer function.
Using the above idea, if two none-main detachments cross paths its not always possible to play out that game. That or a player could decide that if he is outnumbered so badly that its not worth the bother to play it. Instead you could roll a D6 or something for every 100pts it has. So for that 580pt detachment, going up against a complete 1K pt enemy detachment, they will have 5D6 and the enemy 10D6. The rolls determine how much damage you do to your opponent. The amountX50 is the amount of hits your score on your enmery. Using this random facter allows are fair chance to even those with weaker detachments since luck may go their way. Even in real battle even when a side is heavily outnumbered they can still pull off a victory; its just that they have less chance of doing so.
How would these be accomplished? How does the dark Elder player capture civilians? How doe the genestealers make sure their signal gets through?
These are the sort of things that need to have guidelines for so that there are way of ending a campaign other then by completely smashing the enemy. I would like it if possible to be done in a way so that their could be some subtlety to the campaign. Instead of going in all guns blazing, you could win by killing the boss of the army after out manovering the enemy. Not that it would work every time, while it might be a good tactic against a Ork Warlord in full Waaargh! Mode, Necrons would not be as easily intimidated.
So perhaps campaign Victory Conditions should be species specific, depending whether they are the attacker or defender?
The idea has merit but how many action points would you get a turn? IS their a set ammount each side has? Is it race dependant? is it player dependant?
I am also worried slighly about these supply lines being rather too much bookkeeping since you say you can outrun them. It was how we got onto the suject of fixed supply lines in the first play and now we have come full circle. I am not saying that the idea should not be used, but we need to think carfully about how it would work practically. I see some poor guy marking down these things on a campaign map showing how far these supply lines extend. With potentailly dozens of units or detactments to mark down for just two players, it could be too complex.
|
|