|
Post by Kage2020 on Mar 12, 2005 17:17:49 GMT -5
Again, I'm keeping track of this but my limited modern experience in the wargame means that my input is still limited... As is the lack of access to current wargame material, which means that I cannot even "play it out" with numbers rather than wargames.
Has anyone tried this, though? Have you tried a purely numbers 'test' of the system?
Kage
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Mar 26, 2005 10:20:07 GMT -5
I have, which is why I am thinking of doing a retuning of my autobattle rules . At the moment (apart from everything else I do) I have been trying to address the problem concerning using standard missions within a campaign. If have found out that they don't actually co-exist well with the idea of campaigns. Basically deciding which missions are applicable for certain situations during the campaign. For instance you want to capture a bit of territory on the campaign map in 40K? Cleanse/Take and hold are fine but Brakeout? The same goes for Epic and BFG. I am thinking of creating guildines for applicable missions. However I have found that some missions simply become errelevent because of this.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Mar 29, 2005 4:00:30 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Auto Battle[/shadow]
I have updated my Auto battle idea due to the fact that it was an unintuitive system and needed simplifying for its own good. CELS, I hope you don’t mind but I took some inspiration from your own take on it to solve this problem.
Now its: 1) For every 100pts in the army you get one D6 2) For every veteran UNIT within an army you get an Extra D6 3) On a roll of +4 you score 100pts of damage 4) The side that caused the most damage wins
While I am still using the point based idea for autobattle hopefully this makes it much simpler. Also it mimics CELs alpha level version so it rather smoothly just becomes an extension of that idea. It makes it seem all part of the same thing. This upside of this system can also be used by BFG players, since the fleets are based on points values as well.
[shadow=red,left,300]Campaign Objectives[/shadow]
I have also been playing around with campaign objectives and missions but its too incoherent to post it all at the moment; here is a little taster;
-Definitions- Attacker: The attacker of the planet Defender: The side that owns the planet
Destroy Objectives: The attacker or defender must destroy objectives in each of the marked territories in sabotage missions to win the campaign. The defender must hold out for a pre-agreed number of turns. Set-up: Roll a D6 to generate the number of territories that need to be destroyed in order to win the game. Each player gets to place them one at a time wherever they want on the map.
Raid Objectives: 50-100% (decided before the start) of the supply depots on the map must have been held by the attacker for one campaign turn. However they do not have to be held for the rest of the game. The defender has to hold out for a pre-agreed number of turns
Conquer Objectives: The attacking player must take 50-100% (Decided before the start) of the total map area away from their opponent. The defender has to hold out for a pre-agreed number of turns
It does not give much varation at the moment but its a begining, also I have stripped things down to what I see is the three most basic objectives.
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Mar 30, 2005 12:31:02 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Auto Battle[/shadow] I have updated my Auto battle idea due to the fact that it was an unintuitive system and needed simplifying for its own good. CELS, I hope you don’t mind but I took some inspiration from your own take on it to solve this problem. Don't mind at all! The idea is to take the merits from both our suggestions Fantastic. Except that I still don't think it works on large scales Unless, of course, a detachment of 1000 points can represent a larger force (a division, an army) and a small 40k skirmish can represent a large battle. BFG is the hard part. I must admit, I haven't been able to think of an alternative for the 'alpha' version. The hardest part though, is to find a good system for BFG campaign taking place in a single system, or over a single planet. After all, there's not a lot of places to hide when your enemy can attack you from 10,000 kilometers away The question is, how do you make the BFG part something more than just a single battle that pretty much defines the rest of the campaign. It's going to be a pretty tense game if it has a great impact on, say, a campaign with 20-30 games of 40k/Epic. Fair enough for the scenarios you posted, but there would be scenarios where this is not appropriate. Where there could be several attackers, for example, or several defenders, or no defenders. Hmph... I'd rather let the number of turns depend on the scenario. Interesting, although one has to wonder about the plausibility in relation to military strategy. Fair enough Well... how about... - Evacuation - Capture the flag - Last man standing (multi-player games, perfect for diplomacy and roleplaying)
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Apr 1, 2005 20:14:54 GMT -5
I do know what you mean; once you get into five detachments of 1000pts each its 50D6; that could be somewhat of a problem. The only idea I can think of is that you would have to roll for each detachment seperatatly and add them together.
You should fight over regions of the solar system to make it easier to orginise. Okay the major obejctive would be to hold the main planet of the system (the campaign planet) but it would not stop fighting over any of the other planets in the system. Considering their might be space/refueling/Rearming stations within the system holding those sorts of things could also be important.
Also its likily that the main world is going to have some orbital/sub orbital defences; the agressor may chose to hold back in another region untill their forces on the ground need back up or to evaquate. And if they sit back and bide their time the defender may take it upon himself to hunt down the intruder before they do any damage.
A 'tank rush' is quite possible dispite this, and in that sort of ingagement, early into the campaign, will likely seal the victor. However the smart player won't always opt for this and will spilt their force into different elements.
Its much like what would happen if on the ground map one player gathers all their forces into one area; they might have a massive advatage, but in the end all the other players little detachments can outrun the solo force.
I know. It pains me the fact that I could not come up with any other terms apart from 'attacker' and 'defender' after several days of trying. Making it absolutely simple as possible, anyside (including mutiple sides that might not get along with each other) are attackers if they are not allied to the defeding player. If two sides are going against each other on a planet that nether own then their both just attackers.
I wanted people to set it themselves because they may not want to play a long campaign. Its always slightly bothersome if the scenario tells you to go on for 50 turns when you get bored around 25. When you leave it to them not only does it allow players curcomestances to be considered but makes each game unquie to itselve.
Plus until its all actully tested I am not sure I could come up with a good recomandation is for length.
Orks pirates or Dark Elder may want to steal food, weapons and other material instead of just taking the whole planet. Its the old saying about fleesing the sheep instead of killing it.
Evacuation - yes, I can see the potential in that. The only thing is that it can be more sutaible as an 'ending' to the above campaign objectives rather then a senerio of very limited scope. Implimenting it is also diffiucult. I assume your evaquating your troops only, not civs? Getting your troops back to a perticuler point in the map, fighting their way through enemy areas would be quite fun. If its civilians your evacuating then its a lot more tricky. We would have to come up with a way of showing how they are moving about and what would happen if the oppoinant blocked their path.
Capture the flag - As I said I stripped things down to their most basic. For me capturing the 'flag' (or city) would come under conquer (or destroy). It would need a different way of working to be added as another option; at least in alpha level.
Last man standing - this can be applied to any of these instead of having a decided upon number of turns. Obviously if they have killed off all their opponants then they have won since their the only one left who can do anything. Theirs is not really a specific objective that they have to complete.
|
|