|
Post by RascalLeader on Nov 22, 2004 19:53:21 GMT -5
It needs to be as simplfied as possible. We don't need to map out everything; just the important points. Even a big gray blob reprisenting cites and small black dots reprisenting small settelments would be good. Then colored lines (green, yellow, red) would connect between them. If your using the pin on the board method temporary supply lines could be something as simple as a bit of string attatched to where each unit is, connected to the closest in this fixed supply line. On the resource management side of this (i.e. the numbers) each location would reprisent a drain or a creation point for a perticuler resource. This would be worked out before hand so theirs some kind of standidied plan to this. The actual values would not make for a very good game if the interfear with the process. Take this example for instance. We start with a farm (or starport) which produces a +5 food. This is transported between two towns, which each take -1 for the people their to eat and then moves onto a town that -3 and thus ends there. Basically these values deside how long the chain is and don't have any impact when troops are being supplied with food from these locations. What I am however trying to explain is that if the enermy captures the farms, two towns and a city will be cut off. If any of yoru troops are taking supplies from any of those locations their basically stuffed untill another sorce 'feeds' them. This can be perticulerly troublesome if another unit of nearby enermies attack them at this point. In the bigger picture of worldmaps and subsectors it would work just the same. Coloured lines and everything. If BFG players cut of one line to a planet any supplies that have been delivered to the planet vanish. I am going to try and start posting some pictures of this; trying to visualise all these ideas must be giving people headaches. I don't know; a sub sector sized area might be quite possible to pull off; but I aggree people will get a point where it is too complex to bother with. However at the moment since we are dealing with the 'off-line' aspect to the problem I don't think mutiple world campaigns going on at once is much off a worry. BFG play that effects the world being forght over is another story however
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Dec 7, 2004 15:45:48 GMT -5
I agree with you about the supply lines. Thats probably the best way to go. However, I think we may need to know more about the intended scale of the campaign before we further develop those ideas.
BFG: I'm just going to brainstorm some ideas about BFG here.
a) BFG ships are already represented in E:A, so we don't need to come up with rules for BFG in E:A.
b) There are no rules for BFG ships in 40K, so we will need to either develop or find rules for BFG in 40K.
c) Effects on supply etc. can be dealt with prior to battle, ie, if one side controls the spaceways around the planet, supply lines will be cut, so no new rules needed there.
The above is just a quick brainstorm and is probably completely wrong:)
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Dec 8, 2004 19:34:23 GMT -5
At the moment its the system we use not the size that is the problem. Unfortunlly knowing the size is helpful when trying to put this together. Chicken and the Egg anyone?
Okay let assume for the moment that it is the lowest number of people; two. They may have each a 1000pt army and navy. At this stage the compelxity is around nill, since they will both be fighting for the same objective.
More then that, they will have to be spilt into the sides they reprisent. So thats about eight or nine sides at most. Then Considering that sister of battle, Imperial Guard and Space marines all come under one banner and it will help.
Essentially you got it spot on, brainstorming is the only way we are going to keep this going for the moment. Consider everything I say as a Brainstorming session.
Their are some sort of rule, mostily about troop landings in the "Plantary assualt' mission. Each time you land a ship on the planet its surpossed to be a detachment or unit.
However being able to bombard units from uphigh might be fun, if a little tricky to impliment (the games would proberbly have to go on at the same time). But I am sure their is a way around this. If the units are in a perticuler area I am sure as long as the ships have superoirty is space it would be fine to do so. It will be like orbital bombardment rolling to see what units are hit but it will only happen to an enermy unit, (or one of your own as well if they are in the same area)
Which bring up another good point for mapping these small Hex zones since we can mark down where the airfields and cannons are. If a ship dives into orbit to attack say a city then you want to bet that it will try to be shot down. This can be done like a normal BFG planet thing (see: 'fighting in low orbit' ), but if they manage to get close enoght to the surface then its goodby city. For this its only a matter of giving the object hit points and deciding how many implacement it has; the rest can be covered in the rules.
Some ideas:
Small city - 1Hits, 0 Turrets, 0 Low orbit defences
Medium City - 3Hits, 2 Turrets, 1 Defence Laser Silo
Large City - 6Hits, 3 Turrets, 3 Laser silos, 1 Missile silo and a Air base
Hive - 8Hits, 6 Turrets, 5 Laser Silos, 2 Missile Silos and an Air base.
Of course we could give a random value for low orbit defences so it gives more verity.
Right. Hopefully we can create something that does not make those things too hard to impliment. However then we need to come up with guildlines on how we set them up; that will take up most of the time. Setting up plantary and sector supplie lines or coming up with the guildlines for that is going to be a task, but If we get some idea about it, it might not be that hard.
I am still having problems with photobucket so posting the pics will have to wait. I have already drawn a rough Idea of one of the maps it reminds me alot of the old Armageddon campaign map.
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Dec 10, 2004 1:34:45 GMT -5
I think this is the wrong way do work out defences. I don't think the size is important as much as the morale of the inhabitants and whether or not the city has a space port. I think that the Hits should be worked out on the basis of the Values of the population and the actual size of the city. Active defences should come from the tech level, whether or not the city is the capital and if there is a spaceport. I would strongly reccomend that you read the E:A rules on spacecraft before going on. They are very well thought out and can be obtained, for free, here: www.specialist-games.com/epic/default.aspLook in the resources section.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 1, 2005 18:57:03 GMT -5
Just to remind people that I would think that this is a very important topic to get moving forwards... Please do not take a lack of input from elsewhere as a condemnation of its usefulness. In many ways getting a 'campaign' system up which relates all the various game resolutions together is massively important!
Kage
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 6, 2005 21:17:48 GMT -5
Okay you heard Kage, get to it! ;D As he has said resently in the General Discussion, Chat and Comments forum, he want us to get this little part of the project progressing. Hopefully the decussion will attract more attention here so that is possible. [glow=red,2,300] For those who are now dropping by here is the areas we are focusing on, so you don't have to read 3 pages of information to get up to date. 1. Deciding the how to link the point costs of units along with VP In needing to link the games the problem of point cost between the various system, will cause some problems. 2. Deciding how to cross link the game mechanics At the moment we are dicussing how an orbital bombardment would work, mixing BFG and Epic or 40K. Deciding how for instance a titan weapon would work in 40K or BFG is the sort of thing we need to atleast discuss even if its not used. 3. The Map/Resource System Read below and above for more details. 4. Guidelines for setting up and running the campaign Something that we have not hit on yet but it will come once we have a better idea about the rest. However if anyone has any other ideas please post your comments! [/glow] I have started to read up on E:A rules, but I am not sure the will full suffice in this case. From what I remember in the files you said about their was no way to shoot at the spacecraft. But that sort of thing is more the area of BFG rules. Which I was going from at the time; not taking into acount Epic (since its not my area). How they intermix in this area is quite important to decide on. At the moment we are just going to have three sections of defences; ground, air and space. The first is Epic and 40K level and the latter is BFG. You contradicted yourself here, in the first sentance you said about the hits not comming from the size of the city and then you state population determins the size. So I don't even know which side I should be arguing for now since; since ether way I'll be agreeing with you Population should determin size - I agree with this ;D Moral infuenceing it - Not so sure, I am hesitant to add even more complexity to the campaign system by adding a moral system for the inhabitance. Unless you have some ideas about it I can't see how it would be usful. Active defences determed by tech level - Excellent, we can Invove the UWPs of the world in creating the campaign maps. I bow to you. Its a self quote but I have finally gotten it all working! These are my representations on how the map based system COULD work, but at the moment consider it a work in progress. Its far from an ideal solution but it’s a starting point. img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/RascalLeader/Campaign%20System/Planet.jpgThis one shows the basic lay out of how it could work. Its missing a grid (since those are impossible to draw in paint) but you get the idea. The numbers represent the values of all the different resources we have so far discussed. However I have had to change the colours for visual reasons. Green= Food Red= Medical Blue= Weaponry The yellow lines show how the are all connected together but that pretty obvious, no? Although I would rather not used numerical values in the actual campaign, for the moment it is essentials to get the ball rolling. I am sure we will think of a way around it img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/RascalLeader/Campaign%20System/HexMapGameExample.jpgThis Picture Shows how things can change from the initial set up. The Orks have gain control of most of the major supply routes with only Farm1 and City1 under control of the Imperium. The blue line is meant to represent a temporary supply route (where the units it getting its food or whatever from) Another aspect to what to see is that the Imperium control the farm, so despite the Orks having most of the supply line they are going to have will city2 and Town1 since not enough food is being supplied to them. Any troop stationed there would starve if this situation continued. Comments Please!
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 7, 2005 0:27:50 GMT -5
I was asked for the URL of the original discussion on this matter on Portent. It might not be the one that I remember, but it is all that I can find at this late hour. Anyway, it can be found here. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 7, 2005 6:58:42 GMT -5
One thing I'm not keen on is representing movement with 'lines'. While this is useful as an abstract it can be come horribly frustrating when you can't make a move that seems obvious. Therefore I think using the hex system we have for the world maps, or something similar, is the way forward.
Secondly, we need to consider army sizes. How many troops are you going to need to control a hex? A lot. In the region of the current US deployment in Iraq, I would have thought, per hex, to actually count as having an 'army' there. Now considering that the Imperium likes to do things with manpower tending upwards, we're probably going to have a few more than that. This is quite a bit bigger than an epic army. The Battle of Fallujah would be a massive epic game. Therefore epic games will have to be representative. Some sort of system for extending the battle result to the entire army is required.
Having a roster of all the units of a planetary army is going to be a huge headache. Splitting armies by Battallion seems to be the way to go. Perhaps when armies meet, players could choose which battallion from the army faces the enemy's, and pick units based on the battallion type, for example, infantry battallions pick up to x units of infantry, y units of armour, z units of support and so on. Different army types would obviously have different battallion compositions - a Protean battallion could pick more heavy weapons and tanks than a Massillean, say.
Resources: As I see it, fuel, rations and water. Each battallion has a characteristic fuel, rations and water requirement. Heavy on manpower will require a lot of food and water. Heavy on vehicles will require a lot of fuel. Once captured, a hex can be upgraded to include a supply line. As long as all armies can follow a supply line back to a port, city, landing zone or whatever, they will have no supply problems and act normally. If they outrun their supplies, the supply line is broken, or supplies run low at the source, they suffer penalties. Going several turns without supplies will slow an army down and eventually halt it, while suffering leadership penalties. Eventually they will start to die.
Space: Every space unit the player owns should be required to fight a space battle every turn - there's nowhere to hide. One can choose to evade or engage, of course, particularly with transports you should always evade and concentrate on using them for supply and reinforcement. Perhaps generate an 'order of march' every turn for the fleet, those lowest down get to evade first and will be safe, while the opposing player can 'catch' more of your ships the more he chooses commit himself. Likewise, warships that evade may be allowed to harass the enemy's transports, free from battle duties. Overall, the low orbit region should be highly destructive and evolve rapidly into having a winner and a loser.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 8:38:56 GMT -5
Orbital bombardement... As has been mentioned, orbital bombardement can be played out using the official rules with 40k. I don't know about epic. You don't want to make the orbital bombardement too powerful though. I think that on any map, there should be some orbital defences that prevent the use of orbital bombardement. But that's me- I like special artefacts on my map. The thing about 40k is that there is so high technology that it's really hard to explain why they do war the way they do. I guess the only way of explaining the extremely weak orbital bombardement, is the fear of hitting one's own troops. Of course, for a ship that can hit a 300 meter target that is thousands of kilometers away, through gas clouds and explosions and debris, that shouldn't really be an issue Another thing; in the fluff, it seems clear that enemies such as orks or chaos forces only rarely prefer to bombard their enemy. Instead, they tend to take Imperial worlds through ground-based invasion. This would suggest that these enemies are typically more interested in taking over these worlds for their empire, rather than destroying them. Thus, letting your fleet in orbit turn the capital of this world into a smouldering crater might not be realistic, since the aliens are trying to take over this world. In a long-term war, the enemies must count on running these worlds as part of their empire if they are going to have a chance to keep them. This can be seen in the Sabbat Crusade, when Chaos forces really took over many Imperial worlds and had the populations work for them. On food... Since we're dealing with potentially a lot of different armies with different types of food, from Ork mushrooms to Kroot bird seeds, I don't think there's much sense in having farms produce food for the army. Most armies will want to bring their own food, I think. They don't really have time to go out in the field, get wheat, grind it and bake some bread. And the local population has probably been evacuated, if they know what's good for them. Instead of food and ammunition and medical supplies, you could have special landing zones on the map, and then only let the players go so far away from the nearest landing zone before the supply lines collapse. For example, you could have an airport with a Supply Range of 3 territories, or an Orbital dock with a Supply Range of 5 territories, etc. But I guess that would only be appropriate on a very large scale. If your supply lines are cut off, then the results could be various penalties, as Sojourner suggests, and not letting the player launch any attacks from the cut-off territories. On size of the campaign grounds... Fighting over a whole subsector is a war that could take years of bitter combat in 40k, and might take that long to resolve in the real world as well. In the 40k rulebook, they give some tips on running campaigns, and one of them is to make sure they're not too long, because then it becomes boring. When the same world has shifted hands more than ten times, you start to get fed up. Thus, a subsector war is not appropriate unless you have a lot of participants and two strong teams, so you can play battles very often. Incorporating SR information... I think it was an awesome idea to let Tech Level decide the effectiveness of local defences. But why stop there? The Tech Level might determine the effectiveness of local transportation. The atmospheric composition, gravity and temperature might determine the speed and range of your troops. You're not going to make a regiment of Valhallans march 100 kilometers a day in a scorched desert Drawing the maps... I agree with Sojourner; I don't like the lines at all. At the same time, a hex system might be kind of inflexible, not to mention ugly What I suggest is a system similar to that of Risk. For those who are unfamiliar with this legendary boardgame, continents are divided into territories, which look a lot like countries. It works a lot like a hex system, except the hexes are replaced by territories of various shapes and sizes. You then assign each territory certain values, such as defensive bonuses, supply range, or special rules. This way gives us pretty maps, realistic looking, and they make more sense than the lines, because the borders are based on features such as rivers, mountains, defensive walls, city borders, etc. It's not as pure and mathematical as a hex system, but campaigns aren't supposed to be 100% fair anyway, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 8:59:53 GMT -5
Of course, the most important part is figuring out how we deal with units. Do you have huge rosters that involve all the fighting units in the campaign? For that to be fair, of course, you'd have to use point values. 1000 Space Marines does not equal 1000 Chaos cultists. So what do you do when each side has a thousand troops or more? Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands..?
I say drop the complete rosters. That makes the most sense on any scale except when we're talking less than a couple of hundred warriors on both sides. But then, we simply can't make a perfect campaign system that will fit any situation in the world with the perfect amount of detail, I think. Let's not get in over our heads. [The only exception would be BFG, because there are always extremely limited resources there.]
In any given battle on the ground, both players can bring whatever units they'd like from their armylists. Of course, we should keep the experience rules from the 40k rulebook, to let players use some veteran warriors from time to time. After each battle, the players could keep track of the units that survived and give them extra experience and skills according to the rules. The units keep this experience untill it is wiped out, in which case you start from scratch.
So how do you keep track of which troops are where? Well, you don't. You assume that each territory is well-guarded with lots of soldiers inside. Whether you're resolving an attack using the 40k system, Epic, or even 40k Kill-Team, doesn't really matter. Even a huge assault on a hive can be played with a 1000 point game of 40k, if you want. This just represents that the whole battle is balancing on a knife's edge, and depending on a tiny skirmish in the middle of it all. While Titans are clashing, artilleries are pounding and oceans of infantry are charging into the fray, the whole battle can depend on just a small team of specialists.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 7, 2005 9:01:43 GMT -5
When I talked about lines, the idea was supposed to be extended to 'territories' as well, as they're basically the same thing - they restrict you to moving in a small number of different ways.
Supplies: good point about food, but it could be that different factions have different requirements gamewise. While humans can get food from the planet's own stocks, kroot, tau and so on might not, while Orks might not need any at all; they forage from the ground around them, corpses, squigs and so on. Necrons of course don't eat, and space marines can go for some time without sustenance.
I would agree on supplies being based around orbital landings, though. That's why I think ports should be the main supply bases.
Engineering contingents: I'm thinking of whether armies should be able to bring special engineering units with them to repair roads and cities, clear debris, and build fortifications, or whether all this should be automatic. The issue is, does this mechanic present a tactical challenge or a chore? Is there any reason why any army would not always bring one? If not, it might as well be automatic. Conversely though, it may be hard to see how an ordinary army would be capable of doing such things.
Movement: Naturally formations with vehicles should be able to move faster, but by how much? If you set a footslogging army to be able to move one hex per turn, surely this makes them move too fast, a hex representing as it does many, many miles. Perhaps slow moving formations should take multiple turns to make a single move? We could say that assaulting a foot formation while it's moving might put them under some sort of penalty.
Victory conditions: as we'll inevitably have armies of different sizes fighting, the victory conditions must be modified to represent this. We'll have to come up with a whole range of different battle scenarios. You can't expect a force to drive away an army five times its size but you might reasonably have them hold out for a certain number of turns without breaking entirely, and that be a victory. Perhaps in this case you'd fight another pitched battle directly after during which the winners of the last assault have an advantage.
40K as a system: I think 40K is too small-scale to represent straight battles. What it would be useful for is 'special ops' missions, or small scale battles where a small contingent strikes unexpectedly against a vulnerable target. This scale of battle is particularly suited to space marines, who should IMO be given a whole heap of special abilities in special ops missions. One could deploy space marines in special ops to eliminate enemy commanders and cripple an army, but if you choose to commit space marines to a large engagement and lose, you cripple the space marines.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 9:50:39 GMT -5
Supplies: good point about food, but it could be that different factions have different requirements gamewise. While humans can get food from the planet's own stocks, kroot, tau and so on might not, while Orks might not need any at all; they forage from the ground around them, corpses, squigs and so on. Necrons of course don't eat, and space marines can go for some time without sustenance. That's why I prefer to just use the broad term 'supplies', so we don't have to spend time thinking about different fuels, different foods, different ammo needs, etc. At a later stage, I'll leave it to someone to make especially detailed rules for this, if they prefer. But then, spaceports are very rare. On some worlds, you only have one space port per continent. And it depends on the scale, really. A supply base could be anything from a naval dock to a spaceport. It could even be a large field, big enough for dropships to land. And then, the quality of the supply base determines the Supply Range. I'd say this should be done automatically. Managing a campaign takes long enough without worrying about engineering. But then you're assuming that we're operating by having a complete roster of all forces involved, and that the units move around independently. I could move an armoured company in one direction, an infantry regiment in the other, and send my artillery in a third direction. All this takes a hell of a lot of administration. Time and hard work. Again, I suggest we skip this. Realism is good, but there's a reason why being a general is a full-time job This is also made on the assumption that we're dealing with a set number of troops on either side. Again, it means a lot of administration, and a lot more trouble with setting up the campaign. From the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, page 236. "'Rolling Campaigns' are a way of representing the 'bigger picture' of just what a game of Warhammer 40,000 is portraying. It would be a mistake to assume that the two armies fighting it out across the table are the only forces in the area, that an immortal star-god is taking out time from slaying worlds to lead a small patrol. In general, a game of Warhammer 40,000 represents the focus and culmination of a far larger battle. Imagine, if you will, that the armies' lines extend as far as the eye can see in either direction, and that there are many thousands of reinforcements waiting to take the places of those who should fall in this one battle."I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Rick Priestley and Andy Chambers on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 7, 2005 11:34:13 GMT -5
With regards to 40k, that's what epic is for. I'd use epic in preference to 40k with the scale of battles we're talking about, 40k is just too small in scope to have any meaning. Looking at it another way, the result of a 40k battle doesn't necessarily bear any resemblance to the result of a major engagement; a 40k army could be utterly annihilated but their side still win the battle, whereas the trend of the goings-on in a large epic game are more representative of the full scale action.
As for ports, I'm taking that to include landing zones, so I'm agreeing with you there. Landing zones would still need some preparation, personnel to unload the stuff and suchlike, so a landing zone is still a de facto established structure.
My comments on army formations work exclusively on my previous ideas about battallion level organisation. Naturally armies should be able to split and merge and change units about at will; you could leave behind the heavy artillery that's slowing down your elite tank formations or whatever; conversely if you keep pace with your infantry support your progress will be reduced to a crawl.
Think of battallions as being individual stands in an epic formation, with the formations representing the army markers on the campaign map. An infantry battallion would have a small number of characteristics dependent on its major troop type; i.e. which world it's from. It would also have an experience rating and a Combat Fatigue counter; when the counter goes too high you start to suffer seriously when you commit that battallion to battle.
Most importantly, from your armies, you choose which battallion you commit to any given battle and you can only commit one during deployment. Your reserves come from your other battallions, but the battallion in your army marker is the parent formation of your army on the table. It's assumed that the army's other battallions square up against the enemy elsewhere but at the same time, and the result of the battle you take command of decides the engagement for the whole army.
Army composition is significant on the strategic level. If you need to send reinforcements to distant locations on the campaign map, they must be mechanised or they'll never reach it. However, this will put great pressure on your fuel supply lines and will draw a powerful contingent of your forces away from the area you're moving them from. Committing an armour-heavy army marker to battle will result in you fighting a major tank battle with the enemy, which in a straight scenario should be easy, but you'll be expected to utterly thrash your opponent for it to be deemed a success.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 14:50:10 GMT -5
Great. Now, we can either keep talking past eachother, or we can try to resolve whether or not we want a game with limited military resources (i.e. campaign rosters)
I don't know how we should decide, but I guess the best way is just to present our arguments and see what the majority thinks.
1) Not having a full campaign roster that includes all the troops involved in the campaign saves you a lot of time. I know some of you here think 'the more details and realism, the better', but I think you should be aware that everyone is not like that. In fact, my impression is that most people prefer a sleek and dynamic campaign system over a complex and slow design. It puts the focus on the battles, so you don't spend hours administrating between each battle.
If we do work with full campaign rosters, then we're going to have to design a whole system for that. Obviously, an Imperial Guard battallion is not as powerful as a 'Necron battallion' or whatever.
2) What has been said before - and what I think is important when dealing with all aspects of the campaign, from supplies to mission generation - is that we should first design a simple and dynamic system. If this works, then we can add details later. You can make modules of rules. In Module A, there are rules for dividing Supplies into Food, Fuel, Ammo and Medical supplies. In Module B, there are rules for using Campaign Rosters. Etc.
I think this is important in order to create a campaign system that fits as many people as possible. I know that if the majority here (Sojourner, RascalLeader, KeirLeslie, Kage) prefer a very detailed system with a great deal of work required between battles, then I'm not going to be using this system, personally.
3) The optimal situation might be to use Kill-Team to resolve tiny conflicts, 40k in 40 minutes to resolve small conflicts, normal 40k to resolve medium skirmishes and Epic to resolve large battles. But, again, we have to consider that a lot of people don't play Epic. In fact, I'd bet the Epic players are outnumbered by 40k players that don't play Epic.
We should be concerned with creating a system that can be used by anyone, whether they have just started playing and have a 500 point Space Marine army, or 3000+ point 40k, Epic and BFG armies. Another thing to consider, is that a lot of campaigns will be played out by more than two participants. Trying to find 6+ people that all play both 40k and Epic and have sizeable armies can be difficult, I think.
So, if both players have big Epic armies, then they should have the option of playing out an attack against the capital hive with a suitable epic force. But if one of the players just has 1000 points worth of Marines, then that shouldn't stop him from participating.
Bottom-line: compatibility.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 7, 2005 17:24:08 GMT -5
The lines were nothing to do with troop movement; they were marking supply lines. Movement over terratory would be done with hexs but I could not draw them for the pictures. 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. However with the maps you posted the problem of movement becomes apparent. Having Hexs at least their is some sort of ristriction on that, limiting moves to 1 Hex per turn or something like that. I have come up with a way to get around the campaign rosters; insperation struck me last night. In 40k these battallions should always equil 1000pts, much the same as creating any army list. However instead of working out several lists worth of armies, you only do one. However when using them to backup your main force you use the point value of the battalion to 'buy' the troops. Which makes it much easier to 'replace' any destroyed units within your force. Fine. In its basic form the campaign system would just have 'supplies' and in the complex version it would have different types of supplies each having their own effects. By itself what effect would a lack of 'Supplies' have? when bundling them all together what would it do? Like you have said I would like a system that would work on many levels, ranging from simplistic to complex. While I would use the complex end most of the time; it is not always possible due to time, so having a more simplitic back up is great. Need to be considered, since for a campaign it would not be the same as the battles. Winning does not always come from eleminating all enermies within in your terratory, sometimes it comes from taking out the forces commander, or by cornering the enermy and starving them out. What would be some good Victory conditions for the campaigns?
|
|