Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Players are much tougher than standard enemy units.

7 (53.8%)

Introduce a Fatigue system.

1 (7.7%)

Options 1+2

5 (38.5%)

No Change

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[kj1225]

However, a Japanese scenario with Samurai would make incredible amounts of sense for this game.

Like, seriously, it's ridiculous; Last Stand, individual fighting, elite warriors? Yes, yes, and yes. Plus all of the different weapons they had, although there wouldn't be TOO many classes, I think.

I was thinking of doing a Feudal Japan Scenario, and classes wouldn't be just limited to Samurai, as the different variant of warriors, like Ashigaru and Ninja, would help increase diversity. The main problem is that I like the Scenario to be between two differently armed forces, as to keep things interesting with different kinds of fighters clashing and different weapons present on both sides. Who else would a Feudal Japanese army battle than another Japanese army? Were there ever invaders during this period?

The mongols invaded. They teach that in middle school history.

[TCM]

However, a Japanese scenario with Samurai would make incredible amounts of sense for this game.

Like, seriously, it's ridiculous; Last Stand, individual fighting, elite warriors? Yes, yes, and yes. Plus all of the different weapons they had, although there wouldn't be TOO many classes, I think.

I was thinking of doing a Feudal Japan Scenario, and classes wouldn't be just limited to Samurai, as the different variant of warriors, like Ashigaru and Ninja, would help increase diversity. The main problem is that I like the Scenario to be between two differently armed forces, as to keep things interesting with different kinds of fighters clashing and different weapons present on both sides. Who else would a Feudal Japanese army battle than another Japanese army? Were there ever invaders during this period?

The mongols invaded. They teach that in middle school history.

My Middle School History course consisted of learning that people were crazy motherfuckers and then White Jesus appeared and fixed everything and then everyone was happy. The Mongol invasions of Japan are not standard curriculum where I'm from, so you might want to check up on that before making a generalization on the "Wonderful" American Education System.

[kj1225]

However, a Japanese scenario with Samurai would make incredible amounts of sense for this game.

Like, seriously, it's ridiculous; Last Stand, individual fighting, elite warriors? Yes, yes, and yes. Plus all of the different weapons they had, although there wouldn't be TOO many classes, I think.

I was thinking of doing a Feudal Japan Scenario, and classes wouldn't be just limited to Samurai, as the different variant of warriors, like Ashigaru and Ninja, would help increase diversity. The main problem is that I like the Scenario to be between two differently armed forces, as to keep things interesting with different kinds of fighters clashing and different weapons present on both sides. Who else would a Feudal Japanese army battle than another Japanese army? Were there ever invaders during this period?

The mongols invaded. They teach that in middle school history.

My Middle School History course consisted of learning that people were crazy motherfuckers and then White Jesus appeared and fixed everything and then everyone was happy. The Mongol invasions of Japan are not standard curriculum where I'm from, so you might want to check up on that before making a generalization on the "Wonderful" American Education System.

Sorry.

[Rolepgeek]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of the mongol invasions, especially since they never really got anywhere...you know, hurricanes and all that.

[TCM]

Sorry.

Nah, it's cool, just trying to be informative of what is actually taught, as apparently my schooling never delved that deeply into history. I spent about, oh I don't know, about 5 school-months of history class learning about all of Asia in my entire life.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The dull Legionary is a necessary evil for this scenario, you can't exclude him given his importance in the Roman military...

Wait, are the PCs the only Roman soldiers?

I think for the ancient scenarios group classes should be the norm. Most ancient styles of fighting were about sticking a bunch of guys in a line and having them use weapons built for that.

Wasn't that mostly SOP for militaries up through the World Wars?

Who else would a Feudal Japanese army battle than another Japanese army?

Mongols?

My Middle School History course consisted of learning that people were crazy motherfuckers and then White Jesus appeared and fixed everything and then everyone was happy. The Mongol invasions of Japan are not standard curriculum where I'm from, so you might want to check up on that before making a generalization on the "Wonderful" American Education System.

Seriously?

Why am I asking so many questions?

[TCM]

The dull Legionary is a necessary evil for this scenario, you can't exclude him given his importance in the Roman military...

Wait, are the PCs the only Roman soldiers?

Technically yes. I was going to hold my tongue on this, but it's not really a spoiler anyways, seeing as y'all will find this out within the first turn: A few of the Barbarians, being ex-mercenaries for Rome, have been trained and learned some Roman styles of fighting and even procured Roman arms. Thus, among the typical barbarians, a few of them will have abilities and items exactly like certain of the Player Classes.

[zacen299]

I think for the ancient scenarios group classes should be the norm. Most ancient styles of fighting were about sticking a bunch of guys in a line and having them use weapons built for that. The only real exceptions were mainly horse archers and some barbarian tribes, and both of them specialized in breaking (and or harassing) lines. Pike and spearmen in particular need more than one person to make sense if you know how you're supposed to fight with a pike or spear or heck even a halberd.

Perhaps so, though this game always takes place in a situation where well defined and organized lines explicitly can not be made. If you have enough men in an army to form a solid line to appropriately stop opposing armies from advancing, you haven't reached Last Stand-level of hopelessness. If there are any large formations left in Rome, there all off defending the more vital parts of the Empire, rather than this normal small town that this game is occupied in. Group Units are cool, but they'd be better suited in another game, particularly one that emphasizes grand strategy rather than the remnants of a broken army futility trying to protect their homeland from overwhelming forces.

Sorry this took so long I got busy yesterday. But I find out of all the groups that we can play the Romans are most screwed if they fight alone. There are records of more than one battle where the troops got separated (conveniently against various groups of barbarians) and were pretty much slaughtered to the last man within five or so minutes due to the fact that while barbarians know how to fight on their own Romans never learned how to. Their entire battle style is stand next to people and stab from behind your shield until there are no more people. Honestly it would make more sense if we were the barbarians fighting the massive Roman army. They're better fit to attack us with wave after wave of unending troops while the barbarians are built to have a few guys fighting on their own against larger forces. And yes I am aware barbarians versus Romans is a choice. I just didn't think about how ridiculous single Romans fighting would be.

[Remuthra]

I think for the ancient scenarios group classes should be the norm. Most ancient styles of fighting were about sticking a bunch of guys in a line and having them use weapons built for that. The only real exceptions were mainly horse archers and some barbarian tribes, and both of them specialized in breaking (and or harassing) lines. Pike and spearmen in particular need more than one person to make sense if you know how you're supposed to fight with a pike or spear or heck even a halberd.

Perhaps so, though this game always takes place in a situation where well defined and organized lines explicitly can not be made. If you have enough men in an army to form a solid line to appropriately stop opposing armies from advancing, you haven't reached Last Stand-level of hopelessness. If there are any large formations left in Rome, there all off defending the more vital parts of the Empire, rather than this normal small town that this game is occupied in. Group Units are cool, but they'd be better suited in another game, particularly one that emphasizes grand strategy rather than the remnants of a broken army futility trying to protect their homeland from overwhelming forces.

Sorry this took so long I got busy yesterday. But I find out of all the groups that we can play the Romans are most screwed if they fight alone. There are records of more than one battle where the troops got separated (conveniently against various groups of barbarians) and were pretty much slaughtered to the last man within five or so minutes due to the fact that while barbarians know how to fight on their own Romans never learned how to. Their entire battle style is stand next to people and stab from behind your shield until there are no more people. Honestly it would make more sense if we were the barbarians fighting the massive Roman army. They're better fit to attack us with wave after wave of unending troops while the barbarians are built to have a few guys fighting on their own against larger forces. And yes I am aware barbarians versus Romans is a choice. I just didn't think about how ridiculous single Romans fighting would be.

That was the second scenario, actually.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I find out of all the groups that we can play the Romans are most screwed if they fight alone. There are records of more than one battle where the troops got separated (conveniently against various groups of barbarians) and were pretty much slaughtered to the last man within five or so minutes due to the fact that while barbarians know how to fight on their own Romans never learned how to. Their entire battle style is stand next to people and stab from behind your shield until there are no more people. Honestly it would make more sense if we were the barbarians fighting the massive Roman army. They're better fit to attack us with wave after wave of unending troops while the barbarians are built to have a few guys fighting on their own against larger forces. And yes I am aware barbarians versus Romans is a choice. I just didn't think about how ridiculous single Romans fighting would be.

I'd say more "pathetic" than "ridiculous," but yeah. Roman military doctrine works a lot better when they aren't outnumbered.

[zacen299]

I find out of all the groups that we can play the Romans are most screwed if they fight alone. There are records of more than one battle where the troops got separated (conveniently against various groups of barbarians) and were pretty much slaughtered to the last man within five or so minutes due to the fact that while barbarians know how to fight on their own Romans never learned how to. Their entire battle style is stand next to people and stab from behind your shield until there are no more people. Honestly it would make more sense if we were the barbarians fighting the massive Roman army. They're better fit to attack us with wave after wave of unending troops while the barbarians are built to have a few guys fighting on their own against larger forces. And yes I am aware barbarians versus Romans is a choice. I just didn't think about how ridiculous single Romans fighting would be.

I'd say more "pathetic" than "ridiculous," but yeah. Roman military doctrine works a lot better when they aren't outnumbered.

It gets even worse when you realize Romans weren't trained to do anything but that and march. Sure it worked great in most situations but the moment anything went wrong their soldiers had no idea what to do anymore and things went to shit. Also Remuthra I am aware it was the second choice that's why I said that at the end it was the more the fact that I didn't think about how ridiculous Romans fighting alone would be. Actually if I really really wanted to pick anything apart it's that the Legionary uses a sword as his main weapon. The Legionaries like pretty much every one else in the Roman military only used their swords for their emergency weapon. If I remember correctly most Legionnaires actually carried two spears (no I don't remember which type off the top of my head) and only if they threw or broke those two did they even begin to use their sword. Moral of the story is that swords were very rarely used seriously as a weapon in full war. 1 on 1 they're great. The moment you get more people though spears and the like and bows become the most useful weapons. Well that and heavy cavalry but at the time of the Romans nobody had heavy cavalry, and yes I'm aware I got very off topic it's something I do. Also for the record I am aware how pedantic this whole complaint is.

[Remuthra]

I find out of all the groups that we can play the Romans are most screwed if they fight alone. There are records of more than one battle where the troops got separated (conveniently against various groups of barbarians) and were pretty much slaughtered to the last man within five or so minutes due to the fact that while barbarians know how to fight on their own Romans never learned how to. Their entire battle style is stand next to people and stab from behind your shield until there are no more people. Honestly it would make more sense if we were the barbarians fighting the massive Roman army. They're better fit to attack us with wave after wave of unending troops while the barbarians are built to have a few guys fighting on their own against larger forces. And yes I am aware barbarians versus Romans is a choice. I just didn't think about how ridiculous single Romans fighting would be.

I'd say more "pathetic" than "ridiculous," but yeah. Roman military doctrine works a lot better when they aren't outnumbered.

Well that and heavy cavalry but at the time of the Romans nobody had heavy cavalry, and yes I'm aware I got very off topic it's something I do. Also for the record I am aware how pedantic this whole complaint is.

Well, not really in the Roman army, but you had Cataphracts .

[zacen299]

I find out of all the groups that we can play the Romans are most screwed if they fight alone. There are records of more than one battle where the troops got separated (conveniently against various groups of barbarians) and were pretty much slaughtered to the last man within five or so minutes due to the fact that while barbarians know how to fight on their own Romans never learned how to. Their entire battle style is stand next to people and stab from behind your shield until there are no more people. Honestly it would make more sense if we were the barbarians fighting the massive Roman army. They're better fit to attack us with wave after wave of unending troops while the barbarians are built to have a few guys fighting on their own against larger forces. And yes I am aware barbarians versus Romans is a choice. I just didn't think about how ridiculous single Romans fighting would be.

I'd say more "pathetic" than "ridiculous," but yeah. Roman military doctrine works a lot better when they aren't outnumbered.

Well that and heavy cavalry but at the time of the Romans nobody had heavy cavalry, and yes I'm aware I got very off topic it's something I do. Also for the record I am aware how pedantic this whole complaint is.

Well, not really in the Roman army, but you had Cataphracts .

I forgot about them. Still they were really really broken in the time they existed in. Heavy Cavalry does that. There is a reason cavalry ruled the world until the invention of guns.

[TCM]

Since everyone has posted, I'll begin working on 'Phase 0'. It should be up relatively shortly.

[aattss]

Don't forget that we could always use artistic license.