Print

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

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Beginning work upon a Arms Race Game Master's Handbook here and would like some assistance.  The particular purpose of this is two-fold.  First is so we can cut down on the amount of space needed in the OPs from having to list the rules every time down to something simplified kept in the 'Introduction' section of the handbook as a quick explanation for new players, a link to the handbook to go more in-depth, and a minor mention of what deviations from the standard are being done.  The second purpose is to allow for the game system to be easier spread to other forums by making things a bit easier on new game masters.  Much of the work will be done in the discord so it can worked on faster (link to the Arms Race General Discord at the top of the OP), but joining it is not necessary.

As an aside, one of the people from Spacebattles by the name of Mandemon is working on incorporating Forenia and Canalla into a wargame of their own devising in the Discord, and the Discord also now contains permanent links to all the game discords I'm aware of and some other useful resources, such as the random map generator used for Arms Race 1780.

[Madman198237]

Something to note:
Mandemon is not making his system for ICAR (Forenia vs. Cannala) but rather he is planning on using the wargame system in his own Arms Race.

He is using ICAR units, right now, only for balancing and testing purposes.

[NUKE9.13]

So, as I've mentioned on Discord, the terrible, terrible idea that I can and should run an Arms Race refuses to leave my head.

It would be soft-ish sci-fi, an intra-system conflict between two human colonies, fought in space and on a number of other planets. Basically the same as Chiefwaffle's Planetary Arms Race.
I'd be using a 2d4 instead of a d6, which would work like this:

Spoiler: How to 2d4 (click to show/hide)

For a design of Normal difficulty, the results are thus:

Roll (probability): Result
2 (1/16): Utter failure. You get nothing except the knowledge of what not to do.
3 (1/8): Buggy mess. Whilst you managed to make something, it isn't really usable.
4 (3/16): Below average. It works. Not especially well, but it works.
5 (1/4): Average. You get what you asked for, more or less.
6 (3/16): Above average. It works, and somewhat better than might be expected. Not a lot better, mind.
7 (1/8): Superior craftsmanship. It does its job and it does it perfectly. Its performance is exceptional and it is as reliable as clockwork.
8 (1/16): Unexpected boon. Not only does it work, but it does things you never even expected it to. If no 'bonus features' make sense, then you just get experience with some related field.

Designs of other difficulties modify the roll value like so: Trivial (+2), Easy (+1), Normal (+0), Hard (-1), Very Hard (-2), Ludicrous (-3). Designs harder than Ludicrous are Impossible, and will never yield a successful product, and will only grant experience on a 6 or higher. Similarly, if the result of your roll would be less than 2 after modifiers, you get no experience.

There would be a degree of tactical control- the equipping and deployment of units and ships, though made relatively simple, since not everyone enjoys complex logistics.
E: Combat reports would be asymmetrical.

I am open to suggestions for features to add/change/remove, though I should mention that whilst all suggestions will be take aboard, some may be thrown over once we leave the harbour. 

[Kashyyk]

I've been wondering about the reason behind asymmetrical battle reports, because it just looks like way more effort for the GM for not much benefit.

One of that thoughts I had to add a logistical aspect and change up expense levels is to be able to produce multiple copies of a design. Thus instead of gunning for a tank to be under a certain cost metric, you could choose to build less boats to save the resources and then build more tanks.

[NUKE9.13]

I've been wondering about the reason behind asymmetrical battle reports, because it just looks like way more effort for the GM for not much benefit.

Hmm. After thinking and talking about it on Discord, I think I've changed my mind. I'll do symmetrical battle reports, and maybe keep certain things hidden from the other side if it makes sense.

One of that thoughts I had to add a logistical aspect and change up expense levels is to be able to produce multiple copies of a design. Thus instead of gunning for a tank to be under a certain cost metric, you could choose to build less boats to save the resources and then build more tanks.

Hmm. I see what you mean. You know what, I actually like that idea. I'mma do something like that. Not quite Spires Race level of resource management, but not totally abstract Cheap/Expensive/VE either.

[evictedSaint]

I've been wondering about the reason behind asymmetrical battle reports, because it just looks like way more effort for the GM for not much benefit.

One of that thoughts I had to add a logistical aspect and change up expense levels is to be able to produce multiple copies of a design. Thus instead of gunning for a tank to be under a certain cost metric, you could choose to build less boats to save the resources and then build more tanks.

It is such a pain in the ass.  Battle reports are the most time consuming part of the game, and you have to write two of them each time.

That logistics phase sounds like waaaay too much overhead.  As a GM you aren't counting beyond +1's and +2's, so having to figure out how to divide it down into even further fractions when your players want to sacrifice their bayonet production to boost their bolt-action production is way too much work.  I don't know how spires race can bear to count their silk threads and wood and every single man, let alone balance it appropriately.

[NUKE9.13]

Well, I'd still use Cheap for basic stuff. It'd be more for limiting the amount of more impressive weapons, without utilising arbitrary expense levels. I mean, why can't you simply dedicate moar industrial capacity towards a given tank to get more of them?

[evictedSaint]

I feel as though it bogs down the game to deal with logistics and detracts from the players favorite part - designing cool weapons.

Another logistics phase is another 3-7 days before you get to see how well your weapon did or design a new one.  It's too much paperwork, not enough of the real meat of the game.

[RAM]

I feel as though it bogs down the game to deal with logistics and detracts from the players favorite part - designing cool weapons.

Another logistics phase is another 3-7 days before you get to see how well your weapon did or design a new one.  It's too much paperwork, not enough of the real meat of the game.

I am a big fan of simultaneous actions. It means that you lose the chance to revise your latest design, but then you don't get to see janky wrecks thrown onto the front lines, and it makes sense that you can get something out faster if you don't wait around to revise it. I mean, sure, the revisions can probably be done concurrently with retooling production and don't actually use up much time, but it still feels like it should be a thing. And logistics ought to be a challenge. Intercontinental has a strategy phase that is basically always a landslide. Add some excitement to it by not knowing if your new mine-clearer design will give you the naval advantage you need to invade their homeland! And it also means faster turns because there is only one voting phase...

The downside is more chaos, because multiple things are being voted on concurrently. The G.M. would probably be well advised to provide some explicit formatting rules to ensure that it was always clear to what was being referred. Probably also some votebox guidelines to prevent it from being misleading. Probably also impose a voting system to avoid too much convoluted voting politics in a game about fictional engineering. If you want voting politics then you can play mafia...

[Aseaheru]

 Just designing guns and not having to worry about any of the other mountains of reasons why these guns where used by those guys as opposed to those other guns is so limiting though, particularly when you are dealing with production systems wherein all tools are handpowered and skill is the name of the game, and where production of a given unit is measured in tens of an item per year, instead of tens of thousands.

[RoseHeart]

Has anyone ever taken two finished games...

And pitted the winners together? +Story elements introduced to balance their starting points

[Jilladilla]

Has anyone ever taken two finished games...

And pitted the winners together? +Story elements introduced to balance their starting points

Intercontinental Arms Race (by Sensei) did this, pitting the United Forenia that formed from the aftermath of the Arstotzka vs Moskurg Arms Race, against Cannala, who won their own Arms Race against Juraki. The Cannala/Juraki Arms Race is somewhere on the Spacebattles forum, and so is the Cannala thread for Intercontinental.

[Madman198237]

Has anyone ever taken two finished games...

And pitted the winners together? +Story elements introduced to balance their starting points

Story elements?


These are ARMS RACES, the only "story" elements involved are the players' decisions on what their nation's character is going to be. Everything else is just composed of varying amounts of killing, maiming, burning, and a few different levels of environmental desecration.

[Aseaheru]

 It would be less "story elements" and more "redesign every design so theres not a year of changes to the system screweing everyone's equipment over"

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

So like a mad man, I wound up creating an Arms Race over on 4chan here.  Feel free to join in, or watch the trainwreck that this will lead to.