Print

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

[Org]

Yes. That would be good.


And I HAVE TO SAY THIS:EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA HOW RANGED WORKS, IF AN AVERAGE GUY HAS 5, AND YOU HAVE 10 FOR A GUY, THAT IS PROBABLY TOO MUCH FOR A REGULAR GUY NO MATTER WHAT EVEN THOUGH YOU MAKE THEM I HAVE TO CRITICIZE THEM BECAUSE I FELL LIKE IT AND YOU GUYS CAN DO THE SAME WHEN I POST MY STUFF.


Now lets say this was 40k(I know it isnt, bear with me for a second). An average guy would be a Guardsman, with Shooting 3. Now that is saying that your guys are almost equal to Phoenix Lords, which are one of the strongest and shootiest and most expensive guys in the game, and are also Hero units.

So, even though you tried to balance it, it wouldnt work and might not be fun to play. Also, B 2 will get you no where. I think its a 1 in 6 chance of actually shooting right, if I understood what Aqizzar said.


Sorry about my rant if it was offensive in any way.

[Aqizzar]

Okay, I kind of fucked things up with the first go around there.  Let me clear some this up.

Re: "Leaders" - Yes, they confer their Initiative, Logic, and Bravery to the whole unit.  However, to avoid the cracked option of a high-stat guy leading a low-stat squad, the cost of upgrading a Leader will scale up based on the stats of the model he's leading, to try to make it cost prohibitive for a Leader to be too far out of line from his troops.  Of course, that will have to wait for actual rules and costs for unit creation.  Even if you did that though, having one guy be the mental linchpin of the unit would be pretty risky, with the (rather difficult) option for attackers to single out the Leader.

Re: Examples - I made one mistake in the statline.  Base Size (Z) should be 1, not 5.  Size refers directly to how large the unit is in a very physical sense, determining how many models can fit in a 100mm hex.  1-25mm, 2-40mm, 3-60mm, 4-100mm, following modeling conventions.

Re: Other stats and costs - given the rapid difference in effectiveness once a model moves in either direction away from the basline, I want stat costs to be curved, not linear; the model's final cost should (with another math function) take into account the overall design of the model; ditto all that for units.  Obviously, I don't have a clue what anything should "cost" at this point, especially with the weapon and armor system left to write.

My plan there is to just eyeball some "basic" units, assign arbitrary values, compare them in battle, readjust costs, and try that over again a few times.  Once my test units seem relatively balanced, I'll reverse engineer them to break down why they cost what they cost, then go from there.

If you think that sounds contorted, bear in mind that guys from Games Workshop have admitted that when they rewrite the Warhammer books every few years, they'll run maybe a half dozen test battles before printing.

[bjlong]

Org: Um. Please stay calm--it does no good to voice your criticisms twice, with the second one being pretty angry.

Aqizzar: Base size is 1? Oops, that'll change things. Does this correspond to a human? And if so, will there be a size 0, for things smaller than a human?

I tried to keep what you said about logic, initiative, and bravery in mind when making the decisions about those units. If you could hash out some combat rules, I can try to incorporate them more into my designs. If not, then giving me an idea about how the scale works would work fine. (i.e., 10 means this, 5 means this, 1 means this.)

Also, how are #, M, and W scaled-- from 1 to 10? Or something different?

As for cost, I'll try a few different approaches next, see how they affect the outcome. Maybe you can get an idea for how the cost might work that way.

Vactor: I'll take a look at that, see if it gives me any more balanced options.

[Org]

Sorry Bijong.


Aqizzar:What about having two H2H weapons?

Like, in my army, knives/daggers deal d3+S, while Swords/Maces/Axes deal d6+S, and 2Handed weapons deal d8+S. Would having two swords(giving a guy 2d6+S)make 2 Handed Weapons Obsolete?

I might post part of my Dwarf and Elf Legion later.

Today is my Birthday.

Edit:Not sure about the Leaders thing. Kind of unfair when you think about it.

Do you mean Heroes, or like Sergeants?

And you haven't answered a question. Are Vehicle Rules and Magic Rules up to the player, or what?

[Karlito]

Well, Bjlong, your Linesman has a bravery of 1, which just means he's going to run away like a sissy little coward every time someone rushes him.

[bjlong]

I'm aware of that, thanks.

[Aqizzar]

What, did you guys coordinate on Question Time?  Okay, here I go-

Base size is 1? Oops, that'll change things. Does this correspond to a human? And if so, will there be a size 0, for things smaller than a human?

Yeah, size 1 is anything within, say, 1 to 2 meters tall, and fitting within that kind of box.  There could be a provision for extra small, half-sized creatures.  I'll nail down model forms and types next, moving into the weapon system.

I tried to keep what you said about logic, initiative, and bravery in mind when making the decisions about those units. If you could hash out some combat rules, I can try to incorporate them more into my designs. If not, then giving me an idea about how the scale works would work fine. (i.e., 10 means this, 5 means this, 1 means this.)

Scale moves up or down from a baseline of 5 for all the mental stats, with most actions rolling a D6 or similar a beating (not equaling or less) the numbers in that list.  That means there serious curves of diminishing real effect after about +/- 3 to any stat.  I know that's a pretty arbitrary and limited system, but it's what I'm going with for now for simplicity's sake.

Also, how are #, M, and W scaled-- from 1 to 10? Or something different?

# (Action) is probably the most powerful stat, since it's the number of orders a unit can execute in one turn.  As I said in the OP (or somewhere), two is normal - run+run, run+shoot, shoot+run, shoot+shoot.  Really slow creatures like zombies could have one action.  Anything over three is mind-bendingly capable.

M (Move) is governed more by practical reality than anything else.  I say M-3 is a "human" normal, because a 1-inch model only crossing two 4-inch hexes feels too slow, and crossing four feels too fast.  While there is no real tabletop involved, try to picture one when thinking of how much distance a model can cover in the roughly equivalent time it takes to crack off some shots or beat each other up.

W (Wounds, name open to change) is how many times a model can be injured before being removed.  I can't imagine this being any more than 2 for most non-heroic humanoids, and even then a 1/2 wounded humanoid should have an injury penalty or something.

Aqizzar:What about having two H2H weapons?

Like, in my army, knives/daggers deal d3+S, while Swords/Maces/Axes deal d6+S, and 2Handed weapons deal d8+S. Would having two swords(giving a guy 2d6+S)make 2 Handed Weapons Obsolete?

All those times I said "weapon" before?  Replace that with "attack", because the name is obviously misleading.  "Attack"s are purchased based on effect, not explanation.  It doesn't matter if it's a one-armed guy with a claymore or a spider sexta-wielding morning stars.

To answer your concern though, yes, there should be a difference between hitting more and hitting harder.  "Attack"s will be rated both on their damage roll, and their number of chances to hit (among other factors).  To use the examples - a "two-handed sword" attack would have one hit chance and roll S+1D8, while a "dual wielded swords" attack would have two hit chances and roll S+1D6 for each of them.  Hypothetically anyway.

Today is my Birthday.

That's great.

Edit:Not sure about the Leaders thing. Kind of unfair when you think about it.

Do you mean Heroes, or like Sergeants?

I don't know what you mean by unfair.  A "Leader" is just any model with a given mental stat bought up (can be any combination of them), and/or designated within a multi-model unit and bought with a higher roll for mental stat checks (still any combination).  What they're called is entirely your choice.

I guess as examples, a "hero" type leader would buy higher Bravery or Initiative as an inspiring commander, while a "sergeant" type would buy higher Logic to better direct his squad's activity.  I see no good reason to allow or prohibit more than one "Leader" per squad, so I guess you could spread the abilities around if you wanted to.

And you haven't answered a question. Are Vehicle Rules and Magic Rules up to the player, or what?

I'm trying to get the most conceivably fundamental type of units, infantry, hammered into shape so the rest of the rules can then be built around them.  I want the game to actually be playable first, then I'll go back and figure out wacky extra stuff like vehicles and special effects.  First thing's first.

But hey, if you've got any ideas, don't be afraid to pitch 'em.

[Org]

Okay. Thanks.

Not sure about magic.

[Asheron]

The problem with magic is it very potential overpoweredness, as it would be truelly overpowered versus normal weaponry if it existed.

Hmm, I haven't read everything so far, so I don't know if this has already been discussed, but I know you have individual morale, but what about force morale? Even if a soldier is faring pretty well in combat, he will still rout if he sees everyone around him rout or if his army is decimated.

EDIT: Oh I see you already have something like that in place. Nevermind then.

[Org]

Asheron:EVERYTHING could be Op.

Which reminds me, Aqizzar, what would normal weapon range be? 18? Because the problem is People move slowly and if its like 48 you could kill them so fast.

Edit:

Spoiler: One unit (click to show/hide)

Dwarf Marksman
#-2
M-3
F-4
R-5
Z-1
W-1
S-5
A-4
T-6
I-4
B-5
L-5

Weapons
Knife

Options
Crossbow
or
Dwarf One Shot Rifle
or
Dwarf Machine Gun

Iron Armor

Ogre Brew
or
Hero's Brew
or
Titan's Brew

Elite Marksman
#-2
M-3
F-5
R-6
Z-1
W-1
S-5
A-4
T-6
I-4
B-6
L-5


Weapons
Knife

Options
Crossbow
or
Dwarf One Shot Rife
or
Dwarf Machine Gun
or
Dwarf Mini Cannon

Iron Armor

Ogre Brew
or
Hero's Brew
or
Titan's Brew

[bjlong]

Aqizzar:

I see how this would work. I have some hope that there would be some actions that take higher stats.

For example, a unit with a really high B might be able to charge through enemy lines, provided it has a good F stat, too, possibly wounding a unit or causing a unit to panic. This would only become viable with a B of ~9,10. Of course, this would only tactically work with other units to help clean up the mess, as the unit with high B would now (probably) be surrounded. This would solve the diminishing returns problem, while still making a unit with one very high stat not overpowering.

In any case, I'll take the following scale: 1-3 is neglectful, 4-7 is normal, 8-9 is devoted, and 10 represents lifelong training. Heroes could have things higher than 10.

E: Ran through some more examples, using some retooled min/max equations, and the squares of the stats as costs. Here they are:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Base: What Aquizzar posted. Here for completeness.

#-2 M-3 F-5 R-5 Z-5 W-1 S-5 A-5 T-5 I-5 B-5 L-5 $-215

Bigguy: Stereotypical "Big guy" build:

#-2 M-3 F-6 R-2 Z-1 W-2 S-7 A-3 T-7 I-4 B-5 L-3 $-215

Skinnyguy: Stereotypical "Skinny guy" build:

#-2 M-3 F-2 R-6 Z-1 W-1 S-4 A-6 T-4 I-6 B-3 L-7 $-217

Gunner: Stereotypical gun 'em from far away build

#-2 M-3 F-2 R-8 Z-1 W-1 S-2 A-5 T-3 I-5 B-2 L-8 $-214

Brawler: Stereotypical rush in and smash someone build

#-2 M-3 F-7 R-1 Z-1 W-1 S-6 A-4 T-6 I-4 B-6 L-3 $-214

Linesman: Stereotypical stand there and don't die build

#-2 M-2 F-4 R-4 Z-1 W-2 S-4 A-6 T-7 I-3 B-7 L-3 $-213

Scout: Stereotypical run real fast build

#-2 M-4 F-3 R-3 Z-1 W-1 S-3 A-6 T-4 I-7 B-4 L-7 $-215

Rambo: An attempt at a hero or leader character's base stats. Focus was on a general hero character.

#-2 M-3 F-6 R-6 Z-1 W-2 S-7 A-5 T-6 I-6 B-7 L-4 $-301

I think that this is better, in terms of unit balance, but I'm disheartened by how increasing the lower stats seemed to come "for free," considering the overall cost. That said, the retooled equations are looking better and better. But maybe that's just the cold talking.

Aqizzar, you might be heartened to know that the # is one of the stats that I left up to unit type. The other one is Z.

[NUKE9.13]

bjlong:
One problem.
Units with a 'W' of higher than 1 are always either heroes or are big creatures (Z>2)

The rest looks good. Well, no glaring obvious problems, anyway. Although I think you might want to make the prices for all those units except the basic one higher- A specialised unit is worth much more than an equal (qua up/down stats), unspecialised unit. So, decreasing stats from average has a lesser impact on price than increasing from average.

[PTTG??]

I like this. Especially the simultaneous turns; In the case of conflicting actions, perhaps they should resolve in initiative order, which could be modified by a number of things. Breaking and fleeing combat would potentially have a higher initiative than attacking at range. some units may have natural initiative bonuses and penalties.

The biggest flaw I see would be that the GM's head might explode. Perhaps some automation of routine combat rolls would be needed.

There's a lot of potential in custom armies; imagine Crusaders versus Mechs!

[Org]

Yeah

[Aqizzar]

...resolve in initiative order, which could be modified by a number of things. Breaking and fleeing combat would potentially have a higher initiative than attacking at range. some units may have natural initiative bonuses and penalties.

I like the idea, though it would introduce some complication that I wonder could be rolled into a single area.  That said, yes, I think this would have  application for something like musketeers, who would shoot at a lower Initiative than they would draw swords at.  Not sure whether to make that a blanket function of the combat mechanics, or specific to the model, or specific to the attack.  I'm think making it a matter of the attack would be clearest, like designating a attack as "clumsy" or "light" or something to say how it impacts initiative order.

The biggest flaw I see would be that the GM's head might explode. Perhaps some automation of routine combat rolls would be needed.

Having run a couple forum games, this is indeed a dire concern for me.  In an optimal world, there would be an Army Builder Program that the players would write their army list with, which would be loaded into the GM's Master Comparison Program.  Then any time two units interact, the GM would just select the unit, run the action function, and the effects on the units would be stored and reported.  That said, my grasp of even C++ is tenuous at best, so I'd probably be doing all the work longhand, especially while the system is still be tweaked and tested.  Any coders in the audience willing to lend a hand afterward?