I had reinforcements because I did not split my troops as you did.
Which, in turn, was because you only had one building and that had good stuff in it. I had three buildings, two of which were useless, and the only one that actually had anything good was way on the other side of the map. If I have a card game and give you two cards, and you have to pick the correct card out of those to win, but I have to pick the correct card out of 30 cards to win, that's unfair, right? Same principle here. And as shown below, you would have won anyway.
Yes because that building complex was so very helpful, I got five worthless guys. If had time to get to all hte houses on your side.
Better than one sword. Better than nothing. And you could barricade your guys in the complex and decimate my men before
I just went back to where you decided to hole up... if you had done a retreat you would have taken one or at the most two volleys of arrows before you were out of range. At close range you slaughtered 10 of my guys without taking a scratch on the first round and when you turned your back to a enemy you still killed some of my guys.
Edit: Hell at the rate it was going I was worried that if you stood and fought you would have won.
One or two volleys? Listen, one or two volleys would have destroyed
my entire army. When I tried to escape, you cut my guys to ribbons, I lost ten guys right there. I only killed nine of your guys because I was safe in the house at the beginning.
Here are the issues I have with the game.
1) You have only one building, and I have three, and two of them are useless. Basically, I was tricked into splitting up my army. What am I supposed to do in that position? Just go to the houses on the hill, hoping that one of them has something good? In that case, I'll get nothing and you'll get something, and you'll have so many barricades to hide behind you'll easily win. Or am I supposed to somehow telepathically know to go to the forest house? No, any game where winning relies mostly on luck is not a war game to me. It's a coin flip.
2) The mechanics are often not described, sometimes fudged or guessed at, and usually nonexistent. Take a look at the hill at turn 9, for example. According to the formula described, my kills should have been Army size + Skill with weapon + Boost of environment - anyone injured - Armour value of enemy - Boost of environment. The skill bonus should be half of the army size if the game is fair. Actually, it should be even more, because if an army of 20 skilled people attacked an army of 30 unskilled people, and the bonus was only half of the army size, the army of 20 would take as many hits as the army of 30, and thus would die sooner (being smaller). But we'll disregard that. The boost of the environment was 5. Nobody was injured. You didn't have a boost to defense, only attack. Armor value could be expected to be something like 30 for steel.
So the calculation is:
24+12+4(from the commander)+5-30=15. By rights I should have killed 15 of your guys. Your army should have been smashed to pieces. And yet I killed
nobody. From all that's happened, I suspect strongly that the mechanics are less formulas and more "Eh, this sounds about right". Turn eight. If you killed six of my men, I should have killed nine of yours. I should have killed nine more next turn, too, leaving you with seventeen, then nine more, leaving you with eight, and been able to destroy your army the final turn. But that didn't happen. I killed nine men once. But the rest of the time, I killed six, four, and... zero.
If the game is fair, my army of 20 skilled should be able to tie exactly with your army of 30 unskilled. This means that when you kill four of my guys, I should kill 6 of your guys; and this goes on until I only have 4 left and you only have 6 left, and we obliterate each other. But that's not what happened here. If we take my average kills, 0, 4, 6, and 9, the average is actually
less than yours, 4 and 6. In any fair system where 20 skilled can tie with 30 unskilled, I would have done much more damage than I did, or you would have done much less.
And other mechanics had problems too. The buildings. Nothing was listed about them. There wasn't anything saying how valuable they'd be or how worthless. The HP wasn't listed either. There was nothing to track what was in each group, archers or swordsmen or spearmen. The combat formula was unclear and many of the values (for example, armor value, skill bonus, and anyone injured) were not published. It also appeared to be random, but there was no random variable in the formula. We weren't told whether combat came before or after movement.
This game seems to me to be, essentially, made up on the fly. I don't have anything against that, it comes up with cool stuff like MS Paint Adventures or other text suggestion adventures and such. But it doesn't belong in a war game. This is a war game. The rules are supposed to be, well, rules. You're supposed to win through strategy, not through whatever the GM feels like doing, or random luck.
Author
Topic: Red vs Blue: all out war! [Round 2: MAGIK!] (Read 7494 times)