The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Your new games, homebrews, mods and ideas. Forum games go here.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby BLANDCorporatio » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:53 am

Agreed that we can/should also tweak the TBfGB system. The magic of the cube-square law is also something worth considering. (Mass/HP increases (cost) by the cube of length; strength (attack power) increases by the square).

But penalties on mixed stacks, I do not get them. For one, historically mixed troops tended to work rather well. And by mixed, I mean very tightly integrated. Pikers standing shoulder to shoulder to musketeers kind of thing.

Yes, some troop mixes will end up counterproductive. A stack of light cavalry and heavy slow infantry is worse than those two taken apart. But that can be reflected by such rules as, a stack moves only as fast as its slowest unit etc.
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.
User avatar
BLANDCorporatio
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Sihoiba » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:54 am

I'd be interested when some rules are finalised.

Ideally the want a system that works well with hundreds rather than tens of units.
I also think the difference between a dragon and a bat should be much larger than it has been in rules to date.

Think about how many infantry, siege, warlord lead bats the dragons were able to take on successfully in the comic.

I'd also like to suggest not making upkeep cost and popping cost be a 1:1 relationship. Considering how many units sides appear to have, there's no way they could be paying that amount out each turn if it cost the same to upkeep as it did to pop them in the first place. This also makes natural allies more useful, as you gain power much more cheaply. Which means in games you could have the option of natural allies that could be found and acquired as long as a side hasn't built a force which eats up all the available upkeep funds they get each turn. It can also be used as a secondary instrument to push people away from making small numbers of very powerful units. For example say a basic stabber costs 2 pop point, and a dragon costs 30 to pop, but that stabber costs 1 to upkeep and the dragon costs 50 upkeep.

Finally with the mounts issue we saw with the siege towers, instead of working them on a HP:units carried ratio, make it so that certain units siege, ships etc need to contain a minimum number of infantry in order to move/work/fight. In the same way a message hat or an eye book doesn't do anything without a unit to use it.
Sihoiba
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:50 pm

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Twoy » Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:22 pm

Three ways to make forts and bridges a bit less powerful.

1. Defenders of bridges and forts do not get a terrain bonus while being attacked by a flying stack.
2. Units inside a siege tower subtract 1 from a forts' defense bonus.
--a. Siege Towers are Heavy Units that can carry 42 hits worth of units, but no individual units larger than 10 hits.
--b. Only two Siege Towers can attack a hex side each turn.
3. Units with a Battering Ram subtract 1 from a forts' defense bonus.
--a. Battering Rams are Heavy Units with a Special cost of 20.
--b. Only one stack (maybe two) with a battering ram can attack on a forts' hex side each turn.

Adopting these rules will mean we need flyers to clear the bridges and and the siege will have to at least partially surround the city in order to make a massive strike.

To avoid the "minor" problem of everyone producing all heavies all the time, we need to discuss the actual cost formula. Here is the formula we used in GB2.
Cost = (HITS + ATTACK + DEFENCE) x MOVE x 0.5 + SPECIAL

We could look at this one:
Cost = [(HITS²) + (ATTACK + DEFENCE)] x MOVE x 0.5 + SPECIAL

High King Peter goes from a cost of 30 to 45. Peter's Minotaurs go from a cost of 20 to 125. Peter's Elephants go from a cost of 40 to 425. That might be a bit too much.

How about: Cost = [(HITS²/2) + (ATTACK + DEFENCE)] x MOVE x 0.5 + SPECIAL
Peter: 30 to 36.
Minotaurs: 20 to 68.
Elephants: 40 to 250.

That's a bit better, though we might even want to consider: Cost = [(HITS²/4) + (ATTACK + DEFENCE)] x MOVE x 0.5 + SPECIAL
Peter: 30 to 32
Minotaurs: 20 to 40
Elephants: 40 to 132

And just for comparison Dagnabit's Champion goes from a cost of 18 to 23 and Axe Dwarves go from a cost of 10 to 11.
Twoy
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Twoy » Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:50 pm

The only thing I don't like about the formula I posted above is that I would like to see movement be a bit cheaper.

To make move a bit cheaper:
Cost = [(HITS²/4) + (ATTACK + DEFENCE)] x 0.5 + [(HITS x MOVE) x 0.5]+ SPECIAL

That means flying would cost about 6 points extra for an Axe Dwarf, but for the Elephant flying would cost an extra 75 points.
Twoy
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Nihila » Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:38 pm

Using Twoy's final formula, for more comparison, all of the Risun units have their costs lowered.
Daimyo goes from 58 points to 43.
Heavy Aimursas go from 28 points to 18.
Light Aimursas go from 24 points to 19.

Also, the cost of a Minotar in the final formula rises to 49.
Wion Hunters drop to 21 points, and Golmon Knights drop to 24.

Just food for thought.
"The Infantrymen of Erfworld have nothing to lose but their chains. They have Erfworld to win. Infantry of all sides: Unite!"--Kawl Mawx, Master-class Moneymancer
Nihila
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Probably totally lost.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Siralus » Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:40 pm

I'll express an interest in this. If it is indeed going ahead.
User avatar
Siralus
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: London, U.K

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Nihila » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:55 pm

Also from Twoy's final formula, Garrison units with 0 move are allowed. Rejoice!

A way to make large units inefficient would also be to have Combat bonuses be additive, like in Kaed's and Chris's games, rather than multiplicative, like in TBfGB. Another benefit of additive bonuses is that they are easier think through than multiplying stuff by 1.3's and 1.8's.
"The Infantrymen of Erfworld have nothing to lose but their chains. They have Erfworld to win. Infantry of all sides: Unite!"--Kawl Mawx, Master-class Moneymancer
Nihila
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Probably totally lost.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby WaterMonkey314 » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:22 pm

Twoy wrote:The only thing I don't like about the formula I posted above is that I would like to see movement be a bit cheaper.

To make move a bit cheaper:
Cost = [(HITS²/4) + (ATTACK + DEFENCE)] x 0.5 + [(HITS x MOVE) x 0.5]+ SPECIAL

That means flying would cost about 6 points extra for an Axe Dwarf, but for the Elephant flying would cost an extra 75 points.


I think this formula looks good enough to use. :D

As for siege, I think that's an interesting approach, but I'd like to test the new unit cost formula first.
WaterMonkey314
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Nihila » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:11 am

WaterMonkey314 wrote:As for siege, I think that's an interesting approach, but I'd like to test the new unit cost formula first.
Will we have a new combat system for the tests, or will we stick with the Gobwin Bump one?
"The Infantrymen of Erfworld have nothing to lose but their chains. They have Erfworld to win. Infantry of all sides: Unite!"--Kawl Mawx, Master-class Moneymancer
Nihila
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Probably totally lost.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby WaterMonkey314 » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:54 pm

I didn't feel like there were major issues with the combat system - what about you guys?
WaterMonkey314
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:40 pm

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Crovius » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:11 pm

If you've read to rules on combat for Siralus's game, I like those.
Crovius
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Nihila » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:18 pm

Crovius wrote:If you've read to rules on combat for Siralus's game, I like those.
I don't really like the rule that halves the damage that defenders do. It just doesn't feel right to me, and I did like the combat system for TBfGB.
And I don't think that defending or unled units should ever retreat, and that was my biggest pet peeve about TBfGB's system.
"The Infantrymen of Erfworld have nothing to lose but their chains. They have Erfworld to win. Infantry of all sides: Unite!"--Kawl Mawx, Master-class Moneymancer
Nihila
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Probably totally lost.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Crovius » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:21 pm

Agreed on defending units not retreating.
Crovius
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Siralus » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Nihila wrote:I don't really like the rule that halves the damage that defenders do. It just doesn't feel right to me, and I did like the combat system for TBfGB.
And I don't think that defending or unled units should ever retreat, and that was my biggest pet peeve about TBfGB's system.


Well, the attacker's defense is halved too, the only effect is that the defender's retaliatory damage is more heavily influenced by the random factor.

Also, I had a look at retreat rules and tweaked them a little, so that defending units only retreat if they're alone on a tile.

And how is the playtesting on this panning out?
User avatar
Siralus
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: London, U.K

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Nihila » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:38 pm

Siralus wrote:
Nihila wrote:I don't really like the rule that halves the damage that defenders do. It just doesn't feel right to me, and I did like the combat system for TBfGB.
And I don't think that defending or unled units should ever retreat, and that was my biggest pet peeve about TBfGB's system.


Well, the attacker's defense is halved too, the only effect is that the defender's retaliatory damage is more heavily influenced by the random factor.

Also, I had a look at retreat rules and tweaked them a little, so that defending units only retreat if they're alone on a tile.
Hmm... [sounds of Mathamancy]. Okay, you're right. I still think that units should not retreat unless led and on turn or led and in a city, but whatever floats your boat.
"The Infantrymen of Erfworld have nothing to lose but their chains. They have Erfworld to win. Infantry of all sides: Unite!"--Kawl Mawx, Master-class Moneymancer
Nihila
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Probably totally lost.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Siralus » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:40 pm

Nihila wrote:Hmm... [sounds of Mathamancy]. Okay, you're right. I still think that units should not retreat unless led and on turn or led and in a city, but whatever floats your boat.


The best test of all is to see if its horrible in practice. Sadly.
User avatar
Siralus
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: London, U.K

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby BLANDCorporatio » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:44 pm

"Sadly"?!

Let's get on with it! But yeah I'd like a look at it too, seems like we have a cool cost formula ... but then again maybe not :P
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.
User avatar
BLANDCorporatio
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Siralus » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:45 pm

BLANDCorporatio wrote:"Sadly"?!


Sadly, because it means you're playing with something terrible. Well, maybe.
User avatar
Siralus
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:54 pm
Location: London, U.K

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby Nihila » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:51 pm

BLANDCorporatio wrote:Let's get on with it! But yeah I'd like a look at it too, seems like we have a cool cost formula ... but then again maybe not
Well, it does make your Steam Fly and Twain a lot more expensive. Just a little reminder. :D
"The Infantrymen of Erfworld have nothing to lose but their chains. They have Erfworld to win. Infantry of all sides: Unite!"--Kawl Mawx, Master-class Moneymancer
Nihila
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Probably totally lost.

Re: The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

Postby BLANDCorporatio » Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:09 pm

I like how Twoy's formula makes lower-HP units more capable of having a high Attack/Defense than high-HP units, thus providing a neat balance between small punchy units and gentle giants ...

... or does it? That HP^2 is kinda brutal, but then again it's offset by being divided by 8.

Btw, let's see how the Diwigible fares with this formula. (From memory: Diwigible had 50 HP, 21 Attack , I'll need to make it move 5 as it's a flier, and might as well put in defense 5.) 2500/8 + 26/2 + 2500*5/2 + 0 = 312.5 + 13 + 6250 = 6575.5(!!).

Who needs HP caps when the ^2 effectively makes a unit impractical cost-wise soon enough?

It's actually too effective for the purpose, maybe?

But it looks ok ...

Just for kicks, here's another formula and justification:

Spoiler: show
Big units have many HP, so we associate HP with unit mass. A large mass is harder to move, so Move and HP are antagonists. Defense is also antagonist to HP, to a lesser extent because ...

Remember that mass increases with the cube of size, strength increases with the square of size- just like area, which is what you have to defend. This might suggest some different kind of capping, where Attack would be capped by (Hits^(2/3)). And also since units that are large have more of themselves to defend, they find that more expensive to do.

Finally, we can debate whether Defense should be antagonist to Move (armour) or supportive (dodge). So, let's pick the middle and make it neither.

This yields a cost formula like this-

Hits*Move*Constant_1 + Defense*(Hits^(2/3))*Constant_2 + Attack + Special,

where Constant_1 and Constant_2 are selected by some rule of thumb.

Say you want Move 2 to be "normal", then Constant_1 is 1/2, and units with this Move or less don't need to stress themselves too much on account of being fat joggers.

Now, say you want Defense 2 to be "average", then similarly Constant_2 is 1/2, and units with this Defense or less don't employ any special techniques/armour to keep their hide intact.

And a reminder, by this logic, Attack is capped at Hits^(2/3). Learn to love the Calc! :P
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.
User avatar
BLANDCorporatio
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Your Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron