Empires X.1 Rules Revision

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

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 12:45 am

I wonder how Chlorophyllic interacts with other things such as Heavy, math says the total cost comes to x1.05, cost reduction at the cost of a huge point sink and special slow is interesting though.

As a minor note, I feel like Big Fellow is a bit 'too' cost effective, might be better at (6) +16. I'm not 100% sure about that, though. Though the unit would go heavy without being able to grab the Heavy special in the infantry cases, and the lower defense will sting in the higher tier units. I'm just a bit worried about something with that kind of cost effectiveness.
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 2:19 am

Fodder (2) – after casualties are calculated, these units will be eliminated first.
Lucky (2) – after casualties are calculated, these units will be eliminated last.

I must say I am not fond of these two. It seems fairly easy to abuse in unit creation, such as sticking an extermely high attack unit with a paltry amount of health and defense in with a stack filled with fodder.

I think if anything it should increase the chance of hitting or avoiding, but not by too much.

Fodder (2) – after casualties are calculated, 50% of total hits taken by other stacked units will be taken by fodder unit instead.

Or something like this to make it less prone to min/maxing with these two.

-

I do like the suggested changes to earthshaker, footbiter, and battlecrap.

I also like Battle Wagon.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Silversought » Wed May 07, 2014 2:27 am

I think I know which special my Mall Cops are taking. ;D *rimshot for the terrible joke*

I get Deo's point about Fodder/Lucky combination. Maybe a cost increase?
Silversought
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 2:46 am

Silversought wrote:I think I know which special my Mall Cops are taking. ;D *rimshot for the terrible joke*

I get Deo's point about Fodder/Lucky combination. Maybe a cost increase?


I am not sure about lucky, but maybe having a max hits or defense on fodder?
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby LTDave » Wed May 07, 2014 3:42 am

How about limiting Fodder to A and B units?

Latest revision: Rules Doc

A couple of minor changes in there, relating to building structures, and two extra options for G units.

These are (suggestions):

Mithilrium Armour (20) Unit def +1 to a maximum of 7.

Gold Plated (-10) Unit may spend an extra 10 points on specials and stats, but costs an extra 30% maintenance.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Silversought » Wed May 07, 2014 3:52 am

LTDave wrote:How about limiting Fodder to A and B units?

Latest revision: Rules Doc

A couple of minor changes in there, relating to building structures, and two extra options for G units.

These are (suggestions):

Mithilrium Armour (20) Unit def +1 to a maximum of 7.

Gold Plated (-10) Unit may spend an extra 10 points on specials and stats, but costs an extra 30% maintenance.


Would Gold Plated translate to no increase in actual point value, but the option to purchase as many as 10 pts of specials over the 7 special cap?

Extra request: Change name from Mithrilrium to Mithwil Armour! ;D



EDIT: Scratch that, I see what it does with points. Still need to know if it can bypass 7 special limit.
Silversought
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 4:23 am

LTDave wrote:These are (suggestions):

Mithilrium Armour (20): Oh, you like defense soooo much? Well why don't you marry it?

I feel like I captured what you were trying to say with Mithwil armor.

The other specials all seem interesting. It's a shame that we lost a good role for Frightening, though?
What if we let frightening retain its "+1 to defense" effect, and instead changed healer? Maybe something like...
Healer (2): After each battle, a stack heals 2 hits for each surviving unit with Healer.


I'm not sure how/when units heal in Erflia, but in the comic, lost hits are restored at the start of a turn. Changing healer to this would make it less efficient than just dumping points into HP, but if a unit experiences multiple consecutive battles in a turn, it'd help keep it topped off.


You also mentioned changing scouting to "explored territory must be adjacent to already-revealed territory", effectively increasing the reveal range. I think I agree with this as well, it'd speed things up a tiny bit.
User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby LTDave » Wed May 07, 2014 4:34 am

The other change in the rules doc that might not be immediately noticeable is:
"Characters may never be placed into Garrison."


Happy to change it to Mithwil Armour. This is the one exception to hard def 6 - you have to have Mithwil Armour to have a defence of 7 on a unit.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 8:41 am

@Mithwil: This could use a slight cost reduction if we were shooting for balanced, but I think we're shooting for deliberately overpriced. I actually kind of agree with overpricing that 7th point of defense, strangely enough.

@"Characters may never be placed into Garrison.": And there goes one of my best ideas before we even kicked the new version off.

@Adding things to the G class specials: I like adding to this category, might come up with something myself eventually, and pm it.


A couple more ideas I've thought of for basic specials though.

Simple Simple
Bomb! (3): At the end of battle after calculating who won and casualties, for every one of these units croaked deal 2 damage to the enemy stack (ignoring defense).

Skirmisher (2): When not in a city, this unit gains +7 Combat and +1 Defense. Maximum defense 2 (3 with this special active), exclusive with Heavy.


Complex Special
Frightening (3): Reduce the Total Combat of the enemies in your hex by 5%. Additional instances of Frightening reduce this by 1% each, to a maximum reduction of 20%. This stacks additively with leadership. (Ex: A stack receiving a Warlord bonus and a Chief Warlord aura for 115% total affected by the max 20% would drop to 95% combat.)
Last edited by SeraphRedux on Wed May 07, 2014 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GWvsJohn » Wed May 07, 2014 8:48 am

Newest version looks awesome. Only change I'd suggest would be to make Heavy common. We see a lot of heavy units in the comic. All 3 GK special units are heavy for example.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Taikei no Yuurei » Wed May 07, 2014 10:26 am

SeraphRedux wrote:Bomb! (2): At the end of battle after calculating who won and casualties, for every one of these units croaked deal 2 damage to the enemy stack (ignoring defense). This bonus is increased to 3 damage when taken on a non-infantry unit.

I feel like combining this with fodder could result in some impressively devastating post battle damage.

Also, since some people are looking to change healer:
Healer (2): After combat, after victory/defeat has been decided, but before units are croaked, each healer removes 1 hit of damage from the stack.
Superior Healer (4) (requires Healer): As Healer, but 1 hit of damage is removed per round of combat, replaces the benefit of Healer.
Speedy Healer (2) (requires Healer or Superior Healer): Healing is done before victory/defeat has been decided.

Just a rough idea, and all very easy to put into a combat simulator. Speedy could even be changed to do a heal during combat perhaps. I'm not sure how well the point costs work with everything else, but I think the general idea is a unique set of specials that isn't too hard to implement and are more interesting than just having extra stats... though I suppose it isn't all that different from just giving your units more hits, so I might even have over priced them. Might also change them to count as only 1 special or something like that, so a unit doesn't have to be tied entirely to being a healer. Anyway, just some ideas.

I love what you've done Dave, as I'm working on a rule set of my own, and it is nice to see someone else trying something besides the old rule set.
Taikei no Yuurei
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 11:29 am

Skirmisher looks nice, though I don't like Bomb so much. You're paying 2 points for 2 guaranteed damage, that just seems a bit too efficient.

Regarding Yuurei's, I feel like that might be over-complicating the healer ability. If people don't like my version, I think the version that just gives defense works just as well.
User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby HerbieRai » Wed May 07, 2014 11:35 am

Just to provoke thought, what do you think about changing the Defense from 10/(avgdef * 10) to 10/(avgdef*5 + 5). This would effectvily make defense half as effective, which would allow for higher defenses than 6. A change like this would be a major revision, so I'd suggest only looking at it if you were wanting to re-do a lot of the specials, but it would allow for some more playing with defense values.
HerbieRai
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 12:03 pm

Thinking about it, I agree. Simplified Bomb! a little more, and made it a (3) special with the same 2 damage. Though it's still up to dave what suggestions he takes and how he balances them.

Also I know this is a minor thing, but could you link the Latest Rules in the Original Post? Cause least for me that link doesn't work anymore (I can get to it right now, just might be harder later, though you're probably gonna link them in the first post of the erflia thread once you're done revising them so i don't even know why posting them in the op of this one would be that big a deal and I'm rambling again).
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby LTDave » Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 pm

How about this:

Complex
Frightening - (6) The unit has defence stat +2

Much simpler for me, worth taking, and gives the right idea - unit is too scary to hit easily.



I like the idea of Bomb, but I think it should be:

Bomb (3) - If the battle is lost, all units with bomb explode, inflicting 2 hits each.

So it's less thinking on my part, and you don't really want bombs exploding to kill any prisoners.
Also, the name should "terrorist jackass"


On HerbieRai's formula change, I'd rather not. I already think combat is going to be pretty bloody. I might have to reduce the number of rounds to ensure something survives.
Just FYI, this formula is already a bit bloodier than the previous version, which gave def 1 units a 50% chance of being hit, def 2 33%, and so on.


Skirmisher needs me to think about where a battle is taking place - is it in a city or not? This is another blow to GM brain dead rule. Maybe it could be:

Skirmisher (2) - Combat +7, max defence 2.


I'm happy to move Heavy to Simple. I don't see any problems there.


I think I'm happy with healer as is - it makes units harder to kill, without the extra steps at the end of battle or in mid round.

I will put the link to the rules doc in the first page of Erflia, and also from the point where turn 14 starts.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 2:12 pm

If you're gonna make skirmisher into that, I'd suggest making it exclusive with Berserker, and/or dropping it to (2) for +6. A barbarian/skirmisher infantry can have 8/23/2/6, if they're all stacked together with each other, and that feels a little high for infantry. I didn't think that the in a city or not was a serious problem for the brain-dead rule, but you removed Terrain Capable for the same reason, so that makes sense.

I like the way you have Bomb and Frightening tuned out, and agree that this is probably a better way to handle it.
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby BrimStone » Wed May 07, 2014 2:23 pm

Is skirmisher now only usable on attack? Or is it for defending units too? I can see everyone having archers with that ability.
BrimStone
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Bay Area, California

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 2:26 pm

That might violate his rule for gming, because he'd have to think 'hey is this side the side attacking?' Otherwise that's a nice idea.
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 3:05 pm

I agree that skirmish seems a bit strong at 7 for 2, though i think 6 would be pretty reasonable. Everything else looks fine.

I assume we should try to have all our units converted by friday/saturday?
User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 3:40 pm

LTDave wrote:How about limiting Fodder to A and B units?



The thing is that is what worries me. Going back to what GWvsJohn was similarly talking about a few pages ago. You could design a massive glass cannon at the higher point values and rest assured that that unit could not be touched till the fodder was dead.

For example I quickly put together a G that is 10/76/3/6. If there is no way at all to attack it till all fodder (or if its lucky) in the stack is dead, then I would just make a bunch of high HP and Defense fodder and stick 14 in a stack with two of them. Not counting the fodder units, that is 152 attacks from units that can not be killed till the rest of the stack is dead. I even stuck siege on it for good measure so now the two of them would destroy the defense structure they attack in two phases.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Your Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CroverusRaven and 2 guests