Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

[Azgrut]

So what I hear is that the rules need to become somewhat more complex. I do agree with Dave that we should make a system that is forum playable without a gm. While these rules do fit in this, we have now seen that they are somewhat flawed. That is okay right? We knew this was just another test run of the rules. We all heard some wonderful ideas here and I think a lot of them would fit.

For combat. I do agree that we need some multipliers in the rule system. Not too much though, but enough to make it worthwhile. While a multiplier in most brains would look like simple x2 and x3 multipliers, I think it is better to keep the multipliers somewhat lower and do things with rounding.

For instance, a warlord now does not do much except raising the possibility of being superior in combat. While this is a good system as a start, it lacks complexity when combats grow bigger. Then it will just be a matter of attacking a stack with only one type of units with your army consisting of one of each units at least. Thus not so much tactics for everyone will do the same. And the bonus/penalty one will receive from combat superiority/inferiority is too much.

I propose the next. We keep the current system somewhat (for the next game this is). What do we change? I say we add another "fase" in superiority. If one side is superior by 0 (for defenders), 1, 2 or 3 points (or just 0 and 1) it is only slightly superior and thus inflicting 3/5 hits. The other side is slightly inferior and inflicts 2/5 hits (rounding to the nearest whole number). Thus one should try to pile the most bonuses to become vastly superior (and then inflicting 2/3 hits). Then we still must look at what gives a bonus and what doesn't and what the added random number should be (which should be lower then it is now. Maybe 4?)

Now about multipliers. These must not become too high for that would totally ruin the game balance (as far as there is balance). Also, if the multipliers become too high, it will be possible (if not very likely) that large battles will wipe both sides out completely.

There are multiple ways of doing this. We can give units "hit points", thus making sure sides will not kill each other easily. We can also rule that if both sides have multipliers that they will cancel each other out. So one side with a multiplier of X2 and another one with X3 will effect that the latter will have a X2 multi and the first none. Multipliers will simply add together and not multiply themselves. Thus hypothetical lets say a level 5 warlord gives a 1,5 multiplier and he is defending a level 2 city (giving a X2 multi). This will then add up as a X2,5 multiplier. This will effect the outcome of the hits inflicted in the end (thus after the random inferior/superior roll).

But then we must discuss what gives a multi and what does not and then how much. I say a warlord gives a multi of 1+(his level/10). A city can give his level, but that would make high level city's very hard to take.

I also think that the upkeep for cavalry and flyers is too high now. In a bigger map they should have lesser upkeep and somewhat more move so tactical hit and run attack are possible.

Endless possibilities. But kind of simple to implant. First, what do you think about the multiplier and superior ideas? After that we can think of the actual rules about it.

[Azgrut]

A little quite in here...

I have given it some thought and if people would like it, i would agree to be GM in a 1.4 GM controlled game. This can be done while we are playing the 1.3 game (I think). Just a new topic and voila.

This does need tome weeks of rule breakstorms though. I do have quite a lot of ideas including scouts, hit and run tactics and leveling casters. But for that I need discussions .

[Sinrus]

Okay, so, first off I think that you vastly underestimate the usefulness of a warlord as it is. I'm the only person to have popped one, but when going up against an unlead force, it gives you an effective +2 to your total combat. That's really nothing to scoff at. As for your levels of superiority, I think it sounds great.

The hit and run tactics, scouts, et cetera seem unnecessary. But I guess that I really don't know what you have in mind.

[Azgrut]

I must say that a lot is a very big over estimation of my imagination...

Well the Warlord is a nice unit. But taking up a slot that an otherwise more competent character (like a caster) could take up, it is not that valuable. Yes I bought one myself as well, but only because I think every side should have a warlord .

Well the thoughts I had... Only works properly in a GM runned game.

All sides have the map not discovered. One needs to send units to gather inteligence in their surroundings. Scouts will have a lot of movement in this case but suck in combat (if they can fight at all). Scouts will have to report at a city or warlord to pass any information to the player, or the warlord must travel with them (on a flying scout mount). (so far the scouts).

hit and run tactics are not really possible to do now since the flyer (the unit that should be capable of doing this) only has 3 move. So only if an enemy moves next to you flyers who are already over a water hex can they issue a hit and run tactic. Not really secret or anything huh? My idea was to enlarge the map big time (like 20x20 hexes) and add the barbarian city's (like I mentioned before). Give flyers more movement (like 4 or 5) so they can fly big distances and still fight. City's must be hard to capture so a full pop of flyers should not be able to easilly take a city (like we can do now).

I also had the idea of casters being able to level up to level 5 (or something). Working with juice and 2 or 3 spells for each caster (some costing more juice and thus are rare to cast). And some other ideas I shamelessly forgot today including some system in which you could capture and turn warlords/casters of other sides. But most of those systems (I forgot now) required a GM keeping track of things and rolling things randomly (though we can do that now too... but that will take a hell lot of roll posts).

But maybe we should keep it a non-GM game. That way everyone can see and check that everything is going how it should be.

[Sinrus]

I think we should try running a GM game. I'd be perfectly willing to do it.

[Crovius]

Well I volunteered to GM for one of these Erfworld beta games but the last one didn't make it past the first turn because 3 sides dropped and it just kinda died. Cours,e it wasn't as well worked out like this game.

I also have a lot of experience GMing games, both rpg and rts settings, whihc this technically is a bit of both.

I understand how the different specialized rules would work for a game with a GM, and to be honest I get bored fast being a player. I actually prefer GMing over playing because it nfeels less like I'm competing with the others involved. Also I love creating and running the world as a fair, equal opportuniity person, I love controling NPCs and neutral groups, and watching the players interact, especially if one has an advantage and neither realizes it, man that's fun.

With a GM we can have the following:
-Neutral 'barbarian' cities
-Natural allies
-More units (as in a difference between archer infantry, stabber infantry, and piker infantry, etc)
-Larger scale schmuckers, much bigger maps, and better turn rules
-Scouting mechanics
-More personal custimization of casters and warlords, as well as experience for even normal troops, since exp is kept track of by the GM, not the players
-An unbiased referee for when rules are not clear enough for a situation
-More terrain types and rules for such things
-Less micromanagement from players, who can give orders simply if they want and the GM would take care of the details
-We could practically play with JUST private messages and AIM since interactions are only known by the player and the GM, and interactions between sides is only known by those sides. Anything that affected all players could be sent in mass pms, and the only need for a board would be tracking the basic stats for all sides that are public knowledge and any announcements.

[Sinrus]

Okay, sure. I don't have much GM-ing experience so I guess that you'd probably be a better choice. What I excel at (in my opinion) is world building, so if you want any help with that I can throw together a map for you.

[Charlie]

Do we have any rules about simultaneously attacking one hex from two adjacent hexes, using both forces in a combined assault?

[LTDave]

Charlie - in the current rules, that is just one combat. No problems.

[turbler]

If the new version gets off the ground, I'm in!
oh, and if anyone wants to take Sinrus' spell list, I doubt he'd mind (just ask him), same with my caster chance Formula (though that's not quite as much work to make, but whatever.)