Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

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

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby LTDave » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:00 pm

Azgut,
I think the expression you want is "Bollocks" - Bullocks are large male cows used for hauling stuff around.

But stay with the forum - there might be room for another player or game in not so long a time.
Thanks for registering to join the thread.

Cheers
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Azgrut » Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:18 am

You are right, off cource. Although maybe "boob!" was a better cuss word on these forums :).

I'll just stay along and keep an eye on both topics. Maybe post my idea's on the rules from now and then. :) I am somewhat a frequent forum visiter so that'll be fine.

Well, have fun and see ya.

Gz.
Azgrut
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:35 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Azgrut » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:35 am

Just today when I was cycling to collage I came upon a possible new idea to include in the rules (possibly for 1.4 though).

The current rules say that a player is removed from the game one turn after their capital falls. To counter this, one could pop a royal heir/Heir designate.

The rules:
A royal heir is a special character unit. One that any side can pop outside their 3 characters limit. A royal heir can only be popped in the capital and costs two turns to pop (this to make sure a side does not pop escape death when a large army is at his doorstep). A royal heir costs 12 smuckers on upkeep every turn.

A royal heir functions then in all aspects as a warlord unit. Thus it starts as level 1 and can gain levels up to level 9 like other warlords. In addition to this, should the capital fall at any time, the player is not removed from the game. As long as the royal heir s still alive, his side will survive. He can then try and conquer a new capital (or his old one if he desires). The side will thus stay in game until it loses his heir before it captured a new capital.

Thus, long story short. A royal heir is popped in two turns and costs 12 upkeep a turn. It is a warlord in all aspects except it will ensure a sides survival after it loses the capital. A side can only have one royal heir but it does not consume a character slot.

Sounds good?

Then a question. What happens if an attacking stack loses combat (receiving more hits then caused) but still whipes out the enemy stack? For instance, when a stack of 9 infantry attacks a level 3 city with 3 defenders and rolls INFERIOR on random rolls. The defenders will "count" as 9 units for determining hits and thus inflict 6 hits. The inferior infantry will cause 3 hits. The defenders will lose 3 infantry, completely whiping them out. But the attackers lose 6 infantry and thus 3 stay alive. Will the city be captured now or is it saved but without any remaining troops left?

Greets,
Azgrut
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:35 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Sinrus » Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:09 pm

Oh, I know this one! The city will belong to the attackers, as it is assumed that they just attack again and seize the undefended city.
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby LTDave » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:10 pm

Good idea Azgut. I'll add it into 1.4

And sinrus is correct. The City stands undefended - another player can nip in and take over (like has been mentioned in the comic recently).
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Azgrut » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:44 pm

Just what I thought as well :).

Maybe a good idea would be to restrict any caster to a limit of one so one player can't go cheesy and take a single caster multiple times. I think 3 croakamancers in one stack would be a bit much as 150% of the slain troops should be uncroaked :P. This way, you also cant have 3 Econ-o-mancers and take ultimate and ridiculous high smucker income (for be honest. 45% more income means 45% more troops means win :P).

Same goes for 3 thinkamancers.

An idea? To limit each caster to 1 per side max? And ofc keep the 3 character limit :P.
Azgrut
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:35 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Crovius » Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:59 pm

50%+50%+50% does not equal 150% when used as a cumulative. Infact, the way most are worded, multiples of a single type of caster do not stack, with only a few exceptions. All percentile based casters do not stack with their type. But they can be used in different stacks. The few casters that do simply add a bonus, like the Thinkamancer's +1 Tactical combat bonus that cna be activates once a round, having 3 Thinkamacers means you can either add +3 to one combat that round, or add +1 to 3 combats. Likewise the reroll for a Luckamancer just gives you several rerolls. Which considering the new roll has to be taken, both Thinkamancer's and Luckamancers sound just fine.

Edit: To further show my point. Three economancers will techniquely make only a 33.75% increase to income.And three croakamancers can only bring back 87.5% of killed units. That's if percentile based casters stack AT ALL. Casters that use a % bonus are much stronger than casters that have a set bonus.
Crovius
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Crovius » Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:44 pm

Ok, I have a question about having allies. Since in the comic allies are considered to take actions all on the same round as eachother. Some of the proposals below show this. I don't suggest we add all these rules, but consider some of them. It encourages players to group together, though these rules may be more appropriate to larger scale combat (where there are 6+ players and) or in "team" matches.

When you are allied to someone, I think the following should all be possible:
-Units of allied sides can pass through and even occupy the same hex as if they were all the same side
-Allied units in the same hex are all counted together as when adding up defenders
-Benefits froma Thinkamancer, Healomancer, Dittomancer, and other casters that can alter combat can be applied to ally units with permission of that ally (So One player with a Thinkamancer could use that +1 bonus on an allies units, but at the cost of not being able to use that bonus for the rest of that turn. Likewise if a player gets poor random numbers an ally with a Luckamancer could use that caster's power, as long as the caster is able to do so. A Healomancer revives 1/2 of all the units killed, divided evenly among the allies based on how many units they had.
-Allied units can attack the same hex at one time as long as both attacking hexes are led by a character, only one player posts the movement of the attacking units so only one player creates a combat post.
-Allies can give schmuckers (noted somewhere, like in upgrades or upkeep as a deduction, and the receiving player adds that to tehir income at the beginning of their round) as long as they have a unit travel from one of their cities to the allie's city. Also units can be "given" essentially giving the ally permission to move those units and use them as his/her own
-Allies essentially are going in the same round, so allies will go one after another before/after non-allies. So when Player A makes his move, all his allies will also make theirs' before a non-allied player would move. Again this encourages teaming up, and is true to how combat worked in the comic (as much as it was explained in book 1).
-If a player's ally does not post, the player can determine some basic actions from their ally's units (popping units, upgrading cities, and moving field units around, but not making units leave a city, controling characters - other than moving them - or attacking).


Any of these ally rules sound good? bad? overpowered or underpowered? Really the main thing is these rules encourage people joining forces and discourage solo-play. They make allies more flexible. And more appealing.
Crovius
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Sinrus » Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:06 pm

I like the idea of allied units being in the same hex without fighting, and exchanging schmuckers. Moving for your inactive ally sounds like it would also work pretty well. The rest probably ought to be kept for version 1.4
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby LTDave » Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:25 pm

Some good ideas there. Keep on thinking.

About editing of posts - it's best if we keep editing to correct errors (like adding, etc). I have no problem with editing units and locations, except that if I'm planning my turn, I don't want to keep checking the forum to see if the previous player has changed locations, units, etc. Try and make your first post the right post.


About turbler - it's only turn 1, but he hasn't posted properly yet. Can I suggest that if he doesn't post a turn 1 by the time turn 2 starts, that we declare him absent, do turn one as Auto-Pilot, and then offer the spot to Azgut, who is posting regularly and intelligently. Or is that too harsh?
Azgut - would you want to play? (and do you promise not to attack me?)
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Sinrus » Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:44 pm

I'm fine with that but curious, since I'm first in turn order can I move 6 days after MY turn, or six days after the latest turn? Obviously this is assuming that the last person in order doesn't go.
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby LTDave » Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:13 pm

6 days after your turn - which will be Sunday where I am in the world.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Azgrut » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:58 am

I would like to join the game if Turbler does not post. Think about it that his Heir Designate has overthrown him and took control over the side :).

I that case I would kindly ask you all not to attack me for lets say... two or three turns to work away the auto pilot disadvantage :P. Although no one is forced to comply. ;)
Azgrut
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:35 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby LTDave » Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:46 pm

Sounds good to me.
If turbler hasn't posted by the time it is Sinrus' go again, then Azgut takes over for turn 2. Any objections?
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Sinrus » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:11 pm

Nope. In fact, by clicking on his name in this thread and looking at the last time he logged on, he's been on at least twice since turn 1 started.
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Crovius » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:22 pm

I have no objection. Also, are we going to use any of my ideas on alliances?
Crovius
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 11:51 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Azgrut » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:36 pm

I think your idea's for alliance are nice and could be used this game already. I especially like the chance of changing the turn sequence just like they did in the battle for the mountain pass.

It might be confusing to change turn orders, but if we keep a post somewhere with the current turn sequence (or something like that) it would be okay.

What about breaking an alliance and sneak attacking? Is that allowed? And who captures a city if a multi sided army captures one? Small things that need consideration. Maybe an alliance army needs an alliance leader selected who is the actual leader of the coalition army.

Meh, I dunno a good rule for this.

About something else. I looked at the casters and found one that is, compared to the others, far too weak. The dirtamancer halves upgrade costs of a city, that means that you only profit from him when you upgrade a city from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 since the caster itself costs 10 smuckers upkeep. I do have an alternative though.

The Dirtamancer can still do the above but can also in any given turn enhance the production rate of a city he is in (he can do one or the other offcource, since a city can't produce units when it is upgrading). When the dirtamancer is helping in production (effectively creating crap golems), the city will increase its pop maximum by 50%, rounded down. A capitol may in this case pop a character and still pop 2 other units. A level 1 city will have no profit of a dirtamancer.

Sounds okay?
Azgrut
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:35 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Sinrus » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:12 pm

I like that idea. But it can only produce golem infantry.
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby Azgrut » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:15 pm

That sounds logical yes. I don't see crap golems fly... wait... now I do...

Boob! :)
Azgrut
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:35 am

Re: Erfworld Empires Strategy Game Rules Draft 1.3b

Postby LTDave » Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:37 pm

He's been on twice since we started turn 1? Let's dump him now. Any objections?

Azgut - Please make a post for turn 1 for the Purple Empire. Name the Cities, etc.

I like Azgut's suggestion for the Dirt-A-Mancer - let's add that to the rules. Except that a city may pop units and upgrade in the same turn - it is only new cities that can't pop units.

Also, I like following of Crovius' Alliance ideas - allied units may stack, defend together, and give each other Schmuckers. I don't like the A-Mancers or combined attack, etc. I think there should be a cost to being allied, and it should be possible to doublecross in a bad way. Like an Alliance costs each player 50 schmuckers to form, and the player who doublecrosses gets all of the money back (100).

Thoughts?
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Your Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bahamut, BrimStone, GJC, SeraphRedux, WaterMonkey314 and 1 guest

cron