Azgrut wrote:I do think that we need a percentage cap under the 100%. Else the kill rate would go up to much I guess

.
Yeah, my concern was that in all previous rules, the kill-rate was
too low. Adjustments as needed, why not. I'm not too committed to the random number being 50%-100% (but should be close, come on), or the Attack and Defense caps (we may revert to them capped by Hits if you like).
I AM committed to the Hit-Run rule and the ATTDIFF though, as in I'll argue for their central place in that system, if we choose to use it.
turbler wrote:what about mounts? what do you think should be the rules for them (and their riders).
Good point. I'm thinking of keeping the rules as they are here with one modification. When selecting which units from a stack are among the top-8, the mounts get priority. Example, you have 9 mounted Dwagons, then 8 of them must be the top-8 units; if you had only 7 mounted Dwagons, but no other mount in the stack, than the 8th top unit can be whatever else you have.
Crovius wrote:So, what about mutliple stack combat? I think of it like this:
Enemy has a single stack of Twolls defending two stacks of gobwin archers.
I attack with 4 stacks of Axe Dwawves. {What happens}
In my version, to decide what happens I need to know who attacks who. If a stack of Axes attacks the Twolls, they duke it out with simultaneous casualties, while the archers just chill on the sides. If the Axes attack the Archers, first the Archers strike (and probably kill a few Axes), then the remaining Axes do damage to the Archer stack. While the Twolls play cards or something.
I'm tempted to give multi-stack combat, as described by you, an ignore, and here's three reasons.
1) (minor reason) Simplicity. I get what you're saying, that things don't need to be too simple. But I don't like rules that are too complex. Further, complicated rules are vulnerable to exploits too, as the numerous rule updates/patches for stuff like Magic The Gathering and Starcraft can show. On the other end of the spectrum, Rock-Paper-Scissors is perfectly balanced.
2) (minor reason) Tropes. The Knight charges in towards the Ogre, and passes right next to the gobwin- who does nothing. The Dwagon swoops in and noms the Pikemen while the Archers watch in awe. It's how plenty of TBS-s work, and we plan accordingly. And plan we will need to do, because
3) (major reason) BALANCE. Now, I may be too attached to the system I stumbled into, but it probably has some virtues, chiefly the balance between 3 troop archetypes. Let's look at that balance from the most sensitive component, the Flier side.
Fliers will be paper planes, because it will be difficult for them to rack up a high Defense sum on the top-8 units. Meaning, if Fliers can be attacked by any Infantry or Archery stack, they will be toast. This is intentional.
It is the Hit-Run (in combination with ATTDIF and Cost rules) that makes Fliers useful. You call in "air support" on that tough Infantry stack to soften its top-8 Defense sum before charging in with your own Infantry. You can use Fliers to harass the enemy reinforcement lines. However, to do this you need to keep the Fliers close enough to be useful, but not too close that they can be attacked. All the while making sure the enemy cannot do the same to you!
There will be planning aplenty required, good old fashioned strategic planning of reinforcement routes, territory denial, maneuvering, troop compositions and optimal resource allocation between Infantry/Flier/Archery.
Of course, if you can make a system yourself then we'll discuss that one, and I suggest you do. You know better than anyone else exactly what you want from a game, and that's a crucial information when fiddling with math.
bowdagger wrote:crap I made three army's and now I have to make a new one (if this is the new rules).
We're drafting rules right now, don't get too committed to any one troop composition.
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.