The Battle for... somewhere - Provisional Signups

[Nihila]

Mancers may have only 1 mancy special.

It would be nice to have the ability to build pseudo-casters, which might have more than one casting ability. Like Archons.

Mancy (+20)

And, this seems a little bit cheap for casting. Especially given what Turnamancers can do...

And, to demonstrate how to break those rules:
Hits: 4
Attack: 6 (Ranged)
Defense: 0
Move: 2
Specials: Ranged, Casting
Cost: 35

To put that another way, I can pop 5 of these per turn. Try to imagine the kinds of things that can be done with 5 Casters running around the map.

Example: Luckamancer+Thinkamancer+Shockamancer+Croakamancer+Dollamancer=I get +10% on an attack roll (once per turn), which forces you to have -10%. I have +1 Leadership across the board, which comes out as around +10% to combats. I can stun your Chief Warlord once per turn before swooping in to attack, then add three units to my stack once your turn starts.

Also, an exploit of the Croakamancy rules:
I send 2 Orlies(1-2-1-5, H-A-D-M) at two of your stacks, the Orlies die. Then, I send a Croakamancer in, raise those Orlies, and their Attack strength quadruples. Rinse and repeat as necessary, possibly using more Croakamancers. At some point here, I get enough strength to just zerg-rush you with my stack of humanoid units raised from bird corpses.

Let's try at least this for an uncroaking rule:
Uncroaked units must be raised from units with between 4 and 6 Hits, and Decrypted units cannot be uncroaked.

Also, I'll try to get a comprehensive casting system in later, and we can discuss it.

[Twoy]

It would be nice to have the ability to build pseudo-casters, which might have more than one casting ability. Like Archons.

I was only addressing mancers. Mancers in Erfworld generally have only one specialty. Archons would have a different set of rules than mancers. The reason I restricted mancers to only one specialty is to avoid having a Thinkamancer, Lookamancer, Dirtamancer caster that sits back in the base camp with the chief warlord and each turn grants a +1 leadership bonus to all warlords, Lookamances 6 distant hexes and creates a golem for which it has a leadership bonus.

To put that another way, I can pop 5 of these per turn. Try to imagine the kinds of things that can be done with 5 Casters running around the map.

The stats that I listed were to be considered "the" stats for a mancer. No Move: 1, Hits: 3, Att: 0, Def: 0 mancers allowed. That means you could pop four in a turn. Of course, we could raise the special cost to 30 or even more. I just thought it seemed strange to have the caster special cost more than the warlord special.

Example: Luckamancer+Thinkamancer+Shockamancer+Croakamancer+Dollamancer=I get +10% on an attack roll (once per turn), which forces you to have -10%. I have +1 Leadership across the board, which comes out as around +10% to combats. I can stun your Chief Warlord once per turn before swooping in to attack, then add three units to my stack once your turn starts.

Then I fly in with a stack of four dwagons, three archers and a warlord while another stack of four Sourmanders, three archers and a warlord charges in, croaking your Luckamancer, Shockamancer, Croakamancer and Dollamancer. Sure you can pop four more casters next round, but if you do not have 250 points worth of Gwiffons waiting at your base camp, it will take you another four or five turns to get them to the front.

I might not have been clear enough with the description of the Thinkamancer. Read the last sentence (that I just now added) of the description.
Thinkamancer:
If a thinkamancer is stacked with the Chief Warlord, all allied warlords get a +1 leadership bonus. The +1 leadership bonus from the thinkamancer does not stack with the +1 leadership bonus the chief warlord already gives to units in the same hex.

Also, in our the second turn of our test battle, GK had no problem destroying the CW and her entire stack. The presence of a thinkamancer in that stack would not have protected the stack from that dwagon attack.

Let's try at least this for an uncroaking rule: Uncroaked units must be raised from units with between 4 and 6 Hits, and Decrypted units cannot be uncroaked.

I added this rule.

[Nihila]

Oh. I enjoy having some creative ability with all units... And I think that a single rule set should be used for casting on the grounds that it's complicated enough, I don't need 5 sets of rules which are used conditionally. Because that would give me a headache. Five headaches.

And it is not strange to have casting cost more than warlords, it's just logical--casters can lead stacks, and some can provide leadership bonuses. And do other stuff, too. Think of it this way--if Casters and Warlords have the same effective cost, I'm not popping warlords--I'm popping Croakamancers, who recruit when they kill, or Dirtamancers or Dittomancers, who act as mobile base camps.

My complex proposal for casting rules:
Casting cost:
[(Juice/5)*(Attack)*(Defense+1)]*(#of Disciplines Caster can cast from)
The Juice stat is capped at 200.

Juice is neither max juice nor juice regenerated per turn, but it affects both. The Juice stat creates a set of 4 fill levels to which a caster's juice will fill when it is below them.
Fill Level 1=Juice
Fill Level 2=Juice*1.75
Fill Level 3=Juice*2.25
Fill Level 4=Juice*2.5
A caster's juice fills to the next juice level, and cannot rise above Fill Level 4. The max juice of a casting unit

Spell Compendiumata (Warning! Is very long):

Spoiler: show

Findamancy:
Find unit: 10 Juice
Find all units: 500 Juice
Predictamancy:
Binding Prophecy: 500 Juice, forces one enemy unit to act exactly as the Caster wishes it to for one turn.
Basic Prophecy: 100 Juice, gives a "Likely"/"Unlikely" answer to a question regarding GM intentions. (Likely=>50%; Unlikely=<50%)
Mathamancy:
Astounding Calculation: X00 Juice, increases leadership in one combat by (2X/5) due to superior tactics in that combat due to mathematical models.
Probabilistic Calculation: X0+30 Juice, reveals the contents of (X/5) hexes, without noting what is in which hex.
Turnamancy:
Reinforcements: X Juice, gives the side (X/10) pop points.
Marathon: X00 Juice, increases move of the Turnamancer's stack by (X/2).
Dollamancy:
Create Golems: X Juice, creates a Golem with a cost of (X/2), in the Caster's hex.
Heal Golems: X Juice, heals (X/5) Hits on one Golem in the Caster's hex.
Wierdomancy:
Add Special: X Juice, where X=(the cost of the special*3). Units targeted must be in the Caster's hex.
Subtract Special: X Juice, where X=(the cost of the special*3). Units targeted must be within 1 hex of the Caster's hex.
Dirtamancy:
Ashes and Dust: X Juice, creates a Golem or Trap(Only an Attack score) with a cost of (X/2), in the Caster's hex.
Heal Golems: X Juice, heals (X/5) hits on one Golem in the Caster's hex.
Changemancy:
Transform Being: X00 Juice, increase Attack or Defense of 1 allied unit in the Caster's hex by X points. Defense cannot exceed 7.
Terraformation: 500 Juice, change the terrain type of the caster's hex. The Changemancer does not regain any Juice for the next 2 turns.
Dittomancy:
Double, Double, Toil and Trouble: X Juice, create copies of all units in Dittomancer's hex. The copies may not have a total cost exceeding X, and the copies' stats cannot exceed those of the original units. If any copy is forced to have 0 Hits due to this, that copy dissolves. The copies lose 1 max Hit for each turn they exist. The copies are created in the Caster's hex.
Double 'em?: X0 Juice, increase the Attack or Defense of a stack in the Caster's hex by X. Defense cannot exceed 7.
Lookamancy:
Predator Vision: 30 Juice, use during Scout Phase, reveal the contents of any 1 hex.
The All-Seeing Eye: 500 Juice, reveal the contents of the entire map.
Thinkamancy:
Coordination: 100 Juice, gives any stack on the map a Leadership bonus of 1.
Callahan's: 200 Juice, links Thinkamancer to 1 or 2 Casters or safely breaks said link. While linked in a Bimancer link, Casters spend 10% less juice than normal, and draw from both Casters' juice. While linked in a Trimancer link, Casters spend 5% less juice than normal, and can cast spells overlapping two disciplines for up to 1500 Juice, depending on the power of the spell. Casters still draw from a total juice pool. Casters in a link have their Move set to 0, and must be in the same hex.
Foolamancy:
Hide in Plain Sight: X00 Juice, allows the Foolamancer to travel through (2X/5) hexes without engaging enemies.
Visions of War: X00 Juice, gives all units in the Foolamancer's hex +X leadership.
Flower Power:
Synergy: 0 Juice, when casting with more than 1 Hippiemancer in a hex, all Juice costs are reduced by 10%. The bonus stacks.
Peace: X00 Juice, lowers a stack's Attack score by X points. The stack must be within 1 hex of the Caster.
Signamancy:
Synergy: 0 Juice, when casting with more than 1 Hippiemancer in a hex, all Juice costs are reduced by 10%. The bonus stacks.
Protests: X00 Juice, lowers a stack's bonus (stacking or leadership) by X. The stack must be within 1 hex of the Caster.
Date-a-Mancy:
Synergy: 0 Juice, when casting with more than 1 Hippiemancer in a hex, all Juice costs are reduced by 10%. The bonus stacks.
Flaking: X00 Juice, lowers a stack's move by (X/2). The stack must be within 1 hex of the Caster.
Croakamancy:
Raise Dead: X Juice, raise all fallen units in Caster's hex, with the total cost of these units not exceeding X, and the stats of any unit cannot exceed the stats from which it is raised. If this forces a unit to have 0 Hits, the unit is dusted. Each unit created this way loses 1 max Hit for each turn it exists. These Uncroaked are created in the Caster's hex.
Flesh Knitting: X00 Juice, increases Uncroaked unit's max Hits by X. This unit must be in the Caster's hex.
Shockamancy:
Shock!: 200 Juice, prevents target stack from engaging any units. The stack must be within 1 hex of the Caster.
Zap!: X0 Juice, deals (2X/3) damage to target hex, within 1 hex of the Caster, spread evenly across all units in the hex.
Carnymancy:
Tame Unit: X0 Juice, tames a feral unit which is at (X/2) Hits or less. Unit must be in Caster's hex.
Lead Tamed: X00 Juice, Carnymancer gives a Leadership bonus of X while leading Tamed units.
Hat Magic:
Portal Hat: X Juice, transports units up to 5 hexes, X=(Total Unit Costs*Hexes Moved). Units must start in Caster's hex, and Caster must be one of the units transported.
Message Hats: 200 Juice, a Warlord with this always acts as if it is in the Chief Warlord's hex if the Chief Warlord has one as well.
Rhyme-o-mancy:
Talent Show: 350 Juice, allows units in Rhyme-o-mancer's stack to Dance-Fight (Special bonus goes to x2.0).
Rhythm: 500 Juice, allows target Warlord unit to lead Dance-Fights for the next 2 turns.
Healomancy:
Destroy Decrypted: X00 Juice, deals X points of direct damage to each Decrypted unit in target stack. Decrypted units must be within 1 hex of Caster.
Heal Living: X Juice, heals (X/5) hits on one Unit in the Caster's hex.
Moneymancy:
Pay Cut!: 500 Juice, each new unit costs 10% less pop points this turn.
Coin Toss: X0 Juice, deals a total of X damage to units in target hex, consuming X pop points. Target hex must be within 1 hex of Caster.
Luckamancy:
Shifted Distribution: 350 Juice, adds 2 to the die roll in one combat. (i.e., adds 10% to the Random percentage)
Tightened Distribution: 100 Juice, prevents the percentage results 50%, 55%, 100%, and 95%.

Thoughts?

[zilfallon]

Interesting, but Casters only provide leadership bonus to their mancy units. (like, dirtamancers to cloth golems) and i think it isn't called "leadership" bonus, it stacks with the actual leadership. Also, a trimancer link shouldn't be able to break itself, unlike a bimancer.
Remember, in Erfworld, casters cant be popped intentionally. There's a random chance that a warlord you pop becomes a caster. And they're precious and pretty powerful.

So, time for some logical in-game thinking:

Which of our sides are willing to spare its casters to this battle? Let's play keeping this truth in mind. Even if we're able to pop a caster, we shouldn't be able to get more than 1. And for boops sake, since they are so rare, we need to revise retaliation rules a bit, so a column of gajillions of infantry doesn't watch the show, eating pop corns, while a high level caster is getting his boop booped by archers mounted on dwagons.

[Nihila]

Yes, casters' pseudo-leadership bonus stack with leadership, but it's still a bonus, and it's still tied directly to the caster's level.

And, I don't really see why a trimancer link shouldn't be able to break itself for 200 Juice, but I'm happy to add a rule like "It takes 600 Juice to break a trimancer link, which can come from multiple Thinkamancers." I just thought that that would be too sadistic.

And on the last point, if there's some ranged stacks in the hex, fliers and ranged units need to target those first. On the other hand, ground melee units need to target melee stacks first, so the best way to protect casters would be to keep them a little behind the lines.

I could imagine a set of rules which would allow stacks to maneuver within a hex, engaging selectively, but they'd be complex enough to justify a game just by themselves, and hexes would have to be pretty small to feasibly allow most formations. And, I'd have to set fairly arbitrary movement rates inside a hex... So, no, I'm not going there. As entertaining as it would be, the mechanics behind it would be arcane, insane, bizarre, and generally convoluted.

The retaliation rules might have some problems, but any "fix" to them will either come from a complete system overhaul or by just making things horrifyingly complicated.
Like, for movement rates inside a hex, well, how fast would a unit with 1 move travel inside a hex? Could I set up ambushes in certain parts of a hex, but not others? Could I only reduce the Special bonus of a stack by directly flanking it? How would it be possible to beat a formation in a circle in a city if that was the case? Would attacks be allowed on a hex filled with units, like, airspace to full to get into, same with ground? Would fliers move slower while descending and ascending? Would we have to set up a booping 3-D system to allow for flight? And what about ranged units? Friendly fire, altitude and distance limitations... there's so much that can happen with ranged units. Would we have "Range" be a stat as well, for how far a unit can shoot inside the hex?

I'd love to hear a fix that's less complicated than implementing an RTC system, but I haven't seen any proposals.

[zilfallon]

Well, about retaliation:

When melee fliers attack a stack, every ranged unit and flying units retaliate + the attacked stack.
When ranged units attack a stack, every ranged stack in the target stack's hex retaliate.
When infantry attacks a stack, every unit in the hex retaliate.

I suggest these rules from what i've seen in comic so far. Sorry but, the infantry accompanying column of siege towers didn't stand still and watch when dwagons tried hit-n-run.

Also, we need to change first strike rule. Why do attackers get first strike? I think it will be more logical and more balanced if we make it like this:

Defenders get first strike, IF the attacker's are NOT RANGED, and this strike deals half damage.
Ranged attackers prevent the defenders' ability to first strike. So what happens? They hit each other at the same time, simple:

I'm totally ignoring the games actual combat mechanics to explain what i meant by attacking at the same time:

4 guards attack 4 soldiers. Each has 5 hits. Let's assume theres no first strike.
Guards deal 20 hits to soldiers. If the attacker striked first, all soldiers would have died. But this doesn't affect their retaliation, soldiers attack, deal 15 hits.
Result: 3 guards dead, 4 soldiers dead.

However, this rule needs a bit revising too. Like...If the attacking stack deals twice the hits of defending stack, defenders are overwhelmed and can't retaliate.

Also Nihila, casters staying behind the line? Sorry but there is NO back line with current retaliation system.

Back to topic of retaliation and first strike:

Nonranged units can't retaliate to ranged units, but as i said above, other ranged units in their hex can.
I made this point after dwagons started picking imps in the same hex as our entire army, and people said "it is turn based" Yes, it is a turn based game, but aren't we trying to make these rules at least similliar to the comic? Remember, it is shown in comic that melee fliers can be retaliated to, by ground units, if they attack ground units. And it is shown that fliers attacking a stack can be retaliated by archers in the same hex.

And No, there is absolutely NO need to bother with movement inside a hex to fix this retaliation system.

[Nihila]

Well, realistically, when Rome's legions threw javelins into a phalanx, the javelins hit first whether the Romans were advancing or holding their position.

If only defenders get first strike, then there is little or no incentive to attack--far better to force someone to attack you.

Like, when attacking a city, you have a finite number of ranged stacks, as do I. But I can replenish my ranged units faster, so I stand to win just by having more ranged units on hand at any given time. Sort of like World War I.

And, under the current system, when a stack of flyers or ranged units enters a hex, if there is a ranged stack in the hex, that stack automatically engages the flyers or ranged units. If a led stack wants to attack another target, fine, but they still take ranged retaliation.

In fact, come to think of it, a system which encourages defending is good for me, since you have to attack to win. Under a system where only defenders stand to have first strike, a fairly cheap ranged garrison unit is a threat. And, under Twoy's cost formula, a 13 Hits, 19 Attack, 1 Defense, 0 Move, Ranged unit costs 50, so I could pop 4 per turn. Why even bother building a field army? Let your cannon fodder croak before my gun line, in a futile Great War style charge. Even with the half damage thing, 19 Attack per unit is a lot. Want to send in ranged units? Bah! I laugh my insane maniacal laugh as your Gwiffon Riders swoop in to be chewed up by the cheaper, higher attack units.

Even better, under your retaliation guidelines, all 3 or 4 stacks of those things would engage the Gwiffon Riders, turning them into sticky red paste way too quickly. And I think that you might have confused "hex" with "stack" in

When infantry attacks a stack, every unit in the hex retaliate.

^this line. Every unit retaliating would really turn this into the Great War. Maybe I should call my above unit the Machine Gun...

And... each time I've attacked Imps, there have been precisely 0 ranged units in the hex. I went through 16 pages of thread, and I could not find any place where there was even a ranged unit, never mind stack, on hand to defend the melee Imps. If there are any counterexamples, please tell me. And really, if the Imps did have retaliation, they couldn't do much. Most of the time, I engaged single Imps, which can't attack with enough strength to even scratch my dwagons.

[Twoy]

Your one set of rules are already at least 5 times more complicated than my simple set of rules, and you still have not covered how to create units with spell-like abilities such as the Archons or Lofty Elves.

Don't misunderstand. I think it's a great set of rules, but I think it is too complicated for tBfGB.

As to the retailation rules, I think neither you nor Zilfallon are being completely objective about the rules. Some of the problems we encountered during the current test come from the fact that there were no terrain features and the distance between base camps was (probably, maybe) greater than we can expect in an actual game.

[Sihoiba]

Casters are rare, and so generally casters only take an active involvement in critical fights it seems from the comic because they are rare. They are so special that casters who've lost their own side have a fallback side they join and visit at will. However all sides do benefit from casters.

How about rather than making casters a poppable unit type in the rules (and all the related complications on offer) we instead give each side 1-4 caster bonuses representing that their side has a caster present in the capital. The larger scale the battle (or if as in the test cases when there's one side versus many) the more caster bonuses that side gets.

For example a moneymancer bonus might be reducing unit costs for that side, or a croakamancer bonus gets free limited lifespan reinforcements based upon the number of their/the enemies forces they cwoak. Dirtymancers and dollermancers could give free bonus unit types (assuming we give each side limited number of designable units as we have been - maybe predefined but cheaper than normal, or perhaps can break the 30HP/5 defence unit stat limits*). Or a side with a healamancer heals at end and start of turn.

Ideally powerful, but balanced so it increases the difference between each sides.

Short term I'd like to see more bonuses allowable in unit creation (dance fighting, magic items/equipment), where we can try out spell like abilities to get those balanced before going to full fledged casting

*Yeah I'm still really not pleased about Watermonkey ditching this rule for himself, kind of ruins the whole point of the trial games.

[HerbieRai]

As for caster popping, you could incorporate the randomness into the warlord level roll, and if someone gets a caster, they can choose the discipline. They would still be relatively even on points, since instead of a commander they'd have a caster.

For the retaliation problem, I think letting every stack retaliate against the attackers will give the defenders too much of an advantage, which will be higher when terrain is put in. We could have it so the first stack listed has to be the first attacked. There could be a way a warlord or fliers could negate this and choose their targets, but then fliers would have to cost more.

One last suggestion to throw out there for you guys to shoot down, but getting rid of Move 4, and then making flier a special (that would cost more) for move 5. Right now, fliers don't have a large speed advantage since land units can almost keep up. They do have the terrain movement bonus, which would be the reason for the special cost.

[Nihila]

and you still have not covered how to create units with spell-like abilities such as the Archons or Lofty Elves.

Low juice, multiple disciplines--if they can cast in 4 Disciplines, they can only have one-quarter the juice of a full caster.

And, yeah, it is very complicated. I have an unfortunate tendency to incline towards the complex, so we might need to reach a compromise between our two casting attempts. Mine does allow for more types of casters, as well as for more spells in each discipline and more disciplines, however.

In response to Sihoiba's general point, I think that WaterMonkey wants to work with casting directly. In response to the specific complaint about the lack of a hits cap, I agree in principle, that is, I agree that really big units(Diwigible) are pretty bad for balance, but in my game, with Twoy's cost formula, there is no hits cap and neither side has fielded any units with more than 20 Hits. Which I think is good.

As for caster popping, you could incorporate the randomness into the warlord level roll, and if someone gets a caster, they can choose the discipline. They would still be relatively even on points, since instead of a commander they'd have a caster.

This is an interesting idea, but unfortunately, it does not cover pseudo-casters. I think that it is a good idea for full casters, and a rule like this would justify a dual ruleset for pseudo-casters and normal casters. However, I would say, instead of letting you choose your casters, we do something like this:

Roll a 1d25 for what Type of caster you get.
1|Findamancer
2|Predictamancer
3|Mathamancer
4|Turnamancer
5|Dollamancer
6|Weirdomancer
7|Dirtamancer
8|Changeamancer
9|Dittomancer
10|Lookamancer
11|Thinkamancer
12|Foolamancer
13|Florist
14|Signamancer
15|Date-a-mancer
16|Shockamancer
17|Croakamancer
18|Thinkamancer
19|Hat Magician
20|Carnymancer
21|Rhyme-o-mancer
22|Luckamancy
23|Healomancy
24|Moneymancy
25|Thinkamancer
Yes, Thinkmancer appears not once, nor twice, but thrice. 'Cause most sides have one canonically, so I made 'em the most common.

What I'd do, and this is just me talking, is roll a d10 for Warlord/Caster, have 10 mean that a Caster pops instead of a Warlord, then the normal level roll:
1-2=Lv. 1
3-5=Lv. 2
6-7=Lv. 3
8-9=Lv. 4
10=Lv. 5
In case anyone needs a reminder.

One last suggestion to throw out there for you guys to shoot down, but getting rid of Move 4, and then making flier a special (that would cost more) for move 5. Right now, fliers don't have a large speed advantage since land units can almost keep up. They do have the terrain movement bonus, which would be the reason for the special cost.

I'm glad to see that someone is thinking along the same lines that I am. I would like to (at some point) have a Terrain-Capabilities system, which Flight would be included in. I would like any unit to be able to have a move between 1 and 5, and Terrain would have a penalty to move. Terrain Capabilities would eliminate that penalty, and would have a cost dependent on Move and Hits. Flight would cost about twice as much a single Terrain Capability.

Also, just a general question for people from both wings. Do you think that the cost formula, without unit hits caps, works for your game? Identify which wing you are in, please.

[zilfallon]

Nihila, in our current system:

When a melee flier engages a ground unit, only ranged units in that hex retaliate. That's what i'm against, and that's what i tried to counter in my post. Please read it carefully, especially the lines referring to the comic,then you'll see what i truly mean.

[Nihila]

@zilfallon:The problem is, massed countering results in a fairly literal Great War Scenario--if every unit in a hex is either ranged or flying, then attacking becomes suicide, there is no way for any stack to survive. You'd need to form up every unit you had into a massed stack, then hurl the mass at the enemy. And then, most of those would die. To win, you'd need to outnumber me 3-1 (2-1 on the first stack, 1-1 on the second) if I had two stacks, and only if I had two stacks. If I had 3 stacks, you'd have to outnumber me 6-1 (3-1, then 2-1, then 1-1). And I won't be twiddling my thumbs while you attack. I'll be popping more and more stacks, and your only chance of victory becomes a very literal deus ex machina--not just the plot device, you'd need a freaking deity to hit my stacks. And, looking at some numbers here, I'm not sure that even that would be enough. Even a Titan would take retaliation...

Remember, it is shown in comic that melee fliers can be retaliated to, by ground units, if they attack ground units. And it is shown that fliers attacking a stack can be retaliated by archers in the same hex.

Yes, and archers are ranged units. If you look at my set of rules, they actually cover the comic situations pretty well. The one they don't cover is when Parson ordered the other two dwagon stacks to hit Jillian, but I am forced to point out that that would create a Great War style scenario, and that would be boring. I'd basically wind up copy-pasting my turns--"The Gobwin Knob turn passes without incident, you're nowhere near their pop site yet, and they're only popping Garrison units that can croak your entire army the nanosecond you attack."

Short term I'd like to see more bonuses allowable in unit creation (dance fighting, magic items/equipment), where we can try out spell like abilities to get those balanced before going to full fledged casting.

Okay, somehow I missed this when I first read your post. This sounds pretty good to me.

Edited to fix some math errors.

[zilfallon]

You say that attacking becomes suicide in my suggestion, true. But with current system, defending is ...well... Maybe my retaliation rules could be balanced with this:

We could add a stack cap, and say that only a fixed number of stacks other than the attacked stack can retaliate. IF there's no warlord in the HEX of the attacked stack, player can choose which stacks will retaliate. If there isn't a warlord, stacks with the highest avarage move acts first.
This would prevent popping loads of archers and being invulnerable, while also preventing unlogical arcade battles.

This makes our system a bit more complicated, but better than current system, and surely better than my first suggestion.
Ideas?

[Nihila]

Well, I entirely understand your frustration with the ruleset, but I do think that Twoy's point about the lack of terrain is a good one--it's hard to defend on an open plain. I would also add that the Northern Alliance's lack of ranged units at its head is causing it a lot of trouble--I can simply hit whatever targets of opportunity I want to.

And even if only a few other stacks retaliate, if more than one stack retaliates, there is no incentive to attack. Which is fine for me, I can set up an immobile gunline and wait for your advance, but it's really bad for you.

However, I agree with the suggestions of having a certain stack automatically act first, but I would say that that kind of thing should be the stack with the maximized minimum move, not the stack with the maximized average move.

[zilfallon]

So, how about only 1 stack other than the targeted stack gets to retaliate? If there's a warlord in the hex, he can choose the stack to retaliate. And stacks have unit caps to prevent having a 100 unit "stack" which can retaliate to every attack.

Now, advantage to this:

A target of opportunity in a hex with thousands of units can't be singled out and killed instantly.

Disadvantage is what you said. So how about a %50 attack penalty to the retaliating stack? And how about an additional rule to prevent making an invulnerable defending column: Each stack can only retaliate ONCE every turn.

For example:
Stack A
Stack B
Stack C

are in a hex. We want to attack Stack A. The attacking stack moves in to attack. Our stack is called Stack X. Stack X and Stack A clash, hitting each other, no first strike. Then, if there's a warlord in the hex, he orders Stack B to retaliate, they attack Stack X with %50 attack penalty.

But Stack A isn't down, and we aren't done yet:

Stack Y moves in to attack Stack A. Stack A retaliates. (Retaliation limit only limits retaliation made to protect other stacks in hex.) Stack B retaliated in the previous attack, so only Stack C has an extra retal left, and it attacks.

Stack Z attacks Stack B this time. B used its extra retaliation, but it is the attacked stack, so it can retaliate. Only stack which didn't spend its extra retaliation is Stack A, since it was the TARGET of previous attacks. Stack B and Stack Z clash, then, Stack A makes a retaliation with %50 penalty.

And I don't think this makes our combats more complicated.
So, above example ignored ranged/flying/ground types. They work same, except:

Every stack can retaliate to its attackers (Exception: Melee stacks attacked by rangers cannot retaliate. Melee stacks cannot "protect" other stacks from ranged stacks.)
Ranged units can retaliate to every type, and can "protect" every unit.

Note: to "protect" means, using this extra retaliation with %50 penalty to help a defending stack fend off an attacker.

[Nihila]

Okay, that actually looks pretty good. Even better, it removes most incentive to have mega stacks (like your 100 unit stack) because the more stacks you have, the more efficiently you deal damage. I might be able to test this combat system after we finish up the Northern Alliance plains campaign, I'll try to formalize the rules by then.

Something like,

"Units fight together in Stacks. In Combat, Total all ATTACK values points for the first eight units in the stack. Flyers may not stack with non-Flyers (unless the non-Flyers are using the Flyers as Mounts).

Commander Bonuses – for each level of the Commander in the stack, increase the Command Bonus by 0.1. Commanders do not have to be listed in the first 8 units to add this bonus. If there is no Commander, the Bonus remains at 1.0.
The Chief Warlord is a Special Commander. In any hex with a Chief Warlord, the Leadership bonus of all Allied stacks is increased by 0.1.

Terrain Bonuses may be included in a later game, but this game will not have any Terrain except flat plains.

Ranged units on the Defensive inflict hits before the enemy has a chance to attack. Ranged units on the offensive may inflict hits, and, if the unit has move remaining, may leave the hex before the opposing stack retaliates. If a ranged unit attacks a ranged unit, combat is simultaneous. In order to use a ranged attack, the entire stack must be ranged. Non-Ranged Commanders may add a Leadership bonus only to a stack of Ranged units – obviously do not use their Attacks. Ranged stacks must always choose to engage an enemy ranged stack (if possible) before attacking a non-ranged stack.

Special Bonus – Specials include Dancefighting, Ditto-Mancy, etc. Default is 1.0. Rules for these will come as the game develops. In each combat after the first, this Special Bonus is halved. That is, a stack is attacked by two stacks. In the second calculation, the Defender’s special bonus value drops to 0.5. In a third combat, the value would drop to 0.25, and so on.
The only exception to this is if the Defending unit succeeds in ‘wiping out’ the attacking stack – ie, all attacking units are croaked. In this event, the Defending stack acts as though it had not fought any combats.
If a stack uses its Special Retaliation, its special bonus is at .5, the rules for Special Retaliation are described below.

Ambush Bonus – units that enter a hex without scouting can be ambushed. The Ambush value ranges from 1.0 (no ambush) to 2.0 (ambush).

Random Number – not every combat point means a hit. The Random Number adds a bit of luck to the mix. On (2d6+8)/20, 2 is 50%, 7 is 75%, 12 is 100%, etc.

Use the following formula to work out how many hits have been inflicted on the enemy:

Hits = Total Attack X Command Bonus X Special Bonus X Ambush Bonus X Random Number X (8 - Opposition Average Defence - Terrain Bonus) / 8

Round result to nearest whole number. This is reflected in the Spreadsheet which is also linked to in LTDave's signature, and is the xls file on this page:http://sites.google.com/site/erfworldempires/home/gobwin-bump-two

Special Retaliation: When a hex contains more than one stack, each stack may protect another stack once per turn, dealing a modest amount of extra retaliation. However, melee infantry stacks cannot use their Special Retaliation against ranged units, melee infantry can use their Special Retaliation against melee fliers which engage ground units, and while ranged stacks can use their Special Retaliation in any combat, if they use it in a combat which has one or more melee stacks, their Special bonus against the enemy stack is only at 25%, and they attack their own stack with a Special bonus of 12.5%

The opposing stack takes the number of hits inflicted. Units are destroyed based on their stacking order – first unit listed takes maximum hits, before the next is wounded.
Exception – a stack led in attack by a Commander may direct hits at any unit in the opposing stack, but the unit takes TWICE as many hits to croak as it normally would. Opposing Commanders take FOUR TIMES as many hits to croak as normal if targeted. Obviously the first unit in a stack will never need to be targeted."

In case someone missed the implication of one of those rules, I included friendly fire. After all, a little friendly fire makes everyone's day, right?

And, as usual, this is just me thinking out loud. If these are too complex, tell me and ignore them.

[zilfallon]

I think those are fine, and an additional penalty to ranged stacks protecting others, make things balanced. BUT:

Melee ground units should be able to protect against NON-RANGED fliers, IF those fliers attack NON-fliers.

[Nihila]

Melee ground units should be able to protect against NON-RANGED fliers, IF those fliers attack NON-fliers.

I've now added that, that's more an issue of "Nihila's common sense is on eternal vacation" than anything else.

[Sihoiba]

Looking at how strong flyers appear to be with the current formula I'd like to suggest the following unit design change:

I'd be more inclined to have larger maps and movements of
Garrison 0 move
Siege 1 move
Infantry 3 move
Calvary 6 move
Flying 10 move

This would also have the advantage of making flying units twice as expensive, and push sides into relying primarily on siege and infantry for efficiency.

With this I'd suggest a map with 30 hexes between the two base camps, joined by a road so you'd be looking at 3 turns for flyers to make the journey, 5 for cavalry, 8 for infantry and 15 for siege. With flyers being so expensive comparatively, you'd have to be much more careful about how you use them.

(All other rules about max of 30 Hits, 5 defence, and Blands's attack limit formula would be unchanged)