Erfgame 3 (CLOSED) - Rules and Discussion

[Exate]

Well, if you put it that way... I'm selfish enough to want to keep playing, of course.

[Sir Shadow]

I would imagine there is quite a bit of interest in the spot

[Kaed]

I would imagine there is quite a bit of interest in the spot

Oh yeah. >_> some of them even pm me asking for the slot but not wanting exate to know. It's kinda silly, I think they're afraid of him.

[Sir Shadow]

I would imagine there is quite a bit of interest in the spot

Oh yeah. >_> some of them even pm me asking for the slot but not wanting exate to know. It's kinda silly, I think they're afraid of him.

<_< That is rather silly of them, but it would seem Exate is back anyways.

[Kaed]

What's all this about wanda with a beard, and master class dollamancy?

Did I miss something?

[Lord of Monies]

Where you getting that from?

[Exate]

I bet my tamed beast could beat his tamed beast.

I did some mathamancy on this and concluded, as we knew already, that Erfworld is all about the bonuses. Under favorable but not exceptional combat conditions, if I understand the mechanics involved correctly my tamed beast can have a functional Combat of 96. In unfavorable but not exceptional combat conditions its effectiveness drops to a tiny fraction of that figure, and of course if certain abilities come into play virtually any unit can become useless.

So my expectation in our hypothetical tamed beast battle is "whoever prepared the field wins".

It's kinda silly, I think they're afraid of him.

How absurd. Obviously I am a harmless fluffball or possibly cuddly animal of some kind, which would inspire fear only in the exceptionally paranoid.

[Lord of Monies]

Hm, right. I think I'll stick to keeping said beast as my personal mount then.

[Kaed]

functional Combat of 96.

Hmmmm I think we're going to have to fix the battlecrap special to not deal double damage but just a flat bonus. It's too powerful with enough stacked bonuses.

[Lord of Monies]

Or just a clarification. Battlecrap will double base combat, then modifiers are added on top so rather than (6+3)x2 you would instead have (6x2)+3.

[Exate]

functional Combat of 96.

Hmmmm I think we're going to have to fix the battlecrap special to not deal double damage but just a flat bonus. It's too powerful with enough stacked bonuses.

Multiplicative modifiers in general are stupidly powerful, particularly that in the mechanics as so far represented they stack with additive modifiers (that is, for a unit with base combat 6, a leadership bonus of 2, and a terrain bonus of *1.5, effective combat score is 12 under the current rules). That 96 included both a terrain *1.5 and an attack-ground *2, which obviously upgrades already-impressive stats to "oh god why" stats that leave it eating platoons in a single bite.

If we're trying to balance this I would recommend eliminating multiplicative modifiers entirely if at all possible, with the only exception being direct applications of Dittomancy for doubling and quadrupling. Native terrain bonuses can be scaled back to something like +3 to both combat and defense, and no other common multipliers come to mind.

Alternately, multipliers could be drastically weakened by making them apply before all other bonuses, but I have to admit I'm not really a fan of that. Better to just ditch them.

Or just a clarification. Battlecrap will double base combat, then modifiers are added on top so rather than (6+3)x2 you would instead have (6x2)+3.

This is not my experience with how multiplicative modifiers function in this game.

[Sir Shadow]

Well, you know... Battlecrap seems more like a Siege attack in the comic. You could change it to do 2X damage to walls and city structures instead.

[0beron]

Also I think it's worth mentioning while we're on the topic that Battlecrap is used by FLYING units, yet I seem to remember some burrowing unit in our game having it....

[Kaed]

Also I think it's worth mentioning while we're on the topic that Battlecrap is used by FLYING units, yet I seem to remember some burrowing unit in our game having it....

Yeah he just pretty much did that to get the damage bonus and say the unit had an acid maw.

[Lord of Monies]

Hmm, my durk almonds have it too and I have no real justification for it. Might need to respec that part. Maybe even come up with a custom special that fits then see if that's allowed. If it comes to it, I can still add heavy, but I wanna avoid that if I can.

[Sir Shadow]

the only unit that has it in the comic is the yellow dwagon, so i don't know if it can be used as a hard "only air units have it" kind of thing. The only thing we really know about it is that it's used as a seige-like attack.

[Lord of Monies]

Not just as a form of siege. In book 0 it's used as a regular attack on ground units. Jillian has crapsack poop over a tenanbaum to croak it, so it's a regular attack too.

[Sir Shadow]

Just because it's seige doesn't mean it can't hit regular units, just that it's meant to be more effective against structures

[Lord of Monies]

I wouldn't necessarily say MORE effective, instead that it can be AS effective against structures. Anything else without the siege special won't do anything.

[0beron]

No offense Sir, but you're kinda being dense. The whole thing about Battlecwap is that it's being DROPPED on a ground target...something only a flying unit would be able to do.