PDA

View Full Version : Homebrew Strategy Game



Giras
2009-04-03, 10:26 PM
Hi all, this is my first post here (avid reader of the comics + slight lurker of the forums). I've got a Strategy Game that I've been developing with some skeleton rules, and want some advice:

Fighting a Battle

Fighting a battle is very simple in its most basic elements. For whatever reason you are engaged in a conflict with opposing forces, take out your 24x12 hex map. One player distributes terrain across the field, and the other player decides whether to play lengthways or by width, and which side each player will be on.

The defending player (the player who didnít move into the hex) gets to choose whether to go first or second. If both players moved into the hex that turn, randomly determine who decides. Flip a coin, roll some dice, whatever.

Now comes the tricky part - putting down your troops. If youíre playing lengthways, you have all the area from your edge to four hexes up. If youíre playing sideways, you only get two hexes up from your edge. The player who goes first deploys their forces first, putting their units in legal hexes. Then the next player does the same.

The Phases

Tacticianís Phase

This is the phase at the beginning of your turn where you begin all your deadly machinations. Leadership Abilities are used during this phase, as well as Noncombat magic abilities.

Movement Phase

This is the part of the turn where movement is made. Units may move a number of squares equal to their movement value. Units in combat may retreat from the hex.

Combat Phase

The combat phase is where all the damage is done. Ranged units may strike at units within their range, and melee units in the same hex do damage to each other.

The Rules

Vocabulary

Hex - The term for an unoccupied tile on a hexagonal map, either battlefield or regional.

Stack - A hex occupied by a unit. Up to two units may occupy a stack at any given time; one of your own, and one of your opponentís.

Unit - A group of soldiers of the same type occupying the same stack. They are constituted by the abilities Movement, Soldiers, and Prowess, among special abilities.

Movement - The number of hexes a given unit can move in a turn.

Soldiers - The number of warriors in a unit. Determines the combative power of the unit.

Prowess - The battle efficiency of a given unit. Determines the combative power of the unit.

Casualties - The amount of soldiers removed from the opposing unit in combat. This is determined by Soldiers * Prowess.

Stacking

You may stack units of the same type on an individual hex. For example, if you have two units of Soldier A, one with 50 soldiers, and the other with 45 soldiers, they become a single unit of 95 soldiers if they converge on a single stack. Units of different types, however, canít end the movement phase in the same stack as a different unit. A unit of Soldier B, for example, cannot end its movement phase in the same stack as a unit of Soldier A. Units of different types can still switch hexes if adjacent, or in the case of units with a movement greater of one, move through stacks occupied by allies.

Units with a movement greater than one must immediately end their movement if it would take them into a stack occupied by an enemy unit. They are consequentially in combat.

Combat

Damage is dealt simultaneously by opposing units in the same stack. Any Characters in the units strike before rank and file soldiers. For characters, use their Damage stat to figure out the number of casualties imposed on the other side.

Once that is resolved, determine the casualties dealt by the soldiers. This is determined by Soldiers in the unit multiplied the Prowess of the unit.

Retreats

As you may have noticed, this leads to protracted battles that can last several turns before a conclusion is seen as numbers dwindle. Eventually, units may wish to retreat from the front lines so that another unit may step in. This is perfectly legal, and the unit may move a number of hexes equal to their movement minus the movement of the opposing unit (to a minimum of 1).

Winning a Battle

Conventional leaders typically fight until the obliteration of the opposing forces. However, some shrewd tacticians can attempt to retreat from the field of battle. Any units on the edge of their own side of the board may be removed from the battle at the beginning of the Leadership Phase. Forces removed this way will be placed on the Regional Map hex that they originally were on. Defending players may not retreat from the field of battle.

As far as background goes, I started this after a particularly interesting calculus class about Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar. The battle model is based off some revelations from the problems. The main idea is that the battles have little luck involved and that it is completely based on strategy. Early versions of the game allowed you to put units of different types onto the same stack, but then it got really unbalanced really fast. The three basic troop choices so far are:

Light Cavalry: 4 Movement, .3 Power Melee - 4 Points Each
Archers: 1 Movement, .2 Power 3 Hex Range, .1 Power Melee - 4 Points Each
Infantry: 1 Movement, .5 Power Melee - 3 Points Each

The statline may seem strange, but in practice it is very intuitive. You'll typically run them in units of about 50-100. Once in meelee (or shooting with archers), you multiply the number in the unit by their Power, round up, then subtract from the opposing unit's number of soldiers.

What I've noticed is that Archers are so prohibitively scary (somewhat rightfully so) that it takes a couple turns of posturing before the players actually attack, but once the line breaks, it becomes bloody. Infantry are really a defensive unit, but if they come into contact with a unit, they will hit it like a freight train.

In general, there are two ways that people deploy in a battle:

Archers - Soldiers - Cavalry - Soldiers - Archers

or

Cavalry - Soldiers - Archers - Soldiers - Cavalry

Of course, this will begin to change as I add specialized units.

I'm also developing a "Regional Conflict" rule system that goes with this that outlines the playstyle for a larger, grander field of conflict (akin to Diplomacy or Risk). Once that's done, I'm going to post it here.

Now, I still have to come up with some balanced Leaders and Mages for the Combat System. I'm planning them to read something like this:

Battlemaster - 1 Movement, 5 Damage, +.1 Proficiency Melee for unit Leader is with - X Points (This should be high - about 50-75 points minimum methinks)

Water Mage - 1 Movement, 5 Damage 3 Range, Upwelling: Mark target Hex within 3 squares of Water Mage. Cavalry Units that move into that hex must end their movement. - X Points (30-40 Points)

Thane of Fife
2009-04-03, 10:49 PM
Some comments:

1. What kind of period are you looking at here? Feudal? Roman? Greek?

2. This is more of a tactical game than a strategic one, for the sake of correctness.

3. Most games that I've found set in thiese periods don't allow any sort of stacking. Merging units would be kind of awkward.

4. Light cavalry should probably have some ranged weapons.

In large part, though, it looks interesting. I am curious how they're related to Nelson, Calculus, or Trafalgar, though.

IcarusWings
2009-04-04, 03:41 AM
is there anyway to give units/stacks formations? as that would make it a bit more tactical.

Merlin

Giras
2009-04-04, 11:45 AM
@Thane: The idea is to have it in a feudal-ish fantasy setting, maybe starting around the end of the romans (though not actually name any groups as such). Part of the Regional Conflict rules cause you to develop new military technologies like units / abilities for units (bow upgrade for light cavalry is a definite here), so you'll see a general shift in the style of units as the game progresses.

As for calling it "Strategic" rather than tactical, I said that because of the larger "Regional Conflict" system which is more akin to Risk or Diplomacy. Though if you really think its that crucial to change the name, no prob.

Stacking of the same units I'm fine with, though I'll probably put a limit to the number of any one type of troop that can be in a hex (100? 200?). The idea is that you can split your forces and do some really cool maneuvers with this (an upgrade I plan is to let Infantry be on the same stack as archers, protecting them. This will be quite costly, as the last time I tried this, it turned into unstoppable stacks of death)

The relation to calculus & trafalgar is tenuous at best. The idea that I took was from the first problem where he had us prove that the decrease of ships at the battle grew exponentially over time with dA/dt = -bB , dB/dt = -aA, by finding d(A + B)/dt if a = b = k. a and b came to be the "Prowess" stat of this game, while A and B became the number of soldiers.

merlin: I had considered that, but I think that formations are a bit complicated. Units can have upgrades from the "Regional Conflict" part of the game, which could represent formations.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-04, 05:22 PM
@Thane: The idea is to have it in a feudal-ish fantasy setting, maybe starting around the end of the romans (though not actually name any groups as such). Part of the Regional Conflict rules cause you to develop new military technologies like units / abilities for units (bow upgrade for light cavalry is a definite here), so you'll see a general shift in the style of units as the game progresses.

Then you should strongly consider including some heavier mounted troops. They were relatively important.


As for calling it "Strategic" rather than tactical, I said that because of the larger "Regional Conflict" system which is more akin to Risk or Diplomacy. Though if you really think its that crucial to change the name, no prob.


It's not a huge deal - I just assumed that this was the main bit of the game, as it is what's been detailed. As a general note, running long campaigns which involve managing both strategic and tactical aspects have a tendency to fall apart.

As a general piece of advice, avoid trying to get particularly detailed - if you do, your game will look like it's trying to be a simulation, and it will fail at that.

Giras
2009-04-04, 05:51 PM
Then you should strongly consider including some heavier mounted troops. They were relatively important.

That is my plan. Each of the three basic units are going to have two "upgraded" units that you can develop as the game passes. The Light Cavalry can be upgraded to Heavy Cavalry and Mounted Bowmen:

Heavy Cavalry: 4 Movement, .5 Power Melee - 7 Points Each

Mounted Bowmen: 4 Movement, .3 Power 3 Hex Range, .15 Power Melee - 8 Points Each

The exact numbers for them haven't been straightened out, but that's how they'll end up being like (at least for cavalry).


It's not a huge deal - I just assumed that this was the main bit of the game, as it is what's been detailed. As a general note, running long campaigns which involve managing both strategic and tactical aspects have a tendency to fall apart.

As a general piece of advice, avoid trying to get particularly detailed - if you do, your game will look like it's trying to be a simulation, and it will fail at that.

Yeah, I guess maybe I should have waited to put this up until after I had everything done, but I was excited with what I had currently, and didn't want to wait to get started on criticism/tweaking.

Its not going to be very detailed on the "Regional Conflict" stage, though it is quite important. Here's what I've got so far:

All of your cities produce Might, Military Science, Social Science, and Infrastructure points. Might points allow you to have more troops, Military Science is what you pay to get upgraded units, Social Science is what you pay for upgrades to stuff in your cities etc., and Infrastructure Points are what you use to build roads, cities, and forts.

You begin the game with your Capitol. The Capitol provides 1000 might points, and produces 100 Military Science, Social Science and Infrastructure Points per turn.

Roads cost 100 Infrastructure per hex, and all of your cities must be connected to at least one other city. Forces may move double their regional movement per turn when on a road (Infantry move 1 hex/turn, Cavalry 2 hexes/turn. With mixed forces, move the slowest movement in the force)

Cities cost 100 Infrastructure, provide 100 might, and produce 10 Military Science, Social Science, and Infrastructure Points per turn.

Cities may be upgraded to a higher level at the points cost provided:
Level 2: 200 Infrastructure, Provides 200 might points, and produces 20 Military Science, Social Science and Infrastructure Points per turn.
Level 3: 300 Infrastructure, Must be a level 2 city, provides 300 might points, and produces 30 Military Science, Social Science and Infrastructure Points per turn.
Level 4: 400 Infrastructure, Must be a level 3 city, provides 400 might points, and produces 40 Military Science, Social Science and Infrastructure Points per turn.
Level 5: 500 Infrastructure, Must be a level 4 city, provides 500 might points, and produces 50 Military Science, Social Science and Infrastructure Points per turn.

If an opposing army enters a city with no troops in it, it may choose to either Ransack or Control the city. If the army chooses to ransack it, the city's controller loses all points provided by the city, and it loses one level per turn the army occupies it uncontested. If this would reduce the level of the city to 0, remove it from the map.

If the army attempts to control it, the city's controller loses all points provided by the city. They must remain uncontested in the hex for a number of turns equal to the city's level. Once the number of turns is completed, the army's controller gains control of the city. A city taken in this way loses one level.

So I guess it could be called a tactical game more than a strategy game. Any suggestions there? I still need to make the technology tree and come up with rules for forts (if I should even have them)

Thane of Fife
2009-04-04, 09:18 PM
That is my plan. Each of the three basic units are going to have two "upgraded" units that you can develop as the game passes. The Light Cavalry can be upgraded to Heavy Cavalry and Mounted Bowmen:

Heavy Cavalry: 4 Movement, .5 Power Melee - 7 Points Each

Mounted Bowmen: 4 Movement, .3 Power 3 Hex Range, .15 Power Melee - 8 Points Each

The exact numbers for them haven't been straightened out, but that's how they'll end up being like (at least for cavalry).


Heavy cavalry should probably be slower than light cavalry. Armor weighs you down, at least to a degree.


All of your cities produce Might, Military Science, Social Science, and Infrastructure points. Might points allow you to have more troops, Military Science is what you pay to get upgraded units, Social Science is what you pay for upgrades to stuff in your cities etc., and Infrastructure Points are what you use to build roads, cities, and forts.

You begin the game with your Capitol. The Capitol provides 1000 might points, and produces 100 Military Science, Social Science and Infrastructure Points per turn.

That's a fair bit of stuff to keep track of, but I guess it's okay.


Roads cost 100 Infrastructure per hex, and all of your cities must be connected to at least one other city. Forces may move double their regional movement per turn when on a road (Infantry move 1 hex/turn, Cavalry 2 hexes/turn. With mixed forces, move the slowest movement in the force)

Cavalry should move at the same speed as infantry - horses can't gallop everywhere (Strategically, certainly. Even tactically, whether cavalry should be much faster is debatable).


If an opposing army enters a city with no troops in it, it may choose to either Ransack or Control the city. If the army chooses to ransack it, the city's controller loses all points provided by the city, and it loses one level per turn the army occupies it uncontested. If this would reduce the level of the city to 0, remove it from the map.

If the army attempts to control it, the city's controller loses all points provided by the city. They must remain uncontested in the hex for a number of turns equal to the city's level. Once the number of turns is completed, the army's controller gains control of the city. A city taken in this way loses one level.


I have a moderately hard time seeing any value in ransacking a city.


So I guess it could be called a tactical game more than a strategy game. Any suggestions there? I still need to make the technology tree and come up with rules for forts (if I should even have them)


Eh, I don't know if I'd bother with forts and castles. Maybe let people build castles in cities to help them hold out longer (for example, a ransacked city normally loses 1 level per turn. A castle might act like a shield - before you can hurt the city, you have to destroy the x levels of the castle).

Giras
2009-04-04, 09:57 PM
Heavy cavalry should probably be slower than light cavalry. Armor weighs you down, at least to a degree.

Yeah, but the issue is that then Archers are more effective against them... maybe if I up light cavalry movement by 1?


That's a fair bit of stuff to keep track of, but I guess it's okay.

It seems complicated, but surprisingly easy to keep track of. Your sum total of Military prowess is the # of points that your army can add up to, and you'll be spending the other points pretty regularly into other things.


Cavalry should move at the same speed as infantry - horses can't gallop everywhere (Strategically, certainly. Even tactically, whether cavalry should be much faster is debatable).

I'll try to work out both in my playtesting this week. Realistically, you're probably right, but I'd like to make an all cavalry list slightly more appealing.


I have a moderately hard time seeing any value in ransacking a city.

Its for when you know that your opponent will take back the city before you can conquer it. So, you go for hurt rather than gain, and take them down a notch.


Eh, I don't know if I'd bother with forts and castles. Maybe let people build castles in cities to help them hold out longer (for example, a ransacked city normally loses 1 level per turn. A castle might act like a shield - before you can hurt the city, you have to destroy the x levels of the castle).

The reason I was considering forts was that the original rule was that in addition to roads connecting all cities, you had to have exactly 2 hexes of roads between cities. Forts would then count as cities, but allow you to put them along areas where you were pushing up against another player. I think fortifications to cities are superior, though - another thing you can spend infrastructure points on.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-05, 07:11 AM
Yeah, but the issue is that then Archers are more effective against them... maybe if I up light cavalry movement by 1?

Archers were one of the main weaknesses of knights, so I don't see that as a problem, really.


I'll try to work out both in my playtesting this week. Realistically, you're probably right, but I'd like to make an all cavalry list slightly more appealing.

Fair enough.

Giras
2009-04-05, 01:53 PM
Here's all the Units I have so far:
Infantry: 1 Movement, .5 Power Melee - 3 Points Each

Axe Throwers: 1 Movement, .4 Power 1 Hex Range, .4 Power Melee - 6 Points Each

Phalanx: 1 Movement, .5 Power Melee, -.1 Power on all attacks directed against them - 8 Points each

Archers: 1 Movement, .2 Power 3 Hex Range, .1 Power Melee - 4 Points Each

Longbowmen: 1 Movement, .3 Power 5 Hex Range, .1 Power Melee - 7 Points Each

Musketeers: 1 Movement, .5 Power 3 Hex Range, .1 Power Melee - 9 Points Each

Light Cavalry: 4 Movement, .3 Power Melee - 4 Points Each

Heavy Cavalry: 3 Movement, .5 Power Melee - 7 Points Each

Mounted Bowmen: 4 Movement, .3 Power 3 Hex Range, .15 Power Melee - 8 Points Each

Battlemaster: 1 Movement, 5 Power, +.1 Power on any melee attacks made by the unit the Battlemaster is with - 75 Points, may only have one per Capitol/Level 5 City

Mages: May only have one per Capitol/Level 3+ city

Water Mage: 1 Movement, 3 Power 3 Hex Range, Mire: Mark target hex within 3 hexes of the Water Mage. Cavalry units must end their movement if they enter that hex - 40 Points,

Thunder Mage that hoses archers

Earth Mage that hoses infantry

Fire Mage that just dishes

Giras
2009-04-08, 08:34 PM
I've got updates (and a shameless bump)!

Fire Mage - 1 Movement, 5 Power 3 Hex Range, 30 Points

Storm Mage - 1 Movement, 3 Power 3 Hex Range, Call Thunder: Choose a square within 3 hexes of the Storm Mage. Ranged attacks may not go through that hex or originate from that hex; 40 Points

Earth Mage - 1 Movement, 3 Power 3 Hex Range, Quake: Choose a hex within 3 hexes of the Earth Mage. On your opponent's next turn, any unit that starts the turn in that hex has its movement reduced by 1; 45 Points

For every unit except for the basic 3, there will be a research cost:
Axe Throwers - 300 Military Science Points
Phalanx - 400 Military Science Points
Longbowmen - 350 Military Science Points
Musketeers - 450 Military Science Points
Heavy Cavalry - 350 Military Science Points
Mounted Bowmen - 400 Military Science Points
Battlemaster - 350 Military Science Points
Fire Mage - 150 Military Science Points
Water Mage - 200 Military Science Points
Thunder Mage - 200 Military Science Points
Earth Mage - 200 Military Science Points

Here's a list of Social Science Research items:
Bridges - 200 Social Science Points
Mountain Path - 200 Social Science Points
Fortification - 300 Social Science Points
Must buy these in order -
Level 2 City - 200 Social Science Points
Level 3 City - 300 Social Science Points
Level 4 City - 400 Social Science Points
Level 5 City - 500 Social Science Points

From New Stuff on the Social Science List:
Bridges - Allow you to build roads over rivers on the Regional Conflict Map. A bridge costs 150 Infrastructure.
Mountain Path - Allows you to build roads over mountains on the Regional Conflict Map. A mountain path costs 150 infrastructure.
Fortification - Costs 150 Infrastructure, upgrade to a city. Doubles the # of turns for ransacking and conquering.

I'm planning to playtest w/ my buddies this saturday, and once I've figured out the ins and outs of the system, I'm thinking I'll put up my Hex map of Europe and start a 6 player game :)

Any thoughts on additions / new thoughts on stuff already written?

IcarusWings
2009-04-11, 11:33 AM
I'd go for crossbowmen rather than musketeers. Same role as a ranged power wash, but fits into the setting better.

Merlin

Giras
2009-04-11, 04:25 PM
Yeah. That's probably a good point. The main idea is that eventually once the game is settled in design, the trees for each basic unit will continue on... one drifting towards Magic, the other drifting more towards Steampunk in inspiration.

TSED
2009-04-11, 10:15 PM
I'm thinking your mounted cavalry are way overpowered right now.


Keep in mind the Mongols, who are basically the only contact Europe had with horse archers, conquered basically everything. Nothing could stand before them. Part of that was their longbow design (which gave them a decent range advantage over their targets), and part of it was the fact that they could move so quickly.

Really, the people the mongols started fighting saw them as demonic god-men. They really were unstoppable at the time.

And here you are, practically giving them away. Sure, actual longbowmen have greater range (for some reason I don't understand) but that doesn't really matter. Ranged attacks + mobility = DOOM.

Also, I'd pump up the fire mage's damage to six or increase its range to 4. Why buy a fire mage and use up a mage slot (you don't get very many mages after all) when a slightly heavier investment gives you all sorts of nifty tactical options?

Options are the key to victory.
(Oh, I wish I said that earlier. That's why mobility + range = death; mobility gives options of where to be and archery gives options of where to attack.)

Jolly Steve
2009-04-11, 10:47 PM
This seems to be using the same convention that a lot of computer games nowdays seem to, of having a mixed time and distance scale.

I'm pretty sure that if you're talking about the kind of time scale where you can build fortresses, gain economic value from them, and raise units based on that economic value, then cavalry stops being faster than infantry (actually I don't think you'd get units of entirely one thing or the other).

Also, if you have a board which can have several cities, that implies a physical scale where every unit has a range of zero. It's not like archers could shoot from one city to another.

Obviously wizards can work however you want, and it probably doesn't really matter anyway I guess.

IcarusWings
2009-04-12, 03:17 AM
I'm thinking your mounted cavalry are way overpowered right now.

Keep in mind the Mongols, who are basically the only contact Europe had with horse archers, conquered basically everything. Nothing could stand before them. Part of that was their longbow design (which gave them a decent range advantage over their targets), and part of it was the fact that they could move so quickly.

Really, the people the mongols started fighting saw them as demonic god-men. They really were unstoppable at the time.

And here you are, practically giving them away. Sure, actual longbowmen have greater range (for some reason I don't understand) but that doesn't really matter. Ranged attacks + mobility = DOOM.

Options are the key to victory.
(Oh, I wish I said that earlier. That's why mobility + range = death; mobility gives options of where to be and archery gives options of where to attack.)

For one thing, mongols didn't use longbows they used composite shortbows, for another, part of their conquering of europe was due to tactical genius which this game should be trying to encourage.

Horse archers were very weak defensively, not being able to wear armour, move quickly and fire all at the same time due to them being on a horse.

They could also only fire when they were sideways on to their foe, which opens them up as the broader side of the horse is therefore shown.

Put them up against a normal archer, or at least a longbowmen, and they would lose.

They were also slower than light cavalry, at least when firing.

Note!(I haven't really looked at the stats he's given MB's but that's what they were like in real life).

p.s. I agree with upping the fire mage's damage.

Merlin

TSED
2009-04-12, 06:20 AM
For one thing, mongols didn't use longbows they used composite shortbows, for another, part of their conquering of europe was due to tactical genius which this game should be trying to encourage.

Disagreed.

I am pretty sure they got to conquer Europe from being untouchable (range and speed).

Their 'tactics' were really, really simple. "Run into range, turn, open fire." The end.


Horse archers were very weak defensively, not being able to wear armour, move quickly and fire all at the same time due to them being on a horse.

They still wore leather armour type stuff, if I recall correctly. And I think you're underestimating what training can do - get a well trained horse, and you can set it to gallop in a straight line without user input. Practice, and you can use a stirrup to hold onto a horse at full gallop while you use your hands for something else. Like, say, pull a bow.


They could also only fire when they were sideways on to their foe, which opens them up as the broader side of the horse is therefore shown.

But they outranged and outran everything. It wasn't a problem.


Put them up against a normal archer, or at least a longbowmen, and they would lose.

Absolutely wrong.

An English longbow had a pull of about 70-80 pounds. According to George Vernadsky, Mongolian composite shortbows averaged at 166 pounds on the pull. That's more than double the force. English longbowmen could hit targets at 200 yards if they weren't moving (just large volleys would hose advancing infantry though). Mongolian archers also couldn't hit individuals, but that didn't matter as they were on HORSEBACK and had a range of 350 yards. There are tales of particularly skilled mongolian archers being able to hit well beyond that range. One in particular was found at a site, supposedly a transcript from a 1226, from a gathering Genghis Khan was having or the like (I'm not familiar enough with Mongolian history to know for sure if it was him). I believe it translated to something like "Chinggis Khan was holding a meeting of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of [East Turkey? I think], Esungge shot a target at ~300 alds (500ish m?)." There are... opinions that you can glean from the translators from their books and papers that such feats were not uncommon. That's half a kilometer! HALF A KILOMETER!

Stop and think.
On foot, 200 yard range.
vs
On horseback, 350 yard range.


Now, sure, the game stats in this don't reflect that reality, but since there's no 'feudal' equivalent for them all I can think of is how gamebreaking those horse archers are going to be. It's like introducing machine gun nests for capitol cities. There was no equivalent and something's not right. The casualties are going to be disproportionate no matter how much you nerf it from reality.


They were also slower than light cavalry, at least when firing.
So you're being rushed? Ok, start the regular retreat. Oops, you got blind sided by the other group of horse archers over there with bows. Now that you're reeling and trying to figure out what to do, we'll open fire too.
END.




Note!(I haven't really looked at the stats he's given MB's but that's what they were like in real life).

Move as fast as light cavalry, range of 3 hexes on the shot. Damage is inconsequential at this point as you already have god-mode when used with strategy: you can hit almost any target you want without fear of retribution.

I really don't agree with your 'how they were in real life' deal though. Heck, there were people still using the bow as part of their way of life in the 20th century in some parts of the world.

EDIT:: "While Chinggis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (East Turkestan), Esungge (the son of Chinggis Khan's brother) shot a target at 335 alds (536 m)." Quick google search turned that up.

Thane of Fife
2009-04-12, 09:12 AM
This seems to be using the same convention that a lot of computer games nowdays seem to, of having a mixed time and distance scale.

I'm pretty sure that if you're talking about the kind of time scale where you can build fortresses, gain economic value from them, and raise units based on that economic value, then cavalry stops being faster than infantry (actually I don't think you'd get units of entirely one thing or the other).


Actually, I think that he's using a "Zoom-In" sort of thing; you have armies on the map with cities, and when two of them move into the same hex, you zoom in to the tactical map, where they fight it out.

As far as the mounted archers go, I think balance is being emphasized over realism, here, so I suspect suggestions are welcome.

Giras
2009-04-12, 11:09 AM
@ Jolly Steve: I think I'll up the fire mage's damage to 6. All these characters are meant to be placed within units. And while you'd probably most typically see mages in stacks of archers, they rock in infantry roles as well. For balance issues, however, I have decided not to let them get on horses.

@ Tsed: I think you have a bit of your history mixed up. Old British hunting bows had 70-80 pounds on the draw. Their longbows had 180 pounds on the draw. But I still get where you're coming from here, I appreciate the mongol's strength. Perhaps the points should be increased?

@ Thane: Thank you. The exercise of this game is not to mimic history, but to make your own history. However, whenever there is a historical reference to a unit in my game, I'd definitely want its abilities to be historically realistic.

I'm definitely willing to increase the points of the mounted bowmen. The concept is that the more technology you develop, the more your troops advance without increasing your military forces. That way, you can choose between a horde of primitive and weaker soldiers, or keep a relatively stable number of elite forces. If I increased them to 10, do you think that would be acceptable?

Thane of Fife
2009-04-12, 11:22 AM
@ Thane: Thank you. The exercise of this game is not to mimic history, but to make your own history. However, whenever there is a historical reference to a unit in my game, I'd definitely want its abilities to be historically realistic.

You're going to have trouble selling a game as historically accurate without Morale rules. Combat to the destruction of one entire force almost never happened - if it did, it was because one force couldn't break through to freedom.

Giras
2009-04-12, 01:48 PM
You're going to have trouble selling a game as historically accurate without Morale rules. Combat to the destruction of one entire force almost never happened - if it did, it was because one force couldn't break through to freedom.

The what I see it here is that since there are rules to retreat, the players will appraise their situation, and if they think they're losing too badly, they'll make a run for if. I do think that there should be some morale rules, but I'd prefer not to leave things to chance. I want this game to work with very few variables. Perhaps if the unit loses 25% or more soldiers than they had at the beginning of the turn, they move away from combat. That way they can rally, or they can keep on running.

TSED
2009-04-12, 03:37 PM
@ Tsed: I think you have a bit of your history mixed up. Old British hunting bows had 70-80 pounds on the draw. Their longbows had 180 pounds on the draw. But I still get where you're coming from here, I appreciate the mongol's strength. Perhaps the points should be increased?



Really? Oops.


But yeah, increasing points to maybe 11 or 12 would work. They are NOT easy to train, after all, and then providing for horses and the like... They'd be expensive, but deadly.


Still, checking a variety of sources (4 off google) still says that the composite bows had an almost 2-1 range advantage due to better design. You could maybe put composite longbows as an upgrade for your (on-foot) longbomen? Increase hex range to 6. Assuming you're willing to give upgraded soldiers upgrades, that is.

Giras
2009-04-13, 07:48 PM
I'm going to use my morale system of if the unit loses 25% or more of its stack, they bread (counted from their numbers at the beginning of the turn)

I've reorganized the tech tree when it comes to combat units. I've got infantry here, and I'll try to make archers and cavalry soon.

The way this works is that you research numerically up tiers, with the lower tiers of your tree and path being your requisites. For example, to research Dread Warriors, you would have to had researched Soldiers of Atrocity and Berzerkers first.

Tier 1 Unit: Infantry - .5 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement. Point Cost 3

Melee Tree
Tier 2 : Berzerkers - .6 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement. Point cost ??

Offensive Path
Tier 3: Soldiers of Atrocity - .6 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement, Abandon: Casualties more that 10% cause opposing units in combat with Soldiers of Atrocity to break. Point cost ??
Tier 4: Dread Warriors - .7 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement, Terror: Opposing units in combat with Dread Warrriors break at end of turn. Point cost ??
Tier 5: Fyndknights - 1 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement, Run Down: Fyndknights that break an opposing unit may elect to skip actions on their next turn. If they do so, the broken unit is destroyed.

Defensive Path
Tier 3: Brave Souls - .6 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement, Iron Will: Brave Souls can't be broken in combat. Points ??
Tier 4: Phalanx - .7 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement, Shield Wall: the Power of opposing units in the same hex as Phalanx is reduced by .1. Points ??
Tier 5: Immortals - .8 Power Melee, 1 Hex Movement, Regeneration: at the end of each turn, Immortals add 50% of any casualties they suffered to their unit. Points ??

Ranged Tree
Tier 2: Axe Throwers - .3 Power Melee/1 Hex Range, 1 Hex Movement. Points ??

Skirmish Tree
Tier 3: Javelineers - .4 Power Melee/1 Hex Range, 1 Hex Movement, Rain of Spears: Any opposing unit that takes casualties from Javelineers reduces their movement by 1 to a minimum of 1. Points ??
Tier 4: Skirmishers - .4 Power Melee / .2 Power 1 Hex Range, 1 Hex Movement, Lightfooted - After a unit of skirmishers makes an attack, they may move one hex in any direction as long as it doesn't put them in the same hex as an opposing unit. Points ??
Tier 5: Runners - .6 Power Melee / .3 Power 2 Hex Range, 2 Hex Movement. Points ??

Destruction Tree
Tier 3: Maul Slingers - .4 Power Melee / 2 Hex Range, 1 Hex. Points ??
Tier 4: Alchemists - .3 Power Melee / .5 Power 2 Hex Range, 1 Hex Movement, Unnatural Fire: If a unit of alchemists attacks a unit, they take 10% casualties at the beginning of their controller's turn. Points ??
Tier 5: Grenadiers - .3 Power Melee / .7 Power 2 Hex Range, 1 Hex Movement, Bombard: When Grenadiers attack a hex, they deal damage to target adjacent hex, and target hex that is adjacent to both hexes. Points ??

Edit:
@ TSED: I'm not sure how efficiently I can integrate upgrades w/ my new tier system. Maybe it'll just be a higher tier (composite longbowmen)