 | | | | | | |
| |
|
* NLDA, acronym for Non-Lego Dark Ages, n. def.: any or all dark ages
distinguishable (historically, chronologically, or materially) from
Lego Dark Ages.
Hark Hark Hark,
We, as Americans, were denied the opportunity to participate in 400
years of ignorance, bloodshed, and inequitable feudalism, commonly
referred to as "The Non-Lego Dark Ages" (though historians tend to agree
that during that time, darkness generally only prevailed from sundown to
sunup). I, for one, feel cheated.
So we, in a concerted effort to rewrite history, are staging our own
medieval strife, to be carried out on June the 30th, 2001 (for you
monks: VI/XXX/MMI ).
Details:
WHAT: Medieval (TL2) Brikwars
WHEN: June 30th, convening at around 9:30 a.m.
WHERE: The glorious abode of Jorge, who will hopefully provide
directions
WHY: to purge society's ills from our blood with simulated battle, to
partake in a time period during which the involvement of the United
States was particularly apathetic, and to resolve all differences in a
gory and definitive matter (of particular note: one issue at stake, to
be decided during this event, will be who Mike Rayhawk, esteemed author
of Brikwars, would prefer to communicate with, myself or Suz - to the
winner goes Mike's undying adulation ... I think)
Other Appropriate Details:
-CP limitation ... still up for discussion, but we're thinking 200 or
300 points per person. On the one hand, this may not sound like much,
but on the other, things in the old days are a lot cheaper ;) Feel free
to prepare and bring more, though ... eep in mind, with at least 8
people showing up (current estimate), that makes for some pretty large
sides
-No SP points - that is to say, no magic, psionics, etc
-I'm also tending to shy away from monsters/creatures (Dragons, giants,
etc) and the like, and keep it somewhat historically grounded, at least
in content ... of course, this is open to discussion, but the original
conception was to have it be somewhat reflective of what might actually
have been around ...
-Pre-Gunpowder !! (yes, even for imported ninjas/samurais ;)
-Beginners/First-Timers welcome! We'll be dividing the participants
into two teams, so noone will ever need to feel unqualified! For
anybody interested, there was a tongue-in-cheek Brikwars FAQ posted by
some literally prodigy to the NELUG newsgroup a couple months ago ...
ahhh, here it is:
http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/nelug/?n=1272
Keep in mind, this referred specifically to another game, so dates,
names, and locations are purely coincidental. However, most of the
material can be easily translated to this upcoming game ...
-People without any Castle Stuff are also welcome! - there will be
plenty of extras - Dave Eaton and myself (as well as some others, I
believe) both have rather large armies, and are willing to outfit
anybody who would like to participate but doesn't have the appropriate
troops
-Please try to have all of your scoring/point totals accumulated before
game day - that tends to allow for more playing time and less
last-minute confusion! Anybody needing help, pelase feel free to e-mail
myself (and maybe Eric J. or Dave Eaton, if they are willing to tackle
any of them)
-Please please please try to bring any period apprpriate scenery you can
muster! Partof the appeal of these games is that they offer a chance to
pool constructinos together and come up with some truly stellar
presentations; note the last two Brikwars games, for example - we had a
huge Main Street layout in one, and a large medieval fantasy battlefield
in the other. Very impressive, and they make the game all that much
more enjoyable!
-Finally, there's one other point that might be worth discussing; if
people would like to, we can try and divvy the participants up into
teams ahead of time (and then any last-minute arrivals can be
distributed in some fair fashion). The advantages of this are
multipfold:
(a) people can try and strategize a bit - one person might spend a good
chuck of their points on catapults and siege towers if they can be
assured that someone else on their team will make sure to provide some
extra troops. When each person is planning individually, people try to
cover all the bases (proverbial), and are hesitant to devote points to a
large-ish endeavor.
(b) Rivalries can be formed, goadings can be nurtured, and taunting can
be administered liberally in the days and weeks leading up to the event
We've never tried running a game where the sides are picked beforehand
(or at least, those who can commit are split up), but we've talked about
it. How do people feel about this? Personally, I'm in favor of giving
it a try!
Lastly, There has been some talk of a meeting in the week or two prior
to the event, during which people could bring their constructions and
have help scoring them before the big day. Keep your eyes on this
newsgroup for further information!
Gad, I ramble,
-s
As a tasty aside: extensive research has indicated that any so-called
"pheasant uprisings" during the dark ages were hardly uprisings at all.
Most pheasants with a penchant for public disturbance were quickly
caught, roasted, and serbved with Quail or Duck.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> * NLDA, acronym for Non-Lego Dark Ages, n. def.: any or all dark ages
> distinguishable (historically, chronologically, or materially) from
> Lego Dark Ages.
Dark Ages indeed, there was no LEGO back then...
> WHAT: Medieval (TL2) Brikwars
> WHEN: June 30th, convening at around 9:30 a.m.
That would be 3 and a half notches on the sundial.
> WHERE: The glorious abode of Jorge, who will hopefully provide
> directions
May those that will bless the studded ground with thy blood of their plastic
people and those that would like to see such a gory and gruesome display of
fiendish combat, send a message via "ye olde e-mail" to galien1@aol.com or
jorge.fernandez@eds.com to get the appropriate directions. (Boy!, I got to
use a lot of English words that I thought I was never going to use)
<snip>
> -No SP points - that is to say, no magic, psionics, etc
> -I'm also tending to shy away from monsters/creatures (Dragons, giants,
> etc) and the like, and keep it somewhat historically grounded, at least
> in content ... of course, this is open to discussion, but the original
> conception was to have it be somewhat reflective of what might actually
> have been around ...
Woo-Hoo!!!...
> -Pre-Gunpowder !! (yes, even for imported ninjas/samurais ;)
Double Woo-hoo!!!...
<snip>
> -Please please please try to bring any period apprpriate scenery you can
> muster!
May I add: Please, please, please...
> -Finally, there's one other point that might be worth discussing;
> (a) people can try and strategize a bit
:-)
>
> (b) Rivalries can be formed, goadings can be nurtured, and taunting can
> be administered liberally in the days and weeks leading up to the event
>:-D
Oh yes, Guinness will be served...
Jorge F.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Shaun Sullivan" <shaun_sullivan@irco.com> wrote in message
news:3B2A4A91.58407E7C@irco.com...
>
> -I'm also tending to shy away from monsters/creatures (Dragons, giants,
> etc) and the like, and keep it somewhat historically grounded, at least
> in content ... of course, this is open to discussion, but the original
> conception was to have it be somewhat reflective of what might actually
> have been around ...
Drat...I was leaning toward this, but I see that you want this to be a
period game instead of a fantasy one. I'm fine with this, I just have to
rethink my army.
What about coming up with some optional objectives like taking someone's
crown jewels?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Joe Comeau" <jcomea@ctp.com> wrote in message news:GF0ynJ.JC8@lugnet.com...
> "Shaun Sullivan" <shaun_sullivan@irco.com> wrote in message
> news:3B2A4A91.58407E7C@irco.com...
> >
> > -I'm also tending to shy away from monsters/creatures (Dragons, giants,
> > etc) and the like, and keep it somewhat historically grounded, at least
> > in content ... of course, this is open to discussion, but the original
> > conception was to have it be somewhat reflective of what might actually
> > have been around ...
>
> Drat...I was leaning toward this, but I see that you want this to be a
> period game instead of a fantasy one. I'm fine with this, I just have to
> rethink my army.
>
> What about coming up with some optional objectives like taking someone's
> crown jewels?
Hey Team A, you know what would make this game even more interesteing? If
you guys needed to take something from us, like a grail or parchment showing
that you really don't own the land you've pilfered from the poor peasant
folk. At this point, it doesn't matter too much what it is, but it would be
something that you can see and track. What do you think?
Now I know adding an element of strategy into the game, might at first seem
to go directly against your, "kill, kill, kill" appraoch, but don't worry,
there'll be plenty of bloodlust for all!
- Joe
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> "Joe Comeau" <jcomea@ctp.com> wrote in message news:GF0ynJ.JC8@lugnet.com...
> > "Shaun Sullivan" <shaun_sullivan@irco.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B2A4A91.58407E7C@irco.com...
> > >
> > > -I'm also tending to shy away from monsters/creatures (Dragons, giants,
> > > etc) and the like, and keep it somewhat historically grounded, at least
> > > in content ... of course, this is open to discussion, but the original
> > > conception was to have it be somewhat reflective of what might actually
> > > have been around ...
> >
> > Drat...I was leaning toward this, but I see that you want this to be a
> > period game instead of a fantasy one. I'm fine with this, I just have to
> > rethink my army.
> >
> > What about coming up with some optional objectives like taking someone's
> > crown jewels?
>
> Hey Team A, you know what would make this game even more interesteing? If
> you guys needed to take something from us, like a grail or parchment showing
> that you really don't own the land you've pilfered from the poor peasant
> folk. At this point, it doesn't matter too much what it is, but it would be
> something that you can see and track. What do you think?
Are you asking yourself?
I could have sworn that you were Team A and we were Team B... Lets see... Ahhh
here it is. Yes you are on Team A
http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/nelug/?n=1646
I tried to make this as simple as possible knowing the limited intellect of
Team A but obviously I was giving you to much credit.
Now if you were asking yourself, I will wait for you to answer yourself but if
you had intended to ask your opponents then I will say I like the idea. Kind
of a capture the flag type deal.
>
> Now I know adding an element of strategy into the game, might at first seem
> to go directly against your, "kill, kill, kill" appraoch, but don't worry,
> there'll be plenty of bloodlust for all!
I have never seen a minifig bleed before but I believe that yours will be the
first.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > Hey Team A, you know what would make this game even more interesteing? If
> > you guys needed to take something from us, like a grail or parchment showing
> > that you really don't own the land you've pilfered from the poor peasant
> > folk. At this point, it doesn't matter too much what it is, but it would be
> > something that you can see and track. What do you think?
>
> Now if you were asking yourself, I will wait for you to answer yourself but if
> you had intended to ask your opponents then I will say I like the idea. Kind
> of a capture the flag type deal.
Yeah, I like the idea-- however just to make the distinction, are we talking
about a 1-sided capture the flag, or will each team have a prize to capture?
I guess the problem being that it adds definite advantages to the team
protecting the "item" if it's only one sided...
But on that note... Since we've never "finished" a game, it's more than
entirely possible that even with only one "flag" per team, we may not
actually see a capture. How about this:
Each team has 10 points of value to the other team, to be divided amongst
objects in their initial posession (or heck, on the ground if they want--
they can place them). How they want to distribute the points among objects
is up to them, but they can't designate more than 3 points per 1 item (that
means between 4 and 10 objects, all you team A'ers!).
At the start of the game, each object in a team's posession is announced,
but its point value kept secret. As to whether or not their locations should
be obviated, I dunno. I'll leave that up to us later. But suffice to say as
objects are captured (or at the end of the game) point values are announced,
and the final victor is the team with the name "Team B".
But this leaves a lot more intelligent strategy up to the teams, and
unfortunately, we already know that intelligence is voraciously skewed in
our favor, so maybe we should just forget it and give Team A a fighting chance.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:GFACM0.3L1@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > > Hey Team A, you know what would make this game even more interesteing? • If
> > > you guys needed to take something from us, like a grail or parchment • showing
> > > that you really don't own the land you've pilfered from the poor peasant
> > > folk. At this point, it doesn't matter too much what it is, but it would • be
> > > something that you can see and track. What do you think?
> >
> > Now if you were asking yourself, I will wait for you to answer yourself • but if
> > you had intended to ask your opponents then I will say I like the idea. • Kind
> > of a capture the flag type deal.
Damn, Suz, you win. They AREN'T as slow as I thought.
> Yeah, I like the idea-- however just to make the distinction, are we • talking
> about a 1-sided capture the flag, or will each team have a prize to • capture?
> I guess the problem being that it adds definite advantages to the team
> protecting the "item" if it's only one sided...
Of course, we could even this out fairly easily by letting the team with the
item (Team A) place their troops first. This would then give you guys the
ability to analyze weak spots and place your troops accordingly. This
definitely is more objective-based than I've seen in the past, but I think
it would be fun. It would also speed up the game a bit buy not wasting time
marching a bunch of troops to the center of the field. Thoughts?
>
> But on that note... Since we've never "finished" a game, it's more than
> entirely possible that even with only one "flag" per team, we may not
> actually see a capture. How about this:
>
> Each team has 10 points of value to the other team, to be divided amongst
> objects in their initial posession (or heck, on the ground if they want--
> they can place them). How they want to distribute the points among objects
> is up to them, but they can't designate more than 3 points per 1 item • (that
> means between 4 and 10 objects, all you team A'ers!).
>
> At the start of the game, each object in a team's posession is announced,
> but its point value kept secret. As to whether or not their locations • should
> be obviated, I dunno. I'll leave that up to us later. But suffice to say • as
> objects are captured (or at the end of the game) point values are • announced,
> and the final victor is the team with the name "Team B".
>
> But this leaves a lot more intelligent strategy up to the teams, and
> unfortunately, we already know that intelligence is voraciously skewed in
> our favor, so maybe we should just forget it and give Team A a fighting • chance.
>
> DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> Of course, we could even this out fairly easily by letting the team with the
> item (Team A) place their troops first. This would then give you guys the
> ability to analyze weak spots and place your troops accordingly.
I'm certainly up for it... of course I'll also take that to mean that we'll
fluctuate what troops & weapons we field depending on your inital positioning.
> This
> definitely is more objective-based than I've seen in the past, but I think
> it would be fun. It would also speed up the game a bit buy not wasting time
> marching a bunch of troops to the center of the field. Thoughts?
It's certainly different than most of the games we've had in the past-- I've
often wanted to try something where we've got more defined objectives than
simply kill kill kill... I think the only real reason we haven't done this
in the past much is simply due to the difficulty of trying to make it a
"fair fight"-- I think we had discussed it several times before... I'm still
intreuged by things like a castle seige or a secret ops mission or
something. I keep being inspired by the idea Shaun had to play in Dan
Jassim's ship (or something similar)... Have one team the ship's posesser,
and have the other team trying to board, or tyring to recover secret
documents and escape undetected (or at least alive).
Anyway, I'm game. We'll just have to alter strategies a little...
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
David Eaton wrote:
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > Of course, we could even this out fairly easily by letting the team with the
> > item (Team A) place their troops first. This would then give you guys the
> > ability to analyze weak spots and place your troops accordingly.
>
> I'm certainly up for it... of course I'll also take that to mean that we'll
> fluctuate what troops & weapons we field depending on your inital positioning.
(define 'fluctuate' here?)
This sounds like what I was hoping for. though it would seem that you
ought not to know where *all* our men are. what if each team started
with duplicate maps of the environment and some indication of important
features (placement of visible guards, exteriors of buildings, etc.,
planned their positions privately, and then positioned their troops
according to their plan. (in other words doing partial simultaneous
positioning) Is this too complicated? I'm just thinking about how the
element of surprise would actually work inside the game..
> > This
> > definitely is more objective-based than I've seen in the past, but I think
> > it would be fun. It would also speed up the game a bit buy not wasting time
> > marching a bunch of troops to the center of the field. Thoughts?
How 'bout we kidnapped your ugly, wailing princess for ransom (or some
such), and are kinda expecting you. Game starts upon your arrival, maybe
giving you the first turn, but allows us the possibility of laying traps.
> It's certainly different than most of the games we've had in the past-- I've
> often wanted to try something where we've got more defined objectives than
> simply kill kill kill...
I'm way more excited about a game with a pre-defined situation. Feels a
lot more like a RPG and less like a simulation. Makes for a nice game
documentation too, I'd think. I'd like it even better if the game were
left set up and played through enough sessions to allow completion. (I
understand the constraints of this however)
> I think the only real reason we haven't done this
> in the past much is simply due to the difficulty of trying to make it a
> "fair fight"--
I think we have enough time to figure something out. (?) esp with the
meeting coming up. (provided the Guinness doesn't flow too freely) :-D
> I think we had discussed it several times before... I'm still
> intreuged by things like a castle seige or a secret ops mission or
> something. I keep being inspired by the idea Shaun had to play in Dan
> Jassim's ship (or something similar)...
that would be so cool. In fact, I'd be excited just to see one of Dan's
carriers in person! His stuff blows my mind.
In a way, that's not much different than a dungeon adventure. IMHO,
something like that begins to require a neutral party to keep info
secret 'till the time is right. unless you'd want to roll for
everything, or you've smuggled plans of the whole place (cheating).
that's getting really close to a RPG. A while back I had started work on
a 'random LEGO dungeon generator' to serve the purpose of above
mentioned neutral party. gets interesting when the party isn't familiar
with the environment and someone outside the game has built the dungeon
in advance. you'd need to uncover areas as the party progressed, as if
in a hedge maze. Or build on the fly with modular components according
to what the computer revealed. (like when the DM draws your map).
> Have one team the ship's posesser,
> and have the other team trying to board, or tyring to recover secret
> documents and escape undetected (or at least alive).
"Many have died to bring us this information." (or however it goes..)
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> David Eaton wrote:
> > I'm certainly up for it... of course I'll also take that to mean that we'll
> > fluctuate what troops & weapons we field depending on your inital
> > positioning.
>
> (define 'fluctuate' here?)
Well-- really what it means is like Eric J. said (and I recall saying in the
past), wherein if one team is defending, the attacking team gets a bit of a
bonus becuase defending a good position/item has slight advantages. My
thought on fluctuating my troops meant our advantage was knowing your layout
before deciding which weapons/troops to field, and also where to field them.
> This sounds like what I was hoping for. though it would seem that you
> ought not to know where *all* our men are.
Fair enough-- although I'd still add the stipulation that we know WHAT
you're going to field if not where it is; whereas we may alter what we
actually field depending on what we know you're using in defense.
> what if each team started
> with duplicate maps of the environment and some indication of important
> features (placement of visible guards, exteriors of buildings, etc.,
> planned their positions privately, and then positioned their troops
> according to their plan. (in other words doing partial simultaneous
> positioning) Is this too complicated? I'm just thinking about how the
> element of surprise would actually work inside the game..
I like it pretty well-- basically if you've got anything major/non-moveable,
it should go down first, just as our "scouts" would probably tell us basic
position, but not specific troop's positions... Actually, hmm.. maybe we'd
know where larger "groups" were, but not specific hero's, etc, who are
more-or-less constantly in flux. I dunno.
> > > This
> > > definitely is more objective-based than I've seen in the past, but I think
> > > it would be fun. It would also speed up the game a bit buy not wasting time
> > > marching a bunch of troops to the center of the field. Thoughts?
>
> How 'bout we kidnapped your ugly, wailing princess for ransom (or some
> such), and are kinda expecting you. Game starts upon your arrival, maybe
> giving you the first turn, but allows us the possibility of laying traps.
Hmm... maybe. This gets into more of what Eric was saying about having a
more defensible position. If you've set traps in our path (I.E. your scouts
know which direction we're coming from) and you're setting an ambush or some
tree/rock traps, and we (as players) have no knowledge about them, I'd
probably want some additional compensation because suddenly our element of
suprise/foreknowledge on your team (our former advantage) has been flipped.
> I'm way more excited about a game with a pre-defined situation. Feels a
> lot more like a RPG and less like a simulation. Makes for a nice game
> documentation too, I'd think. I'd like it even better if the game were
> left set up and played through enough sessions to allow completion. (I
> understand the constraints of this however)
It'd be even more entertaining if we set up a nice little storyline
before-hand. Why'd you capture our princess anyway? Who else might pay her
ransom? Are you baiting us? Has she objected to the kidnapping? How'd you
pull it off? Did we have a traitor in our midst? Do we expect a fight? Or
did we come to pay you off? Or did we just TELL you that?
> I think we have enough time to figure something out. (?) esp with the
> meeting coming up. (provided the Guinness doesn't flow too freely) :-D
Yeah, I expect discussing this in person will be a little more enlightening...
> In a way, that's not much different than a dungeon adventure. IMHO,
> something like that begins to require a neutral party to keep info
> secret 'till the time is right.
Definitely. It might be nice in the future to have a game-master "host" a
game with pre-set conditions... I dunno... Or if the planner took the weaker
side, as in Eric & Shaun's game (I recall Shaun developed the scheme and
took the eventually losing side-- see, your team's just doomed)
> "Many have died to bring us this information." (or however it goes..)
Sheesh. They can't even quote Star Wars correctly. I wonder if their traps
will consist of running away and immediately surrendering our princess.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> It's certainly different than most of the games we've had in the past-- I've
> often wanted to try something where we've got more defined objectives than
> simply kill kill kill... I think the only real reason we haven't done this
> in the past much is simply due to the difficulty of trying to make it a
> "fair fight"-- I think we had discussed it several times before...
Possibly. Part of the problem is that we've never really planned ahead in
quite this much detail (picking sides, etc).
A good rule of thumb for wargames like this is that an army defending a
well-fortified position should get somewhere between half and two thirds the
point value of the attacking force.
That "in a well-fortified position" part is a key phrase, there- it literally
means like in a castle, or in a bunker or something. Which it doesn't sound
like is the case here.
At a rough guess, I'd say that if one team is going to start with something in
their possession and "win" if they manage to keep it from the other team, they
should probably get roughly 3/4 the points of the attacking team.
Then again, you could do away with this scheme completely, and put the
"Kidnapped Princess" minifig in the middle of the board (literally the middle).
Say that to take control of her, you have to attack her with a close combat
attack and generate some arbitrary (moderately difficult) number. You can't
attempt to capture her if she's currently "captured" by someone else. A
minifig that has the Princess "captured" cannot take any actions other than
movement (at -1" or something) or to hand off the Princess to another minifig.
Whoever has the Princess at the end of the game wins.
The Princess cannot be killed, and will "cower in fear" (ie, take no actions)
if she's no currently "captured".
This adds a goal (and a more focused goal than our "datapad" rules, too), and
has the advantage of not needing the sides to be arbitrarily balanced.
Fun can also be had figuring out why the Princess is alone outside the castle,
and why each team wants her.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi, Richard Again.
You guys sound so very technical about everything!
Therefore, the best technical wargame out there is WARHAMMER(R)
Check out their section on Senerion, and capturing an objective.
Every thing in their games is completely balanced and calculated!
P.S. I'm really hoppin' your gonna take lots and lots of pictures for all of
us who can't attend to see!
-R
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
>
> > It's certainly different than most of the games we've had in the past-- I've
> > often wanted to try something where we've got more defined objectives than
> > simply kill kill kill... I think the only real reason we haven't done this
> > in the past much is simply due to the difficulty of trying to make it a
> > "fair fight"-- I think we had discussed it several times before...
>
> Possibly. Part of the problem is that we've never really planned ahead in
> quite this much detail (picking sides, etc).
>
> A good rule of thumb for wargames like this is that an army defending a
> well-fortified position should get somewhere between half and two thirds the
> point value of the attacking force.
>
> That "in a well-fortified position" part is a key phrase, there- it literally
> means like in a castle, or in a bunker or something. Which it doesn't sound
> like is the case here.
>
> At a rough guess, I'd say that if one team is going to start with something in
> their possession and "win" if they manage to keep it from the other team, they
> should probably get roughly 3/4 the points of the attacking team.
>
> Then again, you could do away with this scheme completely, and put the
> "Kidnapped Princess" minifig in the middle of the board (literally the middle).
> Say that to take control of her, you have to attack her with a close combat
> attack and generate some arbitrary (moderately difficult) number. You can't
> attempt to capture her if she's currently "captured" by someone else. A
> minifig that has the Princess "captured" cannot take any actions other than
> movement (at -1" or something) or to hand off the Princess to another minifig.
> Whoever has the Princess at the end of the game wins.
>
> The Princess cannot be killed, and will "cower in fear" (ie, take no actions)
> if she's no currently "captured".
>
> This adds a goal (and a more focused goal than our "datapad" rules, too), and
> has the advantage of not needing the sides to be arbitrarily balanced.
>
> Fun can also be had figuring out why the Princess is alone outside the castle,
> and why each team wants her.
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
David Eaton wrote:
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
> > Of course, we could even this out fairly easily by letting the team with the
> > item (Team A) place their troops first. This would then give you guys the
> > ability to analyze weak spots and place your troops accordingly.
>
> I'm certainly up for it... of course I'll also take that to mean that we'll
> fluctuate what troops & weapons we field depending on your inital positioning.
We on Team A have a pretty solid idea of troop / fortification type. I
think what we've built and the style of it are relevant to this
discussion. If everyone will see our stuff on Monday anyway, and we're
building a storyline now, is there any reason to keep this secret?
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> We on Team A have a pretty solid idea of troop / fortification type. I
> think what we've built and the style of it are relevant to this
> discussion. If everyone will see our stuff on Monday anyway, and we're
> building a storyline now, is there any reason to keep this secret?
Not really. Does anyone else from Team B think it's terribly wrong of us to
reveal what we've got? I don't particularly care. It makes for good
planning, I suppose.
But then again, I suppose I wasn't really planning to bring anything to the
meeting-- mine's already as good as scored (I haven't printed out my pages
yet for lack of printer paper and images of my troops)-- Should I bring them?
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > We on Team A have a pretty solid idea of troop / fortification type. I
> > think what we've built and the style of it are relevant to this
> > discussion. If everyone will see our stuff on Monday anyway, and we're
> > building a storyline now, is there any reason to keep this secret?
>
> Not really. Does anyone else from Team B think it's terribly wrong of us to
> reveal what we've got? I don't particularly care. It makes for good
> planning, I suppose.
>
> But then again, I suppose I wasn't really planning to bring anything to the
> meeting-- mine's already as good as scored (I haven't printed out my pages
> yet for lack of printer paper and images of my troops)-- Should I bring them?
OK how about this...
Lets say that Team A has captured our ravishingly beautiful princes and have
brought them to their stonghold. Their goal is to hold her, Team B must rescue
her.
Now in reality Team B would be able to see the fortress and any troops and
weapons visible on the outside. Team A wouldn't see what Team B had to attack
with until they either "came over the last ridge" or "came out of the forest".
In order to try and make this realistic I say that Team A has to let us see, or
at least describe, what it is we would see approaching the fortress. If the
fortress has soldiers stationed outside we should know about them. We would
also know about any soldiers that might be stationed at lookouts or on any
Castle/fortress walls.
Because Team B's task is more difficult I think we should have the element of
supprise. Now I intend on bringing most of my stuff monday in order to get
help scoring it, but I know for a fact that everything I have will be well in
excess of 300 points if not approaching 1000. So while Team A would know all
the stuff I have they wouldn't know until we came over that hill what we
decided to bring with us.
I think this gives a bit of realism to the story while doing a little to even
the sides.
What does everyone think of that plan?
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message
news:GFCqq1.KFs@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > > We on Team A have a pretty solid idea of troop / fortification type. I
> > > think what we've built and the style of it are relevant to this
> > > discussion. If everyone will see our stuff on Monday anyway, and we're
> > > building a storyline now, is there any reason to keep this secret?
> >
> > Not really. Does anyone else from Team B think it's terribly wrong of us • to
> > reveal what we've got? I don't particularly care. It makes for good
> > planning, I suppose.
> >
> > But then again, I suppose I wasn't really planning to bring anything to • the
> > meeting-- mine's already as good as scored (I haven't printed out my • pages
> > yet for lack of printer paper and images of my troops)-- Should I bring • them?
>
> OK how about this...
>
> Lets say that Team A has captured our ravishingly beautiful princes and • have
> brought them to their stonghold. Their goal is to hold her, Team B must • rescue
> her.
>
> Now in reality Team B would be able to see the fortress and any troops and
> weapons visible on the outside. Team A wouldn't see what Team B had to • attack
> with until they either "came over the last ridge" or "came out of the • forest".
>
> In order to try and make this realistic I say that Team A has to let us • see, or
> at least describe, what it is we would see approaching the fortress. If • the
> fortress has soldiers stationed outside we should know about them. We • would
> also know about any soldiers that might be stationed at lookouts or on any
> Castle/fortress walls.
>
> Because Team B's task is more difficult I think we should have the element • of
> supprise. Now I intend on bringing most of my stuff monday in order to • get
> help scoring it, but I know for a fact that everything I have will be well • in
> excess of 300 points if not approaching 1000. So while Team A would know • all
> the stuff I have they wouldn't know until we came over that hill what we
> decided to bring with us.
>
> I think this gives a bit of realism to the story while doing a little to • even
> the sides.
>
>
> What does everyone think of that plan?
>
> Eric Kingsley
Overall, I like this. I think the difference is how the teams gain their
knowledge. I like Eric's idea about giving us a glimpse into what they have,
yet not really know what's coming. In fact, in having kidnapped the
princess, it seems to imply that we would have some kind of knowledge about
Team B. So far, this doesn't imply anything about how much knowledge Team B
would have about Team A. We can handle this in two basic ways.
The first is just assume that Teams A and B are neighbors, and therefore
know something about each other. Or second, Team B in fact knows very little
about Team A, but gets a number of "scouts" to help figure out what to do.
These scouts would not be very useful in fights, but perhaps they can range
much farther than typical troops. They would also possess the ability to
detect traps (we'd have to figure out an appropriate set of dice to roll).
If this were true, then at least your troops could avoid some of them. In
fact, we could go even further and give the scouts the ability to disarm
traps as well (a separate roll after a trap is detected).
The second approach I think keeps things interesting, without intentionally
"stacking the deck" in favor of either side. If we go with the scout
approach, either we set a number of scouts that Team B gets as a "bonus" on
top of their CP limit, or we just factor it into the ratio of CP between
Teams A & B and let Team B determine how many they want.
What do you think?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Joe Comeau writes:
<snip>
> > What does everyone think of that plan?
> >
> > Eric Kingsley
>
> Overall, I like this. I think the difference is how the teams gain their
> knowledge. I like Eric's idea about giving us a glimpse into what they have,
> yet not really know what's coming. In fact, in having kidnapped the
> princess, it seems to imply that we would have some kind of knowledge about
> Team B. So far, this doesn't imply anything about how much knowledge Team B
> would have about Team A. We can handle this in two basic ways.
>
> The first is just assume that Teams A and B are neighbors, and therefore
> know something about each other. Or second, Team B in fact knows very little
> about Team A, but gets a number of "scouts" to help figure out what to do.
> These scouts would not be very useful in fights, but perhaps they can range
> much farther than typical troops. They would also possess the ability to
> detect traps (we'd have to figure out an appropriate set of dice to roll).
> If this were true, then at least your troops could avoid some of them. In
> fact, we could go even further and give the scouts the ability to disarm
> traps as well (a separate roll after a trap is detected).
I think this is close to what I was thinking. Obviously team A knows something
about team B but not everything and while they know some of their weapons team
B obviously isn't going to leave their home undefended so what they bring to
battle will be a subset of what they know. This makes it a little more
difficult for team A to defend their home because they don't know exactly what
team B will bring. It should also be assumed that there are probably some
things team A doesn't know about team B so their could be a couple supprises
thrown in.
I think the idea of scounts is a good one. I think in a real scenario scouts
would be used to learn as much as possible about the evil team A before team B
runs at full charge to rescue their princes. This means the scouts would know
the exterior of the fortress along with what they can see from the ground of
the interior (This may just be emplacements on an outer wall or guard towers).
They would also be able to learn about troop emplacements outside the fortress.
>
> The second approach I think keeps things interesting, without intentionally
> "stacking the deck" in favor of either side. If we go with the scout
> approach, either we set a number of scouts that Team B gets as a "bonus" on
> top of their CP limit, or we just factor it into the ratio of CP between
> Teams A & B and let Team B determine how many they want.
I think either way team A will have the defensive advantage. It is much easier
to defend a location than take it. That said I am quite sure that the only
reason Team A got the princess in the first place is that she did something
foolish. My feeling is that Team A is really just a bunch of blumber blowhards
with more muscle than brains. Brainpower is what will win this match!
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Eric Kingsley wrote:
> I think either way team A will have the defensive advantage. It is much easier
> to defend a location than take it. That said I am quite sure that the only
> reason Team A got the princess in the first place is that she did something
> foolish. My feeling is that Team A is really just a bunch of blumber blowhards
> with more muscle than brains. Brainpower is what will win this match!
I was thinking about this balancing act, particularly with respect to the weighting
of available CP to account for one team having a fortified postion. Then I
realized that I think Brikwars might be self-balancing in this regards. Buildings
and fortifications are pretty expensive in Brikwars rules, so any team that spends
some points building a structure to defend will inherently have less points
available to purchase troops. The stronger and more impenetrable the
fortification, the less points available for troops. With the two teams of three
we have right now (one with 4, if Sun will play - nobody's responded to my post on
that issue yet, grrrrrrrr) - spending even 60 points on a building (not a very
impressive building could be produced for that) would give the defending team a 10%
disadvatange in what they could purchase in troops and weapons as compared to the
attacking team.
Given that, my inclination is that we probably don't need to worry about
handicapping one team or the other if one is planning on defending something, such
as a little harlot- I mean, the princess.
Thoughts? Feedback? Ideas?
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
>
> Eric Kingsley wrote:
>
> > I think either way team A will have the defensive advantage. It is much
> > easier to defend a location than take it. That said I am quite sure that
> > the only reason Team A got the princess in the first place is that she did
> > something foolish. My feeling is that Team A is really just a bunch of
> > blumber blowhards with more muscle than brains. Brainpower is what will win
> > this match!
>
> I was thinking about this balancing act, particularly with respect to the
> weighting of available CP to account for one team having a fortified postion.
> Then I realized that I think Brikwars might be self-balancing in this regards.
> Buildings and fortifications are pretty expensive in Brikwars rules, so any
> team that spends some points building a structure to defend will inherently
> have less points available to purchase troops. The stronger and more
> impenetrable the fortification, the less points available for troops. With
> the two teams of three we have right now (one with 4, if Sun will play -
> nobody's responded to my post on that issue yet, grrrrrrrr) - spending even 60
> points on a building (not a very impressive building could be produced for
> that) would give the defending team a 10% disadvatange in what they could
> purchase in troops and weapons as compared to the attacking team.
I think this sounds fair. We havn't given point values for buildings before so
it hadn't crossed my mind. If you want to go this route I don't have a problem
with it.
>
> Given that, my inclination is that we probably don't need to worry about
> handicapping one team or the other if one is planning on defending something,
> such as a little harlot- I mean, the princess.
Prepair to die, scumbag!
>
> Thoughts? Feedback? Ideas?
Thoughts... I think Team A stinks.
Feedback... Team A doesn't have a chance.
Ideas... Team A should just give up now and forego the embarrasment.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
<snip a bunch of cool stats and suggestions>
> -Finally, there's one other point that might be worth discussing; if
> people would like to, we can try and divvy the participants up into
> teams ahead of time (and then any last-minute arrivals can be
> distributed in some fair fashion). The advantages of this are
> multipfold:
I think this is a particularly cool suggestion. I have a Champion and several
other figs ready for battle except for scoring. The only other thing that I
plan on that is non-scenery is a trebuchet which I plan to work on this week.
If I can do other things I will but that is all I plan on.
>
> (a) people can try and strategize a bit - one person might spend a good
> chuck of their points on catapults and siege towers if they can be
> assured that someone else on their team will make sure to provide some
> extra troops. When each person is planning individually, people try to
> cover all the bases (proverbial), and are hesitant to devote points to a
> large-ish endeavor.
This would be great. It would also make it so we could balance the teams
somewhat before hand.
>
> (b) Rivalries can be formed, goadings can be nurtured, and taunting can
> be administered liberally in the days and weeks leading up to the event
This is the best part. I am always up for a little trash talkin.
>
> We've never tried running a game where the sides are picked beforehand
> (or at least, those who can commit are split up), but we've talked about
> it. How do people feel about this? Personally, I'm in favor of giving
> it a try!
Me Too!! Lets do it. (as long as I can still get some help scoring this stuff,
I am still a bit of a mundane)
>
> Lastly, There has been some talk of a meeting in the week or two prior
> to the event, during which people could bring their constructions and
> have help scoring them before the big day. Keep your eyes on this
> newsgroup for further information!
>
> Gad, I ramble,
Yes... Yes you do... ;-)
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Shaun Sullivan wrote:
> [...]
> (of particular note: one issue at stake, to be decided during this
> event, will be who Mike Rayhawk, esteemed author of Brikwars, would
> prefer to communicate with, myself or Suz - to the winner goes Mike's
> undying adulation ... I think)
Hmm, I'm curious as to how -this- will be determined.. invoke Mike?
;-)
> try to bring any period apprpriate scenery you can muster! [...]
> we can try and divvy the participants up into
> teams ahead of time [...] How do people feel about this? Personally,
> I'm in favor of giving it a try!
I liked the sound of this when I read it last week. Since then, Joe and
I got together for some scenery building (trees) and we're also into the
team idea.
> Lastly, There has been some talk of a meeting in the week or two prior
> to the event, during which people could bring their constructions and
> have help scoring them before the big day.
Sounds good to me! any time.
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Shaun Sullivan wrote:
> > [...]
> > (of particular note: one issue at stake, to be decided during this
> > event, will be who Mike Rayhawk, esteemed author of Brikwars, would
> > prefer to communicate with, myself or Suz - to the winner goes Mike's
> > undying adulation ... I think)
>
> Hmm, I'm curious as to how -this- will be determined.. invoke Mike?
> ;-)
I don't know if I have much undying adulation to spare right now but I'll
see if I can mock some up.
This little contest isn't limited to just you two, is it? I could see how
my favoite person could end up being someone like Joe or Eric K. Dave
Eaton's got a fancy new cgi that could sway my vote. And it would be wrong
to discount the envy I feel for Jorge's beautiful hardwood floor.
How is this going to be decided, anyway? I'm sure you're thinking of some
boring condition like 'the outcome of the game' rather than 'who sends the
best presents.' But, far be it from me to try and plant ideas in your
heads. Is the contest limited to the players in the game or can we expect
an upset from some dark horse who is independent of this whole event?
- Mike Rayhawk.
Lugnet member #666.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike Rayhawk wrote:
> This little contest isn't limited to just you two, is it? I could see how
> my favoite person could end up being someone like Joe or Eric K. Dave
> Eaton's got a fancy new cgi that could sway my vote. And it would be wrong
> to discount the envy I feel for Jorge's beautiful hardwood floor.
> How is this going to be decided, anyway? I'm sure you're thinking of some
> boring condition like 'the outcome of the game' rather than 'who sends the
> best presents.' But, far be it from me to try and plant ideas in your
> heads. Is the contest limited to the players in the game or can we expect
> an upset from some dark horse who is independent of this whole event?
Well, if this isn't just a kick in the face ... Perhaps this contest should be
determined by whose army can most creatively disrespect the Mike Rayhawk effigy
to be mounted in the center of the battlefield ... ;)
I feel like I just blasphemed. No hard feelings, right? I was just kidding,
honest ... it was Steve Jackson what made me say it ... I was feeling sick, not
right in the head ... ummmm, I was feverish, it wasn't really me, possession,
split personalities, dementia, forged post, I meant to say "Suz" instead of
"Mike Rayhawk", not enough sleep, I was thinking out loud, I wasn't thinking,
I'm SORRY SORRY SORRY SOR-
[sound (??) of lightning bolt striking]
[silence]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
[glitch caused this not to post..]
From:"Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> 02:18 AM
Subject: Re: NLDA [aka Medieval] Brikwars*
To: lugnet.org.us.nelug@lugnet.com
Mike Rayhawk wrote:
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > Shaun Sullivan wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > (of particular note: one issue at stake, to be decided during this
> > > event, will be who Mike Rayhawk, esteemed author of Brikwars, would
> > > prefer to communicate with, myself or Suz - to the winner goes Mike's
> > > undying adulation ... I think)
> >
> > Hmm, I'm curious as to how -this- will be determined.. invoke Mike?
> > ;-)
>
> I don't know if I have much undying adulation to spare right now but I'll
> see if I can mock some up.
>
> This little contest isn't limited to just you two, is it? I could see how
> my favoite person could end up being someone like Joe or Eric K. Dave
> Eaton's got a fancy new cgi that could sway my vote. And it would be wrong
> to discount the envy I feel for Jorge's beautiful hardwood floor.
>
> How is this going to be decided, anyway? I'm sure you're thinking of some
> boring condition like 'the outcome of the game' rather than 'who sends the
> best presents.' But, far be it from me to try and plant ideas in your
> heads. Is the contest limited to the players in the game or can we expect
> an upset from some dark horse who is independent of this whole event?
>
> - Mike Rayhawk.
> Lugnet member #666.
Damn! this is going to be harder than I thought..
:-\
I mean, geez, "favorite person" goes a wee-bit beyond "communitation
preference," don't ya think? And once won, that 'title' only buys me some
"mock undying adulation"? (just what -is- that anyway, like, adulation
on life-support?)
[sigh] I dunno, Mike.. (who's under a false impression that his member number
has some magical ability to make him more evil and/or intimidating)
-Suz
LUGNET member #2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Shaun Sullivan wrote:
> -Finally, there's one other point that might be worth discussing; if
> people would like to, we can try and divvy the participants up into
> teams ahead of time (and then any last-minute arrivals can be
> distributed in some fair fashion). The advantages of this are
> multipfold:
All right, it sounds like people are in favor of this. So, my feeling is
that we should start splitting up as soon as possible. Thus far we have the
following participants who have committed to playing:
Shaun S.
Eric K.
Dave E.
Jorge F.
Suz R.
Joe C.
Is there anybody I'm forgetting who is already planning on coming?
And now, for the tough part. How do we select/assign teams? I am
officially removing myself from any decision-making/captaining capacity on
this score ... so, we need a brave soul to determine how it's going to be
done. Two ideas:
(a) random - somebody just places names in a hat and pulls them out.
Additional participants are then randomly assigned as they commit to the
date.
(b) captains - we did this last time, and it went pretty well. Jorge and
Dave were the captains, if I recall correctly. Well, there was one small
setback with Neil experiencing high school gym flashbacks, but since he
wasn't the last selected everything was ironed out by the time the game
started.
I'm envisioning some brave soul simply posting a message saying, "I did the
random assignments, here are the teams ..." or "I designate x and y [x and y
possibly including the poster his/herself] as the captains, start choosing."
That is, I'm *praying* for someone to take the bull by the proverbials and
make a decision. This is, after all, the dark ages ... democracy isn't an
option ;) So get out your best monarchistic dictatorial voice and tell us
serfs what to do ...
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
>
> Shaun Sullivan wrote:
>
> > -Finally, there's one other point that might be worth discussing; if
> > people would like to, we can try and divvy the participants up into
> > teams ahead of time (and then any last-minute arrivals can be
> > distributed in some fair fashion). The advantages of this are
> > multipfold:
>
> All right, it sounds like people are in favor of this. So, my feeling is
> that we should start splitting up as soon as possible. Thus far we have the
> following participants who have committed to playing:
>
> Shaun S.
> Eric K.
> Dave E.
> Jorge F.
> Suz R.
> Joe C.
>
> Is there anybody I'm forgetting who is already planning on coming?
>
> And now, for the tough part. How do we select/assign teams? I am
> officially removing myself from any decision-making/captaining capacity on
> this score ... so, we need a brave soul to determine how it's going to be
> done. Two ideas:
>
> (a) random - somebody just places names in a hat and pulls them out.
> Additional participants are then randomly assigned as they commit to the
> date.
Hmmm... Well I would prefer at least one "knowledgeable" BW player on each
team but seeing that Eric J. and Neil arn't on your list of definites I don't
know who is next in line (Dave E. probably).
>
> (b) captains - we did this last time, and it went pretty well. Jorge and
> Dave were the captains, if I recall correctly. Well, there was one small
> setback with Neil experiencing high school gym flashbacks, but since he
> wasn't the last selected everything was ironed out by the time the game
> started.
Actually that was Dave and I as captains and I think I heard a moan every time
I picked. Seeing that my forces were decimated pretty early on I don't blame
them.
Anyway without knowing who is planning on bringing what it makes it hard to
split things up. I will still try and make a suggestion based on absolutely
nothing at all and see if its acceptable or not.
Using the 6 names posted above...
Team A.
Shaun S.
Suzanne R.
Joe C.
Team B.
Dave E.
Jorge F.
Eric K.
>
> I'm envisioning some brave soul simply posting a message saying, "I did the
> random assignments, here are the teams ..." or "I designate x and y [x and y
> possibly including the poster his/herself] as the captains, start choosing."
There you go a first suggestion has been made, hate me if you will but at least
I was not a chicken like Shaun who was afraid of offending someone ;-).
>
> That is, I'm *praying* for someone to take the bull by the proverbials and
> make a decision. This is, after all, the dark ages ... democracy isn't an
> option ;) So get out your best monarchistic dictatorial voice and tell us
> serfs what to do ...
Well for some strange reason my College nickname was "King" so I guess that
gives me as much authority as anyone in dividing things up.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Eric Kingsley wrote:
> Hmmm... Well I would prefer at least one "knowledgeable" BW player on each
> team but seeing that Eric J. and Neil arn't on your list of definites I don't
> know who is next in line (Dave E. probably).
I haven't heard anything definite yet from either of them ...
> Anyway without knowing who is planning on bringing what it makes it hard to
> split things up. I will still try and make a suggestion based on absolutely
> nothing at all and see if its acceptable or not.
Ahh, that's part of the glory - I won't even know what I'm bringing until I can
start talking with the teammates and figure out where we're lacking, what's needed,
and what fun little goodies we can throw into the fray
> Team A.
>
> Shaun S.
> Suzanne R.
> Joe C.
Hmmm, it'll take awhile for me to get used to the idea of *not* attacking Suz ...
all right, I think I can manage, though. Hopefully there won't be any subconscious
regressions during the game which result in my army accidentally killing off all of
her army ...
> Team B.
>
> Dave E.
> Jorge F.
> Eric K.
And a more sorry bunch of commanders I never did see ;) so it begins ...
> There you go a first suggestion has been made, hate me if you will but at least
> I was not a chicken like Shaun who was afraid of offending someone ;-).
We don't hate you, Eric ... we're just offended ;)
Just kidding, this looks good to me. If nobody has any objections, we can start
with this, and add others as they can commit ...
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> Ahh, that's part of the glory - I won't even know what I'm bringing until I
> can start talking with the teammates and figure out where we're lacking,
> what's needed, and what fun little goodies we can throw into the fray
Well knowing you, Suz, and Joe you are lacking a lot ;-).
>
> > Team A.
> >
> > Shaun S.
> > Suzanne R.
> > Joe C.
>
> Hmmm, it'll take awhile for me to get used to the idea of *not* attacking Suz
> ... all right, I think I can manage, though. Hopefully there won't be any
> subconscious regressions during the game which result in my army accidentally
> killing off all of her army ...
>
> > Team B.
> >
> > Dave E.
> > Jorge F.
> > Eric K.
>
> And a more sorry bunch of commanders I never did see ;) so it begins ...
Well at least we don't have to deal with internal strife from day one. We may
or may not be as good at Brikwars but we will, without a doubt, look better
then your sorry group of rag-tag pretenders to the throne.
That makes me think (strange as that may sound)... We need better team names
than A and B. Maybe we should talk amoungst ourselves and come up with our own
team names. That should at least make the cordials exchanged between teams
more personal.
>
> > There you go a first suggestion has been made, hate me if you will but at
> > least I was not a chicken like Shaun who was afraid of offending someone
> > ;-).
>
> We don't hate you, Eric ... we're just offended ;)
Ahh... That was the point now wasn't it?
>
> Just kidding, this looks good to me. If nobody has any objections, we can
> start with this, and add others as they can commit ...
OK should we just divide them A/B/A/B and hope it works out? Or would you like
to do something that gives you more of an unfair advantage?
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> That makes me think (strange as that may sound)... We need better team names
> than A and B. Maybe we should talk amoungst ourselves and come up with our
> own team names. That should at least make the cordials exchanged between
> teams more personal.
I think we should be team A+ :)
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:GF58L9.Lro@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > That makes me think (strange as that may sound)... We need better team • names
> > than A and B. Maybe we should talk amoungst ourselves and come up with • our
> > own team names. That should at least make the cordials exchanged between
> > teams more personal.
>
> I think we should be team A+ :)
>
> DaveE
Jorge, Eric, I'm glad he's on your team...
- Joe
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
<Really big snip>
>
> Well for some strange reason my College nickname was "King" so I guess that
> gives me as much authority as anyone in dividing things up.
Besides, you're the NELUG Prez... ;-)
J.-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jorge Fernandez writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> <Really big snip>
> >
> > Well for some strange reason my College nickname was "King" so I guess that
> > gives me as much authority as anyone in dividing things up.
>
>
> Besides, you're the NELUG Prez... ;-)
<serious> No no no... I do like to do a lot for the group but no one in the
group has any "real" power greater than anyone else.</serious> We are all
equal except for Shaun, Joe, and Suz. They are below us all. ;-).
We shalt swing a mighty broadsword and level a crushing blow to thoughst
laimards.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jorge Fernandez writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> >
> > <Really big snip>
> > >
> > > Well for some strange reason my College nickname was "King" so I guess that
> > > gives me as much authority as anyone in dividing things up.
> >
> >
> > Besides, you're the NELUG Prez... ;-)
>
> <serious> No no no... I do like to do a lot for the group but no one in the
> group has any "real" power greater than anyone else.</serious>
Yes, I know...
> We are all equal except for Shaun, Joe, and Suz. They are below us all. ;-).
And this too...
> We shalt swing a mighty broadsword and level a crushing blow to thoughst
> laimards.
...and put an end to their pitiful existence. :)
>
> Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eric Kingsley wrote:
> We are all
> equal except for Shaun, Joe, and Suz. They are below us all. ;-).
Now, now.. watch it mister! We've got secret weapons galore.. Example:
never underestimate the powers of a Lady's comely appearance and snappy
fashion sense!
You see, with the kinda charisma we've got happnin' on our side, we're
apt to charm all your frontline troops into sissy submission, not to
mention those slews of pitchfork toting, peasantly onlookers, and the
abundance of fanged & clawed woodland creatures eager to surround and
munch on whatever we may suggest..
Just a single paralyzingly amicable smile from Sir Joe, or a blazing
Lancelotian gaze from our heroic, ever-dashing Sir Shaun could have your
feeble troops wooed and stunned into puddles in the first turn - like
deer gazing into torchlights! Then, as they least expect it, swathak!!
off with their heads!
Muahahaha. looks that kill.
- Lady Suz.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Just a single paralyzingly amicable smile from Sir Joe, or a blazing
> Lancelotian gaze from our heroic, ever-dashing Sir Shaun could have your
> feeble troops wooed and stunned into puddles in the first turn - like
> deer gazing into torchlights! Then, as they least expect it, swathak!!
> off with their heads!
>
> Muahahaha. looks that kill.
While thy looks may startle and bedazzle, they slayeth not. 'Tis still a
task left to thy sword-- thy sword which hath lain forgotten whilst
attending thy hair. But if the question is to seek out looks that kill, then
be thee forwarned. For amongst the ranks of my soldiers lurks a face which
dost TRULY kill. A knight clad in green, and a visored helm, to keep his
hideousness secret. His heinous "T" emblem covered by Plate Armor, that none
but the most deserving might set their gaze upon it. Yes, my quibbling
rivals, a Timmy stands within our men. [Too bad we probably won't field him
-- we're not THAT mean :) ]
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
David Eaton wrote:
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > Just a single paralyzingly amicable smile from Sir Joe, or a blazing
> > Lancelotian gaze from our heroic, ever-dashing Sir Shaun could have your
> > feeble troops wooed and stunned into puddles in the first turn - like
> > deer gazing into torchlights! Then, as they least expect it, swathak!!
> > off with their heads!
> >
> > Muahahaha. looks that kill.
>
> While thy looks may startle and bedazzle, they slayeth not. 'Tis still a
> task left to thy sword-- thy sword which hath lain forgotten whilst
> attending thy hair. But if the question is to seek out looks that kill, then
> be thee forwarned. For amongst the ranks of my soldiers lurks a face which
> dost TRULY kill. A knight clad in green, and a visored helm, to keep his
> hideousness secret. His heinous "T" emblem covered by Plate Armor, that none
> but the most deserving might set their gaze upon it. Yes, my quibbling
> rivals, a Timmy stands within our men. [Too bad we probably won't field him
> -- we're not THAT mean :) ]
>
> DaveE
[GASP] AAAAAAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhgg!!!
nooooooooooo...
[throat clearing] We are not amused!
Sir Shaun! Sir Joe! Be prepared to prepare.. THE TIMMY LAUNCHER.
may'st it be readied to fling-ith back chunks o' their vile T-beast!
- Lady Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Eric Kingsley wrote:
> > We are all
> > equal except for Shaun, Joe, and Suz. They are below us all. ;-).
>
> Now, now.. watch it mister! We've got secret weapons galore.. Example:
> never underestimate the powers of a Lady's comely appearance and snappy
> fashion sense!
>
> You see, with the kinda charisma we've got happnin' on our side, we're
> apt to charm all your frontline troops into sissy submission, not to
> mention those slews of pitchfork toting, peasantly onlookers, and the
> abundance of fanged & clawed woodland creatures eager to surround and
> munch on whatever we may suggest..
>
> Just a single paralyzingly amicable smile from Sir Joe, or a blazing
> Lancelotian gaze from our heroic, ever-dashing Sir Shaun could have your
> feeble troops wooed and stunned into puddles in the first turn - like
> deer gazing into torchlights! Then, as they least expect it, swathak!!
> off with their heads!
>
> Muahahaha. looks that kill.
>
> - Lady Suz.
Oh-oh... Eric K, Dave E, I think we pi$$@& off the wrong person here...
Watch out.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eric Kingsley wrote:
> We are all
> equal except for Shaun, Joe, and Suz. They are below us all. ;-).
>
> We shalt swing a mighty broadsword and level a crushing blow to thoughst
> laimards.
Ack, a cry for help if ever I heard one. And help you we shall ....
Lots of Bluster, 'at's what I see. Eric, don't make me resurrect the memory of
your 'mech spending 4 turns advancing through town, only to be brought to a stop
when you realized it wouldn't fit between the buildings - necessitating an
about-face "run away from the battle" manuever that will never lose its
entertainment value ;) We've seen what you're capable of ... and we're not
intimidated! Bring on the suddenly-retreating troops, we can handle 'em!
Muhahahahahaaa,
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Shaun Sullivan wrote:
>
> Eric Kingsley wrote:
>
> > We are all
> > equal except for Shaun, Joe, and Suz. They are below us all. ;-).
> >
> > We shalt swing a mighty broadsword and level a crushing blow to thoughst
> > laimards.
>
> Ack, a cry for help if ever I heard one. And help you we shall ....
>
> Lots of Bluster, 'at's what I see. Eric, don't make me resurrect the memory of
> your 'mech spending 4 turns advancing through town, only to be brought to a stop
> when you realized it wouldn't fit between the buildings - necessitating an
> about-face "run away from the battle" manuever that will never lose its
> entertainment value ;) We've seen what you're capable of ... and we're not
> intimidated! Bring on the suddenly-retreating troops, we can handle 'em!
>
> Muhahahahahaaa,
> -s
Ha!Ha!Ha!
"Run Away!"
"Run Away!"
"Run Away!"
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Request for Clarification:
The rules state that there can only be one champion per army. Up to now,
we've typically allowed one champion per participant, even when we've then
combined into two teams, which has consequently resulted in multiple
champions per side.
Since we are organizing our forces ahead of time, I would like to pose this
as a question to the participants ... should we adhere to the one-per-army
rule, or allow for the more lax one-per-participant rule?
Personally, I favor the strict one-per-army interpretation - that is, each
side would only be allowed one champion. These mighty individuals should be
unique, beacons of example for their fellow troops. Of course, I will
understand if Team Approachingtheirowndemise would prefer to negotiate for
all the advantages they can haggle.
Any thoughts, comments, or dissenting opinions?
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> Request for Clarification:
>
> The rules state that there can only be one champion per army. Up to now,
> we've typically allowed one champion per participant, even when we've then
> combined into two teams, which has consequently resulted in multiple
> champions per side.
>
> Since we are organizing our forces ahead of time, I would like to pose this
> as a question to the participants ... should we adhere to the one-per-army
> rule, or allow for the more lax one-per-participant rule?
>
> Personally, I favor the strict one-per-army interpretation - that is, each
> side would only be allowed one champion. These mighty individuals should be
> unique, beacons of example for their fellow troops. Of course, I will
> understand if Team Approachingtheirowndemise would prefer to negotiate for
> all the advantages they can haggle.
Glad to see you make it easy for us to present a dissenting oppinion...
I know you guys are lazy and don't wat to have to score to many champions so I
guess I can live with demoteing my champion to a Hero if I must. I suppose I
don't mind conceding this rule interpretation to Team
Abouttobedisemboweledbythierownsword.
>
> Any thoughts, comments, or dissenting opinions?
Thoughts... "I think you are ugly"
Comments... "You are ugly"
Dissenting oppinion... "no they are hideous"
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Now we all know that Team Abouttobedisemboweledbythierownsword likes to
complain about their bad backs, trick knees, and superior laziness. So in
order to reduce the number of excusses coming from their jibber-jabbering
mouths I would like to offer to bring a few of the NELUG tables so we don't
have to sit on the floors.
This is up to Jorge mostly. Depending on how many tables you think we need it
will probably take about half an hour to set them up. They are a standard 29"
high and are 40.25" x 40.25" square (this is equivalent to 4 32x32 baseplates
square). They can be set up in any configuration (rectangle, square, "L"
shape)
So if you think this might be a good idea let me know how many to bring so I
can throw them in my truck.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Now we all know that Team Abouttobedisemboweledbythierownsword likes to
> complain about their bad backs, trick knees, and superior laziness. So in
> order to reduce the number of excusses coming from their jibber-jabbering
> mouths I would like to offer to bring a few of the NELUG tables so we don't
> have to sit on the floors.
>
> This is up to Jorge mostly.
Bring them on!...
> Depending on how many tables you think we need it
> will probably take about half an hour to set them up. They are a standard 29"
> high and are 40.25" x 40.25" square (this is equivalent to 4 32x32 baseplates
> square). They can be set up in any configuration (rectangle, square, "L"
> shape)
>
> So if you think this might be a good idea let me know how many to bring so I
> can throw them in my truck.
>
>
> Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jorge Fernandez writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > Now we all know that Team Abouttobedisemboweledbythierownsword likes to
> > complain about their bad backs, trick knees, and superior laziness. So in
> > order to reduce the number of excusses coming from their jibber-jabbering
> > mouths I would like to offer to bring a few of the NELUG tables so we don't
> > have to sit on the floors.
> >
> > This is up to Jorge mostly.
>
> Bring them on!...
OK, How many should I bring? I am thinking a 2x2 or 2x3 (table) setup should
be sufficiant but I don't know if that will fit comfortably in the room we will
be using.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jorge Fernandez writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > Now we all know that Team Abouttobedisemboweledbythierownsword likes to
> > > complain about their bad backs, trick knees, and superior laziness. So in
> > > order to reduce the number of excusses coming from their jibber-jabbering
> > > mouths I would like to offer to bring a few of the NELUG tables so we don't
> > > have to sit on the floors.
> > >
> > > This is up to Jorge mostly.
> >
> > Bring them on!...
>
> OK, How many should I bring? I am thinking a 2x2 or 2x3 (table) setup should
> be sufficiant but I don't know if that will fit comfortably in the room we will
> be using.
We may use the big room upstairs, we could fit a 2x3 confortably.
J.-
> Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ha ha! I love all the trash talking!
Anyways, I'd really like to come to this game as well. I'll definitely be
an observer at first since I haven't been to a Brikwars game yet and i
have't read the entire rules. I'm not too familar with turn based strategy
games either so i have a lot of learning to do.
I can bring lots of ninja themed troops(150+), another 20 traditional castle
type troops, one decent size building(52x22 studs, no roof though) and three
XL gray baseplates. I haven't really developed specialized characters like
heros and champions and such so my army is pretty much a legion of
clones(cannon fodder).
So like i said before, I'd like to come to this game but transportation is a
problem for me since I'm a city dweller. Is there a way to get to Jorge's
house by train or some other means? And if so, could somebody pick me up?
If not, i'll try to figure out some other way of getting out there.
thanks,
sun
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Ha ha! I love all the trash talking!
It's only trash if it's coming from them, Sun. *WE* just hold up a mirror to
them.
> Anyways, I'd really like to come to this game as well. I'll definitely be
> an observer at first since I haven't been to a Brikwars game yet and i
> have't read the entire rules. I'm not too familar with turn based strategy
> games either so i have a lot of learning to do.
Ahhh, you don't even have to worry about being an observer. The basics are
pretty intuitive, and there are some real BW addicts there who can tiptoe
through the intricate stuff with you. We always make sure that any newcomer has
at least one experienced player on their team to walk them through and answer
any questions, but it really doesn't take long at all.
> I can bring lots of ninja themed troops(150+), another 20 traditional castle
> type troops, one decent size building(52x22 studs, no roof though) and three
> XL gray baseplates. I haven't really developed specialized characters like
> heros and champions and such so my army is pretty much a legion of
> clones(cannon fodder).
Great! If you have any characters that you'd like to personalize or
differentiate, just loko over the "Military Men" section of the Brikwars manual
... by focusing on trooper modifications and heros, you can probably manage to
make the minifig characteristic of the ideal you're looking for.
By the way, Dave Eaton's troop calculator (posted somehwere in this thread)
should be a great help to you ... especially if you have lots of troops who are
basically identical, you only really ned to print out one sheet for each "type".
The scenery sounds good too ...
> So like i said before, I'd like to come to this game but transportation is a
> problem for me since I'm a city dweller. Is there a way to get to Jorge's
> house by train or some other means? And if so, could somebody pick me up?
> If not, i'll try to figure out some other way of getting out there.
Is there anybody coming from in or around the city? At the worst, maybe you
could take the T to someone's house on the outskirts and catch a ride with
them? Hopefully someone will be able to help out here ...
Finally (and this is directed to both teams, Team Assumethepostion (aka Team A)
and Team Baskinginthegloryofyourimpendingdoom (aka Team B)), whose team is Sun
going to be on? Team Besmirkingatthyfate is busily laying strategy out, and
would like to include Sun if he is to be added to our roster. Eric, perhaps
you'd like to feed your swollen decision-making ego and make the call? One team
gets Sun, the other team gets whosoever else may next join the fray ....
It really wouldn't be fair to let the newcomers choose which side they want
anyway. I mean, really, who would choose to be part of Team Apoplectic? Team
Beatific would be gorged with volunteers, and while we would certainly laugh at
you, I'd hate to see you guys not even show up to the battle in sullen protest
...
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Just a few questions:
How many factions are involved in each battle?
(It sounds like there at least three sides with two people per side)
How many troops per side?
Where in New England are you?
Mayhap I may visit you this summer… If I bring just 500 Castle minifigs,
would it be too much?
So many questions,
--==Richard==--
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Just a few questions:
>
> How many factions are involved in each battle?
> (It sounds like there at least three sides with two people per side)
There are 2 sides with 3 people per side so far, waiting for more people to
join.
> How many troops per side?
As many troops as 300 CP's per person can buy (Is this correct English?)
> Where in New England are you?
We're mostly in Massachusetts, but we have people from New Hampshire coming too.
> Mayhap I may visit you this summer… If I bring just 500 Castle minifigs,
> would it be too much?
Let's see... 500 Troops, all of them with short swords, no modifications:
5CPs each ===> 5 x 500 = 2500 CPs
Hmmm... I think we will need a bigger house to play this game :)
> So many questions,
>
> --==Richard==--
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Just a few questions:
[just to repeat Jorge...]
> How many factions are involved in each battle?
> (It sounds like there at least three sides with two people per side)
We've done between 2 and 4 teams, and between 5? and 8 people.
> How many troops per side?
Here's where time gets to be the issue. As Jorge said, we've got (for the
present game) between 200 and 300 points per participant, which boils down
to probably 20-30 soldiers per person, give or take some extras. Sure, that
may sound like a little bit, but when you have to move and attack with
dozens of figs every turn, keep track of which ones have moved, which ones
have what stats, etc, it can take a while. That's one of the reasons we
more typically do 2 teams-- people on the same team can move, etc, at the
same time and speed up the round. Actually, I don't think we've ever done
more than like 6 rounds? Maybe only 5, I dunno. 25 per person would mean an
8 person game consists of 200 soldiers total on the board, just to give you
an idea...
> Where in New England are you?
Near Boston, though we've had one game just across the border in NH.
> Mayhap I may visit you this summer… If I bring just 500 Castle minifigs,
> would it be too much?
Yes. I've got a roughly 2500 point army already assembled (intended to aid
those with not enough points, and to give myself a nice selection)
consisting of about 275 figs and various other weapons-- and I can only
field a very small amount of them. My avg. fig came out to like 8 or 9 pts
per. So figure 500 figs would turn into roughly 4,000 points, not to mention
any additional weaponry you decide to bring. A little much for a 250 pt game :)
Personally, I made troopers with all the "popular" weapon types out there
(nobody armed with bolos or torches or whatever), and made squads of 12--
about 2 or 3 for each weapon type. Then I gave some (most) squads attribute
bonuses & extras (shields, extra speed, skill, armor, etc) just to make them
a little more unique. If you're making a long haul you may wish to do
something similar so you can be "assured" that you can modify what you field
according to what you see-- nothing like winding up with a bunch of spearmen
when your enemy fields only archers :) Or of course you can try as best as
you can to round out strengths and weaknesses-- it certainly makes for
faster gameplay when you know ahead of time what you'll be doing!
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hmmm, I seem to be picking up little tidbits of erratta regarding Mr. Tom
Duggan ... sources indicate that he's been inquiring about the stats of
yellow-castle-type armor, and he posts a whole slieu or gorgeous medieval
minifigs on Brickshelf under the suspicious heading ... "Brikwars" ....
Might some inconspicuous recruiting have taken place? Are the evildoers
rallying less-intelligent fiefdoms to flock to their banner as they march
towards certain destruction in a futile attempt to retreive their wanton
hussy?
Hmmmm, interesting speculation ...
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> Hmmm, I seem to be picking up little tidbits of erratta regarding Mr. Tom
> Duggan ... sources indicate that he's been inquiring about the stats of
> yellow-castle-type armor, and he posts a whole slieu or gorgeous medieval
> minifigs on Brickshelf under the suspicious heading ... "Brikwars" ....
>
> Might some inconspicuous recruiting have taken place? Are the evildoers
> rallying less-intelligent fiefdoms to flock to their banner as they march
> towards certain destruction in a futile attempt to retreive their wanton
> hussy?
Tom was noncommital. He may or may not show... He may or may not play... blah
blah...
With his level of commitment I hope he is planning on joining the weak little
farmers brigade that you call an army.
Anyway if we do end up with odd numbered players I suggest that the team with
fewer players should be able to add troops to their ranks in order to rebalance
the two sides.
Eric Kingsley
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Anyway if we do end up with odd numbered players I suggest that the team with
> fewer players should be able to add troops to their ranks in order to
> rebalance the two sides.
Well.. honestly, I'd probably recommend that our team was up a few points
(as Eric J suggested) just because we're at somewhat of a disadvantage being
on the offensive rather than defensive-- and we also don't have as much
knowledge of the layout to plan around (No matter what our "supposed" scout
sends back. I know it's a forgery. All our scouts are trained in making
topographical maps with standard brick elevations and have better
handwriting.) But if it turns out that their position isn't really all that
covered, or that we have plenty of cover to make our approach through, etc,
then their advantage is obviously lessened. I don't mind playing at a
disadvantage, but if the odds must be tipped further, they should probably
counterweight the existing imbalance.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Well.. honestly, I'd probably recommend that our team was up a few points
> (as Eric J suggested) just because we're at somewhat of a disadvantage being
> on the offensive rather than defensive-- and we also don't have as much
> knowledge of the layout to plan around (No matter what our "supposed" scout
> sends back. I know it's a forgery. All our scouts are trained in making
> topographical maps with standard brick elevations and have better
> handwriting.) But if it turns out that their position isn't really all that
> covered, or that we have plenty of cover to make our approach through, etc,
> then their advantage is obviously lessened. I don't mind playing at a
> disadvantage, but if the odds must be tipped further, they should probably
> counterweight the existing imbalance.
We had mentioned this somewhat before - as it is, we won't be taking any structure
we use for free ... we'll be paying for it out of our CP points. Given that,
there is already a balancing system inherent in the formation of the armies.
While we might be defending a structure, we will certainly have diminished CP
available with which to purchase troops and equipment. If we spend 100 CP on a
building, we only get 8/9 of the resources for our army that you get. Etc. etc.
That being said, I'm more than willing to work to try and balance the game as
everybody sees fit on Saturday.
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> We had mentioned this somewhat before - as it is, we won't be taking any
> structure we use for free ... we'll be paying for it out of our CP points.
> Given that, there is already a balancing system inherent in the formation of
> the armies. While we might be defending a structure, we will certainly have
> diminished CP available with which to purchase troops and equipment. If we
> spend 100 CP on a building, we only get 8/9 of the resources for our army
> that you get. Etc. etc.
Ah, I think I missed something somehwere along the way then. 1st off, I
didn't think you guys had any structures-- I figured you were just picking a
nice little raised rock somewhere with good bush cover and were using that
and not paying for it... and really the only advantages you have are:
A. Being able to use opportunity fire (you can fire on our turn and yours,
we probably can't fire on yours much if at all)
B. Not having to move your troops to defendable positions-- they'll already
be there and not have to walk across open fields or wait for backup to
arrive, etc.
> That being said, I'm more than willing to work to try and balance the game as
> everybody sees fit on Saturday.
Yeah, I'm pretty much of the mind to play it more or less by ear when we get
there. I've got extra troops to don out to other players, give to myself, or
restrict myself from using :)
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
As of now, I am a free agent. There was no recruiting, although Suz did
mention something about being tied up on saturday, so that may or may not
have been an offer, I don't know, read into it what you want. So unless I
get a better offer, I'm leaning towards her team!!!
Tom D
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> Hmmm, I seem to be picking up little tidbits of erratta regarding Mr. Tom
> Duggan ... sources indicate that he's been inquiring about the stats of
> yellow-castle-type armor, and he posts a whole slieu or gorgeous medieval
> minifigs on Brickshelf under the suspicious heading ... "Brikwars" ....
>
> Might some inconspicuous recruiting have taken place? Are the evildoers
> rallying less-intelligent fiefdoms to flock to their banner as they march
> towards certain destruction in a futile attempt to retreive their wanton
> hussy?
>
> Hmmmm, interesting speculation ...
>
> -s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well, sadly I had an unexpected bug in my Trooper scorer-- for units with
power greater than 1, they can ignore Movement Penalties up to 2" for every
power rating they have beyond 1. Before I hadn't included that.
So beforehand, if you had (for example) a hero with extra strength and plate
armor, I would have incorrectly reported their MP at 4", rather than 5".
What does that mean? It means that if you scored your troops for the
upcoming brikwars game (or whatever), you may have to re-score any
characters whose power was greater than 1 AND who has equipment/weapons with
a movement penalty.
I can also check out people's stat sheets pre-game (all you NELUGgers) if
you're not sure.
Do you have an erroneous character?
Did you use one of these?:
-Slave
-Synthetic
-Porter
-Timmy
-Any unit with enhanced strength
AND one or more of these?:
-Plate Armor
-Light Armor
-Bazooka
-Death Gun
-Sniper Cannon
-CannonBall
-MK II or III explosive
-Iron Lance
-Wooden Lance
-Battle Axe
-Halberd
-PowerPak
If you did, you may have to re-score. If you didn't, woohoo! Pretend I never
screwed up and ignore this message :)
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hey all. Sorry I haven't been reading Lugnet regularly lately, so even
though I knew about this for a while, I only just got around to checking the
details. Much as I would love to participate, I am not going to be free that
day, so I'll be unable to join you. Jorge - thanks even still for offering the
use of your house, I'm sure everyone who IS there will appreciate it.
Neil Silverman
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
>
> * NLDA, acronym for Non-Lego Dark Ages, n. def.: any or all dark ages
> distinguishable (historically, chronologically, or materially) from
> Lego Dark Ages.
>
>
> Hark Hark Hark,
>
> We, as Americans, were denied the opportunity to participate in 400
> years of ignorance, bloodshed, and inequitable feudalism, commonly
> referred to as "The Non-Lego Dark Ages" (though historians tend to agree
> that during that time, darkness generally only prevailed from sundown to
> sunup). I, for one, feel cheated.
>
> So we, in a concerted effort to rewrite history, are staging our own
> medieval strife, to be carried out on June the 30th, 2001 (for you
> monks: VI/XXX/MMI ).
>
> Details:
>
> WHAT: Medieval (TL2) Brikwars
> WHEN: June 30th, convening at around 9:30 a.m.
> WHERE: The glorious abode of Jorge, who will hopefully provide
> directions
> WHY: to purge society's ills from our blood with simulated battle, to
> partake in a time period during which the involvement of the United
> States was particularly apathetic, and to resolve all differences in a
> gory and definitive matter (of particular note: one issue at stake, to
> be decided during this event, will be who Mike Rayhawk, esteemed author
> of Brikwars, would prefer to communicate with, myself or Suz - to the
> winner goes Mike's undying adulation ... I think)
>
> Other Appropriate Details:
>
> -CP limitation ... still up for discussion, but we're thinking 200 or
> 300 points per person. On the one hand, this may not sound like much,
> but on the other, things in the old days are a lot cheaper ;) Feel free
> to prepare and bring more, though ... eep in mind, with at least 8
> people showing up (current estimate), that makes for some pretty large
> sides
> -No SP points - that is to say, no magic, psionics, etc
> -I'm also tending to shy away from monsters/creatures (Dragons, giants,
> etc) and the like, and keep it somewhat historically grounded, at least
> in content ... of course, this is open to discussion, but the original
> conception was to have it be somewhat reflective of what might actually
> have been around ...
> -Pre-Gunpowder !! (yes, even for imported ninjas/samurais ;)
> -Beginners/First-Timers welcome! We'll be dividing the participants
> into two teams, so noone will ever need to feel unqualified! For
> anybody interested, there was a tongue-in-cheek Brikwars FAQ posted by
> some literally prodigy to the NELUG newsgroup a couple months ago ...
> ahhh, here it is:
> http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/nelug/?n=1272
> Keep in mind, this referred specifically to another game, so dates,
> names, and locations are purely coincidental. However, most of the
> material can be easily translated to this upcoming game ...
> -People without any Castle Stuff are also welcome! - there will be
> plenty of extras - Dave Eaton and myself (as well as some others, I
> believe) both have rather large armies, and are willing to outfit
> anybody who would like to participate but doesn't have the appropriate
> troops
> -Please try to have all of your scoring/point totals accumulated before
> game day - that tends to allow for more playing time and less
> last-minute confusion! Anybody needing help, pelase feel free to e-mail
> myself (and maybe Eric J. or Dave Eaton, if they are willing to tackle
> any of them)
> -Please please please try to bring any period apprpriate scenery you can
> muster! Partof the appeal of these games is that they offer a chance to
> pool constructinos together and come up with some truly stellar
> presentations; note the last two Brikwars games, for example - we had a
> huge Main Street layout in one, and a large medieval fantasy battlefield
> in the other. Very impressive, and they make the game all that much
> more enjoyable!
> -Finally, there's one other point that might be worth discussing; if
> people would like to, we can try and divvy the participants up into
> teams ahead of time (and then any last-minute arrivals can be
> distributed in some fair fashion). The advantages of this are
> multipfold:
>
> (a) people can try and strategize a bit - one person might spend a good
> chuck of their points on catapults and siege towers if they can be
> assured that someone else on their team will make sure to provide some
> extra troops. When each person is planning individually, people try to
> cover all the bases (proverbial), and are hesitant to devote points to a
> large-ish endeavor.
>
> (b) Rivalries can be formed, goadings can be nurtured, and taunting can
> be administered liberally in the days and weeks leading up to the event
>
> We've never tried running a game where the sides are picked beforehand
> (or at least, those who can commit are split up), but we've talked about
> it. How do people feel about this? Personally, I'm in favor of giving
> it a try!
>
> Lastly, There has been some talk of a meeting in the week or two prior
> to the event, during which people could bring their constructions and
> have help scoring them before the big day. Keep your eyes on this
> newsgroup for further information!
>
> Gad, I ramble,
> -s
>
> As a tasty aside: extensive research has indicated that any so-called
> "pheasant uprisings" during the dark ages were hardly uprisings at all.
> Most pheasants with a penchant for public disturbance were quickly
> caught, roasted, and serbved with Quail or Duck.
| | | | | | |
