| |
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
|
|
|
