Subject:
|
Re: CO BrikWars get together
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.us.oh
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:59:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1230 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.us.oh, Gino A. Melone writes:
> As the guy with only a handful of space guys, I have some questions about
> costing. If looked at practically, Castle-era guys are a lot weaker than
> TL4-5, like most of the field will be. As far as I can tell, the rules
> assume that all armies are being fielded in the same TL.
You know, I got this same question in e-mail yesterday. I swear I wrote rules
to handle cross-TL battles, but for the life of me I can't figure out where I
put them in the rules. I'm going to feel like an idiot if it turns out I
forgot to include them completely. Here, let me quote from my e-mail:
(begin-quote)
Well damn, I looked and looked and can't figure out where
I put the cross-TL rules. I hope I didn't forget to put
them in. But that's okay, I have better rules anyway.
Here is the rule that was supposed to go into the 2000
revision:
If one player fields an army whose TekLevel is higher
than one or more of his opponents' armies, he must pay
more for his units and equipment. The army with the
lowest TL in the game determines the 'base TekLevel' of
the battle. A player who fields an army with a higher TL
than the base TL must pay additional CP for each minifig,
item of equipment, siege weapon, and vehicle whose TL is
higher than the base TL. (The cost of Bases is not
affected). The cost of each unit or object is increased by
+1 for every TekLevel of sophistication above the battle's
base TL.
Now I'm not real fond of that rule, it seems too
complicated, maybe that's why I (apparently) left it out.
What I hope to do, is figure out some good system of point
ratios between TLs. Something like "Total Army Value =
(TL+1)xCP", making a 400cp TL5 Space army = 480cp TL4 WWII
army = 600cp TL3 Napoleanic army = 800cp TL2 Samurai army =
1200cp TL1 Native American army = 2400cp TL0 Caveman army.
The problem is, it's been such a long time since any of us
bothered with the whole business of adding up points at all,
that I've lost my feeling for the numbers and it's going to
be awhile before I can convince everybody to do enough
playtesting to find the right ratio.
(end-quote)
> However, a score of space troopers (without flyers and such) facing a force
> of 10,000 knights wouldn't be likely to last long. Before you space-buffs
> scoff, think it through. An early medieval cavalry is VERY efficient at
> attacking as a group. You'd also be hard pressed to find a TL4 AI which is
> anywhere near as effective an automonous control mechanism for a combat
> vehicle as a battle-hardened warhorse. I'd expect TL5 to be on-par with
> the horse.
Earlier TLs do get an advantage if they can manage to close the distance with
more advanced soldiers before they all get shot. I don't know why I put the
chart under 8.1.3: Belligerent People, but all Castle People get +1 CC Bonus
(not just civilians as this chart's placement implies). Stats for Horses are
under 8.1.4, which is another bad placement decision. I'll be moving them to
the Vehicles chapter.
> If (major if), I could scrounge the time to build a well-fortified
> castle, a substantial point outlay on defenses and the troops to man them
> would create an interesting match against a lower-point TL5 attacker.
> Assuming major limits on the number of flyers. Classic castle design makes
> some major assumptions about the durability of gravity.
If you're playing strictly medieval, it's going to take awhile for your
archers and spearmen to take those Flyers out, and it's nearly impossible to
hit the things with catapults. But if you're willing to go a little post-
medieval and set up all those cannons you've got, then those flyers don't last
quite so long. You'll want to have two men manning the cannon, one to load
powder in the back and one to load cannonballs in the front, so you can fire
the things once a turn. Cannonballs get used up, but powder kegs don't; if an
enemy shoots a powder keg it goes up in a 2d10 explosion.
> Another way to handle such drastically different TL between groups is to
> ignore the fact that I am a lower TL. I field Castle theme pieces, but
> call them TL5. Longbows are blurfl-rifles. Crossbows are big-blurfl-
> rifles. (Can you tell I haven't read the rules carefully enough yet?) A
> Catapault is a cannon. For that matter, I have a large supply of cannons.
> A cannon is a TL5 cannon. A dragon is a small-flyer (Like Mike suggested).
> A wizards wand is something-neat. Etc...
Nothing stopping you in this regard, we do that kind of stuff all the time.
You'd have a better chance of winning but it might not be as entertaining (or
glorious) as the whole Braveheart vs. Borg thing.
> So, after rambling for a possible new record in this thread, how do you
> envision handling cross-genre battles, Mike?
Well I'll tell you, it's something we do all the time, but it's a lot easier
for us because we never bother adding up all the points. I'm definitely going
to have to make a new chapter subsection for cross-TL action, probably in
chapter 9 or 10 somewhere.
- Mike Rayhawk
--------------------------------------------------
Check out the Official BrikWars Home Page at
http://www.teleport.com/~rayhawks/brikwars.htm
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: CO BrikWars get together
|
| mjr22@cornell.edu (Mike Rayhawk) wrote in <FstJnx.1yF@lugnet.com>: (...) [bunch o' snipping in that] I saw this somewhere in the rules. It seemed too cheap the way I read it. Although, I really don't have any grasp on how much things cost. I also (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.loc.us.oh)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CO BrikWars get together
|
| Mike, As the guy with only a handful of space guys, I have some questions about costing. If looked at practically, Castle-era guys are a lot weaker than TL4-5, like most of the field will be. As far as I can tell, the rules assume that all armies (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.loc.us.oh)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
