Subject:
|
Re: Brikwars Questions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:55:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1248 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Rayhawk wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > It's been kind of quiet ... just wondering if there were any
> > suggestions, questions, points to be made, etc., about the up- and
> > -coming game. Does anybody have any developments or sneak-previews
>
> What kinds of battles are you planning on running? 200 point armies are kind
> of on the small side, are you going to have a big free-for-all between a dozen
> different players or are you going to divide everybody up into two or three
> teams? Will it just be straight kill-or-be-killed or will there be assault
> objectives? Will you create and host scenario battles (for instance, giving
> one team a powerful fortress and setting another three teams to try to take
> and hold it)? Should players each bring a couple of different 200-pt. armies
> for different types of battles?
Well, I think what we'll try and do is have eveyrbody who comes field about
200-300 points worth of stuff, and then divide everybody up into two main forces.
The scenario is basically that there is a small town that lies on the hub of major
supply lines - two forces are arriving almost simulataneously in hopes of
establishing control of the area. So the main objective for each is essentially
to try and wail on the other side until they can no longer host a presence in any
of the buildigns or surrounding landscape. The last side which has a conscious
character within the landscape boundaries has secured the supply lines.
As an additional incentive, as Eric alluded to, there will be some components
(i.e. casks of Guinness) scattered throughout the landscape which will entice some
self-interest in the players. That is, throwing a little greed into the mix (the
casks will benefit the individuals who obtain them, not the whole team) can't help
but make things more interesting. Plus, each player *should* have a burning
desire for glory and fame, so a little bit of competitive self-interest is
encouraged - as long as it lies along the overall team objective of eradicating
the enemy.
>
> Instead of imposing a 5:1 troop to vehicles ratio, you might just want to say
> that each 200-pt army must contain at least ten troops. This will leave
> enough points left over for one big vehicle or a couple of smaller ones, or
> enough to give each soldier a lightly armed motorcycle.
This is a good point ... we're going to be exceptionally felxible with this. The
intent behind the idea was to ensure that people didn't just bring on e or two
huge items. While they are wonderful, there's something wholly fulfilling about
having small guys running amok, diving into and out of cover, etc. Something like
what you suggest is completely reasonable also, and more likely better thought out
than my proposal ;).
>
> If anybody needs any help tallying points or any questions about BrikWars
> rules that may be unclear, I am always available at mjr22@cornell.edu and
> would love to hear from you.
>
> Mike Rayhawk
hope this helps ...
shaun
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brikwars Questions?
|
| (...) What kinds of battles are you planning on running? 200 point armies are kind of on the small side, are you going to have a big free-for-all between a dozen different players or are you going to divide everybody up into two or three teams? Will (...) (24 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
