Page 2 of 4

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:33 pm
by halo 3000
IVhorseman wrote:This is pretty much the entire reason summed up. It's not an issue about realism (it should be pointed out that if you're opting for realism you are playing THE WRONG GAME SON), but one of game balance.
The old saying goes "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." haha!

But I get it. For balance purposes, yes it makes sense. On the other hand,if two players are both playing Sci Fi army's with no Melee units at all...

I don't think longer ranges=realism. I do think that players with more shooty oriented army's would experience a more dynamic game if the ranges were increased slightly.
I would opt against a separate ruleset for fantasy and for modern only because I forsee it raising more problems than it actually solves.
What sort of problems do you think would arise?

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:51 pm
by alphafalcon541
So many new supplement ideas

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:29 am
by Silverdream
@IVHorseman

Technically there would still be a reason for getting melee weapons, but they would be severely limited. Say if a squad of soldiers with rifles enters a house, suddenly a group of monkeys with chainsaws drop from the rafters onto the soldiers. Their ranged weapons are now useless against the chainsaw monkeys on their backs.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:49 am
by Ben-Jammin
Direct your attention here:

http://www.brikwars.com/forums/viewtopi ... =6&t=11019

I had the same feelings, although I tried to diversify the ranged weapons we have outside of short-ranged and long-ranged.

Hope it helps.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:51 am
by stubby
halo 3000 wrote:One thing that gets me about Brikwars is the overall short ranges on ranged weapons. Now this may have stemmed from playing too much 40k but I have to wonder why the relatively low ranges?
It basically boils down to this: we playtested with longer ranges and it wasn't fun. It's not even a matter of whether melee weapons are relevant (although that's a side bonus) - when the weapon ranges are too large compared to movement ranges (and to the size of the average player's tabletop and the amount of terrain you can build with the average player's brick collection), maneuvering becomes irrelevant. Everyone just grabs cover where they can, stops moving, and makes the same die rolls every turn until one guy's numbers are higher than the other's.

Your mileage may vary of course; the easiest thing to do is just play a couple games with double or triple weapon ranges and see if it matches what you're looking for more closely.
halo 3000 wrote:Oh, I agree, but still, shooting at something 12 in away shouldn't require much more skill than shooting 10in away.
Sure it does, a shot's performance characteristics change when it passes its effective range. That's why real-world weapons have a separate "effective range" and "maximum range." For projectiles, there's an airspeed threshold where the flight path stops being predictable. For fictional blaster bolts (using Star Wars physics as the reference), shots decohere after their effective range and the energy starts to scatter randomly.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:32 pm
by Quantumsurfer
This has been one of my major problems with games like 40K. A lot of my armies are shooty and it really does involve a lot of standing around and rolling dice. Not enough "playing" with the figures. We'd need to design a mechanic or a series of mechanics that inspire movement, perhaps something terrain based, if we wanted longer ranged games to be interesting. Maybe something as simple as using Objectives or having terrain provide certain types of bonuses, powers, or story advantages would work. I used a very very basic version of this idea in a couple of my games and it made them much more interesting. But, make no mistake, it also made them more complicated. Nevertheless, there might be a simpler way to implement the idea than what I had going.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:23 pm
by Zupponn
If you look at Mobile Frame Zero (whose ranges I have no idea about) their win condition is objective based. Adding something that all factions are going for is a great way to add an interesting element to the game, and could make someone move their shooty forces a bit or something with longer ranges.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:07 am
by stubby
Tried it, same thing happens. Once the ranges are larger than movement, nobody goes for the objectives, they just focus on killing each other at range so that they can claim the objective unimpeded afterwards.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:11 am
by Apollyon
I always wonder if people want realism so much... why don't they just join the army?

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:26 am
by Zupponn
stubby wrote:Tried it, same thing happens. Once the ranges are larger than movement, nobody goes for the objectives, they just focus on killing each other at range so that they can claim the objective unimpeded afterwards.
But what about ticking down turns like MFZ does? That way you can force your opponent to move once you have the objective and start ticking away, or start ticking and move in at the last minute to claim victory. An objective based game is going to just be a death match unless someone has a way to instantly claim victory.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:33 am
by Quantumsurfer
Interesting. What about turn limits? Make the objectives time sensitive. That way if you dick around shooting at the opponent, you won't get to the objective in time. Of course, then, that would mean that either the maps would have to be large or that the objectives would have to be difficult to get to somehow.

Another option might be to have an objective grant a better way to shoot the shit out of your enemy. Something like a bonus to ranged attacks (at its most basic and boring, I'm sure there must be something better along these lines). That way, the shooty army that stands still is at a disadvantage. Also, two shooty armies that charge the objective end up in close combat anyway.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:07 am
by Zupponn
Well, as interesting as all this sounds, it's probably easier to keep everything as it is.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:59 am
by Quantumsurfer
Sure. And, after all, the game is Mike's.

But if Halo wants to create an optional supplement for it, well, by all means.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:03 pm
by Tzan
Well, as interesting as all this sounds, I'm still waiting to find out what "shamrocked" means.

Re: Short ranges on guns?

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:28 pm
by halo 3000
stubby wrote:It basically boils down to this: we playtested with longer ranges and it wasn't fun. Everyone just grabs cover where they can, stops moving, and makes the same die rolls every turn until one guy's numbers are higher than the other's.
Well, if its not fun, its not fun. I still think there has to be a way to get people moving around though.
Apollyon wrote:I always wonder if people want realism so much... why don't they just join the army?
I'm not sure why you think I'm lobbying for realism here. I'm just wanting a few extra inches on the ranges. Join the army? That doesn't even make sense. Hypothetically, just because I want my car to go faster, doesn't mean I want to be a race car driver.
Quantumsurfer wrote: I used a very very basic version of this idea in a couple of my games and it made them much more interesting. But, make no mistake, it also made them more complicated. Nevertheless, there might be a simpler way to implement the idea than what I had going.
what exactly were you doing?