BrikwaRTS

Supplement ideas, house rules, homemade stat cards, homebrew weapon types, and other cool variations

Moderators: Rev. Sylvanus, warman45

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby IVhorseman » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:19 pm

You once mentioned an idea where each side was only allowed to use 6 separate "units" per turn, which ranges from either 6 individual minifigs all the way up to 2 SHDTs, a helicopter gunship, and 3 massive infantry squads.

Under this setting, a smaller sized army would be able to command a larger portion of their army than the larger one.

Alternatively, you could switch to a you-go/i-go turn order, like in Worms. Each side controls only one unit on their turn, rotating out until everyone has gone. It might be hard to keep track of who's moved during a turn without pips to keep track though.
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby stubby » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:17 am

Apollyon wrote:Only the weaker side gets heros. Stronger side suffers from Stormtrooper Incompetence. Maybe coupled with some sort of objective, e.g. the nominally weaker hero side has to retrieve some object from the strong side.

I'm against this idea because it would seem to really kill the fun for the overpowered player. Regardless of the fact that he's overpowered, I still want everyone to have fun.

halo 3000 wrote:Guerrilla warfare style hit and run tactics. Maybe the smaller player can draw up the battlefield on a piece of paper, mark where his units are and have them open fire on the enemy when they get near. The smaller force would keep his stuff off the table until he decided to shoot, That way the larger force has no idea where they are.

I was thinking about stuff like this also. Although, rather than having to decide things in advance, the underdog general would just hold forces "in concealment" and could deploy them in whichever areas of concealment the enemy hadn't cleared yet. Kind of like the special zombie spawning points in L4D.

I like the idea of asymmetrical warfare rules to benefit the smaller force, but it'd be better to have something more universal so the battle types weren't limited to guerilla-style scenarios.

IVhorseman wrote:You once mentioned an idea where each side was only allowed to use 6 separate "units" per turn, which ranges from either 6 individual minifigs all the way up to 2 SHDTs, a helicopter gunship, and 3 massive infantry squads.

Under this setting, a smaller sized army would be able to command a larger portion of their army than the larger one.

Alternatively, you could switch to a you-go/i-go turn order, like in Worms. Each side controls only one unit on their turn, rotating out until everyone has gone. It might be hard to keep track of who's moved during a turn without pips to keep track though.

Not necessarily a larger portion - if it's six individual soldiers against six infantry squads, they're both using all their forces but the smaller army gets to be a lot more flexible about it. I like this idea the best because it "feels" like the advantage of a small vs. large force - more flexible, more adaptible, less C&C and logistical limitations to worry about. And of course anything that increases the pace of the turns is a good thing in my book.

I may introduce this as an optional rule in the section for Squad combat. It'll go a long way to making large vs small forces still seem like a fun battle, without changing the fact that the large force is still inevitably going to win thanks to having more bodies to spend wearing the small force down.
User avatar
stubby
Psy.D Manchild Psychology, U. of Wikipedia
 
Posts: 5079
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby Quantumsurfer » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:43 am

stubby wrote:
halo 3000 wrote:Guerrilla warfare style hit and run tactics. Maybe the smaller player can draw up the battlefield on a piece of paper, mark where his units are and have them open fire on the enemy when they get near. The smaller force would keep his stuff off the table until he decided to shoot, That way the larger force has no idea where they are.

I was thinking about stuff like this also. Although, rather than having to decide things in advance, the underdog general would just hold forces "in concealment" and could deploy them in whichever areas of concealment the enemy hadn't cleared yet. Kind of like the special zombie spawning points in L4D.

I like the idea of asymmetrical warfare rules to benefit the smaller force, but it'd be better to have something more universal so the battle types weren't limited to guerilla-style scenarios.


This reminds me of Warhammer, I think it was. Used numbered hidden forces markers scattered about the battlefield by what would be in this case the smaller force. The infiltrators would secretly assign their forces to specific numbers. Some markers would have no forces assigned to them to serve as decoys. The infiltrators could then spawn those forces they wished on their turn, revealing them and continuing play as normal. They would also be forced to spawn and reveal the forces at a marker to which enemy forces came within a specific distance. In this case, I suppose you could say that the smaller force gets a specific number of decoys or gets a percentage of his force size in decoys. Something that scales with battle size, no doubt.

stubby wrote:
IVhorseman wrote:You once mentioned an idea where each side was only allowed to use 6 separate "units" per turn, which ranges from either 6 individual minifigs all the way up to 2 SHDTs, a helicopter gunship, and 3 massive infantry squads.

Under this setting, a smaller sized army would be able to command a larger portion of their army than the larger one.

Alternatively, you could switch to a you-go/i-go turn order, like in Worms. Each side controls only one unit on their turn, rotating out until everyone has gone. It might be hard to keep track of who's moved during a turn without pips to keep track though.

Not necessarily a larger portion - if it's six individual soldiers against six infantry squads, they're both using all their forces but the smaller army gets to be a lot more flexible about it. I like this idea the best because it "feels" like the advantage of a small vs. large force - more flexible, more adaptible, less C&C and logistical limitations to worry about. And of course anything that increases the pace of the turns is a good thing in my book.

I may introduce this as an optional rule in the section for Squad combat. It'll go a long way to making large vs small forces still seem like a fun battle, without changing the fact that the large force is still inevitably going to win thanks to having more bodies to spend wearing the small force down.


This is reminiscent of Heroscape. In that game, forces are bought according to specific point values per figure or per squad. Each player is allowed to activate a total of three units per round. Players do this in turn order, one unit at a time. The game is built on a default point value for armies that usually leaves both players placing a decoy marker on one unit and placing turn order markers on pretty much the rest of their army (though variations are certainly possible, such as placing all the turn order markers on one unit). But the point is that they could go with almost all of their army. We rarely play with the default standard, instead usually choosing forces that almost double or triple the default army sizes. That's where the tactical limitation of being able to choose only 3 units per round really shines.

6 units per turn seems excessive. Perhaps a better system would have the number of units allowed to be activated per player turn scale with the size of the battle as a whole. I also worry that the extreme example, 6 guys vs. 6 squads, probably still wouldn't be fun more than once or twice. Instead of a guerrilla style game every game, you're left with a kamikaze style game every game. Kamikazes are a laugh riot, don't get me wrong. But squads and basic dudes don't have specific themed abilities that modify move, damage, range, to-hit, and the like as in Heroscape. Chances are, while the smaller force will get to do more, it still won't be much. And then, after a generally non-impactful turn, they get obliterated. It's not that they don't have the possibility of winning; it's more that they won't be able to interact with the game in a significant way. But that's on the extreme end of the scale. So it may just be something to tolerate and run sparingly. Because at the higher end, say 6 squads vs. 10 squads where only 5 units may be activated per turn, becomes a lot more interesting.



I really think The Kanon is one of the best things you've added to the game so far, WIP or not. The "after the battle" and "BUT ALSO" story templates fairly consistently forge an interesting narrative out of most BW battles. In their own way, they add a significant strategic element to the game that steps solidly outside the bounds of the typical wargame. Is there a way to add further universal story tags to the actual battles themselves in order to handle situations like unbalanced forces?
User avatar
Quantumsurfer
Thank god for Colette.
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby stubby » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:28 pm

Quantumsurfer wrote:This reminds me of Warhammer, I think it was. Used numbered hidden forces markers scattered about the battlefield by what would be in this case the smaller force. The infiltrators would secretly assign their forces to specific numbers. Some markers would have no forces assigned to them to serve as decoys. The infiltrators could then spawn those forces they wished on their turn, revealing them and continuing play as normal. They would also be forced to spawn and reveal the forces at a marker to which enemy forces came within a specific distance. In this case, I suppose you could say that the smaller force gets a specific number of decoys or gets a percentage of his force size in decoys. Something that scales with battle size, no doubt.

As much as possible I want to avoid having to write stuff down or make decisions like this in advance. Better to just leave it as "this location may contain up to four troops" and leave it undetermined until the underdog player places units there or the overdog clears the location. And if the overdog clears enough locations that the underdog can't place his reserve troops anywhere, then this happens.

Quantumsurfer wrote:6 units per turn seems excessive. Perhaps a better system would have the number of units allowed to be activated per player turn scale with the size of the battle as a whole. I also worry that the extreme example, 6 guys vs. 6 squads, probably still wouldn't be fun more than once or twice.

I see that less as a starting condition than as something that happens naturally towards the end of the battle as a clear victor emerges.

My main hang-up with this idea right now is "every turn" effects. What if one of your units is on fire and takes damage every turn? Can you just decide not to play that unit, and so he never has to resolve his fire situation, or does he take the damage every turn whether he participates in the turn or not? Etc.

Quantumsurfer wrote:I really think The Kanon is one of the best things you've added to the game so far, WIP or not. The "after the battle" and "BUT ALSO" story templates fairly consistently forge an interesting narrative out of most BW battles. In their own way, they add a significant strategic element to the game that steps solidly outside the bounds of the typical wargame. Is there a way to add further universal story tags to the actual battles themselves in order to handle situations like unbalanced forces?

That would be great and I've been trying to think of ways to integrate Kanon into the game mechanics rather than something that happens afterward.

My favorite inspiration, weirdly, was in the Civ V Brave New World expansion: the game remembers battles you have with barbarians in the stone age, and thousands of years later, when you hit the modern age you can re-discover the ancient battle sites as archaeological digs when you're gunning for a culture victory. It's an ingenious way of making simple military decisions matter in a completely different way after the dust is settled.
User avatar
stubby
Psy.D Manchild Psychology, U. of Wikipedia
 
Posts: 5079
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby Quantumsurfer » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:03 pm

stubby wrote:As much as possible I want to avoid having to write stuff down or make decisions like this in advance.


I tend to agree. It works well for games like 40K but it violates the feeling of your game.

stubby wrote:My main hang-up with this idea right now is "every turn" effects. What if one of your units is on fire and takes damage every turn? Can you just decide not to play that unit, and so he never has to resolve his fire situation, or does he take the damage every turn whether he participates in the turn or not? Etc.


My instinct is to say the latter. But I also know from experience that such an approach can confuse players. Some characters go and resolve effects but then you have to keep track of other characters who didn't go but still resolve effects. It's not a big thing, but it can sometimes trip people up. As to the former, it might not make much sense and could create cognitive dissonance. I've had people tell me that Heroscape's limited turn activity does the same all by itself, though. I'm unsure if that attitude stemmed from habitual thinking about other games and their structures or if the idea that only parts of an army could battle at a time really was confusing to them. That may be a question of preference. Stacking staggered continuous effects rulings on top of that might be cementing that preference or it might be taking it that one dissonant step too far.

stubby wrote:I've been trying to think of ways to integrate Kanon into the game mechanics rather than something that happens afterward.


I'd very much like to see that. If I have any flashes of inspiration, I'll let you know.
User avatar
Quantumsurfer
Thank god for Colette.
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby IVhorseman » Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:11 pm

Every turn effects should happen every turn. You have 6 (or whatever limit is chosen) opportunities to rectify that situation, but it still happens.

I think a bigger issue involves opportunity attacks. If I moved 6 dudes one turn but don't shoot with them, then move another 6 guys in another turn, will my original 6 still be able to fire on my opponent's dudes who blundered into their line of fire?
User avatar
IVhorseman
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
If she don't want the brick, she won't get the dick
 
Posts: 6644
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: The Abyss

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby Quantumsurfer » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:40 pm

IVhorseman wrote:I think a bigger issue involves opportunity attacks. If I moved 6 dudes one turn but don't shoot with them, then move another 6 guys in another turn, will my original 6 still be able to fire on my opponent's dudes who blundered into their line of fire?


If every turn effects happen every turn, I should think so. Holding the attack action is really very much just like a temporary effect. Being on Fire would happen until the fire was out. Holding the Attack would happen until the attack was made.
User avatar
Quantumsurfer
Thank god for Colette.
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: BrikwaRTS

Postby stubby » Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:55 pm

IVhorseman wrote:I think a bigger issue involves opportunity attacks. If I moved 6 dudes one turn but don't shoot with them, then move another 6 guys in another turn, will my original 6 still be able to fire on my opponent's dudes who blundered into their line of fire?

This I'm not as worried about. If the 6-units-per-turn rule represents command and control limitations, then it only limits what you can do with active units. Reactive units can all keep on making opportunity attacks as normal, since they're presumably not doing anything other than sitting around waiting for orders.

As a side effect, opportunity attacks would be naturally limited as well, since you can only react to things your opponent is doing and your opponent is limited to six things just like you.

If I do move forward with this rule, it'll be something like this:

Sudden Death wrote:If, at any point in the battle, the largest team has more than twice the forces of the next largest team, the battle moves into Sudden Death. At the beginning of each player's turn, the player rolls the Skill of his highest-ranking surviving unit. This is the number of independent units that player can use in that turn (individual minifigs, individual squads, individual vehicle crews, or individual emplaced weapon crews).

Turn-to-turn effects like Fire or Poison still apply as usual, whether the affected unit is moving that turn or not.

All units may engage in Response Actions as usual (4.3: Enemy Response).
User avatar
stubby
Psy.D Manchild Psychology, U. of Wikipedia
 
Posts: 5079
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Previous

Return to Bonus Material

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests