BW 2010 feedback

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

Nice. I had a bit of a problem with the 2005 squad rules. I didn't like the way they played. So I hope Stubs comes up with some good fun enhancing stuf this time.

[Quantumsurfer]

Random thought:
Are there any considerations for making special squads, like heroic squads?  Or special abilities squads could, I don't know, purchase or something?

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

I don't know what you exactly mean by a heroic squad, but I am sure  you could make up any kind of specialty that effects the whole squad the unit is in. You would probably wan't to give it to a officer.
Why would you wan't a specific rules section for something you can solve with the already existing rules. IMO the less rules to remember the better.

[stubby]

Nice. I had a bit of a problem with the 2005 squad rules. I didn't like the way they played.

Yeah, me neither. I'm going to eliminate them almost completely.

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

But you are going to replace them with other better squad like rules right...right?

[stubby]

Mainly I plan to just eliminate 90% of them and replace them with nothing at all. All that nonsense about Forming Up and Bracing and special movement is out. Officers now raise squad members' Skill - d6es become d8s, d4s become d6es.

[aoffan23]

Mainly I plan to just eliminate 90% of them and replace them with nothing at all. All that nonsense about Forming Up and Bracing and special movement is out. Officers now raise squad members' Skill - d6es become d8s, d4s become d6es.

I hope you clarify exactly what is and isn't a squad, because that seems like a grossly exploitable rule. Someone could say their entire force is a squad, and only pay the CP for one officer. Maybe make the player pay a certain amount of CP for every minifig the officer can control, and say they can't go over that number. That way, you can still reform squads after losing members, but you don't have one giant mega-squad with 1d8 skill.

I'd personally stray away from the idea of having to keep squads close, because it seems silly and outdated to me. With the idea of guerilla warfare and things like flanking, squads split up quite a bit, but can still keep in touch with each other.

[Keldoclock]

You could do an intermediate sort of thing where squads have to stay close OR have a radioman close by. It would give you a reason to diversify your forces and have one guy in six or so with a radio and pistol instead of just giving everyone rifles

[aoffan23]

You could do an intermediate sort of thing where squads have to stay close OR have a radioman close by. It would give you a reason to diversify your forces and have one guy in six or so with a radio and pistol instead of just giving everyone rifles

This could work, too. Every radio could cost a certain amount of CP, so letting your entire squad move around individually would be pretty expensive.

[IVhorseman]

To be considered in a squad but not in the same squadplate, I think a radio/bugle/drum would work fine for communication - just remember that the officer skill boost only applies to entire squad actions. If the guerilla squad decided to all combine-fire onto one truck once it reached the perfect striking position it'd be fine - but not if some of them used grenades while others ran up for melee attacks. The radios would also become useless once the last officer died.

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

Mainly I plan to just eliminate 90% of them and replace them with nothing at all. All that nonsense about Forming Up and Bracing and special movement is out. Officers now raise squad members' Skill - d6es become d8s, d4s become d6es.

Warning wall of text. Still worth the read IMO though.

That sounds good and I agree about all the nonsense. What bother me a lot though was the way CC worked with squad combat. Yes it was very simple and quick which aided the game progression but I always felt that it took away the fun of tactics involved with close combat.
Let me explain. I have always loved how CC combat works in Brikwars. Even though it is quite simple it still leave a tremendous amount of room for tactics. All the different kind of weapons required a very different play style. For example two-handed weapons deal devastating damage but you need to manage your range to use them effectively. Every weapon has it's pros and cons in it's own way and this creates the rock, paper, scissor effect that makes strategy games so much fun.
IMO the 2005 rules for squad CC eliminated this, because essentially when two squads lock up you treat them as one single mengled mess and just grind it out until one squad is dead. Yes it's quick en simple but it eliminates a lot of fun.
Because loose minifgs (not formed up in squads) engaging in CC slaughter fest tend to get mengled up and chaotic by them selfs I think squads should be treated as the tight formation they are when engaging in CC. IMO this would open up many fun game play elements such as formation. Suddenly you need to think about how you set your squad up. Are going to stand in a long line or a tight block. Are going to put shield and sword units in front of your phalanx units to prevent the enemy getting to close to use your long as spears. Now flanking becomes an element because you can negate the shield wall if you hit them in the side. etc etc.

I really think it would add some great tactical possibilities to the game. But any way, these are just my thoughts.

[Quantumsurfer]

I can agree with that.  The positioning of one's troops is what breeds the sense of involvement a player has when playing a wargame.  Not just the physical engagement that happens when you physically move your guys around but also the mental satisfaction that arises from strategic planning and tactical maneuvering.  In fact, in most wargames (I'd argue), the meat of the game itself is in movement and positioning...everything else is just dice rolling, left to the vagaries of fate.

That being said, I've found that some measure (and often not a small amount) of abstraction must be had in order to balance the demands of gameplay with efficiency and fun.  What I mean is, half the time (or better) that we play BrikWars now, we actually discard much of that maneuvering, using angry inches only in very small engagements.  Physically, its a damn nightmare to sit and move all those guys bit by little bit if you've a very large melee.  The overall result is more interesting, usually, but the process is time consuming and draining.  If I want to do that, I won't play the game.  Instead, I'll just play with my Legos the way God intended.  Heh, leg godt.

So I can agree with some halfway measure like selecting a particular close combat strategy for a squad as they move into melee range.  A formation, as you say.  I'd worry that it would become a slightly more complicated game of rockpaperscissors, though, with one formation beating another which beats another.  Or trying to balance the particular advantages and disadvantages of each stance with each of the other stances.  But it definitely deserves more consideration.  This is what I was asking about, by the way.  I was thinking of Heroscape and how squads had particular advantages like the roman shield wall.  I just wasn't sure if it was in the works or if it was even being considered, for this game, as something worthwhile.

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

Well the way I had it in mind was quite simple. I wasn't thinking about any special abilities or anything. Just that only the minfigs with in physical striking range of each other can strike each other even with squad combat. This makes it important (and fun IMO) how you organize your units in your squad and also makes flanking important in certain scenarios.
But I agree that it shouldn't slow down the game which I think it doesn't because basically you aren't really doing anything other than normal. The only difference is hat when units are in a squad they form to a giant block.

[stubby]

Physically, its a damn nightmare to sit and move all those guys bit by little bit if you've a very large melee.

This is kind of my primary concern.  There's nothing stopping you from breaking everybody out of the squad if you want to do it all one-on-one style, but when you've got big groups of dozens-vs-dozens the game bogs down fast.

The 2005 rules were supposed to handle formation fighting with the skirmishing option, but somehow that aspect got lost.

I do plan on having Heavy Infantry with a shield wall ability, but I was hoping to think of some little bit of extra flavor somehow because the shield wall ability (automatic Armored for any shieldsman with more shieldsmen on both sides) isn't all that exciting by itself.

It might be funny to give Officers a squad-inspiration feat or something so we quit getting all the bullshit feats from Heroes trying to make speeches to inspire soldiers to move extra inches or attack twice or whatever.  Those are very clearly not heroic.

[aoffan23]

I like the idea of limiting the "inspiring" feats to officers, as it's more their style. You could call it a Rallying Action or something. I think calling it an action would help differentiate it better from Heroic Feats, just because the name alone tells people that it shouldn't be as jaw-dropping as anything a hero does. As for the shield wall, I'll try to think up some ideas to shoot at you, but for now I've got nothing.