|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 24, 2011 20:06:39 GMT -5
Kicking it off...
|
|
|
Post by ghostwheel11 on Sept 25, 2011 0:08:49 GMT -5
The winter campaign will be loosly based on Planetary Empires. Using a hexagonal map grid the objective will be hold the most territory. Each round will consist of players choosing to invade a territory held by another player. Once an invasion is declared each player will have the freedom to decide point values and create a unique army list for the battle. What makes this campaign unique is the strategic advantages afforded to attackers and defenders. On a hexagonal grid it is possible for a tile to have at most six surrounding tiles. When an attacker chooses to invade an adjacent tile there are five remaining tiles surrounding the defender that will be used to determine strategic advantage. For each adjacent tile owned by the attacker, one strategic advantage is stolen from the defender. Strategic advantages are represented by game start actions: Place terrain, Choose mission, Choose Deployment type, Choose deploy side, and start order. By default it is assumed that the defender, knowing the lay of the land, will get to perform all of these actions. For each additional adjacent territory the attacker controls he gets to take over one of the responsibilities. Only if a territory is completely surrounded can the attacker perform all five actions. If one chooses to attack a territory that they share no border with (dropping from space) the defender will receive a blind attacker bonus. This bonus is yet to be determined.
First, we need comments regarding the proposed system of play.
-Does this sound fair? Matt - Yes
Eric - Yup
Tim - Yes, as long as we figure out what to do if the Attacker or Defender is completely surrounded and what to do if Defender wins.
Ellis - I agree with Tim; I don't agree with the advantages going to the attacker for having more tiles; the defender knows the lay of the land. I don't think the defender should lose this advantage because he is outnumbered. Rather than issuing the referenced bonuses to the attacker, the attacker can assign the inflitration rule to one squad for one tile, assign scout rule to two squads for two tiles, receive an adidtional 500 points to their army for three tiles, etc.
-Does this sound fun? Matt - HELL YES! Eric - very much so. Tim - Yes, very excited. Ellis - Yes! Second, we need to agree upon some further specifics:
-Should the board have edges giving some territories a guarenteed defenders advantage or should be play on a sphere? Matt - Edges is simpler to manage and could be a kind of Helm's Deep type scenario where the defender is too dug in for the attacker to ever have full advantage. So I say edges simply provide fewer available attacker advantages.
Eric - I think edges would be fine, perhaps representing natural barriers (mountain ranges, oceans) Tim - Yes, edges. It will make those territories more valuable and easier to defend. Adds variety. Ellis - Edges all the way.
-How may territories should the map have? Matt - At least 10 per person to better guarantee some balanced advantages.
Eric - 25 total map size for 5 people Tim - 5 per person playing. Trust me, even a 25-hex map is huge. Ellis - 10 per person.
-Should we fill all territories evenly before the campaign starts? Matt - Yes
Eric - Yes Tim - Yes Ellis - Yes -How are turns handled if everyone has different schedules? Matt - No opinion yet. Eric - Either through individual challenges like our tournament, or from simultaneous bids with only one battle per week.
Tim - I like simultaneous bids, but maybe we could do up to 3 but no more than the number of tiles you control.
Ellis - Individual challenges; might be easier with differing schedules. -Should the game conclude after a certain number of rounds, when a certain percentage of the map is owned by a player, or when specific player territories (Capitols) are taken?
Matt - Percentage of Planet Eric - Percentage of Planet
Tim - First person to control 10 tiles at end of a phase/turn.
Ellis - Certain number of rounds; I like the idea of not only being able to take over territory, but hold it for the win. -How are ties and moral victories handled?
Matt - Moral victory takes the territory. True tie to defender. Eric - Moral victory takes territory, tie to defender. Tim - I was thinking about this situation. A tie is a tie; and if you did not "win" your objective, how can you claim a territory? Maybe if a Moral Victory, Attacker has to roll a die to see if they take the territory? I will concede this one if everyone thinks Moral Victory wins the territory.
Ellis - We need a tie-breaker. Moral victory should do it. -Do you like the Blind Attacker Scenario (PDF 4) and if so what should the defender's bonus be?
Matt - Yes. Attacker has to put all eligible units in reserve / deep strike.
Eric - Yes. Attacker has to put all eligible units in reserve / deep strike.
Tim - I have to think about this one.
Ellis - Not sure yet; let me think about it. I'll let you nkow if I come up with something.
-What happens after a win?
Matt - If the attacker wins he takes the tile (duh). I propose that if the attacker is coming from an adjacent tile (as seen in the first three PDF scenarios) the defender takes the attacker's tile. Call it filling the vacuum. If the attacker is coming from a distance (as seen in the fourth scenario), since the attacker is dropping from space, the defender does not gain any ground which seems to be a fine balance to the extreme risk the attacker is taking.
Ellis - No to the defender getting the tile if the defender wins. If I can just sit back in my little spot and reap the bonuses of being the defender AND take a territory for winning the game...why would I even bother doing anything else? Attacking a territory should be the only way to win one.
Eric - Challenger takes tile on win, Challenged keeps tile on a win (but if the same challenge is made, the challenged party gets to place their opponents army...not really sure if that would be good or not.). On a tie, the moral victor determines the outcome above. Still need to think more on this one. -If the Defender wins he gets to take the Attacker's tile:
Ellis - As for defender wins...nope. Still don't see it. I don't think it's right to earn something you weren't aiming for.
Tim - I agree with Ellis. The Attacker's tile is not the one being fought over, and that is why the Defender gets advantages. If we want to play where the winner always takes a tile from the loser, then we should do it like in PE; fight the battle first, then roll to see if you take the tile from opponent. However, what I don't like about PE is you can win a game and then lose 1 roll at the end and NOT get a territory. Maybe we do the roll, but if you lose the roll the Defender chooses which tile you take from him and if you win the Attacker chooses? Then we could have modifiers based on how many hexes are touching and Moral Victory and such? -Advantages for being surrounded?
Matt - The defender only looses the choice of the battlefield (aka placing terrain) if he is completely surrounded. If you want to remove that so the defender always gets to place terrain then I might agree, but the other items are choosing the mission, choosing the direction of attack, choosing whether to strike first or not. I think that additional recon could give you those advantages. Even the terrain could be argued that by surrounding them you have the recon to strike them while they are on a march to the cafeteria.
Tim - I agree with Matt. It is important to remember that the games are not being played with "Attacker/Defender" roles in mind, or else we would have to come up with different missions like in Planetstrike. This is more like "Challenger/Challenged". The point was to give people advantages for creating contiguous empires (like in Risk) as opposed to just fighting anywhere. Also, we could think of each tile/hex as a small country or even a planet, so the battlefield can be anywhere within that territory, and sometimes the Attacker chooses where to attack and sometimes they have no choice but to attack where the Defender wants.
Death and drek, this is most certainly a loss for me! Much like the very subject of our debate, I have been surrounded and outnumbered by my opponent and I am forced to give up the initiative. Curses! Now, since this appears to be a tie between Matt and I in our most heartfelt of debates, I claim the Moral Victory. Why? Because I'm older, that's why! We will need to get together to kick off the Campaign and divide out our initial territories at some point. If we want to play soon we need to get this discussion rolling. DON'T FORGET TO REPLY ALL EVERY TIME.
|
|
|
Post by ghostwheel11 on Sept 25, 2011 0:12:58 GMT -5
What we have voted on so far:
Does this sound fun? YES
Should we have edges? YES
Should we fill all territories evenly before starting? YES
That seems to be all the definites.
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 26, 2011 0:25:28 GMT -5
First, I would like to say: HOLY EFFING CRAP! THIS IS AWESOME!
Great job, Matt!
Second, I want to throw a wrench in the system.
I like the path this Campaign is headed, but Eric and I talked a bit the other day and it seems people are on different sides of the fence on a key subject: what to do if the "Defender" of a territory wins.
I think that, since this is a Map Campaign, it is perfectly legitimate to say if you defend your territory you get no reward other than keeping your territory. That is how it is in war. But I also acknowledge that it sucks to win a game and get no benefit. Imagine if in one round you are challenged 3 times and win, but you lose the game where you are the challenger. You win 3 out of 4 games and lose a territory. Yup, large bag of suck.
So, I have a proposal. Just something to think about.
In Planetary Empires (of which I am not a fan), 2 players play a standard game, then the winner rolls on a table to see if they take a territory from the loser. However, you can win the game then miss that roll to see if you claim a territory and get nothing.
What if we set it up so 2 players play the game, then the winner chooses which territory he would like to claim from the loser. The winner rolls 2D6, which is modified +1 for every one of his territories touching the loser's territory and -2 if only a Moral Victory. If the winner wins the roll, he gets the territory. If he loses this roll, the loser chooses which of his territories the winner gets.
The kicker is: each player's Empire has to be contiguous. If you have 6 territories (touching) in the north of the map and 4 in the south, your biggest empire is only 6 territories. You have to fight to link up all your territories, and it is to the loser's advantage to give up a territory not touching the winner's Empire.
I don't want to derail the process, especially since I love the idea of pre-game dice rolls decided by adjoined territories, but there seems to be a couple things we can't get around. If we all agree the Defender makes no gain if they win, I will vote to keep the format we have been proposing. Otherwise, we may have to think of another direction.
Hope this helps, and doesn't get anyone mad.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDangerous on Sept 26, 2011 5:52:13 GMT -5
Working third shift really put me out of the loop... This is what I wrote after being awake for too long...
Holy shit!!! I <3 u guys! I have read most of the thread, and while my opinion is worth a grain of salt, since I won't be playing this campaign, I will hopefully play in the next one! Since these rules will model the way for the next... I feel like I should put in my 2 cents... 1 while scenario four shows a far away tile... The proximity is still relatively close... Does this mean a player can attack farther away? 2)To fit the fluff(Ork gravity cannons, Necron teleportation, Tyranid spores, BA Jump Pack Assaults) could everyone have "reserve troops" in space which count as a single campaign use option to tip the scales more in their favor? Seems to me there are many stories of back up coming down to the planet after ground fighting has begun... 3) Retreat/tactical withdrawal... Even the orks regroup after losing thousands of boys... Seems like a retreat to a friendly territory could give you a bonus... Treating that territory for a certain number of turns as if it had several or at least one additional territory for a number of campaign turns... Could tactically change things. 4) there are rules for attacker and defender in the missions book... Those are challenging and possibly too complicated... But might change things a bit... 5)I agree with Ellis that setting up terrain may not be a big enough advantage... There are "special abilities" in the City Fight book... Maybe the defender would be able to use a couple of those... Obviously the appropriate ones... Like fuel dump: any flamethrowers in a proximity to this terrain are twin linked, hospital( or whatever it's called) all troops in this terrain get feel no pain, tunnel rats: troops emerge from underground locations nominated at the beginning of the game( troops come in as reserves).... There's more... But you see what I'm getting at... They are reasonable, not too overpowered, and in most cases are limited to a terrain area...
If I typed something wrong... I worked third shift last night... So I'm tired
Matt props on the site!!! I will supply text!! When I wake up......
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDangerous on Sept 26, 2011 7:18:50 GMT -5
There is one scenario, regardless of small details posted by myself above, that i have not seen addressed. This issue my friends is the issue of a tactically positioned territory. Lets say for instance Ellis is the red tiles(exactly as shown) on Hexgrid2... now his boys are not quite ready to be working overtime... They are instead choosing to use a bit of cunn'in... Now lets say that Eris controls the green tile in Hexgrid2, and the two to its right... Ellis being an experience warlord may want to attack the tile to the upper right of the currently placed "defender" tile.... because he willgain more advantages in the long term, because Eric has masterly constructed a defensive network based on the Orks "primitive" intelligence expectations(not expecting a ded killy warboss)... you make up the reason... now lets say Tim is coming in from the north and also sees this weak link in Erics Necron chain... so he wants to send his marines in to the same territory(adjacent to his for instance)... So in one round two attackers are wishing to go against one defender... I am sure this will occur more than once... but if your all boxed in maybe more... Do we 1) let the person with the highest strategy rating(-characters) fight this out first, then do secondary battle with other interested party(continuing until all parties going for the tile are satiated)... 2) play a giant multiple person battle (maybe has to be over objectives since there has to be a reason this specific territory is so important... kill points could work but in my experience it isnt fair for one person as they get double teamed) to resolve the issue... 3) choose territories to attack based on strategy rating... so that maybe the Librarian saw into the future and knew the orks were going to try to seize the territory... making preparations so that the enemy would be delayed a round removing debris or traps... basically putting Gretchin to work/death in some way.( I am assuming a space marine commander has a higher strategy rating than an ork warboss... not exactly sure but it makes sense...) 4) Dice for it... doesnt seem that strategic... especially with the way certain people roll sixes cough matt cough eric cough ME!!! But its a decider. So theres that... I finally caught up on the emails once i was no longer a zombie(yes Tim it is a medical condition)... So one of my questions was answered, partially about the long distance attacks(also ,btw, good for preventing someone from winning too easy).... the last few rounds are going to be crazy.... as there will be no advantages to the attackers besides buying time to possibly win more tiles... but many games to play as people try to stop a player from gaining enough territories to win... Which brings me to my next worry... the end game strategy... planetary empires is probably full of silly rules... but to make sure no one is going to play 5 games the last week or so (just before they win as everyone else attacks them it would seem like some rules need to be laid down to make it a bit more possible to win.... otherwise the campaign could go on forever... well until all but one of us dies... So maybe to prevent this scenario 1)make it so that if someone is on their maybe final battle, only one human person can send his army against said player(abstracted rule from citidels (matt youll get it) of how parts of a city cannot be destroyed if the player reaches 8) 2) change the win condition to be player defending this tile for so many turns wins... like a center tile which is a city or certain landmark of importance... 3) secret objectives(of which revealing causes instant loss... like hold a certain number of tiles... or hold a certain tile for x number of rounds.... maybe something as simple as cleanse a certain alien race from the planet.... easy to think of many fluff reasons if i was playing daemons or nids in such a campaign... (totally stolen idea from Twilight Imperium) 4)Provided the map is not only a few tiles thick and linear, or that the tiles are not so obtuse as to provide very special advantage to certain starting points maybe a rule stipulating only adjacent spaces may attack the possible winning player should be in effect.... It all comes down to Im really jealous....ive got five armies plus multiple deployment strategies lined up for each and I cant bhe part of this.... this time..... oh but beware.... i shall be there before you know it..... and then the fruits of mayhem evolved shall reign supreme.... Oh did I tell you I <3 You Guys... So awesome.... just so awesome... I like the idea of building alliances and such.... it will happen anyway... my as well make rules for it like a small bonus
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 26, 2011 9:44:25 GMT -5
One important thing to add...we REEEEEEALLY need to get some new terrain made.
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 26, 2011 13:56:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 26, 2011 13:57:23 GMT -5
One important thing to add...we REEEEEEALLY need to get some new terrain made. Yes, please! When? Where? My ruins just seem to not want to paint themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 26, 2011 18:57:06 GMT -5
If we allow muliple attackers on one territory (which sounds awesome) how would this work? All equal points and no allies? Do attackers divide stollen advantages? What if the attackers have to combine to match the defenders points then play as allies. Call it the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If the attackers win count victory points for each. Assume the victor with the most remaining units stabs his ally in the back.
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 26, 2011 21:40:02 GMT -5
My vote goes with all equal points. Eric, AA, and I had a lot of fun doing that.
Any disavantages anyone can think of?
|
|
|
Post by ghostwheel11 on Sept 26, 2011 22:59:51 GMT -5
Aside from the probable odds of someone getting teamed up on in a 3-way battle....that's really the only downside. Unless using a specific mission like seize ground would be required to keep people focused on something other than just outward killing to win.
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 27, 2011 6:44:32 GMT -5
I say go with equal points. Make it a seize ground mission; this way the defender isn't getting double teamed, everyone is fighting each other pretty evenly. As for pre-game set up and advantages, since there are two attacking units, each attacker claims a bonus. We can roll to see which attacker claims what bonus.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDangerous on Sept 28, 2011 5:20:31 GMT -5
In the case of anyone arguing the two on one scenario, I have played about ten of theses games, from both sides, and it never seems to work properly. Every time the larger single army has beat the two equal pointed smaller armies(totaling the same). I would imagine its the double points spent on HQ for the smaller armies, plus double troops, doesn't really give enough points to field support. This in combination with the larger army being able to send its elites(possibly missing from the smaller lists) after the opponents regular troops... doesnt work out to be fair in my opinion... I would say I have had the bigger army in this scenario at least 5 times and it was easier than it should have been... Every time I played as eldar and those extra points bought prism cannons, fire dragons, etc... To a degree it felt like cheating. Except against sisters of battle who always have at least one exorcist(d6 str8 ap1 missles per turn for 150 points). So I would strongly favor even armies and seize ground... Odds are someones going to get the wrong end of the poo stick... as a three way deployment on a rectangle is not super even/balanced as well. Usually we would set up in 2 2'x4' table areas across from one another, and one 2' x 4' across the end of the table... Since the defender is being attacked for a territory the two attackers would be smart to gang up on this person then duke it out over who takes the prize... but my guess is it will be a little more complicated if the defender gets to set up the terrain... I think I would make a fortress... Im thinking MadMax Road Warrior and the oil refinery people against two armies of crazed hockey mask wearing barbarians instead of only one... Maybe in this scenario, to even the odds for the defender, this would be a good time to use the city fight special abilities... maybe one for every army greater than one attacking... Im sure good strategy can go a long way, terrain set up can really make a huge difference, but it is hard to defend against two marauders... as it should be... but when it could possibly make it easier to win a territory for one of the attackers it is something to consider carefully... One more entry into the evening of things out, giving advantage to the defender. How about the attackers set up first, but actually go second(could be huge in evening odds),and/or giving the defender an extra support/elites slot in the FOC, and/or Attackers always use dawn of war deployment, and/or the game has to be a decisive win, no ties, for the tile to switch control.(this way even tabling the defender does not ensure that the attackers get the tile...( changes strategies a bit) Or to the opposite extreme... There is at least one scenario in the battle missions book where one player sets up in the middle of the table and the enemy(the attackers in this case) set up around the outer edge of the board... I know you guys want to go 40k pure style, but it gives a challenging yet very interesting alternative to three way deployment... also this deployment gives the defender a chance to hit most things the first turn(course if the dice do not favor them they could get hit back the next turn) helping them retain some defending advantage... possibly even going as far as saying in this instance(multiple attackers), divided the table into the number of even sections then let the defender choose where on the table his section will be as long as it is the correct measurement, then set up the attackers deployment zones after this area has been marked. Does the planetary empires book have any quick tips for dealing with this? You would think it would be included in the rule set... might just be better to adapt these rules... though I do recall reading they have too many rules... so maybe it is not that easy.
Im just trying to think outside the box to make it as fair and fun as possible for all involved... Hopefully I thrown out enough ideas to if nothing else give someone a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 28, 2011 8:57:32 GMT -5
Ok, Tom has officially scared me away from this idea. We talked a lot about keeping this simple. If we play by the originally proposed (by me) rules we will be able to clearly see whether they are fair and balanced, like Fox News (cough LIARS cough), and perhaps come up with a more detailed set of rules for next time. My fear is we will come up with a super complex set of rules that are just as unfair and unbalanced as what we thought we were trying to avoid. So, this would require avoiding 3+ player games. Perhaps if two people want to attack the same territory you role to see who gets to attack first. Whoever loses has to play the winner. Call it rolling for the Initiative.
|
|