|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 28, 2011 18:37:09 GMT -5
So (in my imaginary war room) I tell my HQ to gather his best because he it invade territory A. On the eve of battle MI reports that other force is moving in but a day behind us. I know that by getting there first I may win but will then have to immediately defend my new territory. The opponent either doesn't know that I will there first or doesn't care. I have to make decide whether or not abort. Am I thinking of it correctly? In case you hadn't noticed it's important to me for it make sense in a real world setting.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 28, 2011 18:38:05 GMT -5
Damn I suck at typing. No I have not been drinking! Yet...
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 28, 2011 20:53:57 GMT -5
A plausible narrative can be created for anything we decide. I am FAR more concerned with smooth and fair mechanics for the campaign.
However, your take on the above scenario, for why would the 1st Attacker concede, sounds good.
|
|
|
Post by ghostwheel11 on Sept 28, 2011 22:55:25 GMT -5
Fuck it....let's just play RISK. =D
For real though:
1. we each roll a d6 to choose what order we want, then each person makes their declarations (not allowing multiple attackers)
2. or we do silent bid and use seize ground mission of equal point size for multiple player challenges, with the option that when turn order is decided... the first attacker gets to decide if he wants to re-submit their challenge.
This isn't the only campaign we're going to play..i'm fully expecting that we'll have rule changes and adjustments as we play this and realize what's important.
Personally, as much as I like playing 40k, I want our FIRST campaign to be as short as we can stand it because it's going to be more akin to a test run.
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 29, 2011 0:09:33 GMT -5
I would be comfortable with either of the choices Eric lists. They both eliminate the problem by eliminating the cause.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDangerous on Sept 29, 2011 6:30:37 GMT -5
It is really too bad that coordination of game play and actual game play require so much set up. Otherwise it seems to me the ideal situation, like in "Defender of The Crown," would be to have an agreed turn order, followed by individual persons turns. Letting the next player in sequence choose from a map which since it is there turn has no other battles happening potentially simultaneously. So sorry all of you quit your jobs and leave your families.... JK In the absence of this reality, I feel like Erics suggestions will be the most prudent. I had already thought of offering number 1 as a suggestion... until I got to his post... I do like the idea of a silent bid, as it not only makes things a bit more chance driven, but will really make you think about where you plan on attacking... As it is it looks like each one of you will be playing as few as 2 games per round but as many as one from each player(defending) plus your own "attack,"with Eli and Dave still potenials this could make it 7 games in one round. Does anyone feel like there should be a rule implemented to limit the number of games a single player would have to participate in, in a single timed period? I mean thats almost a potential, at three hours each game, to equal 24 hours of gaming... and was it agreed to that the time to complete this would be two weeks? Maybe, if the extreme circumstance happens, implement a rule of longer time allowed between rounds as a punishment for going after the same player... or just say one player can only be attacked x number of times per round... Not to say I personally wouldn't be super happy to game that much, but I don't know if I could find the time... could be a cross that bridge when we come to it situation... just don't know if anyone had thought of temporal consequences to this moderately complicated endeavor. Mephiston: Fox news is fair and unbiased, they would never just make shit up and tell lies all day, they define professionalism... everybody knows that!!! Its the Daily show with all of their,"video footage," taken from actual Fox broadcasts that is the liar... I agree also with Eric that this is really a beta test of the rules system so some of these things will iron themselves out with play testing... Sometimes you have to hop in with both feet... or cloven hooves and tail in Daves case... Maybe that should be an integral part of each game this campaign... A review at the end to see how the advantages and disadvantages changed the outcome of the game. Battle reports will of course play a large factor as a post campaign review will bring a better understanding of the mechanics of this rules set and elucidate needed changes... If everyone is playing by the same rules set then it should be reasonably fair... I think which ever way multiple attacks is resolved it may be scratched next campaign anyway if it is found to be a disadvantage of most of the combatants participating in these scenarios.... Has the map been generated yet? I guess without knowing the full extent of who is playing and who is not, without leaving blank spaces it is difficult to build one...
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDangerous on Sept 29, 2011 6:34:20 GMT -5
btw just saw the time limit voting thingy... oops...
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 8:21:56 GMT -5
I like Eric's suggestion; I think either of these options will alleviate the issues we've been discussing. Personally, I 'm looking forward to a three-way game. Could be fun. And that would also allow us to still use the silent bid system.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 8:47:12 GMT -5
Silent bid with a completely chaotic multi-person seize ground game is fine with me. I'm still unsure how pregame setup will happen in this scenario. Is the defender still in charge or terrain and such?
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 9:19:33 GMT -5
I would say "yes" to the defender being in charge of the setup of terrain and such.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 10:14:36 GMT -5
To address Tom's point that we may find ourselves playing too many games per round then our schedules may allow (did you guys know that I have 3 kids?) I think that we need to allow for retreat. If I get challenged on 3 territories in one round and I know that I can only fit two games in I have the right to walk away from a territory and give it to the attacker. It is simply my loss and someone's gain.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 10:18:41 GMT -5
To really speed things up we could say that everyone only has the planetary resources to fight two or three battles in a round so (using the silent bid) if someone has more than 3 challenges come their way they have to choose with territories they are going to abandon. This is where secret alliances can come in. If Ellis is clearly owning the board, I can buy Tim, Eric, and Aaron a beer and plot to all attack Ellis know that he will have to retreat from one territory. Who will be lottery winner will be up to Ellis. Ya... I love this idea! Now agree dammit!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 13:15:06 GMT -5
To really speed things up we could say that everyone only has the planetary resources to fight two or three battles in a round so (using the silent bid) if someone has more than 3 challenges come their way they have to choose with territories they are going to abandon. This is where secret alliances can come in. If Ellis is clearly owning the board, I can buy Tim, Eric, and Aaron a beer and plot to all attack Ellis know that he will have to retreat from one territory. Who will be lottery winner will be up to Ellis. Ya... I love this idea! Now agree dammit!!! You'd better be joking...otherwise I'm gonna get angry. And you won't like me when I get angry. No, I don't turn big and green (though that would be a neat trick). You just won't like me!
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 13:29:49 GMT -5
I'm quite serious. If we have rounds that last two weeks I can probably only play two, maybe three games. If multiple people attack one of my territories they we have a crazy multiplayer game. Plus I have to attack someone. That's two games for me. If two people attack separate territories of mine then I have to play three games. Ok. If 5 or 6 people attack me, guess what, I can't play you all. If we say that you only have the planetary resources to defend two territories in a round then you simply have to choose which lands to forfeit in a given round. The map would change significantly every round and make the campaign go faster. Plus it legitimately introduces the possibility of secret alliances which has been proposed already.
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 13:34:44 GMT -5
I can agree with having the option to retreat and concede a territory. But having someone give up territories just because multiple people have opted to attack them? In what sense is that fair?
|
|