|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 13:35:35 GMT -5
Oh, and for the record...secret alliances are for pussies.
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 13:47:49 GMT -5
BTW, upon reviewing my last couple of responses I just want to point out I'm not getting angry...I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea and think I'm going to go on a rampage.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 13:49:55 GMT -5
Hear me out. The idea that most of us will have the time to play more than 2 or 3 games in a two week span is really unrealistic. Maybe I wrong but you can certainly count me out. So that means that I and possibly many of us will be retreating an aweful lot. Why? Because we love our families. So limiting the games to only a possible 3 a round actually makes it more fair than to say that "I can fit in five games and you can't so you get to retreat while I don't". Personally I don't care either way. I was just proposing a solution to the limited availability concern while keeping the playing field even and introducing a wild card that others had brought up. If you guys want to play up to 6 games in a two week period and kick my ass because I can only play two then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 29, 2011 14:28:35 GMT -5
Wow! What a productive morning.
1) Silent bid with 3 or more players: I agree. Keep it Seize Ground. I also agree that the Defender will get whatever advantages he would normally get and the Attackers would have to split their advantages. They can roll for which ones they get.
Example: Ellis and Tom attack Matt; Ellis has 2 territories touching Matt and Tom has 1; together they have 3 pre-game advantages; Ellis and Tom roll to see who gets which ones.
2) Secret alliances: I agree with Ellis. They are for pussies.
3) Retreats: I agree with Matt. If you cannot handle all the challenges you have been offered, you will have to concede certain territories. However, I do not agree that there is any limit to challenges TO a person.
4) Turn time limits: Matt: I think we should determine the length of each turn at the time challenges are issued. If 1 person gets challenged 5 times, negotiate for 4 weeks to get the turn done. If you don't want to hold up the tournament, then you can decide if you want to concede a territory. Also, conceding/retreating may be good when attacked by multiple players.
5) Challenges: Something we have not addressed. The number of challenges FROM a person. I think 1 is not enough per turn limit and unlimited could be too many. Maybe 3 per person per turn?
6) Review process: I agree with Tom. I like the idea of a review of game mechanics and effects of advantages/disadvantages at the end of each game.
7) New Item: Mutual attack. Perhaps if Eric is attacking Tom's territory, and Tom is attacking Eric's same territory, they can agree to play 1 game with standard/random rolls at beginning (no advantages) to decide who takes the other's territory? One less game for each of them, and a definitive result. In this scenario, maybe a tie means nothing happens, just like if both Defenders had won.
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 29, 2011 15:24:16 GMT -5
I agree upon everything Tim said except for... 5) Challenges: Something we have not addressed. The number of challenges FROM a person. I think 1 is not enough per turn limit and unlimited could be too many. Maybe 3 per person per turn? If we are allowed 3 challenges, that means one person alone could have as many as 4-7 games in a turn, maybe even more! If we are going to go with more than one challenge per turn, I say make it 2 max. Matt, I think perhaps I was misunderstood. I completely understand that sometimes someone may need to retreat; that isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the idea of limiting how many games a person can play per round and forcing them to give up a territory if the number of opponents challenging them exceeds that limit. If I am able to choose to retreat, that's my decision. But if I'm forced to give up my territory because 3 or 4 people suddenly decide I've got too much and they want to take the cheap way out by over-challenging me...that's falls to the same level as cheating, IMO. Now, if we are talking about imposing a limit on how many times a person can be challenged to avoid making someone play 4, 5 or 6 games in a turn...that I can agree to. In the first meeting we had to discuss the campaign, I was very adamant about how it may be difficult for some people to commit to so many games in a certain timeframe, and it wasn't fair to penalize them. We love this game; I don't want to force anyone to enjoy it less for the sake of keeping the game going. We'll get our games in, and it'll be fun. My overall concern is making sure everyone gets a fair chance to mercilessly slaughter his neighbor as a true gentleman.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 17:45:25 GMT -5
I was being a bit of a communist. Equality through misery! Anyway, I forgot about the negotiable round lengths. I guess if I'm facing a lot of games I can voice concern then you can use peer pressure to either make me fit all the games in or cause me to retreat to speed the game along. As for the secret alliances, I know that at least two other people had brought it up so I was trying to find a way to fit it in... just for discussion. Unless those peeps peep up I think we can shelve the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 19:57:56 GMT -5
The mutual battle could be solved by two smaller pt games played back to back. That way each side gets a chance to set up the terrain. Plus if someone wins both it's some serious bragging rights. I like your idea too. Maybe that can be optional.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 29, 2011 22:09:16 GMT -5
This my understanding of how things are shaping up:
We will have a hex map of at least 25 tiles.
We will all get together claim territories till the board is filled. This could be accomplished by randomly drawing tiles that fit the map or rolling for a selection order and choosing tiles in a draft style.
For a round to begin we will get together and through a secret ballad we will declare two, maybe three, attacks. Then we reveal the battle scene. Based on the maximum number of games a single player is expected to play a time limit will be set for the round in increments of a week.
If a defender is only facing one attacker then they will follow the tile diagrams attached to the Campaign blog to determine strategic advantages. If the defender is also attacking the attacker for another territory (again one on one) then they may optionally choose to fight a single battle with normal even setup rules.
If multiple attackers have chosen the same defender then a multiplayer seize ground mission will be played. All players will have equal points. The attackers will combine their advantage points to steal from the defender. The attackers must decide who will act out each advantage.
If an attacker has zero tiles adjacent to the defender's tile it is assumed that he is dropping from orbit. All units that have a deep strike or reserve rule must use it.
A defender may choose to retreat from their territory, handing it the attacker, if they can't play a game. If the defender retreats from a multi-player game then the attackers must play each other.
Winners take or keep the tile. In the case of a mission tie then victory points will decide the winner. If the victory points are also a tie then the defender keeps the tile.
After each round we will get together for another secret ballad and repeat all of the above.
The Campaign will end when one player owns a predetermined percentage of planet. Perhaps 51+%.
Did I miss anything or did I make an inaccurate claim?
|
|
|
Post by ghostwheel11 on Sept 29, 2011 22:55:31 GMT -5
Perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Servo on Sept 29, 2011 23:14:28 GMT -5
I was just thinking we needed a summary-up-to-this-point. Nice job, Matt. Everything sounds good to me except the following: For a round to begin we will get together and through a secret ballad As much as I love my friends, I refuse to write you all ballads. Secret, power, or otherwise. However, a "ballot" we could talk about. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I think there will be inherent advantages/disadvantages by not getting any of the pre-game rolls. However, if we want to do something like pretend they are dropping from orbit, we should just make the Attacker have ALL units come on from reserve. It's allowed in the rules already. *edit* Sorry, I see what you mean now, Matt. The "inherent advantages/disadvantages" will actually not be enough, as dropping from orbit would then be the same as attacking an adjacent tile with no other tiles touching. Can we say mandatory Reserves for all Attacker's units in this case? */edit* 51% is more than we think. 13 territories for a 25 tile map. If we each start with 5, and we can only gain 2 tiles at the most each turn (assuming you never lose a defended tile and win as an Attacker twice a turn), that is 4 rounds. 4 rounds of perfect play. Not sure what the best number is, though. 10 is a nice, round number, but is that too many?
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyDangerous on Sept 30, 2011 5:14:07 GMT -5
Sil Odan: I thought you only got big upon the caress of a sweet lady friend? Servo: Dammit Servo, my secret ballad was going to be "everything I do, I do it for you," by Bryan Adams!!! Well have to go tell the troops... I promised myself I wouldn't cry.... Mephiston: Thanks for taking the initiative on the summary, I feel like it really cleared things up. Everything seems in order up to this point, but looking back to the previous tournament, I would like to offer it to the consortium that battle reports should be posted by the start of the next round... Unless you are writing a particularly ridiculous one like the one I wrote for the game I played Matt *** cough**** still not posted*** cough*** but it is ridiculous.(would you guys expect any less) They dont really take that much time, and the longer you wait, even with cell phone pics, it still fades into the fog of war. Maybe during the holidays exceptions can be made as people will be really busy... but I think one can be written in an hour or less... the advantages disadvantages can remain until the end of the campaign... as this will be when they are most useful. Army list creation. I propose a rule that army lists must be created before the day of the game, or at least before the agreed to meeting time. Also I think that the opposing player should be able to check them before the game, using the opponents codex... These things can make a difference... Furthermore if time does not permit the generation of a new list then a default list used in a previous game should be played... A "Big Board": inspired by Mephiston and Doctor Strangelove, how about a map on the site reflecting each rounds progress... If possible a link or roll-over which displays how the territory became the way is was with dates and who played each other... And with some kind of 8-bit icon show upcoming/unresolved battle declarations... Might be too complicated... But since this is the club website, it could be super cool... maybe a link from the winter campaign forum called the "War Room." Links from this board would then take you to the appropriate entry in the winter campaign battle report blog, if you are interested in checking out how the hell that happened. Number of attacks: Possibly you guys can explain to me the advantage of more than one attack per round vs only one attack per round. As I see things it doesn't do anything advantageous except that more people would be defenders, making the game last more rounds. For any survey or beta test repetition and large survey size make for better data collection. However with so many people playing I think enough data will be collected with one challenge per round. I know in real life there are multiple battlefronts, and this make sense when real people are dying to shorten things up, but since we are looking at a planetary scale, on tile could be the equivalent of Spain, France, and Germany.... (divide earth into 25 tiles) Also to follow up and agree with the wisdom of Wazzdakka (though it seems odd to agree with a warboss) we dont want people getting burned out on it... Feeling pressured to play sucks and makes it less fun. For the win condition I think setting the possible ending at 4 rounds seems reasonable. I mean you guys want it to go over the holidays and I think no one will have a perfect record... Maybe if someone was playing a tournament quality spacewolves list or Aaron gets his raiders/ravagers in operation(the hardest list imho I have ever played against multiple times with multiple races) then we would say this is just right. However, say it goes six or seven rounds... that puts you guys, if starting in Mid-October to end of January or end of February depending on turn duration and possible holiday extensions... Maybe if someone does really well, there could be a predetermined ratio of number of wins vs 2nd place or such which would extend the campaign.... someone could just get lucky. Not in the summary was the winning tiles details. I thought there was an argument about gaining a tile when the defender wins? Maybe I missed the deciding of this... I will go back and check... If it is final that the defender does not gain the tile, then I would say 10(or winning five from your original five) should be the winning number.... that would be only five rounds... Which brings me to ,maybe also stated in the forum but not the summary, does the attacker need to win to claim their tile, not just tie.... based on the results of the previous tournament this will pose greater strategy as keeping the status quo is easy, winning is hard... The ruling on this will also effect the outcome of the campaign duration and how blood thirsty/competitive the campaign is.
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 30, 2011 8:35:37 GMT -5
Mephiston: Excellent job with the summary! And like everyone before me, I also wanted to make a witty comment in regards to the "secret ballad". At this point though, it's probably best left alone. Although you are always free to whisper sweetness into my ears. ![:-*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/kiss.png) Servo: Give it up. We all know you've written a ballad to every one of us. JohhnyDangerous: I dub thee...Sir WritesALot! And yes, it's true what I do for the ladies... A question about attacking from orbit: deep strike and reserve rules have been mentioned. Do I assume if I field a model that can deep strike, it must, and anything that does not must come in from reserve? I've never done a deep strike before, but from what I hear from everyone else it kind of sucks (though Matt, it was great fun to put your jump troops in the drink ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ). So...rather than assume the attacker is dropping from orbit, what if we assume they were shuttled over from another terrirtory by Thunderhawk, Chinork, Monolith or whatever? The defender can set up normally and of course retains all strategic advantages. But the attacker has to deploy using Dawn of War rules; the night fighting rules will only apply to the attacker (consider it a penalty for charging into a non-adjacent territory to represent a lack of proper intel on the enemy in that location). Does this sound like a good alternate?
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 30, 2011 11:08:00 GMT -5
Servo: I did mean ballad! You must sing your attack declarations to the tune of your favorite Meatloaf or Asia song. @ Johnny: I have not uploaded your ridiculous Taco Bell based battle report yet because I am investigating a better blog template. Making an interactive web map happens to be my expertise. It also requires paying my bosses a $400/month hosting fee. There are open source alternatives to the industry standard software that we use. I do love the war room tab idea. I could also have it require a log in to hide the wonders that lie beneath. We'd like more than one attack to allow more games in a given round. We can tone it down later if it proves to be a burden. The idea of four rounds is interesting. We could actually make the Campaign match a single game. We play 5 rounds then roll to see if continues to 6 then again to see if it continues to 7. Then we tally. We decided that the defender does not take the attacker's tile if he wins. Ties go to moral victor. A moral tie goes to defender. Sil Odan: My initial thought was if it does not explicitly have a deep strike or reserve rule then it will be deployed as normal. This would allow you to choose an army list that is not heavily effected by the defender's bonus however it may not be your favorite list. For realism I think that forcing the entire army to arrive by reserve is okay except that would mean the attacker has zero models on the field for turn 1, right? I don't like the idea of forcing Dawn of War deployment since the defender may prefer spearhead for the terrain they've placed. Obviously this warrants a further discussion. @ghostwheel: Remember when we snorkeled in Hawaii... that was awesome. @aa, Chadwick, Liquid Crack, and Deck: Really? You still haven't joined the discussion? Really? I mean... really?
|
|
|
Post by Sil Odan on Sept 30, 2011 12:02:06 GMT -5
Servo: I did mean ballad! You must sing your attack declarations to the tune of your favorite Meatloaf or Asia song. ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) My suggestion for Dawn of War was in reference to how the attacker would deploy; the opponent can still choose whatever scenario they wish. Using Dawn of War rules, the attacker would deploy one HQ and two Troop choices on the first turn, everything else comes in from the table edge on the second turn.
|
|
|
Post by Mephiston on Sept 30, 2011 12:56:10 GMT -5
Gottcha. That sounds pretty cool.
|
|