Force Orginization Chart

This is for topics that are out of date.
User avatar
Kris Knives
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Kris Knives » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:01 am

Wiouds wrote:That is the the best way to store the information within a database. If you try to make it more simple will most likely cause the the database will get too complicated to work with, allow too many errors to happen, and make it harder to get to get the information out of it.
Even if I agreed with that, it doesn't address the fact that your database doesn't appear to actually be a force organization chart but rather a unit stat system.
Wiouds wrote:I say we have points for the army and a fielding point range base off the game type. Then the player will pick what the he/she wants for that range. If they do not want then they do not want command then do no need to add commanders.
I think everyone agrees we should have point based army construction, but we still need force organization and the commander/squad commanders so far seem like the best suggestion to handle that. (Also it is the only suggestion so far.)
Wiouds wrote:Let say we have a game type that both player get the same fielding points range.

Lets say we have a game where on player A need to hold off player B's larger force for a number of turns.
Player A get to place a some cover that does not follow the cover groups rules. Player B get a larger fielding point range.
That is all fine a good, but really doesn't address the issue at hand. Force organization is an army structure rule to balance the game and cut down the worst of cheese army lists.

For example force organization provides rules so Player B can only bring 3-7 squads of different types and is forced to make some tactical choices about those squads rather then simply take say 12 tiny squads and using them to overwhelmingly suppress Playing A and then attack his helpless squads.

Likewise force organization prevents player A from making one huge unit by putting all his points into one squad of super upgraded soldiers allowing him to just grab cover and ignore player B's 12 tiny squads until the scenario's turn limit runs out.

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:07 am

My point is that why not just have the the limit of the force a player to be points base.

To put simple the force can be organized any way just as long as they fall with in the points range.

User avatar
Tmb
Mighty Manufactorium of MiniWarGaming Posts
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:44 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 1 Terrain Group Build entry
Location: I live as the crow flies... err... You get what I mean.

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Tmb » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:19 am

Wiouds wrote: To put simple the force can be organized any way just as long as they fall with in the points range.
from what I got out of this is you can take anything as long as it doesn't go over points, so your saying I could run an army of commanders? Or Just a whole bunch of large brutish creatures if I wanted?

Can each army have a different FOC I mean that would to each armies play style as well, maybe some armies need more commanders then other armies to stay together, or need more troops, but not going crazy with this.

Army Ex #1:
Mandatory:
2 HQ
1 Troop

Optional
2 HQ
#X Troops
#x Fast
#X Heavy


Army Ex #2
Mandatory
0-1 HQ
2 Troops

Optional
1 HQ
#X Troops
#x Fast
#X Heavy

Hoped this addded something
The Sky holds the Storm Rain Mist Lightning Cloud and the Sun all in harmony

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:39 am

What if armies are not the fielding force for the battles?

The armies limits are base off the faction and points range. For the battle the entire army is not fielded. Unless the game type says otherwise the players can field any part of the army that fall into the fielding point range.

Let say you have army that is 500 points and you are playing a game with 100 points that mean about 20% of the force will fielded. after that game you can use the same army for a 250 point game.

User avatar
Kris Knives
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Kris Knives » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:59 am

Wiouds wrote:My point is that why not just have the the limit of the force a player to be points base.

To put simple the force can be organized any way just as long as they fall with in the points range.
And my point is because that will lead to problems. The short version is that it is really, really, really easy to abuse a system with that little structure to the point of making games unfun cheese fests.

Also let me point out by adding force organization it actually gives us more design options. If I know you can only have one or two units of a certain type, like say snipers then I'm free to balance them around that limitation instead of the worst case abuse scenario. This allows me to make them really fun, really good units for a reasonable point cost knowing that they can't be abused thanks for Force Organization limiting the number of auto-suppressing snipers you can take. If I knew people could take a huge number of snipers it becomes much, much more difficult to balance them and they have to become either much weaker or much more cost prohibitive to employ them. If we raise their cost that means unless you are sure ahead of time you are going to NEED a sniper and it will probably be to expensive to include in your army and so a lot of games were a sniper might have been fun to have, they won't be around.

Force organization allows people to take really, really good a fun units while at the same time preventing people from spamming them to the point of not making the game fun and because of that it allows the designer a lot more freedom to design really good, really fun units without unbalancing the whole faction.
Tmb wrote:Can each army have a different FOC I mean that would to each armies play style as well, maybe some armies need more commanders then other armies to stay together, or need more troops, but not going crazy with this.
Well Tmb, that is why I'd like to balance it around commanders. So we can have different force organization charts not only for other factions but within a single army allowing us to give players more options which should make factions fighting amongst themselves a lot more interesting since they can still make very different lists and employ very different tactics.

Imagine:

Tank Commander
2 HQ
2 Heavy Support

verses

Blitz Commander
1 Sniper
2 Troops
4 Fast Attack

Wiouds wrote:What if armies are not the fielding force for the battles?

The armies limits are base off the faction and points range. For the battle the entire army is not fielded. Unless the game type says otherwise the players can field any part of the army that fall into the fielding point range.

Let say you have army that is 500 points and you are playing a game with 100 points that mean about 20% of the force will fielded. after that game you can use the same army for a 250 point game.
Provided you have an agreed on point limit for people can bring so both sides brought 500 and fielded 100 that is fine and sounds like fun. That said it would actually make the cheese problems worse. You would need some form of force organization for both the 100 points you fielded and the 500 points your brought to the table if you didn't want very "spam a ton of unit X" type armies all the time.

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:53 pm

If the game must tell the player that can only have one commander and one solo then the game is poorly balance.

If the 500 army can only have two marksmen then up to 2 snipers can be fielded.

It would be better the less we must order the player what to do.

User avatar
Kris Knives
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Kris Knives » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:46 pm

Wiouds wrote:If the game must tell the player that can only have one commander and one solo then the game is poorly balance and no matter what limits will not work.
That is just you stating an opinion like it means something. You can't say "well if you put THIS limit into the game the whole thing isn't balanced". I get you don't like the idea, and that is fine, but you have to back up your opinion with something and offer a viable alternative. And so far you haven't, you've just said "Well I think it would good like this" and now "Well your way won't work."

Here an example of force organization in another game:

Magic the Gathering limits players to minimum 60 card deck and 4 copies of each card. That doesn't mean the game is poorly balanced and broken. What it means is they created some limits on what people can bring to create a balanced environment where players are forced to tactically design a synergistic deck within the set structure of the game rather then just load up on the most efficient card.

The exact same principle is behind force organization. If you doubt it go look at the Inquisition where games workshop didn't give the game any kind of structure like that see what happened. They are forced to admit at the start of the game book that without that structure the game is blatantly broken.
Wiouds wrote:If the army can only have two marksmen for the 500 points then up to 2 snipers can be fielded.
So by the logic the Sisters of battle are broken because I can only have on Celestine? Or Necron's are poorly balanced because they can't take two star gods?

Please if you really feel this strongly find some elements of game design, some examples of games or something to back up your opinion so we can have a basis of conversation and more importantly we can see how it worked for the game. Otherwise you need to really expand on your idea to explain how it would prevent some of these issues.

I've given you now a lot of example of games with force organization or its equivalent and how it has a positive effect on the game. Please, give me an example of a strictly point based game so we can discuss it based on game design. Otherwise we've got no basis for further conversation.
Wiouds wrote:I am worry that you can break the balance of the game if you limit the number of type of squads while allowing the player freedom to customize the squads. We could limit what the squads can do by say something like Soldiers will only use one set of weapon, armor and abilities.
A valid concern but seeing as how a large number of games have managed it I'm far less concerned about troop customization then I am about force organization. Since we create the options and their point costs we've already tools to allow us to balance them.

That said in Pre-alpha I don't think we should be offering customization options (again start simple) so that is really more of a conversation for phase 2.

Honestly I'd much rather play a game with larger numbers of non-customizable units myself however one big factor really make this idea problematic at best and untenable at worst; people need to buy models for this game. In a card game $50 can get you a whole deck, in war games that doesn't even get you 500 points of models for your army. Smaller army lists with customization options or commanders who effect how your army operates allows your employ fewer models to great effect and helps reign in how many models players need to buy to play and enjoy your game.

Since this is skirmish game we might be able to get away with larger lists and less customization but maybe that could be a factional difference. Like say Animals and bandits (or whomever) have no customization and larger unit lists while other factions offer some customization and but less units.
Wiouds wrote:It would be better the less we must order the player what to do.
See that is true only to a point. People like options and the ability make choices but typically prefer those choices within a set structure. If you give people too many options they end up feeling overwhelmed.

Look at Exalted vs D&D. Exalted is a much, much less structure system which gives players a lot more options and that is very fun when making characters. However it leads to a lot of imbalance in the game and many blatantly broken elements.

By contrast D&D (particularly 4th edition) is very structure giving players choices but only from a fairly restricted set of options compared to other games. However it allows for very flowing and makes them game very balanced and has been very popular with players.

So yes we shouldn't order players to do anything we don't have to but we should give them a structure set of options in their choices which is what I'm talking about. Allowing players to choose what Force Organization, be that through commanders or another game mechanic, we can give players a choice but structure that choice.

User avatar
Kris Knives
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Kris Knives » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:23 pm

LLeRRoux wrote:That works for me. However, this means we must balance every commander's individual force chart rather than have one standard chart for everyone. We may have to create a default version of the chart, then modify it slightly for the different commanders.
Sorry to double post but I missed LLeRRoux's post earlier and wanted to address it.

Yes I agree. I'm open to ideas on how best to handle it.

My initial though was that each faction would have the same mandatory units but each commander would bring different optional units.

If you have some suggestion please share them.

User avatar
LLeRRoux
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:22 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by LLeRRoux » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:01 pm

Kris Knives wrote:My initial though was that each faction would have the same mandatory units but each commander would bring different optional units.
Sounds good to me.

We could also take a different kind of approach to it by limiting the number of each unit you can field rather than categorizing them and limiting the categories. That would be easily adapted to the idea that each commander brings a different force organisation. You just need to change the limits.

Just throwing the idea out there.

User avatar
Kris Knives
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Kris Knives » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:25 pm

LLeRRoux wrote:
Kris Knives wrote:My initial though was that each faction would have the same mandatory units but each commander would bring different optional units.
Sounds good to me.

We could also take a different kind of approach to it by limiting the number of each unit you can field rather than categorizing them and limiting the categories. That would be easily adapted to the idea that each commander brings a different force organisation. You just need to change the limits.

Just throwing the idea out there.
Hmmm the only problem I see with that is we would have to update faction commanders anytime we wanted to make adjustments to the troops and that could get to be a pain if want to allow for updates army lists (which are likely to change a lot while we develop the game).

If we want to adapt that idea maybe we could apply that to squad leaders. Have commanders determine what squads you can take; while the squad leader you choose for those squads would determine troop limits. Probably something we would have to experiment with, maybe something to get into more in phase 2 as it might be redundant in a points based system with Force Organization already requiring that you take multiple squads.

Even though I disagree with Wiouds on Force Organization he isn't wrong that we shouldn't add rules just to add rules.

User avatar
LLeRRoux
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:22 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by LLeRRoux » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:00 pm

Fair enough. I hadn't considered the additionnal work that would require, and now that you mention it, it is a pretty big thing to overlook.

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:19 pm

I still say there should not be some list you must follow like:
1 commander
2 sub-commanders
3 solo
4 squads.

Having the force base off points and faction can be just as balance as anything else.

User avatar
Kris Knives
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Kris Knives » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:45 pm

Well if you still feel really strongly about this when we get to actual pre-alpha test play can't we just try a few games without using Force Organization see what happens discuss it again based on that in phase 2?

User avatar
Tmb
Mighty Manufactorium of MiniWarGaming Posts
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:44 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 1 Terrain Group Build entry
Location: I live as the crow flies... err... You get what I mean.

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Tmb » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:52 pm

Okay so how about you are limited to how many squads you can take, not that you have to take something but you can only take so many of one thing, so you don't have to take a sniper team but you can up to say 4 or something like that.

But your army should be forced to take a commander, because an army needs a leader, cause without a leader what would they do?
The Sky holds the Storm Rain Mist Lightning Cloud and the Sun all in harmony

User avatar
LLeRRoux
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:22 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by LLeRRoux » Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:28 pm

Tmb wrote:Okay so how about you are limited to how many squads you can take, not that you have to take something but you can only take so many of one thing, so you don't have to take a sniper team but you can up to say 4 or something like that.
That's more or less what I meant a few posts ago.
Tmb wrote: But your army should be forced to take a commander, because an army needs a leader, cause without a leader what would they do?
I think that was already a given.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest