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.