Force Orginization Chart

This is for topics that are out of date.
Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:29 am

If you want to limit how an army then why not make a pyramid base off points of squads.

Let say you want to make a 500 army. A army may not be a force that is fielded.
Then you can have
up to points range
1 76-100
3 51-75
You can have any number of squads lower.

For the squads you do not need to tell them what what type of squads they must be and we can have the same chart for each faction and maybe commander if that happen.

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 12, 2012 12:11 pm

Wiouds wrote:If you want to limit how an army then why not make a pyramid base off points of squads.

Let say you want to make a 500 army. A army may not be a force that is fielded.
Then you can have
up to points range
1 76-100
3 51-75
You can have any number of squads lower.

For the squads you do not need to tell them what what type of squads they must be and we can have the same chart for each faction and maybe commander if that happen.
Wow! Good idea! That could definitely work, though that means we'll have to tier our units by costs.

IE:
76-100 units must be commanders or equivalent
51-75 units must be elite or their equivalent

Maybe we could minimize that if we took a variant approach.

What about simply setting the maximum squad count by point cost but have a rule that you can't have more then 25% (or another number) of your points into a single unit type?

So in a 500 point army you can't have more then 10 activations per turn in your army so 10 squads/independent units is the max but no more then 125 points per unit type. So you might see:

1 commander with a command point upgrade
-125 points into Commanders
3 Attack Squads with suppression resistance armor
-90 Points into Attack Squads
2 Snipers
-100 Points into Snipers
1 Mecha Walker & 1 Hovercraft
-125 Points into Heavy Vehicles
1 Speeder Bike Squad w weapon upgrade
-60 Points into Light Vehicles

Total 500 Points/10 activations

That way we give a lot of freedom to both the player building an army, while still putting some restrictions to keep balance but we don't box ourselves in too much design wise.

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:50 pm

That also keep us from needing to make a different chart for the different faction. If we got the points set up well

I came up with a system to building the squads with. The system I came up with allows for a large amount of altering the fighter with abilities, armor and weapons. They seem to change classes when just one or two are added to the fighter.

With the restriction base on the army, we may not need to be as restrictive on force fielding for some games. This will help with an ideal I have about campaigns.

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 12, 2012 1:55 pm

Wiouds wrote:With the restriction base on the army, we may not need to be as restrictive on force fielding for some games. This will help with an ideal I have about campaigns.
Agreed, the more tailored the rules are to each army the looser the over all restrictions need to be if present at all.

What exactly is this idea of yours for campaigns?

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:46 pm

Kris Knives wrote:
Wiouds wrote:With the restriction base on the army, we may not need to be as restrictive on force fielding for some games. This will help with an ideal I have about campaigns.
Agreed, the more tailored the rules are to each army the looser the over all restrictions need to be if present at all.

What exactly is this idea of yours for campaigns?
I like the ideal of the points and squad being the limiting factors since that can in theory be the same for each faction.

The each player has a army set up. The size of each army is in the same points range. The players then pick the a number of games and set up a chain for them. A chain is just a list of affects that the last game will have on the next game. So, if player A wins then they play game A1 but if player B wins then they play game B1, or if player A1 won the last game player A get something extra in the next game. Win or lose, any fighter lost during a game will be lost for the other games. Fielding force for this would be hard many fielding force rules. It would also be nice to let the player have more strategic use of their forces.

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 12, 2012 3:02 pm

Wiouds wrote:
Kris Knives wrote:
Wiouds wrote:With the restriction base on the army, we may not need to be as restrictive on force fielding for some games. This will help with an ideal I have about campaigns.
Agreed, the more tailored the rules are to each army the looser the over all restrictions need to be if present at all.

What exactly is this idea of yours for campaigns?
I like the ideal of the points and squad being the limiting factors since that can in theory be the same for each faction.

The each player has a army set up. The size of each army is in the same points range. The players then pick the a number of games and set up a chain for them. A chain is just a list of affects that the last game will have on the next game. So, if player A wins then they play game A1 but if player B wins then they play game B1, or if player A1 won the last game player A get something extra in the next game. Win or lose, any fighter lost during a game will be lost for the other games. Fielding force for this would be hard many fielding force rules. It would also be nice to let the player have more strategic use of their forces.
Now this is just me so I don't pretend to speak for all gamers but generally speaking if I just lost I really don't want to play another game where my opponent now has a further advantage.

I'm a player who just lost two games in row even if I managed to mostly keep my forces in tactic, what is my incentive to keep going rather then just quit now that my opponent has a clear advantage over me?

I think I see what you are going for, like the idea of playing a long term war campaign but I'm not sure it would work out to be fun.

Maybe this would be better suited to a narrative version of the game with some more RPG elements. Like for example what if units in this game all start off as vanilla units with no options and survivors get points after each battle to upgrade the squads and replace losses?

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Who said you need to play the same day.

I was thinking instead large points games you have more game in place of it with each one having an affect on the next.

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 12, 2012 6:08 pm

Wiouds wrote:Who said you need to play the same day.

I was thinking instead large points games you have more game in place of it with each one having an affect on the next.
My issue is not playing them all the same day, it is that it is only interesting if there is some element of back and forth. A way for people to catch back up from early set back rather then just playing our a prolonged series of inevitable defeats as the opponent gains a cumulative advantage.

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by LLeRRoux » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:19 pm

Kris Knives wrote: Now this is just me so I don't pretend to speak for all gamers but generally speaking if I just lost I really don't want to play another game where my opponent now has a further advantage.

I'm a player who just lost two games in row even if I managed to mostly keep my forces in tactic, what is my incentive to keep going rather then just quit now that my opponent has a clear advantage over me?
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there... I doubt anyone wants to play a game where they're at a disadvantage after they already lost the last game or two.

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:58 pm

I am not saying they should huge advantages but for winning a few maps should reward the winner. I've played a few games where the loser get the advantage in the next game "to be fair". After winning a few games I quit.

I am not saying it is going to be every game but it would be nice that winning had a reward that matter to the campaign like losing forces matter.

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 » Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:13 pm

Wiouds wrote:I am not saying they should huge advantages but for winning a few maps should reward the winner. I've played a few games where the loser get the advantage in the next game "to be fair". After winning a few games I quit.

I am not saying it is going to be every game but it would be nice that winning had a reward that matter to the campaign like losing forces matter.
I understand but in game design anti-fun (to borrow a term from League of Legends) is a stronger force than fun. So as a rule you should not introduce something that isn't fun into the game, unless it is balanced out by allowing something which makes the game a lot more fun.

In this case a nice reward for the winner makes winning slightly sweeter, where as it makes things a lot less fun for the loser. As such you are introducing a lot of anti-fun for one side in exchange for only a small amount of enjoyment for the other.

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:58 pm

How do you know it will be anti-fun? I have lost at house rule games where the winner get a reward. I had fun the game after even with the advantage the other player had.

Those same games we had someone whine about the winner getting something for winning. He whine so much about it that we removed. After winning I quit since it was not fun.

User avatar
evilgreenthing
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
Posts: 1803
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:07 pm
Location: no, u cant know wher im sleeping

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by evilgreenthing » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:12 pm

How I've always done campaigns is that by winning a game get a power or something that requires points to use. This keeps the game interesting because it allows for new things with out making one team OP.
sincerely EGT

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 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:32 pm

Wiouds wrote:How do you know it will be anti-fun? I have lost at house rule games where the winner get a reward. I had fun the game after even with the advantage the other player had.

Those same games we had someone whine about the winner getting something for winning. He whine so much about it that we removed. After winning I quit since it was not fun.
I know because I know basic human psychology and common sense as your story illustrates. People don't want to be at a disadvantage.

It is great that you personally are not bothered by this but again I think your friend's reaction is the typical one most people would have. If you have a particularly high minded group of friends of course you can house rule but that is where something like this should stay. This isn't a rule most groups would find enjoyable. At most it should be an optional rule.

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

Re: Force Orginization Chart

Post by Wiouds » Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:12 am

Let say you lose a squad in middle of the game then you would just quit since you are at disadvantage?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest