It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:50 pm 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm
Posts: 560
You know we've had (or at least I've been involved in) very little discussion involving the rules around the squads themselves. Here are my own random thoughts.

-Squads a range in size from 3-9 units

-All squads should have a sub-leader. The Sub-leader, while he has the same stats as a standard unit, also has special stats which determine many rules for the squad such as its maximum size, what special weapons the squad has and its moral. Sub-leaders also contribute to any faction pools such as DP points.

The thought here is somewhat an economy of miniatures for players. Allowing you to have a lot of standard units but many subleaders allowing you two easily show your opponent what your squads are armed with but only requires 1 customized unit. So the difference between a squad of Corporate Commandos with heavy armor and flamethrowers vs. a squad of Corporate Commandos with shotguns and riot shield could be as easy as simply buying two different subleaders to show what load out you went with.

I feel this would allow for practical side boarding protocols in the game. You would be stuck with whatever squads you listed on your army but could swap out the subleaders of the squads to give players a limited method to adapt to different armies so games are not decided before the dice are ever rolled. Additionally then people would have to effectively lug around double sized armies to allow them to sideboard.

The sole exception to this would be the bandit faction which features no sub-leaders but instead simply have independent captain units for all squads. The major difference being that unlike sub-leaders the bandit captain would be free to leave the squad at will and act like an independent character (I'll elaborate on how this would work more later assuming people respond well to the idea).

-Units cohesion requires units to be two inches apart as per warhammer.

Ideas I'm not sure about but I want to bring up

-Command checks to advanced tactics. I really like the idea for a units command level being more important in the game. Like maybe only units with high enough command can use overwatch and suppression.

I see a few problems with this though; command tactics are all too critical to the game to do without. Second it requires yet another repeated dice rolls and you don't want players having to roll too many checks every round because it can slow down gameplay. So while I like the idea I don't see a good way to implement it, but maybe someone else can figure out a way to work it into the game.

-Sniping Squad Leaders. Right now I'm assuming you can't target sub-leaders and players will just always choose to keep them alive until last. However if you have sub-leaders the natural question your opponent wants to know is "can I snipe that guy" and "What happens when I do"?

I'm not certain. I have a few ideas on how non-bandit squads would operate without a leader but again it just seems simpler and smarter to simpler make the leader the last man standing in the squad since right now they are really more like a squad marker to let you know what that squad is all about.

My own thought is that targeting squad leaders would be limited to independent units and that a unit who has their squad leader killed loses all custom benefits and just becomes the vanilla version of that unit. When abilities, weapons and armor disappear we just say they were DP based technology that can't operate now with the leader gone who was powering it for the whole group; which would be the same reason why squads need to stay close together. It could work but I wonder if there might not be a better way to work the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:13 am 
Offline
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 1849
Location: no, u cant know wher im sleeping
I dont think players should be able to kill off squad leaders, as this would simply cause problems and frustration. as for command checks, I dont think there really is a good way around them, you need them, and they take time. we could divert some of the uses for command checks into different things, but im not really sure what they would be..
sorry, I know that wasnt very helpful, but theres not all that much to add

_________________
sincerely EGT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:38 am 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm
Posts: 560
You gave feedback on some ideas that is more then enough. It is just good to hear what people like or don't like sometimes.

I see your point about squad leaders and agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:32 am 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:21 pm
Posts: 644
I say the squad size limits need to be base on units.

I am not so sure about about these Squads leaders. They seem to just be extra that are not needed. It is a given that each squad has a leader but I think that they should not be important to the game.

I concern about this pool that squad add to. It adds to the complex and does not seem to add much to the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:13 am 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm
Posts: 560
Well Matt already said he wants leaders and subleader so unless he changes his mind they will probably be present in one form or another. The question just is what will they do?

Wiouds wrote:
I say the squad size limits need to be base on units


Okay fair enough but why? What is the advantage?

The advantage with squad leaders is to give leadership an important dynamic in the game as well as open up a lot of design space by allowing squads to interact with their squad leader. Additionally it gives the designer a nice tool to help balance units.

What is the advantage of having squad size be controlled by unit type except speeding up building an army by narrowing a player's options?

Wiouds wrote:
I concern about this pool that squad add to. It adds to the complex and does not seem to add much to the game.


Fair enough I don't deny it adds a new element to keep track of in the game. However you don't think dynamically making your army to consider total strength as well as strength of the individual, so far a major theme is DP, would add something to the game? Well, it is just an idea but one I feel ties into a growing trend in at least expanding pool of game suggestion.

Wiouds wrote:
I am not so sure about about these Squads leaders. They seem to just be extra that are not needed.


"Needed" is a highly subjective word. The game doesn't need a lot of things. It doesn't need factions for example we could just let people pick from one big pool and still make a strong game. Factions cause lots of complexity and balance issues in a game, but they are really fun so almost every game has them. I'd put forward a similar argument for Squad Leaders.

Squad leaders would help set DP apart from other war games and squad leaders are a rather fun concept. Leader type units in CCGs and RTS games are typically really well received and the leader in Warmachine seem to be generally liked as well. I really think you could have a lot of fun with the models and would enjoy using them to customize units.

Fun aside this particular idea also does a lot to reduce any memory issues with keeping track of which models have which features which I feel is a strong virtue all on its own. Additionally as previously stated it could also open up the way for easy side boarding to counter act the "build X or die" trend we see in many other war games.

Of course there could be other ways to achieve these same goals and if you have suggestion on how this idea could improve or an alternative by all means share them. We're just here to create an idea pool after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:22 am 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:21 pm
Posts: 644
I do not think that a squad should have a squad leader that have their own rules.

For sub-leaders, they can be solos or apart of special squads that can take the place of the commander.

The thing about the squad size has affect battle. Just think of a Squad that has fighter that are made for 2-3 size with 2 hp and is a size of 9. That means you will take 9 hits before they even start to get weaker.

Just think if a squad like that goes up against a Solo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:01 pm 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:48 pm
Posts: 560
Wiouds wrote:
I do not think that a squad should have a squad leader that have their own rules.

For sub-leaders, they can be solos or apart of special squads that can take the place of the commander.

The thing about the squad size has affect battle. Just think of a Squad that has fighter that are made for 2-3 size with 2 hp and is a size of 9. That means you will take 9 hits before they even start to get weaker.

Just think if a squad like that goes up against a Solo.


I don't see your point. Why would I give a squad multiple hit points if that wasn't my intention? Why do you assume I can freely distribute wounds? That doesn't seem like a very intellectually sound arguement as it is a designed to fail scenario. Again the idea is the squad commander shapes the squad and gives you additional balance tools not less. So if the commander does allow me to destribute wounds that presumably it also limits the squad size to keep things balanced.

Two by centering around squad leaders it really would make several things easier. Such as point costs for bringing a new units (buying a squad leader) vs adding another normal troop to that squad.

If you have a different vision for sub-leaders as solo units that is fine, the more ideas the better, but if sub-leaders are just solos waiting in the wings to take over as the commander then I don't see any point in even having them in the game. It would in my mind only make the tactic of going after the commander rather pointless as it would have little impact on the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:08 am 
Offline
MiniWarGaming Zealot
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:51 pm
Posts: 459
Location: The Final Frontier
I would like to see the inclusion of addition roles squads such as a communications officer and such that would act as the 'second' in command. I'd also like to see that once the leader and second in command are dead (and if the squad is still alive) having a role off for 'experience' to simulate the most experienced or bravest member of the squad stepping up to the task.

I'd stray from the topic of hit points and wound allocation since we don't know the RoF of all the weapons as well as how easy it is to wound with them. I mean if you have a 50% chance to wound with a gun with a RoF of 4, then 2 hit points wouldn't be a bad thing.

_________________
"And the milkshakes are so thick-I need your help."
"That's pretty thick."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group