[Fwd: Questions from Glorantha list]

From: buserian_at_juno.com <buserian>
Date: Tue Jan 17 00:15:58 2006

Hi Robert,

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:43:37 +1100 Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur_at_gmail.com> writes:

> > I play DP about once a week a the moment, but usually either scenario
2 or
> > 3, or the first Magical one with hardly any ground combat troops, as
> > am still teaching the rules ot my friends, and also on grounds of
> > I really want to play a full game. Maybe pbem might be an option,
> > point me in the right direction for this?
> Steve ran one many years ago, but I haven't heard of others.

Steve _me_ Steve, or Steve _someone else_ Steve? Because I never ran one. Daniel has run several, however.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:00:18 +1100 Robert McArthur <rjmcarthur_at_gmail.com> writes:

> > Furthermore, I would consider a change that made defensive bonuses
> > structures more like leadership -- an ADDITION to each unit, rather
> > a multiplier. Thus, a town might give +1 to each unit, a stockade +2,
> > fortress +3. This makes them BETTER for very weak units (something I
> > not at all mind), but not quite so devastating when you have a
> > holed up in one.
> Nice - I quite like that. Although I must admit that, LoTR/TTT was a
> cracking example of how hard it should be to attack fortifications with

> a superhero and heroes (quickly). Whether it should be so much harder
> than open ground is a good question!

Not sure I follow this. Who was the superhero, and who were the heroes (in Two Towers, anyway)? And actually, I'm not even sure I can think of any in Return of the King, either. IMO, none of the individuals in LotR are superheroes -- that is reserved for the likes of Turin Turambar and other great heroes of earlier times. But I digress. :)

> > No -- if you do not have enough CD loss to eliminate the top unit,
> > you do absolutely nothing. Thus, a stack with a superhero on the top
> > a bunch of CF 1 units below it that takes 19 CF loss is completely
> > unharmed. This is a rule I dislike, which is why I would either like
> > see a different Results Table, that allows for Disrupt or Retreat
> > results; or else allow any attacker to apply a Disrupt result if he
> > more than half the CF loss to a unit, but doesn't have enough to
> > eliminate it completely.
> How about a rule that instead of attacking to destroy you can attack to

> purposely disrupt. In this case, the attacker's CF total is doubled or
> half-again. It stays with the current rules mostly and doesn't need
> another results table.

Well, the problem with this is that you still have to select one or the other, when in reality it is actually pretty common for some troops to die, some to retreat or reform in a disorganized fashion, etc. I'd prefer a change that allowed for a combination of these results. Maybe a two-pronged rule:

  1. Attacker can decide to apply CF to disrupt units, at a rate of 1/2 CF loss or something like that. (Defender can refuse this option, and force the attacker to kill his units instead.)
  2. Defender has the option to retreat double the CF of units rather than having them eliminated. Again, the other player (in this case, the attacker) can refuse this option, and force the defender to take casualties instead.

Or something like that. Basically, if both sides agree, some of the CF loss can be doubled and applied as either disruption or retreat. If one wants to retreat, and the other insists on disruption, then there is no agreement, and the CF is applied normally.

This gives a little more interaction between players -- the battle becomes, to an extent, a negotiation between the attacker and the defender.

Alternately, replace the normal results table with something that more resembles the missile fire table. (For best results, find a way to use a single table for both types of combat!)



Powered by hypermail