Re: Missiles/Grazers

From: Chris Ward <cw67q>
Date: Tue Jan 24 09:05:09 2006

Hello Folks,

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:00:24 +1100 Robert McArthur <>
> writes:
> > wrote:
> > > Having die roll charts for spirits might work, but easier to just
> define
> > > spirit cups. But then, you have to have a bunch of different spirit
> pots.
> > > Either way, it's messy. Limited to only a few scenarios, though.
> >
> > This huge difference, IMHO, between DP and NG in game terms is the size
> > of the support versus your own troops - the tribes are painfully small
> > compared to the enourmous power of the spirits you can find. Now this
> is
> > somewhat compensated for by the size and usability of the entire map
> and
> > the lack of magician units. I think that bringing such huge spirits
> into
> > DP is a very dangerous move without some serious playtesting.
> Excellent words of caution. Since I'm one of the primary instigators, I
> will try to remember this.

I'm with Rob as well. I think only the smaller spirit types should be available. Although no reason why someone can't make up on-off scens using malia or wild hunter etc.
> > > Well, I am also in favor of limiting the number of normal units that
> can
> > > be in a fertile hex, too. I've said it before -- I don't think you
> can
> > > reasonably get 10 hexes worth of soldiers into a single 30 square
> mile
> > > hex (or whatever it is) to allow for anything other than passing
> through.
> > > Once you're there, even overnight, there just isn't room for everyone
> and
> > > all their stuff, at least not in any way that would let even some of
> them fight.
> > >
> > Well, no examples but I one could certainly add to the rules to make it
> > less *likely* that big stacks form rather than being proscrictive. For
> > example, for every non-individual unit above (say, arbitrarily,) 4 in a
> > hex then, at the start of the next turn in the random events phase,
> there's
> > a) a 25% chance of plague happening that turn in that hex; and/or
> > b) a 33% chance that in-fighting takes place and each non-individual
> > unit has to roll a 4-6 or be disrupted. The chance goes down to
> 20%
> > with a hero in the stack, and 10% if a superhero. The chance is 0%
> > if there is a superhero and best friend [essentially it's the
> number
> > of leadership which does this, so Ethilrist==superhero for this
> rule]
> > How would that be?
> Um... complicated? _Very_ complicated? :)
> > > Also, it has occurred to me JUST NOW that the support rules are a bit
> > > whacked, too. You have to have support in a chaparral hex, even if
> you
> > > just end your movement there, right. So that means you have to bring
> an
> > > entire herd of cattle with you _just to sleep overnight in a hex_
> before
> > > you move on? Sounds like myth dictating game rules, which is not
> always
> > > the best way to do things. Maybe support should be rethought just a
> tad.
> >
> > I always thought so :-) I just don't know quite how!
> My current thought is that support isn't required until the second turn a
> unit remains in the same hex? Maybe?

Too difficult to keep track of. Individual players can easily have a dozen or many more stacks in chap.

> > > Sort of, yes -- something to make missile fire a bit more effective.
> But
> > > I still favor eliminating missile fire as a separate set of rules,
> and
> > > just use one combat results table for everything except Chaotic
> Magic,
> > > adding Disrupt and Retreat options to that table.
> >
> > I quite like simplifying it as well to one table. Any thoughts on how
> > the new table would look?
> Nope. Well, OK, some thoughts. Basically, I see two options:
> 1. Make the table more like it was in WB&RM, more like the Missile Fire
> Table, actually -- static results based on the missile factor and die
> roll. But maybe replace "1 unit eliminated" with "3 CF eliminated" or the
> like.
> 2. Allow the attacker to spend some of the CF loss to cause other effects
> than elimination, rather than having any set results.

I'd like to see missile fire more effective, but keep the table separate. I really don't like the idea of "xcf eliminated" rather than 1 unit elimed. Heavy military units are relatively more vulnerable to missiles than light units in RW history, they shouldn't be harder to elim by missile fire in the game. In fact this is one of the bonuses already existing for missile fire.

I think that ordering stack for melee should take place _before_ resolving missiles. Missile causalites should be selected top down. If this elims any of the stacks commited to melee it is too late to call up replacements into the melee units. Also makes bison decide whether to risk his 6cfers on top of that stack attacking sable (shields the rest from melee counter attack, but makes them front line missile targets).

Debatably sun domers should get some missile defence bonus if stacked on top.

Bison should definately loose their missile defense bonus, and Llama their vulnerability.

Cheers - Chris

Chris Ward
Cancer Research UK Beatson Laboratories
Garscube Estate
Switchback Road
Glasgow G61 1BD
Tel: +44 (0) 141 330 3953
Fax: +44 (0) 141 942 6521

Powered by hypermail