It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:43 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 371
Rob: you misunderstood me. I have no problem with people fielding for example all Venusian Rangers army. I have problem with supposed elite formation Fielding 2 less troopers per squad than grunts. In other words option yes but also variety.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:45 am
Posts: 1040
Location: Kenilworth, Warwickshire, UK
*up to* 2 less.

If you want to field 6 elites, that's fine... :D

All it does is open up opportunities for people to field more miniatures, should they wish to. Otherwise, players are welcome to play with the older editions of the game firmly in mind and use smaller specialist units.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:32 am
Posts: 120
Whilst it can be seen as overpowered stacking an elite heavy list if you throw away the force structure it's not necessarily going to win that person the game either. Elite units tend to be expensive and you will have generally have many less models than your opponent. Large numbers versus a small number of elite models can often balance out. Unfortunately "balance" is almost impossible to achieve since there's a million and one possible army list combinations, at least without force structure as supplied by Prodos!

Personally I preferred the ratio system in WZR; 2 troop unit required per Support, 1 troop unit required per Elite unit. And of course you can vary ratios also for solos/heroes/heavy vehicles (although it makes sense to do 1 heavy vehicle per 500 or 750 points). The good thing with ratios is they tend to scale well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 349
Location: Canada
I was never a big fan of the ratios, myself. They precluded the ability to do Elite-heavy lists which seemed off to me. Because there are campaigns in which you actually do see a wide-scale deployment of elite forces (the Venusian Rangers have seen deployments of just them since their inception).

So long as you get the point costs right, it shouldn't matter too heavily. Though alternatively allowing some character abilities to unlock certain army builds (kind of like Warmachine tier lists) would also be acceptable.

But games with wide open army-build systems (Warmachine is another good example) show that you can definitely pull off a good balance. The main issue will actually be making sure swarm-tactics aren't too effective. Too often in alternating activation games it is actually small, elite armies that suffer more than hordes because they can be out-activated.

But of course, there are a lot of fixes to that. Everything from calculating the effect in to the point system itself (difficult, but do-able) to forcing the horde to double (or even triple) up activations.

Just so long as it doesn't become a pure kill-triangle like it was in 1st Edition (Characters slaughter basic infantry, elite infantry slaughters characters, basic infantry swamp elite infantry) and you can make most lists work, then things should be okay. But I think hard-coding the ratio in would be a limit that doesn't need to exist. If every unit is worth taking in and of itself then its classification shouldn't matter too much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:32 am
Posts: 120
Durandal wrote:
So long as you get the point costs right, it shouldn't matter too heavily. Though alternatively allowing some character abilities to unlock certain army builds (kind of like Warmachine tier lists) would also be acceptable.


There's no reason players can't opt to ignore list requirements in casual games.

Quote:
But games with wide open army-build systems (Warmachine is another good example) show that you can definitely pull off a good balance. The main issue will actually be making sure swarm-tactics aren't too effective. Too often in alternating activation games it is actually small, elite armies that suffer more than hordes because they can be out-activated.


One thing which works well for Warmachine and Hordes is the FA (Field Allowance) mechanic which defines the maximum allotment of units or models per Warcaster or Warlock in the army. One thing this does would be to get around the "oh, my 500 WZR point army has 400 points of Elite Venusian Rangers" deal.

UItimate Warzone had ratios though and I think it generally worked well.

All that said there are so many options for force management and creation and obviously it helps to create one for official games (tournaments, leagues etc) - assuming you need to force any structure at all!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 349
Location: Canada
Mark wrote:
Durandal wrote:
So long as you get the point costs right, it shouldn't matter too heavily. Though alternatively allowing some character abilities to unlock certain army builds (kind of like Warmachine tier lists) would also be acceptable.


There's no reason players can't opt to ignore list requirements in casual games.


Indeed, many Spartan Games games do this. Though there are sweeping balance issues that keep most people from using casual force lists in any of them. But I do agree, a well balanced game can have scenario-driven lists that break the mould easily.

Quote:
Quote:
But games with wide open army-build systems (Warmachine is another good example) show that you can definitely pull off a good balance. The main issue will actually be making sure swarm-tactics aren't too effective. Too often in alternating activation games it is actually small, elite armies that suffer more than hordes because they can be out-activated.


One thing which works well for Warmachine and Hordes is the FA (Field Allowance) mechanic which defines the maximum allotment of units or models per Warcaster or Warlock in the army. One thing this does would be to get around the "oh, my 500 WZR point army has 400 points of Elite Venusian Rangers" deal.

UItimate Warzone had ratios though and I think it generally worked well.

All that said there are so many options for force management and creation and obviously it helps to create one for official games (tournaments, leagues etc) - assuming you need to force any structure at all!


To me, ratios just felt way too artificial. Even 40k's Force Organization Chart felt more natural. I tend to prefer more free-wheeling systems, myself, they feel more organic. I think going with something like 40k's FOC (or WFB's force chart) is a good plan. It is constrictive enough to make spamming things difficult but it is open enough that people don't feel like they are forced to take units they may not feel fit their theme.

This is why I hope they also have characters that can alter slot-allotment (this is something I think 40k actually does very right, though they are hit-and-miss on specific implementation). Being able to alter force allocations (even if it is as simple as making something a troop while shifting another unit to support; or moving around what is compulsory for the list) would be an interesting trick for Warlords. But it should definitely come with a hefty cost to keep it in line.

Mixing it with Warmachine's concept of tier lists, where the more you limit the theme the more specific bonuses you receive would also be neat. This is a good way of balancing out really limited force choices so that they remain viable despite being inflexible.

So I'll be interested to see the force organization and composition rules alongside full armies. The basic system they have laid out is good on its own but also quite malleable in terms of allowing rules to interact with it in a simple way. It will be interesting to see if they have a theme-list system so that we can see things like 1st Edition's Trenchers done up as a specific regiment rather than a unit type. 1st Edition had a lot of specialist formations like that (I think Max Steiner had one of his own as well) so having a system to standardize themed lists would be handy. Warzone is full of sub-factions and it would be easier to handle them with a short, sweet unified mechanic rather than having to re-invent the wheel with each one.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
skymiles_red v1.0.1 designed by Team -Programming forum-سيارات للبيع .