The Battle for 3.3

[LTDave]

Hi.
After 11 or so turns of "Return to Gobwin Bump" I've been putting together some thoughts on things that could be changed or improved. Those of you who have been following my games here know that I'm into simplicity, since I believe that (after a point) complexity is contrary to the best interest of games which are meant to be fun.

I've drafted a change to the "The Battle for..." rules, upgrading them to version 3.3

You can find a word document on the webpage in my signature, as well as a list of the main changes from 3.2

I invite current players in "Return to Gobwin Bump" to comment, as well as others from this forum who have ideas to share.

"Return to Gobwin Bump" is not done, and will continue to be played by version 3.2, but when it comes to an end in a few more turns (possibly?), I'd like to play another game using something like 3.3

Thanks for comments and constructive criticism.

Cheers

[tigerusthegreat]

I like most of the changes. I think you need to do something about the scouting rules, though.

I also think that either 1. cities should regenerate walls automatically or for a pop point fee, or 2. dirtamancy should be left the way it was, but only effect city/camp tiles.

I'll have other thoughts later. A stacking penalty would be interesting, where more than x units in a stack starts degrading their effectiveness...see my comment in the game thread about defense for more info.

[Twoy]

I mostly agree with the changes, but here are a couple of things to consider.

Cwoakamancy was definitely overpowered, but one third might be underpowered. I was thinking one half.

Lookamancy is underpowered. Maybe make the range two.

Starting Commander level should be 2-4.(Roll 1d6: 1-2=1, 3-4=2, 5-6=4) It just really sucks to pop a level 1 commander.

"Commanders increase the attack and defence values of the units they are stacked with..." Did you want to keep the part about commanders increasing defense in the current rules?

How about increasing the max number of specials allowed to four? Especially since the specials are being decreased in value.

[BLANDCorporatio]

How about increasing the max number of specials allowed to four? Especially since the specials are being decreased in value.

(Note: I didn't read the new rules doc yet, will find the time in the next couple of days however)

I dunno about that. I'll have to see how serious the nerfs, however what the 3-spec limit did was encourage some allied cooperation. Look at the SG, for example- decent set of specials, but totally dependent on there being a good samaritan in the alliance that builds walls.

So limiting the options for one side, in prinicple, adds some pressure for players to cooperate. Then again, some of them just have a more independent style of play. Looking at you tigerusthegreat

PS: ok, TBfGB is not yet over, however one thing needs to be said- scouting is a lot lot faster. I know from GMing one such game that scouting is one huge time sink, and planning/checking scouting in "Gathering Clouds" is even worse.

[LTDave]

Thanks for the comments.

Tigerus, what do you mean by fixing the scoutIng?

On dirtamancy, that's worth thinking about, except that I want there to be an upper limit on how quickly walls can be constructed. I also want to be able to build walls adjacent to a city to represent "Siege Works".

On the stacking limits, I feel these already exist. Only 8 units can contribute defence, and only the first 8 units contribute their full attack - the ninth unit (and every unit after) only contributes 1 attack...


Twoy, I think I agree with cwoakamancy being half. By limiting commanders to one special, the decision to have cwoakamancy will be a tougher one, since it can't be combined with rockin' out or another combat speciality. I toyed with the idea of having the cwoakamancer raise the units they cwoaked but with degraded stats, but decided this was well too complicated.

I'm not sure about lookamancy - a range of 2 seems too big. Perhaps the player could choose a row of 7 adjacent hexes on the map? I'll think more on this.

I agree with the commander level, and have changed this - however, I'm using d5s this time, so slightly different again.

I've also edited the bit about commanders altering defence values. Well spotted.

I'm inclined to agree wtih Bland on the number of specials, but I'm considering removing the bit about how many times the special can be taken per faction, as in, your faction might take Cwoak, Look, and Dance. You might then have two Cwoakamncers, three lookamancers, and multiple Dance. The cost would increase each time you buy the same special again - 50 the first, 100 the second, 150 the third, etc. Thoughts?

I'm also thinking of a "Guard" rule for stacks. So a stack can be ordered to "Guard" another, ie, it must be attacked before the second stack can be attacked. So you can protect your vulnerable stacks like Siege with a big unit of Pikers. Only one stack can Guard another, a Guarded stack can't Guard another stack, and a Guard stack cannot itself be Guarded. Thoughts?

Draft updated.

[tigerusthegreat]

Okay, quick loophole I found: minimum attack is 0, but each additional unit above the first 8 adds 1 attack to the stack. Technically a unit with 0 attack would add 1 attack in this way.

Regarding the exploit I was mentioning, your current rules just limit it to an effective 16 unit stack. 8 defensive and 8 attack units, which would be cheaper than a stack of 8 units with the attack and defense stats combined.

I would return attack and defense to a minimum of 1 for those reasons.

Also list the "adds 1 attack past the best 8" thing to the attack section of unit stats, like the defensive bit about the best 8 units is mentioned.



Scouting just seems weird to me. Not sure what can be done to fix it, but others seem to like it, and I don't have anything constructive to say about it, unfortunately.

For dirtamancy, you could say that walls can only be build in or adjacent to cities, and they can only be built at 5*city level per turn; or keep it as 2x pikers per turn, but have it use up their move for the turn. I would limit the max a siegework could be built to; maybe to 50.

As per guarding, I like the idea of it. Either make it so that the unit has to have it's one hit wonder used up before you can attack the guarded stack.

[BLANDCorporatio]

The rest, eh, whatever. One set of rules is as good as another. But the Scouting is the one thing that makes these rules so good, because Scouting now costs a lot, lot less.

Personally, I deplore the absence of mounts and combined ops that could be seen in other TBf<> games. But in a new draft of Oddworld rules, I'm taking the scouting system as seen here. Presently, scouting is a chore. Except in this game.

[HerbieRai]

Another slight expoilt. A unit with 2 hits, 1 attack and 1 defense. These can cost as little as 5 pts, and unlike normal units that lose effectivness after 8, these would always be effective to add in.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Yay Grezlings!

[LTDave]

OK, to combat Grezlings I'll change minimum attack to 2. But keep min Defence at 0.

I'm uploading another draft version of 3.3
Changes include:
Guard Stacks
Shockamancy
Multiple Specials

And I've changed the spreadsheet to take out the bits that ought not be seen.