Darkness Rising v2.0 - 'Tenebris Unleashed' Campaign

[MarbitChow]

Also, we'll have to sort out the issue of alts etc... I don't think we'll have the time to wait for New Batch members to join the escort.

Just so it's clear: Everyone gets 1 primary and (at most) 1 alt PC. There are 4 scenarios. Each player can be in, at most, 2 places at once.

Some players have already expressed an interest in controlling one-shot NPCs. These NPCs will simply appear in the scenario, and the PCs will be notified that they are there. Only PCs with no current Alts can control 1-shot NPCs, so consider the "max 2 places at once" rule to be unbreakable.

[Nnelg]

Also, we'll have to sort out the issue of alts etc... I don't think we'll have the time to wait for New Batch members to join the escort.

Just so it's clear: Everyone gets 1 primary and (at most) 1 alt PC. There are 4 scenarios. Each player can be in, at most, 2 places at once.

Some players have already expressed an interest in controlling one-shot NPCs. These NPCs will simply appear in the scenario, and the PCs will be notified that they are there. Only PCs with no current Alts can control 1-shot NPCs, so consider the "max 2 places at once" rule to be unbreakable.

Eh? What does that have to do with things?

I was just trying talking about the fact that the New Batch PCs won't all arrive in Dis City until Turn 14 at the earliest.

[MarbitChow]

I was just trying talking about the fact that the New Batch PCs won't all arrive in Dis City until Turn 14 at the earliest.

Your words simply inspired a thought process that led tangentially to my words, and I'd realized that I had not spelled out the policy explicitly enough. Nothing more than that. I should probably have excluded your quote from the end result.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Since nobody else seems to care, I'm just going to assign Squads.

I'd much rather you didn't. The practical argument against that is, as you've seen yourself and your edits show, such assignments are premature.

The emotional argument is that such assignments are annoying. I think players can make up their own minds, thanks.

[Nnelg]

I think players can make up their own minds, thanks.

Well, if the players would go ahead and do so, I wouldn't have to sit around puffing smoke!

[BLANDCorporatio]

We will, don't worry.

Eventually.

Sometime this milennium.

Probably.

When it becomes important, anyway. At the moment, I'm saying that Will can go on either Siege or Escort, and Zed-too can be sent anywhere (although IC, he'd rather stay somewhere safe). The key factor here is where Tod thinks the unit can do the most good, and then we can figure out how to split, say, Archers, between the two or however many missions.

[MarbitChow]

And just a quick reminder for the more aggressive posters - this IS a play-by-forum game, and while I'll attempt to respond to questions as quickly as I can, I'll be deliberately enforcing a slower pace for game updates that require or greatly benefit from player participation, because not everyone is on the forums all the time.

(And if things get slow and I've been drinking, I'll post random nonsense using the artwork from the game...)

[ETheBoyce]

I'm just going to ignore the squads posted as they aren't a wise allocation of our resources, (Not having Tod stack with Archers when Archery is what we're gonna need to take out enemy archers? Really?)

[Nnelg]

I'm just going to ignore the squads posted as they aren't a wise allocation of our resources, (Not having Tod stack with Archers when Archery is what we're gonna need to take out enemy archers? Really?)

Yeah, seeing as the enemy archers are going to be baffle-smoked. You wouldn't be able to shoot them even if you wanted to!

And since siege weapons had their move boosted, we can bring a couple covered rams and/or siege towers with us. Our melee troops will be able to slaughter the enemy archers with fewer casualties than our own archers could ever do.


...As I said, paradigm shift.

[ETheBoyce]

That's not a paradigm shift and our melee troops are no better at killing enemy Archers than our Archery, in fact they typically have lower Combat scores. further you don't have all that much juice so it's entirely possible you'll run out after two turns of Baffling all their archery squares.

[Nnelg]

That's not a paradigm shift and our melee troops are no better at killing enemy Archers than our Archery, in fact they typically have lower Combat scores. further you don't have all that much juice so it's entirely possible you'll run out after two turns of Baffling all their archery squares.

Nemo can Baffle 56 Squares. A lot more if he uses a Juice potion. Last word from Marbit had Baffle lasting indefinitely (although, I'll understand if he changes that).

Not that he needs to baffle all the ramparts, seeing as we can used Covered Rams/Siege Towers...


And our melee troops have more than sufficient Combat to kill the enemy Archers, while their higher Defense and Hits means they'll suffer less casualties.

[Nnelg]

The plan would be this: we advance the Covered Rams up first. The units inside are completely safe from enemy archery, so the enemy archers have nothing to shoot at. Then we start smashing the gates, still safe from enemy archers.

The moment our melee troops break through, we send forwards our archers. Then the enemy archers will have to deal with both our archers and our Melee troops. The enemy archers die faster than if we had used archers alone to kill them, so we take less casualties in total.

Does it make sense now?

[MarbitChow]

Nemo can Baffle 56 Squares. A lot more if he uses a Juice potion. Last word from Marbit had Baffle lasting indefinitely (although, I'll understand if he changes that).

We'll play-test it first for a few scenarios. If it ends up being significantly over-powered, it will either get nerfed, or counter-measures will be introduced, or both.

[Nnelg]

Well, I did originally suggest a limited duration...

I really hope you don't remove it, though; or make it prohibitively expensive. Smoke is a very fun tactic, and there's plenty of ways to counter it even if it is permanent.


For instance, it would have absolutely no effect at all on Melee troops.

[MarbitChow]

I won't remove it. I might increase the Juice cost to 1/square, but that's really about the only change I could see. The Foolamancy costs were originally created with the idea that the Foolamancer's Defense was critical to the spot checks. Since that's no longer the case, and Juice is a completely dump stat for you now, the Juice costs may actually be a little too low, but like I said - rules are locked, and now we play-test them.

[Nnelg]

Sure, sure. For the record though, I liked how you used Defense as the determining stat for spot checks. I'm not sure why you changed that...


And I'd rather had a baffle that lasted for 2 rounds at the cost of 1 juice/2-4 squares, than a higher cost for indefinite duration. But, I'm fine either way.

[MarbitChow]

Sure, sure. For the record though, I liked how you used Defense as the determining stat for spot checks. I'm not sure why you changed that...

Mostly to avoid having to figure out how all of the Leadership, CW, combat modifiers, etc. would factor in. Now the only way to game the system is through Luckamancy, which seemed appropriate, plus it costs Karma.

[WhirdCheese]

I think we should give the two strategies a playtest.

20 UP of archers = 20 zed garrison archers
vs
20 UP of Archers = 10 zed archers

2 stacks of 8 archers 1 stack of 4 archers
vs
2 stacks of 5 archers

21 attacking archers cwoaked. None left to take the 7 additional hits
11 defending archers cwoaked. One with 9 hits.

20 UP of Archers = 20 zed garrison archers
vs
20 UP of Siege & Infantry = 2 Covered Rams 4 zed warriors 4 zed spearmen 4 UP spare

2 stacks of 8 archers 1 stack of 4 archers
vs
2 stacks of 2 warriors 2 spearmen and a covered ram

79 damage total from 1st stack. All unit in first attacking stack cwoaked.
96 damage total from 2nd stack. All units in second attacking stack cwoaked

Nnelg I think you're forgeting that the defenders will attack before you as they can slauter you as you come up the stairs.

[Nnelg]

Nnelg I think you're forgeting that the defenders will attack before you as they can slauter you as you come up the stairs.

Um, for starters that wasn't a very good example.

Of course if you use zeds they're going to get slaughtered. Especially if the archers outnumber them. We'd be using level 2's whom are mutually Guarding each other, are warded, and have a good leadership bonus to defence (Tod's in fact, if we go with my suggestion). Not to mention that Nemo's Baffle will negate ranged fire.


My suggestion has both Melee troops and archers attacking at the same time. No matter what, that's more units on our side than archers attacking alone. More units means the enemy dies faster and we have more bodies to spread the damage over, so that can only ever be a positive.

[WhirdCheese]

I don't know how the level up mechanic works for UP and I was doing my best to keep the sides balanced.