Developing a new game.(community project) - Warhammer 40K Fantasy

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!

Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1
    Senior Member Lanrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    36 (x1)

    Developing a new game.(community project)

    Hi all.
    After the looking at lots of threads across many boards.

    There does seem to be the capability to develop a new game,to use our '28mm scifi models' in.

    And as there are lots of alternatives to the 'GW WH rules set' to base a game on.

    I was wondering if anyone would like to help asess the possible options,to see if we could develop a game ,more in line with 'Dawn Of War' ,style of play.(RTS)

    WARNING..this thread will concentrate on trying to get the most efficient game mechanic and rules set,BEFORE determining army compostions and equipment options.

    So we are hoping to get the gamplay and the 'feel' of the game as good as we can, before we start adding details and complexities.

    As we are going to concentrate on the function ,rather than the asthetic,some gamers may not feel they can contribute too much.

    BUT all opinions are valid.And suggestions and ideas are always welcome.

    The worst mindset towards development is..
    'we have always done it like this...'

    The best attitude towards development is ..
    'Could this work better,'

    So I will start by posting some alternatives for your discussion.

    'Game turn,' alternatives.

    For more tactical interaction between units/players.
    The current 40k system of one army moves shoots assaults,while the other army twiddles its thumbs.
    Has to be broken down into smaller ,more interactive chunks.IMO.

    The options I can think of are..

    Alternating phases.
    Army A moves.
    Army B shoots.
    Army A shoots.
    Army B moves.
    Army A assaults.
    Army B assaults.

    This can be used with the current 40k rules set with slight adjustments.

    Pros,still easy to keep track of phases.

    Cons,an entire army still gets to 'attack' with all its units at once.this could still be concidered slighty overpowering.

    Alternating unit activation.
    Player A performs actions with ONE unit.
    Player B performs actions with ONE unit.
    untill all units have been 'activated.'

    Pros,fully interactive gamplay between players on a unit to unit level.

    Cons,if one player has more units ,he will get more tactical options,this level of 'forced' interaction could be concidered too 'orderly'.(A bit like chess)

    Offensive momentum method.
    Pros,This is the method that seems to represent the ebb and flow of realtime battles in the simplest way .(IMO.)

    Cons,But it is hard to explain well...but I will try.

    Player A performs actions untill he fails to perform an action sucessfully,then player A 'turn' ends and player B turn starts.

    If player A performs all the actions he wants to with any /all of his units sucsessfully,then he may declare his 'turn' ended, and player Bs turn starts.

    So an offensive is launched by one player,untill his units fail to achive the required results,or the offencive reaches its planned conclusion,then the opposing player siezes the initiative and launches a counter offensive.

    (I am using the term 'offencive' to describe a set of planned tactical manouvers, issued by the force commander.The strategic objective ,[the mission ],would be broken down into smaller tactical objectives by the force commander ,so he can react to enemy current S.O.P. of most military organisations.)

    In game turns it breaks down somthing like this....

    Player A attemps to 'rally' any units he wants to..if he fails end of his turn!

    Player A attempts to move any units he wants to..if he moves units into player Bs units Contact range and Player B causes sufficient dammage to player A unit..end of player A turn.

    Player A attempts to shoot at player Bs units,if he fails to cause sufficient dammage to player B unit,player A turn ends.

    Player A attemps to assault (move a unit into base to base contact with)player Bs unit,
    if he fails to inflict sufficient dammage on the player Bs unit ,his turn ends.

    Well folks what do you think of the basic game turn methods,are ther any others you would like to propose/discuss.


    Last edited by Lanrak; January 9th, 2007 at 00:40.

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #2
    Member Kerinst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    North Dakota
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    49 (x1)

    You could always try to play it as a complete Initiative game, move each unit according to initiative, this means some units will move at the same time on both sides, then shoot off by init, then assault according to it...

    I have also played several games by mixed skills, movement still went by init, shooting was done out by BS skill, and assault was determined by init for charging, and WS for later turns, unless the player had a strike last weapon

  4. #3
    Member Kabanov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    10 (x1)

    "Offensive momentum" idea

    I quite like this idea - I suppose that units on the active player's side would be able to function fully, while the inactive player was only able to fire (probably with reduced effect) on units which moved into his contact zone (unsure on what to do about units moving around within contact zones).

    This would also mean that units could be quite cheerfully left to sit around and do nothing... it also opens up scope for movement on initiative, etc, etc.

    Will keep watching this post, although Librarium is now blocked by my school.

    If it ain't broke, it might need fixing.

    The difficult we do immediately. The impossible may take a little longer.
    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Member of Advanced 40K development team (self-appointed)

  5. #4
    Senior Member Lanrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    36 (x1)

    more thoughts...

    Hi thanks for the feed back guys.

    Using 'initiative' based turn sequences works realy well in smaller level games,(Skirmish and [3D] RPG.)
    Having fewer models/characters means the detail of circumstances and skill sets for individual models/characters, can more finely represented.

    And during a game the initiative for individual models/characters will vairy conciderably.
    But if we try to get this level of detail in a game the size of the current 40K,it would slow it down alot.

    I am sure using this method in the current game of 40k would increase player interactivity,which is a very good thing.

    But as we develop a new game the way we represent stats may end up bieng completely different to how 40k represents them.

    So selecting a game turn mechanic that is not 'tied' to other game mechanics ,means we are able to 'swap out' anything that is superceeded later.

    The offencive momentum method,realy takes the 40k current game turn sequence,but makes it so each unit action is NOT garenteed to succeed.

    EG ATM every unit in a force can move, shooot,assault,with absolute garantee of carring out the actions.

    IF actions are NOT garenteed to be carried out,then the force commander,(the player) has to evaluate what actions to take and what order to take them.

    This increases the amount of tactical concideration no end.
    And the opposing player is waiting for you to make one 'mistake',fail to perform an action successfuly ,and he will make you pay for it!!!
    This does keep both players 'focused' on the game.

    We recently decided to see how simple a (war)game we could make.
    IF you control unit interaction ranges by using LOS blocking terain.(EG the maximum open space is 12''.)
    And you fix unit sizes.(EG all units have 5,10,or 20models.)

    Each unit has only three stats.Dammage,Protection, and Moral.

    No measurment is necessary as the terrain layout determins this.And as movment is only restricted by enemy LOS.

    So during fire fights, the Protection values are subtracted from the Dammage values ,and this result is added to the moral value.(Higher the moral value the worse the result.)
    Depending on the amount the moral value is modified,affects the Dam and Prot values of the unit.

    I am not sugesting this is the 'best way' to get a tactical game.

    But using this 'simplest ' game we tried out the various game turn options.

    They all worked very well.All gave a slightly different 'feel' of game.
    (To be fair ,'alternating phases' and 'unit activation' are used in other games systems, I have played , and have been proven to work well.)

    To be honest the Offencive Momentum method ,was inspired by some older non 'War' type games.And I wanted to see if it was a viable option.

    The Offencive momentum method lets players decide on the amount of risk the are willing to take.
    Do you risk trying to rally a badly shot up unit,do you risk running a unit through an enemy fire zone (LOS), to get at an priority enemy target, you feel lucky punk?well do you??

    The other 2 methods are very structured, and let both players interact in a 'even and steady way'.

    The offencive momentum method rewards tactical evaluation,(you get to do more ),but still leave the oportunity to be bold as you like,if you are prepared to take the concequences...

    We liked the 'feel' of this method best.

    Last edited by Lanrak; January 10th, 2007 at 18:48.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Lanrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    36 (x1)

    What I would like to represent..

    Hi all.
    I should have clarified a bit.
    Skirmish level games are about detailed actions of individuals , and thier interactions.Eg what that single model can do.

    Regimental/army level games are about company/regiment actions and interactions.
    The 'general' gives orders to regiments/companies and they follow these orders to the letter,unless they are destroyed or rendered innefective by poor moral.

    The company level game ,I think should be set between these two extreems.

    The force commander gives a broad tactical requirment to a squad/unit,then that squad/unit tries to achive the requiment ,in the most appropriate manner ,taking essential factors into account.

    The primary essential factor is self preservation/sense of purpose.

    But homicidal maniacs in the game of 40k dont care about self presevation!!
    I here you shout.

    But the most hommicidal maniacs have a very strong sense of purpose.
    World Eater Beserkers/Orks,for example will not run head long into certain death,UNLESS they have a high chance of taking lots of the enemy with them!

    And even the most hostile race ,has to have some survivors to learn about thier enemies methods of waging war.

    If in every encounter all units are totaly destroyd ,NO knowlegde of the enemy is gained.
    So that race would be wiped out, very quickly!!!

    So there is a requirment in all 40k races to have some level of 'assured survivability',at the 'company level game' size.IMO.

    Forgive my narrative skills,but an IG platoon about to come into contact with Xenos.
    My thoughts represented.
    'Sarge' movment in the edge of the jungle over there!

    'Wait till we get a clear ident!!'

    'Nids inbound 300 clik's,'

    vox message 'HQ, xenos sighted ,rapidly advancing on our position...advise.'

    'Thier geting closer Sarge, do we start blasting them?..'

    'We dont know if they have detected us yet ,hold your fire...'

    vox message from HQ'blue 3 have you positive ident and numbers yet...'

    vox message..'HQ ,50+ gaunts' rapidly closing on our position..advise.'

    vox message ..'Blue 3, intel passed on ,engage at you discresion,expect support from Blue 1 and 2 ,they will engage on your lead....out.'

    SO there you are ,xenos closing on you fast,is it a scouting unit for a larger force?Will they detect you? Will they pass by?

    When do you open fire?

    Too soon and you could give your position away to other possible xenos units.
    And your support units may be to far away to help you...

    Too late and you could get detected and over-run, and so could the units moving up to support you..

    'Sarge, what do we do...?'

    This is the sort of tactical concideration I would like to develop into the basic game mechanics.Tactical decisions at unit level,sympathetic to the unit,as well as the entire force.

    Not the 'mindless gunho' way units are depicted currently in 40k.(IMO.)

    I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from.


  7. #6
    Senior Member Lanrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    36 (x1)

    swiftly moving on..

    Ok so as my new idea for a game turn mechanic is not getting any feed back.
    I will just say we can move on to other aspects of the new game ,and chose the game turn mechanic we feel most comfortable with later.
    With this in mind I would like to propose rules that would work with either of the 3 game turn mechanics..

    Basic concepts.
    I strongly belive that comparing values to obtain a reasult, then using this result to modify, or set the range of possible final results, is much better than trying to define all possible results by rolling a D6.

    Using a D6 to cover all possible outomes limits thier representational probability to 16.66%,jumps.
    This gives rise to the huge effieceincy jumps in the 'AP system,' currently used in GWs 40k game.

    If we use numerical values to represent stats directly ,Eg 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc.

    Eg value A (+D?) vs valueB(+D?) =result.( look up on table of results.)
    I have represented random value as D?.(Roll apropriate number of specific dice.)

    OR Value A - Value B= modifier ,Add modifier to dice roll (D?)and look up result on table.

    And we could develop the game without using random factors ,to start with,as this would make determining PV a lot easier,(we could calculate PV if stats were uses in direct comparison to determine results.)

    Also I belive it is important to establish the most efficient way of getting the rules to work.
    EG use the minimum amount of stats and rules to give the maximum amount of tactical game play.

    I would like to start with trying to define unit interaction,and then add detail and complexity untill we get the level we are happy with.

    Any thoughts before I go on?


  8. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    1 (x0)

    Turn sequence?

    I am afraid this will be a rather short post and will not even touch all your ideas. I don't have time for more right now. I read your proposals with interest, Larnak. They cover a lot of things that are sorely missing in Wh40k, IMO and I would very much prefer to use something along these lines then the current set of rules. So don't despair for the lack of feedback, I'am sure a lot people read your posts and find some food for thought in them at least.

    For starters, the "Offensive Momentum" mechanics seems promising. (BTW, what no-war games you mentioned use, if you can remember?) Waiting for opponent's mistake can really keep one interested in the game. It is certainly much better than
    But I am afraid players will be frustrated be not being able to do anything when "their units" get in the a tight spot, or did I get wrong? Let's say the opponent gets a shot at several of your units and they all suffer casualties (enough to force a test though I don't have a clue how much you think it would be). Your first unit fails their test and panicks or breaks or whatever that will be. What happens now? Does the player finish all the tests but is unable to do anything else or he does not take the test at all? Or you think it should all happen quite differently?
    Sorry for the stupid question, but that is the first thing that came to my mind. As I said, your ideas are interesting, but they need working on and I didn't where to start.
    Curious for more

    A little note on the side: I have seen momentum as basis for a skirmish game recently. Its Nurglitch's (I think you know him from Warseer forum, Larnak) Toe-to-tow here, though his idea is a little different. The offensive momentum (turn initiative) just shows who goes first in a simultaneous turn (both player plot their momevent and attacks and then resolve the turn, moving and removing models etc. as they go.) It has several other very nice ideas and is certainly worth reading.
    Last edited by Mlok; January 19th, 2007 at 23:58.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Lanrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    36 (x1)

    Credit where its due..

    I have read through Toe to TOW,and I can say it is an exelent alternative set of rules.:yes:
    But I belive it is aimed more at the 'skirmish level game.'

    What I wanted to do was look at modern warfare,as I belive ,this has more in common with our general perception of how scifi games should work.

    What I was trying to do was look objectivley at how actual modern combat 'flows' and find the simplest method of representing it in game terms.

    Rather than take an existing rules set and try to 'reverse engineer' it.

    The most important thing that I have learned from my freinds and work collegues currently serving in the British army ,is that ALL tactical decisions are made at the squad level.

    Ancient to Napoleonic warfare was a 'general on a big white horse' making all the decisions ,reacting to his opponents army manouvers, and sending orders via messengers to the regiments under his control. (Rather like WH,Warmaster, WAB etc.)

    When this type of 'old fashioned ' method of directing a conflict, met with modern weapons ,WWI resulted, a war of attrition.

    (I belive GW rep said that 40k was representaive of this mis match in operational control an weapons technology.But a relativley unadvanced race (early 20th century humans,) gave up on this method of waging war in a few years.SO a collection of highly advanced races perpetuating this syle of warfare for millenia ,just doent seem right to me.I feel it was just a cop out by GW because they wanted to use the unsuitable WH game mechanic, rather than develop somthing more suitable.)

    Since WWII ,most strategic decisions are made by 'generals' but the actual tactical decisions of how to carry them out, fall to the experianced squad leaders.

    YES, ok I too fell inlove with the simple and elegant game mechanic of Blood Bowl.
    Yes I took the way Blood Bowl works in essence and tryed to apply it to a company level scifi wargame.
    (But dammit,applying how a brewery fed beer cans around its factory ,gave RO designers the concept of the new feed mechanism for the TRACER, project.I know,I was there!!)

    A good idea, IS a good idea ,no matter where it comes from ,or what inspired it.

    So we have tackle zones in Blood Bowl,if an opposing player tries to perform an action in an opposing players tacle zone he has to roll to see if he sucsessfully performs the action.

    This linked with the effective weapons range being equal to or greater than the set up distance in most games of GWs 40k, which seves to neutre tactical manouvering quite a bit.

    Gave mw the idea of imposing a visual/ reaction range on the units in the game.

    (The average real world assault rifle can fire a round 600+meters.But to identify a target on a battle field ,aim and fire accuratly at the target reduces this range to about 250meters Effective range.
    In short you cannot shoot ,what you cannot 'see'.)

    So if we impose a visual/reaction range,which is dependant on the action the unit is performing ,and the size, an how obscured the target is.
    I belive we have a simple and effective way of defining unit interaction, in a 'company level game' ,without resorting to 'to see' and to 'hit rolls' ,or the exessive use of terrain.
    (' Macmosses lethal 40k' ,uses this concept ,but I dont feel it has been utilised to its full potential.)

    Well I belive the 'offencive momentum' method linked to visual/reaction zones/radiuses,may have potential.

    But how do we break it down,if at all?

    Perhaps if we say all movement and moral actions,have to be performed ,before attack actions?
    Eg it is important to get units where they need to be and motivated enough ,before launching any attack?

    AND if we say a player has to declare an attack before measuring any distances,(similar to WH 'charge' action.)

    Or we could leave it open ,so a player has to decide all actions he /she wants to take,and the order they are taken?

    And as most units dont want to be professional bullet cachers,(:rolleyes: ) firing at an enemy unit will draw attension to the unit.(And the unit fired upon will be a bit miffed,so if the fired upon unit is not suppressed,etc,they may well fire back!!)

    Not to mention running towards a enemy location and realising you are not assaulting an enemy unit ,but a suspicious looking bush.(Oh the short live embarassment ,before you get shot by the enemy units 50meters behind and to the left of the bush.LOL.:w00t: ).

    In short if you fail to perform a sucessful attack ,you opponent launches a counter attack.

    Perhaps if in the movment/moral, phase we limit the opponent to ONE burst of 'opportunity fire' from one unit?
    Eg they have to gess if a moving unit has moved into ONE thier units visual/reaction zone/ range.

    If they dammage,(either moral or physical,) ,the moving unit ,they can steal the initiative for thier force ,and launch a counter attack.

    On to the starting points.

    Visual ranges.(Control zones,reaction raduises.or what ever we decide to call them)

    Unit stationary............... Small target,18'',medium target 24'',large target 36''.
    Unit moves M stat............Small target 12'',medium target 18'',large target 30''
    unit 'rushes' Mstat x2........Small target 6'',medium target 12'',large target 24''

    ALL unit can see ALL other units at 6''
    If a target is in soft cover ,hull down,the enemy units losses 6'' from visual range to the target unit.

    Flyers and skimmers add 12'' to see, and be seen.

    Maximum engagment ranges for 'handed on targets'.Small 36'', medium 48'',large 72''.

    Units can 'hand on' targets to freindly units within 6''?,or HQ units within 12''?.

    EG scout squad locates an enemy heavy tank.The scout squad has no weapons to destroy the tank so informs its HQ 12'' away.The HQ then informs a heavy weapons squad a futher 12'' behind.'Enemy armour grid ref,g12,36a,do you have visual...'.''thanks for the' heads up' HQ ,enemy armour engaged and destroyed.....'

    Ill get back with some ideas on possible actions ,moral, and dammage /armour interactions.

    I suppose the best way for me to proceed is to give actual 'prototype rules' for you to peruse and discuss.

    Ill have a go at outlining the whole thing ,in a series of post soon.


  10. #9
    Junior Member Black5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    1 (x1)

    i like this

    so what stage are you at are you nearing publication, I have seen your posts in other forums so I am expecting that you are fishing for advise me I can add none except go for it... How much for your new rules and where do I send my money too?

  11. #10
    Senior Member Lanrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    0 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    36 (x1)


    Hi all.
    Black 5.I am sorry I have not replied to your PM.(I dont know how,I am a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to using a PC.)

    To put the record strait.I love wargaming.
    I spent the majority of my working life reviewing methods and concepts ,to improve effeciency,if possible.(QC engineer in the armaments industry.)

    All I do is suggest possible alternatives ,and the the prduction engineers /designers assess them ,and work out the details to see if it is a more viable option.

    All I have at the moment is some ideas that may lead to a 'more user friendly' set of rules for 28mm company level modern/scifi game.

    Using the simplest method to represent the battles we want to fight out on the table top,hopfuly in a way that can be added to later ,to add more detail as required.

    I feel the current GW game of 40k, is a 'company level game' ,and the focus should be on units and thier interaction,rather than on individual models and thier equipment.

    This game is popular with lots of gamers,they like the size of the models ,and the amount of the models on the table.

    I have no intension of charging any fellow gamer for something we develop as a community.
    Especialy as I am going to rely on other talented folk on this forum to help me as we go along.:yes:

    Any how,on with the show...

    What follows is a basic outline for battles between 'mixed company engagments in a modern /scifi setting.'

    Mixed companies.
    As the companies of infantry ,armour ,artillery ,recon'etc,move to engage an enemy army
    ,the force commanders 'mix up' undividual units to give mutual support before direct engagment.

    EG infnatry units can be supported by armoured units ,artillery units ,recon units etc.
    The mix of unit type depends on the stategic objective of the 'mixed company,'
    (The Mission.)

    Sometimes an infantry company commander may not need other units to support them.(Foot-slogger army.)
    Sometimes the support of armoured /artillery units is essential. (Armoured assault,etc)

    The rules set I am working towards focuses on the unit interaction.

    A 'unit' can be represented by a single model,or group of models.(A single AFV/tank can be a 'unit',or a large group of troops on foot ,is still classed as a single unit.)

    I think the units should be able to perform ONE action set,per' turn'.
    The action set is made up of a maximum of 2 actions.
    The actions available are ,moveing and shooting.

    (I dont want to include a specific turn/action for assault/close combat, as alot of units do not benifit from this sort of action.
    I would rather just say when models move into 'Base to base' contact they may fight an 'Assault action,'if they want to.)

    So a unit may take the following action sets.
    Move+move,move +shoot,shoot+move.(I dont think shoot+ shoot would be apropriate as the benifits of being stationary,would be good enough. Eg just shoot would increase visual range and the ability to fire to full effect with ALL weapon types.)

    Fog of war.
    As gamers we have a perfect 'birds eye veiw 'of the battle field.We can see all the opposing units and thier locations.However the actual troops on the ground would only have the knowledge they are over there somwhere.
    (Fussy images from satelite pictures ,blips on a motion tracker ,or slight phsycic diturbances .)
    SO using the format of RTS pc games,the units only can see so far,and have to move to engage ,locate and identify enemy units.
    Imagine the table top is completely dark and the units illuminate a small area around them.the area they can see.

    Using the aproximation of 1 table top inch of measurement is roughly equal to 10m in the real world.

    I would like to suggest the following.
    Visual ranges.(Control zones,reaction raduises.or what ever we decide to call them)

    Unit stationary............... Small target,18'',medium target 24'',large target 36''.
    Unit moves M stat............Small target 12'',medium target 18'',large target 30''
    unit 'rushes' Mstat x2........Small target 6'',medium target 12'',large target 24''

    ALL unit can see ALL other units at 6''
    If a target is in soft cover ,hull down,the enemy units losses 6'' from visual range to the target unit.

    Flyers and skimmers add 12'' to see, and be seen.

    Maximum engagment ranges for 'handed on targets'.Small 36'', medium 48'',large 72''.

    Units can 'hand on' targets to freindly units within 6''?,or HQ units within 12''?.

    The 'Game turn.'
    The player who goes first, is said to be 'launching an offencive'.
    The force commander (you the player) works out a plan,and briefs the units under your controll, of what they should try to do.

    The player takes actions with as many units as he wants to ,(possibly placing markers next to the units as they go along.My memory is bad so I need to do this,:cry: )

    Untill the player fails to complete an action susessfully,or completes all required actions with the units accrding to plan.
    A unit fails an action IF they fail to sufficiently dammage an enemy unit,of take sufficeint dammage themselves.Or if they fail to rally.

    I am trying to represent the panic/uncertanty of the unit /force commander when a units come under heavy fire or falters in thier advance.

    Remeber ,as players we can see everthing,but the unit coming under fire only knows it is being shot at.By what ,and where from, takes a while to determine,and while this is being processed,time moves on ,and the enemy forces could lauch a counter offencive.

    If a unit vital to the force commanders plan is badly dammaged,(physicaly or phsycologicaly,) the time taken to try to reasure and boost moral of the unit could also give the enemy time to lauch a counter offencive.(If the unit is so far gone ,it cannot be persuaded to fight on after a lot of reasurance.)

    If we give all units a moral value to start.And this value is modified by the situation the unit finds itself in.Then we can set different levels of combat effectivness per moral level.

    Rather than just OK or running away!!!

    Here is a starting point.
    If we give a value of 10 to 9 to HQ units(dependant on type of force being used).
    8 to veteran units.
    7 to standard units.
    6 to conscripted/slave type troops.
    5 to 'controlled' troop types.(they HAVE to be supervised,'to stupid to live on a battle field' without supervision.)

    Modified Moral .....Result.
    5 to 4..................neutralised.
    3 or less..............routed.

    Unit acts normally.

    Unit may not move advance towards any located enemy.If in cover the unit will not move but can fire normally,(reduce VR by 6'').
    If the unit is in open ground they may only move at max rate, towards cover if it is within movement range(Mx2 max).Other wise they will not move,but may shoot nomaly,(reduce VR by 6'')

    The unit has taken a severe pounding,It may not move or shoot at ALL.If assaulted the unit will fight back normaly,(strikes last in close combat ,or negative modifier to intitiative?)

    The unit has completely lost the will to fight.IT CANNOT SHOOT AT ALL.
    IT MUST move away from all located enemy units.If it is surrounded it will not move at all.
    If assaulted it will be automatically destroyed.

    -1 for the following.
    Unit at 3/4 to 1/2 of starting strenght.
    1/4 to 1/2 of unit has been' paniced'.
    Under attack from area effect heavy or special weapon,mortar,missile ,flamer etc.
    Recieving one or more casualties from sniper fire.
    HQ unit within 12'' supressed or worse moral.

    -2 for the following.
    1/2 to 1/4 of starting unit strenght.
    1/2 to all of unit has been 'paniced'
    HQ unit destoyed within 12''
    Under heavy bombardment.(Heavy ordnance fire.)

    -3 for the following.
    less than 1/4 of starting unit strenght.

    +1 for the following.
    Unit has unit leader.
    For any number of HQ units within 12'' on OK moral.

    Random moral modifier roll table.(to use after we playtest the values )

    2 to 3.. -3
    6 to 8....0
    1 to 12..+3.

    Ok so on to unit stats..

    Movment value.M.
    A fixed number of inches,eg M 4''.

    Assault value.As
    A value used in comparison to opposing units value. A number +a dice roll.(or in certan units the best of /addition of 2 or more dice.)

    Eg unit A has 'As value of 3 +D6',unit B has 'As value of 5+D6',difference in values =number of casualties caused.

    Armour confidence/resistance to dammage value.A/R.
    This has 2 values ,the first denotes the amount of dammage to panic the unit.
    the second denotes the amount of dammage to cause casualties/wounds/mechanical failure.

    Eg a unit with the AR value of 2/5, if they recive dammage of 3 ,they are paniced,if they recive dammage of 6 they suffer casualties,wounds/mechanical failure.

    This is a fixed number ,which denote how well trained ,experianced the unit is under combat conditions.

    So to start with we have ..


    I belive we could show a units shooting accuracy ,simply by vairing the effective range of the weapons.
    Eg a good shot may be able to hit targets with a heavy machine gun at 36'' distance,
    but a poor shot may only be able to hit targets with a heavy machine gun at 24''distance.

    I think this basic idea has potential,but the tricky part of defining weapon types and thier effects is the next bit.
    I realise that alot of you are probably saying ONLY 4 STATS!! !!

    But I would like to get as much tactics ,with as little complexity as possible.

    If we need to use more fair enough,but having '4 stats for close combat' ,when the majority of the action is moving and shooting is a bit silly IMO.

    Any way thats my overview,thanks for reading it ,any comments or suggestions are most welcome.
    I will need help refining this ,so any input is appreciated.

    Last edited by Lanrak; January 20th, 2007 at 23:46.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

LinkBacks (?)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts