Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - View Single Post - Developing a more 'mature' gaming system.
View Single Post
post #17 of (permalink) Old 04-27-08, 09:24 PM
Senior Member
pyroanarchist's Avatar
pyroanarchist's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Coshocton, Ohio
Posts: 679
Reputation: 1

Originally Posted by 32BitHero View Post
As far as Close combat goes i think locking people is incredibly tactically fun but you are right it doesnt make sense maybe half movement and possible casualties? That would make alot more sense.
I agree with it being a lot of fun to lock troops that don't really want to fight you. My favorite it throwing Zerks into a Dev squad or the like. But I don't think it makes sense for the squad to not have an option. They should definately take penalties for retreating, and I think that they shouldn't be able to shoot anything other than pistols (if that) while retreating.

I don't know how hard it would be to loot weapons during a game. You may end up with some issues here. It sounds like a lot of fun, but if the weapon isn't modelled on it will be hard to remember who has it, where it is, etc.

Maybe give every army access to some kind of weapon platform (similar to IG's heavy teams only you would have to position a squad to man the platform). They could choose the gun on the platform and each would have a different point cost. They would be cheaper than a tank with the same guns, but they would be immobile. This could even be fully customizable with points cost for different AV's for the platform, maybe upgrade from tripod weapon, to sandbag emplacement, to bunker. Maybe an option to shoot the troop manning the platform but they would get cover saves depending on which type of platform. It would be easy to incorporate this into the looting situation if you went that direction. If you kill the squad, but don't blow the bunker you could make use of the platform yourself.

I haven't played WHFB yet, so I'm not sure how the block style works myself. I'll take a good look at that in the next couple days and get back to you. I love the psionics idea as well Hes.

Has anyone decided on a timeline yet though? Is this past, present, future, or a galaxy far far away? I really like the idea of having a 'savage' race, an extremely advanced race, and some in the middle somewhere. Are we going to develope races based off of current mythology? I really like games that have some connection to what is already known, it seems to be easier to get into that way and draws more attention.

Any ideas on alignment of any races yet. I'm guessing we'll want at least one major "good guy" race and one major "bad guy" race, but what about the others. Do we want to keep them kinda vaugue so that people can draw their own conclusions and debate about if they are good or evil?

I really, really like the divine intervention idea Hes. I think the 'good' races should get bonuses to saves or anything that helps them to survive. The 'bad' races, however, should get bonus's to their ability to do harm instead.

I was wondering, how hard would it be to work out a system where you accumulate points for wiping out units (fanatical fervor or something) and get a bonus for it, and has any system done this? You would use x amount of points to get this bonus, and y amount for that bonus, etc. The bonus's could be extra movement, extra shots, re-rolls, or anything else you guys can think of.

I'll keep brain storming and send you a PM Hes.

Blood for the Blood God!

Brass Scorpion Project

Last edited by pyroanarchist; 04-27-08 at 09:44 PM. Reason: Edit: Didn't realize how much was posted in the last hour and didn't expect a 2nd page already. I had more to add.
pyroanarchist is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome