|
Post by Nature Boy on May 4, 2018 4:54:53 GMT -5
A few quick things that'll be different with battles. I'll wait this as we go to reflect what they will actually be.
Taking food and armaments after defeating a unit, instead of all at the end of the battle
Troops from a unit defeated in a duel will split into other allied units. Some troops will still be lost.
Blitz (high ap cost, same as volley) - Do up to 3 attacks on adjacent enemies. Can cause duel.
Build - Build a structure on the battle field. List of structures to come.
|
|
|
Post by samuraigaiden on May 5, 2018 22:29:29 GMT -5
I just don't like the chosen name. I haven't come up with a better one than Recon-in-Force, though. Maybe Harass?
Also on the subject of Volley and this new one (Blitz, Harass, whatever we call it) I think it's a little too powerful. I mean, I love using it, but because it's too strong. I think it should have reduced damage per hit. Like each attack is at 80% whatever the rolled damage is. Or create a chance for friendly fire? I don't know, just something to diminish it basically being 3 attacks in a single turn.
This awfully similar to Ambush. What I think, instead, is that Raid should do reduced damage to the enemy troops - but attack the Food supplies of the enemy unit. Something like this..
RAID (40) - Attack an enemy's supply train, causing 40% normal damage and reducing unit's food count by 5-25% (based on roll). Has chance to cause duel. ((Str + Int)-(Lead + Int)/10) + Roll (Higher than 15)
That gives an additional strategy to warfare, besides just trying to cause as much damage as possible. And it gives warrior-type officers more options in battle, while also creating an asymmetric battle being Str vs Lead for success.
|
|
|
Post by samuraigaiden on May 11, 2018 21:53:02 GMT -5
Also...I'm here for more semantics discussions. Since we're going with an Onin War setting, I think we should change the names/armaments of some of the units. Currently we have this: So here are my suggestions for a little renaming of things: Swords, in Japan, were harder to produce than spears because of the cheap-o, crap-o iron Japan has. Spearmen were the default because you could just have a piece of bamboo with an edge and hand it to the guy and say, "Here you go, you're a spearman now!" So that being the case, here are my thoughts... -Arms- Spears -> Pikes Axes -> Halberds Bows = Bows Horses = Horses Catapults = Catapults And therefore... -Units- Swordsmen -> Spearmen Spearmen -> Pikemen Axemen -> Halberdiers Archers = Archers Cavalrymen = Cavalrymen M. Cavalrymen -> M. Archers Catapults -> Engineers Those are my thoughts on things right now.
|
|
|
Post by Nature Boy on May 19, 2018 7:54:16 GMT -5
I like Harass. And that is a fair point, I'll probably go with the reduced damage.
That was a thing I wanted to change as well for Raid, having it attack the food as well.
Did you want to say something about Riot?
As for the name changes. I would be up for that. Personally I didn't like the idea of it being "Axemen." I originally wanted them to be "Heavy Infantry" but couldn't think of an armament to represent that. The only one that I'm not fond of is Catapults = Engineers, as their is going to be a newly added Seige Ram unit as well. Once I get a few more things worked out, I'm gonna put up a bunch of stuff in here.
|
|
|
Post by samuraigaiden on May 20, 2018 12:31:26 GMT -5
Did you want to say something about Riot? No actually, I think I accidentally copy-pasted it as well as Raid and just forgot to delete it. Haha. As for the name changes. I would be up for that. Personally I didn't like the idea of it being "Axemen." I originally wanted them to be "Heavy Infantry" but couldn't think of an armament to represent that. The only one that I'm not fond of is Catapults = Engineers, as their is going to be a newly added Seige Ram unit as well. Once I get a few more things worked out, I'm gonna put up a bunch of stuff in here. We could always do this then... Catapults -> Artillery Siege Rams -> Sappers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 16:41:50 GMT -5
Hope you don't mind me weigh-in on this. Just a few ideas. I never was a fan of catapults and Rams as units. In reality they were never drug around. They were built on site..... So how about instead of them being "recruited" they can be built on site with an action. For argument sake we will call it construct. So unit a brings the required resource (tools,wood what ever) and takes the action construct. Say it takes two turns then bam. They have a ram/trebuchet/sige mongoose. I have some more ideas about units and armerments. Especially if you are going to make the new era around oni period of japan. I'm at work currently so when I get home I'll post more ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Nature Boy on Jul 18, 2018 16:50:13 GMT -5
I'm up for any suggestions if you got them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 19:15:11 GMT -5
just to answer some questions i thought of regarding about the construction mechanic i mentioned about the catapults and such being made on field. after the battle they can be deconstructed and as long as they were not destroyed, you get half the resources used back. as well you can attach an ability to the SIEGE EXPERT skill that allows you to move catapults and such. or maybe just construct them faster. i feel a lot of the skills like spearman and such are underwhelming. or just to plain. just like how weapon master has special skills only someone with weapon master can use, perhaps those ability should also have something of that such. like for instance. spearman can unlock skill spearwall, or maybe a formation only spears can use. like spear wall. slows movement but any enemy unit that enters the space around it takes instant damage. you could do that with any of the other skills. axemen could have a tortisto formation... or shield castle whatever you want to call it. slows advance but gives a damage reduction. cav can have wedge that gives a damage bost and speed, but lowers defense. making it an all or nothing attack maneuver. just some more ideas. if you like them i can keep going.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 20:29:07 GMT -5
im home now... that's why im messaging so much now lol. forgive the double post AMBUSH (2; Lead/Int)- Allows for the use of the Ambush tactic in battle.
AMBUSH (30) - Ambush an enemy unit dealing 1.5x more damage and causing a confusion status. Has chance to cause duel. Requires the Ambush Skill. ((Lead+Int) - (Lead + Int)/10) + Roll (Higher than 14) correct me if im wrong but it sounds like its simply and attack option. it would make more sense to be a trap option instead. for instance the unit uses ambush, said unit enters ambush status. if an unit come near it, that unit is attacked first and might become confused for a turn. the skill does damage and also has a chance of negating the oppositions turn. id just make it a one turn confusion though. as well the chance to be cunfosed should go agenst the effected int stat. so its not a sure thing to be confused. anything more would be broken as FUCK!!!!!
id drop the effect one more round. so its only effective for two rounds. it lasts long and can be spammed for 35 points.
if drop the confusing all together. the damage buff is a nice addition and forcing a duel makes sense. its already a increase damage dealing move with a utility. so anything extra seems off. for 25 points its actually really powerful even if we take confusion away.
to set it apart from other confusion tactics id say make it a two turn thing. but have the confused unit roll a leadership roll on turn two to see if they can get out of the confusion.
to be honest? id just remove this skill. its kinda broken and serves no purpose besides just piling on punishment. or as samurai said, make the second attack decrease. or better yet if you ant to keep it. make the second attack a maybe. make a leadership roll of the activating unit and see if they can make the second attack. making it a gambit makes it less broken for 40.
never got these skills. only npcs take the duel most of the time and most players don't want to risk it. id just stipulate in the battle rules that duels must be agreed on by both parties unless forced through tactics like charge and such.
i think this should be combined. i would take away the damage bonus from raid as well as the no counter attack, keep the duel clause. also add a random number of supplies loss and possibly set fire to the enemy unit. other wise i feel fire attack is just missing something. i would make the supplies and fire separate checks as well. so on a crit they all fire and its devastating. or you just do a little damage and take some to.
i think for a ranged tactic its to powerful. that's what i felt was wrong with wotd and simrtk tactics. they had powerful ranged attacks that had no repercussions on use. so strategist drones would lob ploys at you and you had to eat it. i would instead of troop desertion and confusion. have it simply lower moral and/or supplies.
change name to push, or forced advance. when i think thrust..... anyway.
as well for terrain, i would make a unit being in water decrease their attack and defense. fighting is water is hell. laden with arms and armor, its a death sentence. being on a hill or moutain should also give a rang bonus to archers. kinda like being on castle walls. as well a unit on a hill should have a defense bonus. charging up hill sucks.
just tell em to stop whenever
|
|
|
Post by samuraigaiden on Jul 19, 2018 17:31:03 GMT -5
This kind of gave me a thought, given that we'll be going with an Onin-era setting. The Onin War was still old enough that a lot of samurai armies engaged in the old-style warfare of the pre-Sengoku period where battles often started with duels.
We could have battles go that route: Pre Battle: 1 chosen Champion of each side engages in a duel. Once the duel is completed, then round of the battle occurs. Ad Hoc duels within the battle can still be a thing, but this gives more for warrior-style characters to do.
Repercussions for the duel, as well... Flee: If you flee the battle, your whole side loses an amount of morale (say 10, for reasons of simplicity). Defeated: If you fight to the bitter end or fail your retreat and are captured, then your unit routs from the battlefield. But your side only loses 5 morale, because a number of them want to fight harder to rescue you. Killed: If you fight to the bitter end or your retreat fails and you are killed in the fight, then your side actually gains 10 morale because you valiantly sacrificed yourself (and samurai were weird about that). But your unit still retires from the field, because you're gone.
|
|
|
Post by samuraigaiden on Jul 25, 2018 7:48:55 GMT -5
Another random thought of mine:
What if instead of dealing a flat 1.5x damage it increased a unit's speed/mobility by so many points (let's call it 2 for now), and increased your damage per tile moved through (let's say +10% per tile). For instance if you're on a road and can move at 1 tile per mobility and have 3 mobility with Axemen then you would now have 5 mobility and would get +50% damage if you moved all 5 tiles to be adjacent to an enemy and subsequently attack (so in essence, still you get the 1.5 times damage in that example). This would give cavalry a big boon with the Charge skill since they have 6 mobility to being with and 8 with my example's stats. So theoretically a good cavalry unit could move 8 tiles and hit for 180% damage with a proper charge action. But then, of course, if you were already adjacent to an enemy you would waste the AP by not moving and just hitting them with the damage of a normal attack.
A little more strategic than simply going: Move here, use Charge. Use Charge again. And with that I think that leaving in the confusion chance is still good - thought I think the unit using Charge should have their morale drop by 1 point because of having to run so hard in the battle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 9:50:41 GMT -5
That's a great idea. It also simulates how horsmen were actually used. In history they could not actually be in prolonged engagement.once the more stops moving you were just pulled off and prone. I still think removing the confusion would be a good idea. 180percent and confusion seems like overkill. But other wise that's and excellent idea.
|
|
|
Post by Titania on Jul 26, 2018 9:12:34 GMT -5
That's a great idea. It also simulates how horsmen were actually used. In history they could not actually be in prolonged engagement.once the more stops moving you were just pulled off and prone. I still think removing the confusion would be a good idea. 180percent and confusion seems like overkill. But other wise that's and excellent idea. I'm not entirely sure what the chance is for it to cause confusion currently is, but we can look at making the check higher for the confusion to be caused - after all, how would you feel if suddenly a group of armed men on horses came barreling at you and engaging in battle. I think the confusion makes sense, but we can definitely look at changing the success rate for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 1:29:06 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure what the chance is for it to cause confusion currently is, but we can look at making the check higher for the confusion to be caused - after all, how would you feel if suddenly a group of armed men on horses came barreling at you and engaging in battle. I think the confusion makes sense, but we can definitely look at changing the success rate for it. i don't know. you would not be confused as much as scared. maybe replace it with a moral penalty? but the reason i say it would be op is because, you simply charge, do 180% more damage, potentially confuse the unit. then back up next turn. then do it again. making the unit being attacked nothing more then a punching back that can not fight back.
|
|
|
Post by Titania on Jul 27, 2018 10:03:31 GMT -5
Perhaps the individual general would be more scared than confused, but most of the "soldiers" being utilized are drafted civilians. Farmers that we armed and sent out into battle. Terror in large numbers very easily manifests into confusion as people are running, standing their ground, etc. Maybe what we can have is instead of just a roll, the chance of confusion goes against the leadership of the general of the troops? The higher leadership/morale of the group as a whole, the lower the chance of confusion is (imagine hearing the voice of your leader calling you to your positions and leading you against the enemy after such an attack, rousing yourself and your companions) while as the battle goes on, and the attacks persist, the chance gets higher as morale drops and there are fewer troops remaining?
This can also be used in exchange for a roll on other tactics as well, and give the leadership stat more of a use than it has currently.
|
|