D&D Wargaming-- Good vs Evil [Waiting List Recruitment]

[nameless]

I personally don't see the problem with this since the rules in place say that the CR used for support troops has to equal that of the Big Troops. If as you say a swarm of rats is an ineffective attack force - then they are used CR unavailable for effective units.

The rules say that you need two things to support big units: equal points spent, and individual numbers equaling the points spent. At 1/7 CR, you can get 490 ravens for 10 points, which pretty much nixes the requirement on numbers and limits it to points spent. While technically legal, those ravens aren't really fighting members of the army, and I just think it falls outside the spirit of the game to buy up lots of expensive (CR 5 at the moment) units to support your battlelords and then lip service the other rule with noncombatants.

 

[Drakknyte32]

Indeed. And I'm guessing a lot of armies are using that. It might be a good Idea to drop the number requirements and just require the points.

 

[Pyrex]

If we were to drop the 'number' req and just keep the 'points' req we should also reduce the baseline.

 

[Tonguez]

If we were to drop the 'number' req and just keep the 'points' req we should also reduce the baseline.

Fair enough so what do you suggest
4 = Wyrmling White Dragon, Ogre, Pegasus, Gargoyle

3 = Blink Dog, Imp, mephit, Triton, Owlbear

 

[Pyrex]

I'd have to take another look at the lists, but I was thinking 3 or 3.5.

 

[Wrahn]

Two problems here that I see:

First, custom creatures are out of hand, beyond the scope of what was intended and a big hassle for whoever is going to run this. I would ban custom creatures.

Second is that the way D&D is set up, higher CR creature are disproportionately more powerful than their lower CR counterparts, such that it is likely that the one high CR "battle lord" would be able to defeat the rest of their army. It seems likely the way to balance this is to drastically lower the CR ceiling, but what is the point of a fantasy battle without fantastic creatures and great heroes.

The problem is that it becomes a guerilla war, with the massively powerful units being highly mobile, striking from suprise. I would propose a system of territories, which is how an army gains more points. It would require a certain number of units and unit points to hold a territory and it would require a certain number of unit and a certain number of point to challenge for the territory. The more territories one has the more points one gathers per time interval.

I would also propose a more structured turn type system and abolish unit experience, in favor of buying unit increases through the point system.

 

[Pyrex]

I have to agree on banning custom creatures, though I would still allow some limited customization of stock creatures.

That's the whole basis of the CR system. It's why we had creatures above the baseline cost CR^2. If we a) drop the CR cap to 12 and b) require that (N)PC levels take their equipment that'll still leave lots of fun creatures available but smooth out some of the wackiness we've already seen.

Drop the magic item cap to exclude the Mirror, and keep casters below Teleport Circle and we get back into the range of "traditional" fantasy warfare.

How much time is a "turn"? What limits are you going to place on what can be accomplished in a turn?

I'm torn on the issue of dropping unit xp, I understand why you want to drop it, but keeping your units alive should count for more than sacrificing them for the objective and buying new ones.

 

[Wrahn]

What I would propose is that each turn is a period of resolutions. Every say monday and thursday is a turn day, events are resolved on those days. The way I was envisioning it is that every turn would be a week, every turn you could move an army to and adjacent territory, you would recieve points for the terrirories you held the previous turn, you could propose any action which could reasonably be done in a weeks period.

The real problem with that are the battles, which was going to be an issue anyway. Going turn by turn trying to get each side to post what they want is going to take forever, while 2 generals fight, 6 other people will not be able to participate. We are going to need a system to address that as well and a lot of trust is going to have to be placed in the moderators hands.

 

[Pyrex]

Hmm, weeks might be a bit long. It works fine for large, slow armies, but not so well for more mobile troops. Are you planning on a standard size for a territory (say, for example, a 50 mile square)?

The battles are going to be a problem, but we already knew that. I'd be suprised if we fit (at least the first few) battles into a two-turn-per-week structure.

 

[Pyrex]

Just had an idea on a compromise on the 'unit XP' issue.

In addition to held territories producing points (each turn?), each military action produces points (more to the victor, less to any surviving losers) which can only be used to upgrade troops involved in that action.