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

[Serpenteye]

We should be able to have more than one battle or action going on in the same RL time for different units of troops. All players should be allowed to be active at all times.

 

[Pyrex]

Each player will be active each turn, but it's still far easer for the DM to run "simultaneous" (i.e. same turn) battles consecutively.

 

[Wrahn]

Each player will be active each turn, but it's still far easer for the DM to run "simultaneous" (i.e. same turn) battles consecutively.

My initial idea is that both generals draw up battle plans, detailing how they are set up and what they would like to do. The moderate compares the plans and sets them in motion against each other.

At this point I am at a bit of a loss. The moderator could either finish the battle or post the results of the first "turn" of combat and let the oppposing generals modify their plans accordingly. The first option allows for quicker turns, the second allows for greater control. If we go with the second option, I don't think the turn idea is going to work.

 

[Tonguez]

My initial idea is that both generals draw up battle plans, detailing how they are set up and what they would like to do. The moderate compares the plans and sets them in motion against each other.

At this point I am at a bit of a loss. The moderator could either finish the battle or post the results of the first "turn" of combat and let the oppposing generals modify their plans accordingly. The first option allows for quicker turns, the second allows for greater control. If we go with the second option, I don't think the turn idea is going to work.

The thing with messageboards and email games of this type is that they do take a long time anyway. Control can be maintained by players posting detailed plans and contingencies too. It is the Dm who will need to keep to the Monday-Thursday deadline as far as I can see.
Also the burden for the Dm is going to be ensuring that the players have ample information in order to make contingency plans viable.

I'd love to institute a rule saying that all combats are to be resolved in three rounds ie
1.Initial Actions
2. Results and Modified Actions
3. Final Outcomes
(with three days given to resolve) but that might be a bit harsh to some

Anyway new rules I've posted a summary of ideas (including my own) below some have gaps and all need discussion but anyway...

Army Creation
1. The Baseline for units is (3, 3.5, 4, ??)
2. Total CR^2 of support units must equal CR^2 of units above baseline
Any creature with a CR less than 1/4 may not be used as support
3. Classed Units (heroes) may be no more than double the Baseline CR on creation *I'd apply this to BattleLords in future - ignore this rule for now (we don't want to go and recreate our BLs do we?
4. Customisation - must use a base creature from the core books + templates from WotC products (including website)

Territories
5. Each Battle Lord occupies one territory to the north and south of the neutral unoccupied territory respectively.
6. A battle Lord must invest CR (units) to claim an unoccupied territory equal to ??? CR
7. Armies gain CR for Territories held
*Personally I'd have different territory types (perhaps based on terrain) earning different CR - thus making certain territories more valuable and giving others reason to attack
8. Direct combat earns personal CR which can only be used to upgrade units involved in that action

Actions
9. A Turn is enough time to complete one combat action (subject to terrain, speed and other effects) - so how do we account for Speed?
10. A BattleLord posts 1 Combat Actions per unit each turn but can post free non-combat action at anytime
11. Combat Actions include Troop Movements into Unallied (enemy or unoocupied) Territory, Troop Upgrades, Fortification of allied structures, Attacks on enemy structures, and offensive use of magics (sabotage eg blighting an enemies crops)

 

[Pyrex]

So here's what I was thinking...

Army Creation
1. Baseline CR 3.5
2. Why not let low CR creatures count for support? We're just looking at points now, not numbers.
3. I'd make everyone rebuild their generals at a new CR cap of 12 w/ PC equipment. This limits full casters to 6th level spells
4. Seems reasonable. I would still allow some minor customization of templates though.
8. Troops advance via points gained through combat.

Territories
Each Territory has a CR rating.

You must purchase your starting Territories with your starting points. (i.e. a CR 6 Territory costs 36pts)

Each turn a Territory produces points equal to its CR.

In order to produce it's points, a Territory must be garrisoned with an equivalent amount of troops (i.e. the CR 6 territory needs to be garrisoned with 36pts worth of troops to produce 6pts per turn)

Each Territory is assumed to have defensive emplacements equivalent to a Landlord PC of it's level.

A Territory can be upgraded by spending the appropriate number of points (i.e. upgrading a CR 6 city to CR 7 requires 49-36=13pts, just over two turns worth of production)

Actions
9-11. I agree, except troop upgrade should be a free action.

 

[nameless]

Your territory rules look pretty cool, but I (for one) am not as interested in playing that type of logistically-minded game. Marking territories and reducing movement to turns or spaces (instead of miles) is simply a little too much of an abstraction in my opinion. I'd be comfortable in saying that a fortress is worth X CR and produces Y CR a turn, and perhaps has valuable surrounding territory. The difference being that fortresses are separated by relatively wide stretches of land with little strategic value. Instead of being a jigsaw puzzle of territories like medieval Risk, it would be a map with key points on it. The rules from the PHB and DMG for overland movement seem adequate for troop movements, as long as supplies are accounted for (in terms of speed of movement).

I like your proposals on the stricter CR limits, and army creation, though. And despite the huge pain it is, I think scrapping all the battlelords is the only sensible thing to do, as some of them (mine at least, and the ghost dragon on the evil side, from what I've seen) are pretty unstoppable except for by another focused battlelord.

 

[Pyrex]

Sounds reasonable. I've just been throwing around ideas to see what everyone else responds to.

I agree that turning the map into a Risk board is a little extreme, but it's just one possible way we could go, not the only (or even necessarily the best) way.

 

[Drakknyte32]

I'd just like to say that, no matter what you guys decide on, I'm not going to play in this game any more. I need more experience in normal D&D before I can present a decent challange in this game.

If whoever ends up running this wants me too however, I will work as an assistant DM. I couldn't run the game on my own but I could help out.

 

[The Goblin King]

If I was GM I would skip all this futzing around with troop movements and logistics. I would just assume that it is taken care of by subordinate officers or magic or something.

Basically, your armies all meet on the field of battle. Many historic battles have taken place in this valley. The sky is clear and morale is high on both sides. Good and Evil start at opposite ends of the valley.

Roll for initiative.

 

[Tonguez]

If I was GM I would skip all this futzing around with troop movements and logistics. I would just assume that it is taken care of by subordinate officers or magic or something.

Basically, your armies all meet on the field of battle. Many historic battles have taken place in this valley. The sky is clear and morale is high on both sides. Good and Evil start at opposite ends of the valley.

Roll for initiative.

I agree and think we should do this NOW with our current armies

- okay we all assemble tomorrow somewhere between the Green Desert and the Hills roll initiative and move accordingly.

The Battle Lords sit back and watch as their armies duke it out to see who is the winner

then we go on to the new game with the new rules

I'll volunteer to DM if noone else wants to - but I warn you I'm very loose with rules, give bonusses for actions and descriptions I think are 'kewl' and will ban Teleport spells (but not spelllike abilities) on the Battlefield...