Changes to Core Rules

Velociryx · May 5, 2002, 17:53

I consider this thread to be something of a "middle man"....a place for me to put official changes to the structure of the core rules before they make their way into the core rules document.....mostly, this is so I don't forget things (cos I am a scatterbrain sometimes), and it's also helpful for those following the development of the game to see how the ideas change and mutate with time and testing.

Having said all that, here goes:

1) Praetorians are overpowered!

Their cost needs to be increased to 18, and their stats changed to 4/12

Praetorians have no special abilities, and do not gain the benefits of increases to A/D due to technology.

*Note that this may still make Praetorians overpowered, and if so, then they ought to simply be cut from the game entire. The Council of Seven is quite strong even without this special unit, and the loss of it would not unhinge their game in any way.

2) Garrisons in Core Territories at game start.

In order to prevent early game "cheese ball" attacks on unguarded provincial borders in the first few turns of the game, core provinces should begin with 5 garrison units each. Garrisons cannot move, have a defense factor of 8, and each turn, one of the garrisons "retires" (simple counter that removes one per turn). In this way, each player has an equal window of opportunity to build and get their defenses up before the badguys come knocking in earnest.

-=Vel=-

FrustratedPoet · May 5, 2002, 18:10

/me is fully behind these interim changes.

/me remembers with horror the Combat Trials involving the old-style Praetorians

it was brutal .... really brutal ...

Velociryx · May 5, 2002, 18:13

Indeed....those combat trials we ran were....

-=Vel=-

Chowlett · May 5, 2002, 19:57

Will adjust my rules set accordingly. Track changes ahoy!

Chowlett · May 5, 2002, 20:06

Ah yes - what tech do banks come from? I could check my old rules, I suppose...

Edit: is I7 (currently Vaults) still correct for banks?

Velociryx · May 5, 2002, 21:28

::nodding:: Yessir!

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · May 6, 2002, 20:01

After more trial runs of combat, I'm thinking the Praetorians just plain have to go. Consider them nixed entire. Overpowered....nobody would ever wanna play anything but The Council of Seven....OUCH!

Infantry-Based Units:
Changes I'm considering -
Heavy Infantry and Pike should NEVER get the opportunity to make precision strikes. We've flirted with the notion of doing this anyway, by stating earlier that they ought not be able to make precision strikes if there were enemy infantry/pike on the board, but for the cost, giving them the ability at all verges on making them overpowered.

Optional plan here would be to delay their abililty to do so till X tech level in the game (at the same point where those units gain the "initiative" special perhaps).

Skirmishers should be exempt from this, as they are seen as mounted infantry, able to keep pace with their cavalry cousins (and they cost more....and really suck in the early game).

The only other alternative would be to bulk up the cost of infantry, pike, and mercs, which runs the risk of making the early game a nightmare to get started.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And Light Infantry are now referred to as Skirmishers

Chowlett · May 8, 2002, 19:50

I need to confirm - when wall units are on the battlefield (Pikemen), do the archers always hit them first, or are they allowed to try for a precision strike on other troops? The rules document and the comments you made on this board differ in opinion.

Also - for the next release of a new rules doc, it might make sense to put the page number in a footer - I forgot to print them, so I have a dexy-sweet index, with no page numebrs for easy referencing

Velociryx · May 8, 2002, 22:45

Sorry for the confusion...yep...when wall units are present, archers MUST target them first....they could theoretically use a precision strike, but in this case, it would work against them, as they are forced to target the wall units anyway until none remain.

Other changes I've been mulling over:
At the same tech level that allow infantry the charge/flank ability, I'm seriously considering giving cav +1 movement....this would preserve their role to a degree in the late game (but for the most part, cav and mercs have been left far behind by the late game....infantry and skirmishers dominate, with archers in support). Still, this gives cav a stellar support role, late game.

Also....one small, but important clarification re: cav charge ability - Cavalry can both charge AND execute a precision strike at the same time. It should be noted that this ability is unique to cav, as well. (this makes cav the ultimate "sweeper unit" - vulnerable to precision strikes by other cav and by archers, it's true, but when they hit, they can REALLY rip the guts out of an enemy army.

-=Vel=-

Chowlett · May 10, 2002, 09:25

(Playtesting delayed on consensus that slightly drunken is not the way to go about learning. Postponed to, possibly, Friday)

One of my friends suggested something that I like the sound of. If I have it right, atm you can only break an Alliance peacefully and in the End of Turn Diplomacy step, yes? It might be quite nice if you could attack an ally "backstabbingly", as it were, for a huge loss of honour - and of course reputation among the other players. Perhaps some more disincentives would be needed, to stop this being a viable anti-honor win tactic, but it seems more realistic than actually having to say "I withdraw from the Alliance" - which effectively indicates your hostile intentions anyway (why else do you withdraw?), and gives your opponent first shot at taking you down.

Velociryx · May 10, 2002, 09:42

Hmmm...yes, I *do* like that, Master Chowlett...perhaps we could do something along these lines:

For players who maintain positive honor: If a mid-turn treaty nullification occurs, fully HALF of that player's honor and influence are transferred to the "backstabbed" player (the Church, frowning on such actions, rallies in support of the back-stabee, and the back-stabee gains popular support among the peasantry for having been so affronted). **This would be the one and only case where dishonorable activitiy did not decrease the size of the honor pool then, but effect a--potentially large--transfer from one player to another**

For Infamous players: They can break contracts and treaties freely, and without penalty. People who make such agreements with Infamous folk beware....

How's that?

-=Vel=-

Chowlett · May 10, 2002, 11:18

I like the sound of it.

Velociryx · May 10, 2002, 12:16

Coolio! And why do I get this feeling that it's gonna be really interesting when people who care about their honor score and ability to use the Church's influence suddenly find themselves in a game with a couple of players who lean more toward infamy...just one more colorful dynamic of the game, methinks....

-=Vel=-