Memoir '44 D-Day Landings Memoir '44 D-Day Landings

Forums

Search
Forums » BattleLore - English » What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
jscheck
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 9
Registered:
February 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Thu, 27 December 2007 17:38
Caboose wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 00:59

jscheck wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 15:37

Caboose wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 12:45

Js - Very nice thought for the lore cards / additional war council member.

Here are some of my thoughts / questions / comments for the "Mad" Alchemist :

1) Sabotage card
a) Since it probably will be played when a person plays a Forward (2 in each section) or Advance (Command level in 1 section) it might be a tad low in lore cost. Maybe cost of 3 or 4 lore ?!
b) What if a person plays a lore card (ie. Assault) in lieu of a command card - I suspect it cannot be played ?
c) Lastly in regards to lore cards that says the any lore rolled are considered hits (or something else to the effect that any lore rolled are not collected) what would happen with this card ? (You might want to look at timing on some of those cards since it isn't a simple question to answer since Sabotage is played during the command phase)

2) Nitroglycerin
a) Perhaps an example on this card might be nice since it state "Play before your opponents dice roll" and "1 defending unit" - seems like it would be only used in battleback and/or Warrior's First Strike.

3) Hill Bowling
a) Presume it was used on opponent's unit that you target..would they have to move backwards or not ? If backwards and there wasn't enough space and/or there was no empty countryside, what happens then ?

Crater - Very nice item - any suggestions on what to use to indicate the new terrain ?

Wall - Anything special about it ? - I think you forgot to mention the specs for it, since I suspect that it would naturally block line of sight! Smile Also are they placed anywhere or only on certain type of terrain ? Also I suspect it would be a very small wall - i.e. mounted horses would be able jump over vs a normally large wall ?!?

Laboratory Landmark - Since some landmarks do follow the normal Landmark rules and some don't, does this landmark as well (Bold to unit on it, 2 dice max in and out) ? Block line of sight or not ?

All in all, very nice write up.

Cab


1)Sabotage
a)My thoughts on this one were based on that lore seems to be very seldom rolled in combat and therefore would not often make up for the lore you paid. It is true, however, that your opponent would not gain any at all if you played it, so your probably right.
b)For what I was planning, I would say no, a "play in lieu of" lore card would not make it ineffective.
c)The idea was that you would collect lore instead of your opponent. So if rolling lore does not give him lore, you would not get any either. And, I'm sorry, I don't understand why the timing would matter in this instance.


Well I thought there was a lore card or 2 that were played in the combat phase that didn't allow for lore to be collected. But I see that I was wrong in that assumption and all of those type of lore cards are played in the command card phase like yours. So basically never mind - sorry about that! Sad

jscheck wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 15:37


2)Nitroglycerin
a)I'm not sure what you're saying here; I'll try to explain in greater detail. You play the card; now the target is carrying an explosive. If the target dies the turn you play it, then the explosive goes off and damages a certain number of adjacent enemy units.
For example: you have a lone banner bearer in the middle of the board somewhere. Your opponent plays a mounted charge and moves three mounted units adjacent to your unit. After your opponent declares an attack on your unit, you play "Nitroglycerin" (you have a level 2 Mad Alchemist). If your unit is killed, the nitroglycerin explodes and you may now choose 2 of the three mounted units--because you have a level 2 Alchemist--to roll 2 dice against (I forgot to mention, lores are hits and flags do nothing). Now, if you had a level 3 Alchemist, the explosion would reach all 3 of them. If your lone banner bearer survived that whole turn, then "Nitroglycerin" is now void.


Well the above is definitely better explained than on initial text for the card. Only possible suggestions (with definitely saying the target gets an explosive on it + what it does) is maybe have it last till the beginning of your next turn. But then it is only a cost of 4 lore and one would probably put it on a unit that is close to death.

The only other item I can think of is that the unit that ACTUALLY cause the death of the unit would have to be the initial target of the explosion.

Lastly if it did last through the next turn, have the card only do one nitroglycerin explosion but if you had a 2nd or 3rd level alchemist, one would get to place 1 or 2 dummy charges as well. The dummy charges wouldn't do any damage but still cause a 1d die roll. On the result of a flag, the unit wouldn't be able to gain ground.

jscheck wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 15:37


3)Hill Bowling
a)If a flag is rolled against a unit and they can retreat, then they do so and take no damage. If a flag is rolled against them and they cannot retreat, then they take damage for the retreats they cannot take as well as from any banner colors or lore symbols.


Still confused on what you are looking for in the card but not a big deal.

jscheck wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 15:37


As for the crater, I suppose one could always cut a hexagonal shape out of cardboard and color or draw on it.

The wall is just the ordinary, preexisting wall pieces that come with the game.

I looked over the summery cards when coming up with the landmark, so unless specified it follows the typical rules. I was not aware, however, that it was typical for landmarks to make units bold. I guess, therefore, that if that's normal for a landmark, then the Laboratory does and, if not, then it doesn't.


Wall - what preexisting wall pieces - you mean the ford ?

Landmark - On page 65 of the rulebook there is some common rules/effects for Landmarks. But then if you look at the various landmarks, some of them change these generic rules. That is what I was asking about.

Cab



About the Nitroglycerin, when you say "have it last till the beginning of your next turn", do you mean your turn or your opponent's turn?
I like the idea of making the actual killer the initial target of the explosion.
I don't understand your third paragraph of Nitroglycerin; would the dummy charges not be targeted at the initial killer? And, what do you mean by gain ground?

As for Hill Bowling, what if I explained it this way: there's a enormous, hill-sized boulder rolling toward you. Either you get out of its way or you get caught under it. If flags are rolled and you can retreat (move backwards toward your side) into a hex that is not in the boulder's path, then you succeeded in getting out of its way. If you cannot retreat or flags were not rolled, you get caught under it.

Wall--sorry, I mean ramparts.

Thanks for giving me the page number. The Laboratory does block line of sight, it does make a unit bold, it does reduce battling to 2d in and out, and a unit may not battle in the same turn that it entered the Laboratory.

Thanks.
      
Stalkingwolf
Junior Member

Posts: 20
Registered:
November 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 31 December 2007 03:15
Call me crazy but I would like to see a naval expansion at some point with various naval units for attacking, transporting troops, etc. The board could have a coastal side and a all water side and use tiles for creating islands and such. For epic scenarios perhaps there could be alliance rules with trade routes, etc for 3+ players.
      
nspicer23
Junior Member

Posts: 15
Registered:
December 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 31 December 2007 04:33
I have a few things to see. Most of that has been talked about on here.

1. More monsters. Dragons, Trolls,Etc..
2. Heroes. I mean some heroes that are in figure form so we can play them. It would be really neat to feild the armies general, a wizard model Etc.
3. A couple new races. Elfs would be pretty cool, undead, and ORCS. We got Goblins how bout their big brothers.
4. A castle. This could be done in the form of tiles. It would be a blast to build a castle and have a seige.
      
Jeff_Wells
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 3
Registered:
December 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 31 December 2007 05:44
I'd like to see elves as another race. Since in most literature elves are masters of the forests, they would have no movement penalties in wooded terrain. Elven archers would be more accurate than others, maybe with a longer range. And since elves are magical creatures, maybe an option to generate lore somehow, perhaps when occupying a wooded hex.

Just my ramblings.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 31 December 2007 15:06
Jeff_Wells wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 21:44

Since in most literature elves are masters of the forests, they would have no movement penalties in wooded terrain. Elven archers would be more accurate than others, maybe with a longer range. And since elves are magical creatures, maybe an option to generate lore somehow, perhaps when occupying a wooded hex.



That sounds like an Elvish archer unit to me Wink Ignores wooded terrain restrictions, hits on bonus and collects lore, perhaps no penalty for firing on the move..
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 31 December 2007 15:08
Stalkingwolf wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 19:15

Call me crazy but I would like to see a naval expansion ...


I will not be calling you crazy. Not for posting that anyway Very Happy Sounds good to me. I'm really looking forward to board & adventure expasnions, like Epic was/is.
      
Maimed
Senior Member
Oberleutnant

User Pages
Posts: 304
Registered:
November 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 31 December 2007 15:09
Flying monsters, flying monsters would be nice, from Giant Eagles to wyvern and dragons! Twisted Evil
      
tkostek
Junior Member

Posts: 27
Registered:
December 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Sat, 05 January 2008 17:23
I had some thoughts on rules for catapults and ballistae (sp?)

Catapult
two models per unit
requires 2 orders to activate (ex: "scout" cannot activate)
may move 1 hex or fire, not both
2d at target hex + 1d splash damage in all adjacent hexes (friendly fire possible)
Hits on banner color only
range: 2, 3, or 4 hexes (cannot fire at pt blank)
does not require line of sight

Ballista
two models per unit
requires 2 orders to activate
may move 1 hex or fire, not both
hits on banner or bonus strike
line of sight required
range, dice
 1       0 
 2       4
 3       3
 4       2
 5       2
 6+      0

They are so slow that at point blank range a defender can easily avoid them, and therefore they have no attack strength at adjacent units.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1595
Registered:
May 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 11:47
tkostek wrote on Sat, 05 January 2008 09:23

I had some thoughts on rules for catapults and ballistae (sp?)

Catapult
two models per unit
requires 2 orders to activate (ex: "scout" cannot activate)
may move 1 hex or fire, not both
2d at target hex + 1d splash damage in all adjacent hexes (friendly fire possible)
Hits on banner color only
range: 2, 3, or 4 hexes (cannot fire at pt blank)
does not require line of sight


Like the item below, I still think it should have 1 die for battleback situations, otherwise they would be targeted initially w/o no risk (no damage). Also being big, I would say they can ignore 1 flag (or maybe make it like the creature's 1st flag and say they must ignore it ?!?)

I gather this is a green unit above ?


tkostek wrote on Sat, 05 January 2008 09:23


Ballista
two models per unit
requires 2 orders to activate
may move 1 hex or fire, not both
hits on banner or bonus strike
line of sight required
range, dice
 1       0 
 2       4
 3       3
 4       2
 5       2
 6+      0

They are so slow that at point blank range a defender can easily avoid them, and therefore they have no attack strength at adjacent units.


As mentioned above, need something for Battleback situations so I would say 1 die for those situations.

Likewise, is this a green or blue unit ?!?

Cab
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1595
Registered:
May 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 11:48
nspicer23 wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 20:33

I have a few things to see. Most of that has been talked about on here.

4. A castle. This could be done in the form of tiles. It would be a blast to build a castle and have a seige.


Yes this would be a very nice item to have..and thus with moats, etc, maybe some nasty items they can populate it with, like a snake or some other nasty that randomly moves. Smile

Cab
      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 16:17
Hello,

Just read the thread and saw some fine ideas. This my personal list of things I like to see besides heroes, new monsters, new races and additional lore cards (although thay are very welcome). Not all of them neccessarily have to be released in 2008 Razz

New Lore master
with its own set of Lore cards, tokens and/or miniatures in a blister. Example: a Druid that has cards to animate forests in two different ways: replace a forest tile with a special ent-like creature that is able to combat or replace a forest tile with a 'walking forest' tile to get mobile cover for your units.

Flying units
These units are unaffected by terrain.

Castles
Contains a set of castle tiles and Balistae, Siege tower units, etc.

Scripted scenarios
Example: a scenario that ask you to take over a city, give you additional green units when you take over the city (the rebellion in the city joins you after they are liberated) and require you to hold the city for X turns. Could go nicely with castles.

A large expansions for another continent
For example: Asia. This expansion contains asian terrain tiles, Asian units with Asian weapons and Asian creatures. The Creatures, units and weapons have to be significantly different from the existing sets to justify the cost of such a large expansion, though. The scenarios describe both Asian conflicts and border conflicts (uses units of different continents in one scenario).

This has been fun!

[Updated on: Mon, 07 January 2008 16:24]

      
Vetinari
Junior Member
Cadet

Posts: 13
Registered:
November 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 16:44
I would really like to see weapons/units/heros that use new dice.

Imagine a war machine that rolls dice with two green sides and no red sides. Imagine a wizard that rolls dice with two lore sides and no bonus strike side. Imagine a cumbersome weapon that uses dice with two red sides and no green sides. Imagine a creature that uses dice with two bonus strikes, two lore, and two completely blank faces. Imagine a race that uses dice with a completely new side that has some tribal effect. The new side replaces different sides for various units of that tribe. Imagine a unit that rolls a twelve-sided dice.

I think new variations in dice would be a major improvement to the whole system. It would add a lot of decisions along the lines of: "Do I attack with these units here or do I try to maneuver them at that group where they can do more damage." The movement decisions would be so much more interesting without requiring a ton of new rules. That's my two cents.

Edit: Many things could be handled simply by rules text that says: "This weapon treats X as Y," but some things could not easily handled that way and new dice would be much faster to handle than constantly referring to different translation rules for different weapons.

[Updated on: Tue, 08 January 2008 14:54]

      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 16:59
Vetinari wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 16:44

I would really like to see weapons/units/heros that use new dice.

Imagine a war machine that rolls dice with two green sides and no red sides. Imagine a wizard that rolls dice with two lore sides and no bonus strike side. Imagine a cumbersome weapon that uses dice with two red sides and no green sides. Imagine a creature that uses dice with two bonus strikes, two lore, and two completely blank faces. Imagine a race that uses dice with a completely new side that has some tribal effect. The new side replaces different sides for various units of that tribe. Imagine a unit that rolls a twelve-sided dice.

I think new variations in dice would be a major improvement to the whole system. It would add a lot of decisions along the lines of: "Do I attack with these units here or do I try to maneuver them at that group where they can do more damage." The movement decisions would be so much more interesting without requiring a ton of new rules. That's my two cents.


Very good idea! Although you would have to be able te easily distinguish them from the normal dice or other special dice. Maybe dice in a different color?
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1595
Registered:
May 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 17:39
Matthias_Kortleven wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 08:59

Vetinari wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 16:44

I would really like to see weapons/units/heros that use new dice.

Imagine a war machine that rolls dice with two green sides and no red sides. Imagine a wizard that rolls dice with two lore sides and no bonus strike side. Imagine a cumbersome weapon that uses dice with two red sides and no green sides. Imagine a creature that uses dice with two bonus strikes, two lore, and two completely blank faces. Imagine a race that uses dice with a completely new side that has some tribal effect. The new side replaces different sides for various units of that tribe. Imagine a unit that rolls a twelve-sided dice.

I think new variations in dice would be a major improvement to the whole system. It would add a lot of decisions along the lines of: "Do I attack with these units here or do I try to maneuver them at that group where they can do more damage." The movement decisions would be so much more interesting without requiring a ton of new rules. That's my two cents.


Very good idea! Although you would have to be able te easily distinguish them from the normal dice or other special dice. Maybe dice in a different color?


Considering how many people own a copy of Battlelore, I suspect anything that has to do with NEW type of dice would have to be seriously looked over and questioned before doing it. Since it would require new set of dice and make sure the dice are not confused with the original set of dice, etc.

As much as I like the idea, I suspect this item (and things along the same line requiring new dice) probably would be WAY down the list of items that DoW would even think of doing. Since it easier to keep things to a minimum and not make the setup of the game more "complex".

Cab
      
Vetinari
Junior Member
Cadet

Posts: 13
Registered:
November 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 07 January 2008 17:58
I agree that different background colors/sizes/etc. would be highly desirable to make the dice easy to differentiate.

Sadly, I also agree that it is probably not anywhere near production.

However, I don't think it would be that hard to integrate. As new dice would be associated with new units, weapons, etc., it would have no effect on the game for those that did not aquire the associated expansions and would not pose backwards compatability problems (unless DoW decided to go the "Air Pack route" and revamp everything when releasing the new dice).
      
Kamikazi
Junior Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
August 2005
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 08 January 2008 12:53
Castles, sieges, assualts and siege engines. I've all ready begun using BL as a way of resolving battles in a campaign game I am running, but the dramatic oversight of permanant fortifications (at least more than simple ramparts) and the things that affect them means that alot of the work when it comes to sieges and assualts has been very ad hoc.

Also, a point-based system would be nice. The system I made seems to work fairly well, but the majority of the numbers are almost entirely arbitrary based upon what my friends and I believe made up common medieval armies from different regions. We use a flat system of assigning a certian number of troops to each "province" on a modified map of Europe as a way of providing troops to populate someone's armies. eg. Gwynedd (North-western Wales) provides 3 archers w/longbows, 1 Blue Infantry and 1 Green Infantry, while Bourdeaux (Aquitaine, South-western France) provides 1 Mounted Knights, 1 Red Cavalry, 2 Blue Infantry, and 1 Green Infantry. Odviously, some provinces are worth more than others.

We also use a tax-system to decide on how much resources someone has (money) and they have to use that to raise and maintain the units available from their provinces. They can, of course, levy conscripts from them, but they tend to suffer hits to their units between scenarios (desertions) and they suffer a penelty to their tax income in that province depending on how many units they conscripted. Good in emergencies, bad way to run a war though.

Anyway, I digress, enough about my system. All that I need from DOW is a decent system for handling castle battles with siege engines.


P.S. As to your suggested siege engines tkostek, I like your rules for catapults, and it even has the potential to be scaled up to mangonels or a trebuchet. I'm not sure about your rules for the ballista though. It looks great except for the scaling dice power. I find myself unable to create any truely constructive critisizm, so I'll simply state that it seems a little unessisary. I know, strange coming from the guy who just wrote two paragraphs about a campaign system that includes taxes and conscript levies, but the ballista seemed like it could be better served and simplified by capping it with 3 dice (as blue artillery) and simply giving it a range of 5 with a -1 at ranges 4 and 5 (or simply take away the bonus strike. Which would probably be better all togeather, actually. 3 dice, range 5, no bonuses) Well, that's just my opinion of course. =)
      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

User Pages
Posts: 3190
Registered:
October 2002
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 08 January 2008 18:39
Sorry for the lengthy silence, we've been really swamped of late.

We've just posted an update, though not the one you were hoping to read, most likely here: http://blog.daysofwonder.com/2008/01/08/battlelore-of-heroes -and-some-missteps/en/

Before everyone jumps up and down (or at our throat Sad ) I'll be the very first to admit that many of the criticisms expressed on this and other threads (OD comments about the lack of info on the BL world, too many similar expansions released in too short a period of time as far as the figure packs are concerned, the game having not delivered on all its promises, etc... ) are mostly spot on.

As long we can keep a civil discussion, we'll do our best and try to answer questions/comments in as much as we can. We do read threads, and look at customers' wants and desires; even when we don't have the time to post, we take critics (as well as compliments and suggestions Wink ) to heart, even if the results can't show immediately.

eric @ DoW
      
Old Dwarf
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 122
Registered:
October 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 08 January 2008 19:33
Thanks Eric it is a pleasure to see "De Man"step up &
take responsiblty instead of excuses.

Again love the game just whine as I want to see it
reach its full potential(and at my age time is not on my side Rolling Eyes ).

We'll hang in there Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

      
Roobarb
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1003
Registered:
May 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 08 January 2008 19:59
nice one eric i for one am happy with the stuff thats come out so far and i couldnt ceare less about the background but the backs of them CTA specilist cards are a right pain im more than happy to pay for proper replacements Smile

[Updated on: Tue, 08 January 2008 20:01]

      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1595
Registered:
May 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 08 January 2008 21:53
Roobarb wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 11:59

nice one eric i for one am happy with the stuff thats come out so far and i couldnt ceare less about the background but the backs of them CTA specilist cards are a right pain im more than happy to pay for proper replacements Smile


Roobarb :
I suspect once we get the reply back from Colt's Dec (or end of the 2007) FAQ list which includes this item, we will get more info on the item. Hopefully in the coming weeks Eric and/or someone from DoW will be able to tackle it and we get that answer. I know it is not one of DoW's prouder moments...

All :
I had mentioned to Eric to look at this list since maybe it might get some items brewing in their head for possible future releases. Who knows, right? Definitely everyone has their own ideas and thus that is what is so nice about BL - it has probably infinite ways to go. (Okay maybe 1.598 trillion - but who's counting! I'll leave it to the reader to do the list. If you get that far and still have some left over, please send the list to DoW Twisted Evil )

Keep the ideas coming...
Cab
      
Roobarb
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 1003
Registered:
May 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Wed, 09 January 2008 00:48
nice one cab Wink
      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Wed, 09 January 2008 09:31
Caboose wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 21:53


I had mentioned to Eric to look at this list since maybe it might get some items brewing in their head for possible future releases. Who knows, right? Definitely everyone has their own ideas and thus that is what is so nice about BL - it has probably infinite ways to go. (Okay maybe 1.598 trillion - but who's counting! I'll leave it to the reader to do the list. If you get that far and still have some left over, please send the list to DoW Twisted Evil )

Keep the ideas coming...
Cab


OK, here goes (flexes knuckles):

The experience factor
You could introduce units with a flag that is half green and half blue. These units fight as green units when alone and as blue units when supported.
Another way of introducing this is a unit that automatically upgrades to the next level (green -> blue -> red) when thay are responsible for killing an enemy unit.

Units that are affected differently by terrain
For instance: forest dwellers. these units do not have to stop when they enter a forest and their dice throws are not affected when they are fighting from within a forest. Might be something of a keyword for the elves.

Saboteur units
For example: units that destroy ramparts or archer stakes on a Lore roll when they are in combat with a unit on them.

Explosive charges
When an explosive charge detonates on a hex, throw the required number of dice. For each helmet rolled you have to damage a matching unit in the exploding hex or adjacant hexes (or maybe we have to wait for my Asia expansion idea before we can introduce gunpowder? Razz).

Thanks for this wonderful thread, and I hope it gives them a lot of new design ideas (although I suspect that DoW has more design ideas than their development team can handle).

[Updated on: Wed, 09 January 2008 09:33]

      
srcabeza
Junior Member
Cadet

Posts: 23
Registered:
September 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Wed, 09 January 2008 11:32
Here are some ideas, in no particular order:

1.- Heroes (although it seems an unnecesary request given the latest news)

2.- New armies:
a) first of all, I'm all for the 'army box' approach, maybe close to the M44 army expansions.
b) it'd be neat if the fantasy armies were a little more varied in creatures instead of all units being the same race, for instance: in an elven army, mounted units could be centaurs or unicorns, and so on.
c) racial traits could be balanced as in the goblins, who have the Rush (advantage) and the cowardice (flaw) so to not make them overpowered.
d) In addition to elves, undead, beastmen, etc we could also have some alternative human armies, like arab/nomads or viking/barbarians.

3.- More lore cards.

4.- Siege engines and castle/rampart tiles for siege scenarios

5.- Monsters; this is a fantasy battle game and the creatures sections is a bit meager. Just to name some gaps to fill: Dragons, gryphons, beholders, demons, wyverns, manticores, more elementals, hydras, djinns, golems, mammoths, treants, chimaeras...

6.- Campaign game rules.
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 1595
Registered:
May 2004
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Fri, 18 January 2008 01:58
Well looking at some of the items that M44 has, there are some definite items that could be brought over to the BL realm :

1) Higher elevation square and thus allow then ranged attacks to maybe attack 1 more square (using the normal ranged combat rules of course). Not real keen to holding to the ranged combat allow 1 more range - but definitely higher elevation

2) Traps that do damage, just like M44 minefields. And like their counterparts, cause units to stop and do damage (maybe - since there are minefields that do 0 - decoys). Believe probably around 8-10 minefields would suffice (probably a tad on the high side on numbers - but definitely not smaller than 6).

3) Definitely feel there should be a few more cliff hexes to allow for the possibility of fighting in a canyon type valley.

4) Roads - of course of the dirt variety Smile

5) More town / city type hexes

6) Allow for archers to fire flamed arrows to cause smoke and/or damage terrain. Just a thought - haven't given it much thought on the mechanics of it.

7) My good old castle and moat siege idea - I like how the latest GTM scenario is - gives the idea of being surrounded and now just need to add some walls/gates/water and got the makings for assaulting the castle scenario too!

There are probably others items as well

Cab
      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Fri, 18 January 2008 09:39
Caboose wrote on Fri, 18 January 2008 01:58

Well looking at some of the items that M44 has, there are some definite items that could be brought over to the BL realm :

1) Higher elevation square and thus allow then ranged attacks to maybe attack 1 more square (using the normal ranged combat rules of course). Not real keen to holding to the ranged combat allow 1 more range - but definitely higher elevation

2) Traps that do damage, just like M44 minefields. And like their counterparts, cause units to stop and do damage (maybe - since there are minefields that do 0 - decoys). Believe probably around 8-10 minefields would suffice (probably a tad on the high side on numbers - but definitely not smaller than 6).

3) Definitely feel there should be a few more cliff hexes to allow for the possibility of fighting in a canyon type valley.

4) Roads - of course of the dirt variety Smile

5) More town / city type hexes

6) Allow for archers to fire flamed arrows to cause smoke and/or damage terrain. Just a thought - haven't given it much thought on the mechanics of it.

7) My good old castle and moat siege idea - I like how the latest GTM scenario is - gives the idea of being surrounded and now just need to add some walls/gates/water and got the makings for assaulting the castle scenario too!

There are probably others items as well

Cab


There you go with all of those reasonable ideas again. Razz
I half expected this thread to explode with the wildest suggestions (especially about creatures), but all of the ideas so far seem very solid and realistic. Smile

Guess that leaves me to come up with some new wild, unimplementable stuff Very Happy (since I'm not a typical wargamer and have never played M'44 or any other wargame before):

Larger creatures
Creatures with a larger footprint. A dragon for instance could look very nice if it had a footprint of 2 hexes. When you make it a flying dragon, you wouldn't even need strange rules about what to do when half of its footprint is partially on elevated terrain and such.

Flying Creatures (update)
Like I said before: Creatures with flying are unnafected by terrain, but you could expand on the idea by creating the miniatures in such a way that they can stand on the ground or can go airborne by adding a clear plastic stand underneath them. If you do this you could give a flying unit a different attack strength when flying then on the ground. One of the ways to implement this could be the half/half flags I mentioned for the experience factor in my previous post (red flag while on the ground, but green flag while flying, for example). You could give the flag to be used while flying a little cloud symbol or something to indicate its function.
Additionally you could create a rule that flying creatures can only be hit by ranged units.

Underground creatures
A creature that can go underground (replace with a 'burrow' tile) when ordered. It cannot be hit and cannot battle while underground. Of course this could also prove annoying when you are trying to get the last flag for the victory conditions.

Please keep all of your idea's coming, because this is a fun thread to read and respond to.

EDIT: btw: I very much like your idea of the flaming arrows. They could cause the forest fires that where mentioned earlier in the threads...

[Updated on: Fri, 18 January 2008 11:14]

      
constant-whiner
Member

Posts: 58
Registered:
February 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Fri, 18 January 2008 11:08
I have the feeling that what the game system current lacks is depth and not more breadth. I would say that at the moment it is even a bit "wider" than it should be if you know what I mean.

The acid test for depth vs. breadth is whether the game has a tactical or a strategic feel to it. I think most of us agree that the game is definitely on the tactical side and feels very combo-oriented if you know what I mean. The player is required to keep in his mind a myriad of rules, special features and clarifications / exceptions to the rules that sometimes feel quite arbitrary and do not seem to "emanate" naturally. Moreover, Lore is quite chaotic and I am afraid it is actually ruining the game. I would favor an evolution of Lore into something a bit subtler.

If I may use a parallel, ASL is an immensely more complex game yet you can play without bothering about the rules: you just do what "feels right" and check out the rules later. In BattleLore the case is quite the opposite. Don't misunderstand me: I know BattleLore wasn't meant as a simulation and so nobody can expect it to play "naturally" but it is getting damned combination-oriented and "rule-sprawled" at the moment and I don't see any reversal to the trend: quite the opposite. The game is beginning to feel like a skirmish game.

Moreover, looking at the suggestions, I am afraid most of them are about adding additional breadth to an already broad but shallow game system.

With that in mind, I would encourage the designers and the crew at Days of Wonder to prioritize fundamental depth-adding enhancements in the game-play experience as opposed to adding cool new units with their own special rules and exceptions.

For instance:
* heroes or leaders on the field with a new command deck that has a more strategic feel to it
* find a way to tune down the effects of Lore. It is too powerful and chaotic at the moment
* no new races before more depth is added to the game
* likewise, no new creatures
* likewise, no units with a footprint of more than one hex
* likewise, no items on the battlefield
      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Fri, 18 January 2008 11:37
constant-whiner wrote on Fri, 18 January 2008 11:08

I have the feeling that what the game system current lacks is depth and not more breadth. I would say that at the moment it is even a bit "wider" than it should be if you know what I mean.

The acid test for depth vs. breadth is whether the game has a tactical or a strategic feel to it. I think most of us agree that the game is definitely on the tactical side and feels very combo-oriented if you know what I mean. The player is required to keep in his mind a myriad of rules, special features and clarifications / exceptions to the rules that sometimes feel quite arbitrary and do not seem to "emanate" naturally. Moreover, Lore is quite chaotic and I am afraid it is actually ruining the game. I would favor an evolution of Lore into something a bit subtler.



I agree with you that the game feels more tactical then strategical. However, this is a large part of the appeal for me, as I am definately not a 'typical war-gamer' and I have a lot of other games to satisfy my need for a deep strategy game now and then.

I like games that give me lots of different pieces that I can choose to combine to my desire (this is 'depth' to me), and this is only really possible if they keep the basic rules as simple as they can be (which inherently means they will not simulate real-life very often), and introduce the extra rules or exceptions to the rules in the different pieces (creatures, races, lore cards, etc..).

I think DoW did a great job on their scenario's by first introducing the basic rules in a simple scenario and then expanding on it steps. In this way you learn about the basic rules, and when you feel comfortable you can add in the next step, and so on. In the end, I don't feel I needed to learn a lot of rules, because I've learned them over a long time.

I'm not saying your opinion is not relevant or anything, but I just wanted to express an opinion that looks at it from the direct opposite viewpoint to show the difficulty DoW is going to have when trying to satify us all. Smile

[Updated on: Fri, 18 January 2008 11:50]

      
The New Romance
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

Posts: 122
Registered:
March 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Fri, 18 January 2008 13:17
constant-whiner, I support your opinion. I don't have much to add to it. Personally, as I am mostly playing with my girlfriend who isn't too fond of big amounts of rules and especially exceptions to those rules (that perhaps aren't even put down on an overview card) and I myself enjoy less complex rule systems more as they feel more like actual playing and less like working, I'd like Battlelore to keep its current 'breadth' and not expand further in this directions. At least, for the time being.
I also think tweaking the lore system a little would surely yield some profit for everyone.
As I'm not into 'real' wargames with a more strategic approach and rules to represent that but still like it if a game doesn't get too tactical (which sometimes also means fiddly, chaotic and more based on steady action-reaction in only small parts of the board and not much happening elsewhere) but still supports the players having a laid-out plan to pursue over the course of the game, I'd prefer Battlelore to not go and zoom the scale in more.

[Updated on: Fri, 18 January 2008 17:32]

      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Fri, 18 January 2008 16:11
OK, both of you at least got me thinking about ways to make the game more strategical. Smile

I tried to only expand on the basic gameplay, because the pre-game strategy can easily be expanded with more deployment cards, additional Lore masters and more specialist cards. I also tried to include some ideas that diminish the effect of Lore without obsoleting the existing Lore cards.

Additional command cards
Cards that allow you to order two units of your choice, but dissallow you to play a Lore card for that turn. This will reduce the effect of Lore on the game.
Scout cards that only allow you to order one unit in one half (bottom or top) of a section, but allows you to search for and reveal a Patrol card to replace your scout card.

Lore cards that stay in play
These cards have a lasting effect on the game. These cards could require a payment of Lore tokens on each turn to stay in play.
Examples of Lore cards that will dimish the effect of Lore:
A 'permanent' Lore card that raises the cost of all other lore cards
A 'permanent' Lore card that treats Lore symbols rolled in combat as hits. The only other way to acquire Lore would then be by strategically choosing to receive Lore tokens at the end of your turn.
Both options would make the use of Lore more strategic and less 'swingy'.

Please let me know if this is the direction that both of you meant, and I'd be happy to hear your ideas. Smile

[Updated on: Fri, 18 January 2008 16:25]

      
Magic Man
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 100
Registered:
December 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Sat, 19 January 2008 10:33
I would like to see scenarios I can actually play without buying another set of the full game. Particularly in Epic. I downloaded every Epic adventure on the 'unofficial' section (that's 43 pages long!!!). I then deleted every game that used Elemental and Hill giants I can't get hold of, and scenery that takes more than one set of anything to set up. That 5.

I put aside (but didn't delete) all the scenarios that needed another expansion set. I'll keep those as I'm getting some of the expansion sets soon.

That left one.

But from what I can see, it's a good one.
      
constant-whiner
Member

Posts: 58
Registered:
February 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 14:27
Matthias_Kortleven wrote on Fri, 18 January 2008 17:11

OK, both of you at least got me thinking about ways to make the game more strategical. Smile

Additional command cards
Cards that allow you to order two units of your choice, but dissallow you to play a Lore card for that turn. This will reduce the effect of Lore on the game.
Scout cards that only allow you to order one unit in one half (bottom or top) of a section, but allows you to search for and reveal a Patrol card to replace your scout card.

Lore cards that stay in play
These cards have a lasting effect on the game. These cards could require a payment of Lore tokens on each turn to stay in play.
Examples of Lore cards that will dimish the effect of Lore:
A 'permanent' Lore card that raises the cost of all other lore cards
A 'permanent' Lore card that treats Lore symbols rolled in combat as hits. The only other way to acquire Lore would then be by strategically choosing to receive Lore tokens at the end of your turn.
Both options would make the use of Lore more strategic and less 'swingy'.

Please let me know if this is the direction that both of you meant, and I'd be happy to hear your ideas. Smile


More or less this is the "general" direction I would like the game to aim at though I disagree with most of your particular suggestions.

One more idea, which would make the game more strategic by emphasizing line cohesion is this:

Pinching Any unit that is adjacent to enemy units across two non-consecutive hex-sides or more than two hex-sides (consecutive or not) is considered "pinched". Implement some kind of penalty for "pinched" units.
Possible penalty ideas: melee attacks on pinched units use one more dice, pinched units may not retreat but instead treat all flags they can't ignore (due to boldness or support) as hits.

I believe pinching will make it possible for two or more lighter and more mobile units to "team up" effectively and take down a heavy unit. It would also add one more dimension of differentiation (e.g. by foreseeing special pinching rules for cavalry or light cavalry or certain races).

[Updated on: Mon, 21 January 2008 15:09]

      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 14:44
constant-whiner wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 14:27



More or less this is the "general" direction I would like the game to aim at though I disagree with most of your particular suggestions.

One more idea, which would make the game more strategic by emphasizing line cohesion is this:

Pinching Any unit that is adjacent to enemy units across two non-consecutive hex-sides or more than two hex-sides (consecutive or not) is considered "pinched". Implement some kind of penalty for "pinched" units.



Ahh, now I understand... To me this would seem like you where trying to make BattleLore feel more realistic, a little more like a simulation and therefore increasing the strategic options?

Like I said, I'm not a typical wargamer and have never researched about real-life strategies and tactics (I don't even read the descriptions of the scenario's Embarassed). I do think your suggestion is a good one and feels natural, so please keep those ideas coming!
      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 14:50
I have another suggestion about what I'd like to see. I'd like a Epic scenario for the 'Reluctant Allies' variant:

Team 1:
player with human only army.
player with dwarf only army.

Team 2:
Player with human only army
Player with goblin only army

This way I could play this variant with my single BattleLore box and expansions and I wouldn't even need to bother with the Ally tokens.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 16:45
Matthias_Kortleven wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 06:50

I have another suggestion about what I'd like to see. I'd like a Epic scenario for the 'Reluctant Allies' variant:

Team 1:
player with human only army.
player with dwarf only army.

Team 2:
Player with human only army
Player with goblin only army




Don't wait for DoW on that one, sounds like fun to me Very Happy

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 16:49
Matthias_Kortleven wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 06:44

constant-whiner wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 14:27



More or less this is the "general" direction I would like the game to aim at though I disagree with most of your particular suggestions.

One more idea, which would make the game more strategic by emphasizing line cohesion is this:

Pinching Any unit that is adjacent to enemy units across two non-consecutive hex-sides or more than two hex-sides (consecutive or not) is considered "pinched". Implement some kind of penalty for "pinched" units.



Ahh, now I understand... To me this would seem like you where trying to make BattleLore feel more realistic, a little more like a simulation and therefore increasing the strategic options?

Like I said, I'm not a typical wargamer and have never researched about real-life strategies and tactics (I don't even read the descriptions of the scenario's Embarassed). I do think your suggestion is a good one and feels natural, so please keep those ideas coming!


Not that I wouldn't enjoy playing with more complicated rules, but tactics like 'pinching' are accounted for in the mechanics. There is no additional penalty, it's just the extra attacks that one gets from surrounding single enemy units with multiple units of ones own. C&C games do a wonderful job of simulating a diverse range of tactics through relatively few simple game mechanics.
      
Matthias_K
Member
Cadet

User Pages
Posts: 56
Registered:
October 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 17:07
toddrew wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 16:45

Matthias_Kortleven wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 06:50

I have another suggestion about what I'd like to see. I'd like a Epic scenario for the 'Reluctant Allies' variant:

Team 1:
player with human only army.
player with dwarf only army.

Team 2:
Player with human only army
Player with goblin only army




Don't wait for DoW on that one, sounds like fun to me Very Happy




But... That would mean I have to put in some effort? Razz
But seriously, I really don't have a lot of time to playtest such a scenario, since getting together the same 4 players multiple times is often rather difficult for me and my group of friends. So here's to hoping someone else likes the idea enough.
      
affro
Member

User Pages
Posts: 72
Registered:
January 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Mon, 21 January 2008 19:04
4 Multiplayer with Goblin-Dwrves.Human-Human armies stroke me as well...

Another nice twist I'd like to see is Epic Adventures are asimmetrical conditions of victory even among allies (such as an objective that gives VB only to Dwarves in this Battle, for example), to establish the King of kings of a winning party...
Nothing drastical, and not for the sake of competition, only something to spice up things when reluctant allies were really reluctant:

"I ordered you to charge on the flank!"
"Forget it! I'm here only to take Du Guesclin's head! I'll have my vengeance!"
"Blast it! I'll never fight with you, you filthy beer-rotten dwarf!"

Perhaps is something that could be handled better in a campaign system, with long term goal differing for every player...
      
constant-whiner
Member

Posts: 58
Registered:
February 2007
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 22 January 2008 10:34
toddrew wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:49

Matthias_Kortleven wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 06:44

constant-whiner wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 14:27



One more idea, which would make the game more strategic by emphasizing line cohesion is this:

Pinching Any unit that is adjacent to enemy units across two non-consecutive hex-sides or more than two hex-sides (consecutive or not) is considered "pinched". Implement some kind of penalty for "pinched" units.






Not that I wouldn't enjoy playing with more complicated rules, but tactics like 'pinching' are accounted for in the mechanics. There is no additional penalty, it's just the extra attacks that one gets from surrounding single enemy units with multiple units of ones own.



No they aren't. The "pinched" unit, if supported, gets multiple battle-backs and so the total dice rolled against either side are exactly the same as if the attacks had occurred against multiple units presenting a unified front. Pinching is definitely not accounted except, maybe, in the most abstracted way. I can understand wanting to avoid orientation mechanics but pinching was a very easy to implement concept even on un-oriented units. No pinching, orientation or flanking rules make formations and, by extension, the board almost irrelevant. It is just individual hexes and units around which a fragmented battle composed of individual skirmishes occurs. Throw into the mix Lore and monsters with all their chaotic effects, rules and exceptions and you get a very disconnected feeling if you know what I mean. Not to mention that I am afraid heroes will take us further down that road.
      
AK_Aramis
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 399
Registered:
January 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 22 January 2008 11:17
A pinched unit is less likely to get a battleback, and if it does, odds are good it can't retreat.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Posts: 830
Registered:
October 2006
Re:What would you LIKE to see in Battlelore in the coming months Tue, 22 January 2008 14:21
constant-whiner wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 02:34

toddrew wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:49

Not that I wouldn't enjoy playing with more complicated rules, but tactics like 'pinching' are accounted for in the mechanics. There is no additional penalty, it's just the extra attacks that one gets from surrounding single enemy units with multiple units of ones own.



No they aren't. The "pinched" unit, if supported, gets multiple battle-backs and so the total dice rolled against either side are exactly the same as if the attacks had occurred against multiple units presenting a unified front. Pinching is definitely not accounted except, maybe, in the most abstracted way. I can understand wanting to avoid orientation mechanics but pinching was a very easy to implement concept even on un-oriented units. No pinching, orientation or flanking rules make formations and, by extension, the board almost irrelevant. It is just individual hexes and units around which a fragmented battle composed of individual skirmishes occurs. Throw into the mix Lore and monsters with all their chaotic effects, rules and exceptions and you get a very disconnected feeling if you know what I mean. Not to mention that I am afraid heroes will take us further down that road.


Not to get into a discussion purely of semantics here, but how could positioning multiple units adjacent to a single unit resulting in multiple attacks not be considered "accounting for pinching"?

I didn't enumerate on the advantages, but AK_Aramis began to; depending upon the units doing the pinching and the unit being pinched (both things to think about before engaging in this tactic), two (or three if added insurance is warranted Wink ) attacks upon the pinched unit should finish it off, otherwise probably best not to do it, especially if being unsuccessful will result in ones own units not being in bold position. If the pinched unit is not bold, things change a lot, and cutting off retreats becomes very important and one of the penalties of being pinched is being hit on flags. In both cases positioning upon the board is very significant, as is order of attack. By instituting further penalty upon a pinched unit, the board, in some instances, will become less relevant as, depending upon the severity of the penalty, it may reward the attacker to disregard his/her own defensive positioning in order to garner the "pinching bonus".

The pinching, orientation, and flanking rules are all built into the relatively simple combat mechanics of BL; whether one thinks they do a good or poor job of simulating combat is certainly ones subjective and objective right, but all of those positioning tactics factor in to games that I play.

I'm not going on and on here to prove rightness or wrongness, just hoping to show some perspective - I don't know why but it bothers me reading on C&C:A forums about how Ancients is tactically superior to BL and I just don't see it Laughing Different? yes, but to say better, I think, is to dismiss a lot of what is going on amongst those simple rules and their implications.

All that said, it would be fun, to me, to add different tactical rules to the game, if for nothing else than variety. Verity perhaps too, but good luck getting away from abstractions in a board game Wink Seriously though, I haven't played a lot of tactical war games, but I think the strong point of C&C games are their fluidity. Disjointed may be subjective in recognition, but when I really allow myself to become immersed in a game of BL, it definitely is not a descriptor that comes to mind.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 January 2008 14:23]

      
Pages (4): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  >  » ]     
Previous Topic:Battlelore version of M44 case?
Next Topic:The Battle of Dor Daedeloth - now posted :)
Goto Forum: