The River The River

Forums

Search
Forums » BattleLore - English » Army Building System
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
txaal
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 7
Registered:
June 2004
Army Building System Thu, 15 February 2007 18:32
I know I have read somewhere that the designers don't like points based systems to build armies (not sure why but oh well). But isn't there some way to come up with choose your own army? The new game from GMT, Combat Commander: Europe has a really good system that is structured when choosing your force but does have some points to level things out.

I'd love to see an actual points system posted but if that's somehow taboo, then how about just some type of random scenario generator?
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 17:09
Army point building systems are a poor idea for Battlelore IMO. If you want the game to plummet in replay value really really fast, use a point system. It destroys the value of playing a unique scenario for one. If you get to pick your army every time, then every game is suddenly setup the same way.
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 17:10
Bilben04 had a nice post on the topic:

"I'm glad to hear that it won't be a straight point system. These are usually quite flawed. Most point value systems that use static values for units break down under rather common circumstances. The strength of a given unit is often situational. For example, a unit of longbowmen are much stronger in an open field with a long approach than in a heavily wooded area. That sounds obvious, but you'd be surprised how many wargaming rules that use point value systems don't take these sorts of things into account.

Also, having played the C&C system for many years now, one observation that is often made is that having numerical superiority of units means somewhat less in this system than many others. Mostly this is due to command card activation, which prevents the side with more units from using the full weight of their superior numbers every turn. By the way, this isn't a criticism from my point of view. History shows that it was often difficult for a numerically superior army to use its full force, particularly in ancient and medieval warfare. In any case, this facet of the game also complicates the function of a standard point value system."
      
izernechel1
Member

Posts: 78
Registered:
April 2005
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 17:13
player142544 wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 09:09

Army point building systems are a poor idea for Battlelore IMO. If you want the game to plummet in replay value really really fast, use a point system. It destroys the value of playing a unique scenario for one. If you get to pick your army every time, then every game is suddenly setup the same way.


Agree 100%. There are countless scenarios already online and when the regular flow of blisters start coming out, I expect that will expand greatly as the flexibility and variety of the game system grows.

Besides, point system "balance" is an illusion anyway and could potentially create an arms race of figures and that is a road I've gone down with so many other wargames already and have no interest in doin' it again.
      
txaal
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 7
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 17:28
player142544 wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 10:09

Army point building systems are a poor idea for Battlelore IMO. If you want the game to plummet in replay value really really fast, use a point system. It destroys the value of playing a unique scenario for one. If you get to pick your army every time, then every game is suddenly setup the same way.


Wow, help me understand this one. I don't see how customizable armies affects replayability one way or another. I think board game players just have some inbred aversion to points based systems - like you're secretly being made to play Warhammer
Razz Twisted Evil

I played Warhammer (and 40K) for a lot of years and really grew to dislike the game (and most miniature games for that matter) because of the rules difficulties.
(P1: "My marine shoots at your orc."
P2: "Uh huh, your marine can't see my orc."
P1: "Sure he can."
p2: "No he can't."
[Fight breaks out, game called on account of minis scattered on floor by fight.]

I finally realized that I really only enjoyed preparing for a game of 40K but really hated playing. And that's when I found board games.

Battlelore, M44 and C&C:A all solve the the problems of miniature games rather nicely. But I miss the between game fun of designing an army and it seems like that would be an easy thing to add.

Again, I'm not saying you have to use it - make all the scenarios you want. I'll keep playing the scenarios. But wouldn't it be fun, on occassion, to say, "I'd like to add a couple of squads of goblins to that army next time".

Just my 2 cents.
      
txaal
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 7
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 17:31
Meepo wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 10:13

There are countless scenarios already online and when the regular flow of blisters start coming out, I expect that will expand greatly as the flexibility and variety of the game system grows.

Besides, point system "balance" is an illusion anyway and could potentially create an arms race of figures and that is a road I've gone down with so many other wargames already and have no interest in doin' it again.


Not trying to be argumentative here but I don't understand this either. When loads of blisters start coming out, that will mean that tons of new scenarios will come out and ya-hoo I say! But doesn't that also mean that without spending loads of dollars you won't be able to play the scenarios?

Isn't this the same arms race road?
      
txaal
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 7
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 17:40
Meepo wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 10:13


Besides, point system "balance" is an illusion anyway and could potentially create an arms race of figures and that is a road I've gone down with so many other wargames already and have no interest in doin' it again.


One more counterpoint and then i'll shut up. Aren't the scenarios much more of an illusion of balance than a play tested points system??

How can anyone really make a balanced scenario without some point system to go by? We just have to rely on a rating system by the 4 people who played the scenario . . . .

I could create 100 scenarios that line up 10 squads of blue horsemen one one side and 1 squad of green archers on the other. Not exactly balanced but I could create a heck of a background for it. Fun to play?? Not at all (well maybe for some).

Anyone else see a little logic in giving guidelines to go by when designing a balanced scenario or am I just looney? Again, this doesn't have to turn this into Warhammer (good grief no!!) but it could give some basis to sit down and design a scenario in 10-15 minutes. Who has time to playtest a scenario 20 or 30 times to find the right balance?
      
izernechel1
Member

Posts: 78
Registered:
April 2005
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 18:00
txaal wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 09:31

Not trying to be argumentative here but I don't understand this either. When loads of blisters start coming out, that will mean that tons of new scenarios will come out and ya-hoo I say! But doesn't that also mean that without spending loads of dollars you won't be able to play the scenarios?

Isn't this the same arms race road?



Not necessarily. True, that the variety of senarios will be off limits to people who don't wish to purchase certain units (or proxy), but the arms race I'm referring tois a common thing in point system games. Lets assume a figure came out today that has power of XYZ and a cost of, say, 10 points. Next month another figure is released, basically the same in power, but 1 point less. Guess how much dust that other figure is going to collect? Not to mention DoW will have to again create more powerful and/or cheaper figures from that point on to even make it worth purchasing. True not everyone plays that way, but I'd bet that the person who is only interested in spending their money on only the most efficient figure will be adding those figures into their armies. And they seem to be the ones who complain the loudest (n my experiences, anyway) once their already purchased figures become "obsolete" once more efficient figures became available.

Keeping the C&C system scenario based - as it always has been - keeps the emphasis on fun, IMO.

txaal wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 09:40


One more counterpoint and then i'll shut up. Aren't the scenarios much more of an illusion of balance than a play tested points system??


Scenarios aren't about balance. Particularly C&C system scenarios. The idea since Memor '44 has been to play each scenario twice, from each side of the board, and see how you do.
      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

User Pages
Posts: 3187
Registered:
October 2002
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 19:22
It will all become clear (or at least clearer) once we start delving in the details. We're focused on making it quick, fun, allowing people (like me Very Happy ) who like to spend some time devising what their army composition should be do so without hindering others who just want a quick go at it, AND making sure that you get to play with whatever you buy, not forcing you to do so.
So stay tuned.
eric
      
txaal
Junior Member
Second Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 7
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Army Building System Fri, 16 February 2007 20:03
eric wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 12:22

It will all become clear (or at least clearer) once we start delving in the details. We're focused on making it quick, fun, allowing people (like me Very Happy ) who like to spend some time devising what their army composition should be do so without hindering others who just want a quick go at it, AND making sure that you get to play with whatever you buy, not forcing you to do so.
So stay tuned.
eric


Excellent. Thanks for the update!
      
cebalrai
Senior Member

Posts: 232
Registered:
August 2005
Re:Army Building System Sat, 17 February 2007 00:15
Not sure how to help you understand other than the multiple points already made on this thread.

Regarding scenarios as a whole having only an illusion of balance, I'd disagree there. Scenario designers (professional or amateur) factor in many other things to create balance. Terrain, custom objectives, lore council features, the value of units in the given environment, ranged attack potential, etc. A point system only factors in points: numerical values given to units in some imaginary static environment...

Maybe red infantry would be worth 100 points. What if the map is full of mountains though and it's only going to be attacking with 2 dice the whole game? In that type of game, what value would you put on green infantry which would be attacking with the same 2 dice but move quicker through the hills?

Maybe archers are with 25 points - but what if they have a wide, clear space to pepper the enemy for several rounds? Then how much are they worth?

You can say that since both players would see the map beforehand, they'd simply make intelligent picks. No archers in a map full of woods and hills, etc. But then where does that leave you? It leaves you with both players picking the same armies. Bye-bye unique scenarios.

Also, a point system would break down since the nature of Battlelore doesn't factor in numerical advantage in the usual way. Quality is everything, quantity is almost nothing. Since you normally need only 5-7 banners to win (and action is dictated by command cards and not how many units you have), quality is key. This would further diminish the variety of the game.

But I have faith in Eric's feudal system! Maybe he'll cough up some details though to settle this thread? Smile
      
taliesinbard
Member

Posts: 31
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Army Building System Sat, 17 February 2007 02:00
I have spent of good deal of my unemployment thinking about some kind of point system for Battlelore. Why? Firstly, I'm unemployed and have nothing better to do...
Secondly, and more importantly, I would really like to start up a campaign of Battlelore. Not a campaign of a bunch of linked scenarios, but one where there's a big map and territories to take over.

The idea I had come up with was that everyone's starting units (and any units created during the campaign) would start out as Green, they could get better through battle.
So all units cost 1 point to buy. Monsters would also be 1 point to buy, but an amry could only have 1 monster. Each level of war council costs it's level in points (in a one shot game it would be like this: L1 = 1 pt, L2 = 3, and L3 = 6). And any mecenary units would cost 1 point every campaign turn (so in a one shot game, maybe 2 points).
I'd considered allowing purchase of higher level units, but eventually got rid of that. But the numbers might work... blue = 2 points, red = 3 points (these numbers could be used for monsters as well).

While what everyone says about point systems being bad and broken is 100% true. Sometimes people just want to try something out. It's good that DoW has no plans to publish a point list, but there's no reason why your gaming group can't adopt one they like.
What I came up with may or may not work, but it can't hurt to try it. My only recommendation would be that both players come up with their armies, then decide on some way to design the battlefield (perhaps alternately placing tiles, where the number of tiles = 10 + 3d6)

And that's my two cents (or whatever the smallest denomination of currency exists in any place of residence),
-taliesin
      
taliesinbard
Member

Posts: 31
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Army Building System Sat, 17 February 2007 02:08
One addendum to what I just wrote about my points system idea...

Each side should be required to have no more than 10% red, and at least 25% green. So the best a 20 point army could be is 5 green, 13 blue, 2 red.
This is because 10 red banners could easily win againts 30 greens.

-taliesin
      
BradyLS
Member

User Pages
Posts: 45
Registered:
April 2004
Re:Army Building System Sat, 17 February 2007 18:00
taliesinbard wrote on Fri, 16 February 2007 19:08

One addendum to what I just wrote about my points system idea...

Each side should be required to have no more than 10% red, and at least 25% green. So the best a 20 point army could be is 5 green, 13 blue, 2 red.
This is because 10 red banners could easily win againts 30 greens.

-taliesin


See, THAT'S the problem with points games: To be FAIR, you're forced to buy a head of conditional lettuce before you're allowed to spend your points on mozerella CHEESE.

Seriously, though, I'm looking forward to system that doesn't use points.
      
Talespinner
DoW Content Provider
Rikugun Taii

User Pages
Posts: 119
Registered:
March 2006
Re:Army Building System Sun, 18 February 2007 15:20
The problem with "points" systems is that they are inherently flawed. They are made to be broken. Trust me, in Warhammer 40K there are certain 2000 points armies that are "legal" that are no fun to play against and completely destroy game balance. I have been on both sides of the table against them. I agree with a poster earlier in this thread that sometimes it is fun to sit down and draft up an army, but game systems that do not rely on points end up being more "fair" to players of all skill levels.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Army Building System Mon, 19 February 2007 17:37
Eric's post (a while back) is very good news. It would speak very highly of DoW ethical policy if players could stay competitive at variable army composition type competitions with no more than the basic set. And I'm speaking as someone likely to buy all of the expansions Smile

[Updated on: Mon, 19 February 2007 17:38]

      
Silverwings
Senior Member

Posts: 161
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Army Building System Tue, 08 April 2008 11:51
I wonder why the 2 systems cannot exist next to each other.

As is, I've made a Warhammer-crossover that allows for points (with unitcards to form armies). Not unlike what we did for 'Battlelore: Napoleon Wars' (www.battlelorecamp.page.tl[/COLOR]]www.battlelorecamp.page.t l)

Players should have the choie of using either system. I agree, it is fun to use the 'setup' system of call-to-arms. But I also agree that it takes more time.

Both systems have plusses and minuses.

Super-armies are indeed no-fun-at-all. Players should avoid these.

Cheers,

Silverwings
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1842
Registered:
July 2005
Re:Army Building System Tue, 08 April 2008 14:16
I agree, choices are good, though I have to say my preference lies with the CtA card system rather than points based systems.
      
Silverwings
Senior Member

Posts: 161
Registered:
August 2007
Re:Army Building System Fri, 11 April 2008 12:04
Hi all,

Following on this Topic,I decided to put some of the Battlelore Army Cards that we use on the site.

These cards are used as a reference to unit statistics but
they include point values.

A French army might contain a men-at-arms unit at 25 points. If you decide to add a hornblower to it, this would cost 5 points.

I put the standard French army list online now.

The English will follow and we also use special units (like French peasant and Noble cavalry). These will be provided in the future.

I hope you have fun looking at them and I will open a new topic for them.

Have fun,

Silverwings
www.battlelorecamp.page.tl
      
    
Previous Topic:High level Warrior gets you nowhere
Next Topic:My solo rules
Goto Forum: