Rules Suggestions

First topic message reminder :

This is where players can gather to suggest some rules, and if enough of us start jabbering, maybe something will happen.

My current suggestion:
Reduce the Combat multiplier range from [.5, 1.5] to [.75, 1.25]. This is just to ensure a little more carnage ensues on both sides. Carnage=good!...Wait...

Well, it'll make battles dependent on luck, but not so dependent that a 2-Attack unit can croak a 4-Defense unit.

(2*1.5=3; 4*.5=2; 3>2)

I don't think your units croak after 5 turns in desert/tundra--didn't Parson say units heal at the beginning of their turn? So it would only matter if you were attacked while still in the terrain.

Plus, the whole 'hills are useless' thing...well? So stay away from them! Not every terrain has to be equally balanced, as in real life sometimes you really would want to avoid difficult areas like hills to march through instead of open ground.

Unless you choose hills as your side's starting terrain, of course, but then hey! no disadvantages, so actually it's still balanced.

I do agree on the whole burrowers in forest terrain thing, though. And the simplifying forests. Except under special circumstances, it's assumed that trees pop at a steady rate, to replace those that are cut down. Or maybe, since it's a game, the building just sits there, among the trees, smoke coming out the chimney, generating shmuckers. That's what would happen in most RTS games.

Because if you can cut down the whole hex's forest, withing a few turns your building is useless. Not exactly a great investment, compared to, say, a farm, which will go forever.

That's the thing I'm confused about with the desert/tundra, because it says it does damage per turn, so would you heal every turn? so wouldn't that just make it more of a decrease in maximum health while on the terrain? Or would the constant damage prevent you from healing unless you found shelter (which doesn't exist in a tundra except in cities/fortresses).

I'm just trying to make it so that if somebody wants to make a side based in the hills, it's not going to bite them later on. Every other terrain has good things about them, whether it be a defense bonus, or damage to enemy units, move penalty for non-capables, better resource points, etc. Hills simply have a small move penalty. It just seems...wrong, considering that every other terrain is useful in some way. The LOS thing would add a little variety to terrain bonuses, and give a reason for moving on hills.

The thing about choosing your terrain is that you don't get the penalties on said terrain. No penalties, no real reason to choose it, as your enemies have no problem attacking you. Plains have this problem, but their farms produce the most out of other terrain's farms (though it's still not very much, compared to mines and lumber [it seems mines can be depleted in-comic, but can make a side rich in a very short time. I hesitate to suggest implementing depleted mines, as it would be more work for the GM, but having them produce more schmuckers for a shorter period of time would make sense]). Hills have no resource points that can be built on them. Again, the LOS thing makes sense in this regard. Maybe bonuses to fortresses and lookout towers placed on hills? Cities? Again, just an idea. It doesn't really balance it in terms of combat bonuses, but providing greater intel. Variety is the spice of life.

the defense bonuses for terrain, does that apply to each individual unit on terrain, those with capabilites, city defenses, only for units being attacked, or what? In-comic, it seemed to apply more to cities (as cities in difficult to reach places like mountains/volcanoes are extremely hard to attack, but also make it difficult to travel to), but it makes sense for it to apply to units, though maybe if they're dug in, or if they're defending (but then people could go around). Just wondering, since having them get a defense bonus as they are charging headfirst into the enemy doesn't make sense (I may do a lot of things that don't make sense, but I like other things to make sense. I'm weird like that).

Shockamancy spell "beacon trap" seems a little OP (though I wouldn't mind that ). works like Tubgirl trap, except stuns an entire stack, AND alert others to the beacon. For the same cost as Tubgirl trap's stun one unit. I get the idea behind it, acting as a early warning that prevents the enemy from getting closer before you have a chance to deal with it, but it would make more sense to not incapacitate them (which would make it really easy to croak them), but simply cut their movement for the turn. Or reduce the juice cost and just have the alerting feature.
Chain lightning trap maybe? 60 juice?

"Maybe bonuses to fortresses and lookout towers placed on hills? Cities? Again, just an idea. It doesn't really balance it in terms of combat bonuses, but providing greater intel. Variety is the spice of life."

Good idea.

"the defense bonuses for terrain, does that apply to each individual unit on terrain, those with capabilites, city defenses, only for units being attacked, or what? "

Technically any unit, but attacking units don't use their defense value, so it doesn't affect them.

"hat's the thing I'm confused about with the desert/tundra, because it says it does damage per turn, so would you heal every turn? so wouldn't that just make it more of a decrease in maximum health while on the terrain?"

Once again, technically it's a continuous hurt/heal cycle, which in effect acts as a max. health decrease. But it shouldn't count as a max. health thing, as some rules which affect max. health could exploit that.

No, every unit in combat uses defense modifiers, as it determines how much damage is done (attack-defense=damage). So an increase of 3 defense regardless essentially means mountainous sides are incredibly hard to attack (+3 defense, *1.5 for terrain capability, every mountain unit gets at least 4-5 defense stacked on).

I don't see any exploits with having a max-health reduction. If you raised your max health, the desert would compensate. And the GM still hasn't ruled on this one, so I'm still hazy, as with the damage/heal thing, when does the damage occur? I would assume it would occur immediately after healing, but if it doesn't, there could be exploits. That's why GM ruling is crucial on this one, although it would be safe to assume he'll choose the one without exploits (unless he wants us to cheat the system in a clever way )

Modifier on upkeep per level should be lowered. Every 2 levels practically means your paying for another of that unit, whereas the stat increase is minimal in comparison. Not as much incentive to have higher level troops, but having swarms of low-level troops. Level is important/paramount in-comic, and should be in this game. Having a high modifier to upkeep based on level hurts that idea, as all the XP is now hurting your upkeep. Definitely needs changing (though maybe not that drastic, as the higher upkeep does balance things, if a little too much).

Same goes for warlords. Heirs are balanced when it comes to upkeep, but warlords are not. A level 10 warlord will cost as much as 6 level 1's. Yeah, it makes a more sense, as high level warlords have a big leadership/management bonus, but you won't be able to field as many units due to the extremely high upkeep. Does this part need a change? Maybe not, but it's something to look into.

Edit: Been playing around with the unit sheet you posted. I think you should lower the modifier for upkeep to about .3-.4 (original modifier of .5) if you change it at all. The units I was originally playing with when I posted the above were my knights, who took simple mancies as all of their points. The modifier for their stats wasn't very good. I compared that to the Vaygr Relentless (who put their points into nothing BUT stats), and the leveling worked out a lot better (25 base attack at level 5 :O that's an increase of 1.4 attack per level). Now it also makes sense why you said that simple mancers gained a new mancy every level (I read somewhere that you gained +1 to all stats per level. That's why I asked about a balance to simple mancies in the rule questions. [but I still think the total mancies they can have should be capped. Same with their juice/juice reduction, as we don't want them to replace casters, just augment forces with magics). The equations in the system make it so that the people who put their points into stats are rewarded for that, and the people who didn't are also rewarded, though not as much statwise, but mancy/leadership wise.

Maybe royal warlords should pop with 10/5+d3/5+d3/5 or 10/5+d4/5+d4/5 stats. fits a bit better with "royals have slightly better stats", but you also have royals gaining stats (slightly) faster. in the current system, royals cost a lot more upkeep per level compared to a slight boost in stats (1.2*100 is more significant than 1.2*5), and the chance to not even start with equal stats to a non-royal. The stat bonuses only become significant at level 10, and that's only if the two started with the same stats. Is it a huge problem? Probably not.

Yeah, maybe heirs should be better in some way than standard warlords, otherwise the cost isn't really justified. I mean, yes, you need heirs to continue when your ruler is croaked, but if the enemy manages that, you're probably screwed anyway.

captain napalm wrote:Yeah, maybe heirs should be better in some way than standard warlords, otherwise the cost isn't really justified. I mean, yes, you need heirs to continue when your ruler is croaked, but if the enemy manages that, you're probably screwed anyway.

The cost of promoting to an heir should be the same, but the upkeep should either be decreased or stats increased.