Play Test 2.1a

Well, I spent quite some time this weekend reviewing the rules, thinking about how they work and trying out a few new ideas. I would love to start up a second game but the only things I am not sure about and why I don't offer to start up a second now is the map (it is huge, how do I go about making such a big map so I can track things?) and how to do the player turns. For a while, that won't be an issue as long as they are on wave when I am, we can do it pretty easily, but once they start to act with other players I can see where it will get very time consuming (after all, when they have units by, they MIGHT need to interact, than again they might not come into contact, so everyone who could be involved needs to be on even though likely not all of them will be.)

To compensate at least for the later I edited the rules a bit, making it so the player has a few less choices about how to maneuver their stacks. They have their warlords with plans in mind (commands of how to act basically) and than they move and act accordingly. Hoping this keeps things flowing as otherwise it can be a very long process to make a single turn per player. Not as nice as the comic I know (less freedoms and controls) but more feesable.

Please, give thoughts on the rules. I turned them into the next version from the rules in the current game, but have no issues editing them. Major difference I think is the inclusion of Siege Units (two, towers and ladders) as well as how combat modifiers work. Instead of leadership and terrain giving + whole numbers, now they give * % a number. Forests now give * 1.1 on defense instead of +1. I think that is what is meant by needing modifiers to win.

Anyways, please let me know what you think, especially those running the older version of these rules. It will help me out quite a bit, and if you have suggestions for my two issues, those would be great as well.

Rules 2.1a

The link you posted seems broken (make sure you have the permission for sharing set correctly) so I can't really comment on specifics, but I do have some general feedback/suggestions:

First, I think your general suggestion that players be given less choice with regard to stacks limits the game. The comic shows that leadership is able to control their stacks in detail over the course of the combat. I think it's simply an unavoidable side-effect that when running this game over the web rather than in person, it will take a long time to conduct turns in which battle is occurring. If you want to take it in a more streamlined direction at the expense of "authenticity" that's certainly your prerogative.

Second, I wouldn't say the addition of siege units is neccessary, since there already is a Siege Special that units can be given.

And lastly, I can't comment on your combat system, we haven't gotten to combat yet in my playtest so I can't give you any advice. I'm not sure how much detail I have provided of my combat system, but over the next few days I will try and give you a more detailed explanation of the math behind my combat calculator.

OK, added the permissions, didn't realize I forgot to change those. Should be working nicely now.

As for your comments, that is true, and perhaps it is something that will simply need to be done to be more authentic. I suppose it will be options available and my players will need to decide what works best for us. I try to keep it a bit more open based on commands they give for their warlords and how to act (for example, move 8 hexes this way, if we get in combat kill strong to weak leadership first. Keep going till at half strength, than stop for turn). This allows them to send messages as well as being online when we go (if only, makes it real easy to have full control), so perhaps almost an auto calc would be best? Each leader has a way to act (told by player, and can always change) and they act that way. if against "computer" they can be on and full control, if against another human, auto play out based on their commands? Dunno, up to players there. In comic though, the leader has a lot of control over actions, even if against the desires of the lord (whom I see the player as playing as more so than as each individual unit. You are the King of your side, so warlords are a bit independent but act as desired cause of loyalty).

Not sure if siege is truly needed or not, reason I added only two types, but I think it makes it a bit easier and a bit more authentic since at the very beginning our lovely Chief Warlord attacked stacks of siege units which makes me think they were independent of the types we have listed (much weaker and in need of defense)

Suggestions on the map since you are working that side right now? Would love to know how you made the world, especially with a min of 60 hexes between starting player spots. I was thinking of making a huge map with all kinds of cities already placed, most barbarians, a few random "computer" sides, and the rest players. Nothing is decided on the city until found (randomly determine level upon first discovery, unit types and such), which means if someone wants to join later and we have the time, they can simply form on a city without a loss. But again, that is more for me the GM than actually doing anything game side. Still, map is a big contender with me. As is the actual combat.

I would love to see the math behind your calculator, since the rules don't really explain much as is so I had to infer a lot, and I think that is where part of the issue is. Not sure, but I think that is the case.

I use a program called Hexographer, it has a free version that is suiting my needs reasonably well, though if you find something better please let me know. I don't have a link to the website on hand, but I'll try to find it for you if you can't find it.
They way I work it is that I used the map program to "randomly" generate a huge map (this will take lots of trial an error fyi). I then saved that image, and created a blank map of equal size. as the players explore, I fill in the blank map with the terrain and things they build, and send them an image of it.
What I'm going to switch to doing soon is creating a map file that shows only what they have discovered, and just sending that to them directly instead of making an image out of it.

http://www.hexographer.com/

I am planning to run a game, but it may be a few months before I get everything organized.

I know that feeling, it is very challenging. I just really want to play a game so willing to work to get a game going. Feel free to join, though that would have you playing in two games I think XD, still be fun. And comments on the modified rules would be great.

Like Hex, but runs REAL slow on my mac, need to try on my main computer.

I think I may join in the playtest. A few comments.

Scouting is going to be the big bane for game advancement. Players will move a hex, then wait for you to reply to give them what they see as they explore, then move another hex and repeat. This can be a bit quicker if both you and they are on at the same time, but due to time zones and real life it may not happen like that all the time. I don't think battles would slow things down as much comparitivly.

The defense random percent modifier seems a bit high. This could cause things to get to a point where some units can't get hurt. Lets say I make my C or D class unit and put everything into defense. This would give me 30 or 16 defense before modifiers which would lead to a close to undamageable stack. If we change the random percent for the defenders down to 1-50 rather than 100, it makes attacking a bit more advantageous than defending, which pushes players to attack before getting attacked and the game to advance.

I like the new siege units. On specials, Loyal is a special in 2 places ( basic for units and one for the ruler) and do different things. Also, you may want to say the siege tower and ladders have a different special than siege, since they don't directly damage the walls like the "Siege" special does. I would also like to see some "banes" for units, like Unloyal and Frail, that would be like specials but decrease the upkeep of said unit and make the unit worse.

P.S. I am still working on the program for this, but it has changed from what I was originally hoping for.

Good points on that. Really the Ruler does not need Loyalty as we can simply say nothing can be done to change the side of a Ruler or make them less willing to do the best for their side.

With the siege, yeah, will edit that. You understood what I meant which is good, but will update the wording. Called Siege Weapons but they do not get any specials, to include the Siege Special. Still... might think of another name if you got ideas for it.

Scouting is true, but than again, i think that a limited scout capability would be good. Unless it is a Warlord, they get certain commands (Go 5 hexes this way unless you see enemy units, a city, or X type terrain). Commands can be detailed for scouts since they have limited Thinkamancy, and thus would give me a clear idea what to do when with them and perhaps speed it up more. An idea, otherwise it will simply be required that whoever's turn it is must be on at the same time as me.

Really good point on the D, though than again, perhaps a Special D that is all built for Defense should be rather hard to take down. Won't be all that much use for anything but defending, and a solid stack of other Specials lead by a Warlord would still be able to take them down, albeit slowly, I do see the point. 1-50 is a good number and we can start with that one to try out, and adjust as needed.

Banes are something I thought about, but figured it might be a bit too much at the moment, as well as the comic not really doing much to suggest such a thing actually exists (at least that I noticed).

I also realized I need to add a leveling point, and think it will be something simple such as gaining 1 XP per level of Infantry, 2 XP per level of Specials and Navy, and 5 XP per level of Warlord. To level you need XP equal to your next level times 5. So to get to level 10, a warlord kills 10 level 1 infantry (if infantry even level, not sure if they should or not). XP is evenly distributed based on all units in the killing stack able to earn it, and granted at the end (thus a stack of 8 Specials killing a stack of 8 Infantry would gain 1 XP per Special, unless the infantry killed off 4 specials which would grants the remaining 4 specials 2 XP each).

The system I have developed for gaining xp allows units to level very fast, but since I believe units will generally not have very long life spans, it should work out in the long run. I really plan to start posting my rules updates today, but I plan to do so on the Erfworld forums.

I have been doing posts in both, so I will watch there as well. And I see no reason we couldn't combine the rules to make a better system. I like the idea of fast leveling, but in the comic at least I don't think it is very fast as it seems a big deal when they do level. Short lives combat it, but still, they seem to think it is a big deal to level, and if it was fast, living would be the big deal instead.

Actually, it's fast at the beginning then slows down considerably. I do think we should combine our rules. I have already added your siege towers, but I did not see a great need for the ladders. I did not see any ladders in the comic strip, though it is possible I missed them.

The one thing that bothers me is the small changes, such as rasing defense 4 for every 3 spent on units costs. Every person who has decided to run a game makes small changes that don't really make that much of a difference in the overall game. It's not that it really matters, but if we do end up running two or three games simultaneously, there will be no way to remembe which game has which minor changes in the rules.

I understand the ladders, I added that as a way to give more units the ability to actually be useful in a siege by being able to fight units on walls.

As for the 4 for 3 concept, the idea is that if a player wants to focus on a certain aspect of their units, they should be rewarded for it. Thus if you are willing to sacrifice increased combat, moves and hit points, as well as getting any specials so they can have a higher defense, to me they should receive a little extra for being specialized. Just like IRL, if someone specializes in it, they do better than someone who does a little of everything.

As you said, all rewrites will have changes that are more the player's preference than game changing. But at the same time, someone wrote the initial rules we are all working off of, and those were completely their opinions, so maybe the little tweaks are what ends up making the game better in the end. Since this is all still testing, there should be minor differences to see how they work, at least in my opinion. And yeah, if you are playing multiple games it might get a bit confusing, but thats true about any game with house rules, play three games of D+D at the same time, and each game has a few different house rules.

Again, all the GM's preferences and the players who play. I understand what you are saying, just don't really agree so much to it, hence why I had put it in in the first place XD. But to each their own, and eventually a great game shall be created.

And, of course, >I< have made huge changes. though I am trying to make the changes so that they match up with Erfworld as much as possible and not to try and make things work better. One of the rules that is fairly recent was giving all the units on a side terrain capability. That was not in the first couple of versions of the rules, and also is not supported in the comic. Things like that, I would rather just leave out of the rules.

I shall be quite interested in reading your rules, and learning how you plan on playing with them :-). Any thing I can learn in such a way will help in my games as well, ESPECIALLY if you are more interested in it being as close to the comic as possible and less about actual ease of play. That way of creating the game can really help me in GMing mine if I do.

Wow, I stopped getting emails that things were still happening here. Gotta fix that.

The way I'm planning to make it easier is that the players will be more focused on the strategic level. At the tactical level, I plan to let the players only give minimal instructions on how they want the battle to go. Then I will run the battle. Defender fights to the death. Attacker can withdraw at a prearranged moment.

I like your changes to the navy. Might want to add a ram feature or a spiked hull. Maybe boarding rules, but that would take time. I'd rather get into the game personally.

I think we do not want to make this a naval battle game. I have left the rules in for naval units just in case someone needs ships, but I prefer to keep the focus on land-based explore, expand, and exterminate.