[Notebook] We ask only... for WAR!

[Morgenstern]

That is a very pretty document. I find it inspiring .

That was the idea as well. Updated with fortifications.

I'll email you a word .doc after the next big round - it'll preserve more of the formatting.

I've read the rules properly and i really like them. The only thing i'm missing is some kind of subsystem for individual actions inside a battle. The system is about leading an army, which is good, but not about being part of one. What if my character is part of the peasants infantry? Not the leader, but a fine soldier.I imagine that's a different take on the same thing, probably not compatible with this...

That's really a seperate function from this - those kinds of scenes might be guided by the output of these rules, but they have a lot more to do with normal play than a mini-game. The rules do give a time for each Battlefield check, so if you did want to try and run parallel events that's at least a starting point.

Also, i'm reading now Way of Kings, and while checking the units, i keep thinking about using the Bridgemen as a unit. groups of forty or so that transport wood bridges in order to help the army cross the chasms. They dond fight, but usually are the first ones running toward the enemy...

The current battering ram stats will work ok for that - a little bit of Force but mostly there to take out obstacles.

[Uncle Muppet]

Pikemen: Warriors armed with long spears, experienced in repelling cavalry. You gain a trick.
Set to Receive Charge (battlefield trick): Win or lose, if there are any cavalry units in the enemy army, this unit gains +3 force until the end of the battle. You may use this trick once per battle.

Pikemen, Elite: Bold warriors versed in luring cavalry to their doom. You gain a trick.
Set to Impale (battlefield trick): Win or lose, destroy one enemy cavalry unit of your choice. This unit’s force is set to 0 for the remainder of the battle. You may use this trick once per battle.

While I'm not a regular user of mass combat, these two units strike me as being off in some fashion.

First, on the regular pikemen.  The way they are currently written, if there is enemy calvary, the unit gains +3 Force against ALL enemy units - including archers.  I can see the pikes being considered stronger against melee units, but why would they be stronger against ranged units?  I understand that Force applies to the entire battle, but the way its currently written, regular pikes become immune to the archer tricks (as those affect Force 3 or less and regular pikes would be Force 4).  I'd add a qualifier that the +3 bonus does not apply when considering the unit's strength vs. the Volley trick.

Plus, the way things are currently written, the Elite Pikes are a WORSE choice to have in your army.  Sure, they can destroy an enemy calvary unit, but they are always Force 2, and they're more expensive.  The regular pikes end up being stronger than the elites and will be so for the entire battle (as a wise metagaming commander will kill the enemy calvary last to keep that +3 force bonus).  To tweak this, I'd add the Impale trick to the Set trick (thus letting the elite have both).

[Catodon]

on pike formations. this raises the idea of era. Perhaps tag each unit with an era to keep those pesky pike formations out of your knight dominated feudal battlefields. This would also open up dragoons etc.

[MilitiaJim]

This would also open up dragoons etc.

Weren't dragoons a response to pike men and reliable rifles?

[Aldus Vertten]

I'll email you a word .doc after the next big round - it'll preserve more of the formatting.

Good.

I've read the rules properly and i really like them. The only thing i'm missing is some kind of subsystem for individual actions inside a battle. The system is about leading an army, which is good, but not about being part of one. What if my character is part of the peasants infantry? Not the leader, but a fine soldier.I imagine that's a different take on the same thing, probably not compatible with this...

That's really a seperate function from this - those kinds of scenes might be guided by the output of these rules, but they have a lot more to do with normal play than a mini-game. The rules do give a time for each Battlefield check, so if you did want to try and run parallel events that's at least a starting point.

Maybe some kind of Heroic actions that if accomplished could give a bonus to the Force of the army the PC are fighting for... and the other way around, if they make a mistake, it can affect negatively to the Army's Force.

Back to Way of Kings, there's something that happens that ilustrates exactly what i mean, but its a little bit of spoiler. I describe the action, not the characters,

(click to show/hide)

The Bridgemen have to go straight ahead to the chasm and put the bridges over them in order for the army to cross and start the fights. The enemy focus the fire on them. There's a moment when one of the bridgemen units, after extensive training, tries to approach the chasm in a different way, more safe to them. unfortunately, that move makes the enemy fire their arrows to the rest of the bridgmen units, that then try to emulate the first Unit. They haven't trained, and a lot of the bridgmen fall. A few arrieve, but not enought to carry on with the attack as planned, too far away ones from the others, making a en easy target.The actions of just a few undermined totally the effectivenes of the attack and made them lose the battle.

[Morgenstern]

on pike formations. this raises the idea of era. Perhaps tag each unit with an era to keep those pesky pike formations out of your knight dominated feudal battlefields. This would also open up dragoons etc.

Just rember era has to indicate the earliest something can arise - Japanese had pikemen deep into the earliest days fo their fuedal period, and the tech is relatively simple - it is after all a phalanx with longer spears and smaller or no shields.

I'll do some fine tuning of the pikemen later - what's there now is a straight up conversion of their L5R CCG incarnation. I'm doing a series of deconstructions of that data-set so I have the underlying numbers to build units new units with any combination of Force, tricks, and traits. Basically without such a system it's far to easy to accidentaly generate a super unit that everyone takes because it is far too good for the the cost. I'm starting with the CCG because its done a good job of avoiding that problem.

Undead, and some non-human units for L5R and Birthright on the way . (I also have some ideas for scouts)

[glimmerrat]

Is this a good time for me to point out that i've finished adapting these rules for starship fleet actions in Mass Craft? 

[Catodon]

This would also open up dragoons etc.

Weren't dragoons a response to pike men and reliable rifles?

Didn't know that
So
Knights (Hvy Cavalry of a particular type) Feudal
Pikeman formations Reason
Dragoons slightly later Reason

[MilitiaJim]

Dragoons were mounted infantry rather than "true cavalry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon

[Catodon]

on pike formations. this raises the idea of era. Perhaps tag each unit with an era to keep those pesky pike formations out of your knight dominated feudal battlefields. This would also open up dragoons etc.

Just rember era has to indicate the earliest something can arise - Japanese had pikemen deep into the earliest days fo their fuedal period, and the tech is relatively simple - it is after all a phalanx with longer spears and smaller or no shields.

I'll do some fine tuning ...

You have a very defendable position
...but not the one the crafty boys seem to have taken. History here seems to be tempered by game design considerations and style. The 'claymore' is a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about.
So for pikes, pike formations drive mounted knights into extinction so you want to keep them out of the style of setting most people imagine when you say feudal fantasy. Perhaps pikes are Ancient and Reason but not Feudal. Then when you stray away from cookie cutter fantasy and make a 'japanese' setting you make an exception in your world and allow Feudal pikes.

...on the other hand as with beast kits do you include the option and leave it to referees to cut stuff...
or maybe it's cos I'm a European. 

[Morfedel]

Have you thought instead of making basic units and adding templates, feats, abilities, etc, the way FC does NPCs?

For example, you make a base unit of.troops, and then you can add the qualities elite or peasants, mounted, etc?

[Big_Jim]

I like that idea.

[Morgenstern]

Just rember era has to indicate the earliest something can arise - Japanese had pikemen deep into the earliest days of their fuedal period, and the tech is relatively simple - it is after all a phalanx with longer spears and smaller or no shields.

So for pikes, pike formations drive mounted knights into extinction so you want to keep them out of the style of setting most people imagine when you say feudal fantasy.

*Shrug* If I'm gonna have to argue with people over what era units go in, I'm just gonna leave the column off entirely. Not worth the trouble of doing the work just to be contradicted, when at the end of the day GMs are going to do as they please anyway.

[Morgenstern]

Have you thought instead of making basic units and adding templates, feats, abilities, etc, the way FC does NPCs?

For example, you make a base unit of.troops, and then you can add the qualities elite or peasants, mounted, etc?

Sorta - I'm creating a troop creation system as I go. Some of what you're calling templates I'm calling traits, and they're built into defined units as part of the process. So far it's a pretty simple effects/costs system. When it stops being simple I may give up.

Again, I'm having to proceed slowly - some things like multifaceted templates really do blow the sytem all to heck. Its a very abstract system, and my experience with such systems is that it NEEDS to be abstract or the permutaitons run wild fast.  That means it might not be as flexible as anyone likes (at least at first) but it really, really needs to get some playetest before I start melding in every idea we have. That my problems/concerns with the basic pikemen are totally different than anyone else's is a bit of a warning sign to me.

[Catodon]

Sorry,
I am trying to play nice.