War System

[Hibbs, Philip]

>>i think the war card system should be thrown out in place of the
battlesystem
>I agree! I'm at this verry moment trying to create one myself and if

I don't! I do not have the Battle System, and do not intend to buy it.
Maybe add in a couple of pages on using the Battle System in BR, but I
like the simplicity of the war card system. The problem with battles is
it often only involves one PC out of three or four, and the others get
nothing done in this time.


philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phibbs

[James Ruhland]

> The problem with battles is
> it often only involves one PC out of three or four, and the others get
> nothing done in this time.
>
Best thing to do then, in either case, is to have the other PCs act as sub
commanders for components of the two sides; makes it more realistic,
anyhow, 'cause they're unlikely to do *exactly* what the main commanders
(the two regents) want, which was far from uncommon.

[frederic lavallee]

Hibbs, Philip wrote:

> >>i think the war card system should be thrown out in place of the
> battlesystem
> >I agree! I'm at this verry moment trying to create one myself and if
>
> I don't! I do not have the Battle System, and do not intend to buy it.
> Maybe add in a couple of pages on using the Battle System in BR, but I
> like the simplicity of the war card system. The problem with battles is
> it often only involves one PC out of three or four, and the others get
> nothing done in this time.
>
> philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phibbs


Well, i have to agree with Philip. Maybe the present system is rather dull and
symplistic but it permits fast resolution of war, wich the battle system don't
do (in my opinion). Sure the battle system is more realistic and permits more
latitude, but such a system should be optionnal in BR.

If you want to use the battlesystem, buy it or develop one. As for the
aforementioned updated BR system, a more complex system should be included for
the more advanced players (or those who wants more complex wars). But for the
need of simplicity, Ed, do not trash the card system.

FRED

[RTomasz184]

let me explain the scrapping of the war cards more, the magic weapons i
mentioned was just example in the legend of the hero kings the party can get
high quality weapons which add to their combat abilty and if the gorgon has 6
of the 12 bloodsilver weapons i dont think it would be farfetched for him to
have a a elite unit of 100 troops armed with magic weapons. the war cards may
be fine for quick combat but i know as a player and a dm that i would like to
have customized units for example armor and weapon types make a difference but
not in war cards the battle system was a example im sure if tsr put their mind
they could comeout with a good system. also whats the differnce between 1 or 3
rd levle troops in war cards none!
also a army of wizards which is possible with elves should be different also
but not in war cards. in the old companion set they had a good baasic tatics
system with expanded would be good. the war cards are far too limited. I know
i would like to put time into making a special elite unit as shock troops and
they would also make a nice challange besides just pure numbers also the war
cards dosent do anything to reward good strategy on the players part a whole
lot and even the war cards fans should admit they could some improvement the
system in the companion set was quicker and allow for special troops and
tactics and is worth looking at and with some work could do a lot better then
the current system which me and my friends and other gamers i played with at
cons don't use
rob

[James Ruhland]

> let me explain the scrapping of the war cards more, the magic weapons i
> mentioned was just example in the legend of the hero kings the party can
get
> high quality weapons which add to their combat abilty and if the gorgon
has 6
> of the 12 bloodsilver weapons i dont think it would be farfetched for him
to
> have a a elite unit of 100 troops armed with magic weapons. the war cards
may
> be fine for quick combat but i know as a player and a dm that i would
like to
> have customized units for example armor and weapon types make a
difference but
> not in war cards the battle system was a example im sure if tsr put their
mind
> they could comeout with a good system. also whats the differnce between 1
or 3
> rd levle troops in war cards none!
>
If you want, get some index cards, and mock up all the units you need. I
don't think this is that big of a problem. I doubt they could publish cards
for every unit variation, anyhow (though their are a lot of 'em out there
now). You converted me a bit on the specialized unit thing, though; you
don't even need to equip 100 dudes to create a special unit. The Magian's
Riders; their are 12 of 'em, right? Ok, they're *really* powerful. But no
reason the Gorgon (or whoever) can't whip up a small unit of fiends to form
the spearhead of an army, for example. But their are so many variations on
that theme, they couldn't possibly publish enough stuff to cover 'em all,
and it is basically DM's call on what can and can't be done re. units,
anyhow. Some folks like their campaign armies to be basically mundanes
only, while others let a little more magic and extra-ordinary creatures
into 'em.

> also a army of wizards which is possible with elves should be different
also
> but not in war cards. in the old companion set they had a good baasic
tatics
> system with expanded would be good. the war cards are far too limited. I
know
> i would like to put time into making a special elite unit as shock troops
and
> they would also make a nice challange besides just pure numbers also the
war
> cards dosent do anything to reward good strategy on the players part a
whole
> lot and even the war cards fans should admit they could some improvement
the
> system in the companion set was quicker and allow for special troops and
> tactics and is worth looking at and with some work could do a lot better
then
> the current system which me and my friends and other gamers i played with
at
> cons don't use
>
You mean the old "War Machine" rules for D&D? I, too, liked that system;
though it was fairly abstract, it allowed you to design and equip your own
units easily. And the limited, set-piece battlefield of the war card
system, I agree, make's it hard to be tactically and strategically creative
(short of the ol' "Pile all your units in one square and roll up the
opponent from the flank" deal). Btw, speaking of that: I made a ruling that
you could only put more than one unit in a square once all 5 of your
squares were filled. I.E. if you had 10 units, you could put up to 2 in a
square, but not all 10. This forced players to have an actual battle line,
rather than just a big, unrully mass. IMO, this was the intent of the rule,
anyhow, to make it workable for bigger battles. Small battles, only one
unit per square. If you've got some major fight underway with, say, 40
units per side, then you can use the "multiple" rules, but I still force
'em to spread it out a bit (I.E. in that case they can put up to eight in a
square.)

> At sea, I recommend that ships can be Built, as well as Mustered
(which
> could also require a sucess roll). How many per province? 1 hull pt. per
> level? The ship Maintenance table is fuzzy: is that for all ships, or
each?
> (All, I think.)

IMO, that's too low. Historically, ships were relatively easy to build
(kind of--don't all flame me at once, just read on.) Venice, for example,
could build a war galley a day in the Arsenal; the E. Roman Empire (my
fav--you can't tell, right?) at several times built a hundred or more ships
fairly quickly for expeditions of various sorts. IMO, the level should be
set: a province can muster/build ships equal to its level in maintinance
cost (I.E. the Imperial City could build up to 10 galleon's per turn; they
each cost 1 GB per turn to maintain. Or the city could build up to 30
Caravels, 'cause they each cost 1/3 GB to maintain, etc.)

[Bryan Ruther]

frederic lavallee wrote:

> Hibbs, Philip wrote:
>
> > >>i think the war card system should be thrown out in place of the
> > battlesystem
> > >I agree! I'm at this verry moment trying to create one myself and if
> >
> > I don't!
> > | Philip Hibbs



> Well, i have to agree with Philip. Maybe the present system is rather dull and
> symplistic but it permits fast resolution of war, wich the battle system don't
> do (in my opinion).
>
> FRED

I think that the War Card system could be improved the following ways:

1 - 2 unit stacking limitation per square on the battle field (heros and
commanders don't count)

2 - Rules for creation of war cards, just compare all the elven war cards...

3 - Increased range for missle fire.

4 - Facing for war cards, and modifiers for attacking against flank or rear.

5 - Die roll chart for combat resolution (drat those pesky cards, where are they
now?)

Bryan
- --
Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation,
the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent
circumstance...
Thomas Paine, Common Sense

[voelkman]

>I think that the War Card system could be improved the following ways:
>
>1 - 2 unit stacking limitation per square on the battle field (heros and
>commanders don't count)

Ahhh, I use this rule already, makes war more tactical, single units are
not so easily wiped out in a single turn
>
>2 - Rules for creation of war cards, just compare all the elven war cards...
>
Hmmmm... That makes war interesting... imagine all infantry units are
just the same, could get boring

>3 - Increased range for missle fire.

Arrrgg, elites may get three hits (two areas and standing missile) before
they can knock down those bloody archers... not my opinion.
>
>4 - Facing for war cards, and modifiers for attacking against flank or rear.

What for? Soldiers may face in the other direction within seconds, units
need minutes to move areas...
>
>5 - Die roll chart for combat resolution (drat those pesky cards, where
>are they
>now?)

Good point! We draw ONE card for the fight and attacker and defender both
roll d6 (1-2 banner, 3-4 shield, 5-6 swords) There U go!
>
>Bryan

What do U think of it?

Manni