Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Warcards rant, part Duh.

    >
    > You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
    > where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
    > a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
    > it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
    > same as the battle result cards but with dice.
    >
    That wouldn't solve my problem with the battle cards which is:
    1) the generally boring uniformity of the units (I have a mass army of
    Pikemen and Archers now because basically that's all that is available to
    me and effective against my opponent's force. But it is utterly boring to
    me, and the very *opposite* of how I prefer to conduct warfare, because the
    pike are SO SLOW).
    2) the utter predictability of the results (especially if large numbers of
    units are involved), and conversely
    3) the utter randomness of the results (tactics/generalship plays, IMO,
    only a limited role, mainly because of the restricted nature of the
    battlefield).

    IMO, keeping the system the same and only exchanging dice for the cards
    themselves isn't really much of an improvement. So we use dice. We could
    settle the results in a nice game of Quarters, too (which would have some
    nice side benifits of the U.S. Grant variety).
    I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
    complex.

  2. #2
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Warcards rant, part Duh.

    > I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
    > complex.

    I don't know how well it would work, but I've considered changing the field
    of play to a 9 x 5 plus the reserves area. Theoreticaly, this should
    create much more room to maneuver. Also, to accomdate this, I would
    increase the range of missile units to 3 squares away

    I have also considered using the existing WC rules, keeping the cards as
    unit detail sheets, and representing the units with metal miniatures on a
    big table with terrain. Change the Move to # of inches moved, and change
    the ranges on weapons, say - give crossbows a range of 6 inches, longbows
    8-9 inches, and javeleins/spears a range of 2 inches. Melee units must be
    within 1 inch to strike their foes.

    Just my 2 GBs

    Tim Nutting

  3. #3
    DKEvermore
    Guest

    Warcards rant, part Duh.

    In a message dated 98-05-25 19:18:30 EDT, you write:

    > IMO, keeping the system the same and only exchanging dice for the cards
    > themselves isn't really much of an improvement. So we use dice. We could
    > settle the results in a nice game of Quarters, too (which would have some
    > nice side benifits of the U.S. Grant variety).
    > I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
    > complex.
    >

    In that case, just pick up a copy of Battlesystem rules somewhere. There's no
    reason for a Birthright rulebook to re-print that. Oh, and sorry, your gonna
    have to deal with a game of "Quarters" in 90% of all war games, if that's what
    you're calling rolling dice.

    - -DKE

  4. #4
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Warcards rant, part Duh.

    >
    > In that case, just pick up a copy of Battlesystem rules somewhere.
    There's no
    > reason for a Birthright rulebook to re-print that. Oh, and sorry, your
    gonna
    > have to deal with a game of "Quarters" in 90% of all war games, if that's
    what
    > you're calling rolling dice.
    >
    Yes, but IMO the dice have too great an affect on the outcome in this
    system.
    In the Battlesystem rules (both versions), the die rolls (and yes, chance
    is an important factor in combat. . .) play about the same role that they
    do in your normal adventure melee in determining the outcome.
    Battlesystem is actually fairly good. The newer version IMO under-rates
    the strength of spellcasters (especially for the BR world where rare
    spellcasters can have awesome effects). And a number of other quibbles.
    But generalship & general strategy at least play a more enhanced role, and
    units of any type can be created & expressed in a uniform fashion (as well
    as being more easily convertable to what they'd look like as individuals;
    note the periodic debates in this forum about just what a "Knights" unit is
    composed of, because the "rules" are rather vague on that score.)

  5. #5
    veryfastperson@juno.com
    Guest

    Warcards rant, part Duh.

    >I have also considered using the existing WC rules, keeping the cards
    >as
    >unit detail sheets, and representing the units with metal miniatures
    >on a
    >big table with terrain. Change the Move to # of inches moved, and
    >change
    >the ranges on weapons, say - give crossbows a range of 6 inches,
    >longbows
    >8-9 inches, and javeleins/spears a range of 2 inches. Melee units
    >must be
    >within 1 inch to strike their foes.

    if you find this to work better, could you send all the information on it
    to me? i would love to use what you say here instead of the battlemap - i
    just don't have the time to do all the conversion/math :-)

    good luck,
    Erik

    Veryfastperson@juno.com


    __________________________________________________ ___________________
    You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
    Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
    Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lotr: Return Of The King - Rant And Spoilers!
    By Benjamin in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2004, 02:04 AM
  2. Rant
    By Baragos in forum Birthright.net support
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-12-2002, 10:52 AM
  3. Warcards rant.
    By Gary V. Foss in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-01-1998, 04:05 PM
  4. Warcards rant, as extended.
    By James Ruhland in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-27-1998, 01:12 PM
  5. Netbook Rant
    By Sepsis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-19-1998, 09:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.