Author Topic: Alternate Ranged Idea  (Read 7972 times)

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Alternate Ranged Idea
« on: September 11, 2015, 01:58:18 PM »
What if we could do this?

If a defending unit receives at least one damage from an engaged attack and one damage from a ranged attack on the same turn, it receives some kind of penalty (either less courage or an extra damage, or maybe a hit dice penalty).

If must be really scary to be charged by an enemy unit AND get pelted with arrows as it charges in.

This would make moving with ranged units AND engaging units a bit more effective and not increase the power of stand and shoot.  Perhaps you could also say that the bonus does not apply if the engaged unit was originally on hold.

Just a thought.  This would help armies that have one or two ranged units that are moving and shooting.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2015, 02:02:29 PM by gornhorror »
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2015, 02:10:16 PM »
Certainly an interesting idea. Why don't you test out various bonuses and submit it to my challenge thread? :)

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2015, 04:32:46 PM »
Marcus and I will be getting together tonight and we will discuss this.  Perhaps we will play with some changed rules and see if anything seems to work.
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2015, 04:57:24 PM »
Well, give it a try. Seems putsey as hell, to me.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2015, 06:35:15 PM »
Well, give it a try. Seems putsey as hell, to me.

Heh, he said....."Putsey"  Whatever that means...
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2015, 07:09:05 PM »
Well, give it a try. Seems putsey as hell, to me.
It's a bit weird, but maybe think of it this way. If you get bonuses for attacking a unit from two sides with melee units, maybe attacking a unit from two sides (front and top) should also give bonuses.

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2015, 02:38:50 PM »
Here is my less putsey idea:
1) If a missile unit would ordinarily suffer the (-)-2/-2 penalty when engaged, instead ignore that penalty, but those units may not be given the Close SO.

IOW, all missile units that don't use the Javelin or pila rule are now more viable if they find themselves in melee, but it is still not within their tactical doctrine to seek to engage the enemy on those terms. Since almost all (I don't immediately recall any exceptions) missile units attck with only 4 dice and have less armor, they aren't going to be any more than accidental melee troops, but you avoid the almost certain needing of 1s and 1s in a melee that they currently suffer.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2015, 09:56:03 PM »
Quote
If a missile unit would ordinarily suffer the (-)-2/-2 penalty when engaged, instead ignore that penalty, but those units may not be given the Close SO.

I'd spam archers and have a really hard time imagining ever losing, except maybe vs High Elves.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2015, 09:16:33 AM »
Well Kevin, if you would get on the TSS bandwagon I'd love to see you put your theory where your ego is!  ;D

"Through the fine pink mist of archers we strode galantly to victory."
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2015, 01:18:17 PM »
This website has been dead for quite some time so I'll throw this out there. 

What if we said that ranged units fire defaults to the closest unit unless you take direct control.  This would hinder stand and shoot a bit and help people that like to play with support fire ranged units that move and shoot.

Just a thought.
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

RushAss

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Eat your beets - Recycle!
    • My Facebook.  Where you can see my, uh... face.
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2015, 12:24:27 AM »
I see how it hinders Stand & Shoot, but how does it help anywhere else?
"Art as expression, not as market campaigns
Will still capture our imaginations"
-Rush, Natural Science

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2015, 01:57:42 PM »
I see how it hinders Stand & Shoot, but how does it help anywhere else?

Well my thinking is that if your having your ranged units on move and shoot then they can move into position to fire on the unit that they want to without a command action where as if you are stand and shoot you must use a command action to fire on a specific target if it happens not to be the closest unit.  Standing orders for ranged would not be used in this case.
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2015, 01:19:18 PM »
This website has been dead for quite some time so I'll throw this out there. 

What if we said that ranged units fire defaults to the closest unit unless you take direct control.  This would hinder stand and shoot a bit and help people that like to play with support fire ranged units that move and shoot.

Just a thought.


Awhile back when I was talking with Chad about shooting, he mentioned basically this idea.  The way he phrased it was to not allow Unit Objective modifiers for the Ranged or Hold standing order.  I was reticent about it at the time, but there is precedent for that sort of thing.  In fact having complete control of where your unit shoots (as in BGFW) is the exception, not the rule.

That sort of thing would hinder (if not outright kill) S&S builds, which is probably for the best IMO.  However, I think it would also means that we'd go from having ranged units occasionally on the table (i.e. for S&S builds) to never ever being on the table.  This is why I think it's important that any shooting rules changes be a package of rules. 


When it comes to things like this I like to work backwards:  start with the desired outcome, and then create a proposal that achieves that goal.

My goal is to encourage players to take 1-2 ranged units (aka "Support Shooting") as part of a close & hose build but not encourage players to take Stand & Shoot builds any more than they currently would[1]

I accept that any rules change that encourages Support Shooting is going boost Stand & Shoots as well.  In essence, any boost to shooting will be a rising tide that lifts both boats and thus make S&S better than the status quo.  Therefore, I'd like any boost to shooting come with a nerf to S&S (and if possible degenerate endgames).


One idea for a nerf that Scott & I worked out a couple months ago was something between Brook/Chad's idea and the status quo.  Instead of banning Unit Modifiers for Ranged/Hold, we attach a penalty of (-0)-1/-0. 


When it comes to boosting shooting that helps Support Shooting but not S&S, we've run into issues.  The long and short is that if you have 1 ranged unit and the enemy has none, by and large you should S&S in any game without turn limits.  Because that damage you inflict while the other guy advances is in essence "free."  When you combine that with the damage done in the endgame, it's obvious that you pretty much should never advance if you have 1-2 shooters and he has none.


Out of this conversation, we came up with an idea to address specifically that problem:  having shooters run out of ammo.  At first this sound crazy, but archers actually had fewer arrows that we might imagine.  Early Renaissance ordonnances called for longbowmen to be equipped with 30 arrows.  Given a rate of fire of between 6-12 arrows per minute, you're talking enough ammo for 5 minutes of continuing fire.  Some accounts have bowmen with between 60-72 arrows per man, but that was supposed to last all day, and specifically notes that this was assuming runners giving then men reloads (or the archers retiring from the battlefield and restocking at camp).

While time is fluid in BGFW games, I'm willing to contend that it lasts longer than the 5-12 minutes it would take archers to completely run out of ammo (and the restock they might have available by runners).  Even if you say they only shoot actively about half the battle, you're still talking a length of 10-24 minutes.  I'm willing to believe most battles run longer than that.

In doing the cursory research on it, we found the idea plausible.  Essentially, ranged units would have finite ammo.  That would put a limitation on the degenerate endgame, and it would attach a "cost" for taking those early long range shots.  The upside of getting those early shots to weaken his line would be balanced by that fact that your finite ammo was spent on a shot where you had the long range & probably move & shoot penalty.



Our idea came down, roughly, to this:  your average (range 14") archer unit would have 6 shots[2].  You could reload 1 shot for 1 CA (like pilas).  The boost to shooting would be also simple:  ranged units shoot every turn.  So in essence we're not adjusting the amount of damage ranged units do (in fact, with ammo we're putting a soft cap on it).  What we're doing is adjusting when the damage happens.  Instead of a unit have 6 shots over 6 turns, it would have 6 shots over 3 turns.  That in and of itself is a significant boost[3].   

(Also it gave LOS shooters like Crossbows "point blank shot while the enemy charges" feel, which we thought Mike would like!  ;D)


Scott & I playtested it several times, and if people are interested, I'd be happy to post them up.  I also had one of our local newer players try it out and asked Marcus & Brook to try it out a couple of times.  The interesting effect is that the newer player had no problem adjusting to shooting every turn, whereas Scott & I had greater problems (we kept forgetting the shoot) but eventually adjusted.  Marcus & Brook had real problems with it. 

All of which made me very concerned and I think ultimately the idea will go nowhere, but I thought I'd mention it for you here to see what people thought.  Like I said, if people want to see the pictures from the games we did, I'd be happy to post them up.




[1] A lesser, but still real concern is that I want to avoid making shooting too good in the degenerate endgame.  Although most people don't play to degenerate endgames, it can still be unfun and it does encourage taking a S&S.


[2]  The actually amount of ammo would be adjusted up or down based on the max range.  LOS shooters would have fewer shots than IF weapons.  We came up with a simple table that was basically this:




[3]  We had some working ideas on things like javelins/pila and spells, but nothing solid.  We wanted to hammer down the main idea before we started dealing with the edge issues that come up.

elgin_j

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2015, 03:59:28 PM »
It's an interesting idea.  I presume the advantage is that it allows a focus of fire to try and create holes before melee...

Without commenting on the merits as such it is worth noting that it contradicts the game's design ethos of marking cards in clearly defined areas.  It obviously can be achieved by marking existing faction cards regardless but it should impact on future factions' graphic design.
toodle pip

GoIndy

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Alternate Ranged Idea
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2015, 06:00:31 PM »
So, assuming I'm reading this right, here is what I envision.  (and I might not be reading this right)

Opponent makes his army whatever. 
I make a total stand and shoot.  Doesn't really matter what race, just a reasonable iteration.  Lets say two good shooters, 2 welfare ones, and the rest line units. 

Now normally, this would just be a 'bad' build, since stand and shoot is pretty weak, but instead of firing 3-4 times, I get to fire 6 for sure.  Also, if opponent approaching slowly,  I would totally be paying for the good ones to keep shooting from day one. 

Lets say I have two longbowmen, and 2 regular archers.  (Or two catapults, or elementalists, bombchuckers, whatever)
Let's assume I go second, since this works better for my cheesy brain.

Turn 1, him.  I fire.  Now down to 5 shots.
Turn 1, me, I pay to reload, fire....still at 5 shots.  (I prob dont reload welfare shooters)
Turn 2, him, I fire, down to 4.
Turn 2, me, reload, fire...still at 4....
You get the drift.  My longbowman and going to wreck freaking havok before the enemy arrives.  At least that's how I see it.