|
|
Post by normandy on Jul 22, 2016 1:51:49 GMT
I realize this may have been covered early during this site launch but the chart showing points per element is weird
An assault tripod is 200 points. Compare that to mk Ii steamer at 280 for each element
So a unit of those three tanks is by the chart to be: 840 points
A martian at comparable 800 points would end up with 4 tripods
No contest... Game over by turn 2
So am i reading the chart wrong ... Did they mean the heading to be a unit on the chart
Setting up senarios i figure 3 units per tripod gives a fair fight or slightly favoring humans
So whats the approach with the chart and what are you all using as a rule of thumb for games... Thanks everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by Quendil on Jul 22, 2016 7:01:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by normandy on Jul 22, 2016 19:03:38 GMT
Thanks
I mistyped the tank costs. On the chart the heading should have read "unit" rather than "element"... Looking closer at the rulebook, the individual chart after each unit description states cost per unit
The only unanswered question is the assigned point values... Pretty worthless for balancing scenarios
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 25, 2016 10:14:42 GMT
Yes the point system has been debated through out our threads here. I think we mostly go with it except for the errata on pages 50-53, which is a shame that those pages have errors. The pdf clears up most, if not all the problems. If you wish to see some of the ideas from folks here, see the threads Living Rules tab Changes and tab Optional. These have either changes to the rulebook and pdfs or in the optional case, actual new rules for all sorts of things (Ships, Aircraft, Weather, etc.). Enjoy, the forum is full of ideas and always in need of more if you're so inclined.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 25, 2016 10:20:37 GMT
Thanks I mistyped the tank costs. On the chart the heading should have read "unit" rather than "element"... Looking closer at the rulebook, the individual chart after each unit description states cost per unit The only unanswered question is the assigned point values... Pretty worthless for balancing scenarios btw - I've done a few scenarios with just the number of Units = Break Points and using a formula of BP x 2 +1 to get the number of Order Tokens - thus completely by passing the whole point issue (Order Tokens originally being point total divided by 200 rounding down). This seems to work okay when cross checking with the point total. Of coarse, you're free to forget anything about points and just do a scenario based on your feel for the game. I'd suspect that the Human to Martian ration of units should be about 3 to 1, maybe 2 to 1 with trenches and Fortress Walls. As for the units themselves, I treat the Martian tripods as "armor" as they function about the same (if not more effectively!). Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Post by normandy on Jul 27, 2016 3:03:33 GMT
Great... I feel validated! I hust setup scenarios as a GM and look at how many phase unopposed a unit can travel to an objective then start adding more nuances with terrain, unit type and qty
One thing I do for sure is to set up balance and fun!
Lastly i keep unit types to a reasonable count so new players are not overwhelmed with too much stuff... So point counts Be Damned!
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 27, 2016 13:23:52 GMT
Now we have basically three systems for determining victory for our game. 1st, per the rule book scenarios, using scenario objectives and units = break point for forces. This is also the more or less standard system used for tournaments and most games to date. The 2nd is similar, but, the GM sets the objective regardless of the sides unit/BP count. This is in a way a more effective game, as only when the opponent fails the prime objective do you worry about the final break point. If a force doesn't achieve the objective, the degree of victory is determined by usual unit/BP amount (ei. objective achieved = major; opponent broken = minor, your force broken = minor loss, and finally enemy objective achieved = major loss). Finally there is the newly arrived point percentage method, where the point total of a given force times a percentage (base 50%) determines break point. This can be combined with the above objective method and even shifted due to strategic modifiers (like 40% or 60% vs 50%). All of these have pros and cons. Its up to the GM and/or players what they prefer - the games the thing! Play on!  |
|
|
|
Post by tenchuu on Jul 28, 2016 14:40:50 GMT
I still think rock, paper, heat beam is a viable method.  |
|
|
|
Post by billf on Aug 2, 2016 0:04:48 GMT
The correct points are 165 for three MK 2 and 225 for three MK3. Use the points in the hardback rulebook. Those are the right ones.
|
|
