Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 176 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    There are a fair few I re-pinned from the Wargames Website, to be fair.  But yet, Pinterest is a bit like TVTropes in that respect.  Just one click is never enough!  😀

    in reply to: Tomorrow's War run through? #59531
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    I know this is an old thread, but although Craig is dead right that the rulebook is extremely hard to find your way around, I have to say that TW is worth persevering with, even though it’s probably the sort of game that you’re going to have to learn by being taught, and then use the rulebook as a reference.  I think AAG were somewhat let down by being Osprey’s first “proper” rules-set and both sides were still finding their way with design.  Given how much all parties have learned as a result, a second edition would be a wonderful thing to see, but I fear bridges have been burnt and Osprey is in pursuit of the cult of the new for their sales.

    With all that in mind, I’ve been slowly building up to doing a video tutorial on how to play Tomorrow’s War.  If I can achieve a peace treaty with my recalcitrant video camera, it might even happen sooner rather than later…

    in reply to: Dice Mathematics #59514
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    The wonderful thing about dice mechanics isn’t just the tactile nature of the dice, but the near-infinite variability one can apply to how the dice are used.  Even quite simple variations – the type of dice to the number of dice, to variable modifiers, dice beating and dice matching – can be mixed and matched in straightforward and interesting ways to convey a huge range of battlefield effects, as well as injecting a necessary suspense, fog of war and narrative impact to results.

    I love dice!

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    I was, of course, aware that there would be a cadre of frothing loonies who would want to play in 6mm.  It’s totally possible, of course, but it will be hard to assess whether terrain is jump-able and under what conditions when you get down below 15mm (it’s hard enough at 15mm), and I don’t know what unit of measurement you’d like to use for movement and shooting etc at that scale.

    Personally, when it comes to skirmish gaming, I’ve always preferred 54mm, but the number of miniatures available at that scale is quite limited.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    I hear you, Ian.  My vision is that you can play it in 15mm on a 2’x2′ mat, with simple terrain, so everything you need to play, plus the latest DLC campaign “adventure” can be packed into a small carry case.  Easy to throw down on a kitchen table, at the club, in the FLGS or even in a hotel room on the move.

    I might be running a playtest with my RPG group this evening: first outing for the co-op mode!

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Sort of…  It shares the same DNA, as you’ll gather from the videos.  Positive tests are lifted straight from Horizon Wars and the three forms of basic movement are very much the same.  It also has the MFAD stats, although they are slightly different in meaning and use and armour is a separate stat (AV).

    As to whether they’re compatible, well… they’re not designed to be.  But if you play HW at 15mm you could use the same minis in each, I guess.

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    For everyone else’s benefit:

    The semi-finalists are here.  The final winner is here.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    *bump*

    I’ve got comfort packages for all the competition semi-finalists but can’t find your contact details anywhere.  If you could email me at precinctomega [at] gmail[dot]com with your postal address, I’ll send something nice your way.

    Regards,

    Robey

    in reply to: Rules Support #57727
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    As a gamer, I don’t expect much, but I do expect a company to respond to criticism and to answer queries promptly.

    As a designer, I get queries from a lot of directions.  Facebook is the most regular, but this forum, email and face-to-face at events are all good sources for queries.  I think it fulfils two important functions: first, it establishes a dialogue between the player and the designer that makes the experience of the game more collaborative and social; second, it provides vital feedback on the parts of the game that not only need work but in which players are most interested.  Because the bits they ask about most often are the bits they use most frequently, so it gives a designer an essential insight into what the community is doing with the game – which is frequently not what the designer intended!

    in reply to: Crom's Anvil – 15mm Fantasy #54904
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Did Fan-Tastic just become a thing…?

     

     

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Answered.  Yes, both elements take damage as normal, of course.  The question is really which of them (if either) moves.  After much pondering and checking back on original drafts etc, I have ruled that the active (charging) element should be forced to move.  The movement is representative of whichever has suffered the worst “shock” in the combat, and I decided that the charging element meeting an equal and opposite force should be the one most shocked by the experience, given the advantage it will normally have enjoyed as a result of its charge bonus.

    in reply to: Cutie Doctor Who #54770
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Looks like Cartman cosplaying.  In a good way!  😀

    in reply to: Every factory is a fortress #54064
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Brilliant.  I especially like the little pile of planks.  I might steal that idea.

    Also: happy birthday, Ali!

    R.

    in reply to: Sexism in Rules? #53766
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    A few people have cited examples of games that they think handle gender well, either by being entirely gender-neutral, or by effecting a natural transition between genders or by adopting an entirely female assumed gender.

    Horizon Wars (natch), Timeline 300, Hordes of the Things and Dungeons & Dragons have been named.  I believe Malifaux 2E and Kings of War also manage it.  I’m going to have a look through my pile of rulebooks to see how I think others do on this scale.  Could others do the same and report back on the successes?  It’d be interesting to curate a list by way of example to the community at large that gender-neutral wargames don’t have to be difficult or awkward to write or to read.

    in reply to: Sexism in Rules? #53688
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    My day job in Human Resources involves writing a lot of policy documents.  In the last five years I’ve worked for three different organizations, re-writing their HR policies from scratch.  In the workplace, sex discrimination is a big deal.  Seriously, it can cost companies unlimited damages if they are found to be directly or indirectly discriminating against not just women, but any of nine different protected characteristics.

    As you might imagine, this makes me hyper-sensitive to poorly-worded official documents.  Now, I have some very strong feelings about this issue, but I respect (and share) zippyfusenet’s desire for this not to be another TMP-style hub of misdirected ire, so I’ll restrict myself to saying this.  Game designers who do not phrase their rules in gender-neutral terms are just being lazy (sorry, Craig).  From having carefully composed the whole Horizon Wars rulebook in gender-neutral language, not to mention the estimated 300,000 words of HR policy I’ve written over my career, I can assure you that there is no gender-specific phrase in any miniatures wargame that I could not re-phrase in gender-neutral terms with two seconds of thought (and without mangling my grammar, either).

    I’m not about to pretend that it’s the most important thing in the world.  It really, really isn’t.  But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still worth writers of all stripes taking the handful of extra seconds needed.  Doing so makes no difference at all to those white, cis males who already know it’s their hobby.  Not doing so is sending the message to everyone else that it isn’t theirs.

     

    EDIT – Incidentally, I took my original guidance on the correct composition of gender-neutral policy from JSP101, the Ministry of Defence Guide to Service Writing.  So it’s not namby-pamby modern liberal bull****.  Serious people with guns have thought this was important for the last twenty years at least.

     

    EDIT 2 – I went and found the original advice:

    “k. Avoid sexist language. Do not use traditional single-sex terms. Try to use words such as ‘person’, ‘people’, ‘staff’, ‘officer’, or ‘colleague’; or use plurals such as ‘managers’, ‘commanders’ or ‘colleagues’. For example ‘Officers (instead of ‘An officer’) must communicate effectively and they (instead of ‘he’) must ensure no misunderstanding is possible.’”

    in reply to: Tank Commander Question #53658
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    To be fair to the armoured camel concept, they only blow up when actually shot by flying door stops.

    Going back to John’s answer, I completely agree that IFVs and reconnaissance vehicles would need to unbutton (although possibly not from a turreted position). But the OP was specifically about tanks. Unsupported tanks might well need to unbutton, but otherwise, why risk it??

    in reply to: Tank Commander Question #53630
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Although I can foresee a time when “eyes on” will be technologically superfluous (because the commander will be permanently immersed in a simulated environment that perfectly replicates all the available sensory data), I would say that for as long as tanks are tanks as we see and understand them, there will be a need for commanders to occasionally unbutton.

    That said, I think we are on the verge of, if not already at, the point in technological advancement at which the need for a commander to be unbuttoned when he or she knows that a fight is underway has been done away with.  When you already know that the enemy is present, the data provided by close-support drones, satellites and the good, old Mark 1 eyeball of your supporting reconnaissance units will be functionally superior to anything you’re going to glean from putting your own neck on the line.

    Although I’m not totally au fait with the platform, I think the T-14 Armata doesn’t even have a commander’s cupola.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Updated.  Many thanks for all the questions.

    Regards,

    Robey

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Best place to find the HW collective is on Facebook.  I see such rules as being very much part of the damage process.  However, I did trial (and abandon, I hasten to add) some morale rules that applied only to infantry type elements.  These allowed these elements to acquire negative M through damage.  They could move a (positive, obviously) distance equal to their -M as long as it was towards a building and didn’t take them closer to an enemy element.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    My thinking is that STOVL aircraft pilots aren’t dumb enough to land in a hot zone.  However, I suppose then I have to justify why regular aircraft have rules for TO&L,  to which the answer is: because people expected them.  It should be quite easy to make up your own STOVL rules by amalgamating the rules for regular and rotary aircraft (Mb of +2, cannot hover for more than one action and able to perform a bank as a take-off action, say, just off the top of my head).

    I’m working on a set of advanced rules, so this could be something to incorporate.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    No, they can’t, and I’ve updated the OP accordingly.  It’s not a balancing mechanic per se so much as a mechanical to make players think tactically about how they choose and use their aircraft upgrades.

    Rotary aircraft can operate as gunships and spotters, which is what rotary aircraft do IRL, whilst VTOL aircraft can swoop in at low altitude, drop a bunch of SF and then rocket out of there at high speed to provide air support, but they can’t so easily hang around in VTOL mode, because they have to do it at altitude 1, making them much more vulnerable to enemy fire.

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Thank you for asking, Sid.  I replied on YouTube as well.  Katie is correct: there are no absolute weapon ranges (I detest such things!).  You roll your Facebook dice, and try to beat the range, plus Armour, plus cover, to the target.  For each dice group that succeeds, you get one hit.  If you just follow the rules in the book, you should work it out, so I’ll not update the questions.

    Regards,

    Robey

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Q. In the wording for the stealth suite upgrade for mechs, it refers to “opposing mechs”.  Should this be “opposing elements”?

    A. Yes, it should.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    The first question is answered.  The second question is answered by the first.  The third question refers to a rules currently in beta-testing, so I won’t provide an answer in the OP, but you’re right: it should be possible to take all-drone/robot armies.  I think in my head I’d already changed those to free upgrades to some extent, so I’ll review it for the final version.

    Main delay to finalizing a lot of these rules is that I want to illustrate them properly with painted miniatures, but I don’t own suitable miniatures…

    in reply to: Boreas give away! #49837
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    I’d write a supplement for Horizon Wars allowing players to take superheavy tanks with transport bays.  No, wait.  I already did that!  Damn.

    Well, in honour of the fact that it looks a bit like a hovercraft, I’d use it to playtest and illustrate my rules for landing craft and other “routes to battle” that I’m writing rules for at the moment to go into the Operation Plantagenet expansion.  I love the idea of this baby ploughing up a beach, laying down brutal firepower on enemy positions before going firm and unleashing a P3 mech from the back to go stomping further up the beachhead.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Where’s your FLGS, McKinstry?  I’m always keen to know where people are enjoying HW, in case I can send some practical appreciation their way.

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Updated.  Yes, they can.  It’s an exception to the “if F=0, you can’t shoot” consequence of reaching F0.  But the element still counts as being ineffective.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Yes, they can.  OP updated.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    On the grounds that that isn’t really a question, I won’t update the OP. However, if you’re foolish enough to let sci-fi infantry, with their fancy short range anti-armour weapons get closer enough to charge your mechs and tanks then you deserve everything you get.

    😉

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Nice. I really like the alt-historical use of the rules. I’ll give more detailed feedback once the competition is finished.

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Updated 16 August 2016.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Fairly sure everyone did, Mike.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    OK, let’s look at the AA question first.

    No, in principle there’s no reason not to give the AA upgrade to non-mech elements for house-rule purposes.  It’s not an option for them in the rules because dedicated anti-aircraft elements have no good reason for being involved in battles that are supposed to represent the “big hand/small map”, Cold War style of open warfare.  Review the use of AA elements in history and you’ll find that they are positioned in the rear echelon to protect logistical assets or on the home front to defend against enemy strategic strikes.

    However, I recognized that people would want them in the game, so I added rules for mechs to be upgraded to AA elements.  Mechs are wacky, experimental elements to begin with, so it isn’t so odd to find them on the front line.  But it also means that there’s a hint there for people who want to design fixed AA batteries or AA conventional elements for home-made scenarios representing the defence of the logistical rear echelon.

    As for tac-nukes…

    I really decline to believe in any such thing, even at 2mm or 3mm.  A nuke is a strategic asset, and there’s plenty of evidence to illustrate that being behind hard cover isn’t going to save your arse from the effects of having all the air sucked from your lungs and replaced with molten, radioactive dust.

    However, given that this is *your* fictional universe, feel free to have nukes operate differently (or call them something else).  Still, for an example of why you might not want to unleash a strategic asset on a tactical battle, I would refer you to Warhammer 40k 2nd Edition and the thing of beauty that was the vortex grenade.  It’s not that you can’t write rules that will work or that you couldn’t make an argument for the presence of such a monstrosity in your army list.  It’s that doing so is basically creating a honking great fun vacuum that will render your (or your opponent’s) carefully planned strategy and finely judged tactical decisions null and void, because someone decided to press the big red middle finger button.

    If you want to embed nukes into your game’s idiom (to use your word, because it’s a *good* word), I’d recommend making it part of the game’s situation: this battle takes place immediately *after* a nuclear strike, so everyone’s in full CBRN mode, running around in Noddy suits.  The terrain would all become treacherous.  All buildings would be ruins and hazardous.  Infantry would lose its Alert ability (due to the Noddy suits).

    That’s my thoughts, for what they’re worth.

     

     

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Not so much a rules question, but:

    I seemed to have a much stronger force then my opponent who just chose Mechs and Conventional forces.  A  Conventional Force CHQ can take Mechs as well – no other restrictions?

    Obviously, it depends a bit on what conventional forces your opponent took.  But mechs really are very good.  If a mech-heavy force can’t win against a force with no mechs, then someone isn’t designing or using his mechs properly.

     

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Updated 23 July 2016

    in reply to: Painting Power Armour #45131
    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    For an effective digicam/MTP effect, use a sponge and apply blotches of dark brown, pale green and black over a dark green base.  Each new layer should be applied more lightly than the previous one.  Pick out weapons in black, visors in yellow or blue and bare faces in flesh tones.  Wash the whole with a dark brown wash.  Quick and surprisingly good-looking.  I’ll try to post an example later.

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Yes! Me. I treat the little mini tank bases as heavy infantry. Otherwise, out works pretty well. Airships aren’t covered very well by the game, but you can just about get by using the super-heavy supplement.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    I guess this is one of those times when I look at my own design work and just have to accept that I did a poor job of executing a good idea.

    I played various versions of this scenario and tweaked them as I went in response to experience.  Reading over it now, I would make three simple adjustments to make the game balance better.

    The first is – yes – to restrict the “only one order per turn” for the civilians to the Patrol version of the game (with a 2′ wide board, an 8″ move per turn is plenty!).  The second is to change the “W” on the table size to “L”.  The third is to reduce the table size for a Squadron to 6’x4′.  Of course, the key issue is how far civilians can move per turn, not the size of the respective opposing forces.

    That said, I would also emphasize the tactical advice given in the rulebook.  The defender’s best solution to having civilians die too quickly is not to let them move on their own.  Surround them with  punchy protectors to block LOF (two per civvie element will usually be enough), make good use of cover and aggressively close with enemy elements.  Charging is a very good option for the defender, because the critical thing is to degrade the attacker’s ability to close with and kill the civilians.  The massive damage that a good charge can inflict will often be enough to either crush movement or firepower – either of which is a good option for the defender.

     

     

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    they look good. Only comment to make is that you need to separate the Mv and Mb for your aircraft. Different rules affect each, so they need to be individually stated.

     

    R.

    Robey JenkinsRobey Jenkins
    Participant

    Annoyingly, I wrote a blog article about this but it got lost in the transition to my new website.  We’re in the process of recovering it.

    Bascially, the broad doctrines of mechanized infantry are covered either by Mobile Infantry or by using a combination of Light Cavalry and Light Infantry.

    There are no battlefield taxis in Horizon Wars.

    R.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 176 total)