Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Any way of buying this game, now?

Why wait?

Simply amazing!!!!

 Grot 6 wrote:
Any way of buying this game, now?

Why wait?

Simply amazing!!!!

Sure. All you need to do is hop into a time machine and take a little trip into the future to bring it back...

Mikh IS awesome, but sloooooow.

Unfortunately, he is sculpting the one mini which is holding just about everything up for ARENA REX - Leo the Lion.

It has also spawned this pic:



On topic here - WOW!

The art, the sculpts, the setting....fantastic!

Add me to the chorus clamoring for the ability to buy some of these awesome miniatures in resin.

Undoubtedly, PVC will show up here, but hopefully the option exists for some resin, and of course, hopefully someone 'figures out' PVC for this size/scale too...

Looks very promising. Loads of talented artists and sculptors, very popular IP. Should be huge.

I guess it will have to be PVC to appeal to the board game crowd, but I would love this to be HIPS, and I doubt they would have any trouble getting the required funding.

Now, we have to maintain the same level of emotional intensity (as shown by Mr Shatner there) until January 2015!

 Pacific wrote:
Now, we have to maintain the same level of emotional intensity (as shown by Mr Shatner there) until January 2015!

Seeing it inspired me to dig out my collection of R.E.H stories and the excellent Dark Horse Conan run Busiek did. So if nothing else it was fun to dive back into those.

Wehrkind wrote:Co-op vs game would be a big winner for me too. Co-op vs 1 isn't a deal breaker, but makes it harder to sell to some people I might play with.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Really nice look, but I've had nothing but poor experiences in the "co-op vs. one player" structure, not having a 1v1 or co-op vs. game mode would be a deal breaker for me...

Could you tell me what you didn't like about your co-op vs 1 experiences ? Having played the game, I could maybe tell you if it applies here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, seeing there is a lot of interest here for the game, I have a question for you. It has already been asked on Tric-trac and BGG, but maybe you could give your own point of view.

Fred Henry, Erwan Hascoët and the rest of the Monolith team are right now starting to think about how to organise Conan kickstarter in 6 months.
And so they are interested on what people interested in the game think on the subject.

So, what do you think Monolith should do to have a perfect kickstarter ?

What kind of pledges should there be ?
Should there be early bird pledges ? If so, which kind ?
Should there be exclusives ? If so of which kind ?
What do you think should be in the stretch goals ? Should the stretch goals be freely included in all pledges ? Limited to some pledges ?
Should there be add-ons ? If so, which ones ?

Please give us your opinion. Of course your advice may not be followed, but at least the team will read it and will think about it.

You probably want a fairly small level pledge for a mini or 2, or even just the core heroes set, then one for the base game and another for everything.

For exclusives; you want something desirable but not necessary for the game (so people don't feel left out), maybe alternative sculpts or an additional hero.

For add-ons; you'd probably want people to be able to buy additional mini's or maybe smallish artwork (postcards, etc).


For instance; I don't get the opportunity to play many boardgames but I love the Conan series and painting, so I'd debate getting the full box but I'd quite happily buy the heros set in metal/HIPS/Resin.

No early birds, and keep exclusives to alternative sculpts. Kickstarter exclusive rules really suck for anyone who doesn't have the scratch while the kickstarter is running- or people who for whatever reason never hear of it.

Keep the pledge levels simple, clear about the contents, and to a minimum. It becomes a bear to dig through twenty different pledge levels for painted sets, unpainted sets, one mini, two minis, two of the box game, three of the box game, five of the box game, etc.

Early birds are a bit of a risk, since they encourage people to "camp" at various levels with multiple accounts, which can cause backsliding pledge totals when they drop those extra accounts later. While they help fuel an initial rush, they can be devastating if they cause a backslide mid- to late- campaign. I probably wouldn't use EBs.

Alternate poses are good and standard or alternate resin casts of heroes / monster bosses would be good KS exclusive ways to get people to commit during the campaign. But to get a real blaze started, I'd recommend the following:

I don't know what REH licensing involves, but if I doesn't cost you extra, making KS exclusive REH heroes from other story lines (Solomon Kane, Kull, Bran Mak Morn, two man / lycanthrope sculpts of his werewolf hero de Montour, etc.) would put real incentive into backing the project during the KS rather than waiting for retail. Some will complain about not being able to get them at retail later, but there's no reason anyone NEEDS to have Solomon Kane or Kull etc. as playable heroes for a Conan game, since they're not even part of Conan's fictional world, and those characters are not ones you would likely produce for a Conan game otherwise in a general release. So really, no one would be "missing out" on anything, but including them would still stoke some serious fire under REH fans to get in right away.

Worth considering, I think, unless acquiring the licenses for those other REH heroes requires a lot of extra money on your part.

WOW - I think Herzlos, Sinful pretty much nailed it.

I am not sure about the statistics in what Vermonter is suggesting about EB's, but I agree that they are a double edged sword. You will have a lot of people camping an EB and deciding last hour if they want to keep it or not. You will get people pledging that are not that interested to begin with - it might sound odd, but a backslide of pledges has turned into an avalanche in some recent campaigns with a negative last day.

If you have some serious awesome stretchgoals - don't dangle them at the end with an overly optimistic goal, as that will instigate some rage quitting if it's not looking likely to happen. Coupled with the aforementioned fencesitters pulling pledges it's a bad recipe.

Look at the most successful Kickstarters for 'inspiration', but base your campaign on what your goals, and limitations, are.

Early Birds are fine, and are a good way to generate excitement and an early boost - provided they are 'only' a $10 or so 'discount'.

KS 'exclusive' miniatures are OK, generally, provided they are not gamebreaking - so usually 'alternate poses' or such?

This property though?

Given what sculpts we've seen already?

You should do very well!

I'll add another bit on early birds,

don't have competing early bird levels as this pretty much guarantees people camping all options before deciding on one near the end

If you choose to use early birds (and I do like them) have only one level with an early bird... whatever you consider your general level which will get any free stretch goals

this minimises the chance of people backing and pulling out

Rather than earlybird slots, you could try the other tactic of giving out something (like $10 credit) to those that joined in the first few days of the campaign in the pledge manager? That way you don't penalise people in the opposite timezone from you.

Communication is the other biggie. Communicate your stretches in advance, not just the next one. Tell people what is going on and answer their questions. The number of campaigns I've seen degenerate into flame wars because the person running it goes silent, or only ever posts once every few days and never answers any of the questions floating around...

I am really looking forward to this one though!

That's basically the same thing?

So you could accomplish it by having 'early birds' time based (with enough space to encompass all zones) rather then quantity based?

At 'only' a $10 discount or so, it shouldn't hurt if it absolutely blows up/goes nuts.

But, as with everything else, plan accordingly!

I would prefer the same EB opened up at different time slots to give everyone a chance. In practice it's a different pledge level, but with the same content (if that makes sense) added at 8 hour intervals so 3X EB pledge levels total with the same content.

 Alpharius wrote:
That's basically the same thing?

So you could accomplish it by having 'early birds' time based (with enough space to encompass all zones) rather then quantity based?

I wasn't sure if time based pledge levels was possible. I have seen discussion that pledge levels with a set number are limited to a maximum of 999. I've also seem campaigns offer a freebie to people who backed in week 1, for example. I think Mantic have done that one...

The benefit of this one is that it then attracts people for all (or specific) levels of the campaign, rather than one specific slot and means you don't need to manage an extra pledge level and you've provided *something* that attracts more people in at the level they feel comfortable with.

itai wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Co-op vs game would be a big winner for me too. Co-op vs 1 isn't a deal breaker, but makes it harder to sell to some people I might play with.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Really nice look, but I've had nothing but poor experiences in the "co-op vs. one player" structure, not having a 1v1 or co-op vs. game mode would be a deal breaker for me...

Could you tell me what you didn't like about your co-op vs 1 experiences ? Having played the game, I could maybe tell you if it applies here.

The issues I have run into with Coop vs 1 seems to be one of balance. If you have all good players, it works, or all mediocre players it works. If you have a mix, it gets iffy. One good player on the solo side makes the game seem horribly imbalanced as he stomps over the others who can't coordinate and plan as well, not only as themselves but also due to a fractured mind. One good player on the coop side vs a mediocre player makes the solo guy feel stomped by everyone in the room. There is also the problem of one good person on the coop side running his team like a puppet master, just telling everyone else what to do because they don't feel like they can decide. Some people are ok with that, but sometimes it just gets bad.

Also, the coop team needs a time limit. Otherwise they can sit and argue for hours while the solo guy reads a book (and likely some of the less involved coop players too.) That gets miserable.

Full coop is nicer for more casual groups, if only because it doesn't turn into 1v1 with lieutenants who don't really engage. Still, Coop vs 1 can work.

---------------

As to the kick starter, please please please put in a level where you can get resin models only. I might not be able to spring for the full game, but I definitely want the models. Plus, if you are going to spring for awesome sculptors, you might as well get the best production quality out of the masters

 Eldarain wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Now, we have to maintain the same level of emotional intensity (as shown by Mr Shatner there) until January 2015!

Seeing it inspired me to dig out my collection of R.E.H stories and the excellent Dark Horse Conan run Busiek did. So if nothing else it was fun to dive back into those.

Right with you there, this has just inspired me to pull out my Conan anthology!

Each story seems to follow the plot of: arrive in new place -> find out about local treasure -> overcome nasty enemy, usually using brute strength -> find treasure, throw girl over shoulder and walk into the sunset

Bloody brilliant

 Wehrkind wrote:

itai wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Co-op vs game would be a big winner for me too. Co-op vs 1 isn't a deal breaker, but makes it harder to sell to some people I might play with.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Really nice look, but I've had nothing but poor experiences in the "co-op vs. one player" structure, not having a 1v1 or co-op vs. game mode would be a deal breaker for me...

Could you tell me what you didn't like about your co-op vs 1 experiences ? Having played the game, I could maybe tell you if it applies here.

The issues I have run into with Coop vs 1 seems to be one of balance. If you have all good players, it works, or all mediocre players it works. If you have a mix, it gets iffy. One good player on the solo side makes the game seem horribly imbalanced as he stomps over the others who can't coordinate and plan as well, not only as themselves but also due to a fractured mind. One good player on the coop side vs a mediocre player makes the solo guy feel stomped by everyone in the room. There is also the problem of one good person on the coop side running his team like a puppet master, just telling everyone else what to do because they don't feel like they can decide. Some people are ok with that, but sometimes it just gets bad.

Also, the coop team needs a time limit. Otherwise they can sit and argue for hours while the solo guy reads a book (and likely some of the less involved coop players too.) That gets miserable.

Full coop is nicer for more casual groups, if only because it doesn't turn into 1v1 with lieutenants who don't really engage. Still, Coop vs 1 can work.

---------------

As to the kick starter, please please please put in a level where you can get resin models only. I might not be able to spring for the full game, but I definitely want the models. Plus, if you are going to spring for awesome sculptors, you might as well get the best production quality out of the masters

I'm in complete agreement, the "co-op vs. 1" mechanic hinges heavily on the skill of the 1 as swinging the balance, with the secondary problem of a dominating player in the team. I've seen limited information used okay for the team, but it's still a problem. Also, if it's not balanced, then the one player or the rest of the players can be feel screwed by the game.

And yes, full co-op is nice for casual games.

On team vs. team or 1 vs. 1, both of those work, as long as the game is set up to balance properly then.

The only game I've seen that had a good 1 vs. everyone structure was Betrayal at the House on the Hill, because stuff is random enough and the game/setup is pretty fast.

 Wehrkind wrote:

itai wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Co-op vs game would be a big winner for me too. Co-op vs 1 isn't a deal breaker, but makes it harder to sell to some people I might play with.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Really nice look, but I've had nothing but poor experiences in the "co-op vs. one player" structure, not having a 1v1 or co-op vs. game mode would be a deal breaker for me...

Could you tell me what you didn't like about your co-op vs 1 experiences ? Having played the game, I could maybe tell you if it applies here.

The issues I have run into with Coop vs 1 seems to be one of balance. If you have all good players, it works, or all mediocre players it works. If you have a mix, it gets iffy. One good player on the solo side makes the game seem horribly imbalanced as he stomps over the others who can't coordinate and plan as well, not only as themselves but also due to a fractured mind. One good player on the coop side vs a mediocre player makes the solo guy feel stomped by everyone in the room. There is also the problem of one good person on the coop side running his team like a puppet master, just telling everyone else what to do because they don't feel like they can decide. Some people are ok with that, but sometimes it just gets bad.

I'm never buying another game where I will be forced to play "the evil dungeon master" vs. everyone else. Descent has been a tedious, irritating experience of lamely fulfilling other people's power fantasies (rather than genuinely challenging them) for me.

My only interest in this KS is the REH theme, and the quality of the sculpts shown.

I'll second Vermonter's opinion- I'm tired of being the bad guy. Every. Single. Game.

I'm the one who bought the damned games- I want to be the hero for once!

Part of the reason games like Galaxy Defenders, Gears of War, and their ilk have done well in my house is because my family knows I don't pull punches when we play, and they 'd rather have me on their side than against them.

The exception to that rule seems to only be Claustrophobia, but both sides are pretty balanced in that game, so maybe that's why it's never been an issue.

The only thing i can think off by seeing this is...

"...Let me tell you the days of High adventures!!!..." Dun Dun Dun Duun!!

 Alpharius wrote:
That's basically the same thing?

So you could accomplish it by having 'early birds' time based (with enough space to encompass all zones) rather then quantity based?

At 'only' a $10 discount or so, it shouldn't hurt if it absolutely blows up/goes nuts.

But, as with everything else, plan accordingly!

Not quite. The problem with early birds only really arises when there's multiple levels as some backers will claim one of each at the start and drop the ones they don't want later. Basing the bonus on joining date means they don't need to do that.

So, about the 1 vs many concerns...

Conan has an original system enabling the Opponent player to have a real strategic game and not only be the bad guy.

Also, playing it is not much more complex than playing an hero. The game is different and more strategic, since you control more troops, but it still stays simple.
So, it doesn't have to be the owner of the game who plays it. Anybody can easily do it.

For me, even though the game mechanisms are completely different, the game felt a lot like Claustrophobia, which was cited earlier, in this respect.

Now, if there is really a big level difference between the players, it could of course be a problem. But the simplicity of the game should mitigate this. As the learning curve is easy, it shouldn't take many plays to improve someone level.

Also, the game enables coordination between the heros action. If the players are prone to AP and want to discuss between themselves every possible strategy, it could make a long wait for the Opponent player. Normally as the action possibilities are limited and quite intuitive, and since they are resolved with dice, it shouldn't be too bad.

Finally, there is a solo/cooperative mode under developpement, with an AI tailored for the game. It shouldn't be in the game box, as the designer feels that the 1 vs many mechanics is essential to the games, and that the Opponent game is one of the most interesting parts of the game, but it should be freely available online as a publisher-endorsed unofficial variant.

I hope this answered your questions. If you want more details, just ask, and I'll do my best to answer.

Thanks for the info

GM'd Co-op is just one type of game, and it has pros and cons.

I'm designing a GM'd Co-op game myself, and when doing that you pretty much have to accept that you are limiting your customer base.

You can mollify it to a certain degree by engineering variations that allow non-GM'd co-op or players v player play, but that can potentially be clunky and cludged.

For example, you could play an RPG like D&D in a PVP style with two players controlling their own party of characters, but the game doesn't naturally lend itself to that play style.

I think a big part of it, rules-wise, is related to game balance. In my experience, you balance a game differently for GM'd Co-op than you do for player v player.

One of the big drawbacks of GM'd Co-op, as several people here have pointed out, is that someone has to be the GM. This makes it harder to build a community of players, in some ways, because two players can't easily do their own things with the products, find each other, and play a game with what they have been working on. A GM'd game naturally takes more planning. You've got to get someone to GM, you've got to get a group of players together, and you've got to show up at the same place and time with the intention of playing the game together.

GM'd Co-op doesn't inherently lend itself well to spontaneous play. Being a self-contained board game can ease some of this pressure and inject a bit more spontaneity. For example, Super Dungeon Explore can be picked up very quickly and you can just grab a couple of folks from the room to fill out the party. Once you add in a leveling/experience system spontaneous play gets a degree more difficult.

In any case, I firmly believe that there should be more GM'd Co-op table top miniatures games on the market. It is a great formula that has many advantages and provides a distinctly different experience. I think these sorts of games will also help to bridge the gap between RPGs and miniatures games, and facilitate more world building and character building amongst miniatures games. This is not that wargamers don't engage in narrative development already, but I think GM'd Co-op games help to encourage more of it.

I like to see more GM'd Co-op games, but the designers need to accept that their audience will be more narrow if they market their game principally to table top wargamers/board gamers.

The sculpts here look really promising, I'd just like to add my voice to those earlier that were wanting to see these in resin and not just plastic. I love Conan (or anything by Robert E Howard really)!

That's cool, I can understand favoring 1vCoop. Including a monster AI deck sort of mechanic for straight coop is a good move for me definitely, even if it is downloadable only. That means I might be in for the whole game instead of just the models.

Awesome stuff! Incredible models! But it needs...


it needs...


MOAR PALLANTIDES!