Switch Theme:

KOG light - 1/144 mini-mech skirmish game design blog - 1/10 "final" Beta 7  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Arsenic City

First Impressions of your revised ruleset (probably not something I would play, or not all that much, but intended to hopefully be helpful rather than critical):

If everything is assumed to be based, [base] might be a better term to use throughout the rules instead of using [base] and [model] interchangeably, although either could be chosen so long as it is the term solely adhered to.

Your page count is low enough that adding a [glossary of terminology] either at the beginning or end of the rules for reference might be of use, as well as helping you make clear distinctions as to what does what.

Dice - how many are typically needed to be rolled by a single model each turn; it seems like just (1) one, but I could just as easily be missing where the rules say differently.

As came up in every game of HG I've ever played, especially since they were VASSAL games, it might be wise to make a clear differentiation between what is considered [area terrain] or [instance terrain], and when a base is considered to be within or ''utilizing'' one or the other.
[Hard Cover] also seems exceptionally good, and could easily lead to camping rather than mobile gameplay; this might also tread a bit too close to the HGB! ''nerf bat attack'' style of damage resolution.

[More than 12"] could easily be changed to [no closer than 12"] from (x) territory; the latter wording may make the intent of such a rule a bit more clear.

Is designating a base as a [Commander] secretly written down or openly shared between players; also, wouldn't a [Commander] base already have been designated during force construction.

For clarity, maybe two [player turns] would comprise a single [game round], rather than turn (x) followed by turn (y) to complete turn (z) before starting turn (q) and so forth.

Fighting before shooting; intentional to promote melee or something to be changed later.

Friendly bases should probably always be able to coordinate freely moving through other friendly bases; the half rate might be best left for moving through unfriendly bases if that is allowed.

[Assault Moves] give freebies, which players will almost exclusively use because it's something free; but there doesn't seem to be any [assault] weapons to use with or otherwise restrict choosing this action.

[Fighting Assault] seems to be pretty much the same thing as [Ranged Shooting]; is the intention here to allow firing the same weapon twice in a single player turn, because as with the above there doesn't seem to be any specifically [assault] systems.

[Take and Hold] seems kind of like a penalty with the action restriction.

[Shaken] seems a bit counter-intuitive for an armored war machine ruleset; the whole point of armoring something is being able to maneuver under fire, and again, [Close Assault] seems no different at all from [Ranged Shooting].

Victory conditions, requiring marking an objective during [Order of Battle], unless more clearly defined is probably almost always going to involve each side having to somehow make it to the complete opposite edge of the table, because (players).

[Combat Resolution] should probably keep using the terms of [Assault] and [Shooting]; and again, [Close Assault] seems no different at all from [Ranged Shooting].

Maybe instead of having LoS be a type of LoS, use terms something like [Clear (LoS)] and [Obscured (LoS)] as being more descriptive of your intent and allowing you to cut down a bit on word use.
Obscured (partial LoS) is probably going to need a more clarified tie-in back to terrain types; and [Scout] as a term able to also be a type of model might be more clear than (recon).
[Forward Observer] might need a clarification on how close the model using an [Indirect] capability system must be to the [Scout] providing the appropriate [LoS].

As mentioned earlier [Hard Cover], and to some extent [Soft Cover], seem to emulate the HGB! ''nothing happens when I hit your model'' reality and appear to break your intent of equaling or exceeding a weapons target number always doing something.
How would/should [Friendly Fire] interact with [Hard Cover]; and [Critical Hit] seems to be the same as [Catastrophic Damage], but should probably use one or the other term instead of both.

Likewise, the [Piercing] and [Burst] capabilities causing specific hit damage should probably be more clearly defined.
[Indirect] capability would also seem to be a bit nerfed right from the get go, given the mandatory reroll from [Hard Cover].

[Catastrophic Damage] seems a bit superfluous, being defined as just an additional hit rather than a modifier to the status of a model.

Weapons with the [Piercing] capability probably shouldn't be able to affect infantry, as being outside the role of such a (likely to be rare & expensive) system; this also might allow you to better differentiate what weapons have what traits, or what role a model has in game.
How does [Blast] interact with infantry models.

Games within the as written ruleset would seem to be short enough so that tracking ammo for *RPs is probably an unnecessary addition.


* * *

Final thoughts & suggestions after additional reflection:

To avoid requiring any rereolls, which seems to not be in line with your streamlining, or causing a ''nerf'' cycle it might be workable to cap [Cover] effects without a modifier.
I.E. [Soft Cover] increases model defense by (1) as hits seems to be versus threshold (greater than) rather than a target number, while [Hard Cover] caps damage at (1) for most weapons.

I still think hitting, yet not always causing damage, might not be a good thing in any ruleset.


Capabilities -
Varying shots & attacks may end up being more book-keeping than is desired/intended.
Some weapons may have an ''or'' notation, with or without any base capabilities, meaning they can fire as one or the other that turn.

[Assault]; Just means the weapon may be used during the [Fighting Assault] phase of a turn if so desired, and might be more clear than using [Attacks] for this term.
[Piercing]; Should probably ignore the effects of a model having [Soft Cover].


Weapons -
CANNONS - Kinetic penetrating munitions. (Causes damage by making holes in targets.)

Automatic (Cannons):
Light; Low to Moderate damage (vs. Gears), Medium range, Capabilities; Spray
Heavy; Moderate damage (vs. Gears & vehicles), Medium range, Capabilities; Spray

Field (Cannons) [Rifles & some tank guns]:
Light; Moderate damage, Long range, Capabilities; n/a
Medium; Moderate to High damage, Long range, Capabilities; n/a
Heavy; High damage, Long range, Capabilities; Blast or Piercing

Shot (Cannons) [Frag & Snub Cannons]:
Frag; Low to Moderate damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Assault, Spray or Blast

Light Snub; Moderate damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Assault
Heavy Snub; High damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Assault, Piercing

Electromagnetic ''EM'' (Cannons) [Rail guns]:
Light; Moderate damage, Medium range, Capabilities; Burst
Heavy; Moderate to High damage, Long range, Capabilities; Piercing


GUNS - Secondary effects munitions. (Causes damage by overpressure and/or fragments.)

Automatic (Guns) [Pack Guns & Grenade Launchers]:
Light; Low damage, Medium range, Capabilities; Spray
Medium; Moderate damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Spray or Blast
Heavy; High damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Spray, Blast

Gun-Mortars [Bazookas & some tank guns]:
Light; Low damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Assault or Indirect, Spray or Blast
Medium; Moderate damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Assault or Indirect, Blast
Heavy; High damage, Short to Medium range, Capabilities; Assault or Indirect, Blast

Mortars: Might be useful to allow them to ignore the effects of a model having [Hard Cover].
Light; Low to Moderate damage, Minimum to Long range, Capabilities; Indirect (only), Blast
Light; Moderate damage, Minimum to Long range, Capabilities; Indirect (only), Blast


ROCKET PROPELLED WEAPONS - Either Kinetic penetrating or Secondary effects munitions.
Rocket Pack; Low to High damage, Minimum to Short or Medium Range, Capabilities; Indirect, Spray

Anti-Gear Missile; Moderate damage, Minimum to Medium range, Capabilities; Indirect
Anti-Tank Missile; High damage, Minimum to Long range, Capabilities; Indirect, Piercing


SPECIALTY WEAPONS - various effects.
Gear Grenades [Demolition Charge]: Moderate damage, Very Short range, Capabilities; Assault, Blast

Machine (Guns) [MGs]: Low damage (vs. Infantry), Medium range, Capabilities; Assault, Spray


MELEE WEAPONS - various effects.
Should all probably get something like the [Assault] capability.



Force Construction -
No generic factions, (most) ''sub''factions are actual full factions, allowing models to be spread out and accessed as desired.


Possible simplified, non-canon, application of variant names across all factions -
Models either have their base name, or get upgraded to a single (1) variant, but never more than one type, period... although [Command] would probably be an exception.

Arrow [x] ...................- Anti-Gear Missile
Artillery [x] ..................- Heavy Mortar(s)
Barbed Fang [x] ..........- (Artillery) *RP
Blazing [x] ..................- Flamer models.
[x] Brawler .................- Frag Cannon
Command [x] ..............- Command models.
[x] Destroyer ..............- Snub Cannon
Flak [x] ......................- (*AAC)
Flash [x] .....................- Laser
[x] Gunner .................- Autocannon upgrade.
Lightning [x] ...............- Particle Cannon
Long Fang [x] .............- Multiple *RPs
[x] MP (Military Patrol) ...- MP & Anti-Infantry models.
Savage [x] ..................- Grenade Launcher
Slashing [x] .................- Anti-Tank Missile
Striking [x] ..................- (Bazooka)
Support [x] .................- Heavy Gun(s)
[x] UC (Urban Combat) .- *MG & Grenade/Panzerfaust models.
[x] Vanguard ...............- Rifle


[x] = Where the model name goes; i.e. Black Mamba [Brawler], [Savage] Jaguar, and so forth.

_
_

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/23 22:42:09


"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''

"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll

"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9

"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

OK, those are a lot of comments, thank you. I can tell you that the intent is for the 4 page ruleset to be short enough that no glossary would be required. Keywords are bolded so players should be able to simply read them as they play.

It'll take time to address the other comments.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

OK, getting back to your comments...

This is supposed to be a miniatures game of 3-D models, rather than flat bases. Also, bases won't work for LOS.

As above, I'm not intending a glossary, as it would basically duplicate the rules in toto. It's only 4 pages, and only 2 of them are needed while playing the game. I really think it'd be superfluous..

While the game can be played with 1 die, a player should probably have 3 to 5 dice on hand - some weapons might roll 2 or 3 dice, which could expand to 4 or 5 with lucky Crits. In most cases, I wouldn't expect players to need more than 5 dice, and typical rolls will only be 1 or 2, maybe 3 dice at a time. This isn't a buckets of dice game.

Terrain is always an issue, but I think players can assess Area Terrain on their own? However, I suspect that I should define Area Terrain on p.1, and the in-game Terrain Effects on p.2.

Hard Cover is supposed to be good, and that's what players would expect. However, nobody wins an objective game by camping, and this is a strategic objectives game. Indirect Fire is the intended tactical counter.

More than 12" is a deliberate wording, because I think it's clearer. If someone has a Range X weapon or effect, and the starting position is more than X, there is no question that it starts out of range. Not closer than X is similar, but it has the negation language, which is confusing for some people.

Commander represents the player from a thematic standpoint, and will become relevant if/when I get around to creating scenarios that get away from basic CTF game. Target scenario development for Gamma, after the rules and units are "complete and balanced" for Beta.

Game Turns as "Game Rounds" might be clearer, to remove potential "Turn" confusion.

Fighting before Shooting is mostly natural flow from the Assault Move.

There aren't that many models in a typical game, so they should usually be able to go around without any penalty. If there is a bottleneck, then that's what the moving through penalty represents. Recall that these are walking tanks, so they can't easily flatten against a wall to let somebody else squeeze by. It's actually deliberate.

Assault Moves move X+d6" but will preclude any shooting. In terms of covering ground, Speed Moves X+X, which will generally be consistently farther. From a risk/reward standpoint, I think it's net balanced, as sometimes the player will roll a 1 or 2, and they'll be stuck.

Fighting Assault and Ranged Shooting are supposed to be nearly identical from a mechanics standpoint, because they are still fighting. Assault systems use "Attacks" weapons, not "Shots" weapons, per Combat Resolution.

Take and Hold is how you win the game, switching from a tactical focus to a strategic focus. A minor defensive boon might be appropriate.

Shaken can represent simple confusion of trying to raise a dead person over the radio. "Can you hear me now?" Or reorganizing the squad for the next action. Morale is a useful concept, and these walking tanks are far from invulnerable. Initial shots will only damage hull, and there is no risk for that, only if something becomes Crippled or Destroyed. They're fearless lord of battle until they see someone go down.

Close Assault is supposed to be similar to Ranged Shooting, but using Attacks close vs Shots far.

Victory Conditions will typically have the objective on the far side, which is normal. I probably need the "more than X inches from any table edge" clause. Other scenarios will be KOTH or Headhunting.

I try to use "Assault Attacks" vs "Shooting Shots" consistently.

Line of Sight / Sensor Lock are also HG-related. PLOS could use some cleanup WRT Terrain - I agree the whole thing is a little messy.

"Recon" is a HG term that I am using for carryover.

Forward Observer should be anywhere within radio range, which easily encompasses the battlefield.

Hard Cover and Soft Cover are deliberate, as the result isn't final until after the re-roll.

Friendly Fire and Hard Cover? Roll to hit. If success, re-roll for cover. Final result is a 1? Friendly Fire. Roll to damage vs friend. If success, re-roll for hard cover.

Critical Hit goes wide, for more hits; Catastrophic Damage goes deep, for extra hull. It is possible to Crit for 2 hits, Catastrophic for extra hull so a single (very lucky!) shot can take out a 4-hull unit (216:1 odds against, <0.5%). That's also intentional, as it allows me to differentiate AP vs AT effects, for example.

I'll consider rewording Piercing and Burst for better clarity.

Indirect is deliberately nerfed without a Recon unit acting as FO, otherwise, IF dominates the game.

Catastrophic does extra hull, not an extra hit. With a basic Hunter only having 3 hull, taking 2 damage means it's Crippled vs tanking the hit. Getting an extra hit would still have to get past armor. The extra hits and damage are a big deal when the number scale is small.

Infantry are immune to Piercing. Piercing causes Catastrophic Damage, and Infantry ignore Catastrophic Damage, so they just take the one damage to health. Players should not be wasting *ATMs on Infantry.

Blast does 2 hits to Infantry, so they become Crippled or Eliminated quickly.

Rocket Pods are 1-shot, which is what makes them different from cannon. Besides it's either ready or used, so it's not like we're tracking ammo in Tactical.


Thanks again, I appreciate the time you put into your comments, and will be looking at a few changes for the next version.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

I haven't admittedly checked out your newest version, John, but I think you may be relying too much on the "4 pages" count as the sole indicator of elegance in the ruleset. FWIW, elegance for me in rules is the scope you accomplish and how you accomplish it in the pages given. While I'm not up to date with the latest scifi rules offerings since I don't go to cons anymore, I consider x-wing's rules to be the most elegant I've ever come across and that IIRC is around 16 pages which by your measure would be absolutely bloated. Ironically, I do think X-wing has become bloated more recently due to the pokemon CCG "gotta catch'em all" aspect of the upgrade cards but the core rules retain that original elegance. As usual, season with salt as needed. YMMV. IMHO. etc. I just wanted to make sure you know that you're not in a race to the bottom (of page counts) with Age of Sigmar!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 19:36:47


We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I wouldn't say that page count is the sole indicator of anything besides brevity. For me, the page limitations are really a question of keeping the game scope tight, and making conscious decisions of what I should keep and where I should focus my effort.

WRT X-Wing, it's OK, but it's just not my cup of tea. I do not like the dice and spacer mechanics. The minis are awesome, but not enough to draw me in on their own. As always, to each, his own.

Really, I'm just wanting KL to be a really tight little game. While I could expand the page count, I think the extra space would be best filled with diagrams and such. So far, it's been a happy coincidence. And besides, I can still adjust margins / font size if content is a real issue. Or simply cut the fat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 20:01:01


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

Perhaps sole is too strong of a word in hindsight and rather "primary" might be better. In any case, I'd warn against focusing too much on the page count. I've personally never found myself saying "Man, I really wish this ruleset had 4 less pages!" but I have found myself saying "Man, I really wish this ruleset had a glossary/table of contents/index!". The only time page count should be a primary concern is for traditionally printed media where you're about to cross over into another "signature".

http://www.designersinsights.com/designer-resources/understanding-and-working-with-print

That's why you always see books with page counts in multiples of 4. Your cover will probably be it's own 4 "page" signature as they say and you might sneak in the table of contents and index on the front and back inside covers. If you're finding yourself pressed too much to fit it in 4, you've basically got to fill another 4 pages if you go over. Hope that helps.

We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Arsenic City

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, getting back to your comments...
[..]Thanks again, I appreciate the time you put into your comments, and will be looking at a few changes for the next version.
No worries - I added some material to my post.


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
While the game can be played with 1 die, a player should probably have 3 to 5 dice on hand - some weapons might roll 2 or 3 dice, which could expand to 4 or 5 with lucky Crits. In most cases, I wouldn't expect players to need more than 5 dice, and typical rolls will only be 1 or 2, maybe 3 dice at a time. This isn't a buckets of dice game.
Mostly I questioned this because I'm not getting a multiple dice impression at all from the rules as worded.
I can see now where doing so with multiple dice might help to speed things up, but only because it's similar to how some other games end up having an effect that can be rolled together at the same time; BattleTech in particular.

_
_

"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''

"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll

"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9

"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 warboss wrote:
Perhaps sole is too strong of a word in hindsight and rather "primary" might be better.

I've personally never found myself saying "Man, I really wish this ruleset had 4 less pages!" but I have found myself saying "Man, I really wish this ruleset had a glossary/table of contents/index!". The only time page count should be a primary concern is for traditionally printed media where you're about to cross over into another "signature".

http://www.designersinsights.com/designer-resources/understanding-and-working-with-print

That's why you always see books with page counts in multiples of 4. Your cover will probably be it's own 4 "page" signature as they say and you might sneak in the table of contents and index on the front and back inside covers. If you're finding yourself pressed too much to fit it in 4, you've basically got to fill another 4 pages if you go over. Hope that helps.


You are 100% correct that the core rules are designed for traditional print, to be duplex printed on a single sheet of 11" x 17" paper, which is approximated by 2 double-sided sheets of 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of paper, vertically bound.

At some future date, yes, this could be bound with another sheet providing exterior cover art and 2 interior pages, but I am not yet at that stage (as I have bigger fish to fry, specifically Army Lists). Right now, I don't feel like I need (4) more pages of rules. Now that could (should) change (at a later date), and you are correct that I'd probably be looking at a cover, 2 interior pages and a reference of some sort on the back. Let me see where I sit on the Army Lists - if those end up at 4 pages, it's possible that the final product comes out as 16 pages grand total.

BTW, those rule sets that you were hoping would have a Table of Contents, Index and Glossary, how many of them had the brevity of what I'm assembling? I would imagine that a ruleset printed and bound as a sum total of 4, 8 or 16 pages probably doesn't need one. OTOH, something like the WFB / 40k rulebooks & Army Books / Codices? Yes, please!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Smilodon_UP wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
While the game can be played with 1 die, a player should probably have 3 to 5 dice on hand - some weapons might roll 2 or 3 dice, which could expand to 4 or 5 with lucky Crits. In most cases, I wouldn't expect players to need more than 5 dice, and typical rolls will only be 1 or 2, maybe 3 dice at a time. This isn't a buckets of dice game.
Mostly I questioned this because I'm not getting a multiple dice impression at all from the rules as worded.
I can see now where doing so with multiple dice might help to speed things up, but only because it's similar to how some other games end up having an effect that can be rolled together at the same time; BattleTech in particular.


Oh, if you're asking whether there were any 2d6, 3d6 tests, no, I decided against that. Same with refusing to use +/- modifiers - the die result you see is what it is.

Every test is a straight 1d6 test vs a fixed target ranging from 2-5, with re-rolls and Thorpian 1s & 6s. It's about the simplest thing, and the combat mechanics are inspired by Zombicide.

It's also why I dropped the opposed test mechanics. I prefer shorter, quicker turns vs fewer turns that take longer due to "interactivity". Again, minimizing mental workload as each player does their thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 23:15:15


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I wrote: "I'll consider rewording Piercing and Burst for better clarity."

For simplicity's sake, I'm now thinking that the effect is automatic, so Piercing always does 2 Damage instead of 1:
- 0 0 1 1 1 2 non-Piercing damage (3+) vs.
- 0 0 1 2 2 2 old Piercing damage (3+) to
- 0 0 2 2 2 2 new Piercing damage (3+).

The change is very small, numerically, and distinguishes Piercing from non-Piercing against 6+ Defense:
- 0 0 0 0 0 1 non-Piercing damage (6+) vs.
- 0 0 0 0 0 1 old Piercing damage (6+) to
- 0 0 0 0 0 2 new Piercing damage (6+).

Burst would have similar tables.

An all-or-nothing result is less wordy and a lot simpler, no?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 01:15:16


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

As I was noodling away on Alpha 3, I came back and saw Smilodon's updated comments. OMG.

Philosophically, I can say that I made a conscious decision to go with re-rolls over modifiers (as he recommends). There are clear advantages to both, but for me, I always like it when you get exactly what it says, never any less. I also find that modifiers have a tendency to stack, and that gets out of hand in many games - at some point, there are too many modifiers to comfortably keep track of.

So, for how tight I want KL to be, it'll be a maximum of 1 positive re-roll, which might cancel against 1 negative re-roll, at any given step.

Coupled with that, I am intending to integrate Thorpian mechanics more broadly and obviously in Alpha 3.

Finally, Alpha 3 is undergoing a bit of a somewhat messy rules reshuffle, as I want to have all of the active player "what I can do?" options on page 2, and all of the "how do I do it?" details on page 3. I think that makes a lot more logical sense to keep the player straight.

Anyhow, I'm sorry that Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 were such a mess. I really apologize.

It's almost like good rules-writing is HARD WORK!
____

12/20 - I finished reshuffling things and feel a lot better:
- p.1 is focused on setup, only;
- p.2 has the turn and all of the actions, with movement modifiers and morale effects
- p.3 is combat resolution & infantry.

I reconcepted Charge!, Hold Position & Crit Hits as giving re-roll fail to offset re-roll success from cover / hard cover. Simplified Piercing as an extra point of damage.

Working on Sniper / Pinning as the tactical option to suppress, so:
1. Direct Fire - basic attacks
2. Indirect Fire / FO - counters direct fire
3. Assault - negates *any* shooting
4. Sniper / Pinning - negates - any action
And all this in the context of the basic game being CTF.

So, even though the basic balance will be Black vs White, the sides will bias differently due to variants giving different tactical options.

Also, going to reskin the factions as West vs East , peeling back to the German Eastern Front vs Soviet Russia underlying HG's South vs North.
____

12/31 - I did not get Alpha 3 into printable shape, what with family and friends for the holidays. Good thing I'm not getting paid to do this on any formal deadline.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/01 08:39:48


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

What with the holidays and such, I was extremely tardy in getting Alpha 3 released by the end of the year. I had kinda hoped to release before the 20th, but holidays just crushed me, and the rules simply were not ready with how much reshuffling I was doing.

But as of this evening, I think Alpha 3 is good enough to share, so here it is!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2016/1/KOG_light_rules_A3-20160103-04075235.pdf

At a very high level, Alpha 3 reorganizes content for clarity's sake, grouping related concepts together.

Page 1 really does focus on setting up the tabletop. Once the game is set, there should be no need to refer back to it. There is no more duplicate reference on terrain types / effects.

Page 2 now focuses entirely on what a player can do in the actual playing of the game, round by round, turn by turn. Movement is cleaned up to better distinguish movement modes vs modifiers.

Page 3 is about combat resolution, so it has the gritty details for how to resolve the various actions, along with the special modifier rules.

Page 4 is largely unchanged, and still has the details for planning a battle of a particular size. Again, during play, there should be no need to refer back to this page, either.

Folded into this major reshuffle, I also reworked Crits and Specials to have better balance in effects, and explict tradeoffs. Overall, I feel a lot better about the rules portion (pages 1 to 4), with emphasis on having in-game reference on pages 2 & 3. Specials deserve come comments, being things that automatically happen - as this is me pushing simplification of the earlier rules. Mentally, I want the player to have a really minimal number of things to worry about at any point in time, playing step-by-step.

I did not get around to reworking the unit stats or balance at all. That'll be addressed in Beta 1, when I pull the army lists into a separate document.

Nevertheless, I'm feeling pretty good about this rework.


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

In re-reading Alpha 3, there were a handful of minor items in the rules (pp 1-4) that I felt needed cleanup, so I took care of that and published as Alpha 4:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2016/1/KOG_light_rules_A4-20160105-06024722.pdf

I feel that the rules are in good shape, and accurately reflect how I want the game itself to play. I think the game has the proper "flow", a properly-matched set of +/- re-roll modifiers, and a complete set of specials.

At this point, I am "done" with the rules portion and will move on to the unit stats and balance for Beta 1, when I pull the army lists into a separate document. Target is end of month.


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Some good game design discussion in the HG thread, which reinforces the movement design - no changes there.

Happily, discussion of range will inform stats for Beta 1.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I've been doing a little playtesting with my unreleased Beta rules, and a few things jumped out at me:

1. I probably need to rebalance in favor of increased lethality. While the cat-and-mouse play in hard cover is nice, having things die faster would probably be more "dynamic". I had initially thought that lower combat effectiveness would help increase tactical play and offset first turn advantage. Now, I'm thinking that the starting distance and broken LOS does that automatically.

2. The game wants cover for tactical play. Tighter and denser than 40k, more like Mordheim.

3. I may want to change up the Initiative to incorporate the Commander's Command stat, simply to have both Commander and Command be more meaningful concepts.

Otherwise, the basic gameplay does what I want it to, so I'm basically happy with that.
____

For reference, Beta 1 guns were 2 shots hitting on 5+, with a 3+ damage: 2x 1/3 * 2/3 = 4/9 hull points out of 3 = 4/27 kill (15%).

Bumping to 2 shots hitting 4+ with 2+ damage = 2x 1/2 * 5/6 = 5/6 hp / 3 = 5/18 kill (28%) - roughly 2x as effective. Also thinking to bump ranges slightly to account for the relatively stronger gun.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 08:29:08


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Been mathhammering the basic Jaeger / Hunter for Beta 2, and I think I've got their stats where I want them:

Jaeger / Hunter
- Autocannon: 2 shots 4+ for 2+ damage

That's 2x 1/2 * 5/6 for 0.83 hull damage per round, approx 1 hull damage with critical damage.

Tactically, if it's 2 on 1, then they attackers should destroy a defender in the open.

OTOH, with cover, esp. hard cover, the hit rate (and damage) drops a huge amount, so kills become much more difficult. That seems fair to me.
____

As I've been working on Beta 2, I've been thinking I need to rework the 4-page armies pamphlet:
1. World and Setting Background
2. German Empire (~HG South) units
3. Russian Empire (~HG North) units
4. Force Organization

I'm no longer doing the HG Terra Nova thing - the setting is moving to more of an ongoing Great War, with a focus on the German Ostfront vs Russia, in which the breakthrough units are one-man mini-mechs instead of the trench-crossing tanks. Instead of HG stuff, KL will be moving to generic mech classes (basic, elite, recon, heavy, etc.) with specifics by Army. There will be keywording to support this. At some point, there will likely be a HG to KL "counts as" thing.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 08:28:40


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Good playtest skirmish game today, using the Beta 2 stats for all 10 models I own:

2 Black Mamba + 2 Jaeger
6 Jaegers (1 Blitz)

We focused on the tactical portion of the game, with heavy use of cover/terrain and force concentration on both sides. The double turns from initiative shifts produce interesting swings. Gameplay moved along nicely enough,

We ignored coherency, which isn't a huge deal, as one can assume radios. Also because force concentration tends to group models up anyways.

We also ignored Command / Morale, as the enveloping furball was too tactically enjoyable to play through. For how few models I'll be playing on each side, this may not be a major issue.

I may well rework to pull either / both of those rules from the rules in favor of point-blank (re-roll fail) / long-range shooting (re-roll success) and/or rules for stacking similar re-rolls for auto-success / auto-fail.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

I just took a read through a couple times through the rules. There is something that makes it read strange to me, still not sure what it is entirely. I'll go through it again later tonight to see if I can identify it. When I play, I would like rules where I can essentially play along with a Quick Start and not have to jump around and there are parts that I have to refer to another section. On the plus side it is all within the same page layout-wise so I'm not flipping to another page.

Just some observations as I try to talk out loud to figure out what is reading strange to me:

Scenic Terrain – A variety of scenic terrain upon the battlefield that hinders movement (e.g. Rough Ground) and/or obstructs line of sight (e.g. Soft Cover / Hard Cover) will provide a richer tactical game.
We talk about different types of cover, soft and hard but we don't define what conditions puts someone in "hard cover" instead of "soft cover" and vice versa. We touch on it lightly in "Line of Sight" and "Check Damage". It appears the difference between hard and soft, is something partially obscured LoS it is soft cover. If something is behind "heavy, solid" it is hard cover but what defines "heavy, solid cover"?

each result that is at least equal to the target number causes 1 hit on the target model
Is the target number the #+ next to the weapons on your stat sheet?

Cover – If the target has any cover for Partial Line of Sight, then re-roll any successful shooting results
This is interesting. I don't think I've seen cover handled like that before, usually it involves adding a modifier of some sort. Rerolling successful results is interesting.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Hi, the last version I uploaded is Alpha 4, which is basically rules complete, but plays slow due to a lot of Nothing Happens combat. I'm currently working on internal Beta 3, where the play speed is getting to where I want it to be.

The layout is a little different, in that p.2 is mostly movement & turn sequence, as actions are partly dictated by movement, and p.3 is basically combat resolution. In theory, the core rules are its own Quickstart.

Hard vs Soft cover is something that players would designate and define for themselves, rather than being dictated by the core rules. For example, in an urban environment, play concrete buildings as hard cover (re-roll hits & damage), with billboards and shrubbery as soft cover (re-roll hits). And that's probably what's missing - examples.

The weapons have their target number as part of the model's stat, per the Jaeger example: Autocannon (24" 2 shots 4+). Note that a more powerful Autocannon on a more accurate unit might be 36" 3 shots 3+. AoS meets Zombicide, as it were.

I decided against +/- modifiers early on. A Jaeger Autocannon always hits on a final result of 4+. It may re-roll but the final die result always determines success or failure. Numerically, within the typical 3+ to 5+ range, it's functionally similar to +/-.

Right now, I'm cleaning up the game, and will almost certainly be pulling Morale and Command, while revamping Commander. The game will be even tighter and smoother, to squeeze in more, faster turns.

Anyhow, thanks for the comments, and hope that my response helps clarify things.



Note that the rules are not quite ready for public playtesting. I'll try to have a public Beta version up later this week.
____

3/2 - I've taken a knife to the Command & Morale bits to simplify the Command concept and will be further streamlining the general and specific army selection rules.

In reworking the 2nd set of 4 pages, I'm thinking:
1 - Background
2 - German Army & Units
3 - Russian Army & Units
4 - Terrain Effects & alt Scenario

We'll see how well it goes!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/03 07:06:55


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

From another thread...
 Smilodon_UP wrote:
Of interest to this topic and quite a number of discussions in this sub-forum; Wargame Design Series - Updated Index


This is some really good stuff that I'll be going through. Even though I think I've got the game playing how I want it. As I'm working through Beta, I probably need to stop tweaking and put a stake in the ground. After that, worry about conversion and revamps. Gotta focus on getting to 1.0


Speaking of 1.0, it looks like Russia will be based on CEF minis, not Northern minis. The North is essentially similar to South, whereas the CEF is clearly different.

Germany (South)
- Tactical (GP) / Recon / Elite (Strike) / Heavy (Fire Support) KOGs (Gears)
- Cavalry (Lizard-riders)

Russia (CEF)
- Blitz / Assault units (Frames)
- Hovertanks & HoverAPCs
- Assault Infantry

The default KOG light game will be asymmetric Red vs Blue, which opens up for greater strategic and tactical variety. Those who want to sub in North / PRDF / other Gears can play as German for symmetric Black vs White games.
____

OK, intent is to get a number of Frames:
2x 6-16 basic frames
2x 2-21 basic frames
2x 2-25 recon frames
3x 2-19 heavy frame

Maybe HT-68 & GREL infantry.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/05/12 07:37:21


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I went through the Wargame Design Series of articles, and feel that 90% of KOG light is where it should be, based on my design goals. Of course, that's largely because I went through the trouble of clearly outlining what I wanted my game to do. Having that design brief was a huge help in getting my rules together, because it allows me to ask myself the key question: "does this rule help my game be what I said it's supposed to be?". Also because the initial commentary really helped solidify the conceptual basis of how the game should work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/10 19:33:22


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

In reworking KOG light, a question comes up: why are there 2 flavors of Cover? What's the difference between Hard & Soft? Shouldn't I just have "Cover" and let that be it? Yes!

Also, I'm allowing units to fire beyond "effective range", but at a penalty.

Thus, my core combat resolution summary looks like this:

Assault
+ charged
6 Crit Hit

Shooting
+ stationary
- extreme range
1 Friendly Fire
6 Crit Hit

Damage
+ Crit Hit
- cover
6 Crit Damage (2x)

Easy as pie!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/15 07:23:43


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I'm mucking about and I see Battlefront has a new TANKS game that just does armor battles. It's quite elegant.

http://tanks.gf9games.com/

Makes the complexity of KOG light feel a little bloated...

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Lately, I've been considering "fair" partial activations under an overriding Igo-Ugo structure. We know that ALL:ALL activation has an issue with scale, but 1:1 has the opposite problem of not enough happening. I've seen things with half:half, and that's not a bad compromise, but it creates the question of how to determine "half".

Partial activation has the issue with "exhaustion" over consecutive turns to prevent the ridiculousness of "Rambo" units. I rather dislike the notion of bookkeeping which units moved last turn, as my intent is to only track damage states from turn to turn, with nothing else having permanence after the last resolution step.

For skirmish play, I wonder if 3:3 might be a good compromise. Hmm..


Note that the reason for this is a Horror Vacui situation, where I've stripped out a bunch of stuff tied to un-fun Morale, so now I want to fill the space in the rules.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I've been pondering opposed actions and pseudo-opposed actions, which people say they like.

I'm now thinking that the default is an opposed action, where it's Shooting is vs Armor, and Fighting is either vs Armor or vs Fighting.

Having opposed Defense makes Armor a fixed benefit that doesn't scale up with weapon saturation fire. This makes a 2x 5+ attack meaningfully different from 1x 3+, as a strong success can partially bypass defense.

It also means that units under assault can make a decision to tank the hits or counterattack in response, for a better risk/reward. Not that this will change the bias from shooting to assault, or attack vs defense. It will spice things up a bit, tho.

   
Made in ca
Deadshot Weapon Moderati




There's a game called "Pulp Alley" out there that has an interesting take on an activation-based turn sequence. Essentially one player (and it's designed for 2-6 players) has the Initiative, and that means they can decide which player activates a model next.

A player can lose the Initiative by having one of their models lose a fight (their model takes damage while the opposing model does not, all fights are resolved 1:1 like 2nd edition Warhammer with bonuses for being the next in line), or lose a challenge (these happen when encountering objectives, or sometimes when event cards are played).

So each model can activate, but it's rarely in the order that a player wishes, and models that are addressed by acting models can react (sacrificing their own action) or hold off in the hold they'll survive until it's their own time to act.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Thanks for the pointer!

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut






Thanks for this thread. It has been absolutely fascinating to read it after all the work you've done and see what came out of all the play testing. Excellent work.

Ashley
--
http://panther6actual.blogspot.co.uk/ 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Thanks!

I've actually gotten quite a bit behind on publishing updates. There's a half-page of "fluff" I've written on the German v Russian antagonists and world background. It's pretty awful by fiction standards, but it's serviceable.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

FYI, the fluff has this the conflicts in the 2030s. I am seriously considering picking up a couple 1/144 Leopard 2s and Russian T-90s, along with modern 1/144 infantry for scale.

Update: more precisely, this is the 100th anniversary of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), where KOGs take the role of tanks. Same proxy Soviet vs German forces.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/11 02:59:33


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

It has been a very long time since I released an update to this ruleset, but Beta 3 is now available:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2016/6/KOG_light_rules_B3-20160622-23045311.pdf

While the Alpha-based rules were OK, In the process of playing the game, I found that I didn't enjoy certain things that I had included and kept nearly as much as I thought I would. Morale being punishing and wordy and uncommon, so I removed it entirely. Distinguishing Soft Cover from Hard Cover was unnecessary work, so it's combined to simply Cover. And limiting range unrealistically was bothering me. I also found that I needed reactions to being attacked, so added a Counterattack as an option to defending - so now the target has something to think about, also dice to roll. And Defending works like Attacking, with similar granularity. Finally, I also added a coordinated fire ability for the Commander. On net, models can do more, but the game is more dependent upon adequate cover for optimal play.

I added a number of classic scenarios on top of the default Capture the Flag: King of the Hill, Kill 'em All, and Touchdown!

I tightened up the Building an Army section with more reasonable points values, and reconcepted the scale as individual model skirmish (up to 5 models) or small squad skirmish. If I won't own (or play) more than a dozen models per side, Platoon-level engagement is not something I need to worry about.

That makes for a complete 4-page rules packet that should allow players to organize a game of a particular size and scenario (p.4), set it up (p.1) and then just play it (pp. 2-3).


The 4-page Forces section was heavily reworked with a whole half-page of background (p.5). The Southern Gears forces were redone as German KOGs (p.6), while the Northern Gears were replaced by CEF Frames reskinned as Russian (p.7). The last page is unit/model description, and unit composition (p.8).


Overall, I think the new rules are more dynamic and more tactical. I'm pretty sure the stats are a mess, and it'll take a fair amount of mathhammer and playtesting to clean that up. Rather than waiting indefinitely on that (which has already been quite a few months), I decided to release my update for comment. The fluff should be adequate, and it's no longer WW1, but the Spanish Civil War.


Going forward, the obvious task is to further tighten things. At this point, hypertech like hovertanks, and wierd stuff like mutant dinosaurs aren't going to figure much in the game. Which nicely saves me some cash. I do want to add Infantry, and possibly conventional armor, so there will be placeholders for that. Helicopters and armed drones also want to figure into the game, but that's a real challenge to balance.

I did not go with partial activations, as I think it implies bookkeeping and such that I don't need under Igo-Ugo. I haven't formally ruled them out, either.

Anyhow, thanks for bearing with me.

   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: