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.

I cleaned up a bunch of old rules, started writing down implementations for several USRs, adding 'examples' (including using Dice Unicode for roll results to show things in more detail), and otherwise making progress.

Today I'm working on adding more depth to character creation. I have a background system in place to help players flesh out their backstory and make it fit with the time. I have to dig through a log of Reconstruction era history in an attempt to make it accurate, so it's a slow process. I'm also tweaking my skill selection system, which goes hand in hand with backgrounds.

I had a 'summary/demo' this past tuesday, and am working on cleaning up the RAW. I've updated the TOC to rearrange stuff by topics, and have rearranged my stats some for the sake of streamlining. I am looking at the prospect of making 'unit cards' next.

Continuing to write on my end. I had the shocking revelation that my attack resolution process is 17 steps long (technically 18, but that extra step is basically "declare if other models are going to combine their attacks with this one". Arguably I could collapse that down to 10 (11 including the supporting/combined attack), but I prefer to keep several of the steps as separate for the purposes of being able to clearly explain the process as opposed to potentially confusing a player by throwing too many things at them in one go.

I knew it was a lengthy and complex process, but in preliminary self-testing it didn't seem *this* egregious - I had thought I had already accounted for the issue with the combined/supporting attack option, which basically lets you piggyback attacks from differenbt models/units against a common target so that you don't have to run through the complete process so many times, but I think that only gets you so far...

...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here:

-The complex system takes time because there are numerous data inputs into it which allows it to generate a complex and detailed damage output that takes a lot of factors and variables into account. Using it allows you to potentially cause a significant amount of damage to the target if all the variables factors fall in your favor, at the risk of potentially doing little to no damage at all if things don't work out the way you think they are going to.

-The simple system eliminates a lot of the variables/factors or simplifies them down into fixed values and produces a very simple and straightforward damage output. Using it is quick and easy and comes with guaranteed damage against the target at the cost of doing significantly less damage than what you could *potentially* achieve using the complex system.

Right now I'm digging the idea as it solves a design problem while also creating gameplay depth via a meaningful player choice that strongly factors player skill into the mix - if I implement this correctly (with regards to unit design) then I think there will be a huge element of player skill in knowing when to use one resolution mechanic vs the other. Fluff-wise, I liken the complex system to a precisely aimed shot vs the simple system being the equivalent of firing from the hip. I haven't quite worked out how many steps the simple resolution will be, but its looking like it will be between 8-10 - while that might still seem to be on the lengthy side, its mostly the simplest steps in the process, such as "select target", "select weapon", "select special ammunition/firing mode (if applicable)", "check line of sight", and "check range" - so really nothing to concern myself with a players ability to understand and follow.

Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.

Wrapping up my project for the day. I had several test gunfights and overall I like the feel of how the system is working. I'm making tweaks to skill modifiers and such but the lethality of gunfights is where I want it to be. Players will have means of surviving fatal hits but I want at least some consideration paid when someone decides to starting throwing lead about.

Tomorrow I'll run some more tests and fine tune my aiming mechanics.

chaos0xomega wrote:
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here...Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.

Mind if I ask what the steps in question are? One thing I usually figure is that when a game has too many steps, some of them are redundant/repeats in way that they can be streamlined.

Gridge wrote:Wrapping up my project for the day. I had several test gunfights and overall I like the feel of how the system is working. I'm making tweaks to skill modifiers and such but the lethality of gunfights is where I want it to be. Players will have means of surviving fatal hits but I want at least some consideration paid when someone decides to starting throwing lead about.

Tomorrow I'll run some more tests and fine tune my aiming mechanics.

Good to hear it's coming along smoothly.

I figured out how to draw SmartArt in OpenOffice yesterday. I am working on prototyping statcards for the units in question.

I will probably use some more time to create an "Armory" chapter as well.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here...Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.

Mind if I ask what the steps in question are? One thing I usually figure is that when a game has too many steps, some of them are redundant/repeats in way that they can be streamlined.

Would be a bit too complex to explain it without the context of the rest of the game (once I'm far enough along in writing I'll be posting a pre-alpha draft and some print-n-play materials here for people to mess around with), I already mentioned 5 of them though: "select target", "select weapon", "select special ammunition/firing mode (if applicable)", "check line of sight", and "check range". The shooting process also incorporates detection/fog of war mechanics, defensive reactions, and a few other things that are usually handled as separate processes and mechanics, as it makes more sense to integrate everything in order to cut back on unnecessary die rolls, etc. Its actually a fairly interactive process in which both players are involved and have a number of meaningful decisions to make, as opposed to just one player taking a bunch of measurements, flipping through stats and charts, and repeatedly rolling multple handfuls of dice while the other player stands there and takes it until they roll some saves at the end.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here...Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.

Mind if I ask what the steps in question are? One thing I usually figure is that when a game has too many steps, some of them are redundant/repeats in way that they can be streamlined.

Would be a bit too complex to explain it without the context of the rest of the game (once I'm far enough along in writing I'll be posting a pre-alpha draft and some print-n-play materials here for people to mess around with), I already mentioned 5 of them though: "select target", "select weapon", "select special ammunition/firing mode (if applicable)", "check line of sight", and "check range". The shooting process also incorporates detection/fog of war mechanics, defensive reactions, and a few other things that are usually handled as separate processes and mechanics, as it makes more sense to integrate everything in order to cut back on unnecessary die rolls, etc. Its actually a fairly interactive process in which both players are involved and have a number of meaningful decisions to make, as opposed to just one player taking a bunch of measurements, flipping through stats and charts, and repeatedly rolling multple handfuls of dice while the other player stands there and takes it until they roll some saves at the end.

Ultimately, you are dealing with three components: Declare, React, Resolve.
-Range&LOS are target eligibility.
-Depending on your rules, 'select weapon' could be part of the declare, while 'select ammo/firing mode' could be part of your resolution sequence.

I am not sure how you are handling Fog Of War/Detection Mechanics.

Ultimately, I went for reducing everything in my system into a 'single roll' framework, and resolving either at the 'unit' or the 'stand', level, rather than for individual troopers.
-Roll Attack # of D6s, counting all successes (normally 4+s.)
-Opponent rolls Agility # of D6s, adds Toughness to the result. Subtract to determine the casualties.
-Doubles/triples/quadruples on either roll result in Critical results.

Making it a singular opposed diceroll thus prevents the need for a separate "keep" phase, inherent to the "Roll/Wound/Save/Save-after-Save" system GW tends to prefer.

Yep, my process is technically a single roll broken into two parts (or maybe its technically two rolls combined into one? Not really important).

As I stated previously I could absolutely collapse several steps together - select target, weapon, and ammo could very easily be one step - theres only a paragraph worth of text between the three as it is. Checking range and line of sight (currently 4 steps total to check range/los as there are arcs/facings involved) could likewise be a single step - but you're looking at about two pages worth of text for that explainer at that point, to me it makes more sense to keep these as discrete steps to prevent a player from being overwhelmed by too much information.

Fog of War/Detection are covered in two steps which could be collapsed into one which would cover about a page - but the second of these two steps is "optional" (i.e. if the attacker decides its a good idea to push their luck a bit).

Likewise theres another 2-step sub-process where the attacker has to make a couple decisions about whether they want to prioritize volume of fire, accuracy of fire, or damage - about a page worth of text that could be one step, but one of the two steps is wholly optional depending on whether or not they think they should in order to maximize their potential.

From a process standpoint it just feels like it makes more sense to keep them separate steps. Admittedly, some of the text can, and probably should, be pulled out of the attack resolution sequence and moved to a separate section ala "Game Basics" - if Im not explaining things like how weapons and ammunition work, or how range and line of sight and facings, etc. are measured as part of the process step then it might be more logical to compress and collapse some of these steps together - but thats for a future draft/revision.

I have been painting a lot to get photos and ad work for upcoming games done.

I spent more time streamlining my damage system to include the possibility of losing limbs, mainly if struck with large bladed weapons (which probably won't be too common in a Wild West rpg). I don't want the game to be bogged down by charts, but combat needs to have the potential to be lethal. There will also be rules for other weapons to break bones or cause debilitating damage. It's really tough to strike the balance between fast paced and realistic as well as find the right level of danger. This weekend I'll be running some more test combat sessions.

Lore. Making lore for my game got around to a few factions but I will probably spend all day making more lore.

I had a productive day. Worked a bit on my skills system as it relates to character creation and had more test combat. The combat is coming together. I didn't have too many notes to add afterwards for things that need changed or tweaked, so that's a good sign in my book. I also found at least one potential playtester. It's nearly to the point that I'm going to need a few of those.

Worked on some supplemental Lines of Battle for Men of Bronze and did a lot of historical research lately.

I spent some time trying to kitbash some Etruscans together for a quick paint and photo for a Men of Bronze Line of Battle.

Edit: There are not a lot of good, copyright free pictures of Etruscans out there. Plenty of artwork, but not much beyond that.

I started creating "index tables" for unit statlines and weapon profiles to get content written in a faster form. I decided that rather than do "weapon advantage/disadvantage" as a +1/-1 modifier to the die roll, to make advantage into a "Roll&Drop" system. That is, if you have six attack and advantage 1, you roll seven dice and drop one. If you have six attack and disadvantage 1, you roll seven dice but your opponent chooses the die to drop.

This also affects the odds of criticals or fumbles accordingly.

I like the roll and drop system MUCH better.

Working on how to make some form of Morale rules for a 30-50 model skirmishy game both easy to use, as well as giving some interesting decisions for the player.

Have considered simply ditching the normal "roll for morale", and leave it up to the players whether a model should seek cover or not when attacked.

However, I doubt that any player would ever choose to do so - and thus it doesn't really become a decision in the first place. Doubt there's any real soloution to this question.

They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.

 Easy E wrote:
They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.

True enough. And seeing as there's a breaking point for your army once you've suffered 50% casualties (a high and unrealistic number, I know, but it's space fantasy I'm working on, so... ) - that might be all of the incentive that is needed. Thanks for that EE - hadn't considered that angle!

It has been quite the joy - until I hit this snag - to work on this game; I'm attempting a "best practice" kind of deal in what started out as an attempt at a retro-clone, but has steadily evolved into its own beast.

Phoenikuz wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.

True enough. And seeing as there's a breaking point for your army once you've suffered 50% casualties (a high and unrealistic number, I know, but it's space fantasy I'm working on, so... ) - that might be all of the incentive that is needed. Thanks for that EE - hadn't considered that angle!

It has been quite the joy - until I hit this snag - to work on this game; I'm attempting a "best practice" kind of deal in what started out as an attempt at a retro-clone, but has steadily evolved into its own beast.

Saga uses "Fatigue tokens" to represent overextension and morale damage. Essentially, each time a unit is in a melee, it gains a fatigue. When a unit has 3 fatigue on it, it cannot activate except to Rest. Your opponent can spend Fatigue on your unit to debuff its movement, attack, or defense, or can spend 2 Fatigue to autofail an activation.

I'm doing something that is a hybrid of that and Epic/Bolt Action's system. Each time a unit takes morale damage, you place a D6 next to it. When the unit has more D6s than its threshold, it breaks. However, your opponent can spend those D6s to modify luck/chance against your unit.

Whats the significance of the D6 in your system vs just using a fatigue token? If you're not rolling the d6 then its basically a waste of space and dice to use them. Bolt action almost has the same issue - it doesn't need to be a die that you pull, but it saves itself a bit on the basis that the die have six different faces which represent one of the six different orders you're issuing to the unit you're activating and serve as an activation token to remind you that you've already did something with that unit this turn.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Phoenikuz wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.

True enough. And seeing as there's a breaking point for your army once you've suffered 50% casualties (a high and unrealistic number, I know, but it's space fantasy I'm working on, so... ) - that might be all of the incentive that is needed. Thanks for that EE - hadn't considered that angle!

It has been quite the joy - until I hit this snag - to work on this game; I'm attempting a "best practice" kind of deal in what started out as an attempt at a retro-clone, but has steadily evolved into its own beast.

Saga uses "Fatigue tokens" to represent overextension and morale damage. Essentially, each time a unit is in a melee, it gains a fatigue. When a unit has 3 fatigue on it, it cannot activate except to Rest. Your opponent can spend Fatigue on your unit to debuff its movement, attack, or defense, or can spend 2 Fatigue to autofail an activation.

I'm doing something that is a hybrid of that and Epic/Bolt Action's system. Each time a unit takes morale damage, you place a D6 next to it. When the unit has more D6s than its threshold, it breaks. However, your opponent can spend those D6s to modify luck/chance against your unit.

I did consider the "Fatigue token" style of Saga, but I'm also limiting myself by having the following dogmas for this design:

- IGOUGO (or rather I-phase, U-phase); I really wanted to see if I could make something that works for what I want.

- No tokens, except for wounds (simply for the ease of it). While some tokens might be needed, it isn't strictly nessecary. Thus a Fatigue token system would counteract this rule.

- More player decision in game, with a greater emphasis on using the units you bring, not what you bring.

But I do like your idea; sort of how Nerve tests works in Kings of War?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whats the significance of the D6 in your system vs just using a fatigue token? If you're not rolling the d6 then its basically a waste of space and dice to use them. Bolt action almost has the same issue - it doesn't need to be a die that you pull, but it saves itself a bit on the basis that the die have six different faces which represent one of the six different orders you're issuing to the unit you're activating and serve as an activation token to remind you that you've already did something with that unit this turn.

The way my game system works, you get an 'attack roll' for every stand of four models or so, in a manner akin to Warmaster.
For most stands, this is a small pool of D6s; I have it so that a baseline unit of swordsmen with "Strength 3" would roll "Strength+3" or six attack dice, with hits on 4+.
Hits minus saves=casualties inflicted to a unit. There is no separate 'to-wound' roll so to speak.

Now, most units/weapons have critical effects which are triggered off of getting 'repeated' rolls on the dice. That is, doubles/triples/quadruples. In most cases, a 'triple' means 'morale damage' meaning placing a die with that face on the enemy unit.
For example, if a unit of swordsmen roll 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, they would only do "one" hit (meaning very low odds of actually inflicting casualties), but would place a "3" morale die on their target.

Both players have a pre-rolled pool of three "Fortune" dice, which can replace a die in a roll. For example, if a player had a 3 in their fortune pool, they could replace the "2" with a "3", resulting in a quadruple 3 ("3 extra hits") instead of a triple 3 ("place a '3' die as morale damage). You can substitute one die, either on one of your rolls or your opponent's rolls.

Normally, you can only substitute ONE fortune die into a roll like this, but if an enemy unit has morale dice on it, you can spend a morale die to either interfere with one of that unit's rolls, or to boost a roll made against that unit. Since this can also mean messing with activation rolls, this also lets me abstract out "suppression" rules or exploiting weaknesses in an enemy unit. Morale damage dice with 'low' values (1-3) are more valuable to trade in for messing up activation rolls, while morale damage dice with 'high' values (4s-6s) are good for getting extra hits or hi-value criticals.

I am also not a fan of Fatigue tokens or Pin markers as the clutter up a table fast.

That said, I like the idea that the opponent applies the disadvantage and not the player.... hmmmm....

 Easy E wrote:
I am also not a fan of Fatigue tokens or Pin markers as the clutter up a table fast.

That said, I like the idea that the opponent applies the disadvantage and not the player.... hmmmm....

I think it could be handled reasonably with some mild DIY ingenuity; a separate "tray" of dice, perhaps 2x4 or otherwise so that you can move the D6 morale dice around without accidentally cocking/tipping them over.

With Saga, you can probably just use D4s or large D6s next to individual units to show how many fatigue they have; just because it says token doesn't necessarily mean they have to be individual mandala stones or so. That said, I think this system will make things 'simpler' in the long run because I don't NEED to have separate rules for suppression, fatigue, disruption, or anything else. They're all just abstracted out into manipulation of the dice mechanics.

Ah, so I guess the part that I missed (and maybe you didn't entirely elaborate on) is that you are using the die to store "data", i.e. depending on whats going on, the die that the unit takes as a fatigue point has a specific value and that value sticks/travels with the unit up until the point that their opponent spends it to trigger some effect.

Bravo, excellent implementation!

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ah, so I guess the part that I missed (and maybe you didn't entirely elaborate on) is that you are using the die to store "data", i.e. depending on whats going on, the die that the unit takes as a fatigue point has a specific value and that value sticks/travels with the unit up until the point that their opponent spends it to trigger some effect.

Bravo, excellent implementation!

Yup. I decided that I am ok with raising the morale threshold a little more while making it easier to inflict morale damage accordingly.

The 'x2', 'x3' and 'x4' represent abilities that trigger on criticals. For example, a unit of swordsmen that rolls a 1,2,2,3,4,5 would inflict two hits, but also place a '2' of morale damage on their opponent.

The up and down arrows represent 'advantage' and 'disadvantage.' In those cases, you roll additional dice for a 'drop'. You choose the dice dropped if you have the advantage, but your opponent chooses if you have a disadvantage.

For example, a unit of Strength 3 Swordsmen normally rolls six attack dice against another unit of Swordsmen.
Against a unit of axemen, they would roll seven dice but the swordsman's player chooses one die to drop.
Against a unit of spearmen, they would roll seven dice, but the opponent chooses one die to drop.

This either increases/reduces the odds of criticals.

One thing I am "considering" for the game, is that should a roll NOT have any natural successes, any 'repeats' are not treated as criticals, but as 'fumbles'; for most intents and purposes, this means 'reversing' the effects of the critical to affect your unit instead. For example, if the Swordsmen rolled '1,1,1,1,2,3', then they would not only score zero hits, but their opponent gains Armor Piercing[1] on their next counterattack!

 Easy E wrote:
I am also not a fan of Fatigue tokens or Pin markers as the clutter up a table fast.

That said, I like the idea that the opponent applies the disadvantage and not the player.... hmmmm....

It's possible to minimize the clutter if you create a mini-tray for storing D6 results, like in this crude sprue&plasticard proof of concept. The idea would be that the d6s on those unit could be spent by the opponent for fate manipulation.

I posted up a supplement to Men of Bronze on the Wargame Vault called Hercules Abroad.

https://www.wargamevault.com/product/349063/Hercules-Abroad--Men-of-Bronze-Supplement



I am thinking about three more supplements depending on how things shake out with this one sales-wise. Future one could be based on the Ionian Revolt as a campaign book, a Mod for Trojan War, and a Mod for War of the Gods. A Mod means new units, special rules, and scenarios but based of the same core mechanics.

We will see if any ever actually see the light of day!