Warcards rant, part Duh.

[James Ruhland]

>
> You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
> where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
> a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
> it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
> same as the battle result cards but with dice.
>
That wouldn't solve my problem with the battle cards which is:
1) the generally boring uniformity of the units (I have a mass army of
Pikemen and Archers now because basically that's all that is available to
me and effective against my opponent's force. But it is utterly boring to
me, and the very *opposite* of how I prefer to conduct warfare, because the
pike are SO SLOW).
2) the utter predictability of the results (especially if large numbers of
units are involved), and conversely
3) the utter randomness of the results (tactics/generalship plays, IMO,
only a limited role, mainly because of the restricted nature of the
battlefield).

IMO, keeping the system the same and only exchanging dice for the cards
themselves isn't really much of an improvement. So we use dice. We could
settle the results in a nice game of Quarters, too (which would have some
nice side benifits of the U.S. Grant variety).
I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
complex.

[Tim Nutting]

> I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
> complex.

I don't know how well it would work, but I've considered changing the field
of play to a 9 x 5 plus the reserves area. Theoreticaly, this should
create much more room to maneuver. Also, to accomdate this, I would
increase the range of missile units to 3 squares away

I have also considered using the existing WC rules, keeping the cards as
unit detail sheets, and representing the units with metal miniatures on a
big table with terrain. Change the Move to # of inches moved, and change
the ranges on weapons, say - give crossbows a range of 6 inches, longbows
8-9 inches, and javeleins/spears a range of 2 inches. Melee units must be
within 1 inch to strike their foes.

Just my 2 GBs

Tim Nutting

[DKEvermore]

In a message dated 98-05-25 19:18:30 EDT, you write:

> IMO, keeping the system the same and only exchanging dice for the cards
> themselves isn't really much of an improvement. So we use dice. We could
> settle the results in a nice game of Quarters, too (which would have some
> nice side benifits of the U.S. Grant variety).
> I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
> complex.
>

In that case, just pick up a copy of Battlesystem rules somewhere. There's no
reason for a Birthright rulebook to re-print that. Oh, and sorry, your gonna
have to deal with a game of "Quarters" in 90% of all war games, if that's what
you're calling rolling dice.

- -DKE

[James Ruhland]

>
> In that case, just pick up a copy of Battlesystem rules somewhere.
There's no
> reason for a Birthright rulebook to re-print that. Oh, and sorry, your
gonna
> have to deal with a game of "Quarters" in 90% of all war games, if that's
what
> you're calling rolling dice.
>
Yes, but IMO the dice have too great an affect on the outcome in this
system.
In the Battlesystem rules (both versions), the die rolls (and yes, chance
is an important factor in combat. . .) play about the same role that they
do in your normal adventure melee in determining the outcome.
Battlesystem is actually fairly good. The newer version IMO under-rates
the strength of spellcasters (especially for the BR world where rare
spellcasters can have awesome effects). And a number of other quibbles.
But generalship & general strategy at least play a more enhanced role, and
units of any type can be created & expressed in a uniform fashion (as well
as being more easily convertable to what they'd look like as individuals;
note the periodic debates in this forum about just what a "Knights" unit is
composed of, because the "rules" are rather vague on that score.)

[veryfastperson@juno.com]

>I have also considered using the existing WC rules, keeping the cards
>as
>unit detail sheets, and representing the units with metal miniatures
>on a
>big table with terrain. Change the Move to # of inches moved, and
>change
>the ranges on weapons, say - give crossbows a range of 6 inches,
>longbows
>8-9 inches, and javeleins/spears a range of 2 inches. Melee units
>must be
>within 1 inch to strike their foes.

if you find this to work better, could you send all the information on it
to me? i would love to use what you say here instead of the battlemap - i
just don't have the time to do all the conversion/math :-)

good luck,
Erik

Veryfastperson@juno.com


__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]