I Sometimes Run Out Of Title Ideas
So, I have come to some decisions.
In reference to the game, that is...
Ranked infantry will be represented by 3 minis to a strip, oriented toward the long edge. Skirmishers and any other units operating in a loose formation (more of a mob than a unit) will have two minis per strip, again facing the long edge. Cavalry will have one model per strip, this time facing the short edge of the base. Heroic miniatures will occupy a square base, again 1 model per.
Ranked units must form a block formation of ranks and files. Skirmishers may adopt any formation they please, as long as all the stands are touching and form a single, unbroken chain. Heavy and medium cavalry must rank up like ranked infantry, while light cavalry can switch back and forth between formations. I'm not sure yet how to counterbalance this ability, but I'll either charge them command points to switch, or force them to remain still to switch formation.
On the subject of command points, I will be treating the ability to issue orders to your troops as a resource, in theory taking into account time, runners, and battlefield confusion. I very much perfer having a set resource with which to wield your army than a random system of die rolling. Of course, command points (CP) will be used for more that just making your units move. Specialized orders such as securing objectives, or battlefield functions like rallying your troops will cost CP as well. Part of army building will consist of taking enough units to outmanouver your opponent, while having enough CP to keep the horde moving. Too many CP will result in the wasting of points which could be better employed elsewhere.
Strips of minis will have a set number uf hits, directly related to the number of minis on the strip. Ranked infantry have 3 hits, skirmishers 2, cavalry and heroes 1. When a strip loses all of it's hits, it is removed from play as a casualty.
The actual way hits are inflicted still remains a bit murky, as I've run into complications with every system.
The first system revolves around units having a defense value and an attack die size. all of a unit's attack die are rolled, and for each full multiple of the unit's defense value to be rolled on the individual dice (without adding them together) the unit takes a hit. This is fast, but way too generic. Weapon rules would have to be implemented through abstract special rules, which would quickly get overly complicated and are very difficult to balance.
The second system is to again assign every unit an attack die size, but this time in multiples. A strip of ranked swordsmen would have 3 attacks rolling a d6. Units would have a set defense value, 4 for the above, which if the attack die equaled or exceeded would inflict a hit. Hits could then be saved by rolling over a set save value (assigned to the weapon) on the unit's armor die (in essence the reverse of a damage die). However, if the attack rolled double or more the target's defense value, saves would be disallowed. This perhaps adds too much complication to the system, and with streamlining shows promise, but coming up with a simple mechanic is rather difficult. I've been thinking of using a d10 as the default armor die, and ranking armor values on a 1-10 (with 10 as a 0 value) scale, but instead of needing to meet or equal the armor value to save, the save value reflects what it takes to fail. For example: if a unit had a save value of 6 (which is a LOT of armor, by the way) any die that rolled a 1-6 would fail to save, while on a 7-10 they would keep fighting. The main value of this system is having weapons which deny armor most of the time, but not all of the time.
The second system (or a bastardization of the second system) is likely what I'll use, but as of yet, more pondering (and playtesting) is required.
One thing is definate, I want to employ polyhedral dice. They allow vastly more variety than the old standard six-siders. A system entirely reliant on d10s has been considered, but in the end cast aside in favor of variety.
There's nothing worse than a bland game.
A long road ahead of me, but as they say, it starts with but a single step.
In reference to the game, that is...
Ranked infantry will be represented by 3 minis to a strip, oriented toward the long edge. Skirmishers and any other units operating in a loose formation (more of a mob than a unit) will have two minis per strip, again facing the long edge. Cavalry will have one model per strip, this time facing the short edge of the base. Heroic miniatures will occupy a square base, again 1 model per.
Ranked units must form a block formation of ranks and files. Skirmishers may adopt any formation they please, as long as all the stands are touching and form a single, unbroken chain. Heavy and medium cavalry must rank up like ranked infantry, while light cavalry can switch back and forth between formations. I'm not sure yet how to counterbalance this ability, but I'll either charge them command points to switch, or force them to remain still to switch formation.
On the subject of command points, I will be treating the ability to issue orders to your troops as a resource, in theory taking into account time, runners, and battlefield confusion. I very much perfer having a set resource with which to wield your army than a random system of die rolling. Of course, command points (CP) will be used for more that just making your units move. Specialized orders such as securing objectives, or battlefield functions like rallying your troops will cost CP as well. Part of army building will consist of taking enough units to outmanouver your opponent, while having enough CP to keep the horde moving. Too many CP will result in the wasting of points which could be better employed elsewhere.
Strips of minis will have a set number uf hits, directly related to the number of minis on the strip. Ranked infantry have 3 hits, skirmishers 2, cavalry and heroes 1. When a strip loses all of it's hits, it is removed from play as a casualty.
The actual way hits are inflicted still remains a bit murky, as I've run into complications with every system.
The first system revolves around units having a defense value and an attack die size. all of a unit's attack die are rolled, and for each full multiple of the unit's defense value to be rolled on the individual dice (without adding them together) the unit takes a hit. This is fast, but way too generic. Weapon rules would have to be implemented through abstract special rules, which would quickly get overly complicated and are very difficult to balance.
The second system is to again assign every unit an attack die size, but this time in multiples. A strip of ranked swordsmen would have 3 attacks rolling a d6. Units would have a set defense value, 4 for the above, which if the attack die equaled or exceeded would inflict a hit. Hits could then be saved by rolling over a set save value (assigned to the weapon) on the unit's armor die (in essence the reverse of a damage die). However, if the attack rolled double or more the target's defense value, saves would be disallowed. This perhaps adds too much complication to the system, and with streamlining shows promise, but coming up with a simple mechanic is rather difficult. I've been thinking of using a d10 as the default armor die, and ranking armor values on a 1-10 (with 10 as a 0 value) scale, but instead of needing to meet or equal the armor value to save, the save value reflects what it takes to fail. For example: if a unit had a save value of 6 (which is a LOT of armor, by the way) any die that rolled a 1-6 would fail to save, while on a 7-10 they would keep fighting. The main value of this system is having weapons which deny armor most of the time, but not all of the time.
The second system (or a bastardization of the second system) is likely what I'll use, but as of yet, more pondering (and playtesting) is required.
One thing is definate, I want to employ polyhedral dice. They allow vastly more variety than the old standard six-siders. A system entirely reliant on d10s has been considered, but in the end cast aside in favor of variety.
There's nothing worse than a bland game.
A long road ahead of me, but as they say, it starts with but a single step.