Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Discussion of the upcoming Battle Card system for TRIUMPH!
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Postby David Kuijt » Fri May 12, 2017 2:16 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:You are resistant to this suggestion, which is fine,


I'd say more that I am cautious. And looking for specific evidence (evidence in a specific battle!) to support it. Ideally evidence that supports it for the Mongols vis-a-vis any other horsebow army. Because if it's something any horsebow army should have, then the problem (if it exists) should be solved by modifying horsebow, not by a battle card for the Mongols.

Bill Hupp wrote:but I don't think 4 CPS over the course of a game with over 40 CPs on average would break it.


Sure.

Bill Hupp wrote: I see that it would just chop off the very extreme lower end of the CP results curve and its real value is early in the game, more the grand strategic part of the game.


Speaking as Devil's Advocate again, playtesting is really important for changes like that. Because different people have different guesses about how a change will effect play, and often playtesting results are unexpected. In this case, my personal guess (based upon my experience) is that having (or preventing) extreme command point results is less important early in the game than it is later. It's not so bad to recover from having 1 pip, even two or more turns in a row, very early in the game. But having 1 pip at the critical juncture -- the critical turn, in the mid game -- can be a total disaster.
DK

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Postby David Kuijt » Fri May 12, 2017 2:17 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:DK,

I am right with you philosophically. As an ACW gamer I always take out all the 'confederates shoot better' etc modifiers. National modifiers without specifically understanding how and when it exists makes no sense to me.


Exactly. And that's a really good example.
DK

User avatar
Bill Hupp
Squire
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Postby Bill Hupp » Fri May 12, 2017 5:28 pm

DK: "having (or preventing) extreme command point results is less important early in the game than it is later. It's not so bad to recover from having 1 pip, even two or more turns in a row, very early in the game."

Not sure I agree when it comes to the Mongols or to the grand strategy phase. But I think I'll start another thread related to the grand strategy phase.

Agree about the playtesting. Also, might be good to limit the use of the cards to the early part of the game. 4 turns? Anyway, before the battle gets to the chaos phase. For Mongols the orders would be, "Do this and if it doesn't work get out of there."

Clearly I am not that cautious in terms of bending the legacy system model and I of course expect you to play Devil's Advocate (if not Devil himself. :-) )

Bill

I like Triumph! and I play lots of different games.
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
I play lots of games and I like Triumph!

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Postby David Kuijt » Fri May 12, 2017 5:55 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:Agree about the playtesting. Also, might be good to limit the use of the cards to the early part of the game. 4 turns? Anyway, before the battle gets to the chaos phase. For Mongols the orders would be, "Do this and if it doesn't work get out of there."


I suspect you're thinking about battle cards as events that are "played" (held in reserve until expended to create a game effect at a particular time); relatively few battle cards currently under examination have that structure. The vast majority are army-specific or stand-type specific abilities like mid-battle dismounting, pre-battle dismounting, mounted infantry of various types, Plaustrella, deployment enhancements, fortified camps, distant/absent camps, Standard Wagons (Carroccio), and that sort of thing.

There are some "play it" battle cards -- "Hold the Line", for example, is an expendable battle card (one that is played, and after played is no longer available) that allows a player to avoid following up on an enemy stand that his guys double, where normally he would advance forward. Some particularly disciplined foot (Roman Legionaries, for example) have or can purchase that card. But most battle cards aren't built that way.
DK

User avatar
Bill Hupp
Squire
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Postby Bill Hupp » Fri May 12, 2017 6:44 pm

mechanism for adding depth and historical flavor to a game of Triumph! without dominating or significantly overshadowing the underlying game engine. ...Army-list battle cards are envisioned as a controlled mechanism for introducing special rules and in-battle events that are specific to a particular army list, or a small set of army lists

Yes, the use of the term 'cards' suggests something to those of us who play lots of games with cards. The definition above is OK, but probably doesn't give us enough information if you are looking for any input on these things. (You may not be.)

Cards have been used successfully with a lot of game systems to increase the historical flavor in a variety of board and miniature games. And many of the popular board game systems played these days, have cards, coins, blocks, markers and figures - all with a variety of uses.

How have you guys reconciled the legacay system goal of no markers on the game board to the battle card process? You don't seem to be interestd in adding a physical card.

Bill
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
I play lots of games and I like Triumph!

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Battle Card suggestion regarding Mongols

Postby David Kuijt » Fri May 12, 2017 6:54 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:Yes, the use of the term 'cards' suggests something to those of us who play lots of games with cards. The definition above is OK, but probably doesn't give us enough information if you are looking for any input on these things. (You may not be.)


The definition isn't a big issue, no. We'll tighten the text a little before release, but the exact words of the definition won't matter to anyone much once they have the actual cards in front of them.

Bill Hupp wrote:How have you guys reconciled the legacay system goal of no markers on the game board to the battle card process? You don't seem to be interestd in adding a physical card.


Not sure where you got that? Physical cards are the model we will be using. Probably larger than standard poker cards. They won't be used as "markers on the game board", but they will very likely be placed beside the game board so the opponent can read the special rules on the card that applies to this particular army.
DK


Return to “Battle Cards”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest