New NESes, ideas, development, etc

Yeah thats a bit excessive for my taste, though having race specific unique units is a good idea, but I would have maybe Militia, Sword, Pike, Archer, Cavalry otherwise at most.

But that's how I have it now, more or less. :)

I guess add Catapult and Galley. But I feel those are necessary. You need to get around water (I am putting mana nodes in lakes and oceans), and you need to siege castles. Hmmm.

Yeah I really want to keep the race-specific units. I don't think it is that overly complicated. I mean you have very basic categories: Ranged, Mounted, Attack, Defense, Siege, and Naval. Then units are basically single specialty, or amalgamations of more than one specialty (thus giving freedom to create your own summons).
 
yes, but you also have spearmen and javlins as a sub category. Those seem unneeded as you have archers and pikemen. But again if you are comfortable with it then run with it, I've only ever tried to mod once and quickly realized I had no time to do it.
 
Well, spearmen and skirmishers are like levees, and not regulars. They are weaker than archers and pikemen.

@Vertinari: I want Unique Units because I want races to mean something other than just fluff. I want them to provide a certain specialty to players. I think having unique player units is a bad idea, because I am already giving players the ability to create unique units through summon spells (you'll see - haven't posted about that yet).
 
Yes, I would simply lump that all as militia myself is what I am saying.
 
Oh, and another thing...

I was thinking about merging Swordsmen and Pikemen into the "Infantry" category. But then I thought how important in fantasy those two distinctions are, whether that be civ-like fantasy, or even D&D. You have your defender, and you have your attacker. Together they create "Infantry", but you have to train the swords and pikes separately. To me, it just makes more sense to have this - and it will allow players to customize their armies more, and strategically plan their attacks.

And I think Light and Heavy Infantry is too vague. If you have a bunch of pikes with swords and a good deal of archers thrown in for good measure... that to me is pretty heavy infantry.

@Adrogans: Ah, I see. Hm. Good point.
 
Skirmishers, in Classical and Medieval warfare, are light troops armed with weapons designed to piece armour, such as javelins, who close with the enemy and disrupt formations, inflict casualties, hinder use of shields etc. before battle is joined. They can also double up as light infantry in a pinch. That role is not adequately fulfilled by any other unit in the list and a rather useful one. Of course they are useless on battlefields dominated by knights, so it really depends exactly which Medieval period this is set in and how abundant cavalry and heavy armour, such as plate, will be amongst infantry.

Starlife I know that. I was suggesting each player may be given the opportunity at the start of the game to design a unit unique to their army as well as their race unit. That's why I suggested in the light of other customisation options a UU for each player might be superfluous. Also the term archers is vague too as are the terms militia, cavalry, catapults and galleys. Swordsmen are useless against plate or other such heavier armours, as they are designed to turn the blade. A mace, hammer or ax are all more effective killing weapons against armoured foes. Lightly armoured foes, in chainmail and padding for example, may be dealt with by a sword effectively or more effectively. That is why broader terms are more useful.
 
Yes, but again then simply have a skirmisher if you really must, but I see no need when you can simply say use x for skirmishers. And yes I do understand what they are, but again I try not to make too much complexity usually unless you want this to play more like a board game. If that is your goal then that's cool 'cause somthimes those are fun NESes as well.
 
Skirmishers, in Classical and Medieval warfare, are light troops armed with weapons designed to piece armour, such as javelins, who close with the enemy and disrupt formations, inflict casualties, hinder use of shields etc. before battle is joined. They can also double up as light infantry in a pinch. That role is not adequately fulfilled by any other unit in the list and a rather useful one. Of course they are useless on battlefields dominated by knights, so it really depends exactly which Medieval period this is set in and how abundant cavalry and heavy armour, such as plate, will be amongst infantry.

Another good point. Given how much importance you put on Skirmishers, then, do you feel it is appropriate to have them only as a town-level recruit? Do you think they deserve city-level status, or are Archers automatically better than Skirmishers?
 
Yes, but again then simply have a skirmisher if you really must, but I see no need when you can simply say use x for skirmishers. And yes I do understand what they are, but again I try not to make too much complexity usually unless you want this to play more like a board game. If that is your goal then that's cool 'cause somthimes those are fun NESes as well.

I don't want it to be a board game, but I want there to be a lot of ways for players to customize what they are doing without power-playing.
 
Then do the race option with a national unique unit as well. Like I said if you are happy with your setup then go for it this is simply my opinion.
 
Then do the race option with a national unique unit as well. Like I said if you are happy with your setup then go for it this is simply my opinion.

I feel like national unique units and Summoning Spells are redundant. To me they are pretty much the same thing. Since each player is a Wizard, it makes sense that Summons = National Unique Units.
 
Why not make unit types even more generic? Call levies "levies", attack units "shock troops" or whatever, and leave it to the imagination (or a description) what they're armed with. Uniform soldiery doesn't feel "medieval fantasy" enough after all, and that's what it feels like when you call all your cannon fodder units "spearmen". Also, I don't see the point of separating ranged units when the player won't be handling battles at a tactical level.



^ This is close to how I feel.
 
Why not make unit types even more generic? Call levies "levies", attack units "shock troops" or whatever, and leave it to the imagination (or a description) what they're armed with. Uniform soldiery doesn't feel "medieval fantasy" enough after all, and that's what it feels like when you call all your cannon fodder units "spearmen". Also, I don't see the point of separating ranged units when the player won't be handling battles at a tactical level.

I like this idea. But then, how would I deal with race-specific units and summoned units in such a context, while keeping them unique enough?
 
How does using broader terms, while keeping options open to players, constitute a board-game NES? Were Fulton's epic NESes, which used such terms board-game NESes, what about Immac's NES, which is even more prescriptive in the units players can use? As for the need for separating two distinct classes of unit, well why separate units at all? After all players will only be playing at the grand strategy or operational strategy level? Because, even if players do not micromanage battles, types of forces make a difference. Siege engines, which are ranged, archers, which are ranged, and skirmishers, which are ranged/light infantry, are all vastly different units.
 
I agree to the extent that tech trees can stifle creativity. I essentially want to use a loose format, but give stuff names.
It has nothing to do with creativity.
 
How does using broader terms, while keeping options open to players, constitute a board-game NES? Were Fulton's epic NESes, which used such terms board-game NESes, what about Immac's NES, which is even more prescriptive in the units players can use? As for the need for separating two distinct classes of unit, well why separate units at all? After all players will only be playing at the grand strategy or operational strategy level? Because, even if players do not micromanage battles, types of forces make a difference. Siege engines, which are ranged, archers, which are ranged, and skirmishers, which are ranged/light infantry, are all vastly different units.

This was my feeling while writing the rules, and I think this is a good explanation.

I had in mind that, even though players aren't using Archers on a tactical level, that applying some sort of significance to them in a fantasy setting is important. Elves have better archers. I am being as cliche as possible, and I am loving it.

But all that aside, I felt that archers even outside of a tactical level, can be included in a general "army". If I am modding a battle between two armies, and one of the armies has archers and the other doesn't (and otherwise they are of equal strength), and they fight at the edge of a group of hills - I would say the army with archers would have a real advantage (especially if the player indicated in their orders that if a battle is to occur, archers should take high ground or something).

Even if we throw practicality away, archers are just cool. It is fantasy! We are talking about leaving terms vague. Like, for example, change Swordsmen to Shock Troops. But I feel in the medieval times, shock troops will pretty much have swords... right?

And as for Spearmen. I always think medieval towns have a bunch of spears lying around. Farmers with pitchforks, altering those tools to become weapons, and so on. So while it is a specific term, that they are equipped with spears, I think it makes sense. Can't imagine it being anything else. Spearmen are town-only units. They are weaklings compared to Pikemen. And when I think of medieval defenders, I think of pikemen.

These were my thoughts when coming up with those rules. I could always make it vague and say, "Attack unit" "Defense unit"... but if a player really wants to be creative, he/she can just say that their army's Pikemen are really guys with massive swords, but they serve as part of that same Defense Specialty, and have the same effect as pikemen.

The best point I've seen here is perhaps compounding the Town-Level units into a single unit called Militia.
 
Well obviously you note them as such.

So I have a multi-racial autocratic magocracy of say, fairies, goblins, and velociraptors, where fairies are a slave race and velociraptors are the ruling class. My "mundane" armies will be assumed or described to be mainly goblin all throughout with fairy support units, with the heaviest parts being composed of velociraptors. These will just be noted simply as levies, regulars, and heavies, or whatever.

Now, if I had, say, access to a special racial unit of Goblin Black Ops, or Velociraptor Acolytes of the Claw, then they'd be noted separately in my army stat (or wherever). Of course, "special" units should truly be special and not just different because of race, otherwise they should just be subsumed by the "mundane" army which will of course be assumed or described to have abilities based on their racial composition.

Well, how about this. I'll come up with a second Military ruleset, and post it here, and we can compare/contrast.
 
It has nothing to do with creativity.

Well, I do feel that having a highly defined tech-tree may ruin some people's ideas. I think I feel like Adrogans does, and like a certain degree of freedom in regards to how I can customize my nation, and generally, I find that the tech tree is what enables you, or disables you, from doing a lot of things.
 
Civilian
Atom-Powered Engine - Atomic Trains - Atomic Cars

Atom-Powered Battery - Atomic Computers - Atomic Radio
If I may, allow me make a suggestion: don't do this kind of thing. I understand that you want to capture the aesthetic of Fallout, but there's a reason that none of these kinds of things existed, and it's because there's no compulsive engineering or economic reason for doing it, and a vast number of safety drawbacks. Even in the late 1950s to early 1960s it was understood that the "Age of the Atom" would never really work.

There is, for example, no such thing as an atomic battery (with the exception of perhaps a radioisotope generator, which is not at all the same thing) and why should there be when you can just hook a normal battery up to a nuclear power grid? Why put a fission reactor (which can only be made as small as roughly a garbage can) in a computer or a car or a radio and have all the heavy shielding and cooling problems (not to mention security, safety, and environmental risks) associated when you can just use the power grid system used in real life?

Fallout uses SCIENCE! not science. It came up with fictional technology because it was hearkening back to a literary theme and a certain kind of worldbuilding which demanded retrofuturistic technology that could survive hundreds of years of neglect. You're doing something completely different, from the looks of it, so you don't need to follow their example.

The furthest the fission trend might go under ideal circumstances is a comprehensive breeder-based power grid, nuclear trains and a focus on public transport over private transport, and maybe certain kinds of heavy-lift aerospace applications (NERVA, Project Orion, Project Pluto).
 
I think LizardKing's idea is pretty good. Maybe you can combine it with 'Unique Techs' from Amon's Motherhen and 'Generic Tech levels' from INES.

Each tech level is general, then players can design unique techs that need a certain tech level of various kinds to utilize. Uranium depleted rounds? Just need basic radioactive knowledge, military usage, and get a boost in basic combat. Super-strong plastic armour? Research to intermediate chemistry/biology and military usages.

Maybe you can have stuff to 'aim for' when researching a usage, and then picking from a list of unique techs (if not specified) when they get it? So I can research intermediate civilian usage, and say "I want to make it these medium-sized batteries safe enough for usage by the general population" Few turns later he gets a PM. "Break through! These are some general technologies the scientists are proposing. Or you can determine your own unique benefit from this technology. And say, list "Nuclear Cars, reduce dependency on oil to increase stability (no more oil!) and economy." "Public Batteries/Cellphone stations" are generally infiltration proof and will give everyone the ability to recharge their personal appliances. +stability. "Mass Transit" becomes really cheap with the application of nucear tech! + economy!" they choose one and get it next turn, and can keep researching it for a unique tech or mores tuff.
 
Top Bottom