BayonetGames

Comment

Comment by Brant Guillory on February 18, 2010 at 5:39am

preview of how HQ units are used in NextWars:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@587.SknaaWA1NYR.41@.1dd2a88d/97

Comment by Brant Guillory on January 19, 2010 at 10:05am

Preview of the combat system for The Next Wars is going up over at the forum page for the game series.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@587.DJeRaxytGQ3.117@.1dd2a88d

Comment by Brant Guillory on November 24, 2009 at 5:56am

I'll try to post some photos of this weekend's wargaming for you guys -- I expect we'll be playtesting some of the World of Conflict scenarios, so you'll get to see some of the newly-redone maps.

Comment by Brant Guillory on August 19, 2009 at 8:22am

We'll probably have the Asian Thunder playtesting with us at the 9/20 weekend meetup for the RTP Triangle area wargamers, if folks can make it and wish to join up.

Comment by Brant Guillory on August 7, 2009 at 10:33pm

Here are the photos and play-by-play for several Warfighter games online:

http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/blogs/the-friday-night-playbyplay
http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/blogs/the-friday-night-playbyplay-1

http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/blogs/friday-night-round-2-the

http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/blogs/warfighter-across-the-world

Comment by Brant Guillory on August 7, 2009 at 7:16pm

Live play-by-play of tonight Warfighter session!

http://social.consimworld.com/profiles/blogs/the-friday-night-playbyplay

Comment by Brant Guillory on August 6, 2009 at 1:38pm

When I get a chance to playtest at home, I'll try to get some more pics and a good narrative with it. :)

Comment by Andy Brown on August 6, 2009 at 12:41pm

I like the concept outlined in #2. Keep it up I'm really interested in the result!

Comment by Brant Guillory on June 29, 2009 at 4:39pm

OK - so here's what we came up with. Steven noted that there were two basic problems with the combat system

1. There were only 2 things that could happen (step loss, retreat) and no 'intermediate' effect, and

2. There was no real penalty for making attacks you just shouldn't make, in the hopes of getting the lucky perfect die roll and scoring a hit. A support battalion attacking a defending armor unit should suffer just for making the attack in the hopes of rolling a "10" just to hit.

So we reworked a few things:

1. There is now a combat effect of "disrupted". You disrupt a unit just by hitting it. However, doing more damage to the defender (step loss/retreat) involves piling on as much firepower as you can, because you need to exceed the defender's modified defense (def +spt + terrain) to disrupt him, but you need to exceed his "total combat value" of modified defense (def + spt + terrain) + attack value to damage him. This makes something like a tank battalion much tougher to damage, rather than just disrupt, when compared to an artillery unit.

2. The defender may now roll to hit the attacker, too. Once the attack is made, the defender rolls a d10 and must roll less than the defending unit's attack value to disrupt the attacker. This makes it more likely that a defending armor unit (attack value 7 or 8 ) will roll below that number on a d10 and disrupt an attacker than will a dismounted infantry unit (attack value of 4, maybe).

3. The defender, if faced with a step loss, may opt to not disrupt the attacker, but trade that hit for a retreat. Basically, the defense is choosing to withdraw rather than stand and fight, and because they've knocked the attacker back on his heels, they may be able to bug out.

4. Disrupted units remain disrupted until the end of their next turn. However, an HQ unit may be used to reorganize a disrupted unit and turn it around sooner.

5. Dismounted units defending in cities double their attack values for these disruption checks on defense; Dismounted units defending in towns add one to their attack values for these disruption checks on defense.

Comment by Brant Guillory on June 29, 2009 at 4:38pm

Playtesting at Origins....

Steven Bucey and I had a few turns of scenario 3 tonight. Steven was the NATO/Ukranians, and while CABbie Todd S started out as the Ruskies, I tagged into the game when he had another commitment to get to.

The Ukrainians started out pushing from L'Viv and tried to encircle some partisans on the way to making contact with the Russians as far east from L'viv as possible. A small force was dispatched to the north edge of the map to deal with some Belorussians up there.

After an aborted attack on the partisans on turn 2, and some heavy casualties piling up and more on the way, we called a halt in the action to work out some changes to the rules. A bit of pencil work later, we've got a solution I think we like a lot more now, and keeps the game from becoming too much of a bloodbath.

Some rules notes/updates/changes.

1. Removed a confusing line from the attack rules about failed attacks.
2. Fixed the MP costs on the TEC.
3. Realized we had no rules for river crossings! Proposed rule is "stack may cross a river with either an engineer unit or support unit in the stack, or with a mission card; stack may only cross the river into a legal hex (terrain restrictions); stack may move 1 hex on the turn when they cross the river; may not attack across river; may not trace supply across river" Good? gives the support/engineer units something else to do on the map. Bad? could really take a long time to develop in game, may be too easy to isolate/cut off.
4. Need some tracking mechanisms for (a) number of HQs in play for each side, and (b) damage to those HQs each turn (for mission cards)
5. Updated some of the civilian unit statistics

Changes to the combat system detailed next post.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page