Now that i've played this game I see a few problems. For one thing it goes down to a situation of Attrition, every time you play. Most of the time I dont seem to get this way in most games I play. Alot of it seems to be less than attrition? Like after 4 games that i've played of FoW each balanced one turns out the same. Tactics dont seem to matter because its just a situation of whoever kills the enemy first. Somehow this should be fixed. Im not sure at the moment how it could be.
Masks of Venice did this. Sword Warriors did this. A general test using Sweeds did this. l
When the game was unbalanced I lost 5 D6 romans to 24 D4 Picts. NOW what the big thing about this is that if I were to balance the game point wise it would of been down to 1 or 2 romans and 0 picts.
Yes it does come down to attrition alot of the time, when does war not ;P However I fail to see how you end up with 1 or 2 romans and no picts? Probabilty says otherwise. I ran some dice tests using your stats for the romans and picts 5 romans for 90 points and 23 Picts for 92 points, each time the romans were eliminated in the 2 second or third round of rolls. I ran two tests, on how I would have organized combat. Each roman had to face about 4 picts. 4 attack rolls for the roman to defend against, he is likely to fail.
Fundemental there is not really away to fix this. You can create attributes to alter stats and conditions to shift the probability but ultimately if you slam headlong into the opponent the strongest side inevidably wins.
In honesty the only reason I ever bring up the idea of "balance" is solely for game play. In a balanced game no player can feel cheated because they had the same opportunity as the other so a loss cannot be attributed to the game itself. Victory or defeat is up to the player knowing his opponent, his army's strengths and weaknesses, and being able to read the lay of the playing area. So it really does come down to tactics.
If your in it for a fun game play balanced, if your in it for history or something else play unblanaced it is closer to reality
Bonus : "Objective" - An objective is purchased by a normal player at any given time during the purchase phase. Objectives cost 10 points. They do not move, attack, or fire. However an objective is worth 4-5X (Needs calculated) (40-50 Points) at the end of the game if they are still in your control.
While this is the same as setting objectives, it gives the players a unit like control over it. Of course they'll place them and try to defend them up. But it may give a slight tactical boost to 'straight games.'
The reason they were eleminated was because you swarmed and surronded them. I would of lost more romans in my battle than 5 HOWEVER my 25 romans were in tight order . Now the interesting thing is that you said in your tests the 23 picts took out the 5 romans; thats exactly how many soldiers were lost in my battle heh.
Maybe the solution is to just recommend a more 'scenerio' atmosphere. Staright out of the book battles will end up to much like the same.
Unbalanced however seems to work. And like in a scenerio situation... I guess i've never seen the unbalanced situation as a bad thing . Its a strategic situation! Take this example : In older video games things were hard. Super Mario was most likly the HARDEST game you could ever play. Honestly it would take hours of playing single levels just to memorize where things were at . It was clearly an slightly unbalanced game. Its considered a classic. You come to today where you have amazing graphics on all these games but only 5 hours of game play (Name generic FPS of today!) They're balanced to the extreme. To easy.
So it may just be up to the player to find the way to make the game the best and most ideal for themself. Which of course is the good thing about a generic system .
hehe you are young you wanted to talk about unalanced games go back a few more years than Super Mario, but it is one of my favorites.
I was trying to make the same point in my post. The scenario makes the game, the rules just give you a framework for it.
Your block formation is a perfect example. Those tactics make it harder for a mob to hurt a numerically inferior force, such as the romans in Caledonia. Technically you could stretch the Heavy Armor Attribute to fit the time period making it harder for the picts. Since they were normally unarmored. Lots can be done to adjust it.
I like the idea of an bought objective. I would think it might be more interesting to reverse it though. You buy it and the enemy has to defend it and you try to capture it. That could work in lieu or with other scenario based objectives.
Well... It is a good example. The games are hard as all hell .
However even if you adjust it your still just stacking up chairs on the titanic . If the heavy armor attribute is 8? 10? That means that in an equavilent your lose 1 or 2 when those things get stacked up.
Could do both! I'll think about that; may write a game like this tonight...