Skip to Content

Action points...or not?

6 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

A new discussion has started to make the hobby game simpler.

Removing action points.
Which is doing a move or attack or combination of the two. For an ammount of AP.

The salvo fire would be the replacement.
Meaning, each army will have 6 battle resolutions going.

Micro managment would be very simplified.
You either return fire or move away at a certain point.
Real time would be less.

What do you guys think?

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Alternatives

As long as the system you're trying next suitably replaces the Action Points system you're dropping, then it's definitely worth playtesting. Give it a go, and see how things work out.

Additionally, regarding the chaos of organizing player actions... I always wonder how to determine the most-effective system for allowing both players to take turns without it being cumbersome and increasing player downtime, or initiating a stand-off: each player waits for the other to "make the first move." Keep an eye out for those two issues as you test.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Event cards

Where suggested to me a long time ago. They get the game going.
Obviously, they too need a bit of a redo.

I did some testing in thoughts to begin with.

My main issue is the battle resolution. It would be more intense. Since you would have 6 turns instead of 1. Before going to the next player.

These 6 turns are played at once. Between 2 squads. During which, the squads move etc. Other squads can only be of influence right of the bat. Meaning, each player has 1 role and 1 squad for that role.

If A attacks and B defends by retreating. C might intercept B or interrupt A. Stuff like that. But during the round, only 3 squads would be used. No more. Which we usually have now. The whole map "played" if you will. But now only 1 squad per player.

Event cards where often used on squads that where in a bit of a distance as well. But now, these events won't happen unless that squad will be part of the skirmish.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Another way to look at the change

Previously, I allowed a player to command 1 to 6 (7) squads. To do something.
If one squad would do more, it would pay more AP for a 2nd or 3rd action.
If it regards a player that is not in turn, nor is targeted. This tertiary player could still do something, like moving a squad that has nothing to do with the situation.

The new system would allow only 1 squad to be commanded.
This one squad will either move/attack/attackmove.
Each action would simply be an action that is played simoultainiously with the other players.
Any opponent has the same.
And here comes the catch:
The action move will be 6 times the allowed distance.
The action attack will be 6 times an attack.

***

I have been thinking of a certain situation in the game. It occurs on a regular basis with the previous mechanic.

A player attacks with a squad.
The target moves away.
The player gives chase but is too slow.
The target still moves away.
The player now attacks another target.
This target will return fire.

The change of one to another target will not be possible if I limit the actions to one squad.

***

I am surely not done brainstorming every possibility.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A good nights sleep

After some what of sleep. I decided it would be better to have this 6 turn attack if the only choices are movement or attack.

The thing is, the ratio and number of turns should be equal for balance.
If I use a ratio of 3, the number of attacks in a battle should be 3.

I was having fun with weird designs. But I guess they can only be used in the hobby version.

Almost done testing this.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Done testing

For the hobby game. I can have a system of 2 to 7 AP.
For the public game. I stick with an attack of 3.

My options are limited. But the players will understand much better.

The choices are limited for a weight of 1:
2.111-0.000-0.000
0.000-3.167-0.000
0.000-0.000-4.750

Still, some round numbers are possible with relavie low damages:

Weight - System
9 = 19-0-0
6 = 0-19-0
4 = 0-0-19

2 = 2-2-2
2 = 2-0-5
2 = 0-5-2
2 = 0-3-5
2 = 0-1-8

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Testing so far

let-off studios wrote:
As long as the system you're trying next suitably replaces the Action Points system you're dropping, then it's definitely worth playtesting. Give it a go, and see how things work out.

Additionally, regarding the chaos of organizing player actions... I always wonder how to determine the most-effective system for allowing both players to take turns without it being cumbersome and increasing player downtime, or initiating a stand-off: each player waits for the other to "make the first move." Keep an eye out for those two issues as you test.

New system results.
Where attacking is having a system of 3 moments.

Downtime due to choices.
Has become less.
Attack or move. Both is only possible with an Event card now.
Some Event cards where discarded with XP removal a year ago. Gaps could be filled with other, more complex, manouvers. Like a hit and run, that would fit well to a 010 system.

Most Event cards where and still are required to keep the game going. This weight on the game remains te same.

I don't know about the change in fun yet.

Real time decisions are.... mostly gone.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut