Ideas for future releases

[cybertuna]

I was brainstorming about Battleground (my new fave game), and what I would like to see added to the game.

Here are some of my ideas:

BATTLEGROUND SIEGE - Castle walls/towers and siege engines to assault them. I was thinking that the castle would be a set of 2-sided cards. One side would have a life bar and an image of a wall section or tower or gate. The other side would have the same card type, but destroyed. Other cards would be generic siege engine units usable by any army (siege towers/ladders/battering rams). Finally, it could contain a special rulebook with siege rules variants and scenarios.

EVIL HUMAN RACE - I am a Chaos player in Warhammer, and although the Men of Hawkshold are cool for representing the "good" armies in the Warhammer world, I would like to see a race of men who have sold themselves to "darker" forces. You could throw in demons and demonic influences, cultists, marauders, magic users and bit more flair than exists in the Hawkshold army. Colossal unit idea could be a dragon or spawn-like thing (Call of Cthulhu meets Norse Invaders, maybe?).

EXPANSION CARDS FOR EXISTING RACES - Even if they are just 15-card packs with 1 or 2 new units and 5-10 new command cards for each race (like catapults/trebuchets for Hawkshold), that would add a lot of new life to the armies.

Anybody else have some good ideas for the guys at YMG?

[Forevernyt]

See, I'm not the only one who's jonsing for a chaos army.

Oh but for the chance to do that art....

Muahahahaha.

[Dan_Morey]

I too hope for a demonic army and I think my influence for that probably comes from Warhammer as well. Just something about having a big demon lord on the table that makes me feel a lot safer. Of course the rest of the army would have to be weaker to compensate, but I'm ok with that. lol. Personally I'd just have the demon lord on a single card and not have any colossal units in the army. There are five armies without colossal units I don't see it as a requirement to have one. I think having a colossal unit should be really thought out as they take up quite twice as many cards that could be used for other units. I think the War elephant is great (especially for LotR fans) and the T-Rex is just great full stop. I think colossal units should be rare and only used if they equal or better the two current great ideas.

I like the idea of the mini-expansions. The men of hawkshold would be perfect if they just had some field artillery and I'd love some ork boar riders (there's that warhammer influence again). Maybe yourmovegames could have a contest to name two new units for each army that fully complement the armies without unbalancing them. I thought of releasing a whole deck that just had extra units for each current army but that wouldn't be fare on any new armies and meant that if you just wanted ork units then you couldn't do it. Your idea is much better. Hopefully the mercenaries deck will introduce some interesting things to add to our armies, although I like units that I know the opposition can't have.

I'm not sure about the siege game. Most the fun of this game comes from the manouvering to get a good pinch but if the defenders our stationary then that player will be bored and the attacking player won't be able to do much except throw himself against the walls.

[Robert Dougherty]

An evil human army with demons would definitely be cool. Consider me intrigued.

As for siege, we’ve had a version of it in the works (about half way though the development process) for a long time. We got stymied looking for a good production solution and the “finite time and tons of cool stuff we want to make” problem.

I will personally consider the game incomplete until we have siege available, so we will definitely be going back to work on it in the future.   

-Robert Dougherty
Your Move Games

[andrewgr]

I have been playing miniatures games for over 20 years, and I have never played in or seen played a miniatures seige game that I would consider to be fun.

Most people that I know of that are interested in seeing a seige game spring to life do so because of their fondness for The Lord of the Rings, which features not one but two memorable set-piece battles that involve storming heavily defended cities/forts (Helm's Deep and Minas Tirath).

The problem is that there is basically no maneuver possible in a seige setting.  The defenders line the walls, the attackers deploy however they want and march towards the walls, where they use every availlable means to try to break/scale the walls.  There is no significant decision making to be made from start to finish.  It's just mindlessly rolling dice.

In Battleground, at least you would have to decide which command cards to play, and whether to spend command points on cards or army special abilities.  But that still leaves you with a shell of a game. 

The heart and soul of a miniatures game is manuever.  It's executing flanking maneuvers, committing reserves to achieve break throughs, deciding when to advance to exploit a weakness vs. when to hang back and keep your line intact, etc.  All of this goes away when you're storming castle walls.

[blkdymnd]

In the immortal words of Chad Ellis......  "What Andrew said" 

I actually very much am in line with exactly everything he said.  I have never been interested in any kind of a siege game because in a siege there is a very pronounced lack of tactics.  You charge and attempt to break the walls and kill everyone inside.  The other side sends arrows and boiling oil and keeps you from doing that.  That's it.  Hopefully you guys will prove me wrong and can make a good siege mechanic, I'll await your progress 

[Flak]

The problem is that there is basically no maneuver possible in a seige setting.  The defenders line the walls, the attackers deploy however they want and march towards the walls, where they use every availlable means to try to break/scale the walls.  There is no significant decision making to be made from start to finish.  It's just mindlessly rolling dice.

In Battleground, at least you would have to decide which command cards to play, and whether to spend command points on cards or army special abilities.  But that still leaves you with a shell of a game. 

The heart and soul of a miniatures game is manuever.  It's executing flanking maneuvers, committing reserves to achieve break throughs, deciding when to advance to exploit a weakness vs. when to hang back and keep your line intact, etc.  All of this goes away when you're storming castle walls.

Brainstorming a bit here -
I'm not sure how thats too different to the combat where there's a stand and shoot army up against the trudge up and close army, except the stand and shoot has much better terrain to hide behind in the fortification case. Defenders maneuverability may be limited depending on the size of what they are defending and on whats coming to get them (though, positioning and maneuvering/placement/massing of those limited defenders behind on the lines of fortifications could be pretty important depending on size of defensive line and number of troops to defend it). Defenders could also launch sorties that might get launched from points in the walls to destroy closing siege weapons ... that last part might work better with a limited knowledge system (due to LOS considerations), so the attacker can't see what's on the ground behind a city/fortress wall.

The attacker as you describe will be in a trudge up mode, though might try rapid changing of massing points to try and attack a part of wall that isn't as heavily defended as other parts.

My main idea is that I think some sort of Siege system is a necessary part of any campaign rule set.

(I've never seen a Siege carried out on a game table yet, so this is all just musings)

[andrewgr]

I'm not sure how thats too different to the combat where there's a stand and shoot army up against the trudge up and close army, except the stand and shoot has much better terrain to hide behind in the fortification case.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I was so happy that the latest rules penalized stand and shoot armies (with the -2 extreme range modifier and the -1 modifier shooting at cavalry).

The most fun games of Battleground I've had are when both armies are advancing.  You get lines wheeling, breakthroughs, broken units rallying and rejoining the fray, etc.  Playing a stand and shoot army against a foot slogger army isn't nearly as much fun.  I think playing out a seige (or more correctly, a storming of a castle-- a seige is really just cutting the city/castle off from resupply and starving them out) would be even more boring.

But, in essence, I agree with you, which is why I'm glad each new iteration of the rules makes stand and shoot armies a little less attractive.

[Chad_YMG]

I tend to agree with what Andrew has said.

Sieges are generally great as storylines but not as games.  In a campaign setting, for example, I might leave a strategic castle protected by a modest force in order to field a larger army elsewhere.  That decision and my opponent's gambit to take advantage of it by sending a large force to take the castle can be great.  The actual battle where he tries to storm that castle isn't likely to be great.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to do better, especially if we stray a *bit* from reality where appropriate.  Siege towers can approach the walls at different points, forcing defenders to react.  If the potential for arrow fire from the walls makes it difficult for the towers to approach with lots of defenders, a sortie from the castle might take a tower unawares.

[Hannibal]

I have to agree that siege battles are pretty boring games.  In fact, many of the great historical examples of a smaller force defending against a larger force is boring to play.  For example, recreating the 300 is a very boring game.

Much more interesting is a game portraying the assault of the castle:  a larger force with limited entrances (breaches in the wall) fighting a much smaller force.  The interior of the castle could be littered with buildings and the such to constrict manuevering and prevent the larger forces from bringing its numbers to bear. 

[Chad_YMG]

An evil human army with demons would definitely be cool. Consider me intrigued.

As for siege, we’ve had a version of it in the works (about half way though the development process) for a long time. We got stymied looking for a good production solution and the “finite time and tons of cool stuff we want to make” problem.

I will personally consider the game incomplete until we have siege available, so we will definitely be going back to work on it in the future.   

-Robert Dougherty
Your Move Games

Robert's first post on the new forums!  All hail Robert!!!!

[Robert Dougherty]

While it is true that in most systems siege games are boring I think we can do better with Battleground.

As the commander of a besieged fortress you have a lot of decisions to make. Their are doors and walls in need of reinforcement, fires to put out, rocks and the like to be brought up wall and troops that need to be relieved. I think the command action system could be a great way to represent trying to deal with all these issues with limited time and manpower.

Interesting and meaningful decisions are integral to my enjoyment of a game. There are lots of these decision for a defender to make. Obviously to make a complete siege game their needs to be equally interesting decisions for the attacker.

Robert Dougherty
Your Move Games

[cybertuna]

That's an interesting point. Considering that you can really have each faction handling the defense of their fortress differently, you could feasibly have a separate set of siege and fortress cards for each faction! Besieging a Dwarf mine would be different than a Lizardman temple or a Human castle.

I was looking at the new Mighty Empires expansion for Warhammer Fantasy Battle and thought of another idea for future release. We could use a campaign system...and a real printed rulebook. I mean, sure you can print out the rules PDF, but what about a real, bound rulebook with scenarios and backstory for the factions. I adore the gameplay of BFW, but the thing that GW has over BFW at this point is 20-some-odd years of built-up background. It gives a real REASON to fight, other than just smashing units into each other. Perhaps a paperback (about the size of one of GW's Codexes...small enough to fit in a binder) with rules for campaigns, copyable maps and campaign markers, and backstory on each of the factions so far.

I recently downloaded the printable army in Harbinger for the Umenzi and the Men of Hawkshold. That was really awesome. Is there any chance of getting other printable army samples, like the Lizardmen or the Dwarfs? ...or are those for future Harbinger releases?

[Chad_YMG]

That's an interesting point. Considering that you can really have each faction handling the defense of their fortress differently, you could feasibly have a separate set of siege and fortress cards for each faction! Besieging a Dwarf mine would be different than a Lizardman temple or a Human castle.

Oh gee, thanks!  We were already struggling with how to make a really good campaign game and now you had to go and complicate it even more??? 

I was looking at the new Mighty Empires expansion for Warhammer Fantasy Battle and thought of another idea for future release. We could use a campaign system...and a real printed rulebook. I mean, sure you can print out the rules PDF, but what about a real, bound rulebook with scenarios and backstory for the factions. I adore the gameplay of BFW, but the thing that GW has over BFW at this point is 20-some-odd years of built-up background. It gives a real REASON to fight, other than just smashing units into each other. Perhaps a paperback (about the size of one of GW's Codexes...small enough to fit in a binder) with rules for campaigns, copyable maps and campaign markers, and backstory on each of the factions so far.

I think you're absolutely right here.  We don't have GW's resources, but we are putting this together bit-by-bit.  There is a campaign system in process that I think will be truly fantastic when it's finished.  I think at that point we might also put together a book along the lines you suggest here.  In the meantime we're trying to build up some of the backstory through scenarios and such.

I recently downloaded the printable army in Harbinger for the Umenzi and the Men of Hawkshold. That was really awesome. Is there any chance of getting other printable army samples, like the Lizardmen or the Dwarfs? ...or are those for future Harbinger releases?

As a matter of fact...I was just about to announce that this month's Harbinger (probably out next week) will feature a Lizardmen vs. Elves of Ravenwood scenario.  Not only will you get some Lizardmen units, we've also included some command cards.

[Flak]

Hmm, lizardman temples, elven tree fortresses, dwarven mines,... funny thing is that a while ago in an email to Chad I joked that it might be time to start making dungeon and cave floor terrain/maps....