Ideas for future releases

[andrewgr]

In general, I consider fluff to be a detrimant to any miniatures system.  This is partly because I consider the fluff to be so puerile and poorly written, but mainly it's because it places limits on my imagination that I don't like.

You might say, "just ignore the fluff if you don't like it!".  But the problem is that the only races/units/items/expansions that get produced in the first place are those that can fit within the fluff universe created by the game company.  At the very least, the universe needs to be internally consistent; you can't have the background/history/composition of one army contradicting that of another army.

But if you're just putting out armies, with no particular universe in mind, then anything goes.  You can create literally anything you can imagine.  As the consumer, I am free to pick and choose which armies make sense within my imagined game world.  If I can convince YMG that they'll sell enough copies, I can get them to produce my longed-for Fantasy Egyptians; if they had a world map, with all the factions laid out, and a backstory relating them all, just how likely are they going to be to be able to work the Egyptian empire into that afterwards?

My favorite set of traditional miniauture rules is "Hordes of the Things".  They don't have any fluff; using their rules, the only limit is your imagination.  People have used their rules to create battles from sources as diverse as Middle Earth and Narnia, to Garden Gnomes vs. small woodland animals.  I don't think you get that kind of flexibility once you turn over the keys to the universe to the company's fluff department.

[Flink]

Jens, I have to say you seem to hold a very conservative view of what is and is not appropriate for the game world.  Below are several excerpts from your post here and from the World Lore thread:

So, while I think that the factions in the game so far are perfectly good at creating a "generic fantasy system" I can't help feeling a lot more could be done to give Battleground an identity of its own. The Umenzi are a nice touch but at the same time I think they're too soon, expaning the world before the central players have been fully fleshed out.
...
If other regions are done (such as an Arab faction) I hope it can wait until the central European setting has been fleshed out a bit better.

At the moment BattleGround seems to be in a major expansion phase (the introduction of 2 non-European armies, Classical era and space era variants) that makes me worry that such advancement will broaden the game structurally but at the expense of the integrity of the Fantasy setting.

I don't see where you got the idea that Battleground is set in Europe and why the only possibilities for human factions are more European style kingdoms.  What precisely makes the Umenzi not "central players?"  Why must there be Central European factions which take precedence over all others?  What makes the Hawks the center of the world?  How does introducing non-European factions undermine the integrity of the setting?  You seem to hold the view that Battleground has a very specific setting and releasing new factions that don't pertain to your own mental picture are damaging it.  You have to understand that taken as they are your above comments sound really, really bad.  It is a perfectly legitimate view to incorporate unique and interesting armies into the game rather than trotting out a dozen recreations of Hundred Years War kingdoms.


Also remember that the Historical and Scifi/SciFantasy settings are separate game lines.  It's not like the Romans will be integrated into the Fantasy setting.  Remember that not every game needs to have a full background, the game can just be a tactical exercise.  If it really bothers you that much, you can insist that your opponent stays in-genre but that's not likely to win you friends.  The future set isn't going to be compatible with the fantasy and historical according to the last post I read on the subject.  So you don't have to worry about dropships landing among your spearmen and disgorging a platoon of battle-hardened dudes with flamethrowers.

The idea of a clockwork/steampunk faction as mentioned above would by itself be a game killer for me. The existance of a single faction whose level of tech changes the entire feasability of the game world. If you want a long-lived product some thought has to be given to internal consistency.

Differing tech levels are fine as long as you think them through.  Having one human civilization with randomly superior technology is weird, it makes you wonder why the Hawks or whomever can't just reverse-engineer something of theirs and figure it out.  But if the clockworks are the constructs of another race, particularly a highly magical one, it holds up.  Magic seems harder to reverse engineer than early industrial technology.  Alternatively the clockworks could be a race unto themselves, created and abandoned by some other species and now self replicating.  They probably don't take kindly to Dwarven engineers trying to pick them apart to see how they work.

When you think about it, Warhammer lacks an internal consistency in terms of technology.  I can understand how the Dwarves could keep steam technology under wraps, but it's hard to believe that the Empire, with all its security issues, could keep steamtech from dissemination to neighboring countries and races.  Though the real problem is why all advanced technology is directed into war.  They have steam powered tanks, TANKS!  And yet, no mills or factories or mechanical looms or anything.  If they invested an eighth of their run away military budget in their economy they could really make some strides against their opponents.  Besides, there's nothing like working 14 hours a day in the mills to keep you from attending Chaos cult meetings.

[Jens]

"I don't see where you got the idea that Battleground is set in Europe...."

Well, let's see...

The fact that the only human faction for the 1st two years of the game were typical Medieval Europeans.

The fact that the starting races are the completely standard fantasy standbys. Orcs, Elves, dwarfs and undead. All direct from European mythology, with the exception of the undead who have a bit more of a global base, and yet even the undead here are clearly based upon European archetypes in terms of armour and weaponry.

The fact that the names Hawkshold, Ravenwood and Runegard sound nothing other than European.

The game, upon release, was clearly based upon a typical European fantasy setting. If you want to argue otherwise please give it a try. With the recent addition of Umenzi and Lizarden obvioulsy they're broadening the scope.

"What precisely makes the Umenzi not "central players?"  Why must there be Central European factions which take precedence over all others?"

The fact the original crop of armies were obviously European and they are clearly African based. Obviously by European and African I mean their "fantasy world" equivalents but you can tell simply from their dress and armor, or lack of it, that the Umenzi are clearly from a very hot region and possess domesticated animals (war elephants) that are not staples among the armies of their foes. Again if you want to find some explanation that would mark them as being from a geographical similar region again fire away.

I never said in any way that European factions should be more important than the others, more influential in the wider shecme of things, or more detailed in focus. You are however correct in saying I think they should take precedence over the others in that until they are developed a little bit more fully they should "precede" the others. I look forward eagerly to the eventual development and release of Asian factions but I'm patient and I am quite happy to wait so that they can be done properly.

I think more work can be doe to give the existing factions a better feel and would rather than be done now and then have development attention focused entirely on the new factions if/when they are designed.

"You seem to hold the view that Battleground has a very specific setting and releasing new factions that don't pertain to your own mental picture are damaging it. "

  My views on the factions are based on what the designers released so far not any kind of mental picture of my own. I certainly wouldn't have opted for the initial factions as they are now and I wold love to see a bit more originality and flair in the design of any further factions. However, for whatever reason the designers picked the starting factions they did and I think they should fully flesh out their initial factions before getting too far ahead of themselves. It has nothing at all to do with my preference for what the world should contain (ask me what new factions I think they should add and I'll tell you), they could have started with were-rabbits and moomin and I still would say "flesh out the originals before adding factions from other regions".

"the game can just be a tactical exercise"

Why is it that the people say this and then seem to get bothered by the introduction of an established lore? By your own rational you can simply use the mechanics and any units you want to make your dream game. The existence of background setting doesn't mean some Lore-policeman is going to come to your home and physically force you to play the game in a specific way.

"But if the clockworks are the constructs of another race, particularly a highly magical one, it holds up.  Magic seems harder to reverse engineer than early industrial technology."

Wouldn't that make them simply golems rather than clockwork robots? In either case they seem to be the equivalent of the Warforged that wizards of the coast introduced to further stripmine the D&D legacy? I wouldn't mind so much if they were magical automatons, though I'd rather see them be non-sentient units serving sentient masters. Its more the idea of wildly differing tech levels with an absence of proliferation that bothers me. The designers have already established the initial factions as being at a typical Middle Ages level of advancement and as such I would hope that even arquebusiers aren't introduced as units for any faction.

Warhammer btw isn't a steampunk world, as far as I remember any steam technology was incredibly unstable and only used for military use in the form of still experimental weaponry that was apt to frequently kill its users (don't quote me on any recent changes though, I'm far from up to date).

[Lucas]

  I still think calling the Hawkshold "European" is funny ... after all, had you mentioned something like a "United Europe" in the actual middle ages, you'd probably get your head removed in the quickest of fashions. I personally come from central Europe and am much tempted to call these forces "European", but there is something we know under the name "Politically  Correct". Of course you're welcome (from my point of view) to call them whatever you wish, but do not expect others to embrace such mentality. And being pre-defined by an archetype sounds a bit Jung-ish to me - the Hawks aren't clearly European, they are clearly European based (and I hope I am not the only one to see the difference). Just a rhetoric question - do you call the Empire in WH Fantasy "Renaissance German" or perhaps even "The Holy Roman Empire" (which is a clear and shameless basis for the WH Empire)?

"Wouldn't that make them simply golems rather than clockwork robots?" Well, isn't golem supposed to be crude matter, brought to life, rather than a complex automaton utilising magic as a source of artificial intelligence? I think getting over such issues leads nowhere ...

[Jens]

"the Hawks aren't clearly European, they are clearly European based (and I hope I am not the only one to see the difference)."

Damn, I'd better get to the travel agent quick and cancel that holiday I had planned 

I thought it would have been enough to state "Obviously by European and African I mean their "fantasy world" equivalents" but apparently not in central Europe...

Thankfully political correctness never took much hold in my own corner of an Eoraip 

And yes, if discussing what the basis for WH Empire was I would probably call it Early Renaissance HRE. I don't think I've ever met anyone who wouldn't.

As far as the constructs go I didn't realise, or catch, that they were supposed to be artifical intelligences. I had thought mere drones. So they would be even closer to the Warforged, basically the same thing? Artifical warriors like the Knights from "Thieves & Kings" were more along the lines of what I had envisioned. Sentient I could go with, possibly imbued with the lifeforce of another being seeking to give itself an everlasting body, but an entire AI race is a bit too science-fantasy for my personal tastes.

The construct faction idea could work if done well, but if done poorly it would be really jarring in comparison to existing factions...imo.

[ApokalypseTest]

well, summarizing things up, most people here don't seem to share your desire for a more codified backgorund - on the contrary.
I guess there are many different tastes when it comes to that and I don't see any advantage coming with more background being defined. For me, this game is first and foremost a strategical game and I honestly couldnt care less about the world it plays in. I would care though if I had to face stupid "official" rules enacted upon me on a tournament that where primarily created to support whatever fluff exists. I don't know of any strategy game whose gameplay would have been enhanced by fluff, nor can I imagine how that would be possible from my purely gamist point of view. If I want a fully immersive experience, I go and play an RPG. If I want a well made Hobbyworld - I go and play Warhammer.

And answering your point in another post: Yes, it is true, that GW capitalizes on the brilliant universes they have created in the last 20 years much more then on the actual strategy games - But most people here dont seem to want a second WH, we want a nice, not to abstract strategy game - which we currently have without fluff.

About new races: I dont care if they suite my taste of fantasy or other types of fiction as long as they stay strategically balanced.

[Jens]

"summarizing things up, most people here don't seem to share your desire for a more codified backgorund - on the contrary."

The key words being "people here". Even on Warhammer forums posters are far more likely to be those interested in rules queries than background details. That fact that I'm a miniority opinion among current posters doesn't mean that the games appeal would not be broadened by the addition of background.

"I would care though if I had to face stupid "official" rules enacted upon me on a tournament that where primarily created to support whatever fluff exists."

As would I, but this is a non sequitor. There is no reason that lore would necessarily generate such rules, while new rules for the sake of "fresh" gameplay can just as easily be introduced as a marketing strategy without the addition of lore.

"I don't know of any strategy game whose gameplay would have been enhanced by fluff, nor can I imagine how that would be possible from my purely gamist point of view."

I can accept that many of the pople here hold such a gamist point of view and thus are interested purely in the tactical challenge of the game but surely you will concede that - for some people  (frequently large numbers) - the enjoyment of games like Battlefleet Gothic, Star Wars: Queens Gambit, Marvel: Hero Clix or War of the Ring, is greatly enhanced by the setting.

In any event I'm perfectly comfortable holding a minority view, it at least guarantess I'll always have adequate feedback to help me reconsider my opinion on the subject 

[Shadow_Hawk2h]

That's the kind of discussion I was looking forward to!
How old is this game anyway?
If BFW is able to attract this kind of people(people who really know what they are talking about; disagree but remain civil; bring valuable opinions) and spur this kind of debate, what a great game it is!

On topic, never forget that "fluff" is more often than not just a way to make games more attractive or justify why this or that is the way it is. The problem starts when new editions/armies are released and, in order to market them, new (sometimes abusive) rules are included to make the new product "better"(more powerful) than its previous versions/other armies in the same edition.

I guess it was called the "arms race" or "codex creep" in WH.

Therefore, when rules become a slave to fluff and fluff gets changed every few years, because new rules are needed because they were not in accordance with the fluff because...

Game balance gets shot to pieces.

I'd much rather have a "generic fantasy wargame" with stereotyped armies that are balanced against each other than a nightmare of rules because of fluff. After all, it is your game: create your own background and nobody will  contradict you, right? 

[Chad_YMG]

Given that fluff is probably the least manpower intensive factor possible...

Beg to differ.  Writing good storyline takes a lot of time.  I can turn on Campaign Cartographer and come up with a really good worldmap in a couple of days, but actually fleshing it out so that the world comes alive in a way that anyone would care about takes a lot of time...at least for me!

[ApokalypseTest]

I would like to throw another thought in the ring:Way not do exactly the opposite: Instead of getting out of generic and anything goes into well defined fluff, how about deliberately providing Crunch only?

I could think about setting up a generic campaign rule system, that allows the use of all kinds of factions in a 4x - like system.  Basically using the mighty empires approach of gameplay without the load of Warhammer Backgorund. Having a kind of modular Boardgame, which allows (if intended) to run every major battle as a BG-Battle. Every group of players, every campaign could create their own lore, based upon great battles and personal experiences - that is the kind of game my old RPG-Troupe still talks about years after our Kings retired.

Thats just an idea, but what do you guys think?

[Forevernyt]

That's just what I had suggested. Make the fluff based on your own battles.

Great minds think alike.

[cybertuna]

Writing good storyline takes a lot of time.  I can turn on Campaign Cartographer and come up with a really good worldmap in a couple of days, but actually fleshing it out so that the world comes alive in a way that anyone would care about takes a lot of time...at least for me!

Amen!

Anybody can spin a yarn, but it takes time and talent to spin one that people really care about. Not to say you have to go all Robert Jordan and stuff...but you get my drift.

[Laranostz]

Erm...nothing personal of course, but aren't things ending up going off on a bit of a tangent from the purpose of the thread? IE, new ideas for potential future armies, expansions, etc. for the game? I'm sure there's another thread that could be used just as well for plot ideas.

[cybertuna]

Absolutely right...actually there's a fluff thread going on elsewhere right now... However, ideas for new factions are kind of related to how fluffy they would be in the existing Battleground world.

...not saying that the cross-topic is right, but the two are related...

[Kaile_YMG]

Personally I think its great when our fans give us ideas to toss around weather it be for the sake of the thread or not.  Ultimately the boys here have the final say when it comes to logistics and such, but to be honest, when dealing with creativity, you never know where the next good idea can come from.  We're not wish granters, but any kind of feedback from fans helps IMHO.

Personally I can read one line at times and it spurs all kinds of ideas for VARIOUS purposes.  So I say..... BRING IT ON.

Absolutely right...actually there's a fluff thread going on elsewhere right now

I personally enjoy fluff.... especially with Peanut butter.  *Homer Simpson voice*
mmmmmm fluff