Re: (TFT) Re: Mark's comments on Wargame 5.

[Rick Smith <rsmith@lightspeed.ca>]

On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 09:18, Mark Tapley wrote: 
> Love it when Rick pops off one of these posts! They are so 
> thought-provoking!

Many thanks!


> 	In all of those numbers, the ratio of "apprentices" (= 
> "walking ST batteries") to "real wizards" (I'd say maybe IQ 11 and 
> above) is a pretty critical parameter. If the above numbers include 
> only the "real wizards", then the fST-recovery problem is mitigated 
> substantially. If the above numbers include the IQ-9 Aid-spell types, 
> magic is much less of a factor.

  Good point.  No I include the apprentices
in 1/200 ratio.

> 	Note also that a "walking" fST battery is *far* more valuable 
> than a pocketed fST battery in a military campaign. The low-IQ 
> apprentice can have lots of other uses (carry a bow, etc) and 
> effectively *doubles* the average fST recovery rate, whereas a magic 
> item effectively *divides* the average fST recovery rate by three (to 
> a first approximation).

  True.  A wizard with Drain ST and 50 close 
friends is also useful.

> 	In a wargame setting, this actually may be a difference 
> worthy of rules treatment. PC squads, which generally don't have 
> adequate apprentice support, would probably recover slower than 
> well-composed military squads with 1-3 apprentices per "real wizard". 
> But they may be capable of more and more advanced magical operations.

  From thinking about the posts from you and 
other people, I think that 1 powerful wizard &
5 apprentices is likely too low a ratio.  I
think your 1/3 ratio would be better which 
would mean that you would want an hour & a half
for the group to recover 20 fST (especially if
you assume a bit of fST is lost to blown rolls
etc.).

  However, that is getting to be a pretty long
time.  Maybe we should plan on the campaign
spells to cost ~12 fST.

> 	One final note: In a campaign, I can easily imagine that a 
> lot of town wizards, hedge wizards, etc. could get impressed into the 
> military and serve as "apprentices" even though they might be far 
> over-qualified for such duty normally. I can even imagine a law that 
> all town wizards must maintain proficiency at "Aid" for just that 
> reason.

  I've actually had societies and wizard schools
that have made such demands on their wizards.  If
you forget Aid there are quite strong economic 
penalties or banishment from the school.


> >- - Concentrated Firepower:  When the enemy company
> >has one guy with uber magical armor...
> 
> 	Already alluded to in the above, but I thought I'd add 
> explicitly: Indirect "out of the box" attacks. Slippery Floor so the 
> uber-character falls down, Illusion of a cave-in beneath the feet of 
> the "fantastic four" that causes them all to fall down, Magic 
> Rainstorm keeps the enemy dragon's mouth shut, Sleep, Rope, etc. 
> Things that regular fighters generally cannot do to disable a 
> powerful enemy, wizards often can.
> 	I don't know whether this is a separate category, or part of 
> the same category. If it's part of the same, it could just expand the 
> range of spells which are accepted as contributing to the rating in 
> that category. However it has a different feel to it (to me) than the 
> standard direct-attack (missile spell, Hammertouch, 7-Hex Fire) type 
> spells.

  Exactly.  No I would include all of these in the
martial magic category.  

> >- - C^3I. ...
> 
> 	Some of these tasks are addressed in the skills list, 
> particularly the "spying" type and "discipline" type tasks. Some of 
> them, however, ... are clearly Wizards' 
> territory and I would think Wizards would be absolutely invaluable 
> for those. And there is always the "Crystal Ball" effect, which has 
> no parallel even today.
> 	In game terms, it might be workable to split off "Leadership" 
> ..., "Spying" ..., and "information magic" (wizard only).

  I agree.  I keep coming back to simple rules and
several ways to break them, much like "Europe Engulfed"s
special actions.

> 
> >- - Healing.  ...
> 
> 	Here, Chemists, Alchemists and Physickers can take some of 
> the load off of the Wizards.
> ..., and an infirmary with a good stock of 
> Cleansing rings would shut down most disease problems in one day.

  The Cleansing item does take all day to cure someone.
(Actually a fairly clever limitation by SJ.)
 
> 
> >- - Movement.  
> 
> 	Magic Carpets. In game terms, some wizard squads could be 
> flight-capable at no cost, if they have been provided with Magic 
> Carpets.

  Yes in Dave Seagrave's Thail campaign we used
Magic Carpets to very good use in a large military
battle.

> 
> >- - Defense.  ...
> 
> 	This is a perfect place to bring up magic items. ...
> 
> 	In game terms, I'd say the effect of Magic Item "capital" 
> should be included in the original ratings of each squad unit. Even 
> with the same training and same types of weapons, an orc squad with 
> no enchantments would rate much lower than an equivalent Gondorian 
> squad with all +1 and Fine swords, all +1 armor, Blur rings, and a 
> few Healing Potions on each belt.

  True... <sigh>.  One of the thing's I've come to
like LEAST about TFT is the gigantic importance of
magic items.  However, everything you say is dead 
on unless there is significant rule changes on how
magic items work and are built.

> 
> >- - Anti-magic.  ...  In the
> >regular TFT rules, anti-magic is fairly weak.
> 
> 	Sometimes. Dispel Illusion Items, Gate Locks, Amulets, and 
> particularly Spell Shield and Pentagrams can counteract some forms of 
> magical attacks, and Disbelieve is open to anybody. I can actually 
> imagine a squad that concentrated on this ending up fairly 
> frustrating to an attacking wizard squad (ie could get a reasonably 
> high rating here).

  I stand by what I say.  You have crystal balls 
but nothing that makes such magical spying harder.
You have "Word of Command" but no mass "Ignore 
Command" spell.  You have magic carpets but no area 
"Can't fly over me" spell.

  There are a fair number of defenses for 
individuals, but not many for protecting your whole
castle wall from Lightning bolts.

> 

  Steve Jackson says he deliberately avoided 
making a system like:

Spell A
Counter spell A
Ubber spell B (avoids counter A)
Counter spell B.
Special spell C (avoids counters A & B)
Counter spell C, etc.

  ... when he made TFT magic.

  I AGREE with this.  However I do feel that there
is room for spells and items and effects that make
spell casting more difficult in various ways over
fairly large areas.

  So in some areas, your wizards kick ass.  In 
others, magic is harder to work or more wild or
more dangerous...

> 
> >- - Combat Preparation. ...
> 
> 	Absolutely! See above for one way to represent it.
> 
> 
> 	Surprise. For example, Cavalry charging across a bridge. What 
> footsoldiers could possibly stand before an oncoming array of lances? 
> But the Unnoticeable old man standing on the second row waves his 
> hands and the knights are suddenly charging a 7-Hex stone Wall...
> 	Or just the sudden appearance (from Invisibility, or through 
> a Gate) of a squad where none was thought to be before.

  Good one.  This suggests I should get some thing
on surprise and scouting written up...

> 
> 	Sabotage. Has the enemy got anything flammable? Astral 
> Projection and Fire (yeah at triple cost, but that's what apprentices 
> are for).

  Hmmm...  hmmm...  Makes sense but I am a bit 
uneasy about this...  Do you want to suggest 
how this sort of thing could be put into a 
war game without messing up balance.   Of 
course it is a really dangerous mission so there
would be a good chance of losing your uber 
powerful wizard unit...


> 	Morale attacks (possibly covered above). ...

  This is a CLEVER idea.  Nice...

> 
> 	Note, some of these are not really battlefield tactics but 
> siege or campaign tactics, so maybe out of the scope of this 
> discussion. (Though it opens another possible issue. A side with a 
> serious deficit in wizard squads might be pretty demoralized and 
> sleepy on the morning of the battle.)

  I want these rules to do city battles and sieges so
I really appreciate these suggestions.

> 
> >   Another important fact is the amount of fST the
> >wizard has.  Let us say we have a few double sided
> >counters with the values: 0/8, 1/8, 2/8 ... 7/8.
> 
> It may be easier counter-wise to make up "-1 fST", "-2 fST", 
> "-4 fST", "-8 fST" etc. and just stack as many as needed onto a squad 
> counter as its wizards use up fST.
> 
> 	Downside is, of course, that each unit has a stack of 
> counters to represent its state and if multiple units stack in the 
> same hex, the pile could get pretty high.

  Exactly.  I would rather have one counter rather
than the pile, personally.

> 
> Agreed. Note that it'll take 5 times longer if the wizards 
> have used up all their personal fST and are digging into their 
> Batteries. Again, maybe special rules? 

  I've seen several campaigns that have other ways
of getting quick fST.  (I now have an exploding gem
type ST Battery where you bust it and get a one time
fST boost.)  However, I think I would rather keep 
the rules simpler than where this is going...

> 	In any case, I'd favor a system that tracks actual points of 
> fST spent rather than fraction of unit fST spent.

  Hmmm.  But then you have to rate all these counters
for their starting fST...

> 
> 	This may be the way to do it. But may it be that both sides 
> have to agree before an "attrition turn" is allowed? 

  Basically yes.

> I'd hate to have 
> my mundanes gain the upper hand by surviving a bunch of magic 
> attacks, only to have the wizards call a time-out so they can get 
> their breaths back and try again. I'd definitely want to press the 
> advantage and slaughter the exhausted wizards.

  My idea is that people choose an attrition attack,
a normal attack an all out attack, etc.  Basically 
both sides pick the intensity that they are pushing
forward.

  If both sides pick attrition, than BANG, an hour 
or half hour has gone by.  (A bit of this and you 
would get all day battles.)

  If the intensities are different, then the person
who has picked the higher intensity is the attacker
for that turn...

  Lots of work to be done but I think it will have
some nice effects.  I think that this is an actual
Rick Smith innovation in wargame design rather than
me just stealing ideas from what has gone before.  
More to follow...

> 	On the other hand, I'd like to be able to pull my own tired 
> wizards out of the battle, fight a delaying action for an hour or so, 
> and then throw them back in. Not sure how to do that. Clearly, that'd 
> only work in a really big battle.
> 
> >   My idea is to rate the wizard squad for the
> >specialties above.  Each specialty has a 5 point
> >rating, with one spell for each rating.
> 
> 	Do you mean each squad has a separate rating in each ability, 
> with an off-board table showing the ratings? I like this, 
> particularly if the off-board table has enough rows to show many 
> different types of wizard squads, fighters, etc.

  Pretty much.  My first thought is that the #'s are
right on the counter as I don't like having a lot of
stuff to look up off board.  But even big battles 
will likely have only one or two wizard squads per
side so it might not be that big a deal.

  But I don't want the game to be: "All the fighters
are very generic but boy have we got wizard rules!!!"

> 
> >   Anyone have some ideas for new spells that cost
> >20 to 60 fST that would be useful for military
> >troops of ~50 men?
> 
> 	Freeze Water - lets your squad run across it.
> 
> 	Swarm - as in locusts, bats, etc. on your enemies.
> 
> 	Berserk - your own troops all at once (Word of Command?)
> 
> 	Almost any Secret Protection spell (Blur, Reverse Missiles, 
> Stone Flesh) could be uprated to apply to more people at once and 
> cost (a lot) more to cast and maintain. Maybe all the subjects have 
> to remain in adjacent hexes as long as the spell operates?
> 
> 	Temporary-Talent spells? - let everyone in your squad act as 
> if they know how to swim (climb, run fast, fence, etc) - but they'll 
> forget when the spell runs out, and maybe take some damage (eg for 
> Running) for over-extending themselves? This would make an OK 
> single-target spell, too.
> 
> 	Improved coordination - like a subset of telepathy, but just 
> makes unit cohesion better for a while. The inverse could apply to an 
> enemy unit.

  Thanks for the suggestions!  I likely need to
sit down and think what sort of effects would make 
the game more fun.

> 
> >   This system I am describing is pretty TFT like. ...
> 
> 	The bonuses, if exercised, should cost fST from the wizard 
> squad. ...

  Certain amount of logic to that.  I was thinking that
there could be one zero fST bonus per turn, but battle
turns this long, wizards could cast LOTS of really 
cheap spells.

> 	My breakdown, in case you decide to go this way
> 
> 	Specific spells/fST cost:
> Concentrated Firepower
> Indirect Attacks (added category)
> Movement
> Defense
> Surprise
> Sabotage
> 
> 	Freebies:
> C^3I
> Healing
> Anti-Magic
> Combat Prep
> Morale Attack
> 
> >   One question that came up before is what happens
> >when your wizard squad stacked with a company takes
> >battle damage?  ...
> >
> 
> Random roll, but modifiers based on situation, gets my vote.
 
  Thanks for the feedback.

> 
> >   Can anyone think of another way of doing this? 
> >Do people have preferences on assigning damage?
> 
> 	PC squads would want to have it evenly distributed. 
> Realistically, I'd guess it would tend to be concentrated on a few 
> victims. Again, maybe there's a range of different effects, die roll 
> with some modifiers?
> 	Healing Potions are another wrench in the monkey works here. 
> I can easily see some units ignoring the first 3 points/soldier of 
> hits. What I can't see is how to track that easily.

  I keep feeling that I should come up with something
more clever here.

> 
> >   I
> >am thinking of other specialty squads so ideally
> >the system for answering this question will work
> >for them as well.
> 
> 	Units like wizard squads may depend pretty heavily on single 
> individuals for their capabilities. It should be possible to 
> "disable" those units by a single "critical hit" (ie took out the 
> IQ-18 leader) under some circumstances. But that should be a pretty 
> hit-or-miss thing. Maybe have, for some unit types, a critical-hit 
> die in addition to the damage roll. If the critical-hit comes up "1", 
> the unit converts to a lesser type unit (one with lower ratings in 
> several critical areas).

  Now this is a good idea.  I'm not eager to have 
another roll every time some one hits something but 
there should be some way to capture this idea some
how.

  I'm tempted to have a CRT with 3d6 rather than 
1d6.  How much more TFT like could this be?  If I do 
this then there will automatically be built in the 
combat system the possibility for some rare events.
The disadvantage is who wants to be indexing into a
table with 15 different events per column on the 
CRT?
 
> 
> >   Does this feel like the best way to go for Wizards
> >in the TFT wargame?
> 
> Sounds good so far!

  Thanks again Mark for the feedback!

  Very warm regards, Rick.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"