Testing the scenario maker

[martin goddard]

Last night (1st Nov) we used the scenario maker fr the first time.
It went OK but we will try it some more.

I have asked Weymouth Mike to build an army to explore the extremes of the scenario generator.

The scenario modifiers are positively affected by
A. Less armoured
B. More skirmishers
C. More Veterans
D. More close order

To that end, I have designed an opposing Roman army.

5 close order armoured
4 auxiliary armoured
2 auxiliary bow armoured
3 artillery
2 armoured cavalry
2 mounted skirmishers
1foot skirmisher

301 points



martin

[Sean Clark]

Is v.59 the latest set?

Building an order for some Romans so I can to collect at WWW and then forget them when I'm half way home on the Sunday.

[Khaosheart]

Ancient Britons to fight Romans with as many Scenario Modifiers as possible .

2 Close order  armoured  Vets spear and shield
4 Close order trained spear and shield
2 Close order levy spear and shield
2 Aux Vets spear and shield
4 Aux trained spear and shield
6 Foot skirmishers
1 Chariot
1 Mounted skirmisher

298 points .

A. less armoured, 2 to 11
b. more skirmishers 7 to 3
c. more vets 4 to 0
d.more close order  8 to 5

Michael  and the best of British Luck .

[Sean Clark]

Very close in numbers of units. But can they fight!

[Stewart 46A]

Martins Macedonians didn't do well against Dennis and my Indian army .


Stewart

[Sean Clark]

Have you found a killer army Stewart!?

[Stewart 46A]

No, I have used Indians, Roman, Mongols, Carthaginian, Egyptians, Spartacus' slave army
All with mixed results.
Win a few lose a few.

Stewart

[martin goddard]

Giving all armies an equal chance is the real difficulty.
Equal chance  would mean that each army has strengths and weaknesses.
I would rather not have some armies with all of one or another.
That would ruin the game "You would be mad not t use army CCCCC.  It is the best army to win with"

This is quite an aim.

The following can make small differences
1.Battle tactics  Allow/disallow
2.Points. Pay extra/less
3. Army list.  Max/mins


End of game compensations are less useful because it is not enjoyable to be doomed from the start to lose a game  but suddenly win it by compensation alone.
I am looking for game in which the outcome is "in the balance" until 3/4 of the way through.

The danger is in adding rules when we are all very confident in playing but come unstuck when we have been elsewhere and return.   
RFCM rules do not cater well for the "can't read/won't read" but good luck to them anyway

martin

[John Watson]

I've used a killer army.........Scots Common..........They all got killed and pretty quickly too.
John

[Sean Clark]

My kind of killer army John!

[Sean Clark]

Giving all armies an equal chance is the real difficulty.
Equal chance  would mean that each army has strengths and weaknesses.
I would rather not have some armies with all of one or another.
That would ruin the game "You would be mad not t use army CCCCC.  It is the best army to win with"

This is quite an aim.

The following can make small differences
1.Battle tactics  Allow/disallow
2.Points. Pay extra/less
3. Army list.  Max/mins


End of game compensations are less useful because it is not enjoyable to be doomed from the start to lose a game  but suddenly win it by compensation alone.
I am looking for game in which the outcome is "in the balance" until 3/4 of the way through.

The danger is in adding rules when we are all very confident in playing but come unstuck when we have been elsewhere and return.   
RFCM rules do not cater well for the "can't read/won't read" but good luck to them anyway

martin

Very well made point Martin. I think complete balance is almost impossible. But if each army has its own thing (good at shooting/moving/strong morale etc) then players can play to that advantage. You wouldn't expect an army with lots of horse archers wanting to close in and fight in rough terrain very much.

I don't envy the rules writer in trying to get to a stage where all of the people are happy all of the time!