Jump to content



Photo

Homebrew unit purchasing/ground combat rules based on The Frozen Reaches


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 RobOut

RobOut

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:08 AM

Hi Guys,

 

I was pretty vocal, when BFK came out, about what I saw as the inadequacies of the ground combat rules that they contained. I had been hoping for something more like that represented in The Frozen Reaches, and was sadly dissapointed.

 

Over the months that have past, I spent a lot of time thinking about what I would put in place when I need to include this in a game. As my ideas bubbled forth I decided it would be worth getting some of the ideas down on paper, as it were. While I am nowhere near finished (more than 18 pages, but several of them tables...) I thought it would be worth letting those in the community that were interested have a look and give me some feedback.

 

I've had a lot of discussion with a math wiz friend about the numbers, etc. He is adamant that I need to have at least 2 numbers to represent each unit (firepower and armour, or their equivalents) but I am determined to keep the simplicity I saw in The Frozen Reaches. But any comments or suggestions are welcome.

 

Note that I only just uploaded the document and that google docs has messed up all my careful formatting, so that is the first thing I will fix.

 

docs.google.com/document/d/1v2FJsFGMUEhXqdJHgNG8jiy3DeWxYjZ1Fy4uZoJl__s/edit

 

As usual, relevant trademarks, quotes, etc are the property of their owners.



#2 godmonkey

godmonkey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 01:05 AM

a very nice job! this provided a good framework to build on. i didn't really like the rules in battlefleet koronus either and i really liked the ones in frozen reaches.

 

thanks!



#3 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 02:42 AM

Good job! The size of the document is really impressive. Clearly you've put a lot of work into it.


Good points:
• I really like the customizable nature of the units, giving them traits based on quality is a great idea.
• Once all the units are in place, working out the ratios is fairly easy and thus keeps the game flowing which is the number one goal for rogue trader.
• You give a decent explanation of the various units and how common it would be to come across them. This helps GM’s place units in their campaign more easily.

Observations:

•You mention that mech infantry would require admech support and would thus be rare. would this admech support be any less then that required to keep a ship running (which seems to be reasanobly commonplace)?

• The ratio system really means that combat has very little in the way of chance in it and thus may be a bit of a foregone conclusion.

• the size of the groups used is small, although you mention that the rules could be used for larger conflicts, the way the requisition system works may make this impractical. 

It’s nice to see such a well constructed piece of work. Sadly, we use our own mass combat rules for our campaign so I can't see how they will play out in practice.

 



#4 RobOut

RobOut

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:27 AM

Hey guys,

Thanks very much for taking the time to have a look. My motivation as I've gone along is that if one other person got some use or some good ideas from my ramblings that the enterprise would be worth while. Obviously I have a bit to go before it's all done, but hopefully the number of words isn't too off putting.

With regards to the Mech Inf/Ad Mech questions. The way i was looking at the unit builder was that the RT turns up at a planet/station/etc and then checks to see what units are available for hire. A RT that recruited the unit themselves 'from scratch' would of course be able to have the best gear and men - and be able to rely on the contacts he has to make sure he gets what he needs. However, if the units were 'off the shelf' then Mech Inf and Armour units as Mercs would probably be quite rare. I think it would be hard for a small mercenary company to afford or to even get the contacts to have tech priest support.

Of course, thats just my 'world view' and as with everything in 40k, there are no doubt numerous exceptions.

The ratio system relys heavily on the players not having the numbers. They should know that an Armoured Company is better than a Light infantry Company, but not the exact figures. Also, with the small tests I've done it all kind of grinds itself out. Matching forces stalemate until losses/poor damage rolls (ie, the chance factor) make one side start to get the advantage - normally in 2 or 3 'turns'. ie, a couple of days of fighting. I'm thinking of a modifier table for things like air support, and possible explorers bebing present giving a d10 bonus to strength in that location. But the key thing as that players wherever possible don't see the numbers. It's as descriptive as possible from their side. And at the end of the day 4 Elite Armoured/Heavy Infantry Companies against 1 green infantry company is a foregone conclusion 99.99999% of the time. The only thing that will ever win that fight is good roleplay and GM fudging....

The unit size thing would work again with a little fudging on the GM's part. I think it's just my own perception that RT's would be more involved in the 'bushfire wars' style of fighting, with maybe a few regiments max per side. Again, thats my 40k veiw shining through.

But again, thank you both very very much for the feedback!



#5 RobOut

RobOut

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 12:31 PM

Hey folks,

Added rules for Artillery and started to think about Anti Aircraft units and how air support will work. Also added some sections giving information on troop quality as related to characteristics.

Again, any comments positive or negative (so long as it's constructive!) are welcome. 

I'm trying to think how orbital bombardment would work. I'm thinking on using the rules from The Frozen Reaches for this, but that throws in the need to potentially redesign things like Bombardment Cannons. The difference in timings between ship combat and ground combat would i think be resolved by the ship having to commit to some form of orbital pattern in order to contribute, and that the damage is not just the result of one single pass - perhaps due to the destructive potential of the weapons and the danger of hitting friendly forces.

Formatting and spelling still needs looked at, google docs isn't the easiest to use for either of those things.

 



#6 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:29 PM

again, good work.

While I like the trait system becuase it provides good roleplaying oppurtunities, they seem very powerful at company levels and not very powerful at regiment level... i don't know whether this is intentional, but i thought it was worth mentioning. Using the AA rules as turrets seems to work well and means that there isn't another set of rules to remember. I do get the feeling that the whole document is a lot easier to read when google docs hasn't messed it up. Given that you've written your own set of ground combat rules, would you mind looking at mine when I've made them semi presentable? I've never used google docs and so i don't know how to post it on there.



#7 RobOut

RobOut

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:34 PM

Hey Trent,

Thanks for the feedback again. I'd be happy to have a look at yours ;) Google docs was pretty easy to upload to and then it's just a matter of sharing with anyone who clicks the link. I also have a private copy as I'm unsure if other people can make changes. I've given up on formatting at the moment, as every time I go in to add something it messes up the rest of the document.

Re: Regiments - looking at it I see what you mean. My belief is that as a unit a Regiment should be greater than the sum of it's parts. I think somewhere along the line I've forgotten to give the Regiment strength a bit of a boost - most likely because it becomes complicated when sorting out splitting and re-combining. I'll have a wee think about how that could work - it may just be as simple as multiplying trait bonuses and negatives by a factor of 5 (or perhaps 6, just to give Regiments a bit more of a boost). Unfortunately I think the ability to split up units and combine them is a required one, which adds a level of complication.

Only other option would be seperate trait tables for Regiments.... not sure I would want to go down that path as the document is already at nearly 10,000 words! I would hope anyone that has read The Frozen Reaches would understand the bulk of what's there, but as a wargamer myself I still feel the need to make sure everything is down in black and white.

Ta!



#8 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 02:54 AM

hey RobOut,

https://docs.google....aTl8WDJT-4/edit

Hopefully this will work. I know the formatting is off, but if you ave any questions or critiscisms, let me know!



#9 RobOut

RobOut

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 04:24 AM

Trent,

I'll have a look tonight when I get home from work. Bad enough checking these forums during the day without chancing google docs...

Taking your comments on board yesterday, last night I updated my rules a bit, meaning traits now scale up along with Regiments, etc. It gets a bit clumsy once you get to the Army level, but works fine for Companys and Regiments. It also makes it a lot easier for people to build Regiments to the size they want (just create a Company and multiply to the size you require). It also means I can take a huge load of complication out for splitting and merging Regiments. So thanks for that!

Air rules I am looking at a straight port from BFK for fighter/bomber vs ship rules.

I've put in a section for randomly generating what forces are available, prior to randomly generating what type of those units are available. Which should mean GM's can just roll some dice and tell the players who is available to hire.

I found dropping the font size down helped with the formatting issue. You also need to set the language as English in order to get the spell check to work.

Other things I've been thinking about is that my rules at the moment only cover human forces! Hopefully GM's would be able to extrapolate enough from whats already written. I'm not sure if more information is needed on locations, and if I should look at either a unit database or some more generic traits for things like Armsmen ground units, militia, etc.



#10 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 05:10 AM

Hi Robco,

I've already looked at availibilty, meaning that players migh travel to certain worlds to have a greater chance of getting the units they want. not sure how the BFK will work on attacks on ground units though... I've got a tiny section in the back about ork forces, and I'm hoping to expand it to Eldar and Kroot next, eventualy moving my way to Tau and 'nids as the camaign calls for them.

With regards to Generic units, well most of the units are genric to begin with in my system. I can see it being a little more difficult with yours becuase of the traits having a larger impact. Maybe the addition of a +1 strength for NPC units to represent positve traits or some generic ones for NPC units based on their "class" (like all infantry suffering less strength damage after a fight)?

looking forward to your views on the above.

p.s. with regards to formatting, what size font do you use? it didn't really seem to like mine. 



#11 RobOut

RobOut

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 December 2011 - 07:14 AM

Hey Trent,

I go with size 10 font, as its small enough but still easy enough for me to read.

I like the idea of availability changing with location. TBH I shied away from the BFK suggestion of differing tech levels, but I suppose there is a tie in to the type of planet. I had started by looking at traits like those you have (light, heavy, etc) but gradually evolved into what I have just now. Origionally my traits were a lot more specific - like 'Armour Busters' and the likes, giving bonuses vs armour units. But the more I went down that path the more I began to realise it wasn't what I was looking for. The way you have gone with it seems to work.

Personally, with regards to Armour units, I would give them a high Attack, Armour and maybe a low capacity for sustained combat (needing more fuel and ammo, repairs, etc) so fewer hit points. I've not gone for specific orders other than attack and defend - but oddly enough one of the special rules I have been pondering over is whether infantry should get a bonus when in urban or dense terrain. Then the problem is what bonus to give mech inf?

Your generic traits idea is a good one, I'll maybe have a bash at something like that over the weekend. It would keep things nice and simple for the GM.



#12 trentmorten

trentmorten

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 10:05 AM

Hey RobOut,

I've reduced the armor Damage capacity and upped the armor and assualt value a bit. i look foward to reading your amends, the clarifications for regiments works well and is nice and simple. thanks forlooking and let me know if you have any further advice.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS