|
The one thing I like about Flames of War is how they've moved from rating SS divisions as uber elite to better motivated but actually worse at fighting
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
alg posted:Really good VIkings just went on KS: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/footsore-miniatures/vikings-28mm-dark-age-early-medieval-miniatures Now I just need to figure out how many jomsvikings I'm gonna need for Saga. Wish they had a few more daneaxe guys
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
I'm thinking 16 guard and 32 warriors for both hand weapons and two handed axes. I think I might just hope mixing up one and two handed axes looks acceptable
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
man it's weirdly hard to find gripping beast lead spears in the US, I think badger games is the only place I can find that has them on their store and they're usually out of stock
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Ilor posted:See, this is my intrinsic problem with points-based systems, and that's that so many game designers take the laziest approach possible to "balancing" things (lower quality troops == cheaper == more of them). That's not how asymmetric conflict actually works. Having a lovely squad LMG did not lead to Italians fielding more men, for instance. Balance is done so much better across multiple games (in a campaign setting) than as one-off scenarios, but that's not "tournament friendly," so as a result you end up with lovely rules that skew the forces on the table. I do like the TFL approach where your core list is set in stone and points values are just used to see how much higher level support you get. But yeah there is a problem that the only way quality is balanced is quantity- I've always kinda thought about a system where the superior army has pre game disadvantages- like a Roman army will often be superior to a Gallic one, but that means the Romans have to attack into unfamiliar terrain to win
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I can see how there's a degree to which balance is ever at odds with history in this respect - usually, the side with fewer advantages just lost, and being doomed isn't that interesting unless you're actively playing the "we both play both sides and see who does better" type game. "Why do the italians always get the drop on the british" is just as ahistorical as "why do the italians get more dudes", after all, and historically, they couldn't really throw in more dudes or use them better, and had to be bailed out by the DAK. Well if you go all in on it, lots of board wargames have victory conditions of "lose less badly than historically." If you're taking an understrength Italian unit into veteran British on defense, why not just say the Italian player "wins" as long as they don't actually lose ground
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
We're also still waiting on the 2022 FAQ lol
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2024 23:31
|
|