Blane
Full Member
I am, therefore you're dead.
Posts: 120
|
Post by Blane on Mar 7, 2009 2:01:39 GMT -5
I say no special characters unless both parties are willing. That simple. ie dont make a list that is based on a character. But if the other guy is like hey lets use our SCs! Then fine. Other than that, stray away from them.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboy on Mar 7, 2009 5:04:04 GMT -5
Yeah I can imagine it shouldn't be so hard to agree whether or not to use them on a per game basis. I don't really mind them, but some are obviously better than others.
|
|
|
Post by stonebrow on Mar 7, 2009 8:31:08 GMT -5
which is exactly why i say just dont play with them. Because then it comes to the same point that Cowboy mentionned, some are stronger then others. Whats so hard about not using em at all??
|
|
Blane
Full Member
I am, therefore you're dead.
Posts: 120
|
Post by Blane on Mar 7, 2009 13:41:20 GMT -5
Per game basis can make everyone happy. Discuss it before the game is scheduled. If you would like to use a SC, you HAVE to mention it. If the other guy doesn't mind, go ahead! Otherwise, both parties can simply choose to have no SCs in the game. So, Brow can say: ''I would prefer playing with no SCs what-so-ever in my games.'' And we have to abide by that choice. But Say Shoe and I want to SC the crap out of a game for fun fluffy reasons, we should be allowed to.
Point is, no surprises.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboy on Mar 7, 2009 15:35:48 GMT -5
I think Blane's solution will make us all happy, I'm not sure what you don't like about it Brow?
|
|
|
Post by stonebrow on Mar 7, 2009 15:36:54 GMT -5
That makes it weird don't you think? One day your playing with special characters under a certain banner and the next time you see that same banner there's no special character because the opposing player doesn't want you to use them? That makes absolutely no sense especially fluff wise to have special characters appear and disappear.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboy on Mar 7, 2009 15:41:34 GMT -5
Well I think the idea becomes, they aren't banner restricted anymore. Not to mention, it's still loose in this campaign and a banner doesn't represent a fixed army, so it can be completely different than the army you faced a week before.
|
|
ftime
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by ftime on Mar 7, 2009 15:50:16 GMT -5
another thought that came to mind was moving double time in your own lands. In the current rules, a banner can only move one territory per turn, unless you try a 'raze & move' order.
What I suggest would be to add 'marching' through your own (and allies') territory in order to permit quicker reinforcements. It makes sense realistically as the territory is familiar and your banners aren't 'scouting' up ahead slowing down movements. (for those who ask about scouting, it doesn't actually happen in this campaign.. just so you don't get confused by the post)
Thoughts?
Pros: quicker to reinforce, might also produce more battles per turn
Cons: might make defending territory too easy? not sure
|
|
Blane
Full Member
I am, therefore you're dead.
Posts: 120
|
Post by Blane on Mar 7, 2009 16:09:16 GMT -5
Im not sure what impact it would have unless we played the campaign through. I suggests making changes in further campaigns. This one will be a sort of test of future ones.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboy on Mar 7, 2009 23:04:35 GMT -5
I mostly agree with that. I'd rather try it as is, and see how it goes. If we want to add that in while playing, it could also be ok, but yeah.
|
|
ftime
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by ftime on Mar 8, 2009 1:40:12 GMT -5
no worries. It's just I noticed the map has 100 territories.. and if every new banner is to be formed at a HQ, I thought it might simply speed up movements and get combats going at a faster rate.. which on the other hand could be problematic as well i guess.
|
|
Blane
Full Member
I am, therefore you're dead.
Posts: 120
|
Post by Blane on Mar 8, 2009 10:07:23 GMT -5
In that case, we should establish a proper number of territories and choose/design a map that conforms to that. Maybe we should look at this in person together?
Otherwise, if we lose too much time on this we can always just use a hex-map. The advantage of that is that I could design it using google sketchup. Last resort though. Real maps are better.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboy on Mar 8, 2009 11:40:14 GMT -5
Well maybe 100 territories isn't so bad. Do you only start with one, or do you have several at the beginning?
|
|
ftime
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by ftime on Mar 8, 2009 13:37:25 GMT -5
you only start with 1: you HQ. Then you'll probably spend the first 5 turns just gaining land before you come across an enemy. So I suggest maybe we get together some place when we kick start the campaign, open a few beers and chill for a few hours as we play the first handful of turns.. maybe turn it into a weekend of the sort or whatnot. in the end, 100 isn't all that much for 6 players. that break it down to roughly 15-16 territories a piece.. which is 5 banners a player. However, all the goodies are in the center (or near it), and rivers/roads will give access to many territories at once. I've come across 2 sites already that kept track of Border Prince campaign for 2 gaming groups, and they each had between 5-8 players playing during their campaigns and seemed to do fine. here's a link of the map I'd use for the site, and photoshop conquered territories as the game progresses. i62.photobucket.com/albums/h81/Mantriel/Borderprinces.jpg?t=1236471357
|
|
|
Post by Cowboy on Mar 8, 2009 15:02:33 GMT -5
that seems like a great plan.
|
|