PDA

View Full Version : 40k in 40 minutes meets Command and Conquer: help needed!



malika
17-10-2005, 15:05
Okay Ive been playing Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun a lot lately and it inspired me a lot:D Not like units or artwork ideas, but more the style of a campaign.

The 40k campaign would be very similar to games such as command and conquer. (the missions in which you dont built a base) However I want it to remain based on various skirmish (around 500 pts to 750 pts) forces.

The missions would dictate what each player can use (for example a tactical squad and a scout squad only), however you are free with the upgrades, similar to 40k in 40k minutes IIRC. On certain positions on the battle fields the player could call in for reinforcements if they are not taken down by the enemy etc etc.

However help is needed to work this out. I dont know where I can find all the rules for 40k in 40k minutes (40k skirmish), where could I find these?

And also I need some help with creating a campaign, since he computer game is based on playing either side and then keep on playing missions which you eachhave to succeed. I personally would like to use some sort of "campaign tree" system in which you would basicly have each side playing the campaign, not just one side (like in the computer games)

Any comments of suggestions would be welcome, but I need some help on this.

Zark the Damned
17-10-2005, 15:18
The easy way: Each player starts the campaign with X points of units (say, 2000). These units are bought at the start of the campaign.

For each mission, the players select X amount of points from their existing campaign armies. E.g. I have 3 Ork Boyz mobs in my Ork force, I assign 2 of them to the mission. Any 'left over' points get added to the mission bonus at the end (see later).

After the mission, the winning side gets a number of bonus points, based on the mission. To this they add any objective based bonuses or leftovers (as abovve). They can use these points to purchase more units or upgrades for their Campaign forces. They can spend these straight away, or bank them for later use.

No one unit can be assigned to more than two consecutive missions. If my Killa Kan mob plays two missions, they have to sit the next one out. This represents refuelling etc.

At your discretion you can deem two missions to be simultaneous. e.g. a Pincer Manouvre taking out two strongholds at the same time. Obviously in this case you cannot use the same units in both missions (my Killa Kans can go on either mission, but not both).

That's roughly it, expand as you see fit.

A more complex one would involve spending points on a home base. Certain buildings would give special abilities, e.g. a Tellyporta lets me deepstrike a boyz mob. Other buildings would be necessary for you to buy certain units (No Dreadz without a Mek Shak).

Enemy forces could raid your base and destroy buildings, denying you their use until you can rebuild them.

Build Points (i.e. the leftovers) could also be used to buy one-off effects, such as Orbital Bombardments for a single battle, or use them to hire mercenary units for your next mission (like BB Freebooters, they cost half their actual pts cost but go away).

Each player would only be able to store X amount of extra build points, to keep more they would have to build vaults. Players could then raid each others vaults to steal their build points.

And so on...

EDIT: Just noticed yout other question in there, the 40k in 40mins rules are now called 'Combat Patrol' and are contained in the current rulebook.

malika
17-10-2005, 16:16
The easy way: Each player starts the campaign with X points of units (say, 2000). These units are bought at the start of the campaign.

So throughout the campaign you would use units from that same armylist, no other units would be added. Sounds intriguing.


mission, the winning side gets a number of bonus points, based on the mission. To this they add any objective based bonuses or leftovers (as abovve). They can use these points to purchase more units or upgrades for their Campaign forces. They can spend these straight away, or bank them for later use.

This would mean that a force who won lots of battles could later on in the campaign end up with a force way larger than the losing side right?


No one unit can be assigned to more than two consecutive missions. If my Killa Kan mob plays two missions, they have to sit the next one out. This represents refuelling etc.
This sounds interesting, however I would let this depend on the mission, some missions are immediate follow ups, for example infiltrate the base and capture the officer which is followed by bringing the officer to the drop zone.


At your discretion you can deem two missions to be simultaneous. e.g. a Pincer Manouvre taking out two strongholds at the same time. Obviously in this case you cannot use the same units in both missions (my Killa Kans can go on either mission, but not both).
Missions which take place on exactle the same time? That is a cool idea I havent thought of yet, very interesting indeed. We could also let the results of the one mission influence the other one. Morale things and stuff like that.


A more complex one would involve spending points on a home base. Certain buildings would give special abilities, e.g. a Tellyporta lets me deepstrike a boyz mob. Other buildings would be necessary for you to buy certain units (No Dreadz without a Mek Shak).

Enemy forces could raid your base and destroy buildings, denying you their use until you can rebuild them.

Build Points (i.e. the leftovers) could also be used to buy one-off effects, such as Orbital Bombardments for a single battle, or use them to hire mercenary units for your next mission (like BB Freebooters, they cost half their actual pts cost but go away).

Each player would only be able to store X amount of extra build points, to keep more they would have to build vaults. Players could then raid each others vaults to steal their build points.

And so on...

Might be something to work on later, at the time being Im trying to avoid the building part of it, but it might be interesting to have a mission in which you have to blow up a tank factory and then the defending side would end up being able to "activate" the tanks. So for example you could have an Guardsmen squad move towards a Leman Russ tank and then 5 of the Guardsmen would "take over" the Leman Russ.


EDIT: Just noticed yout other question in there, the 40k in 40mins rules are now called 'Combat Patrol' and are contained in the current rulebook.
Ah okay thanks...but now with the ideas you posted Im getting more interested in doing this more based on the normal 40k instead of Combat Patrol:evilgrin:

If we get this thing rolling it might be fun to combine it with the Anargo Sector Project as in having it as an alternative to the usual campaign system. Personally I would find this style very fitting for the battles which took place right after the Horus Heresy when the Ultramarines liberated the Anargo Sector. So you would play the game with Imperial Guard (if you are a loyalist) and then you would be able to use Space Marine reinforcements from time to time. However it could be used for all sorts of campaigns I guess:)

Zark the Damned
17-10-2005, 16:43
So throughout the campaign you would use units from that same armylist, no other units would be added. Sounds intriguing.

This would mean that a force who won lots of battles could later on in the campaign end up with a force way larger than the losing side right?
Correct, however remember that the campaign force is a large pool of units from which you select for each individual mission. So even if one player has, say, 2000 points more than their opponent, this just means they have more to pick from for a 500pt mission. Using the whole force at once should be extremely rare! (maybe an end of season megabattle)

Campaigns of this sort usually benefit from having some sort of campaign moderator depending on the number of people. Basically someone impartial to make up the narrative for each mission and decisions on whether a mission counts towards the 2 in a row limit.

Something I just thought of: if you have more than 2 people, then you could get two players to form an alliance versus a stronger player. They would attack at different points on the battle line simultaneously, forcing the player to split their army between them. Meanwhile the 2 agressors can use their best units versus that player. Everyone loves toppling the champion :D

malika
17-10-2005, 17:03
Correct, however remember that the campaign force is a large pool of units from which you select for each individual mission. So even if one player has, say, 2000 points more than their opponent, this just means they have more to pick from for a 500pt mission. Using the whole force at once should be extremely rare! (maybe an end of season megabattle)
Hmm this would mean that the player would just have more options right? Personally I think it would be very cool to then put some sort of "promotionsystem" in the campaign, similar t skirmish games such as Gorkamorka and Necromunda in which units gain more skills and experience. So for example Guardsmen might gain better infiltrating or shooting skills after several missions. This however is very dependable on how big (as in lots of missions) the campaign would be.


Campaigns of this sort usually benefit from having some sort of campaign moderator depending on the number of people. Basically someone impartial to make up the narrative for each mission and decisions on whether a mission counts towards the 2 in a row limit.
What about having a preset (is that the correct word?) storyline no matter how the campaign exactly goes? So each mission would have its storyline. However Im kind of bugged how we would do this for historical campaigns.


Something I just thought of: if you have more than 2 people, then you could get two players to form an alliance versus a stronger player. They would attack at different points on the battle line simultaneously, forcing the player to split their army between them. Meanwhile the 2 agressors can use their best units versus that player. Everyone loves toppling the champion
That could be a very interesting thing, it would all depend on the storyline of the campaign I guess. Lets start with 2 players against each other and from there move on to having this campaign be played by a larger number of people, so that eventually you could have 8 players fighting against each other with a few units only. Very fitting for some sort of great invasion of various factions. So during an Ork invasion you could have several Ork warbands represented while on the Imperial side you could have Imperial Guard, Space Marines and Inquisitorial forces. Just an idea!