PDA

View Full Version : Could 40K Learn Something From Real Time Strategies?



Godzooky
16-04-2010, 10:20
Hi all,

I've always been a fan of a good RTS.

Obviously they tend to universally require a build up of an economy through some kind of resource gathering to fund advances in tech and the unlocking of more powerful units.

Do you think an addition to 40K where you can develop a civilisation whose economy dictates the available military power would add richness to the game?

It would maybe fit the feel of a Rogue Trader's private rag-tag force.

Could it work, or would it be fer too complex, boring and unecessary?

Good weekend, all. :)

Baneboss
16-04-2010, 10:25
There is always Dawn of War.

ehlijen
16-04-2010, 10:39
No, I don't think this would work too well in anything but a computer game. I'm not even convinced it works that well in computer games.

There is always this glaring clash between the buidling time scale and the fighting time scale.

AndrewGPaul
16-04-2010, 10:42
The thing is, the usual RTS gimmick of building your army from scratch as the battle progresses makes even less sense than 40K. :)

Unless you're playing a campaign, in which you gain reinforcements between battles, the best way I can think of is to copy the way Dawn of War (the computer game, not the mission) did it; you get reinforcements based on capturing objectives. If you say you can only make Reinforcement rolls if you control an objective, and can only bring one one (or two, or whatever) unit per objective controlled, you'd get something like that.

Look at Rackham's AT-43 (rules available as a free download); it uses precisely that mechanic for bringing on reinforcements. Some scenarios split your army into Assault and Reinforcement groups (usually a 60%/40% split) only units in the Assault group set up at the beginning of the game. For every objective you control at the end of your turn, you gain X Reinforcement points. When you have enough points to pay for a unit in your Reinforcement group, you may bring them on, (usually) deploying round the objective.

ehlijen
16-04-2010, 10:49
The problem with that kind of approach is that unless you balance it right, it leaves very little chance to recover once you start loosing.

If the winner keeps getting stronger based on how much stronger his position becomes, what's the other player meant to do? How does AT-43 address that, if I may ask? Just curious.

Godzooky
16-04-2010, 10:50
The thing is, the usual RTS gimmick of building your army from scratch as the battle progresses makes even less sense than 40K. :)

I don't know. You do see an awful lot of armies that look partially built on the tabletop. :)

AndrewGPaul
16-04-2010, 11:02
The problem with that kind of approach is that unless you balance it right, it leaves very little chance to recover once you start loosing.

If the winner keeps getting stronger based on how much stronger his position becomes, what's the other player meant to do? How does AT-43 address that, if I may ask? Just curious.

Not sure if it does, really. :) It's been a while since I played it, so I can't comment on the specifics. I agree it can be a problem, though. I think the objective zones in most AT-43 scenarios are fairly large and there'[s a decent number of them, which makes it easier for you to get at least one or two easily.

ehlijen
16-04-2010, 11:10
So it's less of a 'beat the opponent reward' than a 'penalty for sitting in your starting zone'? I guess that's fair enough.

ashc
16-04-2010, 13:34
ZERG RUSH


what?

:p

moose
16-04-2010, 14:34
Sounds like you want to play a CAMPAIGN.

A well planned one to hoot.


Moose.

Godzooky
16-04-2010, 15:51
Sounds like you want to play a CAMPAIGN.

A well planned one to hoot.


Moose.

I think you could very well be right.

I'm also interested in the idea of involving Imperial citizenry after reading that other thread.

grissom2006
16-04-2010, 16:03
It can work on a board game but the problemis it doesn't take to long to gave a full army. I used to run a campaign in WFB for what was my local store. Everything ran nice and smoothly for it and took a long time for a person forces to build up. I got asked to do the same in 40K and it quite simply didn't work. WFB had a greater number of lessor characters that could be the commander level 1 mages etc.. 40K hasn't got this group so was real means for a progression.

bert n ernie
16-04-2010, 16:03
Yup, this kinda reads like Mighty/Planetary Empires (perhaps with a few personal changes)

The old Mighty Empires Rules are free from GW, and it is cheap as chips to build a tile board if you can get your hands on Hex bases (there's an example in the link in my sig).

FSB
16-04-2010, 16:35
The problem with that kind of approach is that unless you balance it right, it leaves very little chance to recover once you start loosing.

If the winner keeps getting stronger based on how much stronger his position becomes, what's the other player meant to do?

My gaming club has tried campaigns using house rules that played out like this, half of the players dropped out of it by the 3rd campaign turn because me and one other player controlled so many tiles already. In hindsight we should have made a rule that people could only claim tiles for battles they won on there own turn : p

Corpse
16-04-2010, 17:45
Yes you can learn things from RTS gamers and various other games, even chess.


Works like this. To understand the "pieces" in 40k, you need to do a little math to see where they stand. The game is utterly based off math, so nobody go thinking "Oh your doing math-hammer, stop it!". It's like understanding your knight goes in a L for each move when you realize a marine has a 0.11 chance to kill another marine with a bolter shot. (BS4, Regular Bolter)

So if you throw around a few numbers you can realize how to focus your force, and exactly how many models and/or units you need to wipe out an enemy squad. You want to wipe out 10 marines out in the open, and do it in a single shooting phase? Well, what to fire at it first?

Do you have lots of blast weapons? In that case, fire those first! If not, and you have a choice of lots of small fire to shoot first, and some anti tank weapons to fire at them, which one should fire first? It's the small guns first! Why? Because they can stack wounds on models, failing two saves on a single model that could have killed two models if you fired the small guns first. Then wipe the unit off the map with the rest of the single/several shot anti tank units, starting with the unit that has the most anti tank guns like a devastator squad with 4 AP3 or better guns. Then use single shots to wipe out the last guy.

So, by this, to become an effective 1-unit-at-a-time wiper of marines, you have a marine squad (or two) get in firing range and fire first. Then a havoc/dev/some other many low-AP guns would hit it next. Then have some lascannon razorbacks try to wipe out the last guys, or single obliterators or whatever you have available.

Same thing goes for melee, powerfists fit the very same concept! Low AP attacks in melee first (or non power weapon to be specific), and then the fist wipes out the last guys, and of course you want to try and outrun them to force those extra fun wounds and remain in melee if they survive into their own turn to avoid being shot.


Now for the point of considering it like chess. There are what's called force moves. Or "the best option I give you". This is a false sense of security, you have to think ahead. Ok so you forced him to make his counter melee unit (terminators) charge you early, and wipe out 10 marines you sent after him. What next? You shoot and shoot and shoot at that unit, killing or mortally wounding its ability to hurt you. Now you can walk all over him in later turns because he could have saved at least half of them to remain in the main melee that he will lose the game in.

Now for learning RTS style. Most likely, you want to watch people on livestream that use tactics that are relevant to yours. You don't want to watch something like command and conquer if your not using the similar units they use, more relevant to imperial guard IMO.

What you want to watch is starcraft 2 for most armies in 40k. I watched a tournament recently that could share on how this could be helpful. A protoss player (think predator+kroot+tau if your unfamiliar with them) that beat another player who already won 10 games (and did it very easily against the rest of his team of 3) did this:

He took a unit, similar to Tau Battlesuits. He had a long range unit, similar to a range dreadnought and got close, firing at the enemies units, taunting them forward. He then retreated that vehicle and came in with the 'battlesuits' and attacked then retreated them when he started charging them after those suits. Then he brought back the 'dreadnought' and attacked their flank again, getting very close this time, sacrificing it to the fray. Then he brought in his 'battlesuits' and attacked. Now, these units surround in an arc like a "C" formation around whatever they attack. When he came at them, he came at the "C" from above, not the rear. So he hit 4 guys using 12 at any point of the attack, position was key. He did all this in under 30 seconds.

What can be learned of that? You can move and count on the player to move to counter yours, or otherwise know how/if they will move in the first place if you are aware of what sort of army you face. Marines? Stay at range if you got superior firepower, their main damage mostly comes from 24" and 12" to melee if they have superior units. Abuse that fact! Tank shock a vehicle to split their army a little and focus on one side, moving away from the side you're not attacking! (Best with mobile firepower forces)

Also, can poke into the tactics stuff in my signature below for more details on tactics to use.

Enjoy.

Heretic'sPaintbrush
16-04-2010, 18:47
One of Warhammer 40k's main downfalls is the simple fact that we can whittle it down to "Mathammer" in some cases. Yes, undoubtedly, math is an ESSENTIAL part of the game - but should only really come into play (or not during play, lol) during the development of the rules system.

Warmachine/Hordes has addressed this problem with huge success. The game is more complicated than 40k, however, it does not make it any harder to learn the rules or to play the game.

Warmachine/Hordes has so much more depth (2D6 opposed to 1D6) and much, MUCH more chance to stray away from simple statistics and chance. It would be possible for a groups of IG Conscripts to take down a Bloodthirster using Warmachine/Hodes rules. Hard, but not impossible.

AT-43 delves into YOU in the game and YOUR ability to play, not just the stats of the models. The cards are a wonderful ideal, adding strategy to the game. Look into it more in their promo rules.

Moral of my rant - 40k rules could learn a plethora of information from other systems; however, this is heresy and the Ordos has dispatched Ravenor to dispose of you.

The Emperor Protects!

Corpse
16-04-2010, 20:25
@ Heretic'sPaintbrush

It's not about what a game doesn't have. It is the ability of the player to make the best of what he's limited to. If a game is bland and doesn't work, it's because that player did not put the effort to find the key components to make it more fun.

In short, 40k only needs rules clarifying and updated codex rules. If you refuse, or forget to tank shock when you really need to then that is your fault. If you decide to limit yourself to certain units and not pay attention to how combined combat works then that is your decision. If you want to play something else then that is your choice.

Comparing oil and water without being told why is pretty pointless. That is the essence of your post.

enygma7
16-04-2010, 21:51
I don't see much room for RTS style play actually in game, but you can draw on pretty much anything for inspiration for a campaign. I've seen campaigns played with diplomacy-esque rules, map and narrative campaigns and even some RTS inspired ones. My advice is keep it simple - if you make the rules too complicated they will be full of holes and you'll find most people won't bother to engage. A system I've used is to impose restrictions on what people can take and then holding certain locations or facilities lifts them. For example:

No units with a 2+ armour save or vehicles with a combined armour value above 33, no psychers, max 1 elite, fast attack and heavy support.

Having a manufactorium allows +1 heavy support option. Having a foundry allows 1 unit with a 2+ save...

Players can either build these facilities using resources they get each turn or capture them on the map.

Regarding points, games with uneven points values don't work too well so I'd avoid having the points you can field based on facilities. If you want to vary the size of people's armies in this way one method is to start the games off at a low points value (e.g. 750pts) and have various buildings expand your maximum points limit (but if your opponent can't field that then you play at the lower value), or have fixed lists and raising your points limit allows you to have more options to pick from (e.g. you have a 3000pt list from which to pick your 1500pt army from).

Hope that gives you a few ideas...

Heretic'sPaintbrush
17-04-2010, 21:06
@ Heretic'sPaintbrush

It's not about what a game doesn't have. It is the ability of the player to make the best of what he's limited to. If a game is bland and doesn't work, it's because that player did not put the effort to find the key components to make it more fun.



The game should be fun "right out of the box". Academic research is something left to University study, not hobby wargaming. However, i do agree with you that in order to improve it, addition may not be the best route. What was the remembrancer's name who achieved perfection by removing. He was a sculptor....

I digress...

Warhammer 40k has a good fundamental foundation to build upon. It's just limited. It's not that the game is "bland and doesn't work", just that it's not evolving like other systems are. Some, such as AT-43, are ultimately failing while others, such as Privateer Press games, are flourishing.

Some time ago - possibly around the release of 3rd Edition 40k - GW started trailing away from the gaming aspect of the hobby. We could go for eons discussing why and opining, but that's not the point.

If GW acted like a 'nid, devoured a few other rules systems, spit them into a pool of other system's biomass - then maybe in the future a more evolved, more fun system of rules would crawl out of the stew.

I'll be waiting next to the pool, in the prone, with a plasma pistol.