Wargames

A place for all those house rules and custom campaign ideas from the players.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Re: Wargames

Postby Cralis on Tue 30 Apr 2013 01:13

Vandervecken wrote:
Cralis wrote:Sheesh. So literal...

Of course you don't see a leader with a negative value. Why would he be a leader? That was kind of my whole point


Sorry, I'm pulling a Procyon (well, not even close to the extra hours he had to pull last year), I've worked 22 hours of O.T. each of the last 3 weekends and another at least 16 hours this upcomming weekend. And between seeing my son's last play of High School 3 times this weekend as he soon will be graduating and the neighbor getting a monsterously large but dying tree cut down on Saturday and getting a new roof on Sunday and today; a good sleep was not in the cards. Remember that I work the Graveyard shift and sleep during the day. So thanks for noticing the error, I edited the post it was in to correct it.


Now you're just making me feel bad for joking about it... the irony is that there are a bunch of responses with LG-2 in them :)

I'm well versed in not having enough sleep, for many reasons. I hope you can get a break sometime soon. I've noticed that my play time drops dramatically when I'm overly tired and stressed.

But now that you've brought it up, someday in the future I'm going to write an appendix article that will introduce the concept of "negative aspects" of graded leaders. My original idea was "negative traits" where a leader might actually have a negative value in some things... perhaps he's really good at training but he has a -1 to combat initiative because he can't make up his mind or something.

But this gave me a new idea: what if your leader was LG-1 or LG-2 but he got some super bonus at something? Like maybe he is LG+2 engineer? Or LG+4 training?

Do you think this would be too easy to abuse or do you think it might be an interesting optional addition?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10677
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Wargames

Postby Vandervecken on Tue 30 Apr 2013 06:22

I think that there are a few Idiot/savants that "work" for our military/government; but I don't think they ever are intrusted to become become leaders. They are too valuable and probably are being guarded in a nice facility that maximizes their particular talent.

For story purposes, one might be cool to have. But out in YOUR empire, you probably don't want a LG-1 or LG-2 mucking everything up for his/her/its one shining bonus, in my opinion. Or that leader would be 'Rule Abused', which is worse.

Also, the one gentleman I personnally knew that could fit your premise was just too "Nice" and "Trusting" to be in the command chain; but he did speak/write fluent Sindarin (an Elvish language from Tolkien). From memory, on a Legal pad he wrote me a pronounciation guide and 170+ word English - Elvish dictionary. That wasn't his Talent, by the way.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1222
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Wargames

Postby procyon on Wed 01 May 2013 10:11

Cralis wrote:Do you think this would be too easy to abuse or do you think it might be an interesting optional addition?


We kind of have something like this.
The players can create LG-1 admirals (or whatever they need) in our game to track.
They get a (reduced) chance to roll for a special ability when they make one - but only the first one per month. So we occasionally end up with a LG-1 trainer or such that we give a -1 on init, etc, but does well in its particular role. (We also treat them as LG-0 in that role to aviod creating a new line on the chart...)

But this could get abused by most players as they would just keep creating them and retiring those they don't like. We don't have 'voluntary retirement' other than by the random roll - so if you create them you are stuck with them. And any not assigned to a particular duty also have a chance to create 'interesting situations' - so parking them on a planet and ignoring them is a dangerous policy.
You really don't want the pirates that spawned in a system to be lead by an actual graded leader...that automatically got a grade raise when he 'exercised a little initiative...'. :twisted:

But as a regular feature - I think it would be abused and add text to the rules that would take a lot of work to balance in the absence of an SM.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Wargames

Postby Cralis on Wed 01 May 2013 20:02

procyon wrote:The players can create LG-1 admirals (or whatever they need) in our game to track.


I think the driver behind my thinking on Section S is that we want to move away from the players being able to create graded leaders at will. If that happened, then none of your concerns would really materialize since you'd have to choose to use the new LG-X leader or simply not have one created... unless we make you stick with them. Perhaps a choice?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10677
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Previous

Return to House Rules

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron