Check my post again, Chrystal, would you? I said "half of a smaller group", because IME, such games tend to get more participants. So it's more like losing 2 out of 3 vs losing the 2 Empire players when you've got 5 in total. And losing both the guys that chose to play Empire is actually less likely.
Ah, okay, sorry. To be honest, loosing half your players in any game is a pain in the backside, regardless of the game set up. However, I still say that for a freeform game like this, having everyone on the same side and the GMs on the other works better, PvE rather than PvP. This does not, in fact, remove PvP from the game. I'm sure players can find ways to fight each other if they want!
And hereby you have a game of chess.
Guess where the strike is going to be. Draw the enemy out to strike where you're ready is just the tip of all possible tactics. Not sure how many people would play that, just saying it's doable.
I hate chess. It would actually work well in a face-to-face strategy game, I think, but I'm mindful of the fact that it can take months to play out a single hour of game-time in these forums. Most stories tha start with people setting out on a journey never arrive at the destination. If you start your shipwreck story with the ship in port, chances are it will still be in port two months later when the last player to quit the game posts! This is experience, by the way, not cynicism.
Not really, these are just the best-known examples. And they're best-known because there are many civilian deaths .
But let's stop before we get to discussing guerilla tactics. Since you seem to have made your mind, I don't see trying to dissuade you as even remotely useful.
Well, you can always try, lol. But no, chances are I'm not going to change my mind.
Yeah, sorry for the in-joke. "The factions aren't balanced" is a common complaint in system games (and I hear it is so in wargames and boardgames as well, though I've got less experience there).
In board wargames I have played it is quite common for one side or other to have an advantage. However this then gives a balance to play when pitting an experienced player against an inexperienced one. However, many such games have optional rules that can be added or taken out to alter the balance of play
However, there are some conflicts that simply do not work as PvP. A great example is Operation Desert Sword, the 1991 liberation of the Kuwaiti Oil Fields. The conflict was so terribly one-sided, the Iraqi troops stood no chance. When a game company (I think it was GDW) created a board game of the conflict, rather than have that complaint levelled at them, instead they created a really excellent solitaire game! It can be played by multiple players, where each takes a different division of the allied force, but everyone is on the same side. (in that case, I would normally suggest having one player control all the Iraqi troops using the paper AI system).
Another great example is a game called Nato Division Commander produced in the 1980s by SPI, where one player controls three Russian divisions, acting more as a GM than a player, and the other player(s) control the regiments of a reinforced US division, defending the Fulda Gap in West Germany. In this game the Russian player has to stick to a pre-written plan and the US player(s) have limited intelligence as o what the Russians are doing.
Sorry, I know that's not really relevant, but I'm just saying I know what you mean, and I'm going by experience with my PvE policy on this one!
Sure, but these aren't the only options. Besides, troops are like everyone else. Getting them to desert and join you is part of the strategy of any rebels in their sane mind, if it's at all possible.
lol, true. But if the troops are better paid and better fed than the rebels, and their families are looked after, and they are indoctrinated to see the rebels as terrorists, why would they?
Sure you want the exercise?
Here you go for the peasant that became king.
And no, technology changes nothing. An armoured noble rider was just as much of a fighting machine as a tank is today.
I'll have a look at this, sure.
Technology is relative. An arrow will kill you as dead as a bullet. The technology of weaponry has changed over the years. Armour has evolved to match the power of weapons. In the Napoleonic era armour vanished from the battlefield because to be of any use against the firepower of the time it would be too heavy to move. With the advent of steam locomotion, it reappeared on armoured trains and ironclad ships. With WWI, the internal combustion engine was available and eventually became powerful enough to move an iron plated vehicle, and thus armour reappeared on the battlefield.
Now of course, troops have Kevlar plates protecting their chests and heads, but for mobility are not totally encased in it.
These are called poor initial stats, that's all .
I think we agree: if the players watch their posts, they might win.
That mostly depends on the GMs