376

(19 replies, posted in Defiance)

My work on Brotherhood and Mishima forces having been stalled by something of a writer's block, and having recently finished both Jeff VanDerMeer's City of Saints and Madmen and Chína Míeville's Iron Council which put me into alternative/industrial fantasy frame of mind, I decided to try my hand at writing something a bit alternative for Defiance as well.

Hence, Project Industrial Fantasy (PIF for short). Here's some initial background info on one of the major powers in the PIF universe, the Kingdom of the Sun, and its forces:

For ten millennia, the Kingdom of the Sun has dominated the North-East corner of Terannor. Not always without rival as the fortunes of the Sun King and the Moon Queen have waxed and waned, and once, more than a thousand years ago, brought to the brink of destruction by the Black Ships from the skies, it nevertheless has always been a force to be reckoned with. Now, with the advances in thaumaturgy and alchemy and the recent forays into mechanismics and elyctrics, the Kingdom is at the height of its power and stands ready to conquer the entire continent.

Troops

Standard Infantry

Artillerists --- Quality: Veteran
Technically challenging, the position of an Artillerist is a well paid one but one that receives little praise from the normal footsloggers, who regard hanging back and barraging enemies to submission more than a little unmanly. Nevertheless, the devastating weapons at their disposal make the Artillery Battalions the solid backbone of any heavy assault or dedicated defence.

Firebrands --- Quality: Veteran
Another highly technical battlefield role, that of a Firebrand calls for training in alchymics as well as mechanismics. Enemies of the Kingdom of the Sun dread the day when the Royal war schools are able to produce truly significant numbers of these specialists.

Foot Lancers --- Quality: Veteran
Usually found deployed against some of the hardest opposition the enemy can muster, from Juggernauts to heavy cavalry, the job of the Foot Lancer is one of the most demanding in the Royal army. Lately, the elyctric shield technology has enhanced their chances against even the most overwhelming odds.

Grenadiers --- Quality: Regular
Lightly armoured and armed with hand weapons and a deadly array of bombs, the Grenadier Battalions are much in demand and often stretched thin to meet the Kingdom's need. Grenadiers are often underappreciated and underpaid considering the thankless task of creeping within charge distance of the enemy in order to inflict damage upon them.

Juggernaut Hunters --- Quality: Fanatic
A few of the most desperate and foolhardy soldiers dedicate their military career to a single purpose: hunting down and despatching Juggernauts. With unwieldy demolition tools in hand, brandishing Hand Cannons and throwing Platebuster Bombs, they charge against the massive metal constructs and to either unrivalled fame or an early grave.

Knights --- Quality: Veteran
Once thought to be a dying breed, the Knight Companies consisting solely of nobles in their heavy, bright armour that limits their mobility and makes them easy targets for modern firearms now have a new lease on life thanks to the advent of elyctric shield technology. When they reach hand to hand combat, few can stand against their greatswords and  other heavy melee weapons wielded with consummate skill.

Mechanists --- Quality: Elite
Seldom seen on the field of battle, Mechanists sometimes participate in combat action in order to oversee the Juggernauts they create and outfit. While their main purpose is to observe these constructs, they can also make their presence felt with a few nasty weapons appropriated from the war laboratories.

Mounted Lancers --- Quality: Veteran (SZ=3)
Apart from Knights in their shining armour, nothing really captures the imagination of the ordinary folk back home like Mounted Lancers on their trusty steeds, silhouetted against the rising sun. Every bit as hardy as the Foot Lancers, the Mounted Lancers are getting somewhat rare in the face of advances of firearms, but they are still a force to be reckoned with.

Rangers --- Quality: Regular
Scouting the land ahead of the Royal army's advance is tasked to the Ranger Corps. Recruited from the areas where they are deployed, their knowledge of the terrain makes them consummate infiltrators.

Riflemen --- Quality: Regular
The Rifle Battalions are where most men (and some of the women) joining the Royal army today are recruited. Steadfast in defence and ferocious in attack, they are the workhorse of the entire military might of the Kingdom of the Sun.

Rocketeers --- Quality: Regular
Perhaps the least technical of the specialized roles in the Royal army today, a Rocketeer needs fairly little training apart from handling the rockets without blowing himself and his fellows up. Many Rocketeers enlist in hopes of eventually getting promoted to Artillery Battalions.

Shock Troopers --- Quality: Veteran
Shock Trooper Battalions draw the fiercest and the downright most violent of the recruits. They are send in when the fighting gets close up and dirty, into cramped quarters where Lancers can't wield their elegant weapons effectively enough. Life expectancy for them is low but they do earn a lot of respect from other warriors, as well as respite from certain menial duties.

Snipers --- Quality: Elite
The opposite of a ferocious Shock Trooper, the Sniper performs his precise and elegant elimination work from afar. Cool and steady by nature, they can be seen aiming, firing and reloading with almost clockwork-like precision. A bullet from a Sniper's Jezzail has been the bane of many an officer and Thaumaturge

As usual, I'm not able to promise any timeline but I'll try to move this too ahead when time and interest permit.

377

(41 replies, posted in Defiance)

A bit late in coming, but this occured to me just this morning...

Tinkering. Some armies (well, in them other sciffy games at least -- and of course there are the Boers in DVG) allow and even encourage battlefield modifications to be made to the weapons and armour. This can be represented by an aug that works randomly by rolling a D10 at the start of the battle and applying the effect to the frame in question (infantry, vehicle or weapon):
1-3 -- +1 to AR or -1 to hit
4-7 -- no effect
8-10 -- -1 to AR or +1 to hit
Points cost should be 0 pts, or at least nominal. Maybe some limitations as to the frames (say, infantry/vehicle +4 > AR > -2, weapon effector limitations...) might apply.

378

(3 replies, posted in Defiance)

I'm not certain if they are too low, but they definitely aren't too high in my experience. It helps a little that the cone AOE stops at terrain depth, but without that provenance (plus the fact that you can't fire the cone through your squadmates which limits the fire arcs a bit) a well-placed cone weapon with B effector would decimate entire armies of SI. In fact, it could be that effector costs for cone weapons in general might deserve a second look.

379

(10 replies, posted in Defiance)

There is a fair empahasis on Army Customizer(TM) already, I think, but I agree that it might be prudent to mention that you can use whatever miniatures you like. I would perhaps attempt to stress the "Defiance - all you need" aspect a bit more.

That said, I don't have any solid suggestions as to how to go about it. I'm really bad at selling stuff. If it helps, feel free to pilfer anything I've written on the 'net on the subject.

380

(16 replies, posted in Defiance)

agoodall wrote:

Well, gosh, that goes against what other folks were saying!

You note tho that I didn't really take up on the per model speed issue as I wasn't sure how many models per side you were talking. Also, since you hadn't already found a game that would work for the company level it did seem unlikely that DVG would cut it for you where the likes of Dirtside, Wh40k and VOID apparently have failed.

Anyhow. Given the fact that it would be around 100 models per side (the points values involved would be... interesting), I still do think a DVG game with those numbers in 4 hours may be a bit of stretch. I believe it's doable (since Demian sayz so wink), but you'd need to do some carefull pruning. Rich and Demian had some good suggestion on how to work that. One option not yet mentioned you don't want to try is to use next to no terrain (@ some Wh40k games I've heard about).

I'd set the feasible limit for a no holds barred game (Advanced level, Elites, Heroes, Vehicles, what have you) at between 10 and 15 models per side per hour. That's been my experience so far, although I must admit I don't have all that many DVG games under my belt. Doesn't seem to catch on in our group.

381

(16 replies, posted in Defiance)

agoodall wrote:

I didn't care much for the mechanics where you had to roll for each individual figure in a squad

Then (like Justin effectively said before begining to shamelessly plug another game tongue) Defiance is not the game you are looking for.

That said, DVG plays quicker than some might think just by looking at the rules. I think there was a review of Starslayer out once that had it sound like it takes most of the day to finish a standard game. It was not true of SS and DVG playes faster than its predecessor did, although not by an order of magnitude of course. Still, it doesn't play a lot slower than Wh40k or VOID 1.1. if you don't load with models taking orders individually. And even if you do, it still goes faster than the likes of Warzone or Urban War (this last is hearsay, tho).

Actually, what I'm looking for doesn't really exist: a sci-fi game that would allow a company level engagement to be fought in a reasonable amount of time

I really do find it odd if there isn't a game that meets your above-the-board requirements (this with the caveat that I'm not really 100% certain how many models would be required to make company level). You have tried asking on TMP and Mini Realms?

382

(41 replies, posted in Defiance)

I was rather thinking along the lines of a sergeant ordering the troops to affix bayonets before dropping into the trenches, if we want to go along with WWI analogy.

If we wanted to take an example from a science fiction setting, troops send to board a space ship might receive hand outs of armour cutting tools such as plasma torches (an A effector CCA). Also, it (the CCA rule that is) would facilitate the use of non lethal force in a special scenario without resorting to further special rules (an S effector CCA).

383

(41 replies, posted in Defiance)

smokingwreckage wrote:

Oh, in Dawn of War, a computer game that I currently like a lot, troops under sniper fire start to lose morale. Is it possible to have this dual effect in Defiance?

I don't think it's an option but if we were to touch the actual ranged weapons then I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to cost a weapon that has a point-of-impact primary effect and a secondary Stun or Terror effect of some sort.

On the subject of grenades/CDWs, a related addition that wouldn't necessarily be far fetched in the context of "game play on small and/or very heavily terrained surfaces" would be close combat accessories (CCA). In the context of a full scale DVG game they would be sort of retundant but I can envision troopers going into tight confines taking on melee weapons. The simplest way to implement CCAs would be allowing the frame to replace one (or more) side arm choices with extra HTH attack(s). These could have different to-hit target numbers and effectors from the frame's normal HTH attacks, but would otherwise function similarly to them and be subject to roughly the same limitations. Possible exceptions to the limitations would be the maximum number of dice per CCA (1? or 1 per TL?), number of uses per turn (1 as per unlimited CDWs?) and disallowing them to be used for extra movement after a victorious round of close combat.

The Forge World versions of the said infantry are much nicer. Of course they are also pricier but you can't have everything.

385

(41 replies, posted in Defiance)

Demian Rose wrote:

My newest idea is this

Sounds like a fair compromise between option #1 and #3.

So, anyone have ideas about new augmentations, grenades or army list templates?

An aug mentioned previously would be some sort of "paratrooper deployment" allowing models to enter the game making a sort of single use Jump move instead of deploying normally. This could represent a variety of unorthodox entries from actual parachuting to teleportation to tunneling to lying dormant in a cocoon in the ground until the enemy approaches.

Of course if one wanted to get pedantic then real paratroops should be vulnerable to enemy fire while they descent while troopers using more exotic modes of insertion shouldn't. So perhaps the differentation should exist under the super realistic genre option at the very least.

Another one you mentioned yourself in context of the Starslayer is the "walking through the walls" ability.

For the army lists, you might want to ask Kev White if he was interested in allowing a DVG army list be published for the Grymm and whatever he's been coming up with. He might well be reseptive to the idea. The problem would be that it doesn't look a lot like he has a stuctured plan about the "armies" he is putting out -- he just seem to be making what strikes his fancy. Makes writing an army list a bit pointless as it's going to be obsoleted during the time it's being edited for publication.

The same might apply to the Pig Iron Productions people. It may be that they don't have a game of their own planned yet, although like I said almost everybody does.

386

(41 replies, posted in Defiance)

Demian Rose wrote:

creating the Customizer open source will require either a) a computer program, or b) lots more math to be done with a pencil and a calculator

You're talking about "giving away" the mathematical formulas used to generate the frame tables in the DVG book in order to promote the DVG mechanics for other games (the illustrious Dan "Grumpel" Earp didn't instill his, shall we say, self-assured view of the universal application of points costing tools in you, I hope tongue)? While that would probably also serve to make Defiance a more tempting option for converters (the weapon ranges for example tend to be a lot smaller in many games compared to DVG), I'm not quite sure if this is the most viable first priority. Can't see much call for "licencing deals" on Defiance as it seems that every minor miniature company (with the notable exception of the Cold Navy guys) likes to make their own rules as well as background and minis.

Other than that, I suppose it would be sort of logical to pursue the #1 option first and develop the #3 option on "backburner" meanwhile. The public has been trained to associate expansions and add-ons (codexes, army books, whatever) with a living game. With the production of DVG minis moving rather slowly (for my tastes anyway), expansions would give the impression that something's going on.

Jawohl, their gun even looks like the Defiance Machine Pistol if you don't look too closely.

Probably will be "forced" to get me some of those... The one ceveat is that since DD are professional painters (IIRC), they can make a mediocre model look smashing in small pics.

Anyway, if these turn out good I hope they'll also release the 25mm Russians they did at the larger scale. They seemed pretty sweet too, but I'm too entrenched in 28mm to be able to go true 25mm.

Attendum: found a size comparison link. The German guys are DEFINITELY not 25mm. Seems they are not even "true 28mm" but rather "true 30mm" as they seem to be as tall as -- if not taller than -- WARMACHINE figs. This scale creep thing is not something I really like to encourage, but I suppose it can't be helped anyway so I'll probably buy some all the same :roll:

388

(7 replies, posted in Defiance)

I try to go for informative as I'm not naturally inclined to "fanboyish rave review" style. Unfortunately, this probably makes my reviews somewhat bland and may give the reader an impression I didn't actually care a lot for the product. This is especially a problem when writing for the English-speaking audience. It sometimes seems that you have to label anything of value as "k000000lest thing since sliced bread" so as not make the review read as "suxxxx major a**"... Not sure if that's really the case of course, I just may frequent the wrong places :wink:

389

(7 replies, posted in Defiance)

It's not on RPGNow but..

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11318.phtml

390

(34 replies, posted in Defiance)

javelin98 wrote:

Right now, to make a combo weapon, someone will need to create the first weapon frame independently, and then make the second weapon as a combo with the first.  I'm sure there must be a better way to handle it, but I'm not sure how (maybe a separate worksheet for combo weapons?)

It might be simplest to "force" people to define all weapon frames, including those that'll end up as subframes in a combo weapon, first. There would have to be some way of "tagging" those weapon frames that don't count towards the total number of frames. These wouldn't be allowed to be attached to any other frames apart from combo weapon frames. Then provide a way (perhaps a separate sheet might indeed be simplest, although I'm not sure what that'll do to attaching weapon frames to infantry/vehicle frames) where combo weapon frames are defined as a collection of otherwise existing frames.

hundvig wrote:

I'm a little reluctant to just skip the tunnel rules altogether, since it's (for me, at least) a big chunk of the Bug's flavor.  Might be able to simulate a lot of it with the Covert Ops rules, though...

That would be the best bet as sneaking in particular has several similarities with tunneling movement (such as conferring a degree of ablative cover). It's not nearly as surefire tho since sneaking troops can be spotted and then attacked normally, which of course isn't the case with SST tunneling troops. But then again, a lot of the things won't be the same anyway so I'm not sure if it matters all that much.

The SST bug list indeed isn't all that massive or complicated. In fact I think Demian's "archetypal" bug army list (the Organic/Biotech one that is) would be able to cover a big part of it (despite the fact that SST bugs are all at least SZ 3).

Not me, although I must confess to toying with the idea while I was reading the SST book. Sorta weird I suppose, considering I haven't even actually tried the original rules yet :?

Anyways, I don't think it would be all that difficult to convert the bugs if you just blithely ditch the tunneling rules. MI wouldn't probably be too hard either, in fact possibly even easier.

393

(34 replies, posted in Defiance)

None so far that's been done with the calculator, if that's what you are looking for.

I might have time run my Mishima list through on the calculator sometime this week tho. That, or one of the mini-lists from Cobalt-1.

394

(44 replies, posted in Defiance)

A little thing I picked up yesterday that has escaped notice so far IIRC: Vobian Gatling Laser is listed as a Powered Infantry weapon although pointswise it would pass for a Standard Infantry weapon (62pv, SI limit at whopping 80pv). No harm in doing that, I suppose, but at least one SI frame (can't recall which right now and am in no position to check) has it as a weapon option. And that can't be right...

395

(3 replies, posted in Game Design)

Haven't heard of one for Defiance. Haven't really been looking into Starmada (I need another game to play like I need an extra hole in the head).

I do know that Defiance has many qualities that would make campaign advancement models fairly easy to make from scratch. A unit can advance in quality. A single model may be promoted to a leader or even a commander, or may perform some act of derring-do and become a hero. Augmentations could be made available to troops who have reached a certain level of experience.

396

(7 replies, posted in Defiance)

This in fact was one of the subjects that came up at a demo I gave earlier today...

I do think (the others in our group aren't convinced) that a very hth oriented army would be doable in DVG. That said, I think it will be very difficult to get to close combat without suffering massive casualties, especially in a standard "wipe them all out" game where the opponent basically can just stand back and shoot.

The likelihood of facing considerable losses conspires with the fact that, point for point, your close combat frames won't be any cheaper than the opponent's frames (more likely quite the opposite). The enemy off course will be paying for those high feed rate and cone weapons to mow down you army so he'll likely end up paying more per actually fielded trooper. But still your close combat army won't most likely have an overwhelming advantage of numbers it might enjoy in other games.

So you have to be carefull indeed and perhaps a bit lucky as well to pull a victory against a wary opponent with a "shooty" force. I personally have little call to really set my mind to trying as it's common knowledge in this town that my troops always suck at close combat, regardless of the odds :roll:

397

(34 replies, posted in Defiance)

javelin98 wrote:

Can you give me a page number so I can incorporate them properly?

See tables on pages 82 & 83. The only effects you can combine with the others are the various smoke effects.

398

(5 replies, posted in Defiance)

Can't say I'm all that versed in Terminator lore, but they do seem a bit too tough to kill to be SI. As for the quality, I would probably make them Matrix as they are so very unfazed by getting hit and damaged. Also the regular foot soldiers (the bare endoskeletons) didn't seem overtly individualistic (nor yet agile) at the start of Terminator 2. Matrix's not the best way to represent the main protagonists/antagonists, but their susceptibility to morale could be glossed over by saying they have "mission specific software upgrades that instill a higher survival instinct" and they could then be Elites or Linked.

399

(34 replies, posted in Defiance)

@jevelin98

On a quick peruse (don't have time for a thorough run now unfortunately), the tabs 1, 2a, 2c and 2d seem to work fairly well overall, although they lack some error checking (as you probably know). Info also transfers over to data cards correctly as far as I checked. So the work seems to be moving along nicely overall. I doubt I could've done half as good a job as this myself, given the time frame :wink:

The tab "2b - Grenade and CDW frame design" seems to be going in an odd direction tho. It appears to allow combining any effects from the listed ones freely, which is not allowed by the rules. Can't say if this is just a WIP feature obviously, but then the design of the tab is overtly complicated if it is.

For future development, I would recommend marking out the write-protected fields somehow, even if it is sort of obvious what they are. Also, it would be nice to have some way of clearing the contents of a column or even the entire tab to their default values. Furthermore, while the data card view is pretty, I would also strongly recommend adding a more concise "draft" print out tab for the information: this would make test driving the forces less of chore, printing-wise.

---

On an entirely different note, I'm not 100% sure if this type of tool should be published freely this early into the new version's life. Although Army Parameters tab will largely remain a mystery to anyone who has not purchased the complete rules, a good part of the major selling point of DVG -- namely the Army Customizer -- will be entirely usable in this digital form to anyone who has downloaded the demo rules and is therefore familiar with the key concepts. I'm not sure putting something like 2/3 of the rules out for free is entirely fair to those who have purchased the full rules. Obviously Demian and Dan may have looked into this already and in any case this is one of those aspects of the hobby where the "mileages" vary greatly, but still...

400

(5 replies, posted in Defiance)

So it wasn't just me that got the cold shoulder from Demian's e-mail service provider tongue