Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2012, 08:43 AM   #1
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

Greetings, all!

Okay, this one didn't get much focus so far, unlike Deadly Spring II. So . . . anyone tried it? Looking forward to it? IMO it's a great idea, though it I take it with the warning that it heavily changes the MC balance of units. Also makes character skill less important as forces get larger (due to stacking limits on rolls, the way I understood them on first reading).

I even wonder if several test runs using Google Docs are possible among the forumites.

Also: now we need to stat an OGRE in MC.

Thanks in advance!
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 08:46 AM   #2
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Greetings, all!

Okay, this one didn't get much focus so far, unlike Deadly Spring II.
I know you're teasing, but honestly, other than me writing it, The Last Gasp and The Deadly Spring don't have that much in common.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 09:01 AM   #3
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasCole View Post
I know you're teasing, but honestly, other than me writing it, The Last Gasp and The Deadly Spring don't have that much in common.
Level of crunch added, actually. But if you find the joke annoying, I'll rename the thread to remove the Deadly Spring reference.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 09:17 AM   #4
Gigermann
 
Gigermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

Our online group is "looking forward to it" and I expect we will likely make use of it at the next opportunity, although we don't have any specific plans to that end, as yet.
Gigermann is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 09:25 AM   #5
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Level of crunch added, actually. But if you find the joke annoying, I'll rename the thread to remove the Deadly Spring reference.
I think removing the TDS reference in the thread would be nice.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 12:34 PM   #6
vierasmarius
 
vierasmarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

I've been looking forward to just such a tactical system for a while, though I have a couple misgivings with how this one turned out. I guess it boils down to granularity. Units can basically have three "conditions": Fine, Pinned, and Destroyed. And Pinned only applies in ranged combat. In melee, when a whole stack of units attacks another stack, the only outcomes are stalemate, retreat of one side (with no appreciable casualties), or complete destruction of one side. This feels too binary. I think adding one or two "damaged" conditions (which unlike Pinned don't disappear within a turn) would help things out. Melee engagements would have a sizable "middle ground" when both forces have relatively even strength, resulting in a higher proportion of stalemates with damage to both sides.

Other than that little quibble, I love it. Haven't done an in-depth analysis or run any test battles yet though. But it definitely scratches an itch I've had for a long time.
vierasmarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 12:40 PM   #7
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

I think it would be helpful to have a sheet neatly showing Tactical stats of all default troops, but there's so many of them . . .

Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the addition of the 'air troops might disappear randomly' rule.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2012, 09:25 AM   #8
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: [Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by vierasmarius View Post
I've been looking forward to just such a tactical system for a while, though I have a couple misgivings with how this one turned out. I guess it boils down to granularity. Units can basically have three "conditions": Fine, Pinned, and Destroyed. And Pinned only applies in ranged combat. In melee, when a whole stack of units attacks another stack, the only outcomes are stalemate, retreat of one side (with no appreciable casualties), or complete destruction of one side. This feels too binary. I think adding one or two "damaged" conditions (which unlike Pinned don't disappear within a turn) would help things out. Melee engagements would have a sizable "middle ground" when both forces have relatively even strength, resulting in a higher proportion of stalemates with damage to both sides.

Other than that little quibble, I love it. Haven't done an in-depth analysis or run any test battles yet though. But it definitely scratches an itch I've had for a long time.
Given that a unit is 10 men, I don't mind so much.

HOWEVER, I have a major question, as I can't find anywhere this is addressed: In mass combat, you can have units with "Neutralize" abilities. Tactical Mass Combat covers "Neutralize Armor" and "Neutralzie Air," but it doesn't cover other forms. Specifically, Neutralize Cavalry, which Pikemen have. Have I missed something? Should they get a really close short-range attack during the fire phase? Or just a bonus if attacking or defending against Cavalry? Or should I just discard it (would seem a shame)
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mass combat, ogre, pyramid, pyramid 3/44, tactical mass combat


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.