Ideas & thinking for gaming...fluff....etc:

My inclination is to keep this as simple as possible – not overdo each design with loads of special rules in army lits etc otherwise everything could end up being OTT & a bit messy!
Need some consideration on how to treat characters...again don't want to overdo it...but need to reflect the 'flavour' to make them distinct; can treat this significantly differently for battle & skirmish games of course.
I'd also like to think about development of air combat – either as a sub-game, or having lots of aircraft involved [more than you'd 'normally' get with BKC / CWC /FWC; I've got some basic water combat rules too that I worked on with Phil from Firezone a while ago which could be useable [or possibly even adapted to air]...
Potential 'units' / troop types / vehicles:
Body armour
Cybernaughtics – body enhancements
FWC- possible rules & tech upgrades
p18:
Walkers / Jump Packs / Hover / Grav etc
p55:
Adaptive Camouflage
p55:
Stealth
p56:
Auto-linked weapons
Hyper-velocity penetrators [eg Elephant gun etc]
High impact weapons
p57:
Cryonic weapons [Martian tripods]
Flamethrowers
Anti-Gravity Weapons
Luddite comments
I fully support 'keeping things simple' and relatively open.
I've been working on developing a 'nested' gaming experience which you allude to above with the 'battle vs. skirmish' thing.
Essentially i have 'character - driven' skirmishes. Typically based around a specific small scale action, key history point or other suitably 'skirmishy' thing. In general played out in 28mm figures using Lgends of the Old West rules.
Then i have the 'open battle' engagements in 10mm (Pendraken) and using various rules (mostly HotT massed battle).
I'm currently also looking at converting 'Rules of Engagment' for mid-level platoon actions but haven't got there yet.
But this approach i think leaves many gaming options open, including being able to get the 'characters' involved in the skirmishes as well as the factions involved in the big battles.
Comments (4)
Luddite said
at 5:00 pm on Nov 14, 2010
Troops types all look good.
Don't forget tunnelling machines! (Journey to the Centre of the Earth, etc.)
And of course 'tin men', golems and robots.
Personally i'd emphasis the role of infantry and cavalry and keep these as dominant on the battlefield.
Also the concept of honour in warfare is still prevalent on the Victorian battlefield. Things like submarines etc. will be considered beastly in the extreme, as will the use of sneaky irregular warfare (fit only for savages and non-European types), or all of these mechanical wonders.
nik harwood said
at 2:32 pm on Nov 18, 2010
Good points there L...but there has to be a point at which the sneaky-beastliness of the impending turn-of-century is (grudgingly!) accepted - and embraced (?) as a means to the end...
Luddite said
at 2:45 pm on Nov 18, 2010
Absolutely! Walking spider-tanks, tin soldiers, steam powered lancers on penny farthings - all lovely. I just think the dirty Hun using his subterranean mole-tanks to fight his beastly underhand war should be frowned on. Of course, the Brave fellows of Her Majesty's Royal Tunnel-tank Corps are the bravest of fellows risking life and limb for glory! Hehe.
I think i was more trying to comment on maintaining a 'Victorian' attitude to the technology rather than suggesting we should limit anything.
nik harwood said
at 4:18 am on Nov 20, 2010
Cool - like it :-)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.