Discussion of the New Front Rules

[gaston]

Presumably, another advantage of the 'Long Game' option is that at the end of June you'll find out whether your character will

a) Survive the Summer - in which case you can plan sensibly for his return, or

b) Die - in which case you can start a new character right away ?

[mochnant]

I think it is kinda confusing to have 2 options in a single game. Also, as I recall, in the original rules, it is 1 each for the full summer, rather than the bonus +1 for Plunder and MiDs. Seems like this change makes the safer route a little too good.

[gaston]

Oct 21, 2019 17:11:07 GMT mochnant said:

I think it is kinda confusing to have 2 options in a single game. Also, as I recall, in the original rules, it is 1 each for the full summer, rather than the bonus +1 for Plunder and MiDs. Seems like this change makes the safer route a little too good.

As the GM has stated, if you don't choose you get the 'death or glory' option - what's confusing about that?

The vast majority of online games give results each month, rather than each campaign.

Since almost every character will be fighting with a Frontier Regiment, even the 'safer route' isn't that safe...

[mochnant]

Oh, gaston, how nice to have your friendliness around! Always a pleasure.

As for my "confusing" comment, I stand by it. If it doesn't make sense to you, feel free to skip commenting on it.

I'm aware of the way most online games work, and certainly they do it monthly by and large.

As to the 'safer' route not being that safe in a Frontier regiment, that doesn't change my thought that the 'safer' route is probably too good. I think we can both agree that being in a Frontier regiment is terrible regardless.

[gaston]

Sorry, I just didn't understand how having an either / or option could be confusing enough to complain to the GM about.  It's not as  though it's five options... (No offence intended, but please feel free to take it anyway if you wish). 

The only reason I commented on this thread was to hopefully clarify a couple of points.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Oct 21, 2019 16:53:29 GMT gaston said:

Presumably, another advantage of the 'Long Game' option is that at the end of June you'll find out whether your character will

a) Survive the Summer - in which case you can plan sensibly for his return, or

b) Die - in which case you can start a new character right away ?

That's probable.

Narratively, it would make more sense to go with a random roll for month of date. But unless anyone strongly argues for that I'm inclined to go gamist on this issue.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Oct 21, 2019 17:11:07 GMT mochnant said:

I think it is kinda confusing to have 2 options in a single game.

I'll openly admit that I personally think the safer route is far superior and it's certainly what I'd go with as a player. However, some of the player base are very strongly of the view they prefer monthly rolls.

To a large extent, I'm seeing this as an opportunity to put both options to playtesting. It should help clarify things when we see them in play. (And, I'll be entirely honest and say that I don't expect most of the people going "death or glory" to have the same characters in September!)

Also, as I recall, in the original rules, it is 1 each for the full summer, rather than the bonus +1 for Plunder and MiDs. Seems like this change makes the safer route a little too good.

That's an odd one. It's definitely my reading of the rules, but a lot of people seem to have always played with monthly rolls! The original has some oddities; there's no point in volunteering for the full season.

The safer route is definitely better, but there's several reasons for that.

Firstly, Liminal has several rules that make the front more deadly. There's no longer any chance of avoiding a death roll - a natural 12 is either a dice with death or actual death (50/50). The regimental surgeon rules are statistically more likely to hinder than help. And you can only buy up to Captain.

In terms of the game, while I want some risk at the front, I'm not convinced losing half the characters ever summer is good for the game!

There's also the question of loot. While you can fairly argue that people have only themselves to blame if they've overdone it with the Shylocks, with one roll a season you're quite possibly looking at people having to spend a year or more there which again isn't really good for a lively game back in Paris.

[enoch52]

I admit that being at the front for a long time isn't ideal, it's better than dying. Starting out poor with no income is tough in En Garde!

[Yves Eau]

* WARNING * This post contains statistics and extreme geekery, which may be prejudicial to casual enjoyment of a game. * WARNING *

My instinct is that staying at the front for three consecutive seasons playing the "long game" does not reduce your chance of dying, compared with three separate monthly rolls. As I see it, looking specifically at the need to raise cash, the only statistical advantage of option 2 is that the bonus plunder roll *doubles* your expected income (a second plunder roll if your first succeeds), whilst with option 1 it adds no more than 33% (if you are guaranteed success every month, you receive loot four times instead of three; if you expect to succeed one roll in three, you have a 5/9 chance of taking plunder in at least one of months two and three to gain a bonus roll, so a 5/27 chance of bonus loot, to add to the expected single successful monthly roll - an increase in the expected total of less than 19%).

Given the real world cost of the long game, in having to spend many weeks doing nothing but campaign, this increase in expected loot per death is unlikely to tempt me.  I would probably choose option 2 only if running multiple characters, one socialising in Paris while the others dodged bullets.

It seems to me the best approach for a poor character is to charge off to the front to make sufficient money for a year in Paris or die in the attempt, before investing in building the character through back story or attachments to other characters. Neither of these options changes that. Jean-Paul is a very shallow character so far, and I have already picked a name for his replacement, but if he returns in one piece, his boots stuffed with coin, he will strive to make more of an impact on society.

I will crunch the numbers before making a final decision. I have a bloated spreadsheet for calculating likely campaign outcomes: entirely inelegant and hugely inefficient, but it gets the job done without any programming language. I toyed with the idea of using my employer's mainframe to do the job more effectively, but fear such recreational endeavours would breach the "acceptable use" terms of my contract.

[Monique Adelina De'Ath]

Errr...what was the first bit again....

[Ymbert Montgomery]

I think I will wait for JPM's statistical crunchery to be finished before coming to a final view on this. (I'm an arts grad after all. )

[gaston]

I was under the impression that option 2 (Long Game) was a 'lifeline' thrown to players who will soon have the Shylocks knocking on their doors, given that the only regiments taking part in the Summer Campaign are the low-end infantry (with no positive DMs re the Death Roll) and the Frontier Regiments ( with a negative DM re the Death Roll).  Making only one Death Roll for the whole campaign certainly increases the chances of surviving it.

Those who do survive the Summer Campaign, however, will then be able to serve in the Autumn with the DMs of their regular regiments - provided they can persuade their Colonels / Majors to volunteer or have a majority themselves and can volunteer their own Battalions/Squadrons.  (I don't really see the purpose of preventing PCs from buying majorities off the bat ? The difficulty in securing a command that can be volunteered, plus the impossibility of borrowing further to pay off previous loans looks rather like a double whammy to me).

Presumably those already at the front at the end of the Summer Campaign who still have outstanding debts they can't cover will be able to stay there provided their regular unit volunteers, and thus prevent the Disgrace rules coming into play and forcing them to continue to fight with a Frontier Regiment ?

9.3 If someone is at the front, on expedition, or on a mission when his loan becomes due he need
not repay them until the first month he is back in Paris.

But if their regular unit doesn't volunteer I guess they'll have to return to Paris, be castigated for non-repayment and then return to the front in disgrace with a Frontier regiment ?

When fighting with a good regiment (+2+ Death Modifier) as a Major or above (+2 Death Modifier) then the monthly results option obviously makes more sense than the 'Long Game' (provided overzealousnees on the Reckless Bravery front doesn't put them in an early grave...)

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Oct 23, 2019 11:07:55 GMT gaston said:

I was under the impression that option 2 (Long Game) was a 'lifeline' thrown to players who will soon have the Shylocks knocking on their doors, given that the only regiments taking part in the Summer Campaign are the low-end infantry (with no positive DMs re the Death Roll) and the Frontier Regiments ( with a negative DM re the Death Roll).  Making only one Death Roll for the whole campaign certainly increases the chances of surviving it.

Correct. While there is always risk at the front, this is about giving people the option of a decent chance of survival.

Those who do survive the Summer Campaign, however, will then be able to serve in the Autumn with the DMs of their regular regiments - provided they can persuade their Colonels / Majors to volunteer or have a majority themselves and can volunteer their own Battalions/Squadrons.  (I don't really see the purpose of preventing PCs from buying majorities off the bat ? The difficulty in securing a command that can be volunteered, plus the impossibility of borrowing further to pay off previous loans looks rather like a double whammy to me).

My general argument on this is that a) rich characters already have a big advantage, b) competition for higher status major positions is a lot fiercer than captaincies and c) it's actually pretty easy to get the influence together to get squadrons and battalions sent to the front outside of Summer (as last season demonstrates).

All that said I'm not that attached to this rule and if there's a critical mass of players who'd like that changed I'll do so.

Presumably those already at the front at the end of the Summer Campaign who still have outstanding debts they can't cover will be able to stay there provided their regular unit volunteers, and thus prevent the Disgrace rules coming into play and forcing them to continue to fight with a Frontier Regiment ?

9.3 If someone is at the front, on expedition, or on a mission when his loan becomes due he need
not repay them until the first month he is back in Paris.

But if their regular unit doesn't volunteer I guess they'll have to return to Paris, be castigated for non-repayment and then return to the front in disgrace with a Frontier regiment ?

That rule is worded unclearly, but I think it makes more sense to allow people to just transfer to a Frontier regiment. If you know the Shylocks are going to be knocking at your door you're unlikely to think returning to Paris is a great idea!

Note that you can volunteer units from the front; it's a pre monthly action that doesn't require you to be in Paris.

When fighting with a good regiment (+2+ Death Modifier) as a Major or above (+2 Death Modifier) then the monthly results option obviously makes more sense than the 'Long Game' (provided overzealousnees on the Reckless Bravery front doesn't put them in an early grave...)

Even that's arguable...

Several things to take into account.

The natural 12 rule. It's still highly unlikely to get a death from this (1 in 36 followed by 50%). But obviously monthly death rolls make it statistically much more likely to come into play.

Secondly, the difference between a monthly battle result and a single one.

The big issue with the long game is that a bad battle result may lead to no chance of a loot roll.

However, doing the roll monthly makes it more likely you'll get a bad result at least once. Especially when dealing with low MA commanders.

As an aside, the first month's Battle Result will be considered the actual result of the camapign for the sake of narrative, but anyone taking the dangerous option will be treated as existing within the ebb and flow of battle. (So mechanically monthly rolls, narratively single roll).

[huillaume]

IMHO, the main problem of the long game option is that you only have 1 battle roll , so, if it is a poor one and no plunder is possible, you spend a full season   nthe front without any plunder possibility (but you can still be promoted or MiD).

Right now, to give an exaple, if someone volunteers in the Frontier Infantry Regiment and chooses the long game (a single BR and promotion, 2 MiD and plunder rolls), with a Colonel with MA 1, only with a roll of 6 he will achieve a result of 3, that is the minimum to give some plunder possibilities in Assault. So, you have 5/6 possibility to have no plunder in the whole season (albeit he may have promotion/MiDs).

The problem I see by playing with both options (from the RPG POV), is that, even while in the same Regiment, some players may have a single BR and others 3 of them. This means the results for the Regiment along the Campaign may be contradictory, making the history telling more complex...

e.g. Let's imagine the BR for the Infantry Frontier Regiment is a 6 (quite possible with its current Colonel), but the Colonel himself dies and is replaced by another with MA 6. The characters that choosed long game possibility wil lbe affected by the result of 6 for the whole campaign (making Mids and promotion quite possible for those surviving), but those playing with monthly rolls are quite likely to have better results in subsequent months, and the history telling would be quite complex, as some characters would have participied to a full defeat while others in (probably) mixted results.

Possibile fixings I see:

1. To divide the Frontier Regiments in 2 parts, one of them for those making a single roll and the other montly ones (let's say, put the Characters in battalions according to this and assingning the players to one battalion or another on this basis, one or two battalion(s) making just one roll (let's say they are more or less in reserve) and other battalion(s) more active (monthly rolls)
2. As 1, but making the Frontiers a full Brigade and one Regiment for single roll and the other for montly ones
3. Assign the results for single rolls at the end of the campaign and making their BRs the average for the 3 montly ones (in case of odd results, roll their own MAs ,and round down on a reult 1-3 and up on a result 4-6)

This adds some complexity and work to the GM (I hope bearable), but makes (IMHO) history more consistent...

Oct 22, 2019 13:00:42 GMT enoch52 said:

Starting out poor with no income is tough in En Garde!

As in Real Life ...

[Adam de la Bassée]

Okay so I have tried not to engage in this as I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to the Summer Campaign.

En Garde! is meant to be brutal, and yes it is meant to be played as it would have been lived.

I do not agree with the "safe" option. I believe that as shown in the above post it causes the need for too many fudges. House rules are great but when they fundamentally adjust the game is such a way that does not balance I cannot see that rule as valuable.

Which brings me to the military Majority rule. This in and of itself is something of a bugbear for me. As has been stated, survivability at the Front starts to be possible once you achieve the Major rank. With the appointments of that rank it allows for stabilizing ingame income and SP gain. It is pretty much a gateway to a good game.

Forcing a arbitrary 6 month in regiment rule is in my humble opinion counter to good game health. Not only does it reduce progression from lower ranked regiments to higher, it stifles the military game as clearly and obviously shown with the current Summer campaign season. This discussion would be totally different if we had the protections of a Majority.

If I might be so bold, in every other just started game I have been involved in the GM has fudged the first Summer campaign to ensure that ALL of the French military are deployed. I cannot remember off the top of my head but I believe there is half a dozen such results in the Force commit table, they have just rolled a d6 to decide which to use. No criticism, but it would have made a huge difference in how I would have personally approached my set up turn.

The same can be said of the Frontier Infantry/Cav split and the lack of MA for commands. I am sorry Louis, I know this is a volunteer thing but that information should have been decided prior to the last turn prior to departure. Knowing what I now do, I would not have joined (what at the time was the best option) the 13th, instead I would have join one of the Cav regiments. I am now left in a less optimal situation because of the decision to go outside the main rules compounded by a lack of what is vital information being communicated at a time I can make a reasonable decision.  I may well lose my character at the Front because of it.

EG! is a brutal game at it's core, I fully support that brutality as it allows for exciting game and role play. Chipping that away because the house rules have contributing factors that make it more brutal than originally intended by adding more house rules to try and balance I do not support.

/2cents