Evolution

[Condor]

Will the game cover the topic of evolution? As with other games that deal with bugs, optional rules that deal with physical upgrades for the bugs. Faster, jump higher, etc.

I know there is a downgrade for the warriors, will see how that plays out. I have guys in my group that will take a downgrade to get 50% more troops.

 

[dyssnowman]

I personally don't like the idea of "evolutionary upgrades". That is the realm of the Tyranids and 40k and I think that SST should stay away from that. There already exist a number of options in the different unit types that basically represent that and I think that SST should keep it that way. Just from what I have played doing demos, just the basic bug warrior is plenty tough enough without any fancy schtick thrown in. Wait and try the game as it is before you start trying to change it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[byram]

I personally don't like the idea of "evolutionary upgrades". That is the realm of the Tyranids and 40k and I think that SST should stay away from that. There already exist a number of options in the different unit types that basically represent that and I think that SST should keep it that way. Just from what I have played doing demos, just the basic bug warrior is plenty tough enough without any fancy schtick thrown in. Wait and try the game as it is before you start trying to change it.

Just my 2 cents.

sorry condor i have to agree

 

[Condor]

Oh my! He said the T-word Just kidding...

As you stated, giving the game a chance is always the best way to start out. Let your public give the game an honest shot and see where to go from there. If evolution looks viable I think Mongoose will look at it.

If nothing else, it will keep the cheesey-factor to a minimum for the first year or so. I use to collect robots by another nameless company. When they had only a few options, it made it a much better army because you could develop better battle plans.

On the other hand, I would never want to give some other company the idea that they own the concept of evolutionary upgrades; Their documentation gives the idea that they own everything.

 

[Turtle]

I would not like to see small gene upgrades either. The bugs work on the idea of more bugs, more options. They also don't just improve a bug a small amount, instead they tend to breed new features. The ripplers you saw on pluto and then in the later campaigns didn't just get faster or stronger, instead they gained new special abilities or became another type of bug altogether.

 

[Condor]

I would not like to see small gene upgrades either. The bugs work on the idea of more bugs, more options. They also don't just improve a bug a small amount, instead they tend to breed new features. The ripplers you saw on pluto and then in the later campaigns didn't just get faster or stronger, instead they gained new special abilities or became another type of bug altogether.

When I originally started this thread this was the point that I was trying to make. I just worded it poorly.

I guess Evolution was not a good term here. In reality, it's gene development or "forced" evolution. As with any evolutionary scheme, it was meant to deal with a situation and/or create an advantage. At the very least, to nullify your opponent's advantage -- and possibly at some cost.

I hope that I can use some of the bits that I saved from "my other game." I also have a couple yards of green stuff. Maybe acid for blood... that would make the warriors pay for stabbing my MI guys

 

[Aman]

to me, the single greatest failure of the GW's WFB and 40K, aside from the dreary IGO-UGO turn sequence, is that their list system allows you to basically make the game a contest between who picks the best list. So the skill contest in a typical GW game is based on two things:

1 - can I make a list (using numerous cheesy options) that you can't beat,
2 - Can I afford to put it together in some way or another?

The actual skill level of play for 90% of WFB and 40K players has nothing to do with their ability to play the game well. It is based upon their ability to model a dozen obscure units and unit combinations and then surprise you on the table with various combos of magic items and characters. So it is essentially an arms race - very good for GW sales.

Point of comparison:
When you play Warhammer Ancient Battles (the historical WFB game), every list I know requires you to take minimum 50% Common (Core), MAX 25% Uncommon (Specials and Rares) and MAX 33% characters (Heroes). Note that is in POINTS VALUE. So you field a 2000 point army, 1000 points MUST be Common troops of that historical army.

In WFB, you can take just three UNITS of core, and FOUR specials and TWO rares and the rest in characters. For a 2000 point Empire army (based on Renaissance Germany), that can be as little as 150 points of troops (3x50pt units), or 7.5% of the army total points.

So what is the lesson? That when GW considers 'history', 50% of your army points are spent on common troops. When they consider Fantasy, 7.5% of your troops must be core troops. So the system they set up, including the category names (what do the names mean when you can have 2x specials and rares than core choices?), actually has no meaning.

The 'Nid evolotuionary program is just another variation on the same theme, to wit, "How can I develop an army to surprise, shock and stun my opponant and win all the time without really learning how to play the game well?"

So my final point is "I would hate to see Mongoose go down the same path". Although GW's game system provokes 'Arms Races' between competitive players, requiring you to buy lots of new models and model lots of unusual specials, rares and Dogs of war choices, which is good for their sales, as a system of gaming, it stinks unless you can come to some sort of gentleman's agreement with your friends.

I think that there is plenty of flexibility with the present mongoose troops choices and lists, and welcome the opportunity to try various combinations of stuff as they are released.

rant over.