Lost Earth - Pangaea - My Game

[Glenn M]

I know I briefly talked about this project a year or so back.  So forgive me for being repetitive.  Lost Earth - Pangaea has been my pet project for a few years now.  I break it out to work on it for a little while every now and again, but I never have had a group I could playtest with locally, till now of course, so once again, I break it out to work on it. 

Lost Earth Pangaea is a fairly easy to play game, it does play somewhat similar to Chronopia, however there are a few things which are a bit different.  Combat Mechanics are pretty much roll a 3d6 and add your CC, if you equal or exceed your opponents Defense then you hit, the defending model must make a Toughness save (one thing to note, is the game uses a flat save check, you always check vs a 15 for Toughness, Morale, Magic, etc saves) by taking the difference between the weapons damage and the targets Toughness.  Roll 3d6 add this value, and if you hit the 15 than you succeed in resisting the damage.  If you fail you take a wound. 
The game has one common theme, the higher the better, this is true for pretty much everything (I can't think of any time this isn't true actually). So you want high stats, you want to roll high, etc.  Most models have two actions that they can use for moving, attacking, etc.  Some have less or more, it depends on the unit.  I have fewer stats than Chronopia does for the sake of simplicity and for streamlining play.

I'll be working on getting this a bit further along and more prepared shortly, I imagine in a few weeks I'll have a working alpha copy (Well, I already do, but I am cutting a few rules that were weighing the engine down, which requires me to go back through the system to adjust for these variants)

Oh, one more note, the final version will not contain any fluff or army rosters, for one specific reason, I don't want people to get weighed down by the fluff, or look at the PDF and go, holy crap this is XXX pages!!  All the army books and the games world fluff will be located on the website as free expansions.  An E-Zine will be released regularly to add new powers, scenarios, etc.  Expansion books will have complete new powers, additional rules, etc.  I am currently considering the primary rulebook to be priced at $5.  Expansions will be around the same, depending on content level.  So a very large expansion may be a bit more expensive to cover the larger amount of work done. 

I was toying around with the stat cards, here is a sample card to give you an idea of how the cards will be done.  This is not balanced or anything though, it was just a rough draft.



I really dunno why I posted these rambling thoughts here, I guess I just really like your guys input compared to the other forums I visit.  Maybe if I get to TIII I'll pack my game and give it a run with some of you.

[Nighthawk]

Intrigued! The stat card looks cool too. What minis will you be using?

[Glenn M]

Whatever I want!!!

Chronopia, Confrontation, Warmachine, you name it.  My core book will be mostly centered around building "common" armies.  However future books may get more specialized, so one book may include rules to simulate the idea of Warjacks from Warmachine (Avoiding that nomenclature of course.

I may contact a few manufacturers that do not have rules and make official stats and cards for those games.

[warzoneD]

I like the ideas.  Have been toying with some rule ideas myself - I've always felt CC should be comparing the two stats or maybe even an opposed role.  Would love to see more.

[Glenn M]

I had considered that, however, I felt that by having the opponent roll a save vs the damage, I felt it saved a little time as less math has to be done at once, which can slow down gameplay, for an RPG, I like the method of both players rolling and comparing results.

My other CC method that I eventually discarded was CC + 3d6 vs CC + 3d6.  If attacker succeeded, compare weapon damage vs. Toughness with attack rolling instead of defender.  Ditch the Defense value.

[Archer]

warjacks = Constructs.  Light Standard and Assault

[DogOWar]

I like the ideas.  Have been toying with some rule ideas myself - I've always felt CC should be comparing the two stats or maybe even an opposed role.  Would love to see more.

I have a similar system in my RPG from many years ago.  Opponents compare their OCR (Offensive Combat Ratin) to the ohter's DCR (Defensive Combat Rating).  Take the resul, either a plus of minus, role a die 20 and compare to a chart wher a 1-5 is a miss, 6-10 is half damage, and a 11-20 is full damage.  Myself and the dozen or so player I've had like this as it allowed people with less armour to have a higher OCR and allowed people with better armour to suvive attacks. 

Hope that was not to confusing, as I would have to give a long run down on my combat system to be easily understood.  Once you know it , it is fast and easy and about the most realistic that we have played.

[Glenn M]

I am looking for a little advice here, what kinda of powers do you consider "Core" to any game or race.  While I have a lot developed, I am choosing not post them to see what you say, this will give me an idea of what I need to make sure is there, as well as see what others see as core.

[Archer]

Hmmmm....

Other than Magic which opens up a whole slew of beliefs....

A master swordsman/axeman/archer/insert weapon here.
  -Most of the various games have some form of this in almost every army.  At least the (semi-) civilized races.

Beastmasters
  - Yeah... its over done but most barbarian-stylized forces have something like this in it.

capacity of some sort of mounted troops.
  -GW actually has this right in their fantasy game.  There is something that is  just bloody KOOL about a bunch of horsemen/beastriders running down some poor group of schmucks to stupid to get out of the open.  That was the one thing that annoyed me the most about Chronopia, no horse-based warbands.  It's one of the only reasons I even considered Warhammer Fantasy...  that and the pistoliers.  Riding up on someone and givin' both barrels has monstrous appeal.

some sort of sensible basic leader
  -Big armies should have generals of great skill... but who's to say some silly peasant can't gain the respect of his fellow men and lead an army?  Look at Joan d'Arc, William Wallace or even the pit slave gladiator Spartacus.  Big heroes are cool and all but sometimes the little guy is the better choice.... and most likely to show up to a skirmish.

[Glenn M]

So far that is all done.  I should clarify I was meaning closer to special abilities like in Chronopia, like having Reach on a weapon, cause fear, etc.  These are all included.

[warzoneD]

Btw - that template is sweet.  How did you design it?

[Glenn M]

I have no idea, it was done by a friend of mine, he goes by Malechi, I tend to see him on the Heroscape and Heroquest forums.

Well, I lied, I have some idea, he does all his work in Photoshop.  I can do some minor work using GIMP, however, his work is phenomenal.  He also did my page borders, which match the card style.

Here is a minor list of the things that I do have implemented/plan to implement in the future
Unit Types - Units and Individuals, everything goes into these two, (Mounted units can be either)
Magic (These are all different types which are unique)
- Sorcery
- Alchemy
- Mana
- Psionics
Environmental Warrior types - Artic, Jungle, etc.
Morale and Fear Effects
Auras (These would be used by units who cause fear, penalize foes attacks, boost allies, etc.  I am even considering effects that can alter the terrain, such as an Aura of Frost, which can freeze water and such, creating temporary bridges for allies)
Various combat effects from specials, free attack, knockback abilities, reach, etc.
Kill Effects (some units can carve up a foe so gruesome it penalizes nearby enemies, then again, some can commit a ritual suicide to provide allies a bonus)
Hide effects
A full list of Environments that cover most situations, even many that'd never be used in a standard game.

Yeah, that covers most of the big ones I can think of, there are a lot of more specifics that I didn't reveal as they are of limited use or not as common.

[Archer]

So far that is all done.  I should clarify I was meaning closer to special abilities like in Chronopia, like having Reach on a weapon, cause fear, etc.  These are all included.

Oh.

I see.... lemme mull it over and I'll get back to you.

[Glenn M]

Alright, my brother and I plan to start doing some Alpha testing on Friday, but we are having a couple big concerns, primarily, how do you think a mounted model should be handled.

There are a few ways I have seen when I play, the 1st edition Chronopia style, where the mount is just rolled into the main stat line, nothing else needed.  The advantage here is simpler rules.  Or you could go with the 2nd edition style rules, where they have a split basline, some stats are shared, like movement and wounds, while others like CC are different depending on the unit.  What other methods do you think would work, perhaps a completely split method, where you buy a mount and a model separately, then consider them mounted.

[joshuaslater]

Well, I'm wondering if some mounted troops could be done like they are in Chronopia, and others differently.  I'm also comparing the Dragon riding Elves from Celtos here, so let's look at Elves on Dragons/Dragonbanes.

In Celtos, these troops are one wound models, with the idea being that an arrow or sword stroke can effectively bring them down, but in Chronopia it usually takes two wounds to bring them down.

I'd like to see some mounted troops where the mount can fight on, e.g. a Dragon/bane, even if the rider is shot off from an arrow.  Untrained mounts effectively are removed from play as they have no incentive to fight. 

I guess I'm saying it would be cool to able to have both, Glenn.  So far this is pretty cool stuff you've got going on.