it would speed up the game and that might be good.
However, it will be harsh on smaller Tugs, 4 base Tugs would suffer more than 9 base or 12 base Tugs.
Elephants are tugs that would become more fragile.
Tugs having a KAB test for Routing elephants would also suffer more as it is +1color and on top of that proposed +1 wound.
So perhaps limit to 8+ Tugs?
Might speed up also if instead of automatic wound, an automatic +1 color ?
Quote from: Jilu on February 15, 2025, 05:38:18 AM
it would speed up the game and that might be good.
Personally I don't feel any need to speed up the game. However, if some do then it would be a topic best looked at in a more comprehensive way than (for example) just looking at KaBs which could just be a kludge and look more widely at areas of the game that could be streamlined - i.e. a whole new topic ;D
and why not...?
QuotePersonally I don't feel any need to speed up the game
We do not play Pacto, neither Magna ( in Belgium ) ...still in Belgium, Greece and France we managed to attract some younger players. The "brake" is the game is too slow but all agree they like the scope, the large battles
So if you do not want a dying Maximus scope ..velocity is the key :D a whole new debate indeed . The pacto Shove&shatter is already a good move .
UK has it's point of view but the community is also the continent
Someone suggested that games should be 9000 points, not 10000 perhaps another way to help but then some armies have so many mandatory units that it would be difficult for some . Going from 8 to 9 bases for phalanxes might be very costly ..
I leave it to Nik&RJC to decide to further open the debate or not
Quote from: badhabum on February 17, 2025, 10:00:38 AM
So if you do not want a dying Maximus scope ..velocity is the key :D a whole new debate indeed . The pacto Shove&shatter is already a good move .
Someone suggested that games should be 9000 points, not 10000 perhaps another way
If you want more velocity, one way to explore is reducing the skirmisher's possibilities (too much time to flee, shoot or move).
Some players take a long time to move perfectly to get an extra shooting dice or choose their skirmish direction so as not to be caught up.
I'd hate to see the budget reduced
Right now, we're playing with 9 to 13 TuGs, so it's like playing with 9 or 13 big bases.
with less, I'd feel like I was playing DBA. I'm not criticizing this rule, but it doesn't feel like a big battle anymore.
this is just my opinion and suggestion no more
If the designer hopes for larger uptake and broader appeal, the game has to be more streamlined. This is a reality. Even if its just making it realistic for most gamers to finish a game in a evening can do a lot.
But it's definitely a conversation for another topic I think.
Quote from: Hayung_is on February 18, 2025, 01:34:36 PM
If the designer hopes for larger uptake and broader appeal, the game has to be more streamlined. This is a reality. Even if its just making it realistic for most gamers to finish a game in a evening can do a lot.
But it's definitely a conversation for another topic I think.
Yes this and better written, with everything pertaining to a troop type, a situation in the same place.
QuoteIf you want more velocity, one way to explore is reducing the skirmisher's possibilities (too much time to flee, shoot or move).
Some players take a long time to move perfectly to get an extra shooting dice or choose their skirmish direction so as not to be caught up.
"Light troops" were an essential part of antique battles and well used skirmishers can do a lot even hold some rough and difficult terrain and gain you your needed turn or serve a sacrificial screen for a heavy infantry army
That some players take their time to move and hesitate will slow the game. The right question might be : should the movements, the possibilities, not be streamlined and simplified? Where is the border between simplicity, playability, being a GAME and historicity?
Due to it's scope Maximus has great potential and we do not plat Magna, nor Pacto as it is the MAXIMUS scope we want to play .
There are means to speed up the game . But it is not up to me to decide , not even the community but up to Nik, RJC and Simon . So let us be patient .
Now putting your UG in the right place is your privileged
You might want to read "Light infantry of the greek and roman world" by Jean Charl Du Plessis
We have very little problem finishing games in 3.5 hours both at the club and at competitions.
If you want 2 hour games then switch to the smaller formats or use smaller armies.
The system is actually very streamlined and requires little "looking stuff up" once a reasonable level of familiarity has been achieved.
While learning the poor indexing is a PITA but that recedes with exposure :)
Quote from: steads on February 19, 2025, 12:48:40 PM
We have very little problem finishing games in 3.5 hours both at the club and at competitions.
If you want 2 hour games then switch to the smaller formats or use smaller armies.
The system is actually very streamlined and requires little "looking stuff up" once a reasonable level of familiarity has been achieved.
While learning the poor indexing is a PITA but that recedes with exposure :)
Okay, valid point, yet maybe shorter games of 2 1/2 hours might attract more players
Quote from: steads on February 19, 2025, 12:48:40 PM
We have very little problem finishing games in 3.5 hours both at the club and at competitions.
If you want 2 hour games then switch to the smaller formats or use smaller armies.
The system is actually very streamlined and requires little "looking stuff up" once a reasonable level of familiarity has been achieved.
While learning the poor indexing is a PITA but that recedes with exposure :)
As Jilu wrote, point valid BUT
Many continental people like the maximus scope but would like to have a 2h30/45 playing time. Remember there is a difference as on the continent wargaming is not as popular as in UK
Have you noticed that Britcon is now 5 games, not 6 as a few years ago and we all know why so in about 4 or 5 years will we still have the needed concentration for a 3h15/30 game and for 4 such games a week-end ?
So should you all go for MAGNA and drop maximus ? ( we will not )
Or would it not be a good precaution, a good move to try to streamline the game to make it quicker, less complicated, and more attractive for younger players. It is not what WE want that's the most important for survival but what the next maximus generation players do want and how we can meet those standards
It's just my opinion based on my games and on feed-backs from other players . So take it as a friendly comment please
Quote from: badhabum on February 20, 2025, 09:15:24 AM
Or would it not be a good precaution, a good move to try to streamline the game to make it quicker, less complicated, and more attractive for younger players. It is not what WE want that's the most important for survival but what the next maximus generation players do want and how we can meet those standards
Perhaps. However, MeG Maximus is a bit of a niche within a niche by providing large games. There are already rulesets that provide smaller, faster games. Nevertheless, tidying up the rules would still be a good idea even for experienced players😊
Since its now a new topic I'll flesh out my thoughts a bit more.
Firstly, don't get me wrong - I really like maximus and in no way would I want to see it change significantly purely for the purposes of achieving a shorter game time.
But I'm sure if we put our experience together we could identify areas that are somewhat cumbersome for minimal benefit.
I.e a line of full strength TUGs rolling file by file for shoves. Both the jumping around and skipping files as well as the double checking factors introduces a 'mental overhead' that I don't think adds a lot to the game.
Maybe keep the option to roll file by file when generals or niche circumstances are involved, but I think using the pacto shove/shatter removes a lot of the incentive to do this - which would be great.
I don't have a solution, but I find deployment another stage which includes too much granularity (too many choices, and the importance of which are very high). This is a double whammy in if you consider to the full extent you need to, the game won't finish, but if you don't, there's a decent chance you've potentially lost the game or made it a very uphill battle. For new players this can be incredibly daunting.
A couple others I think have been raised previously around finangling angles to reduce contact etc.
But I'm sure we could come up with some suggestions for the designers to consider.
Quote from: Hayung_is on February 22, 2025, 10:09:23 AM
I.e a line of full strength TUGs rolling file by file for shoves. Both the jumping around and skipping files as well as the double checking factors introduces a 'mental overhead' that I don't think adds a lot to the game.
Maybe keep the option to roll file by file when generals or niche circumstances are involved, but I think using the pacto shove/shatter removes a lot of the incentive to do this - which would be great.
The Pacto shatter/shove is a lot smoother and quite a few competitions are using it now.
I'd happily ditch shooting by file as well (I'd also look at shooting priority and shooting arcs, but that is a tad more involved and just removing shooting by file is an easy implement if you want to try something quick and easy).
Count me among those opposed to changes made purely to shorten games.. If you want shorter games, go play Magna and leave my favorite game alone. I am all for changes which promote historical outcomes, or carries that make it easier to play the game correctly, but shorter games are not a priority for me or anyone I know.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on February 23, 2025, 12:24:46 AM
Count me among those opposed to changes made purely to shorten games.. If you want shorter games, go play Magna and leave my favorite game alone. I am all for changes which promote historical outcomes, or carries that make it easier to play the game correctly, but shorter games are not a priority for me or anyone I know.
+1
Quote from: AntiokosIII on February 23, 2025, 12:24:46 AM
Count me among those opposed to changes made purely to shorten games.. If you want shorter games, go play Magna and leave my favorite game alone. I am all for changes which promote historical outcomes, or carries that make it easier to play the game correctly, but shorter games are not a priority for me or anyone I know.
+1
Quote from: AntiokosIII on February 23, 2025, 12:24:46 AM
Count me among those opposed to changes made purely to shorten games.. If you want shorter games, go play Magna and leave my favorite game alone. I am all for changes which promote historical outcomes, or carries that make it easier to play the game correctly, but shorter games are not a priority for me or anyone I know.
+1
IF the game's not finished in the time allowed, you've fully utilised the available playing time and everybody gets 2 bonus points.
What's not to like?
No changes are made only to shortent the game. That "short" vision but to simplify a complex game and get more players for more fun. MEG is very complex as sometimes counter intuitive . But yes I like it do not worry .