Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Pacto - Future Plans  (Read 4523 times)

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Pacto - Future Plans
« on: September 02, 2022, 09:14:50 AM »
As part of the future development of MeG we are looking to develop MeG Pacto with its own specific ruleset in PDF.  This will include diagrams and examples that are specific to Pacto as well as removing text that isn't relevant to Pacto.

While the aim is to still align Pacto to Maximus, we will make Pacto specific rule changes where appropriate to develop the game further.

The following are rule changes that we are currently considering and testing:

1.  Kill a Base tests being reduced in effect, so Poor would roll GREEN, Average would roll WHITE, Superior & Exceptionals would roll BLACK,  Troops that normally roll white (Elephants, Battlewagons) will roll BLACK.  Clearly this makes the KaB test less devastating, more in line with the effect in Maximus (where UGs are much bigger).

2. Shooting.  A skull result from shooting will only cause a Wound.  Skilled shooters against Superiors will upgrade a dice colour but only <= 1.  Foot crossbows standing to receive will upgrade.

3.  Reintroduce slowing effects and press through fire.  To balance this up, UGs must shoot at the target most directly ahead (if there is one). Skirmisher and mounted will slow enemy UGs by 1BW (as long as they get a non-blank hit).  Foot shooters will slow enemy by 2BW (as long as they get a non-blank hit).   

4. Make flank marches an optional rule, but encourage using 10BW flank deployment zones instead. (As Pacto is generally a smaller scale, the table can be wider).

5. Make ambushes an optional rule.

6.  SuGs can only combat TuGs if they are a Wound off breaking (unlike a base off breaking in Maximus).

7. The aligning rules need clarifying for Pacto.  Probably won't allow aligning pre-charge combat.

8. Clarify the flank/rear combat rules for Pacto, essentially allowing no more than one enemy UG to combat on each face (front, 2 flanks, rear).

9.  Change to shatter/shove so an S result for troops with Shatter in charge combat will = a Skull, and an S result for troops with Shove result in melee combat will = a Wound instead of effects for neighbouring files.  No uplift if you roll a Skull (you don't have anything to complain about anyway!). 

10.  Allowing TuGs that can be 9's in Maximus, to be 3 deep in Pacto.

11. Changing the number of UGs that can be moved in a block move so that it depends upon the training level of the troops, rather than the commander ability.  3 UGs if the block contains any tribal troops, 4 UGs if the block contains any formed troops and 5 UGs if the block contains only drilled troops or skirmishers. (TuGs can still tug SuGs).

These are being tested, no firm decisions have been made.  Will be happy to receive comments or suggestions for other rule changes but I stress that MeG is NOT a democracy and we reserve the right to make our own choices....  If you haven't played Pacto, don't give your views/opinions until you have...

Richard
« Last Edit: September 02, 2022, 09:21:18 AM by nikgaukroger »

Rittervonbek

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2022, 10:53:59 AM »
This all looks good from my perspective as a Pacto beginner/learner. Clearly there are fans of every size iteration but Pacto is my preferred choice as i am late to the ancients party in my wargaming life and have limited time and space. Looking forward very much to the next developments.

Dhrazar

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2022, 01:08:59 PM »
Hello, i am playing Pacto with my Italian friend since january 2022, and i'm really Happy to see some changed. We enjoy the game and planning to step maximus, in the future. However, these are the things that we found less enjoyable:
- punishing dices: the changes about kabs seem interesting. Not sure that the choice about starting from green for poors Is good however. Main problem, imho, Is for average +
- Reading the rule set, we really miss some rules in Pacto, like the fall back for infantry, the countercharges, the slow effect and restraint from pursuing
- shove/shatters very very difficult to use
- elephants very bad (even after a perfect delivery, covered by skirmishers and going green+ against White, they are too squishy for a so expensive unit)

About above alfa/beta rules:
- the change to Commander block move doesn't seem important to me. We actually never had big issues about that, Also because we find that in pacto Is much more important to know what opponent Is doing Rather than sparing command tokens, and so we try to Have as many "activations" as possible, to move after the opponent. This strategy seems really strong, till now

I Hope these opinions Will help, we Will test the above " alfa/beta rules and come back to you :)
« Last Edit: September 02, 2022, 01:24:30 PM by Dhrazar »

aleph

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2022, 01:46:54 PM »
this looks very promising, great!

the areas you're looking to change are the same were we feel pacto is lacking compared to maximus, I will need to playtest the changes a little before commenting on them. Block move changes looks interesting...

Another thing it is also missing currently in pacto is movement options for units engaged...  a unit engaged on the flank has no way to turn/recover, which is quite annoying.

Do you have a timeline for the first release (or a beta good enough for playtesting)? Like end of the year, half 2023 or something else?

papadopp

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2022, 03:34:13 PM »
Bring back the cookies - slowing effect of fire, control pursuits and prompt through fire - leave shatter and shove as such, it works if you play compact - for testing purposes, treat skull as a wound and sword and arrow as 1/2 a wound (some nice new tokens would be great)- block moves work as in the bigger pic, why change them? Please clarify prompted actions (an UG flank or rear engaged can surely turn to face the foe, isnít it so?) - if two UGs fight against one, slide the minimum to give support - differentiate between 1/2 BW and 1/2 A BASE accordingly - that is if we need a longer game - do we really? I have played tons of Pacto (soloing mostly), using 40+ different armies during the quarantine and beyond, and never really complained about the flow of the game - nevertheless, following with great interest - keep up the good work team  8)

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2022, 10:57:26 PM »
I have no issue bringing a few extra bits back in

Si
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

Jose

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2022, 06:56:13 AM »
Hello, I have the rules there, but would like to start with Pacto, I am unfortunately missing a small set of rules as for DBA with small pictures, army structure and easy explanations, if such a booklet would come out, please write to me right away. Regards Jose

Jose

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2022, 06:33:05 PM »
Is anyone still alive here... :D :D :D :D :D

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2022, 08:15:09 AM »
Hi Jose,

I am not sure what you are expecting.  MeG Pacto is not a small set of rules.  We will be announcing when the free introduction and (not free) Pacto rules will be published, but that is going to be some time away.

Richard

Estalies

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2022, 05:19:28 PM »
Reasoning behind 11? Seems an unnecessary change

S giving skulls and wounds for shatter and shove seems maybe too good?  Perhaps just a KaB test for opponent? with shatter upgrading the color??

Brucka

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2022, 07:44:21 PM »
I think all those rule changes/ammendments will make Pacto a richer game without losing the simplicity. Thank you!

I was also a little confused - I see how to buy stuff of the ReG website and at PSC; will this 'store' for the rules be on the regular website then too or somewhere separate?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2022, 08:05:17 PM by Brucka »
"We both like soup"

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2022, 10:19:44 AM »
1.  We haven't sorted out the details of where the rules will be available yet.

2.  Update on progress of the testing...
     1. KaB tests.  This seems to work okay.
     2. Idea is skull = Wound + slowing effect;  Wound = Just Wound; S = Just slowing effect
     3.  Slowing effects = 1BW from mounted and skirmishers;  2BW from close/loose infantry and artillery.
     6.  SuG Finishing off move on Wound from breaking. Works okay.
     9.  Modified slightly. Roll an S with Shatter and you get to re-roll with a Green dice.  Roll an S with Shove and you get to re-roll a White dice.  Less drastic than first proposal and seems to give an okay effect.  Note DC or CL on white dice at impact still have a small chance of getting a skull result.
     11.  Still not entirely sure about this one.

Richard

dotafershota

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2022, 02:34:34 PM »
Played a PACTO game and here is some feedback:

* I think reducing KaB tests twice (average go from yellow to white) is too much. Just one less makes chain routes/ general kills still relevant but not super punishing.

* We tried the original rule (all non-blank shooting creates slowing) and it felt REALLY strong. 2BW slow felt real punishing. Maybe cost for press through fire should be reduced?

* Shove/ Shatter rerolls are the way to go I think.

* We didn't play with rule 11. as we felt it is unnecessary. Seems overly beneficial to Roman style armies where everything is drilled you could take few generals.

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2022, 02:58:46 PM »
Played a PACTO game and here is some feedback:

* I think reducing KaB tests twice (average go from yellow to white) is too much. Just one less makes chain routes/ general kills still relevant but not super punishing.

* We tried the original rule (all non-blank shooting creates slowing) and it felt REALLY strong. 2BW slow felt real punishing. Maybe cost for press through fire should be reduced?

* Shove/ Shatter rerolls are the way to go I think.

* We didn't play with rule 11. as we felt it is unnecessary. Seems overly beneficial to Roman style armies where everything is drilled you could take few generals.

Thanks for the feedback. 

The KaB test is really a question of how dramatic seeing other UGs/generals killed should be.  I like the fact that Poor troops can get the skull, but average and superior troops don't. 

The idea of wounds not causing a slowing effect was to balance the fact that a 2BW slow is intended to be quite punishing.  Maybe a wound should do a 1BW slowing effect and only an S or a skull a 2BW slowing effect for close/loose infantry or artillery.

Richard

I think rule 11 will be dropped. 

Estalies

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Pacto - Future Plans
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2022, 09:19:55 PM »
Im going to agree with dota here mostly.  The KaB test downgrade by 2 just seems to make games take longer rather than add to any drama.  I think downgrading by 1 would work better; but not a hill I want to die on. 

Shooting felt really strong.  Id argue that either prompt through fire needs to come down in color cost or be maxed at -1.  My troops were at -1 and -2 across the board against a heavy shooting list; again this just slows the game down.  Ideally Id like to see wounds do wounds, S does a slow of 1 and skull does a wound and a slow of 1.

I really liked running my scutarii at 3 bases so thats a huge win i think.