I'm hoping the following nuances from the computer assisted version of Ex, are translated into the paper rules. If so, I have no doubt the game will be equally good, if not even better.

- The soft faction system: was such a cool way to build a list, and really gave you a lot of options on how to build a force that plays the way you want. Best of all, any model could be in any list, and that is just cool for us collectors

- Morale: was much more intricate than a simple dice roll / command check. affinities and leaders really meant something.

- Fatigue: A pretty unique factor that not many war games I know of take into consideration

- zone based movement: I think is more realistic than measuring, but that's a just personal taste. I just never really pictured a soldier stopping one inch short of his foe and not attacking.

- The World: Ex-illis was has such a cool back drop , mixing all kinds of real historical figures with a bunch of awesome creatures. I was really drawn into the stories of political alliances with a magic twists, feels almost Game of Thrones'ish

I'm hoping some of you guys will post some of the ex features you hope live on in the new version

You'll be happy to learn that Soft faction, morale and fatigue will be there. (They are in the version we played last week, and they should make it to the final version). Of course the wolrd is the exact same.

Zone based movement is kind of a debate still. I personnaly prefer zone based movement too, but Bonifacius likes the rulers...

What do you guys think?

Zones vs. Rulers...

I must say, that I always find the square zones bit weird... From boardgames I am trained for hexagonal maps, and I think that squares aren´t so good and realistic

Rulers are fine, but there is much more work with them, and I remember arguments about distances in AT-43. But it depends on players, when they want to play for fun, it is usually OK.

So my favorite is Hex. Sadly, you probably aren´t looking for him . In this case I think that square zones are better option. It belongs to EX, and playing on zones is easier. And that is the great thing about EX - it is so simple game, that even dad can play it with me (he is big fan of boargames, but he don´t like numbers and long playtime ), but even such a tactician as I am can find satisfaction in playing EX. But it is only my opinion and as I say, for me the PC version is in main interest.

And what would I like in paper EX? That each unit maintains its uniqueness and spirit. But it will be hard without skills and levels.

My opinion on the subject is not unilateral though...

I really love many other miniature wargames which use rulers and such.
But I DO think we have a pretty solid concept with the way we use a streamlined, easy to use, but still very deep tiles system, setting us appart from most games and giving us a very unique feel.

Back in 2008, at the start of the project, I challenged Friedrich a lot regarding the tile system, not that I was opposed to it completely, but rather that I wanted this heavy choice to be fully and well justified. We spent a lot of time debating on the idea amount of tile, the table format, etc.

But now, I really enjoy the awesome mix of tiles and action choices that Ex Illis is... and lots of the prototypes' ideas go towards this for now. For the paper version of the game, we try to stay true to the original Ex Illis game in the most possible ways

I'd love to read your opinions on the subject guys

Guess everyone is shy now

I'd vote for zone based movement as well. Anything that makes it more accessible, you know. The accessiblility of the computer version is what made it a big win for me. Needing to teach new players to measure around obstacles and other models is a chore in most other minis games, it's nice to be able to avoid it.

Also, it would mean you'd need a conistent base size if it used ruler based movement. Anyone wanting to try the game out with models they already have would have to re-base them. It's nice that that's not necessary with zones.

Its easier to play with terrain in zone based movement, and you can get creative with the terrain since, you don't need to micro-manage every inch of placement. Not to mention its pretty cool how troop facing changes based on the order in which you charge. Also movement to avoid missile fire can be really tactical when you take into account the Bulk statistic that was in the E-version. Its cool how you can sit your shock troops in a zone with the arbalestiers so that those big shields absorb most of the missile fire.

Not saying you can't do this with a ruler, its just that the game bogs down and become an exersize in spatial relations. IMO

short post for yosef more later

One thing that I missed in the exillis world was formations as they have such a impact in the effectiveness of a unit [ and more so in the 100 year wars , we see an attempt in the wedge formation skill of the FC but it would effect moment. the tile system further jumbled up the formation until I made movement plates for the whole unit but formation was not in the game rule system. tile system in pen and paper rules will make it simpler I most likely will try some other moment system and house rules (which is one of the most powerful things about a pen and paper rule system is you can change it to meet your needs.

I am more excited to see how all the rules like moral and fatigue were keep and the game dose not take 11 hours to play .

to me these rules should of happened a long time ago because players would be building there own custom units and Bastion would have had a bunch of free development going on

there are lots of things I want to do that the computer rules just could not accommodate

so if these creative guys have made a game that can be played in ywo hours and still has all there cool mechanics it will be quite a feat .

you have some loyal dedicated beta testers still is out there, so when you get closer to release please let us Beta testers play with the rule system as a final feedback and input.

specially someone like me who has been playing paper rule sets since 1970, played historical miniatures, DBA, countless countless wargaming rules plus of developed several rule systems myself, I think there's a few others that in this category.


I remember back before the days of computers there were all these clever calculation devices like slide rules. I especially remember wheels that you could turn several dials for different inputs and come up with a result. One way a pen and paper rule system can be greatly accelerated as far as speed and simplicity of use is to design clever ways to display the information, like self adjustable tables, combat wheels, etc. so not only how the rule system plays but how to present that rule system to create ease of play and faster results.

I'm fortunate enough to get to play a lot of role-playing these days (Austin Texas is an amazing gaming city with over a dozen active game stores full of gamers) anybody that has played Pathfinder 3.5 knows how a battle can bog down in tediousness and the joy of battle can quickly be lost to the cumbersomeness of game mechanics. that's why I subscribe to people like this : http://fastercombat.com/news/about/ I am always scouring the net for more efficient ways of accomplishing a gaming task, and how to bring the storyline to the front and the mechanics to function in the background. part of the good rules system accomplishes that , and of course that is why I love the computer version of Exillis with all its limitations it allowed me to carry on the story of the battle in my head much more efficiently because the mechanics were in the background.

good points madness,

I had always hoped that in some later version of the computer controlled game especially when you get into specialized terrain types, that exillis would actually subdivide the grid, I had imagined a 10 x 10 tile divided into 1 inch squares, so the computers keeping track of 100 smaller tiles that can only hold a single figure or terrain feature. a light forest would only have x number of squares filled it with trees, whereas a heavy forest would perhaps have as many as 50 squares filled in with trees thus calculating the bulk accordingly, this way you could have walls and structures in the tile , or have a gate in a wall that can only be traveled through in a single file. In fact the computer would be measuring troop movement by filling in that tile with men and moving them only as far as they could actually move in other words not tile by tile but in inches. and although troops could not engage in less there in the same tile, the second rank of the unit may not be in that tile and thus those men would not be counted in the rolls.

this way you would've gotten the best of both worlds I'm not sure how that could be modeled in pen and paper without it being a nightmare mechanic

Don't you think a squad based game would bog down if we started moving things model by model on a 1" square grid? Not to mention it would be really tough to make the terrain look nice.

I'm trying to picture how long it would take us to finish one of our giant mega battles is we played that way.

Let me see if I can articulate my thoughts on this. I always enjoy formations in my games as well. But instead of having them abstracted into a mechanical bonus or penatly, labeled "formation x gives you +2 melee, -2 against ranged", I like it when the system is versitile enough that I can position my units into my own formations that matter. This is something I think Ex illis already accomplishes. No, it doesn't have a "line" formation in the rules, but there is nothing stopping me from spreading out all my units in a line across the board and marching them forward one space at a time, accomplishing the same thing, but within the mechanics of the game as-is.

To the same affect, it already accomplishes crowded or loose formations quite well in that the more grouped you have your models, the more susceptible they will be to ranged combat, but the better they will resist melee.

no I was referring to the computer assisted rules moving the whole unit forward and indicating with in a tile where the front line of the unit would be. Yes this would be way too cumbersome in a pen and paper version of the rules. if the computer kept track of what was in those hundred 1 inch squares within one tile you could have all sorts of walls, buildings, special terrain, etc.

I realized after posting that there are several other units that hint at formation, like the shield wall of the sergeants , and actually the current rule system by just adding formation skills,to the tree one could could calculate the defensive and offenses bonuses of such formations. Of course formations like the wedge require a higher disciplined and trained troop type, and formations are usually broken up by the confusion of battle, the peasants for example should always be in a mob formation, I always illustrated this with the actual models but it would be great if you could the computer Knew what formation your unit was in, and it would calculate accordingly

I remember when I played Warhammer my favorite tactic for the undead was to make long single file lines of zombies, several units deep that lumberd towards the enemy, all missile fire was directed towards these low point figures and by the time they engaged I could position mine true fighting force for an effective victory.

This is good idea. I am volunteer for beta-testing!

Meanwhile already some years ago i bought into Ex-Illis because of the lovely miniatures, the computer assistance novelty AND the zone based movement.

It wouldn't be the same for me with range rulers. I will only buy the book with zones, because i think it is far easier to play and introduce new (board game minded) players to.

Cheers


Jens

I have to agree, zone based movement. It would be nice if the computer game and board game had enough similarities that tactics would work across both.

Mike

in a perfect world
I would like the zone to be a 10'' by 10" grid that the computer keeps track of as 100 1' squares, the player only see a 10' by 10" tile. The computer keeps track of what models fill those 100 squares including terrine bulk , larger models take up more squares . So the computer displays what units can engage in combat, who is covered by blocking terrain ect. actually faces man to man, based on there formation. It displays this in a top view graphics of the tile so player's can arrange the models accordingly, and the eyes of the players are on the models not on the screen ( one of exillis biggest failings ) , this would allow for complex terrain like buildings and walls .

Current system try to approximate some of these elements but if the computer could really keep that information the strategy of a good general that understand terrain, formations and facing jumps up several levels.

Exillis has come many steps closer to making a table top mini game were strategy take preeminence of a few good dice rolls or cheesing the system.

to me having the rules in a mold-able format gives me the ability to play test some of these ideas . the rules is a gift to us that wish to evolve Exillis . and as we discover together better ways of playing this system my hope is that it will be programmed back into the computer assisted version

You, I think the bulk system works similarly to the way you described it. However rather than 10x10, I think it would be better as 10x10x10. That third dimension would give bulkier creatures like the emmisarious and the soffrance (but especially the emmisarious) a larger feel than a 2d bulk.

Also, it would be cool if we could set the density of cover, for instance, how high is this fence, or how dence is this thicket.