Sugquestion: CP ratios for various scenarios

[aybraus]

I'm going to be running a BW game that is an attack-defend scenario. I'm wondering what the CP ratio should be between the attacking and defending teams.
My thought is that that it should be the golden ratio (rounded, 8 attacker CPs for every 5 defender CPs) because the ratio works for most everything.

But yeah, I want to know what you all think.

EDIT: And the suggestion part is that such CP ratios should be listed in the rulebook.

[Rody]

my suggestion is that you ignore CP ratios and whatnot and move on to more important matters like how to blow up as much as possible.

in other words just go for what looks to be fair, usually it will then also be fair.

[superdave]

Depending on the entrenchment of the defending team (scattered stones vs. a fortress), you may want to go as high as double for the attackers (2:1 or even 12:5)

[pesgores]

Depending on the entrenchment of the defending team (scattered stones vs. a fortress), you may want to go as high as double for the attackers (2:1 or even 12:5)

Yeah. My opinion too. Or else the attackers die quickly.

But who cares, you can just start a fight within the defenders so that cool, big old castle MOC gets finally destroyed in a cool way.

[IVhorseman]

actually, giving equal CP costs should pan out evenly. remember that the defenders are also spending points on walls, towers, entrenchments and all kinds of doo-hickeys and traps AS WELL AS their offense and minifigs, while the attackers are solely spending their precious CP on offense.

[aybraus]

actually, giving equal CP costs should pan out evenly. remember that the defenders are also spending points on walls, towers, entrenchments and all kinds of doo-hickeys and traps AS WELL AS their offense and minifigs, while the attackers are solely spending their precious CP on offense.

Yeah, I don't know what the first two replies were talking about--I mean INCLUDING fortifications.

But the thing is, the goal of the attackers is much more difficult than the goal of the defenders. The attackers have to push the line back, the defenders just have to hold it. In the event of a brutal stalemate, the defense wins.

[ahp77]

sugquestion

OSSUM!!! A NEW WORD FOR ME TO LEARN!!!! w007!!!

[Adean]

I say throw out the "g" and just say "suquestion". Ossum sauce. It's a suggestion in the form of a question.

I say fudge it all. Just do whatever looks coolest and whatever should be bloodiest.

I say.....

[Bonn-o-Tron]

I dunno, a suggestion in the form of a question doesn't really work.
I don't see how you'd be able to practically use it in a conversation

[Adean]

Couldn't you have just thought before you posted?

May I propose that you try a different color scheme?

I say, might you have considered using a different head for that fig to flesh out his character?

Ta da.....

Course Blitzen could butcher my grammar here, but hey, I'm giving examples of a word that doesn't exist. I don't think there's too many rules for it yet.

Yay for suquestions!!!!!

[pesgores]

I DECLARE SUQUETIONS AS THE NEWEST TERM OF THE BACKWOARDS LANGUAGE

[Blitzen]

Couldn't you have just thought before you posted?

May I propose that you try a different color scheme?

I say, might you have considered using a different head for that fig to flesh out his character?

Ta da.....

I say nay. The method you described was just a pompous manner of manipulation. That's not a question. It's a poorly disguised command.

[Jaye Tea]

I agre with blitzen a suquestion doesn't work, its like my history teacher ask this so called question: Name three Egyptian Kings? There should be no ?, because its not asking its telling.

[Bonn-o-Tron]

Hooray! I was right!
Although, I had to wait for someone else to justify it

[Adean]

Ah well, it was a dumb idea anyway. Especially with how quickly Pezzy latched onto it. Still, I don't think those were commands though. That's like saying "Do you think you could pass me the mayonase" is a pompous form of manipulation thinly disguising the command "Pass the mayo."

I say trying to be gentle in your criticism isn't pompous. It's simply nicer is all. True, there really should be no question marks, but I was just making stuff up anyway.