Skip to Content

A little info about my samurai game

43 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

Just to give everyone some information about my Samurai game and to get everyone's opinions I want to share some info about my samurai game.

The basic game is similar to Hellas, in that you "build the world" while you are playing. The board is made up of 30 or so tiles that are about the size of 2 Carcossone tiles. Each tile has Mountains and roads that must match up on the edges, similar to carcassone. Each tile either has a village, a rice field or both. The majority have both.

Each person (2 player game) chooses an army with 15 peasant spearman, 7 samurai archers and 7 samurai spearman and 1 daimyo (general). Initially each person takes turns placing 4 tiles next to the starting tile and then placing there castle tiles on the edges. Each tile you place you get 1 peasant spearman to signify it is yours. When you place your castle you place your daimyo and then 1 of each warriors.

The point of the game is to either capture 17 villages, kill your opponent's daimyo or capture his castle.

On your turn you can take any 2 combination of the following actions.

-Attack 1 region
-Play a recruit card
-Draw a card (You also get a card if you win a battle)
-Explore (which lets you place a new land tile anywhere)
-Move

Recruiting is done by playing a card. Each card has a number of troops you may place anywhere on your tiles as long as you can support them.

Each rice field you own will support one unit you own. If you have 4 rice fields you may have 4 samurais. Peasants do not need to be supported.

You may never have more than 5 units in one tile.

I am trying to figure oout a way to incorporate ronin into the game.

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

The Idea is to reward combined arms (Different kinds of warriors). The three types of warriors each have a unique ability and are as follows:

Peasant Spearman- Their ability is that they do not have to be supported by rice patties
Samurai Swordsman - Roll 2 dice in combat
Samurai archers - They role first each round and remove casualties before the round.

So anyway here is how combat works. When I mention dice I am using D6. Each unit in combat gets 1 dice except for the swordsman, who get 2.

For 1 type of unit, you must roll a 1 or less to get a "hit" (If you have 20 spearman you get 20 dice and each 1 you roll you score a hit.)

For 2 types of unit you must roll a 2 or less (If you a samurai and a spearman in battle you roll 3 dice [remember swordsman get 2 dice] any roll of 2 or less is a a hit.

For 3 types of army units you must roll a 3 or less. (Example: you have 1 archer 1 swordsman and 2 spearman. First you roll 1 dice for the archer, on a 3 or more you hit and the casualty is immediately removed. Next, your swordsman and 2 spearman roll 3 dice and any 3 or less' is a hit.

Combat is considered simultaneous .

Combat is fought in rounds. The first round only 1 unit from each side is committed to the battle. The second round 2 MORE units are committed to battle. The third round 3 MORE units are committed. So theoretically if no one dies their could be 6 units in battle during the third round.

Another thing to note is, while armies are small battles can be large because of multiply armies attacking

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: A little info about my samurai game

I like the sound of this game... I think you've got a good start here. Have you played the game before? Maybe you should put it in the GDW for a proper critique.

galeninjapan wrote:
The board is made up of 30 or so tiles that are about the size of 2 Carcossone tiles.

Do you mean that they are rectangular? Or squares twice as big as Carc tiles? I think rectangles could be cool- sort of played like Dominoes...

Quote:
Each tile has Mountains and roads that must match up on the edges... Each tile either has a village, a rice field or both. The majority have both.

I don't know why you'd want most to have both. I also think there could be a little more variety in the terrain. Something simple like maybe 3 terrain types, each giving a benefit to one of the Unit types. So in Terrain Type 1 Archers are "better", in Terrain Type 2 Swordsman are 'better', and in Terrain Type 3 Peasants are 'better'. "Better" here could either mean a bonus in combat, or perhaps better would be a sort of bonus to defense- like if a 2 would count as a hit (because you have 2 unit types) and we're on Terrain Type 3 then Peasants are harder to kill- a 2 can't kill them, only a 1 can. So if you rolltwo 1's and two 2's you can remove a maximum of 2 Peasants. The 2's could still remove Archers and Swordsmen in that case.

Another possibility is "High Ground". Say there's Mountain spaces, Hill space, and Plains spaces (I'm thinking each half of a rectangular tile could have a different type). Then say you attack from one space to a neighboring space. If both armies are on level ground then there's no difference, buti f one is on higher ground than the other then the high ground gets some bonus (maybe hit on an extra number... like 2 or less for 1 unit type, 3 or less for 2 unit types, 4 or less for 3 unit types...)

This might require using dice bigger than d6's, though mayb not- is a 66% success rate for having a diverse army and better board position too much?

Quote:
Each person chooses an army with 15 peasant spearman, 7 samurai archers and 7 samurai spearman and 1 daimyo (general).

By Samurai Speamen you mean Samurai Swordsmen, right?What does the Daimyo do in combat? Maybe offer a moreale bonus (same as I described for Higher Ground?) Hmm.. then if you have a diverse army (does the Daimyo count toward that?) and on higher ground you'd auto hit.... that could be bad. Maybe the Daimyo's Morale bonus could be defensive like I described for the terrain types. It would be cool to offer a good benefit for fighting with the Daimyo because it makes you very vulnerable. There should probably be a rule that the Daimyo is last to die in a combat so one lucky hit doesn't end your game.

Quote:
Initially each person takes turns placing 4 tiles next to the starting tile and then placing there castle tiles on the edges.

So the board spreads out from 1 starting tile to 11 total tiles to begin the game, is that right? 9 terrain tiles and 1 castle tile for each team?

Quote:
Each tile you place you get 1 peasant spearman to signify it is yours. When you place your castle you place your daimyo and then 1 of each warriors.
The spearmen come from your supply of 15, right? And the Daimyo and 1 of each warrior (I guess that's 4 units total) go on the Castle when you place it, right?

Quote:
The point of the game is to either capture 17 villages, kill your opponent's daimyo or capture his castle.

Sounds good. How did you decide on 17? You start with control of up to 15 villages, so to win you might control as many as 32? Or do you mean you have to control 17 villages, not necessarily capture them? I would think it would be easiest to pick a number that a player must control at one time rather than worring about tracking how many are conquered. Just set the number more than 15 and low enough that it's attainable (remember that you might lose some as well). I would expect the game might not end that way too often, probably more often the castle would get captured. Often also in order to take the castle the Daimyo might die in the process. I like the three win conditions, just clarify that first one.

Quote:
On your turn you can take any 2 combination of the following actions.

-Attack 1 region
-Play a recruit card
-Draw a card (You also get a card if you win a battle)
-Explore (which lets you place a new land tile anywhere)
-Move
These seem like decent actions, but I'd have to know more about the specifics to comment on them. What exactly is defined as a Region? I assume an Attack is the same as a move into an occupied tile (or space). How many and what types of reinforcements do you buy with cards? is there any other cost? Where do they come into play-at your castle? Or anywhere? What constitutes a move? Moving one unit? Moving each unit? Moving all units on one space to another? Where do these new land tiles come from?

Quote:
Recruiting is done by playing a card. Each card has a number of troops you may place anywhere on your tiles as long as you can support them.
I guess you answered one of my questions here. I really like the support mechanic. I'd have to know more about the game before I could tell if I like placing the reinfocements anywhere. Also, is it fair to have some cards better than others, since they are drawn randomly? Maybe you get cards that have higher numbers than the cards I get... you have more troops and a big advantage then. Especially true also if you can recruit then fight (though that may be ok). Maybe the cards should be either the identical (1 of each unit maybe), or at least all worth, say 2 units (types depend on the card). So you may or may not get the tyoes that are good for you, but at least you don't get outnumbered.

Quote:
Each rice field you own will support one unit you own. If you have 4 rice fields you may have 4 samurais. Peasants do not need to be supported.
Like I said I really like this. I assume by "own" you mean "have a unit on the same space as". So what happens if you have 4 rice patties and 4 Samurai and you lose a fight where there's a rice patty- do you have to sacrifice Samurai? Or do you simply not get to add more to the board?

Quote:
You may never have more than 5 units in one tile.
Sounds
allright. Is it necessary to cap the number? Maybe so to keep a huge army from rolling through and killing everyone.

Quote:
I am trying to figure oout a way to incorporate ronin into the game.
Ronin could be like generals (where the Daimyos could be one more level up from that). Or the Daimyo could be YOU the player, and Ronin could be like generals only you get 2 or 3 of them, and if they all get killed then you lose. You, the Daimyo, are considered to be in your castle, so if you lose the castle you lose that way too.

I realize Ronin are really more like mercenaries, no? So maybe they are instead units you can buy somehow, maybe you get 1 Ronin instead of the 2 or 3 units on the card? So you get fewer units, but it's another Unit tyoe to help your combat bonuses...

Let me know what you think of my suggestions. I like your game.

- Seth

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

More Comments for you:

galeninjapan wrote:

Peasant Spearman- do not have to be supported by rice patties

A very nice idea
Quote:
Samurai Swordsman - Roll 2 dice in combat

I'd probably rephrase this to say "for each Swordsman you can re-roll a miss" because as I understad it, you don't do a seperate roll for each unit, you just roll a bunch of dice at a time. The reason I'd say allow re-rolls instead of roll extra dice is because of another of your rules (which isn't stated here but is in your other thread about this)- that if you have 3 units you cannot score 4 hits (which makes perfect sense).
Quote:
Samurai archers - They roll first each round and remove casualties before the round.
I imagine this means both teams roll for their Archers (fire simultaneously) and then remove units then both players roll for the rest of the troops.... or do the Archers only get First Strike on the attack? Seems like it should be on defense too.

Quote:

For 1 type of unit, you must roll a 1 or less to get a "hit"...
For 2 types of unit you must roll a 2 or less...
For 3 types of army units you must roll a 3 or less.

Is it possible to get a 4 or less by using a Daimyo or Ronin in combat? I think that would be cool. Then there;s the terrain bonuses and High Ground I mentioned before hich could be easily implimented to give the combat more depth.
Quote:
Combat is fought in rounds. The first round only 1 unit from each side is committed to the battle. The second round 2 MORE units are committed to battle. The third round 3 MORE units are committed.

What is your reasoning for this? I don't like it at all really. I think it should either be...
* Combat is simply 1 round, some people die, but if anyone is left then it's not a victory.
* Combat continues until 1 side is out of armies.
* Somewhere in between, combat continues until a side is out of armies or chooses to retreat (the choice to retreat should have to be made before a round of rolling, then after he rolls the retreating side retreats to a neighboring space if they lived through the attack).

Quote:
Another thing to note is, while armies are small battles can be large because of multiply armies attacking
I don't understand this comment at all, it doesn't jive with anything you've written before. Can you explain?

- Seth

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Last note about the higher ground stuff

So as for placement... the rule could be one of the following:

1. Plains and Mountains may both be placed adjacent to Hills but not adjacent to each other.

2. No restrictions on placing, but you cannot move or attack from Plains to Mountains or vice versa.

And either of those rules could be overlaid with a rule that applies to Terrain Types (like your statement that mountains and roads have to match up like Carcassonne).

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Quote:
I like the sound of this game... I think you've got a good start here. Have you played the game before? Maybe you should put it in the GDW for a proper critique.

What is that?

Quote:
Do you mean that they are rectangular? Or squares twice as big as Carc tiles? I think rectangles could be cool- sort of played like Dominoes...

Yes rectangular like dominoes.

Quote:
I don't know why you'd want most to have both. I also think there could be a little more variety in the terrain. Something simple like maybe 3 terrain types, each giving a benefit to one of the Unit types. So in Terrain Type 1 Archers are "better", in Terrain Type 2 Swordsman are 'better', and in Terrain Type 3 Peasants are 'better'. "Better" here could either mean a bonus in combat, or perhaps better would be a sort of bonus to defense- like if a 2 would count as a hit (because you have 2 unit types) and we're on Terrain Type 3 then Peasants are harder to kill- a 2 can't kill them, only a 1 can. So if you rolltwo 1's and two 2's you can remove a maximum of 2 Peasants. The 2's could still remove Archers and Swordsmen in that case.

Another possibility is "High Ground". Say there's Mountain spaces, Hill space, and Plains spaces (I'm thinking each half of a rectangular tile could have a different type). Then say you attack from one space to a neighboring space. If both armies are on level ground then there's no difference, buti f one is on higher ground than the other then the high ground gets some bonus (maybe hit on an extra number... like 2 or less for 1 unit type, 3 or less for 2 unit types, 4 or less for 3 unit types...)

This might require using dice bigger than d6's, though mayb not- is a 66% success rate for having a diverse army and better board position too much?

I dont think I explained the terrain very well. The tiles in my game have certain features on the edges. When you place the tile you must place it so that the features match (ala carcosonne). A road must connect to a road, a mountain must connect to a mountain etc...

Mountains prevent passage. There are alot of roads in my game too. I want to keep the terrrain aspect simple. The reason the majority of the tiles have both is because I dont want there to be just a couple of "Super" tiles. And plus you will need villages and rice fields to win.

Quote:
y Samurai Speamen you mean Samurai Swordsmen, right?What does the Daimyo do in combat? Maybe offer a moreale bonus (same as I described for Higher Ground?) Hmm.. then if you have a diverse army (does the Daimyo count toward that?) and on higher ground you'd auto hit.... that could be bad. Maybe the Daimyo's Morale bonus could be defensive like I described for the terrain types. It would be cool to offer a good benefit for fighting with the Daimyo because it makes you very vulnerable. There should probably be a rule that the Daimyo is last to die in a combat so one lucky hit doesn't end your game.

The daimyo gives the army he is in 1 extra die in combat. The owner of the units chooses who gets hit, so presumably he would want to choose to loose his daimyo last, or he looses.

Quote:
So the board spreads out from 1 starting tile to 11 total tiles to begin the game, is that right? 9 terrain tiles and 1 castle tile for each team?

Correct

Quote:
The spearmen come from your supply of 15, right? And the Daimyo and 1 of each warrior (I guess that's 4 units total) go on the Castle when you place it, right?

Correct, I also forgot to mention that units in your castle do not have to be supported by rice.

Quote:
Sounds good. How did you decide on 17? You start with control of up to 15 villages, so to win you might control as many as 32? Or do you mean you have to control 17 villages, not necessarily capture them? I would think it would be easiest to pick a number that a player must control at one time rather than worring about tracking how many are conquered. Just set the number more than 15 and low enough that it's attainable (remember that you might lose some as well). I would expect the game might not end that way too often, probably more often the castle would get captured. Often also in order to take the castle the Daimyo might die in the process. I like the three win conditions, just clarify that first one.

Correct you must hold the villages. I came up with 17 becuase that is a little over half the number of villages there are in the game.

Quote:
hese seem like decent actions, but I'd have to know more about the specifics to comment on them. What exactly is defined as a Region? I assume an Attack is the same as a move into an occupied tile (or space). How many and what types of reinforcements do you buy with cards? is there any other cost? Where do they come into play-at your castle? Or anywhere? What constitutes a move? Moving one unit? Moving each unit? Moving all units on one space to another? Where do these new land tiles come from?

You are correct on the attacking. The cards are random, some are better than others, but they are all good. I didnt want there to be 3 or 4 awesome cards that would decidet the game. A move is moving 1 guy 1 tile. Of course if you choose to move you may move everyone 1 space. New land tiles come from the stack. In the begining you only place 8 plus 2 castles. There are about 24 left over. You must choose to explore if you want to win by capturing.

Quote:
Like I said I really like this. I assume by "own" you mean "have a unit on the same space as". So what happens if you have 4 rice patties and 4 Samurai and you lose a fight where there's a rice patty- do you have to sacrifice Samurai? Or do you simply not get to add more to the board?

Not the same space. If all the tiles i control yeild 15 rice paddies, then I may have 15 samurai in my kingdom. Remember though that you may not have more than 5 units on 1 tile. If you only control 4 rice fields you may not place more than 4 samurai.

Quote:
Sounds allright. Is it necessary to cap the number? Maybe so to keep a huge army from rolling through and killing everyone.

Yes thats the reason.

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Thanks for the extra background! Very cool game design! The GDW is the Game Design Workshop. It's a forum where designers comment on each other's designs. You provide feedback on other designers' submissions, then sign up for a slot and submit your own game for critique. It's a very cool resource for getting feedback!

I like the tile laying feature and how it relates to the placement of armies. I also like the bonuses awarded for more than 1 type of unit attacking together, though I still feel that a better reward system is in order and that your current system might allow players too much power. Of course, take that with the understanding that I haven't seen the game in action and that it may work our very well.

You will probably need to go into more detail about moving units and supporting them once moved. I take it that units move onto a tile to challenge the player who controls (has units already on the tile). To the victor (the last player with units left or the player who remains after another player withdraws from the tile) goes the spoils (control over the tile).

You may want to get more specific about how units move and if there are any limits to the movement. Also, do samurai need to be on or near a tile with rice paddies? Is it enough for aplayer to control rice paddies at one end of the board and have his samurai at the other end?

I would be interested in seeing the cards themselves to see how well balanced they are. It would be interesting to see if you could develop a mechanic for recruiting and deploying units without having to rely on the luck of the draw (just my personal preference).

I'm not sure how to feel about the attacked player deciding which units are removed, though with the tight quarters and limitations of the tiles, I'm not sure if you could do otherwise (not sure if you are going detailed enough to have range modifiers or terrain cover).

Regarding the ronin, you could have neutral ronin pieces placed randomly on the board. When a player places a new tile, roll 1-6, on a 1, a ronin piece is placed on that tile. Then, when combat occurs on a tile containing a ronin, a player would roll to see on who's side the ronin would fight: 1-2 fight with attacker, 3 leave (remove from tile), 4-6 fight with defender (the defender should have a slight advantage since they are being attacked and are not the aggressors).

The player for whom the ronin will fight could then determine what unit type the ronin will assume (like a wild card). If the ronin is killed, then the ronin piece is removed from the tile. Let me know what you think.

RookieDesign
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A little info about my samurai game

I just played last night a game named Attack! from Eagle Game.

It use the same battle system as you describe for your game. I'm telling you that even if Attack! isn't my new favorite game, the combat system work pretty well.

Here's a quick recap of the Attack! Rules.
Infantry 1 die
Tanks 2 dice
Artillery 1 die
Plane 1 die.

You have 8 identical special dice provided with the game. Each one has one face blank, one infantry, one tank, one artillery and two planes.

You setup you line (maximum 4 units first) and roll the number of dice for the first round. Ex: 2 Infantry, 1 tank and 1 plane = 5 dice.

From the roll you match the faces shown to the unit you have on the line. Ex: Roll blank, plane, plane, infantry, artillery. You have 2 matching units (infantry and plane) so that's 2 hit for the opponent.

You must remove the units in the following order as many infantry as possible, as many Tanks as possible, as many Artillery as possible and as many Planes as possible. Cost for the unit is 5, 10, 8 and 15 respectively.

Round 2 begin and you can reinforce, ...

Now you can argue that you don't have the special dice, but when you look at it, the probablilities are the same. In your game you don't have any equivalent of the planes.

I can saw that you have other twist in your game that look good beside being similar to Attack! I'm not sure that you can build a Wargame like game today being totally original in the combat mechanics.

Please look into their rules. If you can't find them, PM me so I can send them to you.

Keep working.

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

RookieDesign wrote:
I just played last night a game named Attack! from Eagle Game.

Yea, my combat is based on that game. I love that combat system its so simple and elegant.

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

SiskNY wrote:
Thanks for the extra background! Very cool game design! The GDW is the Game Design Workshop. It's a forum where designers comment on each other's designs. You provide feedback on other designers' submissions, then sign up for a slot and submit your own game for critique. It's a very cool resource for getting feedback!

Cool I will check it out.

Quote:

I like the tile laying feature and how it relates to the placement of armies. I also like the bonuses awarded for more than 1 type of unit attacking together, though I still feel that a better reward system is in order and that your current system might allow players too much power. Of course, take that with the understanding that I haven't seen the game in action and that it may work our very well.

How would it allow too much power.

Quote:

You will probably need to go into more detail about moving units and supporting them once moved. I take it that units move onto a tile to challenge the player who controls (has units already on the tile). To the victor (the last player with units left or the player who remains after another player withdraws from the tile) goes the spoils (control over the tile).

Attacking consists of moving into an oposing units tile. All of your adjacent units may choose to join the attack. The rest of what you said was correct.

Quote:

You may want to get more specific about how units move and if there are any limits to the movement. Also, do samurai need to be on or near a tile with rice paddies? Is it enough for aplayer to control rice paddies at one end of the board and have his samurai at the other end?

Units move one tile at a time. Samurai need to be supported by rice paddies, but where the rice is does not matter. Just as long as the total number of samurai under your control does not exceed the rice under your control

Quote:

I would be interested in seeing the cards themselves to see how well balanced they are. It would be interesting to see if you could develop a mechanic for recruiting and deploying units without having to rely on the luck of the draw (just my personal preference).

While the cards are random and different i dont think that it realies on luck too much. Here is why. The cards have 2 or 3 units that can be placed. If I play a card that says recruit 2 spearman, than I place 2 spearman on the board. The most powerfull of the cards really isnt that much different. It lets you recruit 1 of each. So you can see that there really isnt any powerfull card and each card is almost equal.

I also wish there was a better way to aquire units. Perhaps some ideas?

Quote:

I'm not sure how to feel about the attacked player deciding which units are removed, though with the tight quarters and limitations of the tiles, I'm not sure if you could do otherwise (not sure if you are going detailed enough to have range modifiers or terrain cover).

The attacker only chooses his units to loose. The defender chooses his own units to loose. What is wrong with this? Many games have systems like this.

Quote:

Regarding the ronin, you could have neutral ronin pieces placed randomly on the board. When a player places a new tile, roll 1-6, on a 1, a ronin piece is placed on that tile. Then, when combat occurs on a tile containing a ronin, a player would roll to see on who's side the ronin would fight: 1-2 fight with attacker, 3 leave (remove from tile), 4-6 fight with defender (the defender should have a slight advantage since they are being attacked and are not the aggressors).

While this is a good way to randomize the ronin placement it would take to long to roll for every tile. I have a good idea of what I ronin to do, but I do not have a way to get them on the board.

I want ronin to be like samurai swordsman only they do not have to ve supported by rice. If you retreat from battle you lose your ronin.

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

sedjtroll wrote:
Quote:
Another thing to note is, while armies are small battles can be large because of multiply armies attacking
I don't understand this comment at all, it doesn't jive with anything you've written before. Can you explain?

- Seth

You may attack from multiple tiles if they are adjacent. So, you may only have 5 units on 1 tile at a time, you may attack from 2 or more tiles, theoreticly having quite a large force. Although the odds of having more than a few tiles fitting enxt to each other is rather low.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I dont think I explained the terrain very well. The tiles in my game have certain features on the edges. When you place the tile you must place it so that the features match (ala carcosonne). A road must connect to a road, a mountain must connect to a mountain etc...

I feel like jwarrend saying this, but maybe having placement rules 'just like Carcassone' isn't as good as having different, more original placement rules. Maybe open placement, with the different combinations at interfaces meaning different things... like you cannot move from a plains space to a mountain space (for example).

On the other hand, even with the Carc "match the edges" placement rules, the tiles could still have terrain that means something more than just where it can be placed.

Quote:
There are alot of roads in my game too. I want to keep the terrain aspect simple. The reason the majority of the tiles have both is because I dont want there to be just a couple of "Super" tiles. And plus you will need villages and rice fields to win.

If you want it to be simple, then have you considered removing te roads and allowing people simply to move from space to space or tile to tile?

As for 'super' tiles. I would expect most of the tiles would have either a village or a rice field, with a few having both and a few having neither. there could even be some other features interspersed with special abilities if you control them. Also, it might be important to discern the difference (if there is one) between controlling a tile and controlling a space (which I have been using to mean a half-tile- that is 1 rectangular tile would be made up of 2 square spaces, the tiles would be like Dominoes in that way). Thus if a tile had both a Rice field and a Village and you have 1 unit on there you control one or the other but not both.

Quote:
The daimyo gives the army he is in 1 extra die in combat. The owner of the units chooses who gets hit, so presumably he would want to choose to loose his daimyo last, or he looses.

So the Daimyo is basically a peasant? But better because he makes an extra unit type. That sounds fine.

Quote:
I also forgot to mention that units in your castle do not have to be supported by rice.

Maybe you SHOULD have to support units in your castle, so if you don't have enough Rice, you can't just stockpile guys in your castle.

On the other hand you could simply say that ALL your units start on your castle tile, and you have to control a rice field for each samurai you want to venture FROM your castle...

Quote:
The cards are random, some are better than others, but they are all good. I didnt want there to be 3 or 4 awesome cards that would decide the game.

Exactly why I think they should all be equivalent. What did you think about the idea that the cards give you a static 2 guys (though random which two) and you could opt to get a single Ronin instead?

Quote:
A move is moving 1 guy 1 tile. Of course if you choose to move you may move everyone 1 space.

Um... so which is it? Sounds like a move action is "move each unit up to 1 space". That could work. Might also be good to instead say "move any/all units in one space to an adjacent space" or something like that.

Quote:
Not the same space. If all the tiles i control yeild 15 rice paddies, then I may have 15 samurai in my kingdom. Remember though that you may not have more than 5 units on 1 tile. If you only control 4 rice fields you may not place more than 4 samurai.

I think you missed the question...
If you have 4 samurai in your kingdom, and you 'own' 4 rice fields, and you lose a fight at one ofyour rice fields where all your guys die... now you are left with 4 samurai in your kingdom and you only control 3 rice fields. What happens? Do you have to give up a Samurai? Or can you simply not place any more?

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Quote:
I feel like jwarrend saying this, but maybe having placement rules 'just like Carcassone' isn't as good as having something more original. Maybe open placement, with the different combinations at interfaces meaning different things... like you cannot move from a plains space to a mountain space (for example).

On the other hand, even with the Carc "match the edges" placement rules, the tiles could still have terrain that means something more than just where it can be placed.

I actually had originally planed the game to be something like this. To attack you had to play a card for which terrain you wanted to attack. Does that sound better?

Quote:
If you want it to be simple, then have you considered removing te roads and allowing people simply to move from space to space or tile to tile?

I like this idea and I have been givning it some thought.

Quote:
As for 'super' tiles. I would expect most of the tiles would have either a village or a rice field, with a few having both and a few having neither. there could even be some other features interspersed with special abilities if you control them. Also, it might be important to discern the difference (if there is one) between controlling a tile and controlling a space (which I have been using to mean a half-tile- that is 1 rectangular tile would be made up of 2 square spaces, the tiles would be like Dominoes in that way). Thus if a tile had both a Rice field and a Village and you have 1 unit on there you control one or the other but not both.

The tiles are the size of 2 carc tiles but they are NOT split up. Each tile represents ONE region. Something similar to the game Zoosim

Quote:
So the Daimyo is basically a peasant? But better because he makes an extra unit type. That sounds fine.

No he does not count as a unit type. He only adds one dice. You must not have him killed though. He probably needs another ability though.

Quote:
Maybe you SHOULD have to support units in your castle, so if you don't have enough Rice, you can't just stockpile guys in your castle.

I dont want units in castle to have to be supported for a few reasons. The first is if someone has nowhere else to go and is trying to make their last stand then they can do that without needing any rice outside. If you stockpile guys in your castle it wont do you much becuase you cannot win if all your guys are in your castle (Remember the number of units you have available are limited)

Quote:
Exactly why I think they should all be equivalent. What did you think about the idea that the cards give you a static 2 guys (though random which two) and you could opt to get a single Ronin instead?

This is basicly how it is. Each card gives you 3 men although one card gives you one of each type, and another gives you 3 spearmen. I still havnt found a satisfactory way to aquire ronin.

Quote:
um... so which is it? Sounds like a move action is "move each unit up to 1 space". That could work. Might also be good to instead say "move any/all units in one space to an adjacent space" or something like that.

It is both. Just like in most other war games units amy only move one tile at a time, but you may move all your units. I might make it so that you get a benifit for moving with your daimyo, or along roads (if i keep the roads)

Quote:
I think you missed the question...
If you have 4 samurai in your kingdom, and you 'own' 4 rice fields, and you lose a fight at one ofyour rice fields where all your guys die... now you are left with 4 samurai in your kingdom and you only control 3 rice fields. What happens? Do you have to give up a Samurai? Or can you simply not place any more?

At the end of your turn you must give up one. You must be able to support your units at the end of your turn. If you have samurai you cannot supprt that is fine untill the end of the turn in which you must loose them. However you may not play a card that would give you samurai you cannot support.

As for Ronin here are some thought so far.

-They do not have to be supported
-They count as a wild card
-If you retreat either you lose them or your oponent gets them.
-if you no longer have men in your suply then you can activate ronin
-they go away at the end of the turn?

These are all just thoughts.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I also wish there was a better way to aquire units. Perhaps some ideas?

Hmm... Maybe the tiles could provide units? Either some tiles have a Peasant, Swordsman, or Archer symbol on them, and when you gain control of that tile you get a unit of that type. I don't like that too much, but maybe something like it. So exploring and expanding is rewarded with units...

Another thing is to say that when you take a Village (occupy it for the first time) you get a Sworsman, when you take a rice field you get a Peasant, and when you take a [something else] you get an Archer...

Might be neat if Peasants could 'train up' into Archers or Swordsman. Maybe a 2-for-1 trade or something.

Quote:
The attacker only chooses his units to loose. The defender chooses his own units to loose. What is wrong with this? Many games have systems like this.

Nothing is necessarily wrong with it. It might be neat if (maybe with some extra effort) the attacker could concentrate the attack on the Archers (for example). If you have 3 peasants and three Archers and I have 1 Archer and 4 Swordsmen, then after the first barrage of arrows I might like to concentrate on trying to kill your archers so you can't First Strike me next round. Should I be able to do so? If so, should it take 'morte effort' somehow (cost more? Use 2 hits in order to choose the target or something?) Or does that take too much away from the defender (I should be wary of attacking a player with a lot of archers, because I know I can't necessarily kill them).

Quote:
I have a good idea of what I want ronin to do, but I do not have a way to get them on the board.
what would you lik them to do? Not knowing what you have in mind I made the suggestion that they be basically like Swordsmen, only cost more (and of course add a unit type). Another idea is that they could leave play after a combat (so any Ronin you have is only in combat once).

Quote:
I want ronin to be like samurai swordsman only they do not have to ve supported by rice. If you retreat from battle you lose your ronin.
Oh, here's we go :) I like his. It makes them even better than I had suggested (Swordsmen+, AND they don't need support!) but withthe drawback about retreating. That's pretty cool. As far as getting them on the board, I still like the idea of getting 1 Ronin in lieu of 2 other guys- either when recruiting, or maybe 2 units could combine and turn into a Ronin (maybe only in certain locations).

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Ronin.

-You may get these guys once your supply of units is depleted.
-The battle as a wild card and do not have to be supported.
-They go away at the end of the turn
-If you lose a battle your opponent gets the ronin and may use thema gaisnt you on the next turn. Then they go away.

How does that sound?

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Another though for introducing ronin based on other comments:

If you lose a rice paddy and can no longer control all of your samurai, then the samurai that you cannot support become ronin. For example, you have 5 rice paddies and 5 samurai. You lose a rice paddy without losing a samurai, you must decide which of your samurai will become a ronin (no longer under your control, but you can get them back in the ways mentioned earlier).

You will need to work out what to do with the ronin (move to another village, etc.).

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
You may attack from multiple tiles if they are adjacent. So, you may only have 5 units on 1 tile at a time, you may attack from 2 or more tiles, theoreticly having quite a large force. Although the odds of having more than a few tiles fitting enxt to each other is rather low.

Ah, so an attack is not equivalent to a move into an occupied territory. I think I get it now... so you say "I am attacking that space" and the attacking forces are any unit that is adjacent to that space. So you could sort of surround a space and gang up on it if you wish.

I wonder what that does to retreating... do yuo have Retreating in your rules at all? If so, how does it work? I would think if you COULD retreat, you'd probably have to move to an adjacent space without enemies in it (so if you're surrounded you can't retreat... which makes sense). But I guess your retreating troops could also 'teleport' to your castle or something.

I'm sure there are other ways to do it as well.

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Wow! What a flurry of ideas!!

sedjtroll wrote:
Nothing is necessarily wrong with it. It might be neat if (maybe with some extra effort) the attacker could concentrate the attack on the Archers (for example). If you have 3 peasants and three Archers and I have 1 Archer and 4 Swordsmen, then after the first barrage of arrows I might like to concentrate on trying to kill your archers so you can't First Strike me next round. Should I be able to do so? If so, should it take 'morte effort' somehow (cost more? Use 2 hits in order to choose the target or something?) Or does that take too much away from the defender (I should be wary of attacking a player with a lot of archers, because I know I can't necessarily kill them).

That sums up exactly what I was thinking. Nothing wrong with your system, just seems like there should be some way of targeting specific opponents.

Quote:
Ah, so an attack is not equivalent to a move into an occupied territory. I think I get it now... so you say "I am attacking that space" and the attacking forces are any unit that is adjacent to that space. So you could sort of surround a space and gang up on it if you wish.

I was under the impression that a player had to move units into a tile to attack an opponent in that tile. You mentioned that in your first attack, you attack with one unit (since you can only move one in at a time), then 2 in the next turn, etc. This would go along with retreating then, the losing player retreating from the disputed tile.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I actually had originally planed the game to be something like this. To attack you had to play a card for which terrain you wanted to attack. Does that sound better?

Hmm. Not really. That would mean you can't always do what you want, but for an artificial reason (I can't attack you because I don't have the right card... never mind the fact that my army is right next to yours).

Quote:
The tiles are the size of 2 carc tiles but they are NOT split up. Each tile represents ONE region. Something similar to the game Zoosim

Hmm. That's what I figured, but I think it could be more interesting if they were. In a way maybe that's not too different from whatyou have, for example:

A tile that transitions from Plains to Hills would have plains on the edges at one side and hills at the edges on the other- this would be functionally similar to a split-up tile that has 'plains' on one half and 'hills' on the other (there'd be 6 "edges" of each tile, if you see what I mean, so you could even do the carcassonne thing that way).

Quote:
sedjtroll wrote:
So the Daimyo is basically a peasant? But better because he makes an extra unit type. That sounds fine.

No he does not count as a unit type. He only adds one dice. You must not have him killed though. He probably needs another ability though.
Probably needs another ability? Why not make him a unit type? It makes sense and works well with the mechanics as they are.

Quote:
I dont want units in castle to have to be supported for a few reasons. The first is if someone has nowhere else to go and is trying to make their last stand then they can do that without needing any rice outside. If you stockpile guys in your castle it wont do you much because you cannot win if all your guys are in your castle (Remember the number of units you have available are limited)

That could make it difficult to lose as well... of course if all your forces are in your castle then I guess they can easily take 17 villages. This seems to work fine. The only thing I don't like about being able to put guys in the castle if rice capacity is too low is that it would be nice to make people lose out on recruits if they can't support them. But keeping them in the castle is about the same as that so it's fine.

Quote:
sedjtroll wrote:
Exactly why I think they should all be equivalent. What did you think about the idea that the cards give you a static 2 guys (though random which two) and you could opt to get a single Ronin instead?

This is basicly how it is. Each card gives you 3 men although one card gives you one of each type, and another gives you 3 spearmen. I still havnt found a satisfactory way to aquire ronin.
Is this to say that you didn't like the trade off for Ronin?

Also, the reason I was thinking thatt he cards should give 2 units is that you could never get all three that way, and more importantly if you need an Archer (for example) you might have cards that get you 2 Peasants, or a Swordsman and a peasant, but no Archers. This works your way as well. if it's always 3 units. I assume/hope your cards aren't sometimes 2 units, sometimes 3 units, sometimes 1 unit... that would be really bad.

Quote:
units may only move one tile at a time, but you may move all your units. I might make it so that you get a benifit for moving with your daimyo, or along roads (if i keep the roads)

I was considering suggesting that the terrain have an effect on movement... like if you are moving 'downhill' you could move an additional space. This could apply to roads instead. I think it's not a bad idea.

Quote:
At the end of your turn you must give up one. You must be able to support your units at the end of your turn. If you have samurai you cannot support that is fine untill the end of the turn in which you must loose them. However you may not play a card that would give you samurai you cannot support.

Ok. Just things to think about...
1. If it's at the beginning of the turn then your unsupported Samurai can still defend you (could be good or bad for the game, depending)
2. Cards that give you 2 peasants and 1 archer can't be played if you have no rice capacity? I think you should be able to play them, but only get to place the Peasants (the Archer would simply not be placed).

Quote:
As for Ronin here are some thought so far.

-They do not have to be supported
Sounds good.

Quote:

-They count as a wild card

I don't like it. I prefer that they count as a different unit type but have a static ability.
Quote:

-If you retreat either you lose them or your opponent gets them.

This sounds good. I think them simply leaving is probably easier to impliment.
Quote:

-if you no longer have men in your supply then you can activate ronin

I don't like that. Either you can hire a mercenary or you can't, it shouldn't depend on your forces. if anything, the less men you have the less likely the Ronin would want to fight for you.
Quote:

-they go away at the end of the turn?

This could be a good extra cost. I'd say at the end of Combat, so you can hire them whenever and they sit around until the fight once. This aids defense I guess, which is probably good.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
Ronin.

-You may get these guys once your supply of units is depleted.
-The battle as a wild card and do not have to be supported.
-They go away at the end of the turn
-If you lose a battle your opponent gets the ronin and may use thema gaisnt you on the next turn. Then they go away.

How does that sound?
this post was written before my last comment about Ronin but I didn't read it until after. So like I said, I don't like having to be out fo guys to get a Ronin.
I don't really like the Wild Card aspect either- are they jacks of all trades? Arhing, swordfighting, and spearing?
I DO like that they don't have to be supported.
I like that they go away, though I'd say 'go away at end of combat' so once hired they will fight for you exactly one time, never zero times (and never twice), but not necessarily in the turn you hired them. So it could be good to get them for defense.
I don't like that your opponent gets them and THEn they go away. It might work mechanically if your opponent gets them, then next time they fight you get them after that (always passes to opponent after a fight), but I don't know if thta worls thematically. I think it's best that they leave (you hired them for a combat, they fought, they leave).

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Quote:
A tile that transitions from Plains to Hills would have plains on the edges at one side and hills at the edges on the other- this would be functionally similar to a split-up tile that has 'plains' on one half and 'hills' on the other (there'd be 6 "edges" of each tile, if you see what I mean, so you could even do the carcassonne thing that way).

I didnt want to add terrain to the game to keep it somwhat simple. I think i will take out the roads though. I will need to go back and change the tiles however.

Quote:
Probably needs another ability? Why not make him a unit type? It makes sense and works well with the mechanics as they are.

I might do that but I felt that a 4/6th chance of hitting was too powefull. Dont you think?

Quote:

Is this to say that you didn't like the trade off for Ronin?

Also, the reason I was thinking thatt he cards should give 2 units is that you could never get all three that way, and more importantly if you need an Archer (for example) you might have cards that get you 2 Peasants, or a Swordsman and a peasant, but no Archers. This works your way as well. if it's always 3 units. I assume/hope your cards aren't sometimes 2 units, sometimes 3 units, sometimes 1 unit... that would be really bad.

I think a few have 2 and a few have 3. Why is that so bad?

Quote:
I was considering suggesting that the terrain have an effect on movement... like if you are moving 'downhill' you could move an additional space. This could apply to roads instead. I think it's not a bad idea.

If I do add terrain I wuld want to keep it simple. Since terrain is such an obvious choice maybe I should think about it. But I need to keep it simple. What woould be the different terrain? And what would each do without overcomplicating the game?

Quote:
Ok. Just things to think about...
1. If it's at the beginning of the turn then your unsupported Samurai can still defend you (could be good or bad for the game, depending)
2. Cards that give you 2 peasants and 1 archer can't be played if you have no rice capacity? I think you should be able to play them, but only get to place the Peasants (the Archer would simply not be placed).

Yea those 2 things were what i intend to do.

Quote:
this post was written before my last comment about Ronin but I didn't read it until after. So like I said, I don't like having to be out fo guys to get a Ronin.
I don't really like the Wild Card aspect either- are they jacks of all trades? Arhing, swordfighting, and spearing?
I DO like that they don't have to be supported.
I like that they go away, though I'd say 'go away at end of combat' so once hired they will fight for you exactly one time, never zero times (and never twice), but not necessarily in the turn you hired them. So it could be good to get them for defense.
I don't like that your opponent gets them and THEn they go away. It might work mechanically if your opponent gets them, then next time they fight you get them after that (always passes to opponent after a fight), but I don't know if thta worls thematically. I think it's best that they leave (you hired them for a combat, they fought, they leave).

I really like the idea of them being wild cards, because they kind of where jack of all trades. I also like the idea that they stay untill they fight then they leave. However, i think using the cards to get them is too easy. How about you get one each time you explore?

Quote:

I wonder what that does to retreating... do yuo have Retreating in your rules at all? If so, how does it work? I would think if you COULD retreat, you'd probably have to move to an adjacent space without enemies in it (so if you're surrounded you can't retreat... which makes sense). But I guess your retreating troops could also 'teleport' to your castle or something

The retreating army would have to retreat into a friendly tile.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I might do that but I felt that a 4/6th chance of hitting was too powefull. Dont you think?

I don't think 4/6 of a chance of hitting per roll is too much considering to get that you need to (a) either risk your Daimyo or (b) Spend extra resources on the temporary Ronin, as well as also maintain 1 Peasant, 1 Archer, and 1 Samurai. If you only get 5 units per tile then I think that's plenty tough to do.

In fact, suppose you took all my suggestions, and you end up with an army of 1 Archer, 1 Ronin, 1 Daimyo, 1 Peasant and 1 Samurai and you have the advantage of higher ground. In that case, you would auto-hit (unless the defense has the terrain-type advantage in which case one unit type would be invulnerable to 6's- note, that defense bonus I mentioned presumes thatthe attacker chooses casulties).

So if you get ALL THAT going on, which risks losing the game because you Daimyo is exposed, then maybe you should Auto hit. Note that since combat is simultaneous you might still lose some units.

I did just notice 1 problem with this... the defense will necessarily only have 5 units, so auto-hitting would wipe them out (especially if you can gang up). However I think that can be either ignored (accepted) or handled another way which I'll probably talk about in another post regarding who participates in a combat.

Quote:
I think a few have 2 and a few have 3. Why is that so bad?

If that's the case it might be ok. I was worried that it would be possible to get a bunch of sinle units while your oppoennt gets a bunch of tripkle units.

Quote:
If I do add terrain I wuld want to keep it simple. Since terrain is such an obvious choice maybe I should think about it. But I need to keep it simple. What would be the different terrain? And what would each do without overcomplicating the game?

Personally I think the initial suggestion I made would not be too complex. Actually I made two, and they could both be implimented in some way together I think.

1. Plains, Hills, and Mountains. Each 1 'level' higher than the next as far as Higher Ground is concerned. You can move up or down 1 level, you can attack up or down 1 level, but you can't move or attack from Plains to Mountains or vice versa. If ever a Plains space is next to a Mountain space (either on the same tile or on neighboring tiles) that would be like a cliff face, and treated as a barrier.

2. There could be different Terrain Types- probably 3. In each terrain type one of the unit types would get some benefit. Perhaps a defensive benefit like suppose you have to roll a 4 or less to score a hit. In Terrain Type A (which we'll say is associated with Archers) a 4 cannot hit an Archer 9a 3 or less still can). So if you roll two 3's and one 4 you score 3 hits, but only 2 of them could be Archers (because the Archers are immune to the 4). So if I have just 3 Archers then that 4 doesn't score a hit.

Note: this presumes that the attacker chooses the casulties.

2alt. instead of #2 above, there could simply be some terrain that is 'more defensible' then other terrain (like I described, but ALL unit types on defense get the bonus. In other words If you normally need a 3 or less to hit, in a 'defensible' terrain you'd need a 2 or less.

There could also be 'vulnerable' terrain where you get a bonus to attack (4 and less hits when 3 or less would normally).

Quote:
I really like the idea of them being wild cards, because they kind of where jack of all trades.

I think they're too good if they get First Strike, and especially if they get the option of First Strike or extra hits. They're already pretty good, so I don't think they need the Archery ability- and of course they'd never be a peasant anyway. Note: they already improve hit chances by adding a unit type (I suggest they count as another unit type for a number of reasons)

Quote:
I also like the idea that they stay untill they fight then they leave. However, i think using the cards to get them is too easy. How about you get one each time you explore?
Is that any less easy? Unless only some tiles have Ronin, but then it might be too much luck of the draw. You should definitely have to spend a resource, and the only resources you have are your units. So the only thing s I like are geting 1 Ronin instead of 2 or 3 guys from a card, or trading 2 or three guys into a Ronin.

Quote:
The retreating army would have to retreat into a friendly tile.
And if there isn't one then they can't retreat, right? I think that makes sense.

There's one more thing I thought about regarding who can attack/defend. i'll put that in a seperate post.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Who attacks, who defends?

I was thinking about who's on offense and who's on defense exactly... what do you think of this idea? Note that it presumes the "2 square spaces per rectangular tile" idea, though it could work probably just as well if the rectangular tiles are each 1 rectangular space.

1. The active player designates the space occupied by an opponent that they wish to attack.

2. Attacking player's units adjacent to that target space are considered attacking.

3. Defending player's units adjacent to any attacking unit are considered defending.

4. Attacking player's units adjacent to any defending unit are considered attacking... and so on.

5. ALL attacking units and ALL defending units are considered in the combat. For simplicity, rolls are not specific to any particular unit.

6. Retreat Announcement. Either side may elect to retreat. The retreat does not occur until after the combat rolls are resolved. To announce a retreat there must be an unoccupied or friendly space adjacent to the attacked space.

7. Archery Fire. For each Archer in combat on their side, each player rolls 1d6. Hits are determined by the variety of your attacking force. For each hit rolled remove any enemy unit involved in the combat (attacking or defending) adjacent to one of your Archers. Each Archer can only hit once, so if you have 1 archer on one side of the battlefiels and 3 more on the other, the lone Archer can hit 1 enemy adjacent to him, but any other hits must be taken from spaces adjacent to the other Archers.

All Archery Fire is simultaneous.

8. Melee combat. For each non-Archer in combat on their side, each player rolls 1d6. Hits are determined by the variety of your attacking force. For each Samurai Swordsman or Ronin [[i]even this may be too powerful for Ronin... maybe they should simply improve your hit chance!] unit on your side you may re-roll 1 missed roll[/i]. For each hit rolled remove any enemy unit involved in the combat (attacking or defending) adjacent to one of your units. Each unit can only hit once, so if you have 1 unit on one side of the battlefiels and 3 more on the other, the lone unit can hit 1 enemy adjacent to him, but any other hits must be taken from spaces adjacent to the other units.

All Melee combat is simultaneous.

9. Units removed from combat due to hits are returned to their owner's supply (Ronin are returned to the Ronin supply).

10. Retreat! If announced before combat this round, a retreat occurs. All units in the Attacked space (targetted at the beginning of combat) move to an adjacent unoccupied or firendly space. Defending units in spaces other than the Attacked space do not move.

11. Victory! When an attacker has won a combat, either due to attrition (all units in the Attacked space are removed) or due to retreat, they must move at least 1 unit into the Attacked space from an adjacent space.

I think that covers everything. I tried to be really detailed about how I thought it could work, and as I typed more bits kept popping up so I went ahead and went through the whole thing.

The important bits are that you are fighting over a particular space (or tile). Anyone adjacent to an opopsing unit in the fight can (and does) join the fight. So if there are enough units and their placed right, the whole board could be involved in a war, while most of the time there will just be a little skirmish involving 4-10 or so units total.

What do you think?

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

I have read all of your ideas and I have made up my mind on a few.

I dont want terrain.
I am going to take out the roads to make laying tiles easier.
I like the idea of combat in which the defender and attacker may react.

Ronin are a wild card, but they do not get the benefit of attacking during the archer round (However they may count as an archer type for combat purposes)

However, I still do not have a satisfactory way of acquiring ronin.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
While the cards are random and different i dont think that it realies on luck too much. Here is why. The cards have 2 or 3 units that can be placed. If I play a card that says recruit 2 spearman, than I place 2 spearman on the board. The most powerfull of the cards really isnt that much different. It lets you recruit 1 of each. So you can see that there really isnt any powerfull card and each card is almost equal.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on use of the word "powerful" here. When considering only the number of units placed on the board, getting 3 vs getting 2 may not seem like it's much more powerful, as it's not strictly speaking better to have 3 units than 2- depending on the units. Of course the more units you get to put into play, the more rice fields and villages you get to control, so drawing the "better" card is directly related to winning.

Also of note, if one card (a) has 2 Spearmen and the other (b) has 1 Spearman, 1 Archer, and 1 Swordsman then look at their relative power in combat:
(a) Add 2 dice to combat, improve success chance by up to 17%
(b) Add 4 dice to combat, improve success chance by up to 50%
And both of those cards seem to have the same cost. I would not call that "almost equal".

IF the cards are to be unbalanced, then that might be OK- BUT the method of getting and playing them would have to be different- maybe a face up pool of three cards, and if you choose to recruit then you choose from that pool (better might be just 1 card face up, so it's not always easy to get just what you want).

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

I want to add a deck of cards that can be drawn either using a action or winning a battle, these cards can do things like support more units for a turn etc... What do you think?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I want to add a deck of cards that can be drawn either using a action or winning a battle, these cards can do things like support more units for a turn etc... What do you think?

I think if you do that you might consider putting the reinforcements cards into that deck.

As for reinforcements, I think they should only be placed in a village you control. So before you can cash in Reinforcements (or Recruits) you not only have to be able to support them with Rice, but you also have to control a town (so basically you recruit members of this newly acquired town to your army)

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I have read all of your ideas and I have made up my mind on a few.

Sounds like your game is developing quite well!

I like the concept of trading resources for ronin, but (assuming I didn't miss something in the posts) there are no real "resources" that players have available except rice paddies (not a collected resource to be spent, used to indicate how many samurai a player can have) and cards. You could allow players to discard any two matching cards to hire a ronin. You could, of course allow a player to just discard any two cards (specifically ones that allow players to gain combat units), but requiring that they match may even out the benefit of having a ronin.

You could also have a limited supply of ronin (nowhere near 47!! ;) ) available at any one time. That nnumber would be limited by the supply of ronin figures available (maybe 5-10??).

sedjtroll wrote:
1. The active player designates the space occupied by an opponent that they wish to attack.

2. Attacking player's units adjacent to that target space are considered attacking.

3. Defending player's units adjacent to any attacking unit are considered defending.

4. Attacking player's units adjacent to any defending unit are considered attacking... and so on.

I like the concept of attacking from adjacent tiles instead the combination of moving into a tile to attack it and only being able to move 1 unit in at a time. The system of stacking all adjacencies into a single combat situation could get quite extensive and unwieldy pretty quickly. It is for that purpose that I would rather see combat take place in a single tile with units moving into that tile to attack units already on the tile. You could have either cards or a modified movement mechanic that would allow more units to be moved at once (so a player would be able to move more than 1 unit into a tile that already contains 5 units and also so that a player could retreat more than 1 unit at a time if he's being devastated in combat).

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:

Samurai Swordsman - Roll 2 dice in combat

This is deceiving. You say elsewhere that they can't score 2 hits. I'd rephrase it "re-roll a miss" to represent that they are very good swordsmen and will hit more often than the Archers or Peasants.

Quote:
Combat is fought in rounds. The first round only 1 unit from each side is committed to the battle. The second round 2 MORE units are committed to battle. The third round 3 MORE units are committed. So theoretically if no one dies their could be 6 units in battle during the third round.

I don't understand the purpose of this at all. Not only does it not make intuitive sense, but it also kind of goes against your plan to encourage diverse forces. I don't see any benefit to this.

Quote:
Another thing to note is, while armies are small battles can be large because of multiply armies attacking

I also noted that while attackers can pile up on a defending army, there can only ever be 5 units in the defending army (by defeinition). So saying "battles can be large" is a bit deceiving. Unless you mean that they can be massacres (20vs5) instead of small skirmishes (5vs5)...

- Seth

Anonymous
A little info about my samurai game

Quote:
This is deceiving. You say elsewhere that they can't score 2 hits. I'd rephrase it "re-roll a miss" to represent that they are very good swordsmen and will hit more often than the Archers or Peasants.

Roll 2 dice is better, but in the end it doesnt matter how that is phrased.

Quote:
don't understand the purpose of this at all. Not only does it not make intuitive sense, but it also kind of goes against your plan to encourage diverse forces. I don't see any benefit to this.

This represents the slow build up of battles. I like it.

Quote:
I also noted that while attackers can pile up on a defending army, there can only ever be 5 units in the defending army (by defeinition). So saying "battles can be large" is a bit deceiving. Unless you mean that they can be massacres (20vs5) instead of small skirmishes (5vs5)...

I am going to use the above model in that the defender may move units from a friendly provence in to the tile that is being attack. Thus combat would work like this.

1. Attack moves any units into the tile being attack. All tiles that are adjacent may help.

2. Defender may move friendly units that are adjacent into the tile being atttacked to help defend.

3. Battle is fought.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
A little info about my samurai game

galeninjapan wrote:
I am going to use the above model in that the defender may move units from a friendly provence in to the tile that is being attack. Thus combat would work like this.

1. Attack moves any units into the tile being attack. All tiles that are adjacent may help.

2. Defender may move friendly units that are adjacent into the tile being atttacked to help defend.

3. Battle is fought.
That seems more fair for the defender. However what happens when the battle is over and there's nore than 5 units in the space? Perhaps just having that all units in the contested space or in any space adjacent to it are considered in the combat?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut