Skip to Content

ccg combat system - too complex?

2 replies [Last post]
Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009

yeah i know, there are many threads like this - but i need community help on my combat system. its for a trading / customizeable / open / living card game (like magic the gathering). the game is geared towards more realistic battles - here is the outline of my combat system, please tell me if you think it might be too complex for a ccg (where ease of play is very important).

Statistics
Cards have 4 statistics besides special abilities, that determine basic combat capability:
1. Attack - how much damage the card deals to the defender
2. Defense - how much damage the card is able to soak up before taking damage
3. speed - cards with higher speed strike first
4. health - how much damage the card can sustain before discarded

Combat Sequence
battles can be close combat or ranged combat, both procedures work the same but take place in different phases of the turn. to attack, you have to tap the attacking card (cards already tapped, cannot attack), the defender can also tap his card to counterattack (but does not have to).
1. tap attacker, nominate target, eventually tap defender
2. if defender decides to counterattack (by tapping), compare speed of cards - higher speed strikes first
3. deduct the defense of the target from the attacking cards attack attribute
4. if there are any attack points remaining, deduct the health of the target by placing counters
5. if health is less than 1, discard the card from play
6. if counterattacking and the target is still alive, repeat steps 3-5 for the combatant with lower speed

Extras
1. cards are attached to locations, melee combat can only target enemies at the same location
2. missile combat is possible on the same or adjacent locations
3. multiply attackers against one defender are possible, defender still decides whom to counterattack
4. equipment attached to cards modifies attributes, tap equipment to add its bonus
5. vehicles and mounts are also attached to its pilots/riders and provide protection and further bonus, usually the vehicle/mount has to be destroyed before the pilot/rider can be targeted. vehicles/mounts can attack individually this might (or might not) require the pilot/rider to tap. this rules section is complex and offers lots of space for game expansion. still it should blend well into the basic rules.

clean, simple and effective - what you think? good enough for a CCG?

Geikamir
Geikamir's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2011
I don't think it sounds too

I don't think it sounds too complex at all. Seems pretty straight forward and like it would be fun. One thing I curious about, whats the difference between health and defense? Wouldn't it be simplified to just have health?

Is your theme going to be military combat?

Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
@Geikamir Thank you for the

@Geikamir

Thank you for the feedback. Playtest showed that this system is really fun and easy to use. its not a revolution of card games, but that was not my intention. concerning the defense attribute:

during early design, this attribute was left out. there was a keyword called "Armor" that served the same purpose. after a while, so many units made use of the armor keyword, that it sounded reasonable to turn it into a inherent attribute instead.

another point of view are the mechanics behind: armor "soaks" up damage and regenerates itself each turn, while "health" and loss of it is permanent. you track health loss with counters on the card, armor loss is not counted, as it regenerates itself all the time.

PS: yes, its a military simulation focused on ground comat (guerilla warfare) with a little bit of heavy machinery, artillery and flyers here and there

any more thoughts?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut