Skip to Content

Changing a rule, your opinion?

7 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Due to some imbalances, that are caused by selective player choices. I feel that one of my rules needs adjustment and could change the entire game for a better. But I am not sure which one to pick, it will be a players preference.

This regards a wargame, where each region is limited in space. Units take up this space. Some are small units, others are big.

The old rule was to help zero ranged units in still being able to apply combat.

The old "+1 range rule":
If a region is just 1 out of range. And your unit cannot fit in that region. That unit gets +1 range.

The problem with this rule is that the smallest melee units have the least chance in getting this bonus. Especially the defences that are melee. Big units with a lot of range had the most profit, while they don't really need it at most times.

3 Possible solutions for adjusting this "+1 range rule":

A
If the unit cannot move, then the "+1 range rule" always applies. After all, they cannot fit in another region?
--> All defences have +1 range by default now.

B
Instead of applying the old rule to every unit seperately. Now the region where you fire form is divided in 2 groups. Group 1 still fits, but once they are in; group 2 would not fit. All units in group 2 would be getting the "+1 range rule".
--> All units have +1 range. But after a while, it would be recommended to players to move 1 closer.

C
A and B are both applied.

Which one would you prefer, and why?

andymakespasta
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2015
Can you supply a description

Can you supply a description on how the game is laid out and played, what melee and range means mechanically, and if you can move and shoot in the same turn?

adversitygames
adversitygames's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2014
I'm not sure why you have the

I'm not sure why you have the +1 range rule in the first place.

What's the purpose of it? What are you trying to achieve with it? That would help inform a decision on how to change it.

My guess is something like:
With the stacking limitations players have difficulty getting units into combat, so this was added for occasions where players can't get units into combat but they are still gathered around the combat and should really be able to fight.

Tbh it sounds like you should just increase all attack ranges by 1 generally (so melee units can always attack adjacent enemies). Then if a unit can't get close enough to attack: too bad. Wait until there's space.

Option B sounds really complicated to apply. You're effectively doubling the number of "spaces" in a region, which I imagine being a mess to manage. It's also quite vague: "after a while", no criteria for how to count as group 1 or 2.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
andymakespasta wrote:Can you

andymakespasta wrote:
Can you supply a description on how the game is laid out and played, what melee and range means mechanically, and if you can move and shoot in the same turn?

I shall explain a bit more about the game in general.

The game board is a field of hexes. Just like ASL. Here an example of ASL:
http://api.ning.com/files/gKwFI-YBjn9zIJ697cduma1iC0BKc*pAVn98AI281d0RKM...

However, my game has more choke points, cliffs etc.
Every hexagon can contain only a few units. If the hexagon is maxed out, no units can join that group any more. Nor enemy units can go through that region or position themselves there.
You can literally imprison someone by simply blocking all escape path's.

Range is how far an unit can shoot.
1 means an adjacent region (the first ring).
2 is the most common range.
And the furthest range used until now is 9.

Melee is simply 0 range. And also very common. Examples are: mines, barbed wire, swordsman, flamethrowers, bombers etc.
Originally, this meant that they only could fight units in the same region as where they where standing.
Which happens only 1% of the time for most units.
Mines really are an exception to this, but are passive since players move not into such regions.
Bombers are the best 0 ranged units, since they fly above an region.

Units can either move or attack in 1 round. This costs 1 action point. A player has 7 to begin with. But if you pay enough, you can do both, costs is 3 for doing both.

iamseph wrote:
I'm not sure why you have the +1 range rule in the first place.
What's the purpose of it? What are you trying to achieve with it? That would help inform a decision on how to change it.

It only happened like 1% of the time that melee units could fight back in normal combat. If a player has a tight formation, all melee units where rendered useless.
It was back then, when I though to adding +1 range to everything.
But there where 2 things stopping me from that.
- Mines and Bombers don't really have 1 range. You have to stand on top or really close for those units to have effect.
- When you are the only one standing in a region adjacent to a region with for example barbed wire. You cannot be hurt by it either. I imagined that you would be standing at the far most position within that region.

--> Which leads me now in discarding option A.

When a region is filled, some units could not do this. They are kinda forced to be standing closer to an adjacent region. Where the enemy also has units that are closer. I imagined that from both sides, you have something like -0,5 distance. I translated this into +1 range for the attacking side.

Which is like your own answer:

iamseph wrote:

My guess is something like:
With the stacking limitations players have difficulty getting units into combat, so this was added for occasions where players can't get units into combat but they are still gathered around the combat and should really be able to fight.

iamseph wrote:

Tbh it sounds like you should just increase all attack ranges by 1 generally (so melee units can always attack adjacent enemies). Then if a unit can't get close enough to attack: too bad. Wait until there's space.

Which is problematic since players simply choose to have as much as possible units in one region. During play tests, this happens 99% of the time. And those games where not fun.

How about imagining 2 melee forces against each other? I don't think there would be much fighting.

iamseph wrote:

Option B sounds really complicated to apply. You're effectively doubling the number of "spaces" in a region, which I imagine being a mess to manage. It's also quite vague: "after a while", no criteria for how to count as group 1 or 2.

You are right about me being vague. That has always been my biggest problem.

Well, half way through writing this response, I decided to go with option B.

Which is the most logical choice in all ways. But how can I explain this to players in a more understandable way?
It isn't like there are really 2 groups. So it would be going something like this:

You have your region with 5 (melee) units. And the enemy is standing in an adjacent region.
The enemy has still space left for 2 units. Since you have 5 units in total, not all of your units will be able to fit into the enemy territory. You choose 2 units that will not get the +1 rule. And 3 who will.

If you want all your units to be able to attack. The remaining 2 units indeed have to move into enemy territory.

***

Thank you for responding.

andymakespasta
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2015
Why don't you just make

Why don't you just make swordsmen and mobile units have range 1,
and mines, wire, bombers etc still have range 0?

I Will Never Gr...
I Will Never Grow Up Gaming's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2015
andymakespasta wrote:Why

andymakespasta wrote:
Why don't you just make swordsmen and mobile units have range 1,
and mines, wire, bombers etc still have range 0?

That would be my suggestion as well.

If a rule only applies 1% of the time you should always ask yourself why you need to have the rule at all. This (the +1 range rule) seems like an over-complication to me.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I did some playtests

The complexity of this game is 20 pages at the moment, so please, don't worry about the complexity of the rule. But worry about the logical effects on the game of the rule. This game is only played by some heavy wargame veterans. Nor will this game ever be for sale.

I Will Never Grow Up Gaming wrote:
andymakespasta wrote:
Why don't you just make swordsmen and mobile units have range 1,
and mines, wire, bombers etc still have range 0?

That would be my suggestion as well.

If a rule only applies 1% of the time you should always ask yourself why you need to have the rule at all. This (the +1 range rule) seems like an over-complication to me.

I did consider this +1 range as default for all units, and tested it as well. In the far past, but today as well.

Mobile units already have more use since they can move around.
Barbed Wire and Mines are locked into position.
The result is, that these units are utterly useless without the range of 1 in either way by rule or by default.

And yes, with 1 extra range for all units. They are now of more use in relative aspects.
So your suggestions has a positive input.

Please allow me to correct one of your statements:
I never said that the rule applies only 1% of the time. I said that there is only 1% of the time that a player moves into the 0 range of mines/barbed wire.
Thus, this rule would be needed 99% of the time for these units.
But still, you are right that I need consider the need for this rule. Or simply make a default adjustment to the game.

***

I also did some play tests regarding the new rule. My buddy remained positive about it. And over complication is luckily not the issue for the 2 of us.

And ehm, during play tests another factor comes to mind why melee units are melee. There are ridges between the hexagons. When a melee unit is behind this ridge (especially shooting downwards). A range of 1 sounds illogical (especially the swordsmen, barbed wire and mines). And I have to admit: The +1 range rule results in the same illogical way to some extend. But it weighs waaaay less.

So now shooting downwards is also an issue for my "melee" units.

With the rule however:
Close to the ridge, you can sweep your sword a couple of times. If the opponent is a bit further into the region, you cannot. A range of 1 implies you still can hit though. While with the rule, you can hit only a few times before the enemy takes distance once room has opened.

***

In the end I am stuck between 2 options:

Option 1 (easy route)
The rule is discarded.
Range is the number of hexagons in between, not the number of hexagons away.
This will however, give illogical situations.
The game is easier in rules.

Option 2 (logical route)
The rule is applied.
With the game being provided in 1 extra strategy/choice for the players, during game play.
The illogical situations are way less.
There is a rule to learn.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thank you for your time

The choice has been made.

With 2 people responding here, and 2 who like to play test. It was easier done than said.

The people who actually play test with me, rather have the logical approach. They don't mind counting units that can shoot or not. So I am keeping that one.

This topic (and the other one that no one read) are done now.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut