Skip to Content

an idea for a new card (and board) game- need some help!

4 replies [Last post]
arachnid
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2010

hello everybody!

so my game goes like this (its compiled of all sort of thing i`ve seen elsewhere and thing i thought of myself):
2 factions (black legion- the bad guys and the silver brotherhood- the good guys).
5 types of cards- hero cards, solider card, support cards, spell cards and special ability cards.
each player gets a number of cards at the beginning of the game and in each turn he can preform 3 actions- place a card,
attack or defend (each player has action points [AP], and by defending he gets an action point).
placing cards:
each turn a player can place a card face (and takes another from the pile). hero cards are placed face up, all others- face down.
each hero can recruit up to 4 soliders (from the same faction. players can have different heros from different factions, only a heros soliders needs to be from his faction) and each solider has attack strength, defense, speed, and initiative (represented with numbers) and can use 1 support card (weapons, abillities etc.)
each hero can get spells and special abillities. each placing, spell and abillity costs action points.
when a player attacks, he chooses an enemy "army" to attack and the the battle takes place on an hex-grid board with minitures and a dice (kind of like heroes of M&M games). the winner can take all the support cards to himself (the soliders are lost and the hero is kept as a prisoner, until the other player buys him back).
that the overall picture.

i`ve tried to test-play the game but ran in to a few problems:
1. the starting of the game is slow and boaring! placing or defending (to earn AP) is not so intersting.
2. noting prevents player from attacking at the very start, which makes the batte dull from lack of soliders or high level abillities.
i`d really love to hear what you all have to say about the idea and about the problems i had.
i might have more problems i`v not yet encounterd, if you can give me a "warning" about any other problems in these king of games, that will be great.

thx all.

GrimFinger
GrimFinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2008
arachnid wrote:i`ve tried to

arachnid wrote:
i`ve tried to test-play the game but ran in to a few problems:
1. the starting of the game is slow and boaring! placing or defending (to earn AP) is not so intersting.

How long does it taker to place the starting units?

arachnid wrote:
2. noting prevents player from attacking at the very start, which makes the batte dull from lack of soliders or high level abillities.

That's why you make rules. Make the game start in either a mobilization phase, or a truce, or characterize things as being on the brink of war. Give players a certain amount of time or turns, before the actual shooting war starts.

arachnid
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2010
thx for the comment

1. it takes several turns because each player defend to earn AP`s or place cards. this stage is kind of boaring. on one hand, i cant let a player start with too many AP`s (or can I?) but on the other hand, a player need quiet a lot of AP`s for battle (to cast spells etc.)/
2. making the start of the game the mobilization phase- thats what makes the beginning kind of dull! but on the other hand, no preventing a player from attacking means he can attack with a much stronger force (becouse the other player was busy defending or whatever). see what i mean? the balancing of these rules and mechnics are my problem.
if anyone has another good advice- i`ll be thankfull.

JustActCasual
JustActCasual's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2012
Strategic speed and strategic engagement

I'm a little confused by what you're listing as your problems: on the one hand you're saying that the beginning of the game is too boring because of an abundance of preparatory actions, while on the other hand you're saying that the beginning of the game is too exciting because of an abundance of attacks...

It sounds like this is just a balancing issue: currently the strategy of an aggressive rush at the beginning of the game is overwhelming the strategy of defending and building up to 'powerful' actions. Part of the solution here is to make sure the defending strategy has the tools to stay competitive: it should be possible to mount a sound defense by the time they are usually attacked. Another possibility is that players are favouring the aggressive strategy because the defensive strategy is DULL: no matter how strong defending for a bunch of turns to build AP might be as a strategy, players just don't want to sit around bored. The solution could be to add more variety to defensive measures and make them proactive: rather than just raising shields you could have different options to control enemy movement (walls, slowing effects) and counter specific enemy actions (block missiles for example). This keeps players engaged in the defensive strategy, and thus more players will attempt it, regardless of its power level.

arachnid
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2010
JustActCasual wrote:I'm a

JustActCasual wrote:
I'm a little confused by what you're listing as your problems: on the one hand you're saying that the beginning of the game is too boring because of an abundance of preparatory actions, while on the other hand you're saying that the beginning of the game is too exciting because of an abundance of attacks...

It sounds like this is just a balancing issue: currently the strategy of an aggressive rush at the beginning of the game is overwhelming the strategy of defending and building up to 'powerful' actions. Part of the solution here is to make sure the defending strategy has the tools to stay competitive: it should be possible to mount a sound defense by the time they are usually attacked. Another possibility is that players are favouring the aggressive strategy because the defensive strategy is DULL: no matter how strong defending for a bunch of turns to build AP might be as a strategy, players just don't want to sit around bored. The solution could be to add more variety to defensive measures and make them proactive: rather than just raising shields you could have different options to control enemy movement (walls, slowing effects) and counter specific enemy actions (block missiles for example). This keeps players engaged in the defensive strategy, and thus more players will attempt it, regardless of its power level.

i think you got it wrong.
"defending" means not makeing any action and earning an action point. its not an action in the battle phase.
i`ll clearify- the game runs in two phase, card placing and battle. in the card placing stage, each player can preforme 3 actions- place a card on the table before him (a new hero, upgrade a placed hero by placing soliders, spell or abillities. or place weapons to upgrade an army`s soliders). btw- weapons, spells and abillities are called "support cards".
a player can also "defend" meaninig- not do anything and earn an AP or attack. a player can decide to defend 3 times in his turn and the earn 3 AP. got it?
now, when player decides to attack, the game goes to the battle phase- each player place his minitures on the board (a hex-grid board) and the battle begins (with a dice and the abillities of each army). i hope i`ve made it clearer.

now, i had an idea to start with each player getting more cards, placing some of them prior to the start of the game and then begin the game, swiching the first turns from placing new cards to modifing and upgrading the armies that where already placed. then if a player thinks his got what it takes for a rush attack, he can do it (and the opponent can defend himself properly).
what do you think? will it work?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut