Something between a board and a card game?

Yes, that is one of my goals.
And my other goal was honestly 6 dice tops for all the normal units.

But I design by certain rules. And while expecting a double roll of 6 was to occur for some specific unit designs...
It turned out to be 4 times as much. Not only that, but there is an overkill happening. A really big overkill. And this is due to having the game use 3 turns per force. While riflemen look normal. A burst weapon like the flamethrower is immediately too strong...
I could say that a 1 roll to hit would cause 2 hits or 3 hits with 1 damage as a result. Thus reducing the dice.
The chances on the desired roll go up. And instead of twice the costs, I could increase the costs if the roll is changed in regards to the distributed chances.

It will be more like a 6 dice with a 1/3th success roll being changed. I think the basic roll should not be touched. But the results can be altered still.
The flamethrower would be rolling half the dice. And have a doubled result per die. Then the costs are increased by 2.5.
If I divide the rolls by 3 and tripple the results, the costs are multiplied by 4.5
This way, I reduce the dice AND the damage.

With 6 dice going down to 2 dice. The weapon accuracy is not 6 but 4 instead (3/4.5 equals 4/6) I got an exceptional roll of 8 (there would be 4 flamethrowers).
Then again, I could design in such a way that the flamethrowers are 33% more expensive. And the number of dice goes down by 33%. But the weapon accuracy might go up again.

I understand. But a force can be a mix too. So, for percentages, we need a table of results. I did think of that. But it is tedious. I try to keep it to dice only.

Thanks.

But for now. I need to figure out how to reduce the damage output.

I already realized that vehicles should be having 4 health.
2 health is then solely reserved for bikers and troopers. Which would die from flame attacks fast as well.

As for the grenadiers and their 16 grenade dice...
One grenadier rolls 4 dice.
2 dice per grenadier and a hit result of 2 per die. With a cost of +25%.
1 die per grenadier and a hit result of 4 per die. With a cost of +75%.

0 vs 1 will be 1.
1 vs 2 will be 2.
0 vs 2 will be 1.

Flamethrowers have an attack range of 0. But.... they get +1 if they do not fit in the targets region. It is the bonus range rule that has helped me for more than a decade. yaaay.

So, what I am trying to say is that the minimal penalty for flamethrowers CAN BE 1.

Given that the player has no choice but to roll accuracy on this die too.

Also given that it is mentioned in the special abilities.
So the weapon will look weaker at first.

As for the increased costs.
I was thinking about having this die as option if there are more than 6 dice nessesary.

1 die per unit remains untouched.
2 dice... well, here you already get the increased costs. Since chances are that the total would exceed 6.
But...it would only be applied if a pure squad can have more than 6 dice.
Actually, this can even be applied to units with 1 die, if they cost 1...because the total number of dice would be 12. And in that regard, I should not allow such designs... so, a wall minimum cost is going to be 2 as well.
0.6 is the wall part. Barbed wire would have 0.4 for damage value...
But maybe i will anyway.

The increase of costs should reduce the better chances on the roll, in terms of damage.

If there is only up to 6 dice by the lesser units. The player can choose if multiple dice are used or not.
Now then, I must look at a pure squad and determine the required factor.

In case of barbed wire that costs 1 in total.
The number of dice would be 12 in a full field.
The required factor is 2.

As replacement factor, not sure. But I think an increase of 25% per die that can be removed.

5 dice would become 1, while the cost is 10.
It is more of a gamble with these weapons.
But the good result is also more devastating.

That said, the 0.4 should become 0.32
And I doubt the barbed wire can stay at a cost of 1...
A "takes only 1 damage per hit" is still possible.

If your squad needs more than 6 dice:
You have 2 things to modify for that turn.

1. You divide the number of dice of the same type, until you get under 6 dice.
2. The dice that get divided by a factor, will get an increased chance on the basic roll.

/1 gives 2/6
/2 gives 3/6
/3 gives 4/6
/4 gives 5/6
/5 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the basic roll.

***

Simple huh? Well, that is only the beginning.
And keep in mind, the following is a summary of my findings.

---

There are several units that require this rule, even at 1 unit.
And when we have something like mines (12 dice per mine), we rather roll the mines 1 by 1 anyway.
However, it is possible that the 144 dice of a full region of mines, will be turned into just 4 damage that occurs absolutely certain. But at the cost of all 12 mines. So, I must allow players to roll multiple times anyway. And perhaps for the flamethrowers as well.

There is some down time with a mix of units.
Simply divide the maximum. And then see if some can have more dice, in case you want to take a bit more risk. But also get rewarded by more damage on average.
So far, a mix of 1 or 2 flamethrowers, a flame-atv and then 3 or 1 rifleman is possible.

***

The same can be done for a weapons accuracy. But there are a lot more flavours here:

1/6
/1 gives 1/6
/3 gives 2/6
/5 gives 3/6
/7 gives 4/6
/9 gives 5/6
/11 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

Yikes, 4 primes. But then again, 1/6 rolls are really stupid. I prefer only 4/6 and 5/6 if nessesary.

2/6 is like the basic accuracy.
But like I said, these are stupid.

3/6
1/1 gives 3/6
3/5 gives 4/6
3/7 gives 5/6
1/3 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

This time, a prime is reduced to 3 dice instead.
3/6 is rarely used. Might as well divide the dice by 2 and double the accuracy for the weapon. But perhaps the unit is a specialist that has an odd number of projectiles. Like 5...or 7.

4/6
/1 gives 4/6
/1.5 gives 5/6
/2 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

5/6
/1 gives 5/6
/1.4 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

***

At last, if it is really nessesary. Penalty rolls can be adjusted too.

A penalty of 1, is 5/6
A penalty of 2, is 4/6
A penalty of 4, is 3/6
A penalty of 6, is 2/6
A penalty of 10, is 1/6

Other penalties are combinations. And treated as separate rolls as well.
3 is 1+2.
5 is 1+4.
7 is 1+6.
8 is 2+6.
9 is 1+2+6.
Either way, if you have a penalty roll of 10. Then you can turn 11 dice into 1 die, that simply doesn't roll this penalty.

In order to get a penalty of 10, or an extra roll of 1/6th. You need a melee unit target a moving unit that moves with a speed of 20. No worries, those units don't exist....
But the fastest object in my game, could be going at a speed of 57. Which would ask a penalty of 29.

I designed a Stealth Bomber.
It will go with a speed of 27.
Which will ask for a penalty of at least 14 by any AA gun.
The load can be anything.....
Given that the weapons accuracy is 6. And the drop is a melee.
O man, this will be fun. I should find a way for players to combine bodies with weapons.

Well, I discussed the mechanics about less dice on BGG.

I also tried to get a table going, but man, is that complicated.

So, I settled with the so called squad roll.
Which starts at d6 is 2 or less is a hit.
Divide a number of dice by (1+n). And the chance of the roll goes up by (2+n)/6 for those dice.
Practically, every 5 dice, you have 1 die that is added to the pool. After the squad roll is rolled.

Also, I am going to allow at most 12 dice.
The maximum number of dice that a player could end up with is 48 for the flamethrow infantry. And these would turn into 3d6 + 9.
Which is, at most, 12. :)

Except for 2 things.

ONE
Deciding on the first "package".
What I want in it.

Going for infantry and tanks. Thus 4.

Obviously Barracks, a Factory, Construction Yard and a Supply Centre. Again 4.

Further more, 2 different walls. However, you buy them as a package.

Then 2 defences, which are both more or less in a form of support. This means the walls need to be used to give them more durability.

I got 4 units and 8 buildings.
Perhaps I add 2 to 4 more units.
Specialists if you will.
So far, the movement speeds are 0 or 2.
The attack ranges are 2 or 4.

***

TWO
I also devised some new rules for having different force sizes. Simply for making the game fair.

If one design gets an attribute to get to a bigger size. Then another design will have a smaller size. It has to even out.
25 with 23, 27 with 21, 30 with 18 etc.

The most important rule here is that the tracking of said forces is simply having the designs in that force. And thus the force gains the attribute of the design on itself.

Since the SC (Statistic Cards) are going to be used. I need to track the design size somehow. Perhaps normal is small. Turned is big. And the pair that interacts is together as a cross.

The Barracks and Factory will have a placing distance of 0 or 1.

The rules of placement include:
- the placing distance provided by the building. All are 0 to begin with.
- the movement speed of the unit (and yes, structures are 0), which is given only once. Not twice, nor trice.
- a +1 rule on the placing distance if thenstarting location doesn't provide space for said unit/structure.

A construction yard has a distance of 0.
If the spot is filled, surrounding places will be filled. The base can expand, but 1 spot at a time per round.

Thinking about having an HQ that will provide building construction AND resource managment.
A mix if you will.

***

Resource managment will be build up by supply points.
Thinking about a reversed cumulative effect.
1 point supplies 1
3 points supplies 2
6 points supplies 3
10 points, 4
15, 5
21, 6

Seeing as how 24 is a limit per design. And the hq will have half of its points. I could get to 12+24=36.
This equals to 8 per round.

This is a good number, since the production of units is 1/3th of a complete set.

Barracks will be 4x6=24. Thus, 8 worth in infantry can be produced per round.
If the player wants tanks or defences instead. A choice has to be made.

Production will be in total 36, thus 12 at most. If the player safes up resources. This will be no problem.

Depending on the number of factories a player wants, 1 or 2.
18 or 36 in total. Thus, 6 or 12.
With 8 per round. The player seems to be saving up 2. Well, 1 unit will cost 8.

***

Main goal is to have the player build up the base a bit, in 2 to 3 rounds.
Then a force. 2 to 3 rounds.
And this force will be able to destroy an enemy force in only 1 to 2 rounds.

In between, some time is needed to move. With the lowest speed set on 2 for now. This is a distance of 6 per round. The fastest is 4, thus 12 per round. I think 12 would be a good distance here.

I need to playtest this.

5x 5 is the first design... That ends up larger than 24 points. Just by 1.

Either, we have 4x5 +4.
Or we have 3x5 +9.

That 9 design is almost twice as strong.
But that 4 design is weaker, why not the 4 design all the way??

So, we only should add stronger designs for balance.
Soon we will have combinations that cannot be added.

Further more, the stronger version will only be doing more damage. You rather give these cover with the weaker units.

15 > 9.
And 10 > 9.
So, this is ok.

***

6 is ok.

7 needs 4x7 is 28.
So, we have 3x 7 + 3....
Right, only stronger versions.
2x7 + 10.
14 > 10 for cover.

8 is ok.

9 needs 3x9 is 27.
Only 9 + 15 is possible.
We now enter the realm where the weaker version cannot give cover to the stronger version.

Unless I start applying the size adjustment rule.
I have to keep this in mind for the fiture as well.

10 and 14.

11 and 13.

12 is ok.

13 and above reverse the situation. These will be single units. And the other design can be anything as addition. They don't have to be the same in terms of anything. Well, maybe the same goal in mind if you want to have a balanced faction.

Returning back to 5 health and the threshold mechanic.
If I go with cards or miniatures, is yet to be seen.

But the squad roll is removed.
The damage roll returns.

And the reduction of dice can be done through these damage rolls.
001234 is 10/6. Let's look at the sum, which is just 10.

If we want to cut the dice into half. The punishment is less damage per die than expected.

2 to 1, gives 0+1+2+3+4+5 or a sum of 15.
3 to 1, gives 0+0+2+4+6+8 or a sum of 20.
5 to 1, gives 0+2+4+6+8+10 or a sum of 30.

Or.... and I personally need to accept this.
Number of dice divided by (1+n) gives a damage roll of
d6 +n -2

1: 10
2: 15
3: 21
4: 27
5: 33
6: 39
7: 45
etc.

It isn't exact, but still similar. And the penalty for having too much dice is less.
What does this mean for a flamethrower with 6 dice?
d6+6-2 Is actually d6+4.
The player can roll 4+5+6+7+8+9.
The average damage is 6.5, the original game has 10.

1 Kill on an infantry is almost acertained. 2 kills was normally, but now impossible. But..... actually, it is just 1 kill. Since it is now just 1 projectile. No matter the health of an enemy infantry unit.

I need to test this. Then if it works, I will go for the second suggestion.

Right. I got 5 value's at the moment for the game.
1, 2, 3, 6 and 9.
Their costs are 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and 4.

You need to have sufficient damage in order to break through the armor of the target.

Seeing as how each target has 5 health on average. This means that the 2 against the 3 and 9 is insufficient.
And the 6 against the 9 is also insufficient.
I CANNOT get the projectiles being split up in a threshold system.

But that is ok.

Thanks.

As for explanation. I posted both options for comparing 2 ways of the same mechanic.

Top table is the threshold version of mechanic.
Second table is more loyal to the old ways.

The outer green of each table, are the costs.
The coral and the light blue are the used values in the game.

Coral is the projectile damage.
Light blue is the target armor.

The grey area is where you need a number of hits in order to break through the armor. So a number of times using the coral in order to break the light blue.

The second portion of the tables are the relative effectivness that players will experience. You can see a beautifull RPS emerging.
100 percent is most optimal.
A lower percentage is literly a slower result.

As one can see, the threshold version has the balance tipped a bit. And it is in favor of the lower damages.
However, some effects are equal here.
The 2 and 6 damage are not an improvement in 2 occasions. And the 6 armor is also not an improvement in 1 occasion.

The other table shows perfect balance.

***

If I allow damage on the same unit to be tracked. Things might change again. For that, I need to make a new table.
But 6 versus 9 will not have overkill on the second projectile that hits.
The main question will be, how will things turn out.

Tbc

Ok, so I decided to have health return to the game.
This in order to get more balance.

But perhaps adjust the damage roll.

If I want to stick to the H/D-ratio of 3.
I need to calculate the average roll with a whole number of health in mind.

With an average roll. I can actually say, how much the total damage with a normal die roll is to be applied. Thus, a d6 rolling any number. Would result in all 6 value's added up to a total score of.... used health multiplied by 2.

***

How does this work?

If the health is 1.
I had this basic accuracy roll, later on called squad roll.
000011, or 2 in total.

So, I can also say, the health multiplied by 2 is 1 x 2 = 2.

I am aware that the die roll should be distributed as much as possible.

So, what are my options?

000012 for 1.5 health...
Well, that will NOT work.

000123 for 3 health.
As strange as it sounds.
This could actually work fine.

001234 for 5 health.
This is the one that I normally used (for a decade).
But I am re-exploring my options.

012345 for 7.5 health.
This won't work.
123456 for 10.5 health.
Again, won't work.
However, we reached the upper limit.

001122 for 3 health.
Hmmmm.... seems I got 2 valuable options.
But if I am going to apply a squad rule.
I better stick with the other one.

***

So, I actually only have a choice between d6-2 and d6-3.
Where d6-2 needs a minimum of 2 dice in order to defeat an enemy unit. Thus spread out more.
And d6-3 can instakill one target.

I cannot use both.
Seeing as how I got some walls that end up as a portion of 1/5th, but also 3/5th. I think that it is usefull to get the 3 health option.

TBC

Looks like that 3 health works well.
In regards to designing that is.
Most walls and structures got this 5/3 factor on 3, thus 5.
Perfect :)

New challenge for me.
The HQ.

So I got this design rule for myself. Something that players don't see.
And that would be that production has 50% in the body and 50% in production. Actually, just 50% costs if you will.

Also, attributes are key. And perhaps I need to change a bit here.

A barracks costing 6, can produce infantry costing 2.
The factory has to cost 18 for this reason....
But I make it 24, so 1 can get a tank costing 8.

A construction yard costs 6. But since it produces 2 attributes, it produces only 1.
Maybe I should consider it to be a choice. And thus count the second attribute for 50%. So, I have a choice here for the player and for myself.
The result is 2/3th instead of half.

A supply centre produces 6 resource points.
The build up is reversed cumulative.
This equals 3 resources.
2 produce 12, thus 4.
3 produce 18, thus 5.
4 produce 24, thus 6.
This is a good balance.

***

An HQ is a combination of 1 supply centre and a construction yard. It should cost 24.
But the production is split into 2.
6 resource points to begin with.
But the construction would also equal to the construction yard.
This is only 1. From an entire HQ??

So, I need to adjust my own rule. And adjust everything.
For starters, that 50% due to 2 attributes, ups to 1.5 production.

Then, I could lower the HQ health and also the resource points a bit. Thus allowing the production to get even higher.
12,12 becomes 8,16.
So, 6 production is now 8. And the 1.5 becomes 2.
Resource points go down from 6 to 4. This gives 2 resources. And when all supply are places; 24+4=28. Gives 7 resources.

Ok, this can work.
But the construction yard needs to cost only 2 now??
From 6 to 2. Well, 1 health remains.
And the 1.5 becomes 0.5...

Would players be able to apply 0.5??

Either way, in order to....
O wait, the factory is a minimal of 18. Oops.
I think I need to change this too.

Ok, 2+ 0.5*CY where CY is at most 12. We get 8 construction points.

Perhaps the factory should cost 8 then??? Or less is even better. I got a new challenge here.

I used to have the HQ being overkill.
Maybe I should just do that instead.

So, we did some games with a HQ, mobile HQ, other stuff to keep rebuilding the base. But it all goes with downtime. And once the egg is cracked, the goowie comes out anyway. The egg gets cracked fast with the current rules. No feast of walls to provoke and then poke somewhere else. No fodder that resemble the bunnies of rayman. No impregnable (you read that right) wall of anything exoctic like mines, massive tanks or just....walls.

***

With the removal of "reproduction" of the production.
I see no use in having a base that can be rebuild either.
So, I need to design the maps in such a way, that a player needs to hold at a chokepoint. And only press on, if the next can be reached.
The units can be produced. And what we do is allowing the player to place a base first, that is complete. Production facilities do not request resources, you can simply place the maximum allowed.

If a base is gone, its gone. So, a couple of bashing units can chip away.
But a smart attack will not longer be possible. With that, I mean the smart attack that gets one of the gears done in.

Resource managment = Structure placement

Those 2, are 2 gears, if one is gone, the other surely will crumble fast.
Best targets where the construction yards, over and over. And you couldn't build that fast, once the enemy was at your doorstep.

So, why even allow to fight the inevitable (ok, I am sure I spelled that one wrong for reals). When the base dies, the base dies. When the enemy can chip away, so be it.
Actually, I might as well think about this too, the production goes down if the barracks are lost. Perhaps, still a limit to resources.

O well, maybe just having the base pre-build is already the best step. The players simply re-build when needed. But they can simbase build in one go.

So, barracks, factories, walls, defences, resource managment and construction yards might stay.
And combine this with the chokepoints.

***

The group disbanded.
And the pieces....well, let's say, where no fun.