Too much fidling?

Ok, let's assume that I use the 8 combinations of the classes.
(And I should not forget to have accuracy play a big role in helping me balance the game)

I should compile a list of possible cards first. Then select a few for a little explanation again.

I do this, so I can test how easy/hard it is to design new cards in "vanilla" style.

I could copy AoW3. However, they only have 1 type of wall...the wall.
Some other games have multiple walls. I guess, I should design my own units first.

Then I come back here later with some cards for the explanation of the combat.

Just remember:
- A player that attacks will exhaust those cards that are in the attack. When the opponent is in turn. The exhausted cards cannot defend.
- Chips come in the ammounts of 1, 3, 9, 27 etc. A player can choose to roll 1 or 3 dice for every chip, except for the chips of 1.
- There is a basic accuracy roll of 3/6th. This due to the health to damage ratio of 2.
- If damage hits, it has to be equal or higher than the target armor, in order to destroy an opponent.
- A damage of 3 cannot be divided among 3 opponents with just 1 armor. This is my hidden RPS mechanic.

Again...

This time, I have the normal calulation.
But then I factor in the yes/no situation of if anything can shoot back.

If every design costs 3.
Where
9 equals
3+9 equals
3+3+9 equals
etc.
Or an infinite salvo of 3.

I do some math by calculating an average from the normal cost calculation. And then the total damage calculation.
This way, a salvo weapon will do more damage in time. But it can never become infinite.

Now the costs of the list is:
9 gives 3 and becomes 3
3+9 gives 4 and becomes 3.5
3+3+9 gives 5 and becomes 4
etc.
The infinite salvo will cost infinite.

Now to see if I can get nice round figures where all weapons cost 3...
9 equals
4+6 equals
0+3+9

Well, those are the only 2 for the weapon cost of 3.
The 4+6 does 1 more damage...
The 0+3+9 does even 3 more damage.
(The numbers are round)
Where the original design would give 3 or 6 more damage in the given designs.

If I think about it. The salvo of 2 design is 6/7th. And the salvo of 3 design is 3/4th.
The total damages in this regard are 10.3 and 11.3 respectively.

The salvo of 4 design has 2/3th. This is funny, because we get 2+2+2+6 instead of 3+3+3+9. Yet the total damage is still higher than the original 9. It is 12. Which is very acceptable.

My options are very limited. But at least I got the math solution ready.

Now for testing the other options before making a decision.

I have been pondering about this for a while.

I wished to have 1 deck. Just like MtG.
But if the deck is like 60 cards. It would not leave much room for having variation.
Just keep in mind, the deck can be recycled.

If each card is used 4 times. We have only 15 in total.
15 minus the HQ, extra construction, extra resources.
We are left with 12.
1 type gives 11 of that type.
2 types gives an average of 5 per type.
3 types gives an average of 3 per type.
4 types gives an average of 2 per type.
And this is still excluding defences.

Players might want a "perfect" deck. No weaknesses...

Let's say that the defences are types^2+types. Just to mirror the units. The defences are body*weapon combinations and we got the walls too.

15 minues 3 is 12 left.
1 type requires 1 defence, 1 wall. 9 remain for units.
2 types requires 4 defences, 2 walls. 2 units on average per type.
3 types requires 9 defences, 3 walls. This is over limit.

What if there are only 3 cards per version?
Then we can have 20 cards.
1 tier allows for 14 units.
2 tiers allows for 4.5 units per tier.
3 tiers allows for only <1 unit per tier.
Of course, some defences could be left out.

What if there are only 2 cards per version?
Then we can have 30 cards.
1 tier allows for 24 units.
2 tiers allows for 9.5 units per tier.
3 tiers allows for 4 units per tier.
4 tiers allows for <1 unit per tier.
With this, the 2nd card would only be used in order to increase the one on the table in power.

Possible, but retarded...
1 card per version.
60 cards in total.
tier 1: 54 units
tier 2: 24.5 units per tier
tier 3: 14 units per tier
tier 4: 8.25 units per tier
tier 5: 4.4 units per tier
tier 6: 1.5 units per tier

With that one, tier 5 could allow for 3 ground types, an air type and something special. Like another ground type or a secondary air type.

I once designed a deck of 120 cards. Which is double.
Which would allow for reïnforcements on any card without having to loose it.

***

I am speaking of tiers here. And counting the air as a tier as well.
My intention however is that infantry are tier 1.
Then we have tier 2, which are light armored.
Tier 3 is, medium armored.
Tier 4 is, heavy armored.

I need to find a way to allow troopers to be in tier 2. Without having too much to do with attributes.
I could have different costs?
Or maybe better. Only the attributes; organic/mechanic.
Where a trooper is organic. And needs a structure that produces organic units.

Perhaps I should simply keep the tiers as guidelines like how I intended 2 decades ago.

Tier 1
Weight 1
Infantry units
They have 1 armor point
Any weapon that hits, kills them. A super cannon with 1 hit will still kill 1 infantry unit.

Tier 2
Weight 2
Light vehicles, example: jeeps pr other light armored cars
They have 3 armor points

Tier 3
Weight 4
Medium vehicles, example: light tanks or heavy armored cars
They have 9 armor points

Tier 4
Weight 8
Heavy vehicles, example: heavy tanks
Armor 27

***

The current system:
Tier, weight, armor or weapon
1, _1, _1
2, _2, _3
3, _4, _9
4, _8, 27
5, 16, 81

2 of 1 will give 2 times 1 damage, not enough to kill 3 armor. But can kill 2 of 1 armor.
1 of 2 will give 1 times 3 damage, enough to kill 3 armor. But can kill only 1 of 1 armor.

I used to have another system. But it didn't work well with a card game.

Tier, weight, armor or weapon
1, 2, _1
2, 3, _2
3, 4, _4
4, 6, _8
5, 8, 16

Still, now that I am using chips. It might be fair to use the second system.

Tier 1 needs 5 times the value in order to defeat one tier 5.
With the 2nd system, this factor is 4...
Not much to argue about that tbh.

You are combining 2 things here.

I should have used asterix between the 2 answers.

Air is an attribute.

Now we move on to that factor 5 and 4.
These are RPS sharpness between the tiers.

Through math, they come forth naturally.

If a weapon does 1 damage. And it costs 1.
Then the damage you need is the cost you need.
On the other hand, the target armor is higher than the costs of that armor. A tier 5 armor costs 16, yet has 81 armor in system 1.
In system 2. The damage of 1 costs 2. The tier 5 armor costs 8, yet has 16 armor.

The damage you need in system 1 is 81 armor divided by cost of 16, is roughly a factor 5.
The damage you need in system 2 is 16 armor divided by the cost of 8, mutliplied by the cost of the damage. This is exactly 4.

Now, if you use a tier 5 weapon.
In system 1, you have a cost of 16 and you target a cost of 1. The factor is 16.
In system 2, you have a cost of 8 and you target a cost of 2. The factor is 4.

You roll a die for the basic accuracy. This is a 3/6th chance. Every !@#$-ing card has this for each projectile. Period.

Variations:
- Maybe a fighter has a lower tier of weapon. If the weapon hits. It doesn't mean it can breach through the armor. You will be needing more fighters for this.
- Maybe a fighter has multiple weapons. More dice are rolled at the same time.
- Maybe a fighter has a slow aiming. It has to wait that sub turn. But after, has a much better weapon if the other fighter failed.
- Maybe the chance to hit is less. A hit will be re-rolled to see if it still hits.

Strategies with the lesser species:

If a fighter needs a tier 3 weapon (9 armor needs to be destroyed). Yet the tier is only 2. Then you need 3 of these fighters to hit the target. The good part here is that if you loose 1. You only loose 1. The downside to losing 1 is, you cannot reach the threshold anymore. But you can still defend with them.

To make this cheaper, a fighter could have the ability to shoot at least 3 missiles. So you would have only 1 fighter doing the shooting at the target. 3 missiles have only a chance of 12.5% in this regard. If you use 4 missiles, the chance is 31,25%. And with 5 missiles, the chance is 50% again. The good part here is that the same fighter will be able to kill 2.5 fighters with tier 2 armor.

What if one fighter shoots at once. And has 3 projectiles of an accuracy of 1.5/6th? If you need a hit, the chance is 42% on this.
Well then, another fighter could have only 1 projectile with an accuracy of 1/6th or 17% chance to hit. Then, if it survived. It will be shooting another projectile of 1/6th. Then once more of 1/6th. And finally the 4th missile will have a very good chance of 3/6th. Imagine the target dodging the first 3, yet it cannot avoid the 4th one. But the total chance would be 46%.

(This reminds me. Perhaps the yes/no questions needs to be reduced from 50% effect to 25% effect...)

I am not tracking health (or damage if you will).
I am working with thresholds.

3 armor to destroy?
You need 1 hit of any weapon that does 3 or more damage.
Or 3 hits of 1 damage.

And because i use chips, i am even pondering if i should go back to my old rps system. In this topic, i have mentioned it as system 2.

I don't think you have noticed it yet. But higher armor automatically means, much toucher.
If something cannot be hit because it is air, an atribute is used. I don't have much atributes.

***

How chips work?

If you place a card on the table.
It has a certain cost, lets say it costs 4.
The play might have 34 resources at that point.
It can buy up to 8 units.
Then chips are used.
2 chips with worth 3 each.
2 chips with worth 1 each.

Now, if this card attacks or defends. All units are used at the same time. It is a big attack.
Lets say each unit is allowed to ise 2 dice.
Then the player can use 4 dice for the 1 chips.
And 4 dice for the 3 chips.

If a die for a 3 chip hits, this is 3 damage at once. Needed for killing a higher armor tier unit.

This die that hits for 3 damage is not allowed to be split up into smaller ammounts. So if it hits and only 1 armor units are present. It will have over kill.

I did say once that chips could be split into 1 lower tier. But in this given example, you are already dealing with 16 dice in that regard.
And if chips of 9 or more are used, this will give birth to a snowball effect in a build up. Unless the resources are limited greatly.

So in the meantime, i am looking into dice tricks to do this differently. Just like the penalty rolls. I don't think i can find a solution by repeating things over and over here.

I have to say, it was starting to be a real bother to me.

A sniper would be needing a higher chance to hit though, so a sniper would be getting 2 dice rolls of 50% each. Parrallel, so 2 hits would actually kill 2 infantry cards.

If a piece would die instantly and can't do a thing. Like some wooden fence. Then I want it to be a good fodder. So specialized weapons are the choice of the enemy to be dealing with all those fences.

In the proto type game. Walls could stop units from moving into a certain territory. The walls would also be used by any unit or structure. And their price would be ridiculous cheap. 50% that of something similar that actually could shoot on equal grounds. And 30% compared to a basic unit.

In my card game, I got the same percentage. 50% costs compared to other defences. But even 25% compared to a basic unit.

Walls are the way to give health to any structure in my cardgame.

There aren't many RTS games that implement walls correctly.
Dune 2: walls price is based on health like any other unit. Movement influences aren't there...
C&C: walls are more durable due to RPS mechanics. But still overpriced. And are actually used for scenery.
AoW3: these are used to wall out at chokepoints. They are placed very fast. But it takes time till they finish. Often they are easily demolished. And still very expensive.
WC2: hehehehe, here... believe it or not. Where very usefull.
KKnD: had no walls, but if they had any. I bet they would have been very cheap. But very durable. Because... they did something right that all other games failed in. They considered focus aspect of practical balance.
Warzone 2100: take time to build. But once ready, they actually keep out the enemy for a long time. They also protect in a lot of cases, what is behind that wall. Cheap too. A turret that costs 400 could easily be protected by a wall that costs only 25.

Nice video at the part where the d7 appears again.
Lewisher???? You seeing that?

... D22, wtf?

But it is true, smaller dice are better for the game.
Then the usage of charts or tables...is something I don't want. Just an ammount of dice that are rolled and give a result that is a number.

There is a list of the chance for success, roughly though:
Y=0, 6/6th chance
Y=1, 5/6th chance
Y=2, 4/6th chance
Y=4, 3/6th chance
Y=6, 2/6th chance
Y=10,1/6th chance

Maybe... just maybe. I could make something where the higher penalty starts rolling. And lower penalties are added later on...???
After all.... an accuracy of 3/6th equals 4 penalty rolls. They all have this roll.

Example (each set is equal):
10 dice with penalty 4
12 dice with penalty 5
15 dice with penalty 6
20 dice with penalty 8
30 dice with penalty 10
60 dice with penalty 14

A penalty of 3 is 120% that of the default penalty 4.
A penalty of 2 is 133% that of the default penalty 4.
A penalty of 1 is 167% that of the default penalty 4.
A penalty of 0 is 200% that of the default penalty 4.

Either way.

Let's say, I got the set list as a whole to roll.
Then I start with the 60 dice with penalty 14.
I do a penalty roll of 4 on them. Which will be 3 or less for succes.
Half seems to remain, which is 30 dice.

I add the other 30 dice with penalty 10. A total of 60 in the bucket.
Now I roll a penalty of 2 on them. Which will be 4 or less for succes.
4/6th seems to remain, which is 40 dice.

I add the 20 dice with penalty of 8. A total of 60 in the bucket.
I roll again for a penalty of 2 on them.
4/6th seems to remain again; 40 dice.

There are only 15 dice to add this time. The total comes to 55.
A penalty of 1 is the next step.
46 dice seem to remain.

12 dice are added. The total we have will be 58.
A penalty of 1 should be rolled.
We can keep 48 dice.

Finally we add the 10 dice. And we are going to roll 58 dice again.
Although, a penalty of 4 has to be rolled this time.
So we can keep half again. Which is 29.

29 hits in 6 rolls is the end result of the 147 dice. But we never had more than 60 dice in the bucket.

Remember, this will be per target. But perhaps I need to change that aspect of the combat mechanic as well.

I can keep the die colour per tier.
Tier 1, red
Tier 2, orange
Tier 3, yellow
Tier 4, green
Tier air 1, blue
Tier air 2, purple

I have been thinking about including this penalty roll in the total penalty score. But it would make the game unfair. Even the strongest weapon should have a chance to miss. Since the durability of 2 needs to be maintained for balance.

That the penalty goes down by exactly 1. Is a super coïncidence. It only applieds for the first and second shot. Not the second and third and so on.

Every hit does 3 damage. But with the fragmentations, multiple soldiers could be hit. If the same fragmentation takes place on vehicles or tanks, the damage would simply be much bigger.

I am very curious about the chances of kills with these 6 examples. I will convert the penalties in simpler rolls, just like in the game. The rule here would be, getting the highest possible penalty reduced to 1 roll. But... the big butt is that the rolling player is allowed to roll a higher possibility if the same ammount of rolls are present. I need to include the better rolls in the manual for sure.

"4" = 3/6th
"8" = 2/6th x 4/6th, but 3/6th x 3/6th is 12,5% better.
"10"= 1/6th
"3" = 5/6th x 5/6th x 5/6th, does give the best chance...prepare a "2" in that attacking force.
"3" = 4/6th x 5/6th
"7" = 2/6th x 5/6th
"9" = 3/6th x 3/6th x 5/6th

Note: The chances on killing will be higher with the units that need a charge. I assume these are protected by other units that also where able to shoot. Thus they do not die. Because in a 1 on 1 match, there is a chance they did die, and the chance on killing their opponent would be less.

A]
25.0% on killing 1 tier 1 or 2 armor.
B]
21.9% on killing 1 tier 1 or 2 armor.
1.56% on killing 2 tier 1 or 2 armor.
C]
21.0% on killing 1 tier 1 or 2 armor.
1.91% on killing 2 tier 1 or 2 armor.
0.06% on killing 3 tier 1 or 2 armor or 1 tier 3 armor.
D]
27.8% on killing 1 tier 1 or 2 armor.
E]
23.9% on killing 1 tier 1 or 2 armor.
1.93% on killing 2 tier 1 or 2 armor.
F]
25.0% on killing 1 tier 1 or 2 armor.
2.92% on killing 2 tier 1 or 2 armor.
0.11% on killing 3 tier 1 or 2 armor or 1 tier 3 armor.

Now that I look at the percentages of the charging weapons. Due to the preventing of infinite strong weapons. The chances don't increase that much. So, perhaps I need to rethink the weight costs of charging weapons again. Nonetheless, if you wait an infinite time on a charging weapon, the damage is double for the same price.
Should I change the weight factor of the yes/no nature of this effect? It is 50%-50% at the moment. But if I increase the weight factor of the weapon costs compared to the weight factor of the total damage costs. Then all charging weapons would become cheaper. But above charging examples will never reach a +50% in terms of damage.
And a beautiful thing was happening. The decrease in penalties was a beautiful step of 1 penalty.
So, here is my "brilliant" idea: If one side has yet another roll, while the other side has not. The penalty is discarded for this roll.

I got a new attribute with this:
Some weapons wait infinitaly long. And cost only half. There are no penalties for these if the opponent doesn't have these cards. The attribute is: [Last]
And effectively, the penalty will be lowered by 4 and displayed.
But I wonder [Last]^infinite or [Last] ^[Last]. Would make the damage weight 0... Should I say, this is impossible because you need to wait an infinite time? Then again, [Last] itself is already an infinite time in a moments notice...