Skip to Content

A wargame, based on RTS mechanics

18 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Projectile Mission 1-1
Projectile Unit Statistics Card V1.1

A little description of my idea for a board game. I do this for hobby, but perhaps if the idea has become "perfect", I might reconsider sharing more of this game. 1 game might take 2 to 6 hours, and that is what I like.
And since I am new, I don't know if this is the right place to post. Although, it is mostly mechanics of the game. And I have no idea where to start explaining my game. And there really is a lot to explain. So I decided to begin with the basics first.

Although, real time is out of the question. Many other features in this game can be derived from the well known RTS.
I have no pictures, except for those I made in paint for some prototyping. I do have a manual (that has to be looked over after recent changes). But this manual is very long, even for the basics. The missions manual would teach players with shorter examples. And thus they slowly build up the knowledge for the complete game.

In a nutshell.
A player can build up a base, gather resources, train units, attack enemies, make use of terrain for coverage or even choke points, use event cards. Strategic options are using units as a shield for other units, certain event cards to attack from a safe distance, snipe out units, choke off resources, etc.etc. Things you see in RTS.

- The Field

You have a hexagon field/grid. Like the following:
http://www.bgdf.com/sites/default/files/images/Mission%201-1.thumbnail.png

PS. I find placing pictures on this forum, rather odd. Is there a better way to do this? Like placing them where they belong?

A field can be randomly placed. But for 1 or 2 players, I am planning to have missions.
The hexagons have sides of 4 to 6 cm. I am still pending on the sizes.
However, the map is 1 big hexagon as you can see. Some missions can contain 2 or 3 of these big ones.
The manual will contain a map with the total "world".

- 1 small Hexagon

Will be containing several units. But limited depending on how strong they are. 1 Field can hold worth of 3600. Prices of the units might vary between 30 to 3600. And ownership can be of several players. It will also have to contain health/experience/upgrade counters on each of the units. On average, 1 hexagon can contain about 40 pieces and counters.

- The units

The pieces are simple cardboard, no 3D stuff. Think of soldiers, vehicles and tanks from games like Red Alert. The same goes for structures and defences like towers, turrets, set ups and mines.
For now I use the pictures from Red Alert for most of my units.
Rifle Infantry, Grenadier, Rocket Soldier, Artillery, Light Tank, MRLS, etc.

There will also be a statistics card on these units.
This contains for each unit: armour value, health, movement speed, agility (dodging enemy bullets), damage, damage multiplier, accuracy, weapon range.
Almost every statistic will be a strong and weak point at the same time.

Example of fights in general:
Each unit will have strong and weak points. If you are facing combat tanks, you could use rifle infantry and rocket soldiers. The rifle infantry will be taking the cannon fire, while the rocket soldiers provide you with the needed fire power.
However, the enemy might counter this by placing vehicles in front. They have sufficient armour against the rifle infantry. But the armour is also cheaper than the rocket fire power.

- Playing turns

The turns for players and AI are in random each round. This is decided by taking numbers from a bag.
Each player can play 6 actions per round. However, they can only play 1 action at a time and the next player is in turn.
Actions can be discarded.
An action can be used for moving OR attacking.

Once decided to move; all the other players decide if they pay an action (or more) for attacking this moving force. This in turn of the players. This way, players can run out of actions before others. But only for defensive purposes.

Once decided to attack; the target decides if he/she wants to defend. Defending costs an action too.
I will explain the combat in another post. And it will be made clear why mixing up squads will be so important.

After killing units, experience can be placed on the surviving ones. Depending on how much has been defeated. After all the turns, experience can be used for upgrades. And new units, structures can be placed too.

In the very end, each player can draw an Event card.

- Event Cards

After the first turn, the first event card comes into play. These kinda work like the cards in Magic. I have though up of 34 different kind so far:
1 Assault
2 Guerilla
3 Backdoor
...
32 Triple Trouble
33 Haste
34 Haste Permanent

Players can play them at any time, unless the card tells otherwise. And they can be used in combination too.

Here is the Unit Statistics Card that is used for the current game design:
http://www.bgdf.com/sites/default/files/images/Unit%20Statistics%20Card....

zedword
Offline
Joined: 10/27/2013
I, too, am working on a RTS

I, too, am working on a RTS board game!

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
maths

I like the idea, the map, simple cardboard units, etc. I'm a bit scared by summing values of 40 units to see if the sum is less than some big number. Are you sure about that part? Did you try it a few times? Did anyone else try it? Did you consider having fewer units, or much simpler stacking limits (or no limit)? Also it sounds wrong to limit units by cost, as opposed to say total size.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I left out 1 important

I left out 1 important feature of my game.
That is, any unit, really any unit can take the first hit.
Of course the melee weaponry cannot fire back if they are the second line or further away. Same goes for the 1 ranged units. They need to be in front or in the second line, to be able to fire.

Second important feature of my game.
The fire power of a tank is just as much against an infantry, then it is to another tank. Meaning, you need 3 shots on the infantry and 3 shots on the tank. However, the infantry unit is usual 6 times as cheap. Therefore you can have 6 infantry units or 1 tank. You need 6 times more shots for defeating the infantry.

Quote:

I like the idea, the map, simple cardboard units, etc. I'm a bit scared by summing values of 40 units to see if the sum is less than some big number. Are you sure about that part?

It is 40 pieces. But not 40 units. But you might be right that it is to much for the players.
3 units: 1 unit could have 2 damage counters. Another has 1 experience. Yet the third one already has bought 3 upgrades out of this experience. That is 8 pieces. And a pile of 40 would be stable. Bigger piles usually mean lesser players, so 1 player could have 2 or 3 piles in 1 hexagon. To clearly see the cardboard. I have coloured the sides according to the type of pieces. Damage is red. Experience is green and upgrades are the other 4 colours (4 different upgrades). The unit themselves are just grey.

Players have a colour piece on top of the piles of units.

An extreme example:
The biggest pile of units would be only "wooden fences" 120 in total. For this I thought of having groups of units. Only those who have 18 or more. Can be placed in groups of 6 or 10. Especially the defence walls. However, if you want to place a big tank between these walls, there is a lot of changing needed on the board. Might as well keep the 120 as a joke. Since no one would attempt to destroy a pile of wood in the game. However, if you place them right. A choke point might get closed. And a normal tank is size 600. You need to destroy 20 wooden fences to be able to get through.

I have considered "fewer" units. Squads of "600" and other units of 600. I also thought of 900 or even 1200. Where you could have even groups of tanks. But the major point in my game is that cheap or durable units, protect the expensive glass type of units. But this proved to take away certain strategies. Like sniping out units for example. My friend suggested to have death counters. But that would make thinks more complicated. After all, only a few units really have damage counters on them after a fight. And massive upgrades is more fun to have on single units.

Quote:

Did you try it a few times? Did anyone else try it?

I think I have played over 100 small (test)games by now.
Did over 1000 calculations, no simulations to be precise.
And 3 big games with a friend (same guy each time). We both had our own designed army. First time he won (there where no event cards yet). Second time I won (still without event cards). Third time was a draw (with event cards, with experience).
I had 1 epic fight with myself. It took my weekend entirely. There was a winner.

I learned the most from the 3 games with my friend. I also suspected a huge flaw in my game. But I could not put my finger on it yet. It was after the epic fight, when I decided to put "any" unit design in a classification of units.
Meat or Support or Meat&Support or Hit'nRun on base or Hit'nRun on units. It was obviously that 4 out of 16 designs where completely useless to a player. Meaning, they would never use them. It was then (2 months ago) that I had my third stop on the project. I needed to change the math on balancing.

Quote:

no limit

We have plenty of games like that. And no limits reduces balance in a battle.
Please take note. Units are limited on a hexagon. But also in total on the map. A player can not have more then 6 Combat Tanks, nor can he have more then 6 in 1 hexagon. If he has 3 and 18 Rifle Infantry, he can also place an army like that somewhere else.
This forces players to make a choice where to place their units.

Quote:

Also it sounds wrong to limit units by cost, as opposed to say total size.

I failed to mention. In future games, there could be units that have reduced size compared to their statistics. Or the opposite could happen. Since actions are expensive when you have over 6 hexagons filled. A hexagon with more units then the usual 3600 is way stronger in the long run.

In the first game, the costs equal the statistics and equal the unit sizes.
It is only to make the game easier to understand for players.
I understand if the Sniper feels "to big" in size. Namely 600 like most tanks. While a rocket soldier (obviously needs more space) is only 300.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quote: A simple combat

Quote:

A simple combat mechanic. Where only 1 type of unit fights another. With only the numbers shown that are needed for this. Please let me know if it was, confusing/understandable but hard/doable for the pro/doable for any person above age ##.

In combat I like to roll a number of times, with each roll reducing the number of dice.
Sometimes it goes fast, sometimes it goes slow. And sometimes a player can get really lucky.
I have 4 different roll waves: Terrain influence, Accuracy, Opponents Agility, Weapon effects.

[hr]
Here are 2 examples:

An example of my 4 inaccurate Howitzer shooting against a group of Grenadiers. Who can "dodge" the fire. It is an open terrain, so there is free fire there. (Players would be stupid to be placing Howitzers behind forests and mountains.) If there would be forests or mountains. Then each region needs a separate roll wave.
Number of dice per Howitzer is 7, Accuracy 1,Range 9, Targets should be tanks.
Grenadiers agility 4, Grenadiers speed is 3 (fastest infantry)
Tank agility 6, Tank speed is 2 (average tank speed)

Let's say the attacking army allows 28 dice rolls.
An accuracy 1 out of 6. Meaning each 1 (or lower) is still on target.

Second wave of rolls only has on average 4 to 5 dice left.
Agility 4 out of 6. Meaning each 4 or lower is a hit.

Third wave of rolls only has on average 2 to 3 dice left.
The damage effect is 0, 1 or 2 with each roll. Throwing 1 or 2, is worth 0. Throwing 3 or 4, is worth 1. And throwing 5 or 6 is worth 2.
On average it is 1 per roll. So on average, the 4 Howitzers destroy 2 to 3 health. 2 is an injury. 3 is a death.

The Howitzers can shoot 3 times like this before the grenadiers are close enough to return fire. By then 2 to 3 Grenadiers have died. And that player had lost 400 to 600 points, out of the 3600.

It might sound weak, but the targets of Howitzers are tanks. Where they have not the agility to dodge the incoming fire. So there is on average always a dead tank and 1 to 2 damage on the second tank. The Howitzers can shoot 4 times before the tanks return fire. By that time only 2 heavily damage tanks might be remaining. Out of 6. You could say that on average the incoming army has only 0 to 400 points left, out of the 3600. Howitzers win!

[hr]
But sometimes I wonder about the luck factor. Throwing to many dice means that you have the average effect in 9 times out of 10. Better yet, having 4 waves gives you the average effect 9,999 times out of 10,000.

I have the exact numbers here in tables. And am creating more tables soon.

Having 1 Howitzer achieving the maximum possible damage of 14 instead of an average of 7.
You need the luck of: Damage effects gives a chance 1 out of 2187.
Not to mention that you need the right opponents, good terrain and the best accuracy.

Having the exact average of 7 in this example would need the luck of: 393 out of 2187.
That is 393 times higher!

Should I reduce the number of dice to begin with?

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
A Few Historical Oddities

I'm not bagging on your game but I have found a few decisions of yours that I find strange. You explained a mechanic that makes tanks less effective against infantry. Also this thing about howitzers against infantry reduces their effectiveness against them. The odd thing is that in war, historically, tanks' and howitzers' primary job was the support and destruction of infantry. This is why the M4 sherman (despite myths) was actually a very good tank, because it's High Explosive shell was one of the best. It was able to help the advancing GI's take out entrenched German infantry. This is the same role of howitzers (although they could be used for and were effective in large quantities in anti-tank duties).

The reason it was effective against infantry was that a direct hit by artillery was not needed to take foot soldiers out of the action. An almost direct hit was needed on tanks to do so. Once again, this is nothing about your mechanics, (because I actually like them) but on the theming of some of your decisions that I found odd and the reasons for finding them odd.

Other than those two thematic oddities though I like your combat system a lot. It allows for a lot of "dice chucking" which is always fun to do! :D

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Al right. Point taken.Even

Al right. Point taken.

Even though I said that this game plays right after the war. It is based on RTS as well. And there comes my odd decisions on the (this) tank. In most RTS, all the "basic" tanks where actually "weak" in fire power against infantry. This game feels the most with the C&C genre. However, they had also crushing infantry. Crushing infantry is an option for the future. But the first game will remain simple. No crushing yet.

A group of 6 Combat Tanks can kill 2 Rifle Infantry in 1 turn on average rolls. In the end, the Combat Tanks usually win by overkill in armour. But it does take around 21 turns.
I do have tanks that have anti infantry weaponry. The Assault Tank They can mow down 8 Rifle Infantry in 1 turn. That only takes 5 turns.

[hr]

The Howitzer.

I am still not sure if I should name it a Howitzer. With the high explosive, I thought it would be very effective indeed against anything. But with the long range, the first ones would have very low accuracy? I pictured that this cannon is also operated by soldiers. Meaning that if you take out the soldiers, the cannon dies. A Sniper can easily do the trick here as well. The Howitzer is more that of an anti tank sniper.

I also have mortars. Which ones are more effective against tanks? And which ones are more effective against infantry?
The mortars have less range, 5 or 6 instead of 9. And are now designed to be effective against vehicles. They are already twice as effective against infantry.

[hr]

My plan is a bit like having Red Alert, starting just right after WW2, but having an entire different evolution of weaponry through the story. First game should be "recognisable" with WW2 units. Until a certain point has been reached in the story.

I will post the unit statistics card:
http://www.bgdf.com/sites/default/files/images/Unit%20Statistics%20Card....
With all the names. Then you can post as many suggestions as you like.
I will also pit some groups against each other as examples to give impressions of the fights, in future posts.

[hr]

How to add more pictures to this thread?

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Anti-Tank Artillery

During WWII, Anti Tank artillery were all direct fire artillery pieces. These are pieces that were fired horizontally over gun sights (not unlike sights for a tank). This means they're not as long ranged as a howitzer. Most guns like this were were hidden with branches, leaves, and other things as they would ambush tanks that blundered into their paths. By the end of WWII, the advent of shaped charges (basically a High Explosive round where all the explosive energy was focused into a tight cone) like bazookas and pazerfausts started to dominate the battlefield. This is in part because of their penetrating power, but also because of their portability.

Because of this you don't see the traditional AT artillery anymore. Most AT weapons are now TOW missles and such. Howitzers and tanks were used for taking out pillboxes, entrenched infantry and enemy fortifications where their large HE (high explosive) rounds would destroy the enemy defenses. (Basically tanks were a way to deliver close artillery support without the worry of destruction).

The reason the tank was such a powerful weapon was that it was literally a rolling piece of direct fire artillery. In the first World War, before a charge, the enemy lines were bombarded with artillery fire. This artillery fire, because of the nature of howitzers, was generally innacurate and so it was necessary to lay waste the enemy lines. Tanks though were able to provide accurate artillery fire on the battlefield while being protected from return fire from the infantry. This means less shells are wastefully expended (saving countries money) and also improving the effectiveness of the troops. It was essentially getting more bang for half your buck.

Fast forward to WWII. Not only do the tanks in WWII perform much the same role (in blowing holes in the enemy defenses, but they're now extremely mobile allowing them to react to the enemy and bring supporting fire for your troops much faster than traditional artillery could. There is also another big advantage to tanks. While your tanks are blasting the enemy fortifications to bits, the foot soldiers could advance. With artillery fire, the infantry would have to wait for the fire to die down before advancing allowing for much more streamlined assaults on the enemy lines (which is why trench warfare was doomed).

Although there is one example of WWII tanks being what they are in your game and that is with the British tanks during WWII. The british believed the tank should be used mainly in an anti-tank role and so many of their early tanks didn't carry HE rounds. They only carried armor piercing and smoke rounds. Armor piercing rounds weren't very good at taking out static defenses nor infantry. These tanks would be great examples of the tanks in your game!

About artillery accuracy. Artillery during WWII was very much like playing battleship especially for the non-americans. A forward observer would call in an artillery strike on coordinates. The artillery would then have to calculate the distance and what not and then fire. The observer would then call in corrections. Thus (like you said) the first few salvos would be generally off the mark. Not only this but the first salvo was often delayed.

American artillery on the other hand had a genius little system set up that allowed them to call in coordinates, measure the distance and aim the battery and fire in a very quick time and not only quick but accurate. This rapid and accurate artillery support was so effective that Germans would get angry that the Americans wouldn't come and fight but force the germans to retreat sheerly through pure firepower. I could go more in-depth but that's not needed.

All this information is just to provide background for the uses and purposes of the weapons of the time.

Something to replicate the aiming of howitzers is to give howitzers an increaing amount of dice (or +1 to dice rolls sort of mechanic) for how many times they've fired on a target (or on a certain zone).

For Anti-armor weapons, I'd stick with bazookas and rocket launchers as by the end of WWII they were becoming a big player and problem for tanks. The german panzerfaust was a much dealier opponent to the American Sherman than the tiger tank ever was. In fact bazookas are the reason the idea of a heavy tank died in favor of the Main Battle Tank.

I don't know which was better in an anti-infantry role, mortors or howitzers. I believe they were both good in their roles. Mortors don't appear to have been used in batteries like artillery and so I believe they were used in a more close support role while howitzers were used for, "Hey we can't dislodge the enemy from the hill. Could you give us a plain to walk across." Five minutes later the hill's gone (That's probably a slight exaggeration but you get the picture). And I don't think mortors were really effective against tanks at all.

(Sorry for the long rant...I love WWII history! I also love sharing it!)

Tell me your thoughts!

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

Thank you for you information.
I will look into your post several times and adjust some statistics on my card.

Please have a look at the current unit statistics card that I have posted at the very beginning. Select original, and it should be readable. I forgot to add the health column. It is 3 times the armour column.

For knowing the basic effectiveness of the weapons: Place Armour versus Damage. The lowest number is the actual damage that is done to health.
So having 1 damage against 9 armour means 1 health reduction.
And 9 damage against 1 armour also means 1 health reduction.
But 9 damage against 9 armour will remain 9 health reduction.

My mortars are indeed not very effective against tanks. Only against vehicles.
A do have armour piercing type of units. The Battle Tank is one of them. The Combat Tank is supposed to be the first infantry crushing tank. But for killing infantry, please use the Assault Tank. :)

I will repost the card when I have adjusted. Taking into account, the suggestions of others.
Artillery has been increased from 600 to 900 costs. And also received (doubled) the damage points. Making it more of a support unit now.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Armor question

So the lower the armor, the better it is? By health reduction do you mean, 1 dmg against 9 armor means the defender loses 1 hp, or that the attack power loses 1 hit?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
If there is one thing that I

If there is one thing that I am very bad at. It is explaining. I think that is my major problem.
Second problem, it is actually all maths if I where to go deep into the explanations. So I need an explanation that is understandable for anyone.

It doesn't matter what armour you have, it is always good or bad at the same time.
This because the Health is 3 times the Armour. And the costs are the square root of the Damage, or Armour.
So 9 armour has 27 health, while 1 armour only has 3 health. And the costs are:

Armour of 1 costs 1, while Armour of 9 costs "3".
Damage of 1 costs 1, while Damage of 9 costs "3".
You can have 3 times Armour of 1 or 1 times Armour of 9.
You can have 3 times Damage of 1 or 1 times Damage of 9.

It is Damage that the Attacker does, and Armour that the Defender has. That are taken.
The lowest number will be the Health reduction on the Defender.
Also, Damage that the Defender does, is compared with the Armour of the Attacker.
The lowest number will be the Health reduction on the Attacker.

If a weapon of 3 times 1 Damage shoots at 9 armour with 27 health, then the 1 counts. And you do 3 x 1 damage = 3 damage.
You need 27/3=9 shots.

If a weapon of 3 times 1 Damage shoots at 3 times 1 armour with 3 times 3 health (=9 Health), then the 1 counts. And you do 3 x 1 damage = 3 damage.
You need 9/3=3 shots.

If a weapon of 1 times 9 Damage shoots at 9 armour with 27 health, then the 9 counts. And you do 1 x 9 damage = 9 damage.
You need 27/9=3 shots.

If a weapon of 1 times 9 Damage shoots at 3 times 1 armour with 3 times 3 health (=9 Health), then the 1 counts. And you do 1 x 1 damage = 1 damage.
You need 9/1=9 shots.

So the Infantry can take 3 or 9 shots depending on the enemy.
And the Vehicle can take 9 or 3 shots depending on the enemy.
Both an average of 6 shots. And the same goes for the weapons. They do either 3 or 9 turns on killing the enemy.

I hope I have made it clear and understandable.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The table that I posted. Is

The table that I posted. Is it to much for a first game?
It is exactly 1 A4.

The manual would explain each statistic in detail.
But a lot should be understandable simply by looking at it. Right?

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
o.O

Mah brain is hurting right now. *kersplode*

I think that mat is great, I just can't make heads of tails of it because I don't know anything about the rules. But it looks nice and well organized.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Al right then, lemme explain

Al right then, lemme explain the statistics.

Unit:
How the unit is called. (Might change some names)

Unit Group:
Certain production facilities produce a certain unit group.
Barracks train Infantry
Heavy factories train Tanks
Mine layer centre lays mines. etc.

Number:
Is the maximum number of these units allowed on the board for 1 player.

Costs:
Is what a player pays for training/building this unit.
In this version, it is also the size and the statistics of this unit.

Armour:
Is the maximum allowed damage on this unit for each projectile that hits.
If the incoming projectile is lower, than the Damage of the incoming projectile is used.
1 Sub T: 1 is the Armour, Sub T means it is a sub terrain unit. And the enemy only can use AT-X weaponry for hitting this unit. It also has its own dimension for a maximum of 3600 placed in a region.

"Missing column" Health:
Always 3 times the Armour. Structures have 9 times the Armour. When there are enough damage counters on this unit, it dies.

Durability:
When an enemy attacks this unit. It is what the enemy needs to roll, or less, for each projectile.
Meaning, if it says 6. The enemy doesn't have to roll, it is a hit anyway.
If it is for example 4. Then the enemy needs to roll a 4 or less for each projectile to place a hit.

Multiplier:
The number of projectiles that this unit shoots.
3 Sui. (Sui. = Suicidal) Means that this unit shoots 3 times. But immediately dies after.

Accuracy:
When this unit attacks an enemy. It is a number that this unit has to roll, or less, for hitting an enemy.
Meaning, if it says 6. This unit doesn't have to roll, it is a hit anyway.
If it is for example 4. Then this unit needs to roll a 4 or less for each projectile to place a hit on the enemy.

Damage:
Is the maximum allowed damage with this unit for each projectile that hits.
If the Armour of the enemy is lower, than that number is used.
1 AT-X: 1 is the Damage. AT-X means it can hit sub terrain units only. Each projectile also follows a path underground, like a shock wave. Unlike projectiles above ground, this one cannot cross water, but does cross bedrock/mountains.
50 Res (Res. = Resources).: This unit can carry 50 Resources for each Multiplier. All resources are 50 chips. Bigger units could carry less than allowed.

Speed:
If the unit decides to move, no more than this number.

Range:
How far an unit can shoot.
There is a bonus of 1 extra Range if this unit cannot move into that region. Meaning, if a region has for example 3000 worth of units while this unit costs 900. It is 3000+900=3900 > 3600. This unit gets +1 range.
Defences also can gain +1 range, as if they are able to move.
Production also can gain +1 range, as if they are able to move.
The main reason for this rule is that 0 ranged units don't need to move into a region any more.
Be warned, mines do not apply to this rule since they are underground units. However, if a neighbouring region is completely filled with mines, then those adjacent can join the fun too. Especially handy if the enemy moves on a region where the wrong mines are stationed.

XP:
Experience costs for increasing a certain statistic on that unit.
H/H6+ (has to be H/H3+ or better yet H+): increases Health by one time Armour. More Damage counters can be put on this unit before it dies.
D/D6+ (has to be D/D3+ or better yet D+): Increases Damage effects in the last dice roll. Normally you roll 0-0-1-1-2-2 with each projectile. Where 0 means a miss, 1 is a hit and 2 is a double hit. With one upgrade this becomes 0-0-1-2-2-3, then 0-1-1-2-3-3, then 1-1-2-2-3-3 and repeats.
Both H+ and D+ increase to 2 times the costs after 3 upgrades. Then they increase to 3 times the costs after another 3 upgrades. etc.
Speed and Range increase by 1 after paying the XP. Then the very next time the XP costs increase by SR+
NO means NO upgrades possible.

Further notices:
- Some things are better explained in detail in the manual (16 pages a bit too much?). So feel free to ask if you want details on something.
- Thinking of upgrading this card by adding another line on top of the title line. Grouping certain titles like the XP, and change this into an EXPERIENCE category. Same for WEAPONRY SYSTEM and something for anything that has to do with the units life duration.
- Perhaps I keep the XP upgrades on the D+ in 1/6ths, and effectively have to half the costs. It is possible to increase in steps of 6 with 6 sided dices. But then again, the Health has no other option than to increase 1 Armour at a time, meaning in only 3 times the Health is already doubled. Opinions about this?
- Maybe I double the costs for Health and Damage XP upgrades.
- A FAQ could be: For knowing if an unit is better in attacking or blocking the enemy. Please take a look at the H+ and D+. If D+ is higher then H+ it is a supportive unit. If H+ is higher then D+, it is a blocking unit.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Let Me See if I Have it Right

X3M wrote:
Al right then, lemme explain the statistics.
Armour:
Is the maximum allowed damage on this unit for each projectile that hits.
If the incoming projectile is lower, than the Damage of the incoming projectile is used.
1 Sub T: 1 is the Armour, Sub T means it is a sub terrain unit. And the enemy only can use AT-X weaponry for hitting this unit. It also has its own dimension for a maximum of 3600 placed in a region.

So, if I have 40 armor (let's just say I do) and you have 1 attack. You can only do one attack, but if you have 40 attack, you can do 40 dmg.

If I had 3 armor, and you had 1 attack, you'd only do 1 dmg, but if you had 40 attack, you could only do 3 dmg because that is the "ceiling" for dmg received? This is balanced out by the fact that the amount of HP has a direct relationship with the armor value?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Yes, you got it. It is indeed

Yes, you got it.

It is indeed balanced by the Health ratio.
But more importantly, it is balanced because the costs for the weapon and armour is the square root out of it.
And further more, the maximum of units also keeps balance.

Now I am going to let you in on a little secret.

Notice how I have used 1, 9 and 36 ?
They are part of a much bigger system that I could expand into.
1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 etc.
And the worth of these are:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc.

These "prices" can be noted when looking at the Rifle Infantry and the Battle Tank. All their statistics are the same, except for the Damage and Armour. The Battle Tank has 36 Armour and 36 Damage, so both are worth 6. Try pitting 6 Rifle Infantry against 1 Battle Tank. When 1 Rifle infantry has 1 Health left, it can take cover behind other Rifle Infantry. This way you will notice that they almost end up in a draw.
The fun starts when you start replacing 2 Rifle Infantry with a Grenadier. Or 3 Rifle Infantry with a Rocket Soldier. That tank wont stand a chance any more.

(o dear, I spotted that the weapons on that one are still 25 instead of 36)

[hr]
However, a first game is "the first game"

And I need to keep the amount of possible units reduced. So I had to make choices.
To keep balance in a game, I also need to combine every possible armour with every possible weapon.
You get a table of options where the diagonal represents al units that have the same amount of armour and damage.
This is a mirror. And if you remove or add 1 more possibility on one side of the mirror, you have to remove or add 1 more on the other side of this mirror.

I have 9 basic units. 3 more specialistic ones. These special units are right on top of the mirror.
The Sniper shares the same spot as the Rifle Infantry.
You can also see this in the defences: The Chain Gun is also in the same list as the Sniper and Rifle Infantry.

Exceptions are the harvesters, walls and other structures. But that is ok, they are "outside" of the table. Since they are all defenceless targets, there is still balance.

The mines and minesweepers are the real exceptions:
The mines attack the ground and stupid minesweepers
the ground can attack the "unprotected" minesweepers
and the minesweepers attack the mines.
A triangle balance like Rock Scissor Paper.

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Yes!

I understand your armor system now, although in your rule book, I'd explain it how you just did to me because while the system works, it is counter-intuitive with how most people will view how armor should work.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Kroz1776 wrote:I understand

Kroz1776 wrote:
I understand your armor system now, although in your rule book, I'd explain it how you just did to me because while the system works, it is counter-intuitive with how most people will view how armor should work.

Absolutely true. (And luckily it is like this in the manual)
It is actually more like that they are armour types than just armour.
Most games use armour as damage reduction. Others as types. However, I have the types written as numbers.

The reason why I left them in as numbers instead of using names of types and a table of damages. Is the fact that this game is expandable in any direction.

I could say that less damage is not enough to destroy the armour.
But to much damage is overkill on the armour. And the extra damage is lost.
But that would be to confusing as well.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Prototype testing has been done

Problem;
My cousin (great support) only understands my combat mechanic (core of the game) after 20 minutes of explaining and some examples. When I do explain it with life examples, it is easier to understand, than just using text. But it is still 20 minutes. Apparently I am doing something wrong... What am I doing wrong?

The very bottom of the mechanic is;
- Types of attacking/damage are 1, 9 or 36; D
- Types of defending/armor are 1, 9 or 36; A
Where the lowest number is the real damage done on the health of the unit:
- 1D is 1, 1 or 1 against 1A, 9A or 36A
- 9D is 1, 9 or 9 against 1A, 9A, or 36A
- 36D is 1, 9 or 36 against 1A, 9A or 36A

Given situation;
---> The only thing I explain to him until now are these workings of the Armor types versus Damages and the Multiplier of these Damages. Similar to previously in this thread, including the direction that Kroz has given me. <---

My cousin thoughts/experiences;
- He sees only numbers.
- He does understand the mechanic in table form with names.
- He does not understand the mechanic if only the numbers are given.
- He does not understand how I got to this mechanic by calculating.
- His intuition like anyone else contradicts with the given numbers.

My thoughts;
I think it is an easy combat mechanic to follow. Only confusing if you look at the "behind the scenes" mechanics and the intuition of players. So the direct way of playing has to be separated from the indirect calculated way. I do understand that.
But explaining only in the direct way is still way to confusing since the intuition of players contradicts the workings of my game.
If someone completely understands this system, then he/she knows it is an infinite RPS system based on weapon/armor strength and the costs of these weapons/armor. But that would be an utopia result.
If I am to explain it with the types being named instead of having a number, players do understand it in better ways. But their intuition still can get in the way. The main types are Infantry, Jeeps and Tanks. The corresponding weapons are Bullet based/Explosive based/Cannon or Rocket based.

My main questions now are;
- Is there anyone out there that has a Risk/Axis 'n Allies type of game? (links?)
- And what kind of Combat Mechanic do you use? Preferred RPS systems (direct links?)
- How do you explain this to others?
- Then... how can I improve my explaining?
-- Should I once again simplify my system? How?
-- Should I disguise my system?..: Discarding the numbers and instead labelling the types with names completely. Never to mention numbers again except the end result of damage?
- If you understand the mechanic, what would your translation to inexperienced people be?

Why do I consider this the main problem?;
I can't mass (print) produce a board game if I have to explain the workings to people in person. The manual has to be correct and fulfilling to the players. And if the main core of the entire game is too hard to understand. Why even bother making the game? It is "this" core that makes "this" game for at least "75%". As if someone doesn't know how to buy a street in Monopoly.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut