Skip to Content

Position Modifiers Expained

Position Modifiers Expained

Here are what I like to call Position Modifiers. Depending on the position the Group/card is in will determine...

1). How hard it is to attack this position

2). How hard is it to attack from this position

This is either called your Defense Position Modifier (DPM) and your Attack Position Modifier (APM) respectively.

When an attack is initiated, comparing your intended value (whether you are attacking or defending) will show how much Resources/power/Action Points it will cost to engage.

The closer you are to your deck the better DPM you have (further from the enemy = harder for enemy to attack), the further you are from the deck the better APM you have (closer to the enemy = easier to attack)

Even though it doesn't physically look like you are getting closer to the enemy this system is based off of a non literal grid I guess you could call it. Distance is based off of numbers (modifiers) instead of an actual grid. And these numbers are easy to calculate (and manipulate).

For example:

A group of three units from the first position declares an attack on the enemies first position. Comparing the modifiers, the first position has low APM of 1 where as the enemies DPM is a 6! The difference is a whooping 5. For every unit on the position you must pay 5 resources TO EVEN START AN ATTACK. This is great for preventing annoying early rushes (this does not mean there won't be strategies that can).

Another example:

Position 5 attacks position 3. P5 has an APM of 5 and P3 has a DPM of 2. The APM is higher than the DPM so the attacker does not need to pay anything. The conflict/battle begins.

Comments

Something *novel*

TBone - good job in bringing something *NEW* to the table.

But I have some comments...

  1. If I choose #1 to attack #6, we are facing each other. Shouldn't the modifier be zero (0)?
  2. I think if you found a way to document those types of relationships, the system might be more useable.

What I would like to see is things like "0" modifier: for 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, 3 vs 4, 4 vs 3, 5 vs 2 and 6 vs 1.

Every card to the RIGHT is a PLUS attack bonus: so 6 vs 4 would be +3 bonus.

Every card to the LEFT is a NEGATIVE attack bonus: so 1 vs 5 would be a -1 penalty.

What does this do (You must be wondering)?

The idea is that with a playmat, you can position the cards in such a way that a RUSH is NOT POSSIBLE: 1 vs 1 = -5 penalty. Difficult for initial cards to spar against each other.

But 3 vs 2 = -2 penalty (not that bad).

I THINK this system is easier to implement (LEFT = -X, RIGHT = +X and FACING = 0). And I believe it might still give you the benefit your were looking for: players building up their cards before attacking...

Feel free to comment/ask questions!

Here is what I mean...

This may be MORE Functional and more Intuitive for players... It much more natural and requires LESS analysis with the various positions. Obviously the opponent has the exact same rules but they are simply from the other direction.

Here is a sample diagram:

Tell me your thoughts... I think you should like this solution because it greatly simplifies what you are trying to do... Overall SIMPLER math and easier to document and explain!

Another diagram to explain further

Here is another diagram to explain how SIMPLE this bonus/penalty modifier really is:

Feel free to use it. At the moment, I don't have any good duel games in progress that could use such a mechanic. You may have more of a need for it!

Best...

From the opposite side of the table

The following diagram shows how Player #1 (Deck 1) sees the similar point values associated with the bonuses and penalties:

You inspired me to create this system, it is what I believe to be a simplified version of what you were trying to do...

Hope to hear some feedback from you... I hope you like it! :)

Feedback

It is very funny... Because I was very close to trashing this system due to its complexity (I had a whole page filled with equations... It was hurting my head).

Originally I was going to allow as many positions the player wanted but that didn't make sense... It would be as though the units decided how big the "map" was. EH! wrong. So I decided to go with the number six because it added room for variance as well as simplicity and conservation of space.

I like the design. So what you are saying is from the position if the player were to attack from straight across the modifier difference would always be zero. And from left you get a reduced advantage where as from the right you get an increased damage.

For the most part from a 1 vs. 1 stance this would be an easy comparison. But with this system I'm not requiring players to "face" each other. So players would have to compare from different angles at times. This allows for fluid game play; avoiding restrictions that force players to set up in a rigid fashion.

But... Looking at your 3rd position and saying "okay player three... Your plasma tank is protecting your depot in position five and I need it gone! Your DPM is 2 and my APM is 3... I initiate an attack!!"

This just got me thinking... (if you've ever played Ares Project I suggest you take a look because my "conflict" system has a similar starting to its)
If you have a positive modifier against a defending position the defender should place that many units out first (as opposed to the attack placing all of its units first)

Why is this an advantage? Well if one of your units has an acidic quantum laser I don't want him near my Armored units, so seeing where he places that allows me to place my Tank out of range as opposed to putting my tank out first and the defender choosing to put a counter near my tank.

Thank you for your input! I did not expect anyone to comment on this picture honestly. It was for another thread!

http://www.bgdf.com/node/15914

Simpler positioning system

Tbone wrote:
It is very funny... Because I was very close to trashing this system due to its complexity (I had a whole page filled with equations... It was hurting my head).

Originally I was going to allow as many positions the player wanted but that didn't make sense... It would be as though the units decided how big the "map" was. EH! wrong. So I decided to go with the number six because it added room for variance as well as simplicity and conservation of space.

Well SIX (6) is a GOOD number. Why? Because STANDARD dice are d6s! So you can have *other* cards which require you to ROLL a dice to understand which position is affected by the card. AND this is VERY COOL because it opens up a plethora of card possibilities.

For example: "Buff" = give +2 modifier to d6 position.

So as I said SIX (6) is a FANTASTIC choice for a number!

Tbone wrote:
I like the design. So what you are saying is from the position if the player were to attack from straight across the modifier difference would always be zero. And from left you get a reduced advantage where as from the right you get an increased damage.

EXACTLY: it's simple but effective.

Tbone wrote:
For the most part from a 1 vs. 1 stance this would be an easy comparison. But with this system I'm not requiring players to "face" each other. So players would have to compare from different angles at times. This allows for fluid game play; avoiding restrictions that force players to set up in a rigid fashion.

So your game space is open to movement? Personally I think this would be very good in a duel game (like you mention 1 vs. 1). But it may have other applications - that is for you to determine...

But this system FAVORS building up your army - because position 1 vs 1 = -5 modifier... Not a good idea! ;)

Right...

It promotes build up but like any game you would be able to create a rush deck but again you would trade stability and strength with agility and quick attacks. There is a lot you can do with this system.

For example:

You could cast an "Event" card called "Trenches" that could prevent enemy cards from moving into position 6.

I love brainstorming because it shows how powerful this system can emulate an actually grid.

I love everything about it!

Easy as pie

The assumption of how the system should work is that in order to be in Position #6, you MUST ABSOLUTELY have six (6) units in play. You just can't decide that Card #3 will move to Position #6 because you want it there...

But again if you have six (6) cards in play - maybe your "Event" card makes sense in that you cannot SWAP positions with another card in play. Like take that Card #3 (In Position #3). Normally you could require a COST to move Card #3 to Position #6, and the cost would be 3 Points (6-3 = 3).

Then you could have an "Event" card which prohibits moving into Position #6. This makes sense to me: "Cannot swap cards to Position #6". And that can last X turns ... or if a counter card is played... Whatever... You can think up of more "Action/Event" cards as you like...

Syndicate content


image | by Dr. Radut