Payment for a choice; Paradox

Lets begin with the first issue then. That would be 1 and 1 alone. Which immediately answers the last question.

The tank that has 2 weapons.
The player chooses during combat, the best weapon.

Other tanks have 1 weapon or shoot with both. The tank with the choice is supposed to be cheaper than the tank that shoots with both. But more expensive than the tanks that have one weapon.

It is kinda like this:
Tank A has anti infantry.
Tank B has anti armor.
Tank C has both.
Tank D has both, but uses only 1 at a time.

Tank D is the issue here. But also the fun choice. You are dealing with an opponent that has both infantry and armor. D is cheaper than C. And then relatively more effective, if the RPS is wide enought.

Units with a choice are more versatile. Harder to hunt down.

***

With the transformation. The best example would be a mobile artillery that becomes immobile and thus has more armor and firepower. By moving to a hard to access spot, it is easier when the cannon is not fire ready. Once transformed, you could consider the tank as a defence structure.

Which means in summary:
That we made a leap in progress.
But to prevent TLDR. I summarize where we are at.

The choice of weapon is depending on if there is a choice at all.

If a player switches from one weapon to the other; the advantage should be shown.
If in either direction, no advantage is shown; there is no choice.

If both directions show an advantage over the other weapon; this advantage needs to be put into weight.

Smaller advantages will give smaller weights.
No advantage will give no weight.

***

Some math

I don't know yet how to tell the exact difference. But the first basics are here.

These weapons are equal in worth:
6 * tier 1 (machine gun)
3 * tier 2 (mortar)
2 * tier 3 (dual lesser cannon)
1 * tier 6 (cannon)

1 * tier 1 (rifle)
1 * tier 2 (grenade)
1 * tier 3 (lesser cannon)

Something tells me that I need to look at the differences of both factors.
Going from projectiles to the exact same amount of projectiles is a NOGO.
Going form tier to the exact same tier is a NOGO.

So...
square root([difference in projectiles] * [difference in tier])
compared to
square root([max in projectiles] * [max in tier])

The result for machine gun and cannon would be:
square root(5 * tier 5) = 5
square root(6 * tier 6) = 6
The advantage is 5/6 in both directions.
5/6th is added to the total costs.
Or half of this, but I need to work now. More of this later.

RPS wise, it would be (slightly) cheaper to have the choice than the actually multi firing unit.

But the post before this one shows other options that are nonsense as well. Accuracy versus "rate of fire". Henceforth your quote for reasoning.

When I think about it, the double weapon unit is already an answer to those who can't make the choice and want simpler tactics.

I better stop with searching for an answer this time.

***

I wonder what I should tell those 2 that wanted this in the game?

Does make sense here.

Lot's of bullets with low accuracy would cost lots of ammunition.
Using a different weapon would also cost different ammunition. Balance would require half ammunition for each weapon with 2 weapons.

Alas, there is no ammunition in this game.

***

But you did give me an idea regarding the use of Action Points.

Old mechanic
It costs an Action Point to transform.
Units that can transform will change at least 2 statistics. Or are simply double.
Players already had 2 USC slots when they used an unit that could transform. So transforming into an equal unit would simply mean using 2 USC slots.
Units that can transform will have 2 times the exact same costs.

Expanding on Action Points, new mechanic
So why not an extra Action Point to use a secondary weapon? This weapon could be only 50% of the costs. But added to the primary weapon.
So, a multi weapon tank for less money.
A third weapon could cost 33%. A fourth 25% etc.
The starting/average AP per player per round is 7.

I think I should allow transform to be used simultaneously with another action. Best to use it as an addition action.

Fun Facts!!!!

1 - Tanks with 2 or 3 barrels of the same kind can be cheaper as well.
Simply in the difference of either being allowed to shoot with all. Or only 1 or 2.

2 - Taking risks.
Having this super orbital laser being used for 4 action points for 4 times the damage. Yet the target might not be killed. With 5 times it could have. It would be a waste of Action Points by a bad decision.
Also, other units/structures could make use of this, like a barrage from MRLS.

3 - There are now 2 variations of Tank D.
Tank Da that uses the cannon as main weapon.
Tank Db that uses the machine gun as main weapon.

4 - Super weapons with higher "cool down".
Have now a more valid way of existing.

5 - A Sam Site can now cover in high armor. And by transforming and "barrage" can it decide to take down air.

***

Thank you, you have driven me in a great direction.
Not only do I prevent imbalance in other area's.
I even had a great idea for another old problem.

Alright. The plan sounds easy. Having units that can transform in the textbased video game.

But balancing this remains almost non done. So, I rather discuss this a bit more.

***

The boardgame had action points for this. But I mostly avoided this. And had only transformations that would change the weapon and perhaps moving speed. The costs were always the same. and this method only works if the design is 100% linear.
(I guess, I should scrap the rule)

I read this topic. Can't find any other on it. And I searched through all my notes on my pc. It looks like this topic somehow was never completed.

***

For the video game. We still want this. But a choice of weaponry is not an option.
Yet, we DO WANT the transformation.

The balance I seek is a logic determination of the weight costs of the units.

Should I only allow the 2 modes of an unit costing the same?
In that case. The Mortar Infantry will be my spirit guide in this discussion.

The Mortar Infantry can walk, thats it..... Then, it can transform by deploying the mortar. It can no longer move.

So far, if I keep the costs balanced. The health of this unit is 120 when mobile and only 12,8 when deployed....

I don't like this huge difference.

And as for the transformation time. It looks like that at most, it will be 3 rounds. In other words. When transforming, the opponent has 3 rounds to move closer already.

I obviously am making a huge mistake here. Somehow, the bonus a player gets from being either a "tower" or "mobile shield" is too much if I keep it completely separated.

I don't know anymore. Trying everything step by step.
Only a few days past. And I already find mistake after mistake in this department.

So, what I need to do now is???
What stats matter? Only movement speed and health!

1 Body cost option belongs to the most expensive design.
1 Body cost option belongs to the least expensive design.

I should look at the least expensive design for what they receive as bonus.

How to keep this simple?
The cheaper version can have more or less health.
But also more or less movement speed.

It is possible that with less health and more movement speed, the total costs is:
- Less than the other body option
- Equal to the other body option
- More than the other body option

In all 3 cases, if the movement speed changes. I need to calculate for this.
Thus the movement speed (without the basis) multiplied by the total health would be key here.
If the movement speed doesn't change, but only health. The extra health is key here for sure.

I think I should make a matrix of the situations:
Movement speed is higher, health is higher
Movement speed is equal, health is higher
Movement speed is lower, health is higher
Movement speed is higher, health is equal
Movement speed is equal, health is equal
Movement speed is lower, health is equal
Movement speed is higher, health is lower
Movement speed is equal, health is lower
Movement speed is lower, health is lower

I give it a rest now. But each situation should be considered and then "calculated".

Did some experimentation.

Perhaps I didn't even calculate the bonus correctly for weaponry.

What I also need to consider is if I have the unit transform or just make a choice for weapons.

Choice on the spot
If I allow this, an unit has less weaknesses.
I need to calculate the bonus efficiency. As always.
Then take this percentage * 50% over the primairy weapon costs.

Slightly more expensive, but still fair due to the 50%.

Choice by transformation
This time we calculate the efficiency the same way. As always.
We take this percentage *50% over the secondairy costs.

Is it fair?
No.

If we look at the equal weaponry. We get the same extra costs.
This can mean only one thing.

Transformation costs needs to cost less, compaired to a normal choice.

I only realized now due to experimenting with negative bonus costs on the body.

And this is also the reason why it is so hard.

Transformation needs to cost less overall.
If a transformation is a timecostly choice.
What should the choice factor be?

What should the cost factor be?
I always used 50% for weapons by choice.
I mever implemented transformation the correct way. And it only happened when a body changed.
The body costs where always equal here.

And then I took the weapon bonus cost for granted.

A siege tank always had a mobile and an immobile mode.
Movement of 3 with 125 health and 25 armor, or movement of 0 with 250 health and 25 armor.
And the transformation costed 1 Action Point and could ALWAYS be combined with another action.
The damage to the tank would transform alongside. Obviously still rounded upwards when dividing by 2. Another option we used back then was having damage tokens of half the damage. And applied twice in normal mode.

Imagine...
If that tank didn't change with the body at all. Always that movement of 3 and 125 health.
But the choice of the weapon would still be avaiable.

A choice that costs no AP.
A choice that costs AP.

What should the cost factor be?

A choice has normally 50%.

What is a transformation?
A choice that takes time. You choose the time as well.

So, here is my plan:
I calculate the bonus for both. With the primairy weapon cost for the bonis factor.

I apply 50% for the choice.

I apply 33% or even only 25% for the transformation.

As time for the transformation:
Roundup(8 rounds * (Abs(100% bonus body)+Abs(100% bonus weapon))/Cost most expensive design) = Round in transformation time.

Transformation will at least cost 1 round.
I am sometimes a very, very mean person.
I will add an unit that needs all 8 rounds.
If it is stuck, the squad is stuck, the squad needs 1 plus 8 plus 1 more rounds to get the heck out of there.

:)

I didn't do it....
I did something else.
Its fixed now.

How to explain? I urhm....?

You always transform or make a choice for a positive reason. If the secondairy mode (or choice). Has no weapon, but a weaker body as well. It is simply a bad choice.

In fact, if the bonus cost of the body is negative somehow, despite checking all stats. It means that having a design without the choice or transformation with those stats. Is actually better. And thus, the design is invalid.

For the Mortar Infantry. I have a weapon of 266.7 points and a body of 50 points with a body bonus of another 16.7 points. This design costs exactly 300 in the game that I set up.

And the stats are as following.
Mobile: 2 speed and 14 health
Immobile: 0 speed and 8 health and a weapon.

I am allowed to go as low as 7 health for the mobile version. Simply due to that it is a mobile version. But other than that. If I go lower, like 6 health? It is better to have a version that can move and shoot at the same time. And it would cost less from that point onwards. In other words, if the choice yields a negative value. It is simply not a choice.

***

Transformation time...

I said that the change should be divided by the total cost.

Going from 0 to 266.7 is a big change. It is weird how this too is kinda hard in Excel. Only to make it fair you know.

Either way, somehow I got to 8, 9 or 10 rounds for this tranfsormation. Yet the version that doesn't transform, thus taking 0 turns, costs only 275... instead of 300.

In a sense, I should only include bonus on damage in one direction. Thus towards the secondairy choice.

Now, it takes 2 rounds for the Mortar Infantry to set up and fire. When wanting to move, it will take only 1 round.

Maybe I switch this. What makes more logical sense? Going faster from primairy to secondairy or vice versa?
Right now, it is from secondairy to primairy. Since primairy is more expensive.

With an attack range of 5.33, setting up is recommended to do early. Or time it right.

Not sure, but here are the versions:
-Transform allowed, 300 cost, mobile has 14 health, immobile only 8.
-Transform not allowed, 295 cost, always mobile and has only 8 health.
-Transform not allowed, 360 cost, always mobile and has 14 health.

In a balanced game. Being able to transform in 1 round and take 8/14th of the damage, while 1 round equals 1 damage. Sounds like a bargain.
The more expensive version receives 5/6th of the damage.

So...
Option 1 lives for 13.25 rounds if it goes mobile.
Option 2 lives for 8.14 rounds, relatively speaking.
Option 3 lives for 11.67 rounds, relatively speaking.

At least this comforts me, knowing the transformation is a good choice.

Indeed. I was just surprised to see it happen AFTER I got the idea (with help). And the idea is thus actually over 10 years old already. I believe it stems from 2009? So, 17 years. Wow...

Not sure yet how to implement it all. But the Field Medic can deploy a Field Hospital. The normal Medic runs around and is less protected in 2 ways. 1, it has to follow the army or stay outside unprotected. 2, a "structure" is always more durable or efficient.

Another thing to ponder about is, resource managment for healing and repairs. We don't have much overlapping time due to work. So, under a beer and BBQ with the family, I will ask him if he likes to talk a bit about it. Time is running out he said. I understand.

I got an Ambulance, but that one is a normal unit. And I got a normal Hospital. Somehow, when tweaking the numbers, the healing is massive. 1 Medic alone, costing 150, can heal up to 10 hit points. I am starting to believe I have to fix this and make it cost depending as well. Support units being healed much faster makes sense, but also doesn't make sense.
Same goes for super fast units. They hardly have health.
Perhaps I should have the healing follow the production rules. And thus infantry that costs 3 times more, heals 3 times slower. Something like that. IDK. Your view on it?

As for that helicopter, it can be shot down. We can do transport. But it is for crossing entire regions with more ease. And the limit is the ammount of units. As soon as the transport is insufficient, the whole force slows down. (Or (a part) drowns).

Alas, no. Transformation is already pushing the limits. We can however, getting HEMS in the game. There....I just did. It costs 750. Making all the medical units costing n times 150. The Field Medic should cost around 450. Making this guy more expensive than an Ambulance, but less than a Hospital. I hope I can follow the tradition, but don't have time to puzzle that one out atm.

Alas, we will start with placeholder pictures. That's it. It is a text based game for a reason. And the game would look the most like Ogame in terms of command.
IDK, this is the department of Pepper.

Dune 2.
You can attack them. You need Rocket Turrets in the classic. And most reforged versions have the troopers and missile tank, attacking them too.
But the classic version certainly has the Rocket Turrets firing at them. And I believe, the cannon turrets can as well, but that might be by accident.

Also, when picking up an harvester, blowing up the harvester before the carryall lands completely, will destroy it too in the process.

***

Still....

Ok, so the Mortar (deployed) has an attack range of 5.333.
And the new HEMS has a movement speed of 6.667.

And another thing.

I really need to remind myself that the current design of the Mortar, really has a benefit for being able to transform. In the form of healing.

Speaking of healing. I didn't realize it yet, but I put in a production score for the production of vehicles and structures for the engineer and mechanic.
But that one doubles as repairs. And it is THAT score that needs to be used to calculate how much they repair.

I must update it too. Since 1 is more efficient on vehicles and the other on structures. As well as the body type in terms of armor. Vehicles and Tanks, a difference of factor 3.

So, I need to calculate the production value's and healing value's per tier. And make sure it is in the table. That way, I can also calculate it all for the medics.

And probably, change the factors for some designs. I bet that a Hospital having only 80% more healing power, yet costing 4 times more. Is not a good choice for the players. Even though, relatively speaking, it is very durable. It is more like a wall that takes 9 times more attention than a rifleman. Oops...