Skip to Content

How complicated could math get?

23 replies [Last post]
X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013

So, for this wargame of mine. I have the option open again to have "bodies" and "weapons" as cards. And combining them would result in a blueprint.
You then can start building/training the designed unit. And put it on a risklike map, with a sense of RPS.
[Don't worry about the balance. Each factor is weighted.]

The thing is. How complex can I make the combinations? And I am not talking about just bodies and weapons.
There are other possible cards. Like extra armor/shields. But also like an upgrade to any weapon, or mix some weapons.

A. Is this level doable for players?
The cost calculation is simple at first:
Body + Weapon

B. Is this level doable for players?
The upgrades of extra armor and shields depend on how fast this body goes. So, the player would see an extra base cost. But also an extra cost per movement.

C. Is this level doable for players?
The speed upgrades can only be applied if there are no armor/shield upgrades. The speed upgrade is depending on the costs of said body. Now comes for the tricky part. I think I need to include the body cards with a "basic" cost per movement speed. Thus such that if the speed upgrade is used. The player can easily add the extra costs.

D. Is this level doable for players?
Just like extra armor or shields. The damage can be upgraded. However, only the accuracy could be upgraded. Or the number of projectiles. You can have only 1 of the 2. Not both, since this would work exponential. Another thing I ponder is: Should I add a basic cost for a weapon to begin with? 1 That includes the attack range and is used for these upgrade cards? The upgrade card itself would simply be a level on top. And the actual weapon card needs to display how much the next level would cost. This for the number of projectiles. And for the accuracy if possible. Yet again, if an accuracy goes from 6 to 7. That would mean a projectile is added that has an accuracy of 1.

E. Is this level doable for players?
There is a third damage upgrade, the damage die upgrade. Turns out that most projectiles would follow the d6 -2 roll. Thus 5 and 6 damage are discarded. But the upgrade can increase this roll too. Adding 50% to the damage with 1 upgrade. I do not allow a second upgrade though. The same number is used as in D.

F. Is this level doable for players?
Finally, the last possible upgrade card. The one for attack range. If the damage is upgraded in one of the 3 ways above. The attack range may not be upgraded. This one works the same as the movement speed in C.

G. Is this level doable for players?
Some factors work exponential. Should I allow these? This way, you can have more health and more movement on the bodies. And of course more attack range while also more damage in several ways.


Perhaps I should have an possible upgrade list on each body and weapon card. And instead of a simple number...should I allow factors instead?

For example: A weapon that shoots missiles, costs 300 (I will search for a minimal later).

Number of projectiles starts at 3.
Upgrade costs +100 or +33% or *(one + 1/3rd per projectile)

Accuracy is 4.
Upgrade costs +75 or +25% or *(one + 1/4rd per accuracy)

Damage die is 4.
Upgrade costs +150 or +50% or *(one + 1/2nd)

Range is 3.
Upgrade costs +50 or +20% or *(one + 1/5th per attack range)

I know that the original cost is

But players only see that 300.
And perhaps the 33%, 25%, 50% and 20%.

If all 4 upgrades are applied. We get:

And the player would be doing:

Should I stick to additions and limit the number of upgrade cards? Or should I allow factors?

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ok....nvm i guess

The game has been simplified.

Each card has a cost.
And if a stat can be altered by an upgrade card.
The upgrade and the new costs are shown.

I tried to have +1 and +1, so several steps can be taken. But I think I will be very specific.
Thinking of more like a table.

Column 1, the basic stats and the cost.
Column 2, for example, twice the health, and then the cost.
Column 3, for example, 50% more movement, and then the cost.
Column 4, both, and then the cost.

Column 2 and 3 could also be "+1" columns. Where the cost also gets something like "+1". And the 4th column will have this only for 1 of the 2 upgradable stats. While the other stat is a requirement.
Meh, i think it is still too complicated for most people. And I really am thinking of having only 1 stat being altered somehow.

larienna's picture
Joined: 07/28/2008
Do you want to do the math

Do you want to do the math yourself to determine if your game is balanced, or do you want the players to do the math while playing.

For game balance, it`s not so bad, as computer simulation can find the right probabilities. While if the player needs to do the calculation you have 2 option: Make the calculation simple, or make them not matter much (have a form of compensation to miscalculation)

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I am going to do all the math

They only use 2 numbers that have to be added up together.

Right now, I am at a point where they have a body card, weapon card, 2nd weapon card, 1 upgrade on for example the body, and 2 upgrades on the second weapon card.

The body card shows the player several costs for it. 1 cost will include the upgrade.
The weapon card shows the player several costs for it. 1 cost will include 1 upgrade, another cost the other upgrade. And 1 cost will be including both upgrades, which the player then has to select.

The player will have to add up 3 values here, for one total cost. And I am thinking of having some sort of soft paperclips, that circle around the costs of the cards.

In this example, we got 3 costs, but 6 cards of which 3 are upgrades. These upgrades can be removed from the game after determining the costs. So, as blue print, the player has 3 costs that need to be added up.

Not sure if I can do something about this though. If it is for example 150+250+200. Which is 600. You can't tell at first glance. And everytime the player needs to build this unit, the player needs to recalculate.

So, perhaps something like cost tokens or something?
Also, this 600 is just an example, I probably am going to lower to 2 digits.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
The problem with upgrade cards

Why even include them?
I can simply design a combination as one card and include it as well.

Perhaps having the upgrades being temporary?

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yeah that makes TOTAL sense!

X3M wrote:
I can simply design a combination as one card and include it as well.

What you need to consider is your PUBLISHING format. Like if you SELL and ppl BUY a "Booster" pack with 10 Cards, well then having a BUNCH of combination will HELP create the POOL of cards used in those Booster Packs.

And then ppl will COLLECT cards and then you can have a whole bunch of variety for them...

I was also exploring "Upgrades" ... And I have YET to figure out what I can do too... The problem is ART. Making Robots is cool with a tool like AI Illustration... But making "Upgrades" is near impossible: you never get what you ask for from the AI...

I've decided that FOR NOW the "Format" is 18 card Poker Deck with a Mint Tin to solidify the BRAND. I am currently waiting for Prototype from The Game Crafter which will ship around April 3, 2024. Yeah I need to WAIT like 2-Months.

Anyhow... That's a smart ANALYSIS that you would muchly PREFER to COMBINE the cards and produce the VARIATIONS yourself rather than having players choose it.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013


If I purely have "bodies" and "weapons".
The most basic set that I require per players tech deck is a total of 45 cards.

There is not much room for upgrade cards.

And I can assume that players will have more weapon cards. Such that an unit shoots 3 rockets instead of 1. Lets say, they are allowed to add 15 more weapon cards. And if some are body cards, perhaps I could have them use 2 body cards for twice the health. Well....the total tech would be 60.

Players can draw 1 card per round. On average, every 2 rounds, they can get a basic new tech.

I don't think I should have them double or triple the lowest side either, in value...

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
It gets worse?

Well, too much math for certain. At least, my initial thoughts. I deleted that for this post.

Players are limited to their decks. And my next idea was to have alteration cards instead.
These would alter the tiers of the weapon and body cards.
But also the costs. And the resources for the players would have been 1 extra card as a "joker" for weapons and 1 extra card as a "joker" for the bodies.
Of course more jokers should be allowed. But there should be a limit.

With weapons, you have thus 1 more card as resource. And change a weapon card accordingly. The math involved for the players is too much.

With bodies, you have thus 1 more card as resource. But you change a body beyond the balance of your opponent. Thus if your opponent has 1, 2 and 3 as weapon cards. You make the body a idk....10 card for the fun of it? And if your opponent doesn't have a joker card, it is doomed.


I could have a joker weapon though. But no joker bodies.
The joker weapon would be some sort of gun, that has several options. But seeing as how I can have a lot of different tiers. I should make it so that the player needs multiple joker weapons. And this doesn't fix the problem either.

MtG had it easy in this regard. Simply increase damage.
And if not needed, you didn't use the resource either.


I do have something that might help just a little. That would be the double weapon cards. Where 1 of the 2 is used in combat. And both remain an option. These weapon cards are spread out. The costs are "legally" reduced. And simply displayed again. This mechanic is linked to weapons only. But not 100% effective against the mismatched deck problem.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Simple solution

1 simple rule. To fix all that shit above this post.

Before a match starts. Players show the body cards to their opponents. Then they add weapon cards accordingly.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
I came to a similar conclusion...

I decided that for a MATCH, you would choose SIX (6) Robots and you would choose the matching UPGRADES (2x per Robot = 12 Cards)... For a total of 18 Poker Cards... This means it's 1-Sheet at "The Game Crafter" to MAKE (reasonably unexpensive) and players REVEAL the Robots as they are used.

There is a "Battle" Position and RESERVES.

Only one (1) Robot in the "Battle" Position and three (3) Robots in Reserve...

When the "Battle" Robot is DEFEATED, you choose one (1) from the Reserve to go into the "Battle" Position and then you choose a Robot from your unused cards to go into the open "Reserve" position.

But I'm still struggling with the UPGRADES. TBD.

There would be NO DECK. You PLAY as you see fit given what you have chosen to battle with (6 Robots and 12 Upgrades). It may be simple... But I want to see how TECHNICAL the designing of your units is (in terms of building challenge)!


X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
The main difference between 2 games

I think the main difference here would be in the resources a player has.
The resources here are:
- Time
- Cards
- Credits

When I have a player make a combo. We need at least 2 cards.
When I add an upgrade, that is at least 1 more card.

However, I want the players to calculate the costs of the unit in credits. And this is a permanent cost, calculated once. Always applied.

It takes time to get the more complicated combinations.

But those more complicated combinations cost time and cards.
While some later designs are better overall. You do pay time and cards for those.

Upgrade cards DON'T have to be added. They slow down the progress of a player. In fact, the player would be making the deck slower, and you need more cards. But the result in credits and design would be the same.

So, upgrade cards don't add much. Unless I give them a positive penalty. And truly use them as upgrades.

I need to think about that (obviously the balance). But at least I can get the basis of the game done.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:But I want to

questccg wrote:
But I want to see how TECHNICAL the designing of your units is (in terms of building challenge)!


You mean, how players would combine?
They simply draw 1 card every round.
They can make a combination that has at least the body card.
They earn credits too, each round. And pay the cost of the unit as "research" as well. (I think, 5 times the total costs)
So, they place down the design and pay the research.

Well, let me describe the deck at the moment, only the infantry and anti infantry cards. Because else, it would be too much here. It is still a bit bland too. Not sure about how much difference I should create. But if I want to make more creative cards. I need to limit the weapon cards on the designs to 3. This means. No more than 3 "flames". Which will require me to make stronger cards for the players to add for the more balanced units.

Body cards:
Class: Infantry [1]
Cost: 50
Armor: 1
Health: 5
Speed: 2

Class: Infantry [2]
Cost: 60
Armor: 1
Health: 6
Speed: 2

Class: Infantry [3]
Cost: 60
Armor: 1
Health: 5
Speed: 3

Class: Infantry [4]
Cost: 40
Armor: 1
Health: 5
Speed: 1

Weapon cards:
Weapon: Rifle
Cost: 50
Damage: 1
Projectiles: 1
Accuracy: 5
Range: 2

Weapon: Magnum
Cost: 50
Damage: 1
Projectiles: 1
Accuracy: 4
Range: 3

Weapon: Sniper
Cost: 180
Damage: 1
Projectiles: 1
Accuracy: 6
Range: 6
Ability: Damage dice only discard the 6.

Weapon: Plasma Grenade
Cost: 30
Damage: 1
Projectiles: 1
Accuracy: 4
Range: 1

Weapon: Flame
Cost: 20
Damage: 1
Projectiles: 1
Accuracy: 4
Range: 0
(there are rules on how these can shoot at 1 range, goes for all weapons though)

Weapon: Plasma Missile
Cost: 60
Damage: 1
Projectiles: 1
Accuracy: 4
Range: 4


The third infantry card and the sniper card. Costs 60+180=240. The research would be 1200. Once done. Each of these sniper infantry will cost 240. The player is limited on how much units can be placed on the map. The "size" of this design is also 240. So, lets say, 1200 is the limit. So, 5 can be placed.

Another design can be the second infantry card and 3 flame cards. Costs 60+3*20=120. Research is only 600. And 10 can be placed.

The next design...The first infantry card, and 1 rifle card. Easy design. Costs 100 and research 500. 12 can be placed.

Next... we didn't do the 4th infantry card yet. Lets add 2 sniper cards. 40+2*180=400. Alright, 2000 for research. 3 can be placed.

Ok, now then, shit designs:
4th infantry card, with a plasma grenade, plasma missile and a flame...
Well, 750 research, 8 to place. Not very shit yet.

1th infantry card, with a flame and sniper.
1250 research. But with 250 as costs, only 4 can be placed. Leaving room for 200....

There are balancing rules regarding this. And I rather don't want players to do that math either.
All the "missing" costs would be added in the game as strategy points. And players can exchange these for extra action points.
Meaning that players can play more turns if they have faulty designs.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
more cutting

Seems it is still too difficult.

This time, in regards of strategy points.

So.... perhaps not allowing players to make combinations during the game.

Not sure if I even should include a deck mechanic. Meaning, while players can have units and structures in a deck. This is their tech already played out.

Perhaps some sort of cost to bring in the technology of the card. And this card would contain a body, weapon and strategy points if required. I also can easily calculate special attributes like size etc.

So, all numbers would be supplied to the player.
No need for having a deck either. Simply have a table again. With stats. That the player can use for determining how a handfull of dice are supposed to be rolled.

In fact, 3 digits seems to be too much too for the target audience. So, I need to reduce this to 2 digits. And hope they manage. This goes for the health and costs.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think I will keep cutting

Until I cut my fingers.

A card is reverted back to how a Statistics Card was build up.

Special things like:
- Size
- Strategy Points
Will be mentioned separately in the description.

As for the main properties on the card (Hobby version):
- Name, will be a word
- Costs, 1 to 4 digits
- Health, 1 to 3 digits
- "Maximum damage per die intake", 1 to 2 digits
- Speed. 1 digit
- Propulsion (if required), will be a word
- Number of dice, 1 digit
- "damage per die", 1 to 2 digits
- Penalty (by accuracy), 1 digit
- Range, 1 to 2 digits
- Altered damage die roll (if required), 1 digit

Lot's of stuff to fit in.
We also want a picture and flavour text.
I am sure that a poker sized card will not work.

The math that players need are:
- Resources and Costs
- Action Points and Strategy Points
- Health and Damage
- Picking the lowest of the Damage done and Damage intake
- Table of Penalties
- Table of Dice rolls

8 Dice max. You roll per damage group. Starting at the lowest of attack range. Then if multiple groups are present, the player is forced to pick 1 of the 2 to go first. But it will still be a choice. And dying units of the enemy will still be able to roll if they belong to the same attack range group.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
You could use JUMBO cards like this:

Those fit in Small Pro and Small Stout Boxes no problem too... Plus are probably big enough for all your STATS and some ART and FLAVOR too...!

Just something for you to think about...


X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Good suggestion

The information would be landscape once more.

With the names and costs on top right. That information would end up on the left. When holding in hands.

1 card to play. 1 card to discard.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here's an example ... Something for you to THINK about!

That's what your Unit/Body Cards could look like. I'm not talking about the CONTENT more the LAYOUT:

  • Image on the Left-Hand-Side (LHS)

  • Title of the Body/Unit (LHS)

  • Flavor Text below the image (LHS)

  • STATS on the Right-Hand-Side (RHS) in some kind of nice table.

I grabbed these CARDS from Metrorunner because I remembers what they looked like, I just bought the game this week (Pre-Ordered it)! I'm sure there are more examples of Landscape Jumbo Cards and how they are used.


X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013

But I think that the math is too complex. If I separate the bodies from the weapons.

Reason 1:
Strategy points seem to be difficult. If the player has to decide on them.

Body costs 3, weapon costs 4.
Total is 7.

If the maximum per design is 60.
The player has to calculate that 8*7=56.
And 60-56=4. Strategy points.

I know how this has to be calculated. I might as well do this for them.

Reason 2:
Analysis paralysis.
If players can't decide if 1, 2 or 3 weapons are good for a certain unit. And they need to combine more cards in order to make a good design. You basicly get analysis paralysis.

I know what is good. I might as well design for them.

Reason 3:
Certain units will have a different body size than other units. This calculation is not possible if players are to design their own units.

There are more reasons. But those 3 are the most important.

I also would like to add to this that if I make the combinations myself. I am able to make much more designs. Than previously possible with separate body and weapon cards. The main reason is that 5x5=25, while 5+5=10.
Not only that, but some other aspects of the game can return safely.


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
This MAY or may NOT help... But I'd figure I'd SHARE...

So "Battle Botz" is a design where I have wanted to DIVIDE the Unit into a Robot and 2 SLOTS for "Upgrades". Now I realize that this makes the game HARDER to design but makes it more of a CHALLENGE to get the RIGHT cards (think "Upgrades") for your Robot.

I've decided that I DON'T want a "Collectible" Game.

I'm tired about all of the complications that come with COLLECTING and SELLING "cards" and/or "booster packs". Either way ... I don't like it.

My GOAL is to PRE-DESIGN a Deck of eighteen (18) cards:

  • 6 Robots: 1 Battle Bot and 3 in Reserve;

  • 12 Upgrades: 2 Per Robot (for a total of 12);

  • That makes for a Grand Total of 18 Cards per Mint Tin.

But IF you don't need to SHUFFLE the cards, you don't NEED sleeves to protect them. The Mint Tin is ENOUGH. So NO SHUFFLING!

Note that ALL that MADE SENSE and it would have worked CORRECTLY. But then the problem was: "How do you PLAY this game???" And then things kind of just "Blew up in my face... and..." there was no GAME here! Haha.

So in any event... This design is OFFICIALLY "shelved"!

I don't know what I am going to do with it ATM. I need time to figure it out. And obviously that's the important part BECAUSE I don't feel like I have a GAME anymore. Just some Battling Robots and boring as all sh!t. No offense to you or anyone who likes these types of games... But for me there is NO GAME. And that is very important to FIX and determine what can be done in the future.

TBD... I have to THINK some more.

Discussing "CLUE Crimes" with @larienna has got me thinking some more about that design and HOW(?) I could move forwards with it. I may take a look at this design this week ... While I wait for all my "products" to arrive from "The Game Crafter" (and I've got 3 orders, 2 shipped and 1 waiting for April).

Yeah I should have expressed but I felt like I had the time to WAIT and SEE!

More from me soon enough ... As I prepare to see what it the next logical step and which of my design deserves MOST of my ATTENTION at the present time!

Cheers @X3M!

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
However ...

I did FIND ONE (1) GEM... In that whole pile of CR@P!

SatCom wrote:
“Delta Crew, this is SatCom. The Satellite Relay went suddenly down. It must have been a brutal attack! Be careful out there..."

That and FIVE (5) MORE "Events" is WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!

There needs to be an "Adventure" some kind of CAMPAIGN and the way it NEEDS to be design needs to VARY per MISSION.

I know that little "Flavor Text" of an Event is EMBRYONIC ... But that's what BREATHES LIFE into games. The FIRST MISSION is a LUNAR exploration to determine why a "Satellite Relay" went DOWN... And I believe I need three (3) sides... One of which is Firefox Clan (bad dudes...) Hehehe. Causing Havoc...

This is more the DIRECTION that I want to go in: CAMPAIGNS and three (3) different perspectives on the SAME Mission... (or would be same mission). And of course a BUNCH of INTRIGUE to go along with it...

Delta Crew wrote:
"SatCom, this is Delta Crew. We were told that a bunch of vandals might be looking to get a hold of some free hardware.”

Couldn't help but quote ANOTHER Event from "Delta Crew" (YOU!) This is the FUN sh!t that makes a game REAL... And with a bit of a STORY, multiple perspectives... Could be real NEAT!!!

Just one last one...

SatCom wrote:
“Delta Crew, this is SatCom. We recommend that you check both Waypoint #4.1 and #4.2. We are pretty sure Firefox clan is involved in some way.”

And the mystery begins... What happened to the Satellite Relay... And more importantly who was involved???

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Of course I had it ALL WRONG!

I had the game LEAD the "Events"... So maybe you play the ENTIRE first (1st) Mission and get ZERO (0) Events. That sucks because you would LEARN "Jack-sh!t" about the "Vandals", "Firefox Clan" and what really happened.

INSTEAD it should be the EVENTS that LEAD the game.

Like Event #1 should be triggered when the players START the MISSION... Or begin their arrival at Waypoint #1. There COULD also be an encounter with a "Damaged Drone" whose software has been hacked and re-programmed to ATTACK YOU (At Waypoint #1)!

Stuff like that... Best!

Note #1: And the "Vandals" is just a term of independent mechs that are not affiliated and not organized Crews like the Firefox Clan and the Dynasty Clan. The Dynasty Clan are organized and run the everything from outposts to whole planets and outerworlds. The Firefox Clan is in opposition to the Dynasty Clan and have superior numbers than the pure unorganized "Vandals". The Firefox Clan are Elitist Class of Mechs and are highly ranked in Universal Society of Planets (They're the Rich Folk who want to run things).

Unlike Firefox Clan, the Dynasty Clan ARE in control over the running of most worlds and planets. They are a Universal Force of Organization and work for the most part towards the betterment of their known Universe.

So IF you play a game with STORY in it... You need to ENGAGE with the STORY otherwise you will find the game BORING! As both Hamish and myself felt about MM3k (Mech Missons: 3000).

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
You NEED that "Spice Melange"... Without it the game will SUCK!

Take for example REAL "Wargames" and what they do. So firstly they are usually HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. Why? Because they are TRYING to "re-implement" the details of a battle from years ago which may or may not go as it did in normal history depending on the skills and luck of the players playing the game.

Some re-enactment are DIFFICULT, like being Napoleon and winning the battle at Waterloo... If the players are playing Napoleon and his side... Well they know that by all TRUTH, Napoleon LOST at Waterloo... And so history replays itself out as it did in the past... The French Army must STRIKE "Early in the morning" before the window of opportunity passes and history repeats itself.

Games that are "What ifs?" is the genre of games these TYPE of "Wargames" are similar to (or akin). They all have a bunch of historical details and are meant to help player re-create a famous Battle or battle against a known enemy... Like the Huns in Europe (or Germany if you prefer).

IDK ... Like I said... Even GMT Games publishes "Wargames" and they all feature some kind of Historical or Fictitious Story that goes with the units that must go into Battle.

It's like the Draihiex Keys ... in Infinite Control. They add to the STORY make it deeper for gamers in search of the TRUTH behind those keys and that race...

You ABSOLUTELY NEED that "Spice Melange" much like in DUNE! And the three houses fighting for control and dominance of DUNE (House Atreides, House Harkonnen and House Ordos).

So I will have some time to RELAX and reflect on HOW maybe I can MERGE my Mech design with my Robot design and come out with some kind of ONE-PLAYER game that COULD "have battles" (or skirmishes) with an opponent but just for FUN. The real game will be the SINGLE player scenarios. How I design and develop this??? IDK ATM.

More thought needs to be done before I can reach a conclusion... Or some kind of starting point to work from!

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
TBH ... I'm not into re-enactment and...

Most "Wargames" are about re-living a specific Historical Battle. I'm not into that TBH. Then there are RTS (or simulation of it) games which also can be considered "Wargames" too... Much like StarCraft 1 & 2. Those tell a STORY and the reason that they are VERY popular too... Plus it's not a FPS and there is a bit more STRATEGY involved too...

So even if your "Wargame" is NOT an RTS, some of the best stories come from those kind of games. Unless a game is "procedural" like Monopoly or doing similar actions each and every turn... Well then it will not feel like the players have something to INVEST into the game.

But if the equipment they've earned has been over the last five (5) missions and they are finally at the LAST mission with all their beefed-up equipment... Well you can understand the risk of losing given that everything has been building up to that specific moment in time!

"Victoria Nostra!" -The Brethren.

In English... "Ours is Victory!"... Best.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013

Completely not linked to this math topic.
But might be the spice you are looking for.

Can be arranged in a book.
The ai of a mission can ask for cards that players need to gather. In a sense, the player can play missions if the cards are collected.

The same book also doubles as tracking your collection.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut