Could a double card mechanic work?

Attempting a HD ratio of just 1.

Do you think I should have different values to the cards?

It seems I cannot really reverse engineer all tue numbers correctly without dice. I have to fill in a calculator and see what happens. That is the downside of it all. And balance is very hard to grasp without discarding a lot of options.

Health tracking, or rather damage tracking. Is required for this.
Once the damage reaches the threshold, the card expires.

This way, players don't have to calculate things. And have time to change strategies.
This way, mechanics and even medics, are also an option again.

As for the rules on combat. Once more, the lowest maximum damage is the true damage. Thus a card can receive a maximum damage per projectile. And a card can give out a maximum damage per projectile. The lowest maximum is the true damage it receives. Then it gets multiplied by the number of projectiles.
Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 6:
6x1 gives 06,06,06,06
3x4 gives 03,12,12,12
2x9 gives 02,08,18,18
1x36gives 01,04,09,36

My hobby game has a hd ratio of 3. But i think 2 is enough.
Meaning the correspondong healths are 12, 24, 36 and 72.
2 digits on average.

Durability:
12: _2, 4, 6, 12
24: _4, 2, 3, _6
36: _6, 3, 2, _4
72: 12, 6, 4, _2

I need to see what kind of terrain I will allow. Attack range weights often 150% that of movement speed.
That means 2 + 1 + 1 per movement.
But 2 + 1.5 + 1.5 per attack range.
2, 3, 4 sounds easy to work with.
2, 3.5, 5 has that silly 3.5 in it.
At hd of 3, we get 3, 4, 5 and 3, 4.5, 6. Which is easier to work with.
Hd of only 1 gives 1, 2, 3 and 1, 2.5, 4.
As you can see, I have a challenge ahead. I want to aim for hd of 2. That 3.5 is close to 3.6 we will see.
But no dice needed so far :)

A challenge?

Lets say...I have a card.
This card is going to have some stats to work with.
A H S - D M R
A TLDR topid is out of the question here.

I will summarize:
- Cards can move or attack or assault.
- There will be a subtraction for assault on M.
- There will be another subtraction on M for when a target moves. This subtraction will be multiplied by the targets movement speed.
- If nessesary, there will be a "secondairy" list of stats for assault. IF the damage, attack range or subtraction on M is different.
- The new stats are: Ma and M-.
- I also could do Da Ma Ra. (sing along song)

As for balance, I am thinking about having the assault section to be 100%. It simply starts lower.
Then every next assumption of the target moving around. Would be M- and that is multiplied by 50%. Why?
If we have M- = 0 Then the powers of 50% would mean an end result of 200%.

Ok, let's see what we can get here?

Laser,
M- = 0
Ma = 0
We get 400%.

Rifle,
M- = 1
Ma = 3 (instead of 5)
We look at 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. And its value is 161.25%.
We look at 3, 2, 1. And its value is 85%
We get 246.25%.

Artillery,
M- = 3
Ma = 0 (instead of 5)
We look at 5, 2. And its value is 120%.

Yeah, the absolute minial is 100%. I think I try to get my default unit around 200%. Not sure. I shall see after compiling my calculator.

No sure yet, but if I allow an X number of cards per player.
Then with 6 players, we have 20 terrain cards each. And 2? connection cards. The connection card will be placed with the terrain card when connecting to the territory of another player.

I need to draw this out.
And I think that 120 terrain in total is a bit too much. I mean, place MtG cards in a brick wall formation. And see how many you can even fit on the table?
60 terrain allows for: 2x30, 3x20, 4x15, 5x12 and 6x10.
30 terrain allows for: 2x15, 3x10, 4x7, 5x6 amd 6x5.

The brick formation is also keeping its distance to other cards. Because the combat cards need to be placed on top in a standing shape. Unless....the combat cards are smaller. And/or the terrain cards are in a hexagon shape.

A terrain card might give a bonus to certain combat cards.
This involves extra or reduced attack range.
Blocking movement by its edge.
Blocking movement by its type. (forest allows infantry, but not tanks, water allows amphibious, but no ground).

As for the edges. If one edge is a ridge and the rest is not. The one "discovering" this, determines if the ridge is in front or back. Then again, if the terrain cards are hexagons instead. The ridge can be in any direction.
In a sense. If a player has a lot of ridges/water on their side. You can lock this player up. I think, air units need to be included. But adding more types of units will also require more designs. There are more than 1 way to lock a player up.

What can I do in order to prevent this?

I have some possible solutions:
- One is having only the ridges being another terrain type. It can be either rocks, forest or water. And then, these are never connected on the hexagon. Meaning a terrain card has either 1, 2 or 3 sides (not connected) that is different in type. And thus the total terrain is always open. Even the base card and the first 2 cards adjacent to the base will allow normal movement.
- Two is adding some more terrain cards. But then these are placed AFTER the board is kinda explored. If the board is mostly ridges. And a player is locked. It can now place one of the remaining cards, which can open up a spot. Seeing as how 3 cards have 2 connections each. Or in other words, 3 more cards fit on top. It could be a double edged sword.
And it makes things even more messy.
And it cannot be done with hexagon cards.
- Exchange 2 terrains?
- Adding combat cards that turn out to be a bridge of some sorts? And thus nullifying a certain type of terrain? A ramp for rocks, a bridge for water, a road for a forest?

Again, what can I do in order to prevent this?

I got my table filled with lego atm. Need to clean that up. It will take another week or 2 I assume. So, till that time. I will not test with cards. And while I rather have hexagons. I don't think it will be easy with those. I need to determine the physical size of the game by feeling it for myself, before I continue.

Cheers, X3M

Deck building
I kinda like this idea. And would love to have 6 factions too. But I cannot see how to combine the 2. Sleeves would be a solution. But I rather not.
Maybe I think of something, later.

Resources
I am going for a "forcing a player to choose from their hand".
It worked very well with my Event Cards. So, with the combat cards. It will work as well.
It will force players to have cards being worth 1, in their deck.
No need for tracking resources separately.

A base
I don't want to spend any more time on getting "production" right. Every other boardgame that I worked on had their own production rules. And I often have to rewrite them.
The "base" will be simply the very first terrain card for a player.
If I discard the whole terrain. I would go back to the other card game. Then, I might look at barracks, factories and construction yards again.

The buildup
When building up the terrain with cards...
I figured, a hexagon patern is better than a hexagram patern. But that is only for having more space utalized on a table. The base card certainly is going to end up in a middle. And the pyramids will connect in the middle. I also think that connection cards will not have a place anymore in the game.
The pyramid a player can have will start with a base of:
-3 (6 cards, shared deck 36)
-5 (15 cards, shared deck 90)
-7 (28 cards, shared deck 168)

90 is a big deck. Even if it is shared. But doable.
This is for 6 players.

2 players can indeed have 2 upside down pyramids, connecting with their bases instead. Then the base cards would be in the tops of the diamond shape.
3 players, idk, allowing 2 pryamids each? And then having one of the corners play for a base card?
4 players would be funny. I could allow a rectangle shape.

The buildup with less hassle?
The whole deck is shuffled. Then placed face down in the recuired shape. Then, the players or teams could take a look. Or simply let it go hidden entirely until explored.
This way, I could allow a game starting with a field. Unexplored. And without combat cards on top.

When adding combat cards. They can explore for the player.
I don't see a way to have the cards only be explored for one player. Because movement needs to remain fair.

Deterministic
While I didn't post stats yet because I am including assault.
This is the general idea I am going for:
A 6 riflemen squad with 6 health and 6 damage per battle.
Would be equal to a tank squad with 12 health and 3 damage (on the riflemen)
It simply would take 2 rounds for them to destroy each other.

A bazooka squad would have 4 health and deals 16 damage per battle (on the tanks).
Clearly this takes 1 round and the bazooka squad survives.
There is also overkill of 4 here.

This is, if health tracking is included. And I think it should. It is the only way to keep the RPS.

With an entire squad within one card. We don't get a triangular effect. Where 6 soldiers deal 6 damage and 3 soldiers only 3 damage. 1 health is simply that the entire squad is still active.
Perhaps counter intuitive. But so is the RPS effect that I always like to add to a game.

Overkill
With a H/D ratio of 1. It will happen a lot. Especially if I apply my own root factor for the balance.

If a card has overkill. I could say that certain damage is negated. Thus in case of a bazooka squad against the tank squad. The overkill is 4, or 1 projectile. That same 1 projectile can negate 1 projectile of the tanks. Thus the bazooka squad only takes 2 damage instead of 3.

The same goes for bazooka against riflemen. We have 6 damage on 4 health. And 4 damage on 6 health. The 2 overkill will prevent 2 damage of the 4. Thus while the bazooka squad dies. The riflemen squad only takes 2 damage and ends up with 4 health remaining.

I need to playtest this. Is it possible for certain cards to 100% negate the damage? If so, this mechanic would fail. And what about a double overkill event?

...Or I increase the H/D ratio for the game.

Splash damage
In my hobby game, certain mechanics are much simpler to test and balance. With the numbers going for single or double digits. It is better to avoid splash damage.

With the mechanics in mind. I also think that splash damage will not work "nicely" in the game. The splash damage would actually have to go to another card. And this could include a new exploration. It is an option though. I will keep this possible mechanic as a replacement if the negating fails.

Dice?
Their usage would be very simple.
The stats remain the same. The balance might shift regarding movement and attack range.

For each projectile:
A roll would either be 4, 5 or 6 for a hit; ratio of 2.
A roll wouldeither be 5 or 6 for a hit; ratio of 3.

But once more, I try to avoid dice. The negating of damage sounds much better to me atm. Despite still having to playtest it.

Random factors
I want to have the players shuffle the decks before the game starts.

Outside influences
I want to have the terrain have influence on movement. By scouting, a combat unit will be stopped when encountering a ridge. It either goes another way from that point onwards, or not.

That said, I think I need to have a rule that doesn't show terrain, but only the combat card on top. If it gets attacked or attacks.

As for terrain effects. They will only be viable if the combat card on top wants to make use of them. Thus, the player that owns the defending combat card, has to show the terrain as well if it has an effect that works in its favour.

Attack, move, assault
Attack or move is a choice.
Assault is both an attack and move. But I feel like that I should also include movement reduction for this.

As for formula's. If I allow a design to have much more damage and movement during an assault. Then why even include an attack or move? I must compare the assault to the attack. And see how much more benefit it would have. It is better to make the assault the basic weapon. And then see how much the weapon improves on not moving. And thus add this improvement for 50%.

If an assault deals 5 damage and a normal attack 3. You don't do a normal attack.
If an assault deals 3 damage and a normal attack 5. You improve by 2 and this counts for 1 more in value.
In the second case, you don't move for 5 damage. No movement means it is a bit cheaper.

Stats? (so far)
So far:
- Costs; 1, 2, 3, 4?
- Max intake damage per projectile; 1, 2, 3, 4?
- Health
- Movement Speed
- Attack-Max damage per projectile; 1, 2, 3, 4?
- Attack-Projectile Multiplier
- Attack-Projectile Reduction
- Attack-Attack range
- Assault-Movement Speed
- Assault-Max damage per projectile; 1, 2, 3, 4?
- Assault-Projectile Multiplier
- Assault-Projectile Reduction
- Assault-Attack range

Perhaps I need to cut in the number of stats too. I have 13, I should see if I can cut it down back to 7.

Rules regarding assault
In a sense, my other games have modifiers to the unit stats. Explained separately. With assault, the damage reduces by a dice roll. And you pay more action points.
this shows how much easier a game is to design when you add some dice...
If we have a game where an assault equals that of an attack or movement in terms of action points. We need to have a very solid rule. But what? What would be best?

- Assault is depending on the stats of movement and attack. But the 2 parts of a design will reduce each other.
Example: Attack range will be lowered by movement speed. If the attack range is 2, then an assault allows for 1 movement and 1 attack range. However "melee units" cannot perform an assault this way.
- Assault is moving and attacking anyways. But the opponent can choose to attack twice, or even move twice.
In other words. Each card is going to be allowed to perform 2 actions. And the whole assault is gone now.

As for the actions, what would be best?:
- Resolution is done in order. Meaning that a double attack will have 1 attack against a moving target. And if defeated already, the rest of the resolution is discarded.
- Resolution is done simoultainiously. Meaning that a double attack will have both attacks against a moving target. And the upcomming attack of the assaulter is also performed regardless of being defeated in the 1st attack.

But if I allow a double action. The H/D ratio better be at least 2 now.

Since the H/D ratio of the game is best with a ratio of 2. I now have 2 options:

Version A:
The player needs to place damage counters until it is twice the health value on the card.
Version B:
Each projectile gets a die roll of 50% chance.
The player needs to place damage counters until it is the health value on the card.

***

It has come to my understanding that H/D ratio. Which is something that some theoratical RTS balancer use.
Is it long forgotten what it means?
The H/D ratio is exactly what it means. H is the average health.
And D is the average damage per, round?, Turn?, Frame?, Second?
doesn't matter. If I say it is 2. Then that means that a well balanced card deals 1 damage per turn. But needs 2 turns for destroying all health.

H/D or 2/1. Or a ratio of 2.
Some say 2:1-ratio.
If it is in seconds: A ratio of 10 seconds.

This ratio is the heart of determining the weight of some other stats.

***

Version A is simple. The card has health. You need to add damage until it is twice the health value. So, for a health of 4, you need 8 damage. For a health of 5, you need 10 damage.

Version B makes use of dice. If you roll 4, 5 or 6. You can apply the damage. Now you only need to add damage until it is the health value. So, for a health of 4, you need 4 damage. For a health of 5, you need 5 damage.

***

But why, why do people have so much trouble understanding this?

I did some play tests already. Seems I have a problem with the penalty system.

If a target moves once. The penalty is applied to both attacks. And the penalty is a given number times the targets movement speed.

I should not apply this.

Instead, I am going to see 1 or a combination of the following options:
- 1 movement means the penalty is applied to 1 attack. The 2nd attack will deal full damage.
- Movement is NOT multiplied by the penalty. But a separate subtraction.