Mystery Card Game — Thinking of the suits that will work

But I need two (2) things to make sense in the game:

1> First there needs to be a REASON for Combat among the two players.

This is very important because there needs to be a REASON to Deploy Units.

2> The next thing is that there needs to be a METHOD of going on Missions.

This is also important because Operations on Mission cards allow a player to get sufficient Scoring to WIN the Mission (Scout or Invade). There are other Missions as I explained in the previous comment, but they are OPTIONAL.

Some additional NOTES...

3> Deployed Units can Attack the Opponent's Deployed Units and then CAPTURE a Unit.

Captured Units CANNOT go on Missions. Enough said about that. That makes sense.

4> From "Ready" to ??? (Deploy and/or Mission)

This is MY PAIN-POINT ATM. This is the biggest issue that I currently have. I am unsure how to proceed with this particular problem.

I will ponder some more and report back in a day or two.

Feel free to add your ideas and/or share with us your thoughts on this matter.

Best!

One point is this:

So Combat has it's place and is useful for two (2) very different REASONS.

***

"Missions" are the NEXT BIG thing in the game.

Again it all MAKES SENSE... But for one (1) SMALL (maybe TINY) aspect is HOW(?) to allow for "Missions" to take place???

I'm still thinking about this... And I'm fresh out of NEW ideas for this particular aspect of the game.

Again any help is muchly appreciated whether you have a fix or maybe some ideas that I have not covered ... Your feedback is welcome. I know it's a bit hard to THINK about since nobody is in the full details of the game... This is as simple as I can express the existing challenge/issue right now.

Cheers all.

So I'm thinking about using "Sergeant" instead of a "Captain". A "Captain" leads 3 to 4 Squads and that's a "Platoon".

This is just some "Fact Checking"... What's more logical in Modern Warfare Today and what feels more "authentic". I'm not trying to aim for realism... But if the design leans more towards a more REALISTIC setting ... Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

"Sergeant" works good thematically. And is "somewhat" a real officer that would command a Squad of Soldier.

I'm trying HARD not to make this a "memory" game. Meaning if you have a GREAT memory ... You'll have a much easier time to win. I don't really like that and so I'm trying to figure out how to BALANCE "relative" vs. "absolute" cycling...

Because "absolute" would blow past a "sergeant" unit ... But a "relative" unit would be ideal to "transform" your Squad for a "Mission".

Again I have more to think about: how it can work fully work without no hiccups... So-to-speak!

Cordially.

Okay so it's official, I think I got the "Missions" aspect of the game locked-down. GREAT! But that's not the entire story well ... At least not 100% of what I have to figure out.

Some general direction that I have goes like this:

A Stack has three (3) Units in it. Until you reach THREE (3) you CANNOT take on a "Mission" and it's in a way better to have three (3) Units due to Initiative.

Therefore there are some interesting FACTS to consider.

1.> If you have three (3) Units you may attack an opponent for the cost of 3 "Action Points". Each turn you get 3 APs and therefore combat requires all of them to strike at the enemy.

2.> If you defeat the opposing Stack, the opponent's TOPMOST Unit gets Captured (flip over and 180 degrees) and you must "exhaust" one (1) of your Units from your Stack to the bottom of your Deck. That unit is NOT captured just recovering from Combat and can be back in action on the next full Cycle of your Deck.

3.> To "ready" a Unit, simply use 1 AP and place that card in your Stack (at any position you like - but remember at MOST 3 Units in the Stack)

***

All that SOUNDS good. But there is something UNCLEAR when we consider the BALANCE of it all. So let's say (for some reason) you want to BATTLE your opponent (why? - I'm not 100% sure about this...) and this means that SOME HOW you must MATCH the opponent's Stack (in terms of Units).

More Units means HIGHER "Initiative". And that works out for several reasons because each additional Unit (up to 3 maximum) adds to the TOTAL "Initiative" which could have DIRE consequences IF you don't MATCH UP.

***

For the sake of discussions, it's ALWAYS "best" to put your STRONGEST OFFENSIVE unit on the TOP of your Stack (Card #1). This is your RAW "Firepower" and the Higher it IS... The more likely it's HIGHER than the combine "Resistance" (think Defense) which is ADDED UP and DIVIDED by the number of Units.

So STRONG Firepower doesn't equal Combat Victory. Instead you pair the enemy's Resistance (Added up and divided). If your "Firepower" is GREATER than your enemy's "Resistance" (Combined), you Capture that Unit. And you must "exhaust" one (1) of your Units from Combat.

***

What happens when you have NO Units in your Stack???

Well the easiest fix for this is the CURRENT Unit in-hand (if "ready") becomes the "Deployed" Unit and it's a Stack vs. one (1) Unit.

Something like this is starting to make sense and "all of the pieces" seem to be falling together and fitting in-place for this design.

I will continue to ponder it some more and see what I can work-out. Is the Balance RESTORED or not!? IDK ATM. We'll let these ideas simmer and see what comes of them.

Sincerely.

@X3M revealed than my initial Battle Concept could have "Fog Of War" (FOW) and what that means is that the Units used in battle would be "Unknown" before the Battle ensues.

And I thought about this and responded ... "It's not really FOW if you keep track of the Units being put into the Stack." In addition, the TOPMOST Unit from your Stack would be revealed and visible. Felt more like a BROKEN MECHANIC TBH...

***

So I thought some more and figured: "What if the Stack of Units is placed BEHIND the "Base" and its Mission Card? This would mean that ALL Cards would be SECRET unless someone remembers something from when they were "deployed" into the Stack.

This made for an even BETTER FOW that the initial concept because NOW NO Units would be visible.

Again same principal as before, the Attacker DECLARES the "Initiative", the Defender responds with a Unit from their Stack or says "PASS" if he doesn't have the corresponding "Initiative" Unit.

***

The problem with FOW (required or optional) is that it makes the RESULT of battles LESS predictable. It's like shooting into a tunnel, once the bullets disappear, who knows where they go.

Similarly here, when DECLARING a Unit and their "Initiative" means that you are never sure IF you will BEAT your opponent. The outcome of the Battles is unpredictable.

***

This leads me to believe that FOW is NOT the "greatest" thing to have. And even if you do HAVE IT, it leads to "unpredictable combat results"!

Tell me what you all think? Feel free to offer your feedback, thoughts and make some further analysis on this particular Mechanic (FOW).

Cheers.

I had been struggling about deciding HOW(???) to handle Combat given that there could be FOW (Fog Of War). I had a Combat Mechanic that seemed to be very "backwards". Not because of it being too simple or anything like... It failed the LOGICAL way to do Battle. What do I mean? Let's take a look at the OLD version of Combat and then I'll discuss the NEW version of Combat.

***

Okay so the OLD method was that the "Attacker" would reveal one (1) Unit/Card from their Stack. This leads to PERFECT INFORMATION concerning the Unit and it also lead to PARTIAL INFORMATION for the composition of the "Attacker" Stack.

Next the Defending player would look at the "Attacker" Unit's Initiative and figure out what to play AGAINST that Unit/Card. So this yields control over to the "Defender" and gives him TOO GREAT of an "advantage".

Why(?) Because he knows the Initiative and how he can conquer it and he also knows the STATS: Firepower and Resistance.

Maybe the "Defender" doesn't have the BEST Unit/Card to COUNTER with but he could easily take over the Battle. And that's why it felt BACKWARDS: loss of control and the "Attacker" needing to play "catch-up".

***

How did we resolve this issue? It's not too hard of a fix TBH. Instead of just the "Attacker" revealing a Unit/Card... BOTH players choose to reveal one (1) Unit/Card per side: Attacker and Defender. It's done blindly and leads to a FAIR yet UNPREDICTABLE (a bit RANDOM) result and Combat ensues afterwards.

Maybe this could yield some "Table Trash Talking" to try to anticipate what the opposing player is planning on playing. This is a bit of a "Mind Game", a question of bluffing and planning...

***

That's the main difference between the two. Instead of the "Attacker" being on the end of a wrong pick of Unit... Now NEITHER player has an advantage at the start of Combat. It's a BIT of a "Random" start to combat depending on how the two (2) Players approach a Battle.

FOW is 100% and is reduced to 66.6% after the first card gets revealled.

PARTIAL INFORMATION not PERFECT INFORMATION (unless we are talking about the Units/Cards that have been revealed).

I think for now... I will let this simmer and think about it some more. I do like it, it's not PERFECT but I guess it's like in real life: On the Battlefield you never know who you will run into and so first encounters are a bit RANDOM too... And then it goes into REACTING and CONSEQUENCES of a Battle and how it ensues thereafter.

Best.

My current thoughts seem to revolve around "forcing" a 3 Unit/Card Stack from the start of any game. You would obviously get the opportunity to swap Cards as you play, but each player would REQUIRE to maintain a 3 Unit/Card Stack at ALL TIMES.

This improves BALANCE quite a bit.

And it furthers my agenda when it comes to the "Combat Mechanics". How? Well it simply means that Combat could cost "1 AP" and involve all three (3) Units in the Stack. This would work BOTH ways with each of the Players seeing as there would not be any "weird" match-ups in Combat (3 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 1 or 3 vs. 2). It just SMOOTHES things over a bit and makes the overall experience "feel" more BALANCED.

The reason for this BALANCE is to enforce a "Scoring" Mechanic for Combat.

The result of Combat is a "Momentum Differential" Table which has actions according to the difference in scoring during Combat. This table looks very similar to the "Initiative Differential" but that is Order-specific this is Combat Result-specific.

Anyways Combat would FLOW more naturally if there were ALWAYS three (3) Units/Cards in each player's Stack and the Scoring could go from 0 to 0. to 3 to 0... Where as in the first scenario it would be a nullified result and in the latter scenario one player destroying his opponent.

This would all work much better and in all honesty, it's a SET-UP question. You can PERFECT it and this is fundamentally the same principle as DEPLOYING the first three (3) Units/Cards in your Deck.

I am still examining the ramification of this decision as I work through the design.

Cheers.

I have discovered yet another "flaw" with the 3 Unit/Card Stack. The main issue is that "maintaining" that Stack is "troublesome". It would simply be easier to "somehow"(?) have Stacks of different sizes be COMPATIBLE. This would need for a way to ALLOW "Turtling" and not prevent an opponent from having a larger Stack and there needs to be no "real" penalty from having LESS of a Stack.

Basically you should be able to choose your Stack Size and it should go from zero (0) to three (3) without any issues to how Combat is resolved.

Okay that's a TALL ORDER!

It seems like it should be POSSIBLE. I just need to figure out HOW(???).

And so I leave you with these thought tonight. Let's see IF these issues can resolve themselves with a bit of rest and some further pondering.

Cheers.

After MUCH thought and exploration... I came back to the original version of the Combat Mechanic which was like this:

Obviously that was MASSIVELY broken since it reversed the order of Control from the Attacker to the Defender since the Attacker reveals his Unit FIRST. So next came another "idea" or Mechanic and it went like this:

This was a bit better but it causes too much RANDOMNESS. You already have "Squad Leaders" which don't participate in Combat but on whom the consequences or the results that are affected by Combat. This meant that because of the random factor... This was yet again ANOTHER useless Round of Combat.

So I came to the LEAST Favorite Mechanic which IMHO is probably the most FAIR method by which to RESOLVE Combat and it goes like this:

It maintains that the ATTACKER is in the "stronger" position and has the ABILITY to "react" with the Best of his Stack Units given that he may or may not have more than one Unit/Card in his Stack. This actually works to have the Attacker maintain CONTROL of Combat since the ATTACKER has PERFECT INFORMATION concerning the "defensive" Unit now in play.

So this means that the ATTACKER (in terms of information and control) LEADS Combat. The Defender may have put up a "Strong" Unit but does not mean that he will WIN the Round given that the ATTACKER has the "last say".

This INVERTED Combat Mechanic seems to be the "fairest" since it maintains the ORDER of Combat and gives favor to the ATTACKER (as it should be since he is the one initiating Combat). That doesn't mean that the Combat Round(s) favor the ATTACKER ... It just means that CONTROL and INFORMATION are in favor of the ATTACKER.

How Combat concludes ... That is something that has yet to be seen. And with any Combat Mechanic there is much that can happen to affect the outcome.

But it means that there is BALANCE and ORDER and both of those are preserved into a Mechanic which is fair.

Please feel free to share with me your thoughts, feedback and any addition concerns or worries that I have not anticipated. But I did spend at least a WEEK working on creating the best possible experience given that there were a lot of moving parts for this Combat Mechanic and not too many options to resolve it.

Best!

Okay so I asked @X3M what he thought about the direction of my Combat Mechanic and he told me his impressions that it seemed IMBALANCED. So let me offer up a bit of that discussion here and see what anyone else thinks!

The discussion is surrounding a Unit known as the "Stealth Bomber" whose stats are 3/2/6: 3 Firepower, 2 Resistance and 6 Initiative.

From a Designer's POV this is a mid-ranged unit in that it's Average in Attack (3 FP) and Weak in Defense (2 RES) and has a very fluid Initiative (6 INI).

Clearly this is the type of Unit you can use as a Defensive or Attacking Player. How? Well if you are on the ATTACK, if a Defensive Player plays a "1 INI" Unit, you can automatically play this Unit and WIN Combat (6 - 1 = 5 INI difference).

So it's dangerous when in an ATTACKER's Stack.

Less so when it's in a Defender's Stack ... Because the Attacker gets to REACT based on the Unit played by the Defender (as per the current rules of Combat).

If the Initiative Differential is "5" that signals an INSTANT VICTORY. Enough said.

As a Defender, it's probably best to play a "2" or "3" INI Unit and see what the opponent plays to Attack with. One thing for sure it's NOT an Instant Victory... Good for that!

Unless you know the composition of the opponent's Stack (from a previous Combat situation in which the Units did not get "refreshed").

But generally speaking ... If the opponent SURVIVES the Initiative Differential, well then this Unit is pretty EASY to "Beat". It could gain +1 FP and therefore have 4/2/6 as Stats... Allowing it to do more Damage. But still it's weakness is its Resistance and it's plausible to "shoot it down"!

What does all this Analysis mean???

It's probably going to be a Trade-Off: 1 vs. 1 Combat Points even with the Bad Boy "Initiative" that scares everyone but those who see the Tactical side of matters.

Namely: "It can be shot down!"

So to conclude... "Is this Unit IMBALANCED?" No it just "feels" a bit scary and yeah... It's a Freaken Stealth Bomber... You'd better be worried if that card makes it into a Stack. Is it the end of the World?? Probably NOT. Like I said, it'll probably end in a Stalemate Round.

That's why I THINK(!) it's Balanced.

Cheers!

Note #1: Where it gets a bit MUDDY ... Is that with a "4 Firepower" the "Stealth Bomber" has GOOD Attack. Which is to be expected from such a Unit. So Countering this Unit is NOT EASY. Like I said before most of the time it'll be a stalemate with each side winning 1 Battle Point.

If it's the only Unit in the Stack.. That will lead to a Combat Differential of "0" and therefore BOTH Units get "exhausted", nobody is "Captured".

So yes... Bad AND scary just not as dangerous as it may initially seem!

We have defined Combat as the following Sequence of Actions:

So the Combat Mechanic is exactly those Actions in that order of the sequence. It does NOT rely on "Luck", introduces "Bluffing" and adds a LOT of Strategic Depth to the problem that is Combat. Let me explain...

1> DECLARE: The "Attacker" decides he is going to Attack his opponent.

2> POSTUDE: The "Defender" decides with his Stack what POSTURE he wants: Defensive, Normal or Offensive. This gives the opponent a chance to see how to respond to this information.

3> COMMIT: Both players secretly commit one (1) Unit from each of their Stack.

4> REVEAL: Simultaneous revealing of BOTH Units is done.

5> INITIATIVE: Initiative is compared and the INI Differential is established.

6> MODIFIERS: Modifiers given the INI Differential and POSTURE are then applied to alter the STATS that will be used in Combat.

7> COMBAT: Combat ensues according to the order determined by the Initiative.

8> CONSEQUENCES: The "Squad Leaders" are affected by the Combat Differential as determined by the Units/Cards played.

***

What were the DRAMATIC changes in the Combat Mechanic given the previous iteration simply decided that the Defender should reveal his Unit/Card FIRST.

Well it's not that much more complicated. Information at the POSTURE step is valid information that will decide the outcome of Combat. It is PARTIAL information and may lead to the wrong conclusion (BLUFFING).

Secret selection and simultaneous reveal is a bit RANDOM but not without PARTIAL information given by the Defending Player.

But in REALITY it is NOT RANDOM. And that's what I like about it...

Fog of War (FOW) is 100% on a new encounter. And if the Stack Sizes are less than 3... That means 0, 1 or 2 Combat Differential may occur changing the outcome of Combat.

The POSTURE phase of Combat reveals a lot about what the opponent is thinking. If he is Defensive that means he feels unsure that he can defeat his opponent AND that he is also capable of DEFENDING against an opponent.

Normal yields the information that the DEFENDER is comfortable with his Unit/Card and feels like he has a fair fight AS-IS.

Offensive is when it makes sense to go on the offensive threatening his OPPONENT with a casualty rather than mere "fear" of Combat. He is sort of saying: "Bring it on!"

***

The key take-aways is that you need to PLAY to your STRENTGHS. If you have a High Initiative and are an Average Offensive Unit... It may well stand to reason that you SHOULD go on the "offensive". Or if your Unit/Card is very tough and has a lot of Resistance, going Defensive may cheat your opponent from getting a 1 Combat Point victory making it a stalemate (0 to 0).

There is LOGIC in all of this.

I'm pretty certain THIS is the "Combat Mechanic" and Sequence that I will be using for this game.

***

If you have any questions, need clarification, or want to give feedback, please feel free to respond to this topic.

As with anything it takes time to come up with the BEST possible solution to the problem at hand and I believe that this NEW sequence and ordering is what will crystalize the Combat Mechanic.

Cheers all.

So I have come to the conclusion that the "Sergeants" in the game ... Have an ENTIRE "Back-side" of the card available for "customization". How so??? Well with some analysis ... The Card's Ability will be "Mission". And since by the configuration rules of a Deck, you can have at MOST two (2) "Mission" cards, the result is "more" cards need to have the "Mission" Ability.

A "Mission" Unit will have a "STAR" beneath it's STATs to indicate that it CAN go on a mission.

Here's the interesting thing: "What do I do with the opposite side of the card?"

Obviously this TYPE of Card (Mission) is OPEN to figure out WHAT I can do with it... And ATM I have no idea. Only know that somehow this type of card/unit can do a few things (in the grander scheme of the game).

I don't NEED to have to worry much about the "Mission" cards because it's NOW an Ability to "Go on a mission".

This also opens up the Game to possible EXPANSION using OTHER types of cards and/or units.

I'll have to get back to you on the options that may be available. Right now it's wide open because it can be VIRTUALLY anything ATM.

Cheers.

We land up with 6 DIFFERENT "Missions". Each with their own Tactical Feel and requirements. The five (5) Types are divided into two (2) Categories:

Strategic Setup and Territorial Outcome.

The player who controls his OWN "Base" card determine which Missions need to be performed before winning the game.

As explained previously, there is ONLY one (1) "Base" card per player's Deck.

To WIN, a player must complete one (1) Mission from each Category. This is WAY more FLEXIBLE than the previous setup and yields more variable CHALLENGES for the players to surmount.

I will have to work CLOSELY to ensure that each Mission is "possible" and can be accomplished. Some may be a bit HARDER, others a bit EASIER. Balance will need to be determined through the two (2) Categories.

Again still a moving target when it comes to the Design...

Still working on it! Cheers.

This two (2) Categories makes for a more fluid decision during a game given that as a player you might become more familiar with the opponent's cards/units and choose a better secondary mission or a better primary mission.

I think I inverted the two in my previous post:

***

I'm still working on the "Mission Leader" ROLES. I have a LIST of twelve (12) of them... But we'll need to see. I have to flesh the out a bit... They're a bit VAGUE ATM. I had five (5) which were still not 100% yet. So I have to compare the five (5) with the list of twelve (12) and see what make sense and what is just "filler".

I'll get back to you all... When I get more time to review the "Mission Leaders" ROLES.

Cheers!