Skip to Content
 

What do I need for a public version of my wargame?

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

Let's begin with the basics:

The public version is a super simplified version of my hobby version. Less in everything. In a sense, I cut things out till I couldn't cut out anymore. Or else, the game would be something else.

Materials?
- A traditional hexagon board. Either a print. Or a 3D field.
- A deck of Unit Statistics Cards (USC). Each player makes its own faction with it. Making USC's can easily be done in Excel, Word and MS-Paint.
- Miniatures; this is something I need to work on. IF, I want them to be 3D.
- A simple rule book.
- Event Cards; same principle. But it needs rework. Same as the USC's. I have a plan, I simply need time.
- A list of possible action points. But simplified for this game.

Unit statistics?
C - Cost ($)
[C - Strategy Points (P)]
B - Armor (A)
B - Movements Speed (S)
W - Projectiles (M)
W - Damage (D)
W - Accuracy (@); #/6 and #/5, or a combination of the 2 are in the plans.
W - Attack Range (R)
F - Attributes in the text section; regarding movement.
F - Flavour text.

A miniature will be standing on the USC. Indicating that these miniatures are linked.

I have many options in how players gather USC's. Either from one main deck, or multiple decks. Or they do some deck building.
I would love to have me some deck building for the players with the USC's.

***

Lets go through the rules for the statistics that I have set up:

The cost.
Will be whole numbers, from 1 to....18, 24 or even 36. I don't know.

The strategy points.
I don't know if I should put them on the USC's. Or simply have a page in the rule book, telling the player how much P a player gets for a certain USC in its faction. Strategy points are used to increase the number of actions. You see, it is a resource that can be spend in order to have an equal ammount of objects perform an action. If you have riflemen with a cost of 4 each. And you have 12 P, then you can have 3 riflemen perform an action. However, if they already used an AP, the cost doubles here as well.

Armor.
As you can see, there is no health value displayed. This means the comparison of armor with damage is not needed. It is simply inflicted. As for health tracking, 1d, 2d and 4d tokens are used. As for Armor, the range is from 1 to X (10).
[The mechanic "Negation" is better used in a card game.]

Movement Speed.
Goes from 0 to X.

Projectiles.
Goes from 0 to X.
Yes, the player gets a reward for using multiple dice if the player uses such units. It is rare and more of a "you are doomed" kind of action if 10 dice are to be used. Of course, only 6 dice are included in the game. And 2x5 is better.

Damage.
Goes from 0 to X. If you use X on a group of riflemen. If you manage to land a hit. Only one rifleman will perish. There is some RPS going on between damage and armor.

Accuracy.
1 or 2 rolls are required to determine if a projectile hits or not. The average accuracy would be 40%. Or a hidden H/D ratio of 2.5. I know most don't understand the H/D ratio. But it is used to balance a game. And in this case, 2.5 helps a lot. I often looked at 3 or 2, or even 1. But 2.5 seemed to be super helpfull here.
Anyway, rolling a 40% with d6. Means you need to reroll when rolling a 6. And we allow no more than 6 rolls per die in total. This means that if we have an accuracy build up from 2 different rolls like for example 4/6 x 1/5. You roll the 1/5 only 5 times at most.
And a combination of for example 3/5 x 3/5. You roll the die, and reroll. If it hits 5 rolls and failed so far. You don't even have to roll the second portion.

Attack range.
Goes from 0 to X.

Attributes.
Not sure if I have the attributes of unit types are displayed. Perhaps I should keep the Organic/Mechanic and Unit/Structure right after costs. Or as a start of the Attributes in the text section. Some units will have multiple weapons too. I will display these in 2 different colours in the statistics and if they have an attribute, it is also in that colour.

Flavour text.
Well....

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Reverse Engineering

With the limits set for all the stats.
I am curious of what I can actually design.

I am not going to round figures this time. Nor am I going to have the attacker decide on the targets. Instead...
No, this time I allow the defending player to push forth a target. Then the attacker rolls the dice. And decides which hits are used for removing the target.
In a sense, the defending player sorts the units in an order of possible defeat. With a mindset of roughly 6 riflemen. This should be no issue whatsoever.

The only rule that I am still debating myself over is:
Does the "frontline" have to be equal or bigger then the next line?
I would love that rule. But would players understand?
Especially, if I limit the number of lines to only:
- Front
- Middle
- Back
???
I would love some Event Cards that allow tactical adjustments like flanking and fooling and stuff.
The following 6 "attack" Event Cards are possible:
1st+2nd, 1st+3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd+3rd, all 3.

***

Walls (mobile or not)
Without the "new" cover mechanics. There isn't much flavour for these. You simply have fodder on the board.
I can have only 9 in total?
And it is right here. That I should allow multies of certain objects. But only if I have no other choice. And they come with a disadvantage too.

More armor means that they might get damaged and repaired later on. As for a minimal ammount of armor, you need to have a repairing action alongside the defence.
Seeing as how the costs are designed. I am using the following:
Armor; Cost
1; 1
2; 1.5
3; 1.75
4; 2
5; 2.25
6; 2.5
7; 2.75
8; 3
9; 3.25
X; 3.5

Those with .5 are multiplied by 2 and those with .25 are multiplied by 4.
You really need to destroy the armor 2 or 4 times before the whole object is discarded.

Now we get some flavours:

1; The cheapest fodder wall. Certainly needs some backyard maintenance if the player wants to keep it well maintained. If we look at protecting the basic unit; riflemen. Each costs 4. We need 4 walls for protecting them. If we loose a wall, the riflemen start dying.
1 to X damage can destroy one of these walls.

2; The cost and size is x2. You got a cost and size of 3, with having to hit twice with 2 damage or more. With this, I should introduce the attribute, hit points. But, you need at least 2 for protecting riflemen. And you can repair one, later on.

3; Cost 7, Hp 4. The most durable "fodder" variant. Even though it is 3 to X damage required for removing a hit point. It has 4 hitpoints. And later on, we see a wall costing 7, that is easier to destroy by X.

4; Cost 2. A medium fodder wall. You need at least 2 for protecting riflemen. But the durability is already very high against rifles. Especially if a basic squad of riflemen attacks. There are only 6 projectiles there. And you need to have 4 hits with them. It is still considered to be a fodder wall due to the fact it has actually only ONE hit point.

5; Cost 9. Hp 4. Not only is this one super effective against the weapons dealing only 4 damage or less. It has 4 hit points, just like the one of armor 3. For just 2 more in cost. The weapons of 3 and 4 damage need to hit 8 times in total. However, damage 5 or higher, needs only to hit 4 times, just like the wall of 3 armor.

6; Cost 5, Hp 2. Cheaper, almost half that of armor 5. The catch? It also needs to be hit half of the time in order to be destroyed. The only advantage is that a weapon dealing 3 to 5 damage, still needs to hit 4 times.

7; Cost 11, Hp 4. Same story versus armor 5 as how armor 5 was compared to armor 3.

8; Cost 3, Hp 1. A heavy fodder wall. Why called fodder? 1 hit, and its gooooone! Of course you need 8, 9 or X damage at this point. Still, since it costs only 3. You need at least 2 of these in order to protect a rifleman.

9; Cost 13, Hp 4. This is the most durable wall. But also the most expensive one. Most weapons need to hit it 8 times or more in order to destroy it. But at this point... it is more usefull as a blockade. The size is 13. And a player can have only 1 of these in a 24 game. Which also means.... it provides the player with 11 strategy points per round in a 24 game. This wall is perfect for protecting the support units that cost 13.
As for stopping riflemen fire. You need to hit it 36 times in total. This is the highest number of damage any object can take in the game.

X; Cost 7, Hp 2. And this is the wall that stops every weapon at least once. But due to the Hp being 2, it is actually stopping every weapon at least twice.
You can compare this one with the armor 3. The same costs, but different Hp.
Whereas X damage needs to hit the armor 3 wall 4 times. The 3 damage needs to hit the armor X wall 8 times.
Why get the wall of armor 3 anyways if the X wall is better?
Well, X damage needs to hit the armor X wall only 2 times.

Armor; Cost; Hp; Total Hp
1; _1; 1; _1
2; _3; 2; _4
3; _7; 4; 12
4; _2; 1; _4
5; _9; 4; 20
6; _5; 2; 12
7; 11; 4; 28
8; _3; 1; _8
9; 13; 4; 36
X; _7; 2; 20

Can we have multies of some other walls? Why yes, we can. Here is a list of 4 hit points.
1; _4; 4; _4
2; _6; 4; _8
4; _8; 4; 16
6; 10; 4; 24
8; 12; 4; 32
X; 14; 4; 40

This accidentely closes all gaps in costs. :)

***

Certain attributes that will return for certain:

Multi.
See above about the walls. But it can be done for units as well. It has the advantage of being more durable. But the disadvantage of being bigger.
And to make things fair. The weapon statistics are linked to the multi number. If you have for example 3, then the number of projectiles is multiplied by this 3. If the hp goes down, so does the number of projectiles. But, healing a "squad" simply means, all members return. A squad of riflemen is different than a "squad" of riflemen. In size, combat events, cover mechanics and actions that include movement.

But you mainly choose a squad USC for being able to provide better cover, or heal up to full strenght again.
And you choose a singular USC for being able to take better cover and have better movement and/or positioning.

Size.
Self explanatory? The size equals the cost. If you see this attribute, it comes with a number. A sniper for example can cost 8. But a sniper with size 2 will cost 16. In a sense, a rifleman can now protect a sniper by being a size 4.

Squish.
A combination of a movement and an attack. Actually, this is an assault with one extra rule. The "projectile" must be able to hit the target. If not, the movement is also not performed. Seeing as how organic units/structures are going to be squished. The weapon value is only 50%. The accuracy from 40% to 80%. The 1 damage versions of squish will cost 1.25.
Here comes another thing to consider: A tank needs to check if the target dies. Armor 2 or higher is already out of the question with the current settings. And a tank needs to check if the space that opens up, is enough for the tank.
Obviously, if a tank costs 8, and the space opening up is only 4. The squish doesn't work.

Assault.
A combination of movement and attack. The attack range is 0.6. But movement is 0.4. It simply gets added up. There is no penalty whatsoever. And frankly, I should have done this for my hobby game as well.
As for the action Assault for all other units. There will be a penalty.

I should change the rules regarding the attribute Assault for my hobby game asap.

As for this topic. Next time, I will post some variants of riflemen. And discuss if reverse engineering had use or not for me. At least it showed me that I need multies, no matter what. And while I have them alongside health in my hobby game. I hardly used them there. Yet, here they are needed for keeping the game fair and balanced.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Riflemen?

The rules for this list are simple:
- Armor=1
- Projectiles=1
- Damage=1
- Movement speed=2

The variables that I played with are:
- Accuracy
- Attack Range
- Attribute; Ignore Obstruction with movement

The goal is to have a round number for the costs of the rifleman or riflemen squad. In order to reach this cost, the following is determining if the design is allowed:
- Multi.

***

Of course, I could have checked out all other movement speeds as well. Or the most logically sets of 1 and 3 as well. Any faster or a 0 makes no sense for "riflemen".

As for the rifle attack ranges. I did observe 0 to 10. I kinda wanted to include the rangers that I love so much. They are between riflemen and snipers. Well, as for the attack range of 0. I have no excuse, except for that melee attacks should also be an option.

There is one thing I didn't include in this all. Having multiple weapons. It would be more precise to say that certain riflemen will use a knife instead in close combat.
There are designs out there that get a boost in damage at attack range 0. I am certain of that. But the number eludes me.

A conclusion can already be made. Reverse engineering is possible, based on accuracy. The other statistics that I demand from a design will simply have to be put in. I could make a super calculator that will give me remaining options on a double weapon, but accuracy based system. I can make this. Then start filling in the basics. And the results only tell me what dice rolls are required and if the design has to be a multi.

But for now. This list was more of a test of how much info I could get anyway.

***

Results are:

I have a total of 86 designs in this category.

Of which, 18 designs of a single rifleman. Costs ranging from 2 to 13. With exceptions on a cost of 8, 10 and 12. But those can be achieved by having a multi on a cost of 2 to 6.

Of these 18, we have only 5 that could get the attribute of moving into regions with obstruction. And it is this attribute that I was interested in for the game for a certain dessert theme. Still, I used a 50% increase for the body costs with that attribute. But, I could design the game in such way, that the increase in cost is only 33%. In that case, I might have other options.

Of these same 18, we have 3 melee. 5 at 1 to 3 attack range. And the remaining 10 are attack range 4 or higher.

We have 14 designs that are a team of 2. There seems to be much more designs here that can go on obstruction. And there is only 1 melee team here. Not sure if they are ever added to the game. That goes for the other multies as well. Either way...

A squad of 3; 8 options.
A squad of 4; 4 options.
A squad of 5; 35 options. This is insane, but understandable. I think the squads of 3 will see more options if the attribute is +33% in costs. I think, not sure though.
A squad of 6; 4 options.
A squad of 10; 3 options.

Squads of 7, 8 or 9 are not here. And I don't feel like going beyond a squad of 6 tbh anyways.

These squads of 10 deal almost no damage. I also looked at the damage, relatively to a normal rifleman, costing 4.
It deals relatively 1 damage.
The squad of 10 that deals the most damage deals relatively 0.87. And this is high at first. But I should mention that the attack range is melee here. In fact, all squads of 10 that are allowed, have melee. wtf?!

The highest relative damage is 1.6.

If I consider the attack ranges:
0; 17
1; 11
2; 5
3; 9
4; 6
5; 11
6; 4
7; 5
8; 5
9; 4
X; 9

And what about only the attack ranges 1 to 3? How big can the teams be?
1; 5
2; 3 (+5=8)
3; 2 (+5=7)
4; 1 (+5+3=9)
5; 11 (+5=16)
6; 3 (+5+3+2=13)

And finally, what if I normalize the costs and consider 24 only. While the attack range is 1 to 3. Meaning that multies of divisions by 24 are also allowed.
Well, then there are only 5 options. Of which 4 are originally singles with a relative damage of 1. Of which....3 don't have that attribute either.

These 3 are beautifull in my eye's.

Cost 3
Accuracy 3/6 x 3/5 = 0.3
Attack Range 1
Allowed on the map: 8
Cumulative damage: 10.8

Cost 4
Accuracy 2/5 = 0.4
Attack Range 2
Allowed on the map: 6
Cumulative damage: 8.4

Cost 6
Accuracy 3/5 = 0.6
Attack Range 3
Allowed on the map: 4
Cumulative damage: 6.0

With each being able to deal 2.4 damage.
There are 3 different attack ranges.
And the cumulative damage would be decreasing with 2.4 for every attack range. Its simply perfect. And I think that I should start with these 3 as options for Riflemen.

Anyone fancy discussing the 3 for the 3 houses of Arrakis?
Ordos, Harkonnen, Atreides? Who gets which Rifleman?

O ehm... the 4th one that does have the attribute for moving into obstruction, would be having:
Cost 6
Accuracy 3/5 = 0.6
Attack Range 2
Allowed on the map: 4
Cumulative damage: 6.0

I guess the 4th house or faction could be Corrino.
But who gets which?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
d10 and d6

Yeah, my game would benefit from using a d10 tbh. But it has to be alongside a d6. And new "accuracies" would open up as well.

0.45 = 0.9 x 0.5

But having 6d10 and 6d6? Not sure, maybe more of a 3d10 and 3d6?

At least, we don't need rerolls that way.

Also, d8 could come in handy.

***

Names...

Of course I could have factions. And then get some basic names like "weapon" "body". Rifle-Man, Rifle-Trike. Idk...

And because I have separate bodies and weapons, someone asked if the combinations would come back. Alas, I have to dissapoint here for 2 reasons:
1. Each card needs its own value. And 1.8 or 2.2 is not really optional. After all, I checked a lot of combinations. And the results are like 1.8+1.2, 1.8+2.2, 1.8+4.2 and 2.7+3.3.
2. Assault cards have their movement speed added to the attack range.

I am the least creative with names. But copying existing RTS and add a faction name will do. After all, EbfD has 2 different light infantry as well. (Any Dune fan that wants to know: Cost 60/50, Speed 6/4, Sight 7/6, and Atreides can get veterancy on training)

***

If I go for 4 factions.... idk.

We have 10 different armor levels to play with. But traditionally, each faction has the first tier being 1.

Then, what could I do? Start by using a select few tiers?

Remember this list?
Tier 1, 1 armor
Tier 2, 2 armor
Tier 3, 4 armor
Tier 4, 8 armor

I can have 12 different designs based on RPS system for 4 factions. Where each faction is missing out on an armor tier. 3 bodies x 4 weapons = 12.

However, it doesn't really work for Dune2(k)/EbfD if I do that. And adding the missing armor tier with something special is also very difficult. No, in this regard, if I start like this. I need to make my own version of the factions. And perhaps not add subhouses at all.

Then again. If I limit a faction to certain armor tiers. The other 6 that should be added later on have no place with the current plan?

I guess I should go with my own interpretation of a faction starting out. But even that comes with problems.

139 and 136 have their own "formula".
3^(x-1) and (x²+x)/2.
The next step would be putting in tiers that "fit in".
In case of 139, we could add 2 and 6. Thus 123 and then 369. Both linear and ocd people love this, I know.

As for the 136, X can be added, but then we are missing a 5th option like with the 139. Another option would be completing the linear lists. 1 and 3 get a 2 in between. But the 3 and 6 cannot get a 4.5. Only beyond will work, which is a 9. And thus, 2 different factions converge to the same faction in the long run.
Eventually, each faction would go for all 10 tiers? No....

I need to approach this entirely differently.
What if each faction has more designs of the same tier?

I could go for a 139 and a 136X. Where the 139 has the weapons 136X and vice versa.
What we get is, we start with 2 factions, design whatever we like for the balance in RPS terms. And then we add a third faction that also demands new units for the existing factions.

And if an armor tier is used twice, there will simply be more designs in that regard.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Reverse Engineering part 2

Made a calculator that highlights nice round numbers.
First, I enter value's for the body and certain weapon value's.

The remaining variables are the cost, accuracy and the attack range.

The cost and accuracy make the table. The content of the table will then be the attack range.

The calculator looks at the costs 1 to 24. It then removes all the separate statistics like the armor and damage tiers. Also the movement speed and multi-squad is removed. Attributes are removed as well. Finally, the projectile multiplier is removed, and then the default attack range of 0. What remains is a number of points that is divided by 2.5.

The remaining points are now divided by the accuracy. Thus it calculates the attack range.
The attack range is then highlighted. So is there a highlight above the costs that have options open.
The highlight is only applied if the attack range is a round number and it is 0 to 10.
The accuracies that are of use are also highlighted.

So, I got the costs, accuracy and attack ranges that are usefull with round numbers. Now highlighted.

***

Infantry that don't have the attribute for walking into obstruction?
I have 12 options.
Attack range 4 and 8 are not an option.
Possible costs of the designs are 3 to 7 and 11 and 13.
The 3 options for attack range 1 to 3 are visible again.
Range - Accuracy - Cost
1 - 0.3 - 3
2 - 0.4 - 4
3 - 0.6 - 6

As for changing the attribute weight to 1.5.
I have only 4 options.
2 - 0.6 - 6

Heck Yeah!!! Got the same results.

But now for the fun part. Instead of making huge ammounts of table's. I can use this table and see if a weight of =4/3 for the body attribute will yield results.
1 - 0.4 - 4
3 - 0.8 - 8

Right! My next objective is to determine if the weight for the attribute indeed has to be +33% or +50%.

***

The game will have land and water >¿?<
The game will have open and obstruction!

Obstruction in regards of movement could come in 3 flavours like in my hobby game:
- Snow/Mist (1)
- Tree's (2)
- Mountain/Rocks (3)
But those also allow for obstructing fire.

The other flavours that block movement only are:
- Grass (1)
- Dessert (2)
- "Water" (3)

Then there is a flavour that blocks projectiles, but not movement:
- Urban (1, 2 or 3)
- Roads/Solid ground (0)

I should simplify the above?

***

I would love to follow a certain theme. But what are my options?

Dune2(k)/EbfD?
Water is no option here. We only got dessert and rocks, lots of rocks and dessert. In EbfD we got dustbowls. Which allow hoovers. And in all 3, we got infantry rocks. I really love those as well. And in Dune2(k) we also have some passable cliffs for the infantry only. Those fit in the same category as the infantry rocks.

So, what are my options then?
- Dessert
- Rocks
- Hard Ground (If I do bases)
- Dustbowl (or whatever it is called?)
- Cliffs
- Dunes

The normal units can move through the Dessert, Dunes and Hard Ground.
Hoovers can add the Dustbowl to the list.
Trained infantry can add the Rocks to the list.
Only cliffs remain, I guess air units can ignore these, on top of any other terrain.

If air gets 200% and normal is 100%. Then 6 = 200% and 3 = 100%. Each additional terrain is 33% on the movement. I could make things more complicated by changing the movement speed for certain terrain types. But this is kinda how I picture the balance.

+33% is now the rule. Given that I do add hard ground in means for bases.

_33% = Base
100% = Normal
133% = Trained Infantry
133% = Hoovers
200% = Air

I need to be carefull though. An assault unit needs the same weight factor for the additional speed. And I didn't add that to the calculator.

***

As for the Dunes..... how could these be of influence? I do have dunes in my hobby game as well. But they are simply Dessert with differentiating heights. Just like the Sea being water of differentiating heights.

But having Dunes as a separate terrain type.
It does ask for something new.

In Dune 2, certain units move faster on Dunes. But also on slabs. I am NOT going to add slabs to the game though. You don't have them in EbfD either. And now that I think about it. EbfD doesn't have Dunes either?

I guess I can have certain vehicles have problems in the Dunes? While infantry is somewhat sluggish. It is often true that vehicles get to a full stop in the worst kind of dunes.

***

Let's expand the list then:
_33% = Base (Hard Ground only)
_67% = "Dumb" Vehicles (Cannot drive in Dunes)
_67% = Worms (Only Dunes and Dessert)
100% = Normal (Hard Ground, Dunes and Dessert)
133% = Trained Infantry (Normal + Rocks)
133% = Hoovers (Normal + Dustbowl)
133% = Crawlers (Normal + Climbing Cliffs)
167% = Commando (Can climb AND can use infantry rocks)
200% = Air

As for the terrain types:
- Dunes and Dessert could have a mixed version.
- Hard Ground and Dessert could have a softer version. Or less base options.

How does the space and size rule work again?
Each object has a size. It gets space awarded by the terrain.
If it fills up the space. No more can be added. In a sense, the remaining space is simply the only other type now.

***

I can have 5 factions now. Unless I check out if a projectile multiplier of 2 has any "unique" influence on the game. [Tested it: no "unique" influence]
In fact, I got one other variable that I still can test out. Like for example, a movement speed.
All my riflemen in any game I designed.
Always had the following speed: 1 to 3.
And the following attack range: 1 to 3.

Sorted on Speed
Cost - Speed - Attribute - Range - Accuracy - Efficiency?
3 - 1 - N - 1 - 0.4 - 133%
7 - 1 - N - 3 - 0.8 - 114% ***
2 - 1 - Y - 1 - 0.033 - 17% *
4 - 1 - Y - 1 - 0.533 - 133%
3 - 2 - N - 1 - 0.3 - 100%
4 - 2 - N - 2 - 0.4 - 100%
5 - 2 - N - 1 - 0.8 - 160% ***
6 - 2 - N - 3 - 0.6 - 100%
4 - 2 - Y - 1 - 0.4 - 100%
8 - 2 - Y - 3 - 0.8 - 100%
5 - 3 - N - 3 - 0.4 - 80% **/***

*
I don't like that one 17% version. I mean, even if you have 12 of them. You only deal 1 damage every 2.5 actions. That is a horrible low number. The 100% versions deal 2.4 damage per action. Or in 2.5 actions, 6 damage. The die roll that you need for that 0.033 accuracy is a 1/6 x 1/5. Yeah, not gona happen. Unless...I have some sort of civilian in the game. Yeah, they can have that one.

**
That last one design looks interesting. It has a movement of 3 and an attack range of 3. This one is more of a marine than anything else. And it still has the basic 0.4 accuracy.

***
The ones costing 5 get 4 Strategy Points. And the ones costing 7 get 3 Strategy Points.

We got 10 designs that can go for the position of Riflemen.
Ah, I forgot to mention the squads. Maybe another time. They do require an extra mechanic.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Only 3 factions if I got with that theme

The number of players will influence the map design.

Atreides, Ordos, Harkonnen: Those 3 need a faction.

I could add 5 subfactions: Fremen, Sardaukar, Thelaxu (rather not), IX, Guild.

Now, do I want every tier of armor being used?
If I follow the RTS examples, the subfactions have it easy?

The answer is, not really. Although looking at the games. Trooper versions become infantry versions.

The main problem right now is the number of players.
3 Factions, 3 players?

Well, if the layout of a map is a hexagon. 2 or 3 players is possible.

As for terrain, I need hard ground for the bases. I should see what kind of bases I want in the first place. And determine how much hard ground each player needs. Then I can determine how much other terrain we need.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Assault

I am doing the whole action point system from scratch.
I have been thinking about using something similar like in Xcom.

An action point simply allows for movement AND attack.
If you use all the movement points, you cannot attack.
If you use 0 movement points, you will attack for 100%.
If you use a portion of the movement points. A roll will be triggered for how likely projectiles are to be fired.

A defence turret cannot move at all.
And this always translates to 100% firepower.

If you move x points of y movement points. Then you roll y-x over y for if the projectiles can fire.

Example:
You have 3 movement points and move only 1 spot.
3-1=2, 2/3 is the roll in order to determine if the weapon can fire.

Anyways, the firepower requires the following dice:
Movement 2; d6
Movement 3; d6
Movement 4; 2d6
Movement 5; d10
Movement 6; d6
Movement 7; 2d6 with a discard on 6+6
Movement 8; 3d6
Movement 9; 2d6
Movement X; d10

And of course a CRT in the manual for lesser movements and what to roll.

Is this fair?

***

I like the concept above. Does anyone see problems with it?
Could I simplify this? Either way, I now ponder on having it for my hobby game as well.

As for the attribute assault. Assault points.
The unit can move up to this ammount of points, without triggering the extra roll.

Example:
An assault infantry can move 2 spots.
As assault, it can move 1 spot without concequences.
It decides to move 1 spot. The firepower remains 100%.
If it decides to move 2 spots. 2-1=1.
1/2=50%. There will be a 1/2 roll.
In a sense, an unit can have movement points. But also assault points.

The whole action point system is now simply discarded as well. If I allow only "1" action per squad per turn. There is no need for other action flavours to exist.

The action Assault is really just distributing the movement and attack over the turn. You can have 100% of each. Or a fair share.

As for how much assault points should weight?
If they equal the movement points. The weapon will always fire for "100%". The default is a cumulative list. And thus having assault points equal the movement points, resulting in a factor of 2 at most.

It is very complicated to balance in the background.

***

The player will not choose. It will simply distribute the points.

Example:
A movement of 3 has the following options:
Movement of 3, 0% firepower
Movement of 2, 33% firepower
Movement of 1, 67% firepower
Movement of 0, 100% firepower
We have a sum of 200%. But this is our 100%.

Now for a movement of 3 and assault points of 3:
Movement of 3, 100% firepower
Movement of 2, 100% firepower
Movement of 1, 100% firepower
Movement of 0, 100% firepower
We have a sum of 400%. Compared to the default of 200%, it is twice as much.
The weapon weight factor is supposed to be 2.

I test on a movement of only 2 as well:
Movement of 2, 0% firepower
Movement of 1, 50% firepower
Movement of 0, 100% firepower
We have a total of 150%.

As for all 3 at 100%, the sum there is 300%. Which is also twice that of the default.

***

Is the system even worthwhile?
If the weight factor is at most 2. That means the firepower drops to 50% anyways. No matter how much we move.
Movement of 2, 50% firepower
Movement of 1, 50% firepower
Movement of 0, 50% firepower
We have a total of 150%.
It equals the default now.

How to look at this?

If the assault unit doesn't move. It deals only 50% compared to the normal unit.
If the assault unit moves 1 spot and the normal unit moves 1 spot. Both deal 50%.
But if both move 2 spots. The normal unit cannot fire. The assault unit still deals 50%. What does this mean on the board?

Versus a defence tower. An assault unit is only 50% effective.
Versus an unit that moves just as fast at the top speed. The assault unit deals 50%, but will not receive any damage. It can "micro" perfectly here.

As for the movement of 1?
Movement of 1, 0% firepower
Movement of 0, 100% firepower
And assault:
Movement of 1, 100% firepower
Movement of 0, 100% firepower

Again, a factor 2 in this regard.
But if one hunts the other, the situation goes from 100%vs50% to 0%vs50%.

***

Of course, the weight factor with less assault points will be different.

A movement of 3 and assault points of 1:
Movement of 3, 33% firepower
Movement of 2, 67% firepower
Movement of 1, 100% firepower
Movement of 0, 100% firepower
A total of 300%, while the default is 200%. This weight factor is 1.5.

Another example:
An artillery that has a movement of 1. Can either move or shoot in a turn.
If that same artillery is now a "mobile" artillery. It deals only 50% firepower due to the calculations, but at least it can keep moving.....step.....by....step.....slowly....

This is the most extreme example. And I think I need to consider looking into this more.

This time too...

I feel I made a mistake somewhere in the balance.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Movement....yeah, this is certainly a brainflush for me

Is a double edged sword.

You can reach the enemy now.

But they can reach you as well.

***

This also counts for assault.

But the movement maintains a proper distance for the weapon.

I think somewhere in the calculations, I need to add assault points to the attack range.

But moreso, I need to take a step backwards.

What influence does a partly movement have on the attack for the normal units?

***

Let's consider the original RTS calculation, translated to my "public" version.

The tests:

Movement 3, attack range 3:
0 Move; 100% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x0 +1) = (3/3) x 2.8 = 2.8
1 Move; 67% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x1 +1) = (2/3) x 3.0 = 2.0
2 Move; 33% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x2 +1) = (1/3) x 3.2 = 1.067
3 Move; 0% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x3 +1) = (0/3) x 3.4 = 0
Sum 5.866 (originally 2.8, body 2.2)

Movement 3, attack range 2:
0 Move; 100% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x0 +1) = (3/3) x 2.2 = 2.2
1 Move; 67% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x1 +1) = (2/3) x 2.4 = 1.6
2 Move; 33% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x2 +1) = (1/3) x 2.6 = 0.867
3 Move; 0% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x3 +1) = (0/3) x 2.8 = 0
Sum 4.667 (originally 2.2, body 2.2)

Movement 2, attack range 3:
0 Move; 100% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x0 +1) = (2/2) x 2.8 = 2.8
1 Move; 50% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x1 +1) = (1/2) x 3.0 = 1.5
2 Move; 0% x (0.6x3 + 0.2x2 +1) = (0/2) x 3.2 = 0
Sum 4.3 (originally 2.8, body 1.8)

Movement 2, attack range 2:
0 Move; 100% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x0 +1) = (2/2) x 2.2 = 2.2
1 Move; 50% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x1 +1) = (1/2) x 2.4 = 1.2
2 Move; 0% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x2 +1) = (0/2) x 2.6 = 0
Sum 3.4 (originally 2.2, body 1.8)

Movement 0, attack range 2:
0 Move; 100% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x0 +1) = ("0/0"=1) x 2.2 = 2.2
Sum 2.2 (originally 2.2, body 1)

Movement 1, attack range 2:
0 Move; 100% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x0 +1) = (1/1) x 2.2 = 2.2
1 Move; 0% x (0.6x2 + 0.2x1 +1) = (0/1) x 2.4 = 0
Sum 2.2 (originally 2.2, body 1.4)

Am I being cross-eyed? The sum increases a lot with the increase of the movement speed.
But I also see that having 0 or 1 movement speed will yield the same result for the weapon. 1 movement really IS, you fire, or you don't. Because 0 movement really IS, you move, or you don't.

***

I have honestly no idea if this sum is a correct factor for the weapon. It seems to increase exponentially, compared to the basic value's.

But being able to move without attacking or not being able to move while always attacking. It at least yields the same factor.

If I consider them all according to the assault rules in RTS:

Movement 3, attack range 3:
(0.6x3 + 0.2x3 +1) = 3.4
Movement 3, attack range 2:
(0.6x2 + 0.2x3 +1) = 2.8
Movement 2, attack range 3:
(0.6x3 + 0.2x2 +1) = 3.2
Movement 2, attack range 2:
(0.6x2 + 0.2x2 +1) = 2.6
Movement 0, attack range 2:
(0.6x2 + 0.2x0 +1) = 2.2
Movement 1, attack range 2:
(0.6x2 + 0.2x1 +1) = 2.4

***

I must give this a rest now.
I didn't know that having a partially movement and partially attack would become so complicated.

Even in my hobby game. It is an either/or choice.
Not a "bit of this and that".

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How to make it work?

Not adding any other mechanic in regards of action points.
Nor the attribute assault.

The Xcom mechanic can stay. And a table of how to roll the dice for the projectiles can stay too. (And for my hobby game, I put this one in the fridge)

As for hitting moving targets. The penalty system gained ground on being a valid choice mechanic for both attacker and return fire.

A slow melee will not be able to deal any damage. The return fire will probably get this unit within a minimal range. A penalty of 1 will be the most often chosen return fire now.

In contrary to the hobby game. Where a slow melee unit will indeed receive a return fire with a penalty of 1. Yet the damage it deals is 100%. And the reason is the action points being trippled. The basic penalty of 2 for any assault was put in, because the action takes place in 1 turn, not 2.

In my hobby game, the attribute assault needs to be recalculated with the knowledge that those units always can do so. And that for just 1 action point. The penalty will be higher! The cost for these units will be higher?

***

For now, this is satisfied for the public game. I simply cut the whole action point system. And the players have 3 action points per round. Meaning that 1 squad might do 2 actions in a round.

***

Back to factions and their tiers.
Trying to see, what I can do for the Dune games.

I feel like that if it comes to the Combat Tanks: Harkonnen>Atreides>Ordos

If it comes to their movement speed
Ordos>Atreides>Harkonnen

Now for the fun part that emerges from the Xcom mechanic (I call it that way for reverence).
A squish will be a normal attack now, that requires to move into or close to, the region where the units are. The same goes for real melee weapons. But we will see.
After all, a bonus attack range is also an option.
The faster a tank, the easier it is to squish now. Since it will be able to deal more damage.
Somehow this Xcom mechanic makes it simpler and easier to design.
The ability to squish is linked to the movement speed. But also still as a weapon.
And a partly squish is also optional.

Since squish attacks only damage organical objects. The damage is times 2.

As for the movement speeds. I was thinking about:
2 for the Harkonnen. Squish is 50%.
3 for the Atreides. Squish is 33% or 67%.
4 for the Ordos. Squish is 25%, 50% or 75%.
That is, if they have to move closer first.
If the tanks are already standing right next to the target. And the target region is maxed out. They can attempt a squish at 100%.
However, if there is room for the tank to move in. It has to move in. The squish is either 50%, 67% or 75%.

Since the Combat Tanks are the "meta" units here. I kinda want them to cost the same. Altough Ordos costing -1 and Harkonnen costing +1 is also an option.

That is my goal.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Goal 24

One of the walls has no other option than to supply the player with 11 SP. If...that wall is in the game.

I pictured an average cost of 4 for basic infantry. 8 for basic vehicles and 12 for basic tanks.

The corresponding armor values are 1, 4 and 8.
Of course, Dune games do great if we add in troopers. They can have armor value 2. And their basic cost is 6.

With that in mind. The Combat Tanks would cost around 12.
I don't want to go any higher. Unless I increase the space of regions above 24.
I rather not, I rather keep the number of miniatures at a minimum. But 36 is an option as well.
It gives me some more freedom in designing.

The other way, is making the combat tanks cheaper.
If I set my goal of the Harkonnen combat tank to cost 12.
Then the Atreides one could cost 10. And supply with 4 SP.
And the Ordos one couldcost only 9 or 8. With 6 or 0 SP.

I think I will compile a list of options. I need some more reverse engineering. With a secondairy weapon etc.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The Sunscar ... Nomads that scour the planets

X3M wrote:
The number of players will influence the map design.

Atreides, Ordos, Harkonnen: Those 3 need a faction.

What about the "Sunscar" they are fictitious Nomads... That could be a 4th Faction. BTW I invented it ... So don't do too much searching for them in the culture of the game.

Hehehe... Never know what pops-up and generates a NEW Faction.

But you've got to admit the NAME sounds COOL! And they are Nomads makes them even COOLER!!! Hahaha. Plus you can imagine all kind of things they use in terms of technology like Solar Devices and powerful "effects" like "Rain of Fire", etc. etc.

Feel free to expand upon the name and the ideas presented!

Cheers.

Note #1: They could be like an "Egyptian" Race who build Pyramids to contact the rulers of the galaxy... They build monuments to honor the deceased ... etc. etc. And deal with SOLAR ENERGY... Something like that.

Note #2: All worlds and planets rely on their SUNS to provide life, heat and energy... The Sunscar are masters at harnessing the Sun's power... Again along those lines.

Note #3: Much like the Deadhead of the Harkonnen ... The Sunscar can build a "Pyramid" which takes time to charge and sends a bold of ELECTRICITY into the Heavens than RAINS upon an opponent's base... Ergo the "Rain of Fire"... Because it's charged using the Sun's Heat and absorbed into one large bolt that attack an opposing enemy's Base...

Note #4: They have the Nomad Cleric or the Sun God Priestess which are infantry that use the power of the SUN. They use a language of SYMBOLS like hieroglyphics... etc. etc. You can definitely have FUN thinking about this 4th Faction ... Best!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A 4th house

Would be Corrino.

You can't simply invent new houses to something that finished worldbuilding, half a century ago.

***

As for the 3 Combat Tanks...
If I want 12 to be an cost and a squish. I need to work with the other stats.
The value 6 seems to be a good one for this. Then they are stronger than most vehicles. But not the strongest in the game.

The Atreides initial idea was troublesome. But it still had a cost of 12. I found this out after I calculated the Ordos one. and thus, decided to have a second version for the Ordos Combat Tank. One that also costs 12.

Atreides-Ordos-Harkonnen
12-9-12-12 Cost
3-4-4-2 Speed
Tracked: Dunes/Dessert/Hard Ground
5-4-4-6 Armor
Cannon:
All 6 Damage
48%-24%-36%-40% Accuracy
2-2-3-3 Range
Squish (Organic objects only):
All 1 Damage
36%-40%-40%-40% Accurcy
All 0 Range

Discussion (for the fun of it)

I realized that infantry rocks should have a level 1 height. So that the squish can't benefit from the bonus attack range there. And that makes sense in my boardgame as in the RTS.

Costs and SP:
The Harkonnen one has 2 or 3.
The Ordos one has 2 or 4.
And with 2, it does add 6 SP. Meaning, every 4 rounds, there is enough SP to let another squad perfom an action.
Then again, we have a second option for the Ordos.
The Atreides one also has 2 or 3.
Easy peasy

Movement speed:
As wished, I got my medium, fast and slow movement speeds.

Armor value's:
The Harkonnen has 6, but the other 2 are slightly lower. This is weird if you think about the damage that can be dealt.

Damage values:
The damage is 6 for all. This means that they can destroy anything that has an armor of 6 or less.
In a sense, it will be overkill for the Harkonnen Combat tank to fight the other 2 Combat tanks.

Accuracy and Attack range:
Here comes the weird part.
The Atreides has the highest accuracy, 48%. But only an attack range of 2.
The first Ordos version has only 24% accuracy with that same attack range of 2.
The second Ordos version has an accuracy of 36% and an attack range of 3.
The Harkonnen is the most traditional one. It has an attack range of 3 with an accuracy of 40%.

Squish?!
Only the Atreides version has slightly less of a squish.

Fight!!
If it comes to combat. The Harkonnen one needs to fire on a moving Atreides tank. It is probably only 1 movement. The resulting extra rolls make the following accuracies:
Harkonnen has 4/10 x 5/6 = 33%
Atreides has 6/10 x 8/10 x 4/6 = 32%
O damn, that looks super balanced. :)

However, the Atreides one needs to barge in with twice the speed.
Harkonnen has 4/10 x 4/6 = 27%
Atreides has 6/10 x 8/10 x 2/6 = 16%

trivia wrote:

In the hobby game, performing an assault also brings the risk of losing units before they get close enough to fire themselves.
I do plan to have the same effect in the public version.

If the Atreides needs to take the initiative. It better be at the end of a round where the Harkonnen already exhausted their AP.
If, by any chance the Atreides can plan it right. They have in that same action that 16%. But if it fails. The next round, both sides fight. And then, the Atreides have 48% versus the Harkonnen of 40%.
Overall, it looks like the Harkonnen Combat Tank is better.

trivia wrote:

When attack range is unequal. The lowest value takes the initiative.
Atreides tanks can fire faster. Hurah!

This initiative doesn't count when the Atreides tanks come barging in. Because the Harkonnen Combat tanks will shoot at the attack range of 3.
Yikes! It only happens if the Atreides player waits for exhaustion. With 2 players, this happens half of the rounds. So, that sudden 48% cutting the 40% almost in half, happens only half of the times.
As for all the other tactics. Not worthwhile to be honest.

I will continue tomorrow morning with the Ordos versions.
As for the number of tanks. I am considering increasing the region space to 48.
This would allow for 4 tanks. But also 12 riflemen. Not sure...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
And what do you think screenwriters do in life???

X3M wrote:
You can't simply invent new houses to something that finished worldbuilding, half a century ago.

Of course you CAN! What do you think screenwriters do when they ADAPT a Book into a Movie?!?! They create similar plots and character but add NEW content to make the Movie and the Book(s) different. It's done all the time... Some times it is done poorly and people prefer the Book(s) other times it is done very well and people enjoy the Movie as much as the Book(s) because of these very difference.

So that same principal can be applied to a game Universe like Dune.

Look at Foundation (the Apple TV series). There is no Dawn/Day/Dusk/Darkness genetic dynasty in the Book(s). Asimov maybe makes a reference to the Cleonic dynasty but it is not about Genetic Engineering and the whole Video Series is so very different.

But the plot remains the same, while the main characters have different sexes and live on well beyond one lifetime (due to cryogenics). In the book(s) the Author simply creates NEW characters.

However in the Video Series ... They TRY to preserve the characters such that the ACTING would involve the same people.

So yeah it's done all the time. Adaptations always involve NEW elements as not to be "cheap copies" of the original material. They can change the plot, the characters, the storylines, etc. etc.

And that would make YOUR "adaptation" different than say someone else who is doing the same thing or someone who has already done the same thing.

Anyhow... The more flexible you are to moving away from the original material the more unique your game's experience will be and FANs will appreciate the DIFFERENCE your Game brings to the table versus trying to make EXACT copies.

You're going to say that I'm making more assumptions. But the plain fact of the matter is that "adaptations" always DRIFT from the original content to preserve an element of "freshness" and to bring more to the table that a mere copy of the Book(s). Think of it THIS WAY:

Quote:
Would you watch a movie or series if it is IDENTICAL to the Book(s)???

What would be the point of having screenwriters??? Those people exist in the world to make "adaptations". And only lazy people who don't read any book(s) would watch the Movie or Video Series if they were STRICTLY identical to the book(s).

You need to be more flexible than assume that a sheer copy of something yields a better end product. Like I said... It is done ALL THE TIME. You just got to figure out what "creative input" you'd like for your "adaptation".

Peace!

Note #1: And as a matter of FACT it is DONE MOST of the time. Look at the Harry Potter Movies versus the Book(s). Or American Gods the book is 100% different than the Prime series. Or Foundation the Video Series on Apple TV as compare the Isaac Asimov's Books... I'm pretty sure that ALL adaptation have CHANGES in them to take them AWAY from being simple copies.

Otherwise what would be the point of having "Writers"??? In the Movie or Video Series case it's "Screenwriters". And yes there are Screenwriters for Video Game adaptations too. No doubt the same can be said for other Games.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
They will say no

questccg wrote:

Of course you CAN!

You are wrong.
In this case it is doomed to fail.

Ordos is the only faction that was non-canon.
While Herbert liked it. The faction origin is a non-canon Dune Encyclopedia. And Westwood used it (probably unknowingly at that time).

The reason why that 3rd faction was added was to introduce a third unique faction to the game. And have house Corrino as an end boss. Although Dune 2 had all 3 factions that for 90% mirrored each other. In Dune2k, the Combat Tanks started to differ as well. Ornithopters are unique to Atreides now. So, like 85% mirrored. In EbfD, the true assymetry takes hold, even for defences, not for bases though.

If I were to create the Dune 2 boardgame. It should be in spirits of Dune 2(k), EbfD AND the first boardgame Dune.
It has been done before, a 2 player wargame. The third faction Ordos wasn't added.

The boardgame Dune has 2 to 6 players.
The factions are: House Atreides, House Harkonnen, Bene Gesserit, Spacing Guild, Fremen, and the Emperor (House Corrino).

In Dune 2, the video game:
Atreides and Harkonnen are factions to play with.
The Fremen join the Atreides.
The Emperor is the final boss and also shows up in mission 4 and 8 with some Sardaukar, the final is mission 9 with a full base.
The Spacing Guild comes back as a subfaction in EbfD.
Bene Gesserit, are only in the story elements in Dune2K and EbfD. But not in Dune 2 for all I know.
Other factions in Dune 2 are IX for the technology centre. And they return as a subfaction in EbfD.
CHOAM Merchant's Guild is the one controlling the Starports. This remains unchanged in all 3 video games.

You also see some other units evolve:
Siege tanks go from heavy tank to an anti infantry artillery to dissappearing. But seeing a bit of resemblence in the Minotaur and the Cobra.
Missile tanks, go from rocket launcher to indeed a missile tank. Only to dissappear from the Atreides. In the Ordos, we see this hoover variant AND the Deviator copies that one now. While the Harkonnen stay closest to the original concept. Only to it to be a tank sniper with 6 rockets.
Trike becomes a sandbike for the Atreides.
Quad becomes a civilian combat unit?
Combat Tank, again the Harkonnen keep this one.
And a lot of new units see their first light in EbfD.

***

My initial goal was to have some intermediate step between dune2k and ebfd. Where I pick of from both sides.

Having 3 factions allows for more diversity.
If I were to do a 4th one. It would be Corrino. Where I could think of a whole new set of units.
In other words. A "what if?" the emperor survived the ending of Dune2(k).

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here's what I mean

X3M wrote:
questccg wrote:
Of course you CAN!

You are wrong.
In this case it is doomed to fail.

Call it "Dune: The Sunscar Nomads"... And people would be like: "WTF is THAT???"

And then INVENT (or invest if you prefer) the storyline about how a FOURTH (4th) House appeared from deeper within the Galaxy that had yet to be explored from the inner areas which had long been thought up as an area of space which could not sustain life due to the higher concentration of stars...

And voila you have a premise for a NEW "4th" Faction.

Like I said, adaptations do it all the time ... They invent NEW sh!t to augment the old sh!t and make it NEW again. Of course it depends how good you are at making up NEW sh!t and introducing it to the Dune Players.

You don't need an exact timeline either. It would not FAIL ... Unless you do a poor job with the storyline and the units and so forth. IF you do a GODD JOB and flesh them out and make it as if this "4th" Race (or House) is a natural extension of the Dune Universe ... Some ppl will like your game and praise you for the ORIGINALITY.

People always love adaptations because it INTRODUCES "new" elements to the old storylines and plot. Be it characters, units, factions, settings, etc. etc.

It WON'T FAIL because you ADD something to the Universe... On the contrary if done properly it will be "creative" and "original" considering the depth of the known Dune Universe.

Anyhow... I don't want to argue. I'm just saying ADAPTATION take liberties in making fresh old "World-Building" and introduce new stuff all the time. It just depends on HOW(?) you present matters.

Again Peace!

Note #1: They can produce Synthetic & Alternative Spice. Their ability is to for each 1 Spice Harvested, they produce 2 Synthetic Spice. Which means they have an EARLY ON "advantage" over the other Houses but as the game continues the other Houses can catch up and defeat this House... Something like that. I'm just giving you an example. For you to figure out what you would want for your 4th House... TBD.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
"Impasse"

Well.

Games that have RPS as sharp as in RTS. Often get this "impasse" effect. And the game goes on and on. If one side gets the upper hand over the other in other regards except a roll of the dice. Then an early advantage doesn't work. etc.

What I need is a good balance that will slowly make a shift. But the players get time to correct this as well.

What I mean is that the resource managment should be fair and balanced. But not to fast, nor to slow. The game should balance here.

The reinforcement time should be adjusted, just right for covering up for the destruction time. If this one is slighlty lower than the destruction time. It means the opponent gets time to recover. And this is good. But it should not be overkill.

So, we got the following factors that can a player help defend:
- RPS factor
- Resource managment
- Reinforcements time
- H/D ratio

The RPS factor thus should be bigger than the reinfocements time. This is design and map design dependand.
The resource managment should make sure that the reinforcements time can stay below the RPS factor.
The reinforcements time should also be less than the H/D ratio, because that way a player cannot snowball the "losing" player.

If this all is played right, you get this impasse. And the true battle is fought out in the middle. Defence structures help shifting the battle to go even more to the middle.

Actually, try to get an impasse in a game. If you managed to have a never ending story. You are actually good!

It means, your game is balanced and fair. Unless a player does something stupid. The real strategy is just right around the corner.

Now, how to break the balance?
The player needs opportunities. And for that, they need to sacrifice their advantage. In a way, shift the advantage. Yes, they sacrifice an attack and reach the position that their opponent is forced into less options.

1. Defensive:
You keep pulling in the enemy. And defend extra hard. Subtle, but managable. Keyword: resource depletion. Both sides will have an end to their resources.
It might look like a flip of a coin. But the player who played just right, can get like an overwhelming end.
In a sense, with unlimited resources that suddenly make a drop at a certain level. This too can work out. You simply need to get an upper hand before that. And once you are like 10% better in a factor resource game of 10. Having this dropping to like 3 or something means your upperhand is 110 to 100, down to 40 to 30. That is now 33% upperhand. With a certain drop, the upperhand will certainly grow out on the reinforcements factor and RPS factor.

2. Offensive:
A key connection gets destroyed. It can be resource management. Production of other buildings. Or the production buildings themselves. Some games have power or supply as well. And finally, techtree, if designed that way. Now you have the enemy weakened in their number of options. The less options, the better. Because this reduces their RPS factor. If an infantry and tank have a factor 3 in between them. And their option to build tanks is suddenly gone. That means, you get anti infantry only. And the enemy still needs to get anti infantry AND anti tank. That is a proper reduction of 2, if placed randomly. You still need to do some proper placement on the map to counter this.

3. Shoutout to Bonkerz.
Deny.
Deny them their expansion.
Deny them their extra resources.
Deny them their extra options.
You kinda prevent them constantly.
For that, you need to take out what they just build. Because they build it with a plan in mind. If you remove it, they need to rethink their plans.
You deny their plans.
You deny, them.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Only 2 factions then?

The more I cut. The simpler the game.
But it also rewards me with expansion in other aspects.

If I go for 2 factions. I can have each faction have 2 tanks to choose from. A lighter and heavier version.
I also could allow each faction to have 36 or 48 points. Heck, even 60 points per region in worth of units.

Although 15 riflemen is starting to be a lot. But the average dice roll would now result in like 6 riflemen dying in 1 turn.

Less gamble is more balance and thus more strategy.

***

While the H/D ratio is 2.5.
I ponder if the other ratio's are easier for design.

Either way. I do miss out on the health tracking. The main reason is that no health tracking is maxing out the gamble aspect.

Right. Lets assume I stick with the plan I have right now?

With 10 different armor value's. I can divide the 2 sides. Each side has 5 value's. But I don't like that. Perhaps I should allow for a third faction to be added later on anyway.

***

Idea:
I just start with several factions. And have each faction get counters for all the other faction units.

I want to relive what I once made 30 years ago.

I want the faction colours to be the following:
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple
But also, White, Black, Brown
But also mixing....Green/Brown, Blue/Yellow, Purple/Yellow....
Perhaps Magenta(pink or rose), Cyan
Heck, even the colours that make me barf after drinking blue on white.

Ok, let's just say, I want to make a faction. Regardless of what they need for other factions.

I used to have 3 tiers, and they differ in health and stuff. And bigger units had a bigger risk anyway.

How to do this then?
What if I only allow 3 tiers per faction?

Infantry are either 1 or 2.
Vehicles go from 3, 4 or 5.
Tanks could have 6 or higher.

So, we have 2x3x5=30 different factions with the armor value's.
Each faction has 3 armor and 10 weapon value's. Thus each faction needs at least 30 designs for units.

We got 30 factions and 30 designs per faction. In a 1 on 1 combat, the best decks only have THE 9 designs per faction.

Lots of these actually deserve a 4th tier. But then, some will become the same.

And it doesn't have to stop at 30 factions.
I explored this before. With 10 different value's for armor. And allowing only 3 per faction. We get (10x9x8)/6=120 different factions.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Looking into if double actions are doable here

For the super units.

When cooldown or charging is applied. It costs more action points.
A cooldown of 2 is simply 2 action points. And the weapon shoots immedately. Since it costs 2 action points. The value of the weapon is only half. However, the weapon does shoot "before" other weapons can shoot twice.

With a H/D ratio of 1.
The charging weapon in the second action would simply have to double in damage. It is a 100% + 100%/ratio.
Or in other words, the weight is half that of the first shot.
The total weight of a salvo this way is 3. So, if you have a salvo, that will only use 2 AP in 2 turns. The weapon weight would be 3/2 or 150%. This weapon deals only 67% damage.

The hobby game has a H/D ratio of 3.
If we apply 3 damage with a cooldown of 2.
It would have 4 damage with a charge of 2.
The weights are reversed though. So 3x4 = 4x3.
The salvo total is 7 here.
The true weight is 4/7 and 3/7. For the first and second shot.
with a salvo of 3.
We get 16/37 12/37 9/37.

The current public attempt has a H/D ratio of 2.5.
2.5 + 1 = 3.5
3.5/2.5 = 1.4

Salvo of 2:
7/12 and 5/12
Salvo of 3:
49/109, 35/109 and 25/109
A division of 109 asks for rounding :(
109 is a prime number. F!!
But the division of 12 is easy to work with :)

I don't allow more than 3 AP to be spend.
And I am also worried about the Xcom mechanic. Should I take a look into this as well in regards of the AP spend?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Been talking with someone

He has a group of people to playtest with.
That game made lots of progress.
While I had no real playtest with others for years by now.

Since I have no one to playtest with. The only option I have is some sort of single player. THAT, I can playtest. And I prefer my hobby variant for that.

I made a lot of progress here. But it is time to put the whole boardgaming in a fridge. Not just this public thing.

It has no use to keep talking about things here.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I hate to "burst your bubble"... But...

Even Joe (@The Professor) does development playtesting ALONE. How? The same way that I do it too: we always play the best move for each side. And since your game is Turn-Based (not some real-time abomination as I've seen examples of...) you too can use that method to playtest YOUR wargame.

When it comes necessity to have "outside" playtests is "Blind Playtesting". This is when a group of playtesters are given the box and the rulebook(s) and told to "Have at it..." This sort of test is ESSENTIAL for games that are to be marketed to the masses via a Kickstarter or a Publisher. But usually the Publisher will do their own playtesting and conduct Blind Playtesting too...

Joe (@The Professor) can be reached via the contact page of his website:

http://professorslab.com/

I can't give you his e-mail and he doesn't frequent our website often. But I do remember the discussion well we had about "Playtesting". And I can clearly remember what Joe said and was along the line of "I play both sides or all players to the best of each players outcomes..." And so he takes turns being each player and can give out a report about how the playtests went.

He's worked for Stonemaier Games and yeah he does do some Development Playtesting just with himself. Blind is when the rulebook needs to be tested and even that he can do a review and tell you the challenges he had when trying to TEST with the rulebook(s).

If you want my advice: "Just play each player and do the BEST moves you can make for each side." If you want surprises (which I doubt will happen unless you have FOW or "Fog Of War") it's pretty much an open play area. So the surprises are in the cards in your hands and how each PLAYER uses what ever strategy they plan on using.

X3M wrote:
I made a lot of progress here. But it is time to put the whole boardgaming in a fridge. Not just this public thing.

Do as you feel is best for you. But making a lot of progress is GREAT IF you manage to FINISH whatever you started. Sound like either you are tired or feel as if you've reach the end of what you wanted to accomplish. Either way... I do wish you much luck.

My POV is don't stop because you CANNOT playtest. You CAN ... You just have to take on each Player's Role to the best of their ability and make the best possible moves on each turn using whatever known strategies are available to each of the players.

Cheers @X3M!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
And believe me when I say...

Bringing an IDEA to a prototype and finally a final product is a REAL challenge. For one, I am an "Indie" Game Designer. What does that actually mean?? Well it means that I trying to bring the IDEAS to market without the need of a Publisher. So I find my own "Artists", I work with them to help make the artwork which in most cases is a process that takes 3-Months sometimes more depending on the schedule of the artist and what other commissions they may get. We're not 100% exclusive ... So there has to be a certain flexibility.

I also get my own quotes from China for making products that will be sourced in China (I've done this multiple times to date for references and quotes) and I usually finance the products myself (again without the need of external funding).

I did this for my "Dual Dice" KS Campaign and I spent 1-Month just doing SHIPPING... So that effort was focused and laser-like and it wasn't a big deal... It's just not something a Game Designer would normally do unless they were independent or managed their own project. I can't say that I LIKED it... I managed to get it done and that's the bottom line. But one month for 23 Backers is not great, I'd do like batches of 4 or 5 orders at a time since I did not have my OWN Label Printer.

Now that I've spent some money on a printer and labels... I'm more open to a new campaign in the range of 100 to 200 supporters. But we shall see... More work is definitely needed and we'll see how that product matures into something that can be sold.

So sometimes you NEED to do things you don't like and they take up some time in your schedule to make them happen. And obviously most of those OTHER tasks are things that take you AWAY from "Designing" or making game ideas into prototypes... (Like the shipping KS backers or making a KS page, etc. etc.)

What you need to do is find a Gamer Group in your area (or close by) and then bring what you've got done and have players playtest a prototype (of you have one of those...) And rules, well you don't need to bring a rulebook... But you need to be able to EXPLAIN how to play.

Alternatively a lot of people use Tabletop Simulator on Steam to setup their games and import their models and make a playable copy from ANYWHERE in the world. Another WEB-ORIENTED alternative is "Tabletopia" and I have "TradeWorlds" for 2-Players setup for FREE and available at any time for 2-Players to play the game and enjoy the Deck-Builder.

Anyhow... I just wanted to point out that doing mathematics and making all kinds of calculations for your game is "FUN" for you... It's not the only aspect of "Indie" Game Design. There are a LOT of HATS that you need to wear and they vary depending on the phase of where you are in the design.

Again wishing you all the best and know that you are not alone. Even myself, I needed to optimize my KS Shipping for the future and now you know why. I also don't privy writing "nice rules" all the time (just a text document with notes) and I can fill in the details when explaining the game.

Most of the time the designs are INCOMPLETE unless I actually have a PROTOTYPE and maybe even then, sometimes they become OUT-DATED and need more attention and time than I have to give to some of my designs.

Just saying that sometimes I take break from a design to just BREATHE and wait to see what will come up in terms of ideas and what is needed to take a design to the "next level".

Again cheers! And know that if you are "Independent", be prepared to wear a lot of different "Hats"...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut