Well this will be a bit of a "mysterious" BLOG entry. I have a military Card Game that I am working on with two (2) Factions. That's about as generic as it can be. Hehehe.
I had the idea of an "ATTACK" Value in the TOP-LEFT-HAND corner... But as I continued to design, I realized that instead of JUST "ATTACK" I could have several SUITS (Attack, Heal, Repair, etc. etc.)
My ISSUE is figuring out WHICH "suits" would be appropriate for the game.
A HEART could be HEAL. A SPADE could be REPAIR, a STAR could be ATTACK...
These are some embryonic ideas ATM. Not sure what could be a FOURTH. But I would think that these SUITS would be available to BOTH Factions (or maybe just to one...) Not sure about that just YET either!
If anyone has ideas for additional SUITS, feel free to reply. I will continue to ponder about more. Not sure how many I need... But we'll definitely think a bit more about these SUITS.
Cheers all.
Comments
Another alternative
Maybe a SHIELD of some kind to "protect", "defend" or "Counter"?!?! I'd need to ponder the logistics of such a SUIT. IDK TBH. Just thought of Attack and Defend and thought that you could only ONE or the OTHER but not both.
Like ATTACK can attack but both cards can be "wounded". Where as DEFEND can act like a "blocker" and protect the defending card. Two DEFEND does nothing as a bad consequence...
Just thinking about it. It could alter the composition of the Player's Deck too.
That's something more to consider and there are variations that can be used to make COMBOS. More on that later. For now... I'm still thinking about MORE SUITS and how they can be used.
More thoughts to ponder about...
So I definitely need something like "3-Suits" which could result in a RPS-3 mechanic (Rock-Paper-Scissor). Maybe something like:
Not sure ... I like the idea of INJECTING an RPS-3 into the game instead of having just two (2) Suits (Good and Bad). Kinda like the Elven Rings in "The Lord of the Rings"... Hehehe. Perfect BALANCE.
Where as SAME "Suit" follows normal rules (the greater the value wins).
Again not sure about this. I definitely get the impression that something ALONG these lines and rules could work. It really depends as I figure out what is the best possible RULES to follow.
TBD.
There could be a BONUS instead of a BEAT
The RPS-3 mechanic doesn't need to be "absolute" like a traditional RPS-3. What I mean by this is instead of "BEATS", there could be a BONUS (like +3 Points) and this could impact the "SCORING" mechanic.
Like IF I have a "2 STAR" and I am battling a "4 SHIELD", the STAR PLAYER would earn a "+3 STAR BONUS" for a total of "5 STAR" vs. "4 SHIELD" and therefore the STAR Unit BEATS the SHIELD Unit 5 vs. 4.
Something like that could IN-BETWEEN "absolute" rules. This also gives me the possibility to ADD "Abilities" that BOOST stats too. I'm not 100% sure YET...! But this definitely sounds like a step in the right direction as I DISLIKE your Vanilla RPS-3 rules which means that one choice beats the next.
I like the idea of "Minimizing" the impact but also allowing the possibility of having different types of suits and that could add more STRATEGY to the "Deck Building" aspect of the game.
Again this is a WIP (Work-In-Progress) so we shall see... I'll keep you all informed as to the direction that I experiment with soon enough!
Cheers all.
Similar to Card Jitsu
Oh hey, this is a lot like Card Jitsu, the Club Penguin in-game TCG. They had 3 suits: water, ice, and fire. Each suit would beat another, and cards of the same suit would go by value of the card. The high-value cards also had special abilities, like "destroy one of your opponent's scored cards" or "your opponent can only play high-value cards next turn". Maybe you could check out Card Jitsu to jog some ideas.
Also, I've always thought managing troop morale is cool. If you wanna make it RPS-5, you could introduce that.
Hello and yeah this is a cool reference...
Thanks for SHARING that @Noah McQ ... I like the Battle Mechanic of Card Jitsu. Yeah it's hard to design novel concept when there is so much OUT-THERE that we are not all aware of.
This was like 75% of the Combat idea except in MY game you can STACK multiple cards (up to 3 Cards). But yeah that's almost EXACTLY what I was going for:
It's interesting that you point out that game... Because I've never even heard of this Trading Card Game (Card Jitsu) and I would have never had any prior knowledge for when this game was around (2008 to 2017). So almost 10-Years ...
Very cool that you shared that with me... MY Angle will be:
And of course STACKS plus BONUSES make for a bit of a DIFFERENT feel than Card Jitsu... But real great that I've read more about that game and made my own a bit different.
Cheers and again thank you for sharing!
How to further BALANCE the combat mechanic
So IF the FIRST card dictates the SUIT, each card of the SAME suit deals the same BONUS amount. Like I said, I am using up to 3-Card STACKS. So you draw your own card and let's say it is a STAR and your opponent is showing a HEART. You earn +2 BONUS ATTACK Points.
Then the player needs to determine if he wants to INCLUDE more Units in Combat or resolve the battle AS-IS:
2 HEARTS vs. 3 SHIELDS = 6 STACK #1 vs. 6 STACK #2. So this means that it is a TIE. Player #1 can decide that BOTH Player must "Wound" their two (2) cards OR he can choose to reveal ONE (1) more card. Player #1 tries to go for a win...
5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS = 11 STACK #1 vs. 10 STACK #2. Player #1 is the Victor and therefore Player #3 needs to "Wound" his three (3) cards and place them at the bottom of his Deck.
Of course there is an OPTION for EACH "Duel" between two (2) cards to be a PART of the RPS-3. And obviously this is a PYL (Push-Your-Luck) mechanic to TRY to defeat the opponent rather than TRADE losses on both sides of the battle.
This to me seems to be ONE (1) ALTERNATIVE. Let's look at another:
2 HEARTS vs. 3 SHIELDS = 2 HEARTS vs. 5 SHIELDS (+2 BONUS RPS-3 Win). So this means that it is a TIE (1 to 1). Player #1 can decide that BOTH Player must "Wound" their two (2) cards OR he can choose to reveal ONE (1) more card. Player #1 tries to go for a win...
5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS = 5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS. Player #1 is the Victor (2 to 1) and therefore Player #3 needs to "Wound" his three (3) cards and place them at the bottom of his Deck.
But that's not the ONLY option. You can choose to WOUND the "LOSERS" ONLY. This would mean that Battle #1 and #3, Player #2 as the LOSER needs to "Wound" two (2) Units. But because Player #2 won Battle #2 ... Player #1 needs to "Wound" his 2nd Unit. And then the score would be 2 to 1. Rather than an ALL-OR-NOTHING scenario (3 to 0).
I need to think about it some more TBH. ALL-OR-NOTHING makes it MORE PYL... You try to WIN across three (3) battles and the winner wins EVERYTHING and the loser "Wounds" all of those three (3) Units.
It's a bit more DRAMATIC and adds a definite amount of TENSION.
I will definitely need to PLAYTEST which method is better but we clearly have three (3) options:
Stack with a BONUS ONLY on the first (1st) Battle and the result is ABSOLUTE where the loser "Wounds" ALL of their cards and the Victor "Wounds" NONE of their cards.
No Stack but you can have 3 battles and the winner of the MOST "Battles" wins and therefore the loser "Wounds" ALL of their cards and the Victor "Wounds" NONE of their cards.
No Stack and battles are won individually meaning that each Battle is either a WIN or LOSS (Wound) and there can be from 1 to 3 battles per turn.
Those are my options ATM. Which is BETTER... I'm not sure. But I definitely feel like I have OPTIONS to TRY and see what is better.
Obviously in MY BOAT a STONGER more riskier PYL mechanic is VERY desirable. There is the FOURTH (4th) OPTION which is closer to Option #1. Same as Option #1 but instead of ONLY have the BONUS on the FIRST card, you get a BONUS on EACH CARD (whomever wins the RPS for that position). All or nothing means that in the end, the Victor saves all of their Units and the LOSER "Wounds" all of their Units.
I will continue to PONDER these options ... I like Option #4... The ALL-OR-NOTHING with BONUS checks for each Battle.
More thoughts into these various approaches.
And @X3M ... You now know about 4 Battle Approaches that I am looking at. Like I said, MY design has only been since November 2025... Even though something embryonic has existed since 2023 but never went anywhere.
Cheers all!
What I LIKE about the PYL..???
Is that IF I use Option #4 (Stack plus Bonuses for each Battle) ... It becomes very STRATEGIC for a player who is ALREADY AHEAD of the BATTLES to just RISK IT and try one more time BECAUSE they have a lead.
You're a bit playing with FIRE... In that it's DANGEROUS but MITIGATED with ODDS of SUCCESS versus odds of failure. This make the PYL much more flexible...
Yes there could be an UPSET if the opponent draw a STRONGER card and the whole plan goes down the crapper... But that's the deal with PYL: At your OWN RISK!
So I'm strongly leaning towards Option #4...
Sincerely.
Let me show you the difference between #1 and #4
2 HEARTS vs. 3 SHIELDS = 8 STACK #1 (+2 BONUS RPS-3 Win) vs. 6 STACK #2. So this means that Player #1 is ahead 8 to 6. Player #1 can now decide to reveal ONE (1) more card. Player #1 tries to go for a bigger win...
5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS = 13 STACK #1 vs. 10 STACK #2. Player #1 is the Victor and therefore Player #3 needs to "Wound" his three (3) cards and place them at the bottom of his Deck.
That's what Option #4 looks like. And in this case Player #1 clearly won the STACK Battle 13 to 10 which is pretty good and results in all of Player #2 Units being "Wounded" (All three of them).
Again maybe playtesting will figure out which is the BEST approach... But from an Analytical POV (Point-Of-View)... I am strongly leaning towards Option #4. It may be too GOOD (too easy) so playtesting will determine the best method.
If Option #4 is too DRAMATIC, I would then go with Option #3 (No Stack and individual wins). That seems to be the most LOGICAL method TBH. So it will be between TOO DRAMATIC and MORE LOGICAL.
We shall see.
Best!
Feel free to share additional thoughts...
Curious how an RPS-5 introduces "Morale"?! If you care to explain... I would be indeed interested in reading your "thought-process". As of now, I have only used an RPS-5 when there would be Five (5) Factions or Entities.
An RPS-5 is a CYCLIC version of 5 RPS-3s. That much I know and have learnt.
Not sure HOW(?) that works for Troop Morale.
But would like to understand more for sure... If you care to explain, I'm all ears because this is something beyond me ... You must have some kind of specific ideas which I don't know or have never heard before.
Sincerely.
Option #4 All the Way!
Option 4 excites me just reading it. I can imagine myself as the attacker going, "Oh? Looks like I've bested you by 4 points? Should I let you lose just your one unit?" and then acting cruel and sinister and being all, "No! Push the attack!" and then they get the advantage suit on my next card and I'll be all like, "What?! His stack is now 10 to my 9?! I can't lose both my units! I need to push the attack again!" and then getting reeeeaaaaal anxious for the third duel. Option #4 100%
Sorry for being ambiguous haha, I was just throwing out an idea for a theme. I thought that if you're making the game military-themed, then the suits wouldn't be stuff like "Star" and "Shield" but maybe things like "Munitions", "Personnel", "Position" etc. I just thought it would be neat if one of the suits was "Morale". For RPS-5, it would just be 5 suits, one of which is Morale.
I thought you might want to use RPS-5 to make the game more interesting than simply playing Rock-Paper-Scissors with your hands, but that Option #4 seems very interesting and fun with the 3 suits. I can imagine myself as defender thinking, "Please don't attack again, please please please please please"
Hehehe! Yeah I knew someone would ...
But I'm a bit worried about the STACKING. I know @X3M talks a lot about how he must BALANCE his H/D ratio and measure his STATS too; well this for me is a bit similar.
My PRIMARY concern is that in a DECK of 16 cards when 5 are LOCATIONS and 1 is the HQ... That leaves 10 Unit cards. Ten (10) cards is not much ... If you do 2 Battles that's 6 cards which is 6 out of 16 which is almost ~40% of the Deck.
Plus you can have CYCLE 9 cards which means you advance into your 16 Card Deck by 9 cards. Not sure as to all the variations... I need to think more about the game and how it's supposed to WORK. As of today, it's just a bunch of ideas which are not 100% cohesive, they still need more rules and more designing needs to happen.
I have a TON of abilities too since I learned the METHOD to making Magic: the Gathering (Magic) cards. Follow the rules for each aspect of the game isolate that portion and design abilities that respect the rules. Later on when the game becomes more established BREAK the rules and design newer abilities that are over the top.
I currently have 175 different abilities in my spreadsheet and 32 unique ones with different CYCLE counts (which vary from 0 to 9).
Like for example:
What this ability does is CONDENSE Units in a bunch to allow for a FUTURE STACK attack during the next Deck run-through. Since it is a "0 Cycle" your turn ends after you perform the ability.
Or another example:
What this ability does is MAKE the FUTURE less predictable by ADDING +2 cards to the cycle for your NEXT Action (3 Actions per turn) or if this is the 3rd Action to the 1st Action of your NEXT TURN.
Stuff like that... I had FUN defining a bunch of neat abilities (like I said there are currently 32 UNIQUE ones). And there are a total of 175 different abilities (with different Cycle counts) when you factor in the variations.
Anyhow that's probably more than I wanted to SHARE. But it gives you a better idea of what I am working on.
I will keep in mind that Option #4 is your preferred method of play and we'll see if it WORKS well or not. From there if it's not feasible it'll probably be Option #3. We shall see.
Cheers everyone.
Also why the "Mystery" Card Game vs. a NAME?
Well I had released YEARS ago (like maybe 2-Years) the name of another card game which I called: "Battle Botz". Well it looks like someone TOOK my name and put up a BGG Game Entry for 2027 (Coming in the Future). Anyhow I'm annoyed about this because I had reserved this name way back in 2024: May 19, 2024. And the entry can be read here:
https://www.bgdf.com/blog/duel-botz-%E2%80%94-complete-overhaul-order-fo...
Anyhow ... I haven't been working on that game ... It's on the bench for future projects but it also is very unique in that AGAIN it's a "Card Game" but uses dice in a unique way. Dice are central to the "core" of the game.
I have an EARLY version that was printed from "The Game Crafter" (TGC).
So that's why I don't want to release TOO MANY details unless someone tries to TAKE the SAME NAME that I have planned for this design. As such, I remain a bit "mysterious". I don't mind sharing ideas and have topics in which we explain a bit more of what it is that I am working on.
But I draw the line at NAMES of games. That entry was probably since 2024 sometime and mine was about 1-Year prior.
Anyhow we'll see in the future even if this is one project that I don't plan on publishing even IF it may be cool. I'm just working on it as an exercise and to see what I can design for it.
So Kudos to @Noah McQ for stating that he favors Option #4 ... And for now the name will remain a "mystery"! Until I too figure out how to RESERVE a name on BGG... Hehehe.
Best!