Skip to Content

Miniatures size, amount and damage tokens

40 replies [Last post]
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Desolate sounds good too!

X3M wrote:
...The KKnD and Warzone2100 theme is around high tech weaponry in a desolate landscape. It also allows for more exotic weapons like rail guns, lasers, incendiary howitzers etc.

Well that sounds cool! It makes for more interesting units too...

"Rocket Bikes" are like "Dirt Bikes" powered by a "Rocket Engine" and equipped with "Machine Guns" on each side of the bike. Kinda invented this idea... I can picture the Bikes being able to JUMP large sand dunes and stuff ... and be REAL FAST! Hehehe...

They would be the equivalent of "light" vehicles and good against infantry fodder...

Anyway was just sharing some of my ideas after reading through the post. I like to work with a "theme" and then try to find mechanics that work with it. Then I usually work on the "core" of the game ... only to end up with designing a prototype. I've designed many prototypes. Like twenty (20) or so...

Monster Keep is at it's 10th version. But sometime it was just ideas and no physical prototype... Didn't reach that stage, I wasn't too enthusiastic about the design itself.

Just wanted to introduce some mindsharing... I know you said you lost your regular gaming group... I don't want you to lose your desire to work on games. It's a good hobby. And who knows at some point you may even decide to MAKE your game (professional prototype). You said you had access to a 3D printer, so that means you MIGHT (if all the stars align) make a physical version to share with others.

And for those of us overseas, you can post images and videos (playthroughs, components - what the minis look like, etc.)

I'm all for supporting someone with his Game Design ideas. And it's nice to see other people working on different games too.

So cheers and keep up the good "work"! :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I would love to share stuff

I would love to share stuff once it is done. And thank you for the kind words to keep me motivated. Have no worries, designing is something I always did by myself.
I simply have no one to test it on right now, except myself.

Those dirt bikes that you are describing. Mechanically speaking, they need to keep their distance from infantry to be effective. In most games, they are considered to be scouts. They can pick of 1 or 2 infantry units, that's it.
http://kknd.wikia.com/wiki/Dirt_bike_(KKnD)

Not sure yet if I am going to change the damage/health ratio by changing the RPS mechanics. But if I do, I need to check if the balance isn't hurt in any way.
I simply had no time these last days.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I better stop with this.

I have several balance issue's. And these issue's are enough to stop this project.
I also get tired of over enthusiastic people that contribute notching.

What has been proven to me is that:
Simplifying for players means that the designer has it harder.

The rest is a tldr. But I posted any way to get it off my chest.
The idea goes into the book just like the card game. Maybe I touch it in the future.

***

- No proper simulator.
While only my cousin wanted to help. His help takes so much time. That it is more or less non-existent. Instead of quickly helping me to write the simulator that I need. He is constantly asking when to print the 3d and if I have models. I said, no game, no prints. I am an advocade of having a proper game first. Before doing needless expensive stuff.

I get tired of over enthusiastic people that contribute notching.

- Balance issue's part 1.
The lack of durability on fodder is a major one.
To counter this I tried twice the amount of damage as bonus rule. But this caused every weapon to go up 1 tier when outnumbered. So far, not really a problem with a lot of units (about 30). This was Obvious not the case with the hobby version where it was only 50%.

This +100% rule brings so much "balance" now, that it has no use having any combination of units. The famous Tank and infantry vs 2 tanks or 2 times infantry will not be better but worse! This is a no go. I even tried A&A rules. But that does not help at all.

- Balance issue's part 2.
While not looking at the RPS, but the effects of range and speed. I have discovered that a group of snipers is overkill against not only infantry. But tanks as well. The rule that I used was linear. But the counter effect for overkill was that the terrain had a lot of effect. My addition was 20% per range and the default was 2 range on 100%. This project even used 33% per range and the default is 1 on 100%. This means that units make shorter distances.

So far, you might think this is not an issue. But it actually makes the terrain itself 75% less effective. There is no taking cover behind terrain in a proper way for default units. With 2 speed, this was a case. But with 1 speed, this is nearly impossible. Thus you get this sniper unit with range 4. Just like the original game, it is overkill on shorter range in an open field. There is no close field effect any more. So there is always an overkill here.

To make matters worse. I tested this group of 4 snipers against a tank that gives cover to 4 infantry. The snipers win with 2 still standing on average! Despite using the shorter range goes first rule and the cover rule.

***

New possible solutions can cover one side of the story.
All health + 1. Makes infantry stronger again, but tanks gain almost notching in relative perspective.

The double RPS is also a valid option. But this makes a normal skirmish of infantry vs tanks. At least 4 rounds. Into 24 rounds.
Ok, that is from 8 minutes into a total of 48 minuts. For just 6 vs 3 pieces!! I think that those who read this can agree that, that much time is just ridiculous.

***

It would have been so cool. But if there is no game, then I see no use for the prints.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Current game progress

https://img.memecdn.com/bad-luck-brian-on-a-bycicle_o_2581001.jpg

I ehm, will focus on other things in life for a while.
:)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Take a break

X3M wrote:
...It would have been so cool. But if there is no game, then I see no use for the prints.

Yeah while I agree you should wait to produce 3D Models / Prints if the "core" game is non-existant... I find usually some piece of "artwork" is the kind of thing that doesn't let me abandon the design. Usually this could be the Game's LOGO or a sample "Card" or a "Box Cover" illustration, etc.

But I understand also the need to "shelve" a design. If a design fails my own prototype tests or I know the design is incomplete... I'll put it back "on the shelf" and work on another design. Something to keep the design skills working -- but not so much as to become frustrated with a design...

So the question to you is: "What can keep you motivated or even return to this design at a later time???" IMHO I usually like certain mechanics of my designs and "borrow" them in other designs I am working on. Sometimes this adds more "depth" to the design ... other times it's just a neat mechanic that I don't want to forget (I'd like to use it in one of my designs...)

Sorry to hear that your design is not working out... But there is always the chance that you can A> find something good about the design B> Learn from what not to do in a design (eg. design some other TYPE of game...)

Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, my games so far

I can't return to the computer stuff that I helped working on. And some things are too old.

The only games that are "hard ware":
- My original wargame "finished (in several ways)".
- My card game attempt with the same RPS.
- My 3D prints wargame that is super simplified.

All 3 suffer from the same imbalances.

I got these imbalances all solved in my original game. But that game takes weeks. There is no way that it will be good for public.

My card game, I just know I cut waay to much to make that work. But it had a chance if my super simplified game would work.

My super simplified game suffered from the same imbalances. But I knew that I had to tweak some stuff. However, the RPS that I have in mind. Doesn't really work at a low scale, unless I double it.
Henceforth that the bonus rule is too strong as well, literally +1 tier. This is only at 50 or 25% with the doubled RPS.
Doubled RPS makes the game at least 6 times slower.
Cover doesn't work that well, even with the ridiculous A&A mechanic.
Certain strategies fail completely, some due to ranged being overpowered. This will be less with the doubled RPS.

***

Yesterday evening, I even discovered that the bonus rule can be avoided completely by smart players. In fact, it was already rare in the original game. So, I either make it a certainty or remove it. I tend to make it a certainty in both games. That is something I like to fix right now.

Despite everything. I still learn new stuff.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about a "light" euro???

X3M wrote:
...All 3 suffer from the same imbalances...

Why not start something "new" then??? Something that is not in any way similar to a "wargame" with miniatures and such...

How about a "light Euro" game... Maybe find some kind of "theme" that interests you and see if you can design a game "around it"? Like say you like "Trains" well then I'd imagine you would have designed "Ticket To Ride"! Hahaha... Just a small joke. But honestly, yeah you could design another type of game ... without any "imbalances"!

Also I'm just suggesting a "lighter" game -- just to get you in a different head-space with regards to the rules. "Lighter" game and especially Euros are maybe the complete OPPOSITE of "wargames". Why? Well because usually Euros have very little "conflict between players". It's mostly about doing some things well and then at the same time trying to score more end-game Victory Points.

Just an idea... You may "hate" Euros... And so why would you design a style of game that you dislike. IDK just trying to steer you in a new and positive direction!

Cheers.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Or maybe a "micro" game...

I know of a designer who had made "3D Sculps" and had miniatures made ... I believe it's like Submarine vs. Uboat. Anyways it's a tactical minis game with only 2 minis...

Maybe that can inspire a sort-of "micro" game... IDK. Or you can go in the direction of "cards-only" or a "dice drafting" game. Those are my two favorite "genres" of games. Custom dice are relatively inexpensive at about $60 USD a mold and $0.10 each dice there-after... Something else to think about.

Or try finding a "theme" you LIKE but have never designed. That's another approach. Kinda like my "light Euro" idea. But who knows maybe it could be a card-game or dice drafting game...

Hope you find some other design that keeps you passionate about design!

Cheers.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I am relatively one sided and boring

There is one thing that could work for me. But I need that in a new topic.

Regarding this topic. I changed some rules in the original game. It is fixed again.

And I have been researching range effects on open maps. I think I have found something. But it might surprise you that the maximum range is currently only 4 for a simple weapon. And 5 for a combination weapon. But it really feels long ranged there.

Such a change compared to a 7 ranged sniper, 12 ranged rocket launcher and 32 ranged orbital laser. And all due to the fact of an open and open/closed difference in terrain.

I always felt like the range would increase damage exponential in effect. And it turns out to be a factor of 1,5 per range when the damage/health ratio is 2. Sorry for my math. But I feel I solved again a puzzle.
I compared my original game for fun, where the factor is 1,333 since the ratio is 3.

The maximum of 4 is due to the fact of not having to round numbers. The true max range is 11. But then the weapon is the weakest with an accuracy of 1/6th.

A difference of just 1 range can be gigantic, when dealing with such a fast game. That is why I put in everything I got to make sure the balance is right.

Weapon costs done.
I still have to do the body costs.
Combine the 2 and test these units out.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Starting to dislike math, but still trying every idea that I get

X3M wrote:
Weapon costs done.
I still have to do the body costs.
Combine the 2 and test these units out.

Something tells me that linear design is still the way to go. I tried the following design formula's for range and speed:

Ya=1/3*X +2/3
Yb=2/3*(3/2)^X
Yc=(Ya+Yb)/2
Yd=(Ya*Yb)^(1/2)

Ya
Is the original design that I also used for my original game. But then adjusted to the damage/health ratio there. The Snipers are truly better against normal infantry. But have not much effect if terrain gets in the way or RPS meat gives cover. Faster units will also have more benefit in approaching the snipers.
In an open map, this effect is overpowered. And does not suit the new game.
The RPS is 9 times weaker as I usually had.

Yb
Is what I was trying just recently. However, it is still too weak. Even in open maps.

Yc and Yd
Are both some sort of average of Ya and Yb. But it turns out that both are... still too weak as well.

I can only conclude that I need to put something in the map again that will offer players more cover.
The current tanks are not sufficient for this. Period.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut