Skip to Content

Different number of units allowed per region

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

See title. Think in the style of wargames like Risk or Axis n Allies.
It has a lot of influence on the balance of a game.

What are your experiences?

Further more, having different numbers for different units. How would that work?

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
Need a good reason

If there is, thematically, a good reason, then I think it could work, but if the rule just seems arbitrary, then it would only be annoying.

For instance, if you're defending a small mountain pass, then it makes sense that there is a smaller limit to the number of defenders you can put in place. However, those few troops should also get a defense bonus of some sort.

It would be an interesting position, because it would be strong in the early game, when you have fewer unit available, so the bonus is really helpful and the limitation doesn't matter. Later on, when you and your opponent both have a lot of units to work with, the limitation is more of a big deal than the bonus, plus it makes for a choke point for your supply lines, since moving troops through there suffers its same limitation.

So I definitely like it as a strategic element in the game, if that makes sense to the game. But, again, it should feel like it makes sense, or it will just be an annoying rule that people tend to house rule away.

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
Perhaps add some sort of

Perhaps add some sort of mechanic that allows your "barracks" to expand and hold more units per region as the game progresses? Allow forces to overtake an enemy's region that can now hold more of their own army?

This sounds like something that would lend itself very well to the "as the game goes on" portion of design.

And, as was stated by others, it'd be good to have strong theme for that particular rule.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, choke points are a fine

Well, choke points are a fine example in this.

They block or funnel the enemy.
Not only that, but there is even a strategic difference in a choke point and a choke point that lays around a corner. But that difference is only apparent when you deal with longer ranged units.

I was talking more about the big open fields. Where normally you could place 12 risk soldiers. But in the dunes only 6?

Another way to think about it is having a field of a limit of 6 for each region. But somewhere in this open field, we have an oases with 12. Since players want to have a location like that, they might fight for it. But then they have it. Would it be worth it if another player is smart enough not to try to get it?

Having an oases like that on itself doesn't sound good enough for the game. Those forces are just sitting there. It must have some sort of an extra bonus like resources. But then again, it should not be extra strong so it cannot be taken over again. Perhaps a gathering point before the big fight starts?

Even though forces are balanced, the game might not since there might be these kind of differences in terrain.

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
Logistics

One way is to tie the tiles to the logistics of taking care for an army. For example, you need to feed your soldiers and so the terrain they are needs to be able to support them. A fertile field will manage to feed more soldiers than a forest, which in turn will be better than a desert. The players might be able to build infrastructure (like roads), who can expand the troop limit supported by the tile.

As for different numbers for different units, you might look at a lot of turn-based strategy video games as examples. A cavalry unit has less men than an infantry unit, which makes KIAs more noticeable. On the other hand, each horseman has higher stats than a footman, making cavalrymen better fighters while keeping the units balanced.

Black Oak Games
Offline
Joined: 11/07/2012
Civilization

This is done in the original Civilization game - regions have a certain number of people they can support (feed), which makes some locations more defensible and some less so.

It's a very simple implementation, but adds a lot of strategic value to play.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What would be the best way to

What would be the best way to display the difference?

Let's say for example, we have terrain that can have grasslands, desert and/or sea

If a region has grasslands, it allows 12.
But in the desert, you can have only 6.
Water of course allows 0 on land, but 12 for boats.

What if a region has 50% grassland and 50% water. What is the best way for players to know what they can put in that region. The answer is obviously 6 and 6. But should these numbers be displayed on the region?

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
If possible, the best way is

If possible, the best way is to display it on the region so that players don't have to refer to the manual every few minutes. Also, it prevents game errors because of misunderstanding.

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
Display it on the region, or

Display it on the region, or on a reference card, or a corner of the game board. Depends on how much info you have to show.

I like the road system mentioned earlier.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ok, when I display it on the

Ok, when I display it on the region. And the region is a beach. I could display 3 numbers:
0 for Grassland
3 for Sand
6 for Water

So the player then knows that he/she could place 3 land units and 6 water units. Right?

It would be like:
0G-3S-6W

But what if a land unit can actually swim?
Then that unit should be placed last?
First the land and water units are placed, then the swimmer.

If there is no more room in either place. The player needs to remove another unit.

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
I don't think I would have

I don't think I would have hybrid spaces.

Also, you may need to decide the nature of the constraint. What is the rationale that makes swimming relevant to number of units an area can support? Is support a question of movement or food or tactical considerations or what?

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
If you go the hybrid route,

If you go the hybrid route, I'd personally do it with the number and a symbol or initial for the unit itself, assuming you don't have dozens of different units.

For example, if a grassland can support 3 Tanks, 5 Infantry, 1 Cavalry, and 0 Ships, the tile/region itself could have "3T_5I_1C_0S" written on it somewhere. Or the initials could instead be symbols representing the units, like "3Ω_5∂_1◊_0∆" (which would also ease any future translations of the game!).

Another (more complicated) option would be to have each unit require a certain level of terrain/resource in each region in order to be placed there, up until the region's resources have been maxed out.

Example: A grassland region provides 10 Food, 4 Water, 15 Land, and 6 Lumber (shown on the region itself) at all times. An infantry unit requires 2 Food, 1 Water, 2 Land, and 1 Lumber to operate, while a Tank unit requires 4 Food, 2 Water, 5 Land, and 0 Lumber (all shown on a reference card).

This region could then sustain 2 Infantry and 1 Tank, 2 Tanks and 0 Infantry, or 4 Infantry and 0 Tanks since the Water supply is a real limiting factor. This could of course be combined with whatever other units/theme you already have going, not just Tanks and Infantry.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
My goal

My goal is to get players to understand the system.

I have Grasslands, Deserts and Sea. (Not talking yet about forests and mountains)
Basic units can only go for 50% on Deserts and 0% on water.
A boat can go for 100% on water but 0% on the other 2 terrains.
amphibious/swimmer units can go as basic plus 50 or 100% in water
hoovers have 100% on all the terrain.

The terrain has not 12 but 3600 of units. The units have different worth. This due to different strengths.
If an terrain has 1/3th of each type. Thus 1200 Grasslands, 1200 Desert and 1200 sea. Then displaying this like 1200-1200-1200 would be best?
But how to explain to players how they can put in for example, a hoover of 1800, a basic of 1200 and a boat of 600?

I guess, eventually it becomes to complicated. Although, for me it is easy to understand.
Simplifying the terrain is not an option any more. Thus simplifying the units instead? But that eats away strategy.

I think I need to make a list of different terrain with different units. Explain the rules. And ask people to fill in the table. Asking where they have trouble with. If I where to post it here. Would you be willing to take this test?

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
I'd be happy to look at the

I'd be happy to look at the full rules. I'm still missing something mentally when I try to put it all together.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
manual part + problem

Since I am redesigning these part of the rules and am not sure if it works. I don't have the proper manual about this yet. So I need to post it here first.

Further, the first game that I am designing is 1950-1970 warfare. This is the best expandable theme in my opinion. It will have a C&C like feeling in the start and progress.

But there are possible plans for Arakis(Dune), Naruto, Starcraft and Warzone2100. And I could adjust to many more known RTS.

***

Placement of structures and units:

Each structure and unit has a size depending on how strong the unit is.
Examples: A rifle infantry is size 100. A grenadier has size 150. A "basic" sniper has size 600. Some Jeeps have 450 or 600 and some tanks have 600 or 900.

It doesn't matter what kind of propulsion the units have, this is their size.
The units in placement and movement can be blocked by other (allied/enemy) units, wrong terrain, tree's and rocks/hills.

--

Terrain:

There are 3 altitudes:
Air
Ground
Sub terrain/sub marine

Each terrain allows a total of 3600 in each altitude. Thus 1 region could hold up a total of 10800.
But for now, lets focus on the ground only.

There are 3 terrain types on the ground.
Grasslands (grass), Deserts (sand) and Sea (water).
There can be mixtures of these,
like swamps (1800 grass, 1800 water),
beaches (1800 sand, 1800 water) etc.

There are also 2 possible additions. Tree's and Rocks/Hills. They reduces placement and reduce projectile movement.
A complete forest does this with 50% and a maximum of rocks, it is even 100%. They come in parts of 1 out of 6. Due to the fact that only 6 sided dice are used.

Each structure and unit has a "propulsion". Here are some examples:
Basic structures and units can stand for 100% on grass and 50% on sand.
Boats and shipyards 100% on water.
Amphibious is a basic unit that has also 50% or 100% on water.
Hoover is 100% on all 3 terrains.
Ninja are basic, but ignore Tree's and Rocks/Hills
Shinobi are like Hoovers, but ignore Tree's and Rocks/Hills

--

Each terrain has a number;
Grass-Sand-Water/Tree's-Rocks

Some examples:
3600-0-0/0-0 Open Grass field
3600-0-0/6-0 Forest
0-3600-0/0-0 Open Desert
0-3600-0/6-0 Palm Forest
1800-1800-0/0-0 Savannah
1800-1800-0/6-0 Savannah Forest

***

But now starts the problem.
Now to combine the units size, with propulsion, with the terrain info.
And there lies the problem. What would be user friendly?

Because when basic units and hoovers are going to be placed in the 6 example terrains. It is obvious that players still need to calculate. The types share the room.

3600-0-0/0-0 Open Grass field
Basic has 3600 room
Hoover has 3600 room

3600-0-0/6-0 Forest
Basic has 1800 room
Hoover has 1800 room

0-3600-0/0-0 Open Desert
Basic has 1800 room
Hoover has 3600 room

0-3600-0/6-0 Palm Forest
Basic has 900 room
Hoover has 1800 room

1800-1800-0/0-0 Savannah
Basic has 2700 room
Hoover has 3600 room

1800-1800-0/6-0 Savannah Forest
Basic has 1350 room
Hoover has 1800 room

--

Perhaps not calculating the room for each type. But calculating the size of each type compared with the terrain.

Basic
100% in size for Grass
200% in size for Sand
Infinite in size for Water

Hoover
100% in size for Grass
100% in size for Sand
100% in size for Water

When there are tree's and rocks, these sizes are multiplied with 12 and divided by the score of 12 minus blockades.
Where 1/6th part tree is 1 score and 1/6th part rocks is 2 score. Having 6 parts with only rocks is 12.

Then I could make a list of the factors.
0 gives 1
1 gives 12/11
2 gives 1,2
3 gives 4/3
4 gives 1,5
5 gives 12/7
6 gives 2
7 gives 2,4
8 gives 3
9 gives 4
10 gives 6
11 gives 12
12 gives infinite

3600-0-0/0-0 Open Grass field
Basic is 100%
Hoover is 100%

3600-0-0/6-0 Forest
Basic is 200%
Hoover is 200%

0-3600-0/0-0 Open Desert
Basic is 200%
Hoover is 100%

0-3600-0/6-0 Palm Forest
Basic is 400%
Hoover is 200%

1800-1800-0/0-0 Savannah
Basic is 133,3% (But how could players know how to get to this number? I took the 3600/2700 as focus point)
Hoover is 100%

1800-1800-0/6-0 Savannah Forest
Basic is 266,7% (Same approach, 3600/1350)
Hoover is 200%

***

So there you have it, the plan and the problem.
And I only found out about it now, since my buddies and I wanted to add more complicated terrain to the board. Before that, we only had pure terrain with Forests (100% tree's) and 100% rocks.

But if we succeed in designing something usable. Then we got something new and unique.

RyanRay
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2014
Wow, those are a lot of

Wow, those are a lot of different factors.

To be honest, a game of the heaviness is probably a little out of my wheelhouse personally. To have this much math and percentages involved simply for the mechanic of moving units, I would likely not play this game (Pathfinder Card Game is near the top of my game heaviness limit).

Find some folks that are more heavy gamers, they'll give you some better advice than I could. Best of luck!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, I do have 2 of heavy

Well, I do have 2 of heavy game friends. But that is why I come to this forum for advice.

In an earlier version, we had missions. Where each new mission would add something new. This included plans for the terrain. Slowly but certain, players would learn.

The Tree's and Rocks are no problems for normal players. I know that much.

And it doesn't have to be percentages. 200% is the same as, times 2.

Unless I completely separate all the types of units, or completely separate the terrain (no mixtures). I don't see any other way to get it easier. But with that, the strategy is less.

Samarkand
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
Reduced complexity doesn't

Reduced complexity doesn't necessary leads to a reduced strategy. In fact, it is often the opposite - instead of players trying to figure out all the variables, less complexity means they can concentrate on what matters. We have only a limited amount of brainpower to calculate stuff, so if it is clogged with too much irrelevant details, we can dedicate less on the big picture.

My advice is to think had what the role of the terrain is for the game. What do you want to achieve? What do you want the players to be thinking about when they contemplate their turn? Does each feature contribute significantly to the experience? Then purge the rest.

Disclaimer: I am not a war gamer. I have tried to learn a few games, but gave up when by the time we sat to play, I forgot half of the rules.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
My rules are mostly logic

My rules are mostly logic rules. You can forget them, but remember them when needed.

Except this stuff with the terrain.

What matters most with terrain strategy, is that units can be clogged up in certain terrain. And that fighting is reduced because there is not a good visible view on the enemy.

You want to get somewhere fast? You need to use the open terrain.
You want to sneak somewhere? You need to hide in canyons, forests, etc.

---

Edit:

I just talked things with my buddies.

The best way to try the mentioned rules is to simply say how big units are in certain terrain.
Now, on the terrain, the size of each type is also displayed.

Thus a Rifle Infantry is 100 on grass, 200 on sand, infinite on water.
When we have a terrain with 1200 grass, 1200 sand and 1200 water. The rifle infantry does not fit in the water, 12 fit in the grass and 6 fit in the sand.
If something like a grenadier is added, and there is only 100 left on the grass, then the remaining is doubled to see if it fits on the sand.

Now for the additions of the tree's and rocks. They do not alter the size of the units. Instead, you simply reduce the size for the terrain. Thus 600 grass, 600 sand, 600 water with a full forest. If it is only 1/6th of a forest, it's still easy to calculate how much terrain reduction is there. When ninja and shinobi join the fight, these calculations are simply not needed.

A play test is in order. If it works;
- Then I must adjust the manual of units, where the sizes for the different terrain are displayed. Plus a factor for the remaining size if it is placed in another type of terrain.
- Afterwards, I will add the numbers to my terrain. This is going to be some work. But worthwhile.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
Dawn of the Zeds is one of my

Dawn of the Zeds is one of my favourite games of all time, but it has a rule in it that is just thematically silly and dumb: hero units cannot stack on the same space as civilians.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Asked a simple person

I got a possible update on this matter while trying to simplify this.

Even though me and my 2 friends can easily say what the numbers mean on the regions.

We thought of a new approach:
Instead of having 3 terrain, we now include Forest and Mountain/Hills/Rocks.
Like mentioned before by some one on this forum.

This also because it was already included in the manual that underground tree's have roots and underground of mountains/hills/rocks have bedrock.

A region with only grass and forests now has 1800 space for both. Player friendly.

***

- However, the number gets longer on the terrain.
Example: 0900-0900-0600-0600-0600
I really need to think of something simpler than that.
The sum is always 3600 for a full hexagon.

- Forest never exceeded 1800 back in the old days. But now this should be allowed to be 3600 any way. As a real Jungle.

- It is now harder to tell the projectile reduction by tree's and mountains/hills/rocks.
Adding up the score for tree's and mountains-etc. And divided this by 3600 to get the proper chance.

However, Water and Ground are included when calculating sub terrain weaponry. 2 Categories are now combined in 1 rule chapter.

Of course I design in such a way that the numbers that players can get are useful. But there is once again a calculation part on the player. This due to the fact that there are projectiles that ignore, for example, the mountains-etc.

So, a possible second string of numbers for projectile blockades? Better not, the string of 24 digits is already long. Before I decide on the numbers, I need to calculate this myself. Just to be certain that weird things don't happen when a special weapon joins the club.

***

Technically speaking, only the manual gets altered a bit. It gets simpler.
Some calculations might alter and some "advanced" unit statistics.
But the game play remains exactly the same.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut