Skip to Content

produced unit placement on the board (rule)

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

I need to be careful, not to turn this in a tldr topic.

It regards my wargame on a hexagon board. It resembles RTS games. And a part of that is the placement of new structures and units on the board.

It happens at the end of a round. And there are certain rules to follow.

1. The new units/structures are placed as close as possible to the production facility.

2. The new can have a rally point. If the range of the facility is sufficient. They follow the rules of terrain. They cannot jump over ridges.

2a. They however, do can jump over other units and structures while they are normally in the way.

3. The new require sufficient production facilities. Example: a sniper is trained by 6 barracks. They all need to be within range.


I am pondering about some of these rules.

The jumping over other structures and units. This is not natural. While in many RTS games, you see this happening. Especially the old games. Where Warcraft 2 has them pop up at a range of +2 max. Dune 2 has a more cunning solution by having a carry-all fly in and pick the new produced unit out of the facility.

I don't want the Warcraft 2 solution.
I can't have the carry-all solution.

If I discard the popping up somewhere solution. Then bases need to be more spread out. This will result in having the need for bigger maps. I don't know.


While it is natural for construction facilities to produce buildings at a certain distance. Just like in the more recent RTS games.

It is not for placing units.
Sure we can call these "rally points". But it just so happens that 0 range is most optimal in production rate. And 3 range is functional in pushing up an unit wall around a corner.

1 and 2 range have no real benefits. Again with the jumping over other entities. Only then would 1 and 2 range have benefits.

Also, having more range on production facilities would mean that you can spread out the risk and placement in a base. But 1 and 2 range are not really sufficient in this.

I think I will change the weight costs back from 4/3th to 6/5th. That way, 1 range is 120% costs or 87% production rate. Not 133% costs or 75% production rate.
The 200% or 50% turning point will be at range 5 instead of 3.


To summarize the questions:
- Should I still allow units and structures to hop over other entities?
- Does 1 or 2 range have any benefit for the players that I have not yet thought of?

Further notices. I do have mobile construction facilities like SCV etc. But I like to have any RTS option open to my game :)
A construction yard with a range of 3 feels rather nostalgic.


Who am I kidding. This post is too long. :(

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ok. To put it in very short

Ok. To put it in very short context.

I need good reasons why players would choose a factory that puts out units at a range of 1 or 2.

Most factories have 0 or 3.
Factories that build up a base also have 2 to 3.
The most extreme thus far is 4.

JohnBrieger's picture
Joined: 11/04/2016
I guess my question is why

I guess my question is why both having rules for rally points at all?

What tactics or depth do they add to the game that having rules not just to handle them, but also their edge cases in the case of jumping over units/terrain as well?

It's entirely possible that the simplest solution is to have all factories spawn units directly adjacent to them.

Possible there are lots of reasons I'm not immediately thinking of. In RTS video games, rally points are mostly ways to ensure that spawning units don't need to immediately occupy your attention, as they have their first set of orders. In a board game, you'll have to spend some time/attention placing the units anyway, so they don't really save that cognitive load on the players?

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
The only tactical reason that

The only tactical reason that I can think of is that units get a free head start. A range of 3 is very common for certain factories. The slowest unit needs all resources of a player to get that far in 1 round. And notching else may move that round.

It is a given that the slowest units are very durable. And perhaps very strong or very big.

3 range can mean a placement, half way around the corner. 4 can mean a complete hiding.
These units can either stop an enemy in its tracks. Or hide right away if there is a heated battle.

Those are good reasons for a production range of 3.

2 and 1 don't share those benefits.

Do you think I should simply let 1 and 2 out?
That leaves me with range 0, 3 and more.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
One more reason, yay!

If there isn't much room in a base and facilities need to work together. Range is key here. For some units like a sniper. You need like half a region of facilities. And there are units that will cost double or even trice the ammount.
For those! 1 range is a better design.

2 would really be somewhere between the 2 reasons that I named so far.

I think that I need to keep shadow designs. Where production is slightly nerved together with a range increase.
It is up to the player to pick their supportive facility design.

One more reason for the 1 and 2 range, and I can give it a rest.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I could post more detail. But

I could post more detail. But my crazy cousin had a reason for me.

The players that use mines. They have a "wall" underground. Tanks will not simply move over as soon as they are designed with a crushing ability.

The mine fields are at a distance of 4. So range 4 is a good option now for Barracks.
But range 3, 2 and even 1 can be good reasons. Since you can simply place your infantry inside the minefield.

Why!!!, for god sake!!! Why did I not think about this before!!
1 Range is the best option here. Best Barracks in durability, while always being allowed to place the infantry right in their safe spot.

2 Range is truly the version between 1 and 3.


1 last question remains. I hope someone can answer this.
Should I allow placement outside a "friendly" blockade?

The Yes reason would be:
The range is considered a projectile property. That means, everything can fire over friendly AND enemy units.
Maybe we can remove the enemy units from the rule.

The No reason would be:
It makes no sense. We should use unit movement. But then again. Structure placement is also rigged. You really need to plan your base now.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Every day a little update

The whole system has undergone an overhaul.

Attributes are re-organised. There are 2x2=4 classes now. Unit/Structure and Biological/Mechanical. Other attributes are additions. Where sub and air have their own addition.
And the rest... well, I ponder about removing them from the game any way.

And the range reasons are still to be gathered in a separate "strategy" guide. I really like my crazy cousins reason. It is litterly pay to blow the tanks.


There is another brick in the wall that needs to be replaced or modified.

Production rate.

Now, this one has an important issue too. Players can choose which units are produced by which facilities. As long as the attributes allow to. The units are sets.

I have 2 different types of production facilities.
- Those which can produce any thing. Armor types are not an issue. These can have 6 sets.
- Those which are specialized in producing only 1, 2 or 3 armor types. Produciton rate is TWICE as much. But the number of sets are 5, 4 or 3.

The second block is actually an old design re-used. And maybe, I should keep that instead. Players are allowed to have more sets of certain facilities any way. And if I scrap the first block, that would mean that all facilities are equal in production rate.


I simply increase the first set as well in production rate. But not 200%. Somewhere along the lines of 75% would be a good mean.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I have completely burned the

I have completely burned the rules that made things complex.

The question that players need to answer for themselves is now:

Would you have a base that has...

2 different factories.
Each making 1 set of tanks. You have 2 different kind of tanks.
Your total army may be 2x5=10.
If one factory dies, your total army can only be 1x5=5.


2 equal factories.
Both being able to make 2 different kind of tanks.
Your total army may be 2x4=8.
If one factory dies, your total army remains 2x4=8.

Production rate isn't altered any more.
Only the number of options and the maximum army size are altered.

This resulted in erasing 1 page of explanation from my manual. :)

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
By the above logic.

I tested some hypothesis.

A and B build up forces. B is also limited by number.
B is stuck and has to attack.
A looses a factory to this, but still has all tanks.
A is now stuck and has to attack.
B looses a factory to this, but still has some tanks.
A and B build up forces, but slower. A is also limited by number and types.
A is stuck and has to attack.
B looses a factory? It all depends on balance. But still has all tanks. Especially the ones with the best cannon.
B is now stuck and has to attack. No factories remain?
A looses a factory.
Only 2 armies remain, it is a last man standing in the debris of the base of A.
By logic, B actually could win this.

But B has to act first!
If A gets a chance to act first, A wins.
The timing needs to be just right.

I am happy with these results. But play tests need to be done!
Then.... there is also a next level in this that needs testing (o god, the x3manity!!)

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
My friends asked me if I am going senile

Perhaps I am.

The test that I have in mind does not resemble the real game.
It isn't 15 tanks but 45 or even 60 or so. If we where to do the test.
AP are the limit for combat. So you will not even reach your opponents base. Nor will you have an army that is too small. Both sides have equal fire power in most fights.

So the real game will be a depletion of resources.

Increase costs for being able to use multiple designs is also removed now.
Having this maximum for one facility is good. You don't need the maximum to influence combat.

The only question that remains now is. Do I keep this maximum adjustment for a facility?
Being able to mass produce 1 armor type asap. IS the reward that you can get with this. So I keep that.

Back to the 1 range usefulness.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Something for in my strategy guide

I think I am done. I have thought of many reasons to have ranged production instead of... well...not.

I could post them here. But it is a bother if you are not into complex war games. They will be in my strategy guide :)

The bonus rule of 1 range is also resolved to proper use.

And units AND even structures "move" from the facility to their destination of birth. This means that players need to be careful how they build up their base.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut