Skip to Content

Removing the Rope

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

A lot has happened to me. And I did a lot. But not regarding board games.

The hobby game is dead at the moment. But I still get idea's from time to time.

Seeing as how a card game is not going to work. And a super simplified wargame game is haunted by imbalances.

I thought of cutting out aspects of the hobby game. And see where I will end up.

For those who don't know about what game this is. It is a hexagon tiled wargame with strong RPS mechanics.

No more XP gain and no more XP spending
Units stay as they are. This means that you can't have like a dozen different rifle men. Sure it was fun having them. But it made the game to complex. It saves me a lot of rules too.

Only health tracking
Since XP is removed, the little whiteboard pieces will only track health now. Speaking of health, any given health can be applied now. Not a strong set of 5 times armor. But any number is possible. Even half sets and third sets are possible!

No more durability rolls!
This has given me a headache way to often. No more durability. And there is no need any more since health can be variable now.

Variable healing/repairing/restoration/generation
Again, it was linked to a set of 5 times armor as health. Since it was linked to durability. But now it is lifted. An unit with a lot of health, needs a lot of healing.

Attributes
Basic attributes stay. This for the healing/repairing aspects.
Other attributes regarding durability are removed from the game if tracking is involved. A sniper will not have extra damage against infantry by durability. Perhaps only by an extra shot.

Event Cards need a change
These need to be made from scratch. However, a lot will be re-usable. They certainly need to be simplified.

All weapon adjustments
Need a new approach. Because the main part of this topic is about to begin. No Rope!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
No Rope!!!

I discovered a magic number.

The game showed that Ranged into infinity would beat Speed into infinity. This only for open maps.

The most optimal Speed against a given Range, would win. But into infinity, the optimum would drop below the winning line (turning point line).

Range was overpowered.
And I did a lot to the maps and rules to make sure that Range would not be overpowered everywhere. The sea was the hardest part. I even had "waves" as water hills.
I am sure you understand, it doesn't work like that.

Then the magic number. Which seems to be the square root of 2. All I need to do was apply this number as factor to Range adjustments.
I decided on 1.5, which resulted into:

Body = Armor * (0.6 + 0.2*Speed)
Weapon = Damage * (0.6 + 0.3*Range)

I always had a suspicion through some old weapon modifiers. But I have finally seen the proof through a simulator.

Range is still good in certain situations. But going towards infinity will be a no go for Range. The disadvantage will grow. But never reach 0, if you will.
This is much better than the previous way of reaching 0 for Speed instead and go waaaay beyond in the negative numbers.

Open maps
I clearly can use open maps now. And I want to use this chance to remove the rope that we use.

The rope was used to determine the path of vision. It went from centre point to centre point.
All hexagons in between, complete or half. But add obstruction points.
I now want this to be different.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How to determine vision without a rope?

I was thinking about having the projectile follow a path as if it is moving. The path is as direct as possible. Meaning that if a target is at a distance of 3 up and then 3 to up-right. The projectile can follow this path.
Another path would be 3 to up-right and then 3 up. Which would result in the same end location.
There are already several possible path's here.
While positioned at another spot. It would be 6 up or 6 up-right.

Especially with long range. The projectile can take A LOT of several path's. And there are a lot of different positions to start from.

What would be the way to go about this? What would be a good rule to determine a basic path to begin with?

Remember...
No rope!
I want the projectile hop from hexagon to hexagon.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Infinite range like in chess,

Infinite range like in chess, is more likely to create a game of oppenings. It would feel more like Xcom, rather than a battlefield.

One way to no use a rope is like in "battle master", use one of the shortest path to the destination. There could sometimes be 2 or 3 path to the same destination which has the fewest amount of space. It's up to the attacker or defender to chose.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Going to try to keep it simple

Let us consider a range of 5.
http://zygotemusic2.perception.net/uploaded/LOS.diagram.web.jpg

We are shooting from A.

AX and AY are no problem.
AW clearly shows obstruction.
AZ also shows obstruction. But the most direct path the projectile can take, shows opening.

I had some rules in mind for this. But I am sure they contain mistakes.

How about picking the best path.
And count all possible obstructions in the
"parallelogram of optimal path's" that aren't picked?
These obstructions would still add in points for reduced vision?
Maybe even have the ones furthest away from the chosen path, being counted less.
Is it possible that a situation might arise where something illogical happens with this rule?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
It's true that there are many

It's true that there are many path between A and Z and some of them could be curving to destination.

I am not sure if in battle master, it was the straightest and shortest path, or only the shortest path.

You could precalculate 12 different angles, but once your range increase, you will not have enough precision anymore. Unless you restrain fireing arcs to those 6 or 12 angles. It would create a chess like feel.

Heroquest use sight, but they have miniatures, so it works better.

There could be a "shadow casting" pattern behind the obstacle, the problem is that, the pattern changes according the the angle of the hex.

Another idea but not very accurate, if you are in proximity of the obstacle, you are covered, else you are not. This really depends on the kind of game you want to make.

-------------------------------------

By thinking about it, most miniature games use a rope, ruler, laser or another way of measuring.

So the question is why do you want to remove it. If it's to save time, it might take more time to calculate than using a rope.

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

Thank you for your time.

Vision was a lot of downtime. And still questionable with long ranges. However, it went correct for the most part.

Using the rope and not touching pieces was the hardest part. Simply point and tell would be easier. A yes/no would be perfect.

But being realistic, I need to accept illogical things. It is only a game after all.

What if I simply let the player take the shortest zigzag path. And if the path strays more then X degrees, it will have an extra penalty on Range and Accuracy?

The corners of the parrallelogram could be used in this. But I am not sure yet of how.
Also, what IS the shortest zigzag path?
Clearly only a rope/laser can show this for the longest distances.

Maybe, I should discard obstruction by discarding objects. Only allevation on the maps. But still, a spire could occur. Should I ignore these?
So, I am trying to find something for all kind of obstruction.
Something as simple as possible.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:The corners of the

Quote:
The corners of the parrallelogram could be used in this. But I am not sure yet of how.
Also, what IS the shortest zigzag path?
Clearly only a rope/laser can show this for the longest distances.

Anything within the parallelogram is the shortest path if you only consider the spaces only. Else you need a straight line which you don't want to use.

You could incite players to change direction after each step, but again, an angle close to a straight line of hex will be penalised as you don't need to flip that much.

Quote:
Maybe, I should discard obstruction by discarding objects. Only allevation on the maps. But still, a spire could occur. Should I ignore these?
So, I am trying to find something for all kind of obstruction.

Well that depends on the theme and the type of game you want to make. If you want a tactical squad game like Xcom, yes obstacles are important because this is how you get cover.

If you want a game on a larger scale battle field, your cover is your surrounding terrain, so there is not really any obstacle. Most cannon shot could lob over the obstacle.

Another idea I had for an xcom style game where I could not afford that line of sight and a detailed grid is that when a character is in an area which has items that could give him cover, he can take advantage of it and gets bonus to defense. So instead of blocking, obstacles could me used for defense when standing on it.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thinking of a larger scale

Thinking of a larger scale battlefield.
The snipers (or any other direct fire) would be the weird guys in this.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I would personally not bother

I would personally not bother about line of site and do like I have suggest. The terrain on the hex determine the level of cover the unit standing on it gets.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I just had an idea.

Thank you for your time.
That would be better indeed.

There are several hexagons that matter much more, than all in between, right?
How about this?

We only consider the following:
- The hexagon that the target stands on can give cover. The amount is depending on the action of the target.
- The hexagon that is right in front of the target can give cover as well. This works both ways.
- The hexagon that is right in front of the attacker can give cover as well. This works both ways.

A repeat:
No matter what the range. There are 3 hexagons to consider. When targeting an opponent.
The hexagon right in front of you.
The hexagon right in front of the target.
The hexagon at the target.

If we are dealing with a perfect diagonal. Then an extra roll determines which hexagon is used. But only at perfect diagonals. All other cases will have a primary hexagon that is the closest.

Let me know what you think about that. Perhaps you have suggestions in the amount of cover etc.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
After some tests

When 2 hexagons are equal in cover with the perfect diagonal. I guess an average would be better.
So the effect has to be even. I guess if I apply dice rolls, only even numbers would fit the bill.

2, 4 or 6. And as average, the average between these 2 numbers.

***

It leaves me with one problem.
What if there is a wall at a distance of 2 from both sides. But this wall is like very long.
The only solution to this is that if any other obstruction is met in the most optimal path. Then this obstruction would still be used in determining the cover.

So, if 1 or 2 hexagons somewhere in between are obstructions. They are ignored. But if the projectile can't go around any more. Then they are also considered.

Just testing things out here.
I might be on to something.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
About the issue of choosing

About the issue of choosing which of 2 hexagons gives cover: I might be inclined to avoid any extra rolls or extra maths by just saying the cover received is that of the "best" (for cover) hexagon.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Almost...

Tim Edwards wrote:
About the issue of choosing which of 2 hexagons gives cover: I might be inclined to avoid any extra rolls or extra maths by just saying the cover received is that of the "best" (for cover) hexagon.

Agreed.
Turning as much math as possible into no math at all would be the best.
And there is even a way to remove the die roll as well, yet using both hexagons.

It will give this specific situation a strategic opportunity.

One of the other rules works like the following:
If forces are placed on a hexagon that they can use as cover. They can do so when hiding from enemy fire. But if they (return) fire from that spot, the cover will be less.

This rule never contained math. Only an extra roll that is also removed in the great culling. These days, the roll to hit is simply higher when (returning) fire.

In regards to the 2 hexagons that are right in front by the diagonal line. The same rule could be applied. But this time, the good cover is used for hiding. while the bad cover is for (return) firing.

***

Regarding the mid field. I want to keep this as simple as possible.
But I indeed get a chess like effect as larienna has mentioned.
So I need to reconsider even applying this.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I personally feel you should have named this TOPIC:

"Unleash the Power" instead of "Removing the Rope". Leash-Rope, Get it! LOL

Most of times, I have no clue what you guys are talking about. Wargames are not my thing. It's the least liked category by me. That and "Abstract" games... Things like Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, etc. Don't do it for me.

I'm personally into Sci-Fi and Medieval Fantasy.

But you guys seem to be doing a "bang-up" job at it... So feel free to continue. Maybe one of the more "knowledgeable Game Designers" may chime in with more comments, ideas and maybe even some advice...

We haven't seen Dr. Pulsipher (Lewis)... He loves designing Wargames!!!

Not me! LOL Cheers Ramon, nice to see you "back-in-action".

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not really acome back. Not sure about the rules either

Thank you for posting!

I would not call this a return or "back in action".

I am simply spending some free time (vacation) on getting rid of some unsolved stuff. The rest of my time goes into my Youtube.

Seeing as how I managed to find the magic number between Range and Speed. I simply wished to have vision fixed as well. Instead of an analogue vision, I want a digital one. You know?

***

Speaking of which. I think I got the rules down.
Just suggest and/or give critique.

Edit: Removed a tldr post.

Determining the path of vision.
-Determine the shortest paths between attacker and target. (A parallelogram)
-Choose what you feel as the most optimal path.
-Mirror this path WITHIN the parallelogram.

All terrains on the chosen path, mirrored path and in between are used for determining accuracy. Terrains are only applied once.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Worked better than expected.

Seems that everyone will pick the most direct path. Looking at the parallelogram helps picking this.

Only the diagonals that will have a double hexagon needs tweaking now.

I will have the target choose which one.
If the target hides; the worst dice roll is applied.
If the target returns fire; the best dice roll is applied for both sides.

The same rule applies for the location where the attacker and target are standing. But then the half is by re-rolling. This will be a one time only.

There, I am done ;p

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut