Skip to Content

"Resource Pool" to Restrict Units

11 replies [Last post]
Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015

Has anything ever been created in which units have been based on a set number of "resources" given at the beginning of a game. For instance each player starts out with 1000 points/mana/resources/etc and their unit limit is based on this number. Both players are than able to use troops amounting to that number. Now this is where the "twist" comes in I guess... when fighting the other player, instead of dealing damage to their units and destroying them, the damage is reflected in the other person's points/mana.../etc. Then as the player's points go down, they must select which units to get rid of. I think this would allow for a strategic use of unit selection at the beginning of the game because if a player got a lot of high point units then they have the potential of losing powerful units when they lose a few points from being attacked and no longer have the point supply. I feel like if this was played on an extensive field with multiple troop types that have different point cost, attack, defense, etc. then it has the potential of being a highly versatile mechanic to use for combat.

I don't know if anything like this has been done and if it has please do share it in a response (Thank You). Also I would like you inputs on whether this feature may work in a game. The main problem I can think of is since the units do't die from combat, a player could camp units in spots to easily destroy the enemy. Any thoughts on how to counter this?

Thanks,
-Noimage

Orangebeard
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2011
Army list?

I can't think of any specific games that function like this, but the basic "unit selection based on a fixed number of points" sounds like a typical miniatures based wargame (Warhammer or Warhammer 40K for example).

The idea of damage being applied to the player, which forces the player to select which units they are losing, is interesting.

Would this cause units with high defenses to be overly valued to the players?

Good luck with your design!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What if one player has

What if one player has walls?
Of course they are chosen first to go down.
Would it be so that the enemy player does less damage in points because the walls have a modifier?

Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015
Units

I guess the defence units would be of value to protect points that you have but I don't think they be overly valued because other types of units,would be able to hurt the opponent more. I guess I'm theory it's a trade off and is completely based on playstyle.

Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015
Modifiers

Game field modifiers placed by the player Would be a cool concept. It would definitely add to the game strategy at the beginning of the game.

Currently I am not designing a game like this but I am seriously debating doing so.

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
shrug

I think that would reduce the strategy, rather than help it. The attacker attacks and does a certain amount of damage, but then the defender gets to choose where that damage gets applied. This completely eliminates the concept of "high-value targets" because it doesn't matter what you target.

If the target matters because some have damage-mitigating effect, it just means that an attacker will do what he can not to attack those. If they are walls that have to be brought down before anything else can be attacked, then there this does introduce some strategy, but it seems somewhat artificial. As the defender, I have to decide whether to let my walls fall or to accept the damage among my offensive forces in order to keep my damage mitigation around for another turn.

But it's not a very interesting decision -- there's probably a formulaic approach and doing anything else is just going to be wrong. I assume that the defender strategy would always be to put the minimum into walls that forces the attacker to attack them, and gives them the best damage mitigation that can reasonably be afforded. After the first round, collapse all the walls that the enemy CAN NOT attack in the next round, take the remaining damage in my offense, and dump all the rest of the offense into him in hopes of crippling his attack.

The whole idea that he attacks my east walls, so I take the damage in my west walls just feels silly.

Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015
Addressing Concerns

I too myself found that the defender deciding where to take damage would get rid of the high valued targets and therefore domish strategy. That would be the numebr one problem I would have to address with the design. As for walls, I was just assuming they would be seperate from the point values and would have health themselves so that would be a different concept from how the units worked.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Your problem is hard to deal

Your problem is hard to deal with. Your mechanic has openings for abuse. And is hard to balance with. But I think you can work with it.

A normal war game often has
Cost = Health part + Damage part

Where you choose a normal unit to have
Health part = Damage part

In a system like that, walls have only the Health part.
Support units have 75% Damage part
Meat units have 75% Health part

Now, with your point system. This is all a bit to hard to work with. These natural RPS additions cannot be used. After all, the defender removes ALL walls first, then ALL meat units, the ALL normal ones, only to conclude with ALL support.
However, it still can be done to some extend if you add grouping.

(You are not using a board with fields, right??)

Is it an option to allow groups of units instead? Let's say, 1 group has an equivalent of 100 points. So instead of one big 1000 point army, you have now 10 little armies.
This means that the attacker can choose a group. Then the defender can choose what he/she wants to loose in that group.

And you get some more strategy if you add a mechanical RPS system.

Lets say, a meat unit that is anti infantry and a support unit that is anti tank. Another group has a meat unit that is anti tank, yet the support is now anti infantry.
And something like a group of infantry with 1 tank. If the damage is overkill on one infantry unit, the infantry unit will serve as meat for the tank (fodder effect)

This way, the attacker might still take out something he/she wants to take out asap.

Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015
Problems QQ

I see the problem with the point system and getting rid of meat units first. I like that army idea but I think it'd have to be something really ironed out in order to make it usable. It may just come down to tweaking the mechanic to limit the freedom of choice. As for your field question, this game is currently all concept and I do not even know if I will make one with this mechanic. Currently its just a pondered question in the sky. Other details do not currently exist so things that could fix the game play are all up in the air.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think it is better to make

I think it is better to make a complete general plan. Then start filling in details in every corner.

Building a war game is very tiring if you don't know where to start.

First things first. What part of your game has to be IT!? Meaning, is there a mechanic that you certain want to use? It could be in the combat, or on the board, or something in the rules.

From there on out, build up the other parts. Some parts will be strong, other weak. A wobbly circle of these points. All you have to do then is to even it out and test if the circle is round.

Start with an easy concept. And expand there where you want to. Untill you are satisfied.

Of course there will be one point that is really hard to get correct. And once you think you have something that works, you find out you have to tweak something else to make it work. (Example: For me this was the type of terrain in combination with all the propulsion types and projectile pathways. That part took me 1 year and was the last thing to do for me)
All I can say to that is: take one step backwards and finish. Just say no to something you want, yet can't.

Of course, you are free to discuss on this forum.

When you are done, you could send me the rules. Then I can take a look if you want.

jejboulet
jejboulet's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2014
Choosing which units die

Hi Noimage,

The idea might work and some people might like it. Besides the problem you mention with camping units, I know that I would be frustrated as your opponent because I lose the strategic option of choosing which units to target and take down. I could of course come up with some alternative strategy, but I wouldn't like it so much.

About the camping problem, I wonder if you could implement a rule whereby units have to somehow be supplied ammunition. Either they return to get it themselves or another supply unit has to bring it to them. If something like that were in place, then sitting around in one place might not be so advantageous, especially if it is a vulnerable spot as any units sent there with supplies could be easily targeted.

Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015
Thanks jejboulet

Thanks for your idea on camping, I do not thing I will lose it but I like the idea as to where you have to limit the units in a way that they cannot camp.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut