Skip to Content
 

Short question about hitting moving targets, or attack while moving

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

This is currently related to the other topics. But I have seen games using a hard factor on the accuracy at a maximum attack range and a maximum movement speed.

I currently make use of penalty rolls. But the effect of these grow exponentially.

I was wondering what other games use some sort of accuracy, due to targets or attackers moving on the board.

Just to see, how they deal with it.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
In board games, it's hard to

In board games, it's hard to handle attack and movement simultaneously.

I have seen in Pit Fighter auto attacking, where each time you move a space, you attack all enemies adjacent if I remember correctly.

Else you can digitalize movement like Xcom where you have 2 parts to your action. If you want to move and shoot, you must use 1/2 movement and then attack. If you use 2/2 movement, you cannot attack.

Another thing I have seen in Dai Senryaku is that arttillery units have the move OR shoot capabilities, while tanks has the move AND shoot capabilities. So it simulate that artillery are less likely to do both a the same time. They need more focus.

Else you have to use an impulse system like in Star Fleet Battles which cycle the action of your ships according to a CRT. Very simplex and unfriendly.

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

Well, I am being honest here. I believe that my current mechanic is way to unfair (read: unbalanced) and causes downtime.

The unfair part, I always thought that it was a yes/no situation. But if I am to allow tanks that move AND attack at the same time...

Just curious how some other games might have done this.

I do have some idea's. But I want to make sure I don't over simplify and stuff. Maybe there is a very cool mechanic out there.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I need to be careful

So, I keep this short.

Currently I make use of a penalty system.
I am sure I explained this system before. If you need an explanation, I will do so again.

But bottom line is, there is a comparison between the attacker and a target. Numbers are involved, the lowest number is chosen. This can happen twice, where both lowest numbers are added up.
The result is the so called penalty.

A penalty of 1 is rolling a 1 is a miss.
A penalty of 3 is rolling the same die 3 times.

It happens that a penalty is 10, which in total, is only a 1/6th chance.
We still got replacement rolls for that. Thus rolling 5 or less would result in a miss.

But this topic is more of a; is there a better way???
After all, the effect is exponential. And looses meaning after a number of rolls.

***

My new idea is less complicated.
But I make a sacrifice.
Let me know if it is easy to understand.

Does the attacker move?
Yes means a penalty of (5/6); rolling 1 is a miss.

Does the target move?
Yes means a penalty of (5/6); rolling 1 is a miss.

Do both attacker and target move?
Yes means a penalty of (4/6); rolling 2 is a miss.

Now it is just 1 roll, regardless of the situation.

Other units can have (4/6) and then (2/6). Or even (3/6) and then (0/6). Or better yet, they do not receive penalties at all.

Math aside, I feel this is much simpler to balance. And I can remove 1 page of explanation from my manuals.
I could say that all normal units have a penalty weight of 1. Thus -1 per question answered by a yes.

If I make this slightly more complicated. I could say that some units have different penalties for the situations.
If the target doesn't move, while the attacker does the assault move, the penalty is less than when the situation is vice versa.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
That means you'll need a way

That means you'll need a way to keep track which unit moved or remained stationary the previous turn to apply the penalty in consequence.

It's doable but more complicated. Ask yourself what does it bring to the game. Is it worth the effort?

There is a few scenarios where I think it could have some potential: a mechwarrior style game. Where each player has at most 3-5 mechs. Allowing you to put the move/stationary marker on the unit's sheet.

Moving and shooting in mech warrior is a thing. There might be a specific opening in the path between your start and end position. Think of it like Xcom where you move between cover A and B but you want to start shooting during your movement because position A and B does not allow you to attack your enemy.

In the game ideas above, it could be interesting to have that feature in a game. I think having cover and few units is the key here to be worth keeping track of movement and the associated penalties.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:That means

larienna wrote:
That means you'll need a way to keep track which unit moved or remained stationary the previous turn to apply the penalty in consequence.
It is 1 squad at a time. And the rule is only applied if both the move and attack happen at the same time. More complex actions simply cost more action points. There is a limit for each player on how much they can spend.
Move, and the second round attack, but cost 3 AP
But if it is done in the same round, it costs 3 AP AND the penalty.
larienna wrote:

It's doable but more complicated. Ask yourself what does it bring to the game. Is it worth the effort?
So far, it always made the game more fun. There are simply attributes out there that were hard to balance. So the attributes in question are not used. Now, with "Assault" not being used as an action, but also as an attribute. The synergy is a bit too much.

I deemed the attribute forbidden now. But maybe a replacement is possible. And this through a better way of having penalties being determined.

larienna wrote:

There might be a specific opening in the path between your start and end position. Think of it like Xcom where you move between cover A and B but you want to start shooting during your movement because position A and B does not allow you to attack your enemy.
That is a beautiful example.
We have 2 flavours in the actions. "Assault" and "Drive by shooting".
Assault will allow to move and attack. But 1 at a time. Thus the player first moves, then attacks. The squad will be in the open. Or...the player first attacks, then moves. The squad will most likely be covered after that.
The drive-by-shooting allows to partly move, then attack, then partly move again.

larienna wrote:
In the game ideas above, it could be interesting to have that feature in a game. I think having cover and few units is the key here to be worth keeping track of movement and the associated penalties.
Keeping track is not an issue. Used AP are temporary placed on the squad.
All that remains is how the penalties are determined and applied.

Determining penalties is already a downtime, if players need to check attack range and movement speed.
Then the penalties themselves need a change. Because an exponential effect that never reaches 0. Surely works different than a lineair effect.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
1 more question

How do you feel about a movement of 1 hexagon being treated the same as a movement of 12 hexagons?

And how do you feel about the same question, but in regards to attack distance?

***

One of my buddies said that perhaps I should change the attribute that is applied to an instant hit weapon. An instant hit weapon ALWAYS turns the number of penalties back to 0.
This would be a math solution.

Another buddy said that I should change, how penalties are determined. Yet still use the attack distance and movement speed. But instead of comparing the 2 and pick the lowest. He said, add them up. Then have them being applied in a milder sense.
Something alongside the lines of the penalty divided by a score and applied differently.
But this would still show the same down time. Albeit, using the movement speed and attack range as fair numbers.

As you can see, I am divided by this all.
Hmmmm, just realized, I should check on Warhammer for this...I think.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The factors involved make it tricky too

If the attacker decides to move. The factor entirely depends on the attacker.
If the target decides to move. The factor is partly depending on the target.

This is where the yes/no situation comes from. And it happens twice too.

I also need to look at how things happen in Unreal Tournament or other FPS that use a lot of dodging techniques.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I guess, when you are in

I guess, when you are in movement, you have no cover but you end up somewhere else, and you are a moving target, so you are harder to hit. It should have it`s own pro and cons. Camping give you more cover and a good defensive position, but you are locked there.

Maybe units could be in 2 mode: Mobile or Camping. You just flip the unit token to change state. To become in camping mode, you must spend a turn without moving. Each mode (or stance) will have different pros and cons that you can adjust to your liking.

Xcom had that overwatch mechanism, where as soon as you get exposed, the enemy in overwatch gets a free attack on you. This is another way to handle simultaneous behavior.

As for hexes, this is tricky, because you can always change the scale of your hexes to cross over more or less hex, but still cross the same distance.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:I guess, when

larienna wrote:
I guess, when you are in movement, you have no cover but you end up somewhere else, and you are a moving target, so you are harder to hit. It should have it`s own pro and cons. Camping give you more cover and a good defensive position, but you are locked there.

Exactly. And my thought on it is that the faster you move, the less accuracy remains. But if I scrap that, it would be a yes and no situation.
Also, if you are the attacker and decide to move as well. Your aim should also be less. Right?

larienna wrote:

Maybe units could be in 2 mode: Mobile or Camping. You just flip the unit token to change state. To become in camping mode, you must spend a turn without moving. Each mode (or stance) will have different pros and cons that you can adjust to your liking.
Those who first move, then wait a turn. And then attack. Have no penalty.
Then I have these units that actually can "deploy". It costs an extra turn. So, they moved, then they deploy, and then they can attack. If they want to move again. They must undeploy first. This takes so much AP. That their speed is often divided over 2 or 3 big rounds.

larienna wrote:
Xcom had that overwatch mechanism, where as soon as you get exposed, the enemy in overwatch gets a free attack on you. This is another way to handle simultaneous behavior.
If a squad hasn't used their weapons yet for a round. The chances are big that they will intercept or do a similar action.

larienna wrote:
As for hexes, this is tricky, because you can always change the scale of your hexes to cross over more or less hex, but still cross the same distance.
Zigzagging through the terrain increases the movement value indeed. But so would lower the chance to hit them.
If a scrap the value of this, it surely becomes obsolete.
Hmmm, might be less fun if it is scrapped for sure.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
X3M wrote:How do you feel

X3M wrote:
How do you feel about a movement of 1 hexagon being treated the same as a movement of 12 hexagons?

And how do you feel about the same question, but in regards to attack distance?


Personally.... no

X3M wrote:

One of my buddies said that perhaps I should change the attribute that is applied to an instant hit weapon. An instant hit weapon ALWAYS turns the number of penalties back to 0.
This would be a math solution.

I don't see this happening. Although, I might do something similar like the seeker weapons.
Thus the ability to re-roll a miss...

But with the penalty levels being changed. It might happen that a player rolls a miss on a chance of 1/6. This means that the re-roll level should be 5.

Would it make sense for a laser to actually miss moving targets?
The down time sure would go up again. But the fairness would be real. And it is only for some special units.

X3M wrote:

Another buddy said that I should change, how penalties are determined. Yet still use the attack distance and movement speed. But instead of comparing the 2 and pick the lowest. He said, add them up. Then have them being applied in a milder sense.
Something alongside the lines of the penalty divided by a score and applied differently.
But this would still show the same down time. Albeit, using the movement speed and attack range as fair numbers.

This would have the following effects on the units:
Fast units will do less damage if they assault.
Fast units will take less damage, even if they are in close proximity.

Not really sure if that should be part of my goal.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Some linear balances

If I use the linear balance. I have 2 options for the default units.

If the default is one or two:
0: 24; 120%; 150%
1: 20; 100%; 125%
2: 16; _80%; 100%
3: 12; _60%; _75%
4: 10; _50%; _62.5%
5: _8; _40%; _50%
6: _6; _30%; _37.5%

But I am not sure if I should do this.
It would be interesting to use this for the public version. Where the test really is, move=yes/no? Because then I got some nice numbers to work with too, when using the default=2.

If not... I must adjust my projectile velocity value's. Into, default being 0.
But faster projectiles should subtract from the penalty. And this value should be linked to the weapon weight, with a maximum of either the movement speed or attack range.

Slower projectiles....
Wait, I just realized, if a target at maximum range goes even faster, it would mean that this target would even be harder to hit, right?

So comparing and picking the lowest value is a dumb thing to do.
I should add them up. And accept that fast units have a harder time?
Or should I do some sort of multiplying? Where the penalty is the attack range times the movement speed.
I don't like this idea due to it being too complex for younger players.
At least the melee units still hit this way.

So many ways. So little good ones that are logical and easy to grasp.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Would it be to weird to ask?

So far, I am still stuck in choosing between 3 mechanics.

1. The original
The player compares the movement speed with the attack range.
Picks the lowest value.
That is the penalty.
(And I change the penalty reduction)

Too difficult?
2. The original altered
The player adds the movement speed with the attack range.
That is the penalty.
(And I change the penalty reduction)
Con: Faster units are now at a disadvantage when they make the attack.

3. The yes/no
The player simply has a penalty if an unit moves and attacks.
(And I change the penalty reduction)
Con: Less realistic gameplay.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
personally, I always favor

personally, I always favor gameplay over realism.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Agreed

larienna wrote:
personally, I always favor gameplay over realism.

That would mean that option 3 remains.
The weight of attack range can be reduced by higher penalties.
And I can even make different penalties for different attack ranges.
Thus simulating that further away is already more prone to penalties.

My buddies are not happy with this all.
And I suspect that a lot of units will be designed that way. So players need to check the attack distance.

The movement speed has hardly influence. It is now just an indication with the yes/no mechanic...
Unless, I have a weight of penalties on.... durability? Oh, need to think about this one.
Because I could differentiate between moving distance and speed

Maybe some more idea's for inspiration??

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Trying to figure it out, making sure mechanic 3 works

I hope I will keep the default penalty at 2.
No matter what I do.
tldr post ahead... but mostly I try to relate to how players play my game.

The situations gives yes/no answers. The true penalty depends on what answers can be given.

The weight of these weapons are weird.

Either way, the accuracy for the 4 situations are considered:
- No penalty if no one moves.
- If one of the 2 parties move, the penalty is removed 1 time.
- If both of the 2 parties move, the penalty is removed twice.

If the penalty is 3, and removed 2 times. The accuracy is 0.
But how to determine the weight?

If the attacker moves, the penalty is simply accepted by the player. This is always a yes situation. The weight is 100%.
If the target moves, the penalty is a yes/no situation. The weight is 50%.
Perhaps I should separate the 2. And not look at the combination situation and its weight. I should simply say that there are 2x2 situations. And determine the weight difference per situation.

Penalty - Weight
0 - 18.0 =120%
1 - 16.5 =110%
2 - 15.0 =100%
3 - 13.5 = 90%
4 - 12.0 = 80%
5 - 10.5 = 70%
6 - _9.0 = 60%

I don't really like this (yet), but it is lineair...
More so, the maximum penalty is always 6. And has a weight of 60%. The original balance factors ranged from 50% to 150%. Now it is from 60% to 120%.
The latter is...more correct despite being less realistic.

A laser tank would have a weapon costing 120%. The overall unit would then cost 110%.
A minotaurus (see EbfD) would have a weapon costing 60%. The overall unit would then cost 80%.

So the overall unit costs would go from 80% to 110%.
This was previously 75% to 125%.

***

Now then, why would players even choose these units?
The trick is within the weapon weight.
The laser tank actually has a weight of 83% in damage.
While the minotaurus has a weight of 167% in damage.
And this way, the weapons weight is equal to that of the unit weight.
The slowest projectile is still twice as strong as the fastest projectile. But the Minotaurus may not move when shooting. And the target may not move either.

However, when comparing the laser tank to normal units.
The laser tank will always deal 83% damage.
The normal units do 100% in a no+no situation. But 1 yes, and it drops down to 67% already. Obviously the laser tank will keep moving and getting the advantage here. This is always a yes. Why? Because players with the laser tank will not take risks. And will perform only HnR actions.
After this, the laser tank is outside of the attack range of the normal unit. And even if the normal unit wants to return fire on a laser tank that doesn't move....well, they are outside the attack range already.

The AP cost for the HnR action is 4. This can be done 1 time per round.
The AP cost for the HnR action on an assault unit is 2. This can be done 2 times per round.

The victims really can only choose to move first. And the next turn attack for that 100% damage. Only then, they will be able to deal more damage.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Found another oof...

In retro-spec. Defences can receive a penalty too. But only on moving targets. They can't move themselves. Their weight value of the weapon will be relatively higher now...

0 - 18.0 =120.0%
1 - 17.5 =116.7%
2 - 17.0 =113.3%
3 - 16.5 =110.0%
4 - 16.0 =106.7%
5 - 15.5 =103.3%
6 - 15.0 =100.0%

It seems that a simple yes/no situation is more complicated than I first imagined. Back to the drawing board...

Or should I simply not consider a double penalty to be in the balance to begin with?

Because if moving and attacking gives a penalty. It is not used.
A no answer simply weights 0. And the defences automatically have a no answer in this regard too...

So, all that remains. A penalty for when the enemy moves.
But if an unit itself moves, no penalty?? But then Assault becomes better than an attack and a move.

Defences can't use the assault. So, I should have the penalty occur anyway. But simply not take it into account of the balance.

Now I have a new table. Where a weight of 6 is a non moving target and a weight of the penalty is a reduction on 6 for moving targets.

0 - 12 =120%
1 - 11 =110%
2 - 10 =100%
3 - 9 = 90%
4 - 8 = 80%
5 - 7 = 70%
6 - 6 = 60%

Somehow the logic is simpler. Defences are in the same boat. But the weight factor remains the same.
If by any chance the unit decides to attack AND move. I must think about this.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Flipping the thought 180 degrees

Defences can't move, thus can't move AND attack.
Units can move AND attack, thus they should be able to get a penalty. Or the Assault action is overpowered.

Defences AND Units can attack while the target moves. Here both will receive a penalty. Or else all the "running away!" actions are of no use.

Special cases:
The penalty is 6. That would mean, the projectiles will not hit.
These units are like the defences, they can't move AND attack.

When the penalty is 3 or more. And both players move, the projectiles will not hit either.

***

Let's see if I can do this differently. By considering if the design has the ability to even do the assault?

0. All designs start with a weight of 6 for being able to attack.

1. If an assault is possible, the weight that remains is added.

2. If the target can dodge, the weight that remains is added for 50%.

3. As second column, I will add, if both rules are applied. Because dodging an Assault will increase the penalty. This too weights 50%.

Units penalties; 6 + rule 1 and 2; second column for comparison
0 -15.0 -18.0
1 -13.5 -15.0
2 -12.0 -13.0
3 -10.5 -10.5
4 - 9.0 - 9.0
5 - 7.5 - 7.5
6 - 6.0 - 6.0

Defence penalties; 6 + rule 2
0 - 9.0
1 - 8.5
2 - 8.0
3 - 7.5
4 - 7.0
5 - 6.5
6 - 6.0

***

I did like a dozen tests already with these numbers. And realized that having a weight factor depending on the capabilities in choosing or not being able to choose. Make so much difference between defences and default units. That I feel that I should give this a break.

It is strange that when I wanted to rebalance high speed units and HnR units. Then I went to having Assault as an attribute. Noticing that the instant projectiles are broken on these Assault units. Only to conclude that the penalty system needs a rework as well...

snowdrop
Offline
Joined: 07/13/2012
In my mecha game (emata.org)

In my mecha game (emata.org) the faster your enemys mech moves, the harder it will be for you to successfully hit it if you fire a casual attack. It's just a very simple mechanic, lowering your chance in % to land an attack. Easy to grasp for the players by just looking at layout of cards on table.

As the game is neither casual nor hardcore and is meant to be fast I didn't want to handle it with some "complicated" formulas or refering to tables et.c. Here's a shot of the table in the rules:

https://i.imgur.com/vZ6G2W6.png

(All checks are made by revealing the top card and looking at its value, no dice are used)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
snowdrop wrote:In my mecha

snowdrop wrote:
In my mecha game (emata.org) the faster your enemys mech moves, the harder it will be for you to successfully hit it if you fire a casual attack. It's just a very simple mechanic, lowering your chance in % to land an attack. Easy to grasp for the players by just looking at layout of cards on table.

My previous version had this too. Although we compared the movement with the attack distance. And we choose the lowest number for the penalty roll.

The alternate suggested by one of the players. Is to rework the penalty rolls. But also have the attack distance added to the movement speed.

Either way, the faster an unit can move, the faster it WILL move. Because the penalty would increase by a lot.

snowdrop wrote:

As the game is neither casual nor hardcore and is meant to be fast I didn't want to handle it with some "complicated" formulas or refering to tables et.c. Here's a shot of the table in the rules:

https://i.imgur.com/vZ6G2W6.png

(All checks are made by revealing the top card and looking at its value, no dice are used)

That looks cool and simple.
The chances are based on the cards, not a die roll then?

It looks linear.
1/9th per step?

Either way, do you think that I should stick with the value's of the movement speed AND the attack distance?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Yet another mechanic (already abadoned)

I received another suggestion.
In a certain RTS game, the accuracy is known at a maximum attack distance. When attacking at a closer distance, the accuracy improves.

The accuracy will lower when dealing with moving targets.
Or the attacker itself moves.

So the mechanic this time would be. The penalty is linked to the movement. But for every distance, closer than the maximum attack range. Would result in the penalty being reduced.

If for example an unit moves 7. The penalty is 7 at the maximum attack distance.
Let's say, the maximum attack range for a certain unit is 9. But the attack distance happens to be 5.
Then the difference in this is 4. And the penalty is 7 minus 4 is 3.

Not sure if this is too complex for players or not.
The original had the 7 and 5 compared. And the penalty would be 5 instead of 3.

In a sense, this would follow the fact that longer attack ranges would mean faster projectiles. A melee weapon would still receive a penalty now from movement speed. But if an maximum attack distance is more that the movement of the target. The penalty could easily reach 0 this way. So more attack range would result in a positive effect if fighting up close...

I don't like the fact that a melee unit would receive the penalty as well. So I already said that this won't do.

snowdrop
Offline
Joined: 07/13/2012
That looks cool and

That looks cool and simple. The chances are based on the cards, not a die roll then?

Yes, exactly: The game is dice-less. The players each have a deck of cards that they draw and play stuff from hand, and equip their mechs with, do special attacks etc etc, but whenever a dice roll would be done then the player just reveals his top card of the deck and then discards it (decks reshuffle later, at least most of them).

While I love dice I also want to explore pure card-driven systems.

It looks linear. 1/9th per step?

The gap of each step depends on two things:

1) What is the base line? == If a mech is standing totallys till, what odds do I normally (unmodified values) want the player to have to hit the opposin mech? Now from there you decide the rest of the hit chance %, for each step of movement speed you add - how punative would that be?

2) Well, how many steps you have would depend on what possible ranges of outcome you have on the dice/cards used + how common modifiers will be and + how huge they are most commonly

Either way, do you think that I should stick with the value's of the movement speed AND the attack distance?

Personally with each year in life I have gone from "complex and realistic is cool" to "simple yet deep is cooler".

I can't give you the answer since I haven't played your game and it would be me just guessing, but:

What exactly does it add to the game if you have both attack distance AND movement speed? How on earth does that actually make your game deeper or more interesting? I would say that at least to me, or most experienced players, it would actually not do so. It just brings another variable and makes it slightly more complex and even slightly more time to play or dice to roll, but it probably doesn't make the game better or more fun in any way. I doubt you even need the design space it opens up.

Look at it this way: If you don't know what problem it solves havin both there, and don't know clearly what it adds to the game that wouldn't be there else, and how that makes the game better, then it really shouldn't be in the game at all.

To me it just sounds like variants of the same thing - debuffing dice. Let me ask you this then: Say you answer "it is good to have both because of x"... ok, would it them, by your same logic, not also make sense to add a third variable, for example weather condition (Wind Direction or Acid Rain fall or mist or not etc etc)? When would it stop? Why there and not before? And so on...

snowdrop
Offline
Joined: 07/13/2012
"My buddies are not happy

"My buddies are not happy with this all.
And I suspect that a lot of units will be designed that way. So players need to check the attack distance."

I think thats the source of your prioblem: I suggest that you never try to design a game to meet your friends criteria of what is good or fun: Their initial (or even long term) reaction doesn't necessarily guide you in the correct direction.

Of course, if you happen to have friends or playtesters that for some reason wants as much simulation as possible they would favor adding stuff.

You need to ask yourself for whom and why are you designing the game? Whats your target player base? If thats exactly your friends, well then maybe you should listen to their input, but doing so maybe will render something that they believe is fun, but isn't necessarily more fun than the alternatives would be, if they had some more open minds.

Start by writing specific goals for the game and its design. That will then make it easier and guide you in various decisions you make.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Current Goal?

The problem is perhaps the initial "trying to fix".

I could give a short history.
But this whole ordeal consist of the following:

- HnR units too strong without natural counters?
Yes, but the solution was forcing natural counters or claim the player to be too dumb. (we are that cruel to each other, yes, no worries, it is our way of life)

- Assault as attribute using the new weight formula?
Everyone loves this idea. I got to work.

- Assault attribute in combination with projectile speed attribute?
Here is the problem. If we don't have the assault attribute, the problem doesn't exist.

- The projectile speed attribute changes the penalties?
Either we change the projectile speed attribute. Or we change the penalty mechanic.

The penalty mechanic and projectile speed attribute are in one, in this topic.
Maybe my goal shouldn't be this indeed. But simply scrap the assault attribute.

***

Meanwhile, we where testing more idea's.
Maybe the assault attribute should include the penalty factor differently?
The movement speed is placed in the attack weight. If this is linked to the penalty, then a maximum penalty would turn this into 0. And thus the assault attribute in combination with the penalty would not be noticable in the price.

The only difference is the AP cost. But doing an assault where you can't hit the enemy at all, is just a move. And the AP costs are...correct again. WTF am I doing here?!

Oof, I spended a lot of time on this one. Why didn't I realize this sooner...

(Seeing as how you are new to this forum. Don't worry about all the math that I do. Players don't see it. And my main test group consist of people smarter than me. But I am a wargame addict, so...)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
snowdrop wrote: You need to

snowdrop wrote:

You need to ask yourself for whom and why are you designing the game? Whats your target player base? If thats exactly your friends, well then maybe you should listen to their input, but doing so maybe will render something that they believe is fun, but isn't necessarily more fun than the alternatives would be, if they had some more open minds.

Start by writing specific goals for the game and its design. That will then make it easier and guide you in various decisions you make.


I have several projects:
- The Proto-Type
- The Public version
- The Cardgame variant

The scale of complexity is massive. And each have their own audience.
The playtesters that I usually have, play the Proto-Type verison. This game is older than that I am on this forum. We do a lot with just paper on the go when we play. And got unit pieces that are recycled over and over.
They helped designing the game and most are certainly smarter than me. But only in regards to find mistakes.
This topic is for them. They wanted something new. And I am checking if it is possible.
We can always make a couple of steps backwards.

The Public version is one where all this stuff doesn't happen. It is just the bare minimum. Sometimes, but rarely, something is added. But mostly, the game is so simple. That I get bored working on it. And my buddies rather go for ... you don't wanna know. But yes, they choose the ridiculous complex proto-type.
I think they love the chaos or something.

The card game is my project in regards to having no 2d board. But this is very difficult. I think that the public version is one that would fit all the criteria that you mentioned.

You should know....I do this for a hobby, not for the money. If my buddies want to play the proto-type game. So be it :) They are my target audience. They get what they want. And finding mistakes brings us joy. It is like finding a glitch in a game and everyone starts abusing it right away.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Absense

I need to fix some of my weight formula's.
I will come back, once I tested this.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I need to split the mechanic into 2

One mechanic will be the Assault aspect.

The other mechanic will be the "Target is moving" aspect.
(The latter will not be added until I fixed the first)

I need to split it up, because there is interference.

Assault will draw its power and double edged sword from the attackers movement speed.
Thus the ability to move while attacking AND the penalty when performing this Assault, both depend on the movement speed.

In regards to calculating the weight for Assault unit. I need to include the penalty effect. But I am not sure yet how. Because I should work out the mechanic of the penalty first.
One thing is sure, it is close to impossible to make this work for the public version. Maybe 1 or 2 designs can make it, but that is also all a player needs.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Assault

The unit that performs the Assault MUST receive a penalty.
Or else the game is broken (less balance)

The penalty can range from 0 to 5. Because 6 means 0 damage.
A penalty of 6 is still possible, but this will simply mean that a normal unit will not perform a penalty.
The penalty has to be linked to the movement speed, one way or another.

My options are still.
- The movement and attack as a fact.
- The movement speed as a number.
- The movement speed and attack range in combination, as a number.

***

If I go for the "facts".
The balance should be linear.
I am still stuck with the fact that defences can't do an assault move. But this is a silent hint that movement speed MUST have influence. The faster an unit moves, the more influence it MUST have on its own attack.
So, the option "facts" is not right.
And it also proves that defences need the default cost of 100% on their weapon.
An adjustment should only be present, when there is movement. And the adjustment should be linked to the movement.

This counts for both an Assault unit and a normal unit that still does the Assault.

Now the question remains. Does attack range have influence on this Assault move? I don't know yet.

But the big difference between a default unit and the assault unit in weight calculation. Is that the default unit has the movement influence set to 0 at the default penalty. And the assault unit should have an increase, even if the penalty is 5.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Frankly

Every time when I try to go back to the exponential mechanic. I keep hitting my head and tiny toe against the corner of the "it has to be a linear effect" block.

The penalty should be linked to the movement speed in order to keep the defence buildings correct.

So I tried to have a cumulative effect like the artillery weapons have.

But when adding the adjustments on how strong a penalty would be. I just don't seem to get it right.

I deleted all math here. But let's say my final result was having a defence being correct for 100%. Yet the unit that cannot perform an assault, while movement speed is 1. Would always have a weapon that is 33% stronger.

Both cannot perform an assault. And I realized that having the ability to do an assault is a paradox on itself if it is called the default. It is NOT the default...

Cannot perform an assault:
1. Defences
2. Units with their penalty being maxed out
3. Anything without a weapon

Can perform an assault:
4. Any other unit

And my paradox here is:
- 3. would mean the balance adjustment is a factor to the weapon weight.
- 1 and 4 would have a default value of 100%.
- 2 is like 1, but weight balance would be less due to penalty adjustments? This is the paradox.

I can only conclude, that I need to add weapon weight if even the penalty is 5. In other words, if a player wants the ability to even choose assault. The weapon weight should change.

A penalty of 6, or a movement of 0 should both mean a default value to the weapon weight.

This means that a big portion of the actions are now obsolete, unless assault units are added...
I don't like that. Nor will my buddies.
We are stuck for the time being.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Hitting moving targets

Now I know why we didn't see this at first.
When hitting moving targets, the same type of penalty was applied.
This too was a default value. And if you would manage to hit moving targets without problems, you would get the same effect when doing an assault.

It was all being treated as default. And yet somehow, it felt balanced back then.

I can't count the times how many times we used units that had their penalty set in such a way, that damage would be 0. They never did their assault. But they did have cheaper weapons than defence buildings. Simply, because an enemy could also choose to move. And for that fact, a weapon had no other choice but to be more expensive.

So the default method was based on enemy movement. Not on the movement of the attacking unit itself.

Would it be wise for me to change the penalty system. Based on enemy movement? And simply use this balance, while treating the assault in the same way without weapon adjustments?

This would mean that the enemy dodging is the basis. The assault is a choice, but influenced by the enemy dodging. And the penalty for the enemy dodging is ALWAYS the same as the unit performing an assault.

There would be 2 die rolls if both situations happen.

The last question for now is. Would it be fairly balanced?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Looking at dodging units now

Instead of looking at the assault. Let's see if trying to hit a moving target has influence.

It doesn't matter how fast an enemy dodges in case of the worst weaponry.
But the enemy does make the choice.

For this, the weapons that can't hit any moving targets will have a penalty of +5.
If the target doesn't move, only the accuracy is applied.

The weapon will only hit targets that do not move. This is 100% effective.
Targets that do not move will have the weapon be 0% effective.
It is -100%.
Since it is a choice, it is halved, thus -50%.
Since it has to be on average with non moving targets, it is halved again. thus -25%.
Again, we got the result of +33% more damage on a weapon that cannot hit moving targets.
The penalty roll for the assault should be the same in this regard?
Thus this unit cannot do an assault. But has a cheaper weapon.
Completely ignoring if an assault is possible or not. Hitting a moving target is what matters here.

***

I looked at the default units, which would get 100% weapon weight.
If a penalty of +5 means -25% weight. Then a penalty of -5 means +25% weight. I tested this and it worked.

Now then, if this effect is used on the assault aspect. I am not sure how to give weight to the assault attribute.

That one complicated formula that I thought of is depending on movement speed. I did plan on implementing the penalty effect in a raw sense. But now it would seem that the penalty effect is going to be a 5% percentage as well. Where any movement speed is simply considered to be a default of 100%.

Thus, if the penalty is +5. Then the factor would become -25%. And this is complete nonsense for the assault once again.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut