Skip to Content

Something between a board and a card game?

126 replies [Last post]
X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
If i keep all the prices

If i keep all the prices logical.
Meaning all bodies are always 3. And all weapons are always 1.
I could add modification cards.

The one to adjust the body would be based on the 4 existing armor types. But let's say, only health is added with various movement speeds.
A wrong speed would mean impossible to add. I need to research on this.
A negative version of this would allow for 1 more weapon.
And a weapon modifier (for any weapon) would be based on the attack range.

Let's say, the infantry squad has a negative adjustment on the health. But it allows the squad to carry not 3 but 4 weapons. And actually could choose to carry only 2 weapons with both an attack range adjustment.
So you got this stack of cards:
- body
- negative body adjustment
- weapon
- weapon adjustment
- weapon 2
- weapon 2 adjustment

6 cards that make up 1 squad on the fields.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Specifically I'm using...

Here's my target LAYOUT in response to your last message:

Weapon #1   Asset #1
Weapon #2 <= body => Asset #2
Weapon #3   Asset #3

The Polyhedral dice on the LEFT are mainly for Weapons and the Polyhedral dice on the RIGHT are mainly for Equipment. The middle die can go BOTH WAYS (so-to-speak).

Something like that. I have yet to PROVE the process ... But I'm very optimistic and excited for this game... Thanks for sharing that IDEA... Don't worry my implementation will be VERY "different" than yours. You'll SEE!


Note #1: My version has 6 flexible cards and 1 body (which remains fixed). But it is a bit similar to your idea of having "6" cards... But I've known this for a LONG time. Right now, I working on a "reward" system for organized play... Very interesting so far.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the Polyhedral dice...

What I'm not yet sure is IF I KEEP the SAME ORDER or not...?! That is a big question and my answer for now is YES, I will keep the SAME ORDER. But it is entirely possible that at some point in time, I will BREAK this RULE (of unit design). And when I do that it will be for some specific REASON. ATM there is no need to do this (as per my impressions of the game).

I'll let you know WHEN(?) and IF(!) I decide to break that rule.


Note #1: The current ORDER is: D4, D6, D8, D10, and D12. D20 are reserved for Armor Points (APs). Something like that is STANDARD for the current series of cards.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Order or Chaos

It is very important in wargames.

I roll a bunch of dice. They all got the same rules. So order is not nessesary here.
If a weapon is different, it will get another colour.
With the current system, some designs will need up to 5 colours.
I could design a commando (Havic) to have:
- Sniper
- Grenade Launcher
- Rocket Launcher
- Flamethrower
- Assault Rifle

And if the 3 anti infantry weapons have different accuracies, they too need different colours. But basicly, 1 colour per attack.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Time for making a prototype

Although, I don't have time to get physical...

But here is the plan:
For now, the bodies, weapons and possible adjustments will be handwritten.
Then the pieces, I still got a stack of sillouettes from one of 10 years ago. I will be using those.

I think, I allow the players to have up to 4 designs. And they are used right away.
As for the HQ. It will simply be rules of what 1 HQ can do. But maybe I should give it a different name?
Base component perhaps?

I got the dice ready. I got plenty of hexagon maps. And I am going to try out something new with the terrain.

I looked into a brighter side and darker side of the hexagons. That way, I might create the illusion of higher and lower grounds.

Not sure if I should apply terrain mechanics. The space will not be an issue any longer. Movement will be reduced though by the type of terrain. And thus, if you have an unit that has a movement of 1. In just 1 turn, it cannot go through a thick forest. You need multiple turns. And I think that the maximum movement penalty should be no more than 2. This means that if you move into a forest. You get a penalty of 1. A tank with movement of 1 will be able to move in on the second turn. Then 1 turn remains to either move out again, or attack from that spot.

As for penalties on accuracy. Not sure which mechanic I should take exactly. I kinda forgot.... unbelievable, hahahaha.
Same goes for the penalties on movement etc. But I am sure I got it explained somewhere.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Paper Prototype Components

- A hexagon board.
Hand drawn except for the hexagons, these are printed.

- Pieces with player indication.
20 x 20 mm cuts. For 2 players, 9 different pieces. 8 of each. 144 in total. 6 to be used on the board, 1 to be used on the design and 1 spare.

- Cards.
The types we have now are:
"Unit", "Defence", "HQ", "Weapon", "Shield".
A player needs per design:
Either a unit or defence card. Then it adds weapons and/or shields. Of course you can do without additions, then you got a "wall" design. And depending on the value, you may double or tripple the health. The maximum value is 6.
The "HQ" is a stand alone card.
Cards with a value of 4 or 5 are for specialist designs.
There might be other cards in the future.

- Something to track resources. Although, I might skip this and have the players count their HQ.

- Something to track health on a piece. Probably little wads of paper.


Each player will design their HQ (or it is just 1 card)

Each player will have a deck of cards. And is allowed to design up to 9 different combinations of cards.
The cards are drawn 1 by 1 each round. But the player starts with 7 and can exchange these by putting them temporary away, and pick 7 new ones.
Once the player is happy. The cards that where discarded are put back into the deck and the deck is reshuffled.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Very short summary of the game rules

Before a game;
players create a deck that has no more than a total value of ##. The value of cards can range from 1 to 6.

Determing turn order for the round;
Depending on the number of players. But most likely picking a number from a bag.

Drawing phase;
no more than 7 cards. Discard one, put it back at the end of the deck.

Design phase (primairy turn order);
only if a player wants too.
A set of cards are combined into one unit/defense.
A piece is added to the mix to represent the design.
The player can start producing this piece.

Production phase (primairy turn order);
The things a player wants, has to be set aside for now. The pieces are placed at the end of a round.
The player can choose a number of pieces, no more than 6 per design may be on the board. The maximum for that round is the reversed triangular number for the number of HQ.
1 HQ allows for 1 piece
3 HQ allows for 2 pieces.
6 HQ allows for 3 pieces.

Action phase (secondairy turn order);
It begins with the primairy turn order.
After this, the second turn starts with the second player in turn.
The player in turn decides on the piece that can either be moved or attacked with.
The piece can perform 3 actions.
All other players in the turn order will decide on their piece as well. But don't have to (saving it for a better choice)
The actions are performed simoultainiously.
Declared in the current turn order.

For a second or third attack. The piece needs to be attacking in the first and second place. The later the attack, the more powerfull it will be. There will be a complete section in the manual for how combat takes place.
It includes determing targets and counter measures.

There are pieces that can perform more than 3 actions due to them being cheaper in value. These can have a 1st attack, then move twice, then reset the action order. It can go up to 7 actions including attacks. And 8 actions if only movement takes place. The latter makes almost no sense though.

The number of turns played are no more than the number of players
Everyone can go a 1st time for that round. Some will play multiple turns later on if they decide to preserve their counter measurments.

Each piece can perform only once per round. Once used, they are exhausted for that round. And rather defencless.

Placing phase (primairy turn order);
If it is still possible, pieces are placed now. The player can decide which pieces are discarded.

End of the round.


I tested a bit with building up a base. I am not happy with it.

Since the HQ, or base component. Is a sweet mix of everything a normal RTS has to offer in a base.
The first HQ will probably spend 2 rounds producing 2 more HQ. Then a player needs 1.5 rounds for the third tier.
4/3th for the 4th tier.
It will take more than 1 round, but less than 2 rounds if you will. Of course this is not the case. But the buildup looks like this:

1>2>3>5>7>10>14>18>23>29>36 etc.
In just 10 rounds, the whole map is covered with HQ.
Now, I said that the maximum is 6 per piece. So this should be obvious for the HQ as well.
And the maximum per round is 3 new pieces.

Maybe someone has a better suggestion in this?

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Resource managment

Is still in shambles.

I don't want to have more than 6 HQ.
Each HQ should be able to produce 1 unit or defence or HQ per round.

The resources should be reversed cumulative.
1 gives 1, 3 gives 2, 6 gives 3.

Maybe I should keep track of the resources?
Maybe I should have 1 resource per HQ?
Maybe I should have the design cost the value, while the maximum is 6. It should be possible to have lower value's.

What do you guys think?

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
1 step back

"harvesting" tools.
Seems I need to get my harvesters out. They move to a location with resources.
So the HQ is now only tasked with production without the resource gathering.
This also means that resource gathering is lineair once again.
Aaaaand. You can have only 6 harvesters...
Or 12, or 18, or 24, or 30.
Ok, I am assuming we would get these players that would go for it.

Why? Because the harvesting tool would also cost only 1. And giving every design 1 would allow all units to harvest...

On a side note. That won't do. The fields are underground. So the 1 range will certainly only be able to stand on the resource patch.
And this resource patch, like the old fashioned days. Will be able to send out 1, 2 or 3 resources.
If they are any higher. The harvest tools should start getting an attack range. So, more can be placed upon the same field.


The harvest tool of range "0" will cost 1. A normal unit would have 3 of them.
The harvest tool of range "1" will cost 1.5. A normal unit would have 2 of them. AND if the unit design would end up with 0.5 at the end. The costs would be rounded upwards in the game. 5.5 is 6. 4.5 is 5 etc.
The harvest tool of range "2" will cost 2. A normal unit would have 1 of them. Either way, the harvest tools can get the Optics card as well. And a map could get the design that certain locations are hard to reach.

A smart player will observe the map and adjust its deck accordingly.

The HQ will still give 1 resource per round. So you don't end up without asap. Still, the players need to have a good hand. So, what if I allow players to have their starting hand? They pick the cards then need for their start. This will certainly include their harvester.

Make note, a harvester can be awarded with weapons too.


With an average of 3 resources per harvester, and a total of 6 harvesters. And also 6 HQ. The total will be 24 resources per round. The cost of production will now not be 1, but the value instead.

So a cheaper design will allow for faster production. But the size is still all the same.
Design analysis:

Total value 6.
3 Actions.
Relative worth 18.
Specialist damage 15.
Specialist burst damage 20.
Specialist charge damage 60.

Total value 5.
4 Actions.
Relative worth 20.
Specialist damage 16.
Specialist burst damage 32.
Specialist charge damage 48.

Total value 4.
5 Actions.
Relative worth 20.
Specialist damage 15.
Specialist burst damage 24.
Specialist charge damage 36.

Total value 3.
6 Actions.
Relative worth 18.
Specialist damage 12.
Specialist burst damage 16.
Specialist charge damage 48.

Total value 2.
7 Actions.
Relative worth 14.
Specialist damage 7.
Specialist burst damage 12.
Specialist charge damage 24.

Total value 1.
8 Actions.
Relative worth 0.
Specialist damage 0.
Specialist burst damage 0.
Specialist charge damage 0.

Players might consider getting the value 5 instead of value 6. But it will be their choice.
Note: The specialists are a value 1 body. With the rest in weapons.
The burst damage is the first action of every set of 3.
The charge damage is the last action of every set of 3.

I included the value 1 that has no weapons. The reason is that this design would be the fastest. And it can help asap if a player suspects an attack might take place on a more expensive unit. With 8 actions, if the attack is not taking place yet, it can move in 8, 16, or even 24 places. And simply by sarcrificing itself, absorb a massive attack on a good support unit.
This is a very rare tactic and hard to do. The enemy might still play tricks too. Perhaps you need 6 of these to correctly fodder.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Number of cards...

Well, I need a number of cards. To make sure the deck isn't that big. But still interesting.

For each player I need:

- 1 HQ card
- 4 Wall cards (initially can't get a weapon)
- 4 Defence cards
- 8 Unit cards
- 12 Weapon cards
- 4 Shield cards (decrease enemy weapon damage)
- 4 Automated cards (increase weapon damage)
- 4 Optics/Artillery cards (increase weapon range)
- 4(+12) Harvesting tool cards (stack or divide among other cards)
- 4 Heal/Repair cards

So, we are at 49 cards.

Thinking about how to start again.
HQ is a given. So that one is not part of the deck.
As for the harvesting tool cards. Perhaps I should look at MtG. And have more of these in the deck. If I increase to 60. Then 12 more can be added. And the total is 16... 16 out of 60 with 7 cards drawn at the start. Gives a chance of idk, that you have at least 1. Or else a reshuffle. Not only that. But everytime when you want to bring in a piece on the board that has these tools. You need to have the cards present. So, this would be an ongoing increase on top of the cards that carry these harvesting tools.

A player has 7 harvesting tool cards. And applied 2 on an unit card. The player has 4 of these unit cards. 1 Unit for now... will only bring in 1 resource per round. The player still gets 7 in total. But needs to bring in a 5th unit once the player has 9 in total. Or else the income is stuck at 8.

The maximum would be 12 for that design. So, if there are 4 more resource cards in the deck. The player needs another unit with the harvesting tool.

16 is a bit of an odd number. Perhaps 18 is better. 18/3=6. And 6 is the maximum of pieces per design on the board.
Of course, you could design in such a way that you got a value 1 unit with 5 harvesting tools.
But it would all be by the players decision.

As for gathering resources. There should be a limit on how many can harvest from a source. This is in the number of harvesting tools. But attack range is also a factor. If 1 unit is a melee harvester. And another does it at a distance of... lets say 12. Then the melee wins this and can go first. Still, the resources can be shared if the source is huge.

Maybe I should call the card Harvest Beam.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Resource managment again

While the income can be eventually on average 18 per round.
The value of a design is the cost of getting 1 of those units or structures on the map.

Then the "research" for such design is a cumulative cost.
Value 1, costs 1
Value 2, costs 3
Value 3, costs 6
Value 4, costs 10
Value 5, costs 15
Value 6, costs 21

I decided that a lower value can be placed together with another lower value in 1 region. Now, the biggest will be point main. Always. And if the value's are equal. The defending player can decide how the damage is divided on those units. While fodder is at a disadvantage. So they got a slight advantage in some situations.

The upgrade of units is also possible.
Simply pay the difference between the cumulative costs.
Value 5 goes to 6. This is 21 - 15 = 6.
Multiply this by upgrade factor 2.
We get 12.
And every unit of this design in the map also gets this upgrade. But the costs is doubled as well.
The maximum is 6. Thus another 12.
The total is 24 here. But suddenly all those units are stronger.
The must be room though!

The exchange between units is also possible.
This is a downgrade for both units.
Then treat each card as an upgrade.
The costs can become very high. But let's say you have 2 different fronts. And the enemy is countering due to RPS mechanics in a very good way. If you manage to exchange the right weapons. Suddenly you are in a very good position.


In this last regard. But also with upgrades. Having the correct weapons will result in a factor 3 at most for that weapon.
In a lot of situations, surviving by an exchange of weapons will get a cumulative effect in the long run. Which is good.

The total costs?
An example would be exchanging a value of 3 in weapons.
The upgrade costs is 21-6=15
The cost is multiplied by 2, thus 30.
This for both unit designs. Thus 60.

Then if there are 6 units of each design in the map. We got 6 units times 2 designs times 3 upgrade value times 2 upgrade factor = 72

A total of 60+72=132 in costs...

You might reconsider if you don't want those units to keep a position. Since 6 units times 2 designs times 6 value per design is a total of 72. Which is almost half.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Cutting in the upgrades and exchanges

Well, I figured that players aren't that smart to be honest.
I can't have them calculate stuff.
So, I cut in the rules for upgrades and exchanges.

Only possible when there are no more pieces of this design in the map.
If the player really wants to upgrade the design. All remaining pieces need to be removed.
You pay the difference.
The costs for a design are still cumulative. But the upgrade is when you go from a lower to a higher value. And thus, you pay the difference in the 2 total costs of the research.

In a sense, you can also start researching a design, 1 step at a time. This will safe trouble for the players.

However, I am thinking about multiplying this by a factor 3.
So the costs are 3, 9, 18, 30, 45 and 63.
And you really want those 63 designs.

Again, no pieces of that design may be in the map.
Now the cards needed, are removed. And every replacement also counts as an upgrade.
If the player really wants to upgrade the design. All remaining pieces need to be removed.

What I forgot to tell you
At first, I had the smaller designs do more actions.
Not sure what I am going to do about this. While I also allow smaller designs to get together in a region.
So, here are my idea's that I need to test:

1. I always allow more actions for the smaller designs. Meaning that a squad of 3 pieces of value 2. Can do 7 actions instead of 3. After all, the total value with 6 pieces can be only 12 here. While the true maximum is 36.
2. I allow more actions, for the squad in that region if the total value is lower. Meaning that if 3 pieces of value 2 are together, this counts as 6. You need to separate them if you want more actions. But the player will loose the ability to divide enemy incomming fire.
3. I do not allow more actions at all. Lower value designs are just bad.

1 sounds good. I did this with my prototype years ago as well. However, there the SP was slower.
2 sounds like the players are going to have trouble. I don't know for certain yet how much pieces are even allowed to do actions in a round.
3 just sounds bad. It sounds like that players will NOT design lower value's at the beginning.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
re-considering the number of actions per round

Well, a piece can do 3 (or more, depending on the value of the piece)

But how many pieces can the players order around?

Originally I had 3 to 7 with the action points. I don't want to use action points again.
Originally, the 3 actions on 1 squad was born due to the player having only 1 squad left. It could run away, so much faster and deal, so much more damage. The enemy however could defend 3 times as well with just 1 squad. In a sense, it was very balanced, and while the actions got limited if one player was losing. The actions however did do so much more in other occasions in that same situation.

How to get this in a game without action points?
Should I allow an X ammount of exhaustion being removed per round? Meaning that if a player has 1 squad while the other has a hundred, that the number of squads with actions is for example 5.
And this one player can remove an exhaustion?
Removing an exhaustion and doing an action should cost "2" perhaps? Yet this remains 2 and doesn't increase. So, 1 squad can still do 3 turns of actions. While another player has 5 squads doing 1 action.
This can be tracked without tokens, right? Or should I have a tracking mat for things like this? I already need one for the resources though.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Research and balance is blowing itself up

Research for a value 6 is 7 times higher than the research for value 2.

Not only that.
But obviously the value 2 units are faster in the field. Simply by productions. In fact. 9+ 2*6 = 21.
While the value 6 costs 63 alone in research...

Not only that.
Value 2 designs are allowed to do 7 actions instead of 3. The right designs can deal 2.333 times more damage.

Not only that.
While a squad of value 2 designs is worth 1/3th that of the same ammount of pieces of value 6. Thus the other player has 3 squads. The squad refresh by my latest calculations. Should be able to do 3 turns while the other player has in total 4 turns.
Finally they are a bit in a disadvantage here. And the other player easily can do 3 turns with 1 squad as well.
But ehm, before the other player has at least 1 squad.

When trying to optimise your attacks. Let's imagine the players having 6 pieces each.

With 2 squads, you can have 3 turns, and 1 AP is actually lost.
With 3 squads, you can have 4 turns.
3 * 7 = 21 attacks or moves
4 * 3 = 12 attacks or moves

The squad of value 2 units can divide the damage too... But a last health removal means, the piece is dead. So, the squad with value 2 pieces will most likely loose a piece before the third attack is commencing. The value 6 piece will not.

Ow yeah, when a die does 4 damage. This is an instakill. And the chance on 3 or more is 1/3th on a die.

Chances to kill 1 value 2 piece in the first action is 48%.
So, let's say that action 2, will reduce the squad with value 2 pieces, back to only 2 pieces.
So, the total dice would be 3+3+2+2+2+2+2. Ok, the dice are 16 instead of 9 in that exchange.
This happens twice.
So, 32 vs 18.
Then 1 of the squads will start with less, and combining the pieces is a no go at this point. Since you need to refresh 2 squads in that regard. And you can only refresh 1 squad. Unless...

I allow 2 refreshes, and 1 squad moves to the other squad and from there they continue their attack.

Ok, let's do that.

This time the enemy will already start firing. And there is 1 action less for the attack.
3+2+2+2+2+2 = 13.
32+13=45. The other player has 27 at this point.
And the other player can attack once more. So another 9 is added. The difference in attacks is 45 versus 36 on average.
I think this is doable.

But..... This is an endgame balance. And I need to balance the path to this moment.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Linear research?

I had a whole debate here, written down. But decided to delete it and keep it short.


So, yeah, I think the research should be linear.
The value of the design times 3.
So, a value 2 design will cost 6 resources. Then you can produce them.

And the limit is really just 3 actions per squad per turn.
Or else, the lower value units are too Over powered.

It is already a fact that players with less squads can have a squad do more than 1 turn per round.
1 turn, costs 1 AP
A refresh costs 1 AP, so...
2 turns, costs 3 AP
3 turns, costs 5 AP

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Transparent Cards ... I second the NO-GO

I know you mentioned a while back the use of "Transparent" Cards and you were not too sure about them; if this was a GOOD approach or not.

Well I just wanted to write back concerning this TOPIC ... Because I believe that "Transparent" Cards are NO GOOD. First of all there would be NO CARDBACK. That's problematic because usually you WANT the name of the game on the back-side of the cards.

Secondly even if white is permissible as a MASK, you will need to design in such a way that things go OVER EACH OTHER. Like a "Circle" with a Value and another "Circle" with another Value, etc. Same goes for Textual Areas (rectangular) they all need to go one on TOP of the other... Otherwise you will get mixed results.

So I know you said that you were not 100% sure... I'm just echoing reasons that it is NOT favorable to use "Transparent" Cards.


X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:I know you

questccg wrote:
I know you mentioned a while back the use of "Transparent" Cards and you were not too sure about them; if this was a GOOD approach or not.

I discarded that option seeing as how the number of cards with one design can be totally different. We talked about this before too. That is why I discarded the option. Freedom in certain area's cause limitations in other area's.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
What is wrong with me?

The HQ could be treated as a structure.
It also can get harvest tools.
Now for production tools??
Hey man, I could do without HQ.

Simply let the player select their first cards.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Resources versus Wages

X3M wrote:
The HQ could be treated as a structure. 1It also can get harvest tools. Now for production tools?? Hey man, I could do without HQ.

Simply let the player select their first cards.

Why not keep it simple and make your Base/HQ become your HAND of cards...? So you would have units IN HAND (and therefore ready to deploy) and you could ALSO have "Resource" cards like in Magic: the Gathering which allow you to PAY for actions and accumulate Credits.

Like "+5 Crude" to play a Motorcycle... Or "+10 Credits" to play a "Rifleman", as in resources vs. wages. Something like that...

Just a thought!

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Where would the enter the world


Either way, there should be a starting position. Where the player has their first "HQ".
It is up to the player to have a good HQ that can produce structures and also get income.

Obviously, the production tool should be able to make something like the HQ with ease. Still, I got the feeling I need to chew on this before I let players chew on it.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe the goal is to...

Capture the enemy's FLAG and units can move the FLAG and the FLAGs location determines WHERE(?) a unit should be deployed at... Could be fun ... A lot more strategy and RIKS involved... I mean you want to deploy as close as possible to the enemy ... But at the same time you WANT to protect YOUR flag. Sort of an opposing set of needs/wants:

- Closer meaning faster to reach the opponent.

- Riskier because more chances that the Flag is captured.

You would probably need to BALANCE BOTH! Just a thought...

Note #1: In some ways it makes sense... If you have UNITS in your HAND (HQ) and your FLAG is at risk... Just deploy from your HAND the units you want to protect the FLAG with... LOGICAL.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
What if I make...

A super HQ.
And the concept of strenghtening certain abilities is left to the structures around?

The super HQ would be 4 times that of any other piece.

It can contain:
- Body stats x4
Not 40, but 160 health.
- Shields
Obviously you can make a very strong HQ that suddenly could die fast with sufficient fire.
- Harvest tools
Thinking about having auto income tools. But these should be relatively more expensive. And perfect for the HQ.
- Production tools
Either structures, units or both.
Either organic, mechanical or both.
The thing is, 1 production tool will certainly have 1 couple attribute.
- (self) Repair tools.
The same, but twice the cost of a shield.

I still need to define certain tools by themselves. So that they are balanced. But the super HQ, or just HQ. Would certainly be something a player designs from the deck.
Then the remaining cards will have to be combined with other bodies.

I even could allow the player to put together, 4 different bodies if you will. The other players need to switch weapons to get through faster.

Now, here is the deal with the HQ.
It cannot be rebuild. Only repaired.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
I was thinking of having an ALTERNATE VICTORY condition???

Capturing the "Flag" would be a way of having an "Alternate Victory Condition". So you may want several of these to create a bit of DANGER in certain circumstances. For example:

1> IF the enemy's FLAG is captured and returned to the opponent's base, that player defeats that opponent.

2> If a player's HQ or base is destroyed, the game ends for that player.

3> If all a player's ARMY is defeated, that player is eliminated.

I know people say they HATE "Player Elimination" but in this Wargame it's the only thing that makes sense... You can't have everyone playing until the end.


A> There is ONE (1) FLAG and it is placed in the Middle of the Play Area. First player to bring it to his/her OWN BASE is declared the winner.

And all players are "in the race" until someone gets to be too weak such that they can no longer compete for the FLAG and someone else gets to move the FLAG a certain distance towards their HOME BASE.

I find COMBAT (destroy everything) as a boring and TOO LONG "outcome". There has to be a quicker and/or easier way to win which doesn't require eliminating all of the forces of all of the opposing players.

Anyhow CAPTURING the FLAG is HARD but more possible and plausible than defeating all of the opposing ARMIES in play.

At least that's how I LOOK AT IT... Cheers, let me know what you think???

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
The way I see it...

Is that there should be a way to WIN which doesn't REQUIRE EVERYONE to be beaten so-to-speak. That VICTORY (defeat everyone) is very LONG and arduous. Yeah I know you "Wargamers" like things to go on for hours. Meanwhile most Board & Card games get resolved in 30-Minutes to 120-Minutes (2-Hours).

The FLAG idea was a way of ensuring that the time is more like 90-Minutes or maybe even 120-Minutes ... But NOT longer. If it's a Board Game it is NOT like a wargame which can last 4-Hours in most cases. It can maybe even be resolved in 1-Hour also... TBD.

The plain fact of the matter is that many Wargamers like LONG games (the 4-Hour type). But most Board Games are done within an Hour... So something like 2-Hours with a "Capture The FLAG" option ... May be of interest.


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Are you still planning on doing it like Magic: the Gathering???

What I mean is everyone has their OWN "Deck" of cards?! Why? Because if it was a COMMON DECK for everyone, you could do something like Pandemic (sort-of):

A> Play starts with players drafting cards (in some way) and player get to build up their ARMY and remain at their OWN BASE... until...

B> A player draws the "Green" BATTLE FLAG... And then the FLAG is placed in the middle of the Area of Play and now players can begin to wage war and try to capture the FLAG and bring it to their BASE.

With a COMMON DECK you could do something like that.

ALTERNATIVELY (Version #2) you could have ONE (1) GREEN FLAG and ONE (1) WHITE FLAG. If there are two (2) players, each one gets a FLAG Card. The meanings are similar:

1> The players build their army of units until the GREEN FLAG is drawn...

2> When the WHITE FLAG is drawn, it is placed in the center of the Area of Play and can be captured and brought home to a base.

This is yet another version and works with 2+ Players. Just some extra thoughts on the matter. IDK if you will LIKE this idea (of using FLAGS) or not... Again just something I was thinking about in terms of your game.

Version #2 doesn't require a SHARED Deck... FYI.


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just because I picture something cool...

Like if this were a VIDEO GAME ... The build up could be gradual until someone DRAWS the "Green Flag" and then all attacks start... Then there is a gradual ramp up to the "Red Flag" and then some kind of Nuclear Tech or massive damage (2x Factor), etc... Makes ATTACKING the FOCUS of the game...

And then the "White Flag" is played and appears in the CENTER of PLAY and all players go after it to TRY to win the game.

Something like that would be COOL in a VIDEO GAME TBH!

Just another random idea... Cheers.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013

Well, we did have some games, in 2019 if I recall correctly.
Where the players had to get through a mix of blockages.

We where testing if a wall of destructable objects could hold players at bay.
A natural entrance that you had to make if you will.


Either way, I want to work on the weapons a bit. Making sure we got a good balance in these.
Then the bodies.
Then other cards.

Making decisions on the HQ is stil impossible without having other concrete decisions.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I knew I should have done this first

I am making a list of all possible bodies.
Weapons would be a much bigger list.

So, I started combining the stats.
It really is only the type, health and movement.
I also allow 0.5 in the value's.

The first lone design would be the infantry squad that has only a movement of 1.
The only design possible with a usable value would be a value of 4 (total is always 6). And a health of 15.

I will make the list a bit longer. There should be a limit too. And more gaps will appear in the future.

But my next focus would be a card that can alterate the value of such cards and also alterate the other stats in the proces. If I reduce the value. At first I expect a copy would appear. However, maybe I should design in such a way. That the health reduction isn't nessesarily of the same type.... This would allow for a mix somehow. Or perhaps even change the type of the main "body" card.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Next challenge

I arrived at seeing what unit designs are possiblewith a movement of 4.
Seems there are only 4, infantry not included.

And the value for balance? All 3.5.

I talked with someone from my test group.
He actually likes the idea of predesigned units in a whole.
aka the USC.

In a sense, I got more options.
But the player doesn't.

Besides of predesigned cards. It would mean that the whole cardgame portion of the game would be removed. And I have to go back to square 1.

I could include predesigned cards. But these would be the design exceptions. And are rare.
The player can draw them and play them. But these cards hardly can be adjusted at all.
And the player can't upgrade them etc.
These cards would require the maximum research cost as well of 18.

It is kinda like playing with green in MtG.
You start with fodder.

Some get upgraded a lot.
And you will get big creatures for a high cost.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
A difference?

Perhaps I should allow lower value predesigns as well.

The big difference?
Maybe I should revert back to some "take that" aspects.

If a player designs an unit itself.
This unit has to be researched.
It can be upgraded.
It can exchange cards with other designs as well. This is known as a double upgrade.
The pieces in the field are included.

The costs? Well, I should expect players to calculate this all, right?
At least, I should keep it simple.

What can we factor in, or has the player to be able to calculate?
We got the value of the cards.
We got "combining cards".
We got "upgrading" in field pieces.


I think I keep the value of the cards as how they are for the research.
Simply add them up.
Add 1 per additional card.
And multiply by 3.

Simply add the extra up.
Add 1 per additional card.
The extra value is multiplied by 3.
If there are pieces precent in the map.
For each piece; the extra value is multiplied by 2.

The upgrade costs are calculated for both designs.
The exchange value in the field is NOT doubled, but paid only once.



Design A is a card of value 2.
The research is 6.
The maximum infield value is 12.
Total costs 6-18.

Design B is a card of value 3.
The research is 9.
The maximum infield value is 18.
Total costs 9-27.

Design C are 2 cards of both value 1.
The research is 9.
The maximum infield value is 12.
Total costs 9-21.

Design D are 3 cards of each value 1.
The research is 15.
The maximum infield value is 18.
Total costs 15-33.

Any of these designs can be upgraded.
The card is a value 1.
The upgrade is 6.
The upgrade per piece is 2, up to a maximum of 12.
Total costs 6-18.

Bringing A or C to B or D.
Total costs A go from 6-18 to 12-36
Total costs B are 9-27.
Total costs C go from 9-21 to 15-39
Total costs D are 15-33.


Now, this means that the higher a card is in design, the lower the research costs. But you can't pull much legs in the field.
I already have a F#$% moment in mind. You move in with a super fast unit. Then you use cards to reduce the movement, which also lowers the value of the design. But... you can add so much more weapons now. It is a high cost. But you could deal a lot of damage in one go by surprice if you saved up the required credits.

I also could do predesigned cards of lower value. Obviously the 2 in the example are the same case. But these too can still be adjusted if it combines well with the other cards.

Does anyone forsee problems with this?
Is this too complicated for players?

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut