Skip to Content

Something between a board and a card game?

126 replies [Last post]
X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
So many unfinished challenges

X3M wrote:

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.

Is this managable by players?

Further more, I got a little over 240 different "body" designs of a managable value (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2... 5.5, 6)
I could get much more if I multiply by 3 or 5. But rather not.
There is also this option of removing any fraction from the formula. The main divider is 15. And only the types of 1.5 remain. So basicly, I could multiply by 30. And I got whole numbers...
A basic infantry squad without weapons would cost 90.
A total region would be 180...

I feel I am creeping again. So, I better start cutting and instead reduce the number of cards. Or apply different solutions.

I am also weighing my options for:
- rounding up value's of cards. This would be almost all, but some would end up being better.
- F this, and remove even the 0.5 value's.
- giving a basic weapon for certain cards. This would be a lot. But the game gets another problem.
- Other cards that change the numbers, also get a rounding if nessesary. They simply become better for certain basic cards.

In a sense, I am trying to cut corners. The corners are gona look ugly to me. The player wouldn't notice this at first.

It also still bothers me that my number 1 tester simply says, he doesn't want to combine cards. At this moment, as the title of this topic says. A boardgame and cardgame in one.
Perhaps I should revert back to 1 "body" and 1 "weapon" card. And on top 1 or 2 adjustment cards. I could work with transparent cards again...obviously with a blind.

Have the threshold mechanic return.
Apply for my own, the size adjustment as well if needed.
And a lot of numbers will be rounded.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Cutting again

First things first.
We did some playtests. And combining the cards during a game is apparently no fun?
Designing prior to a game seems to be more fun.

I previously had 18 forces in the prototype version years ago.
The spacegame had only 6 forces.
And I accidently made it possible to have 60 forces on the map.
This all per player. So I need to cut again.

Perhaps, I should have only 1 piece per combination.
Increase the health count, somehow... I am thinking a H/D ratio of 9 atm.
And have only a maximum of 10 pieces???
I like to have 4 defences, 4 walls, 4*X units. IDK. 12 or 16 then maybe?

The health tracking will certainly be on the cards now. But that is ok. It is cards vs cards now. But with a board to track.


Any room for resource managment?

Actually, no....

HQ then?

Again no.

Research stuff??

No base seems to be the case.

So, what kind of game mode could I even do here?


Looking at the video game that is being developed.
Perhaps allowing defeated pieces to come back.

Then there is still a HQ.
Different HQ should be possible, still.
Maybe have a base card instead.

A base should still be able to:
- income
- replacement
- ...

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about keeping it relatively SIMPLE and...

Say that from your HQ LOCATION that's where the NEW Troops can be DEPLOYED. And that's it. Simple point of reference that the HQ can move but not too quickly and that more units can be deployed from ITS location.

Something SIMPLE like that... Thoughts?!?!

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
You are right in that

You are right in that regard.

I am also considering making it a spaceship game again.
But still, if I do modern warfare, I could make interesting missions.

The player can make a deck of cards and simply send those forces in.

The H/D ratio should be increased. So that 1 battle doesn't immdediately mean death.

I still could go for different HQ as well.

My biggest mistake was that there were too many pieces. I need to reduce this, preferably to only 9 per player. 12 at most.

Maybe I should allow different "bodies" in a squad. But that would make things more complicated again.

Another thing I could do is really allow for only a couple of weapons. And then some upgrades.


I have been thinking about the transparent layers again.
But then there are no blinds. The players really just makes a deck of cards that they think are good.

If I have only "9 (or 12)" cards on the table... and all the information should be on it.

It starts with a body card. Which is normal.
So 9 "body" cards.

Then what I consider is...should I have card portions?
Meaning that the next layer will contain stuff like weapons, shields and other tools.
So, this new layer should consist of multiple puzzle pieces, made of transparent material?
I don't think this is smart to do though.
The portions are smaller.

I still would like to see 3 things added as main "weaponry".
And to top it off, some upgrade/downgrade cards on top of that.

So, I am stuck with how I should do the second layer. Which could go up to 3 layers on top of the basic card.

What if I add something that will hold the card in place, and the smaller transparent pieces can naturally follow?

Oh, i need to work something out on this.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Can I get the cards "into 1" ?

I checked what I could do on paper.
The weapon cards have a bit too much information.
For starters, they got a 3x3 matrix. And if I allow for 3 weapon portions per body portion. I need to put a lot of information on 1 little piece.

Then again, I am thinking that a plastic piece with a sticker on it would be fairly cheap. And these plastic pieces are about 20 x 80 mm or something.
The cost of 1 plastic piece would be "1".
As for some weapons that cost 2 or 3, would have a larger plastic piece, 40 or 60 mm.

The same goes for shields.
I don't have to ponder about the body value either. It would be "3" Always.

Then there could be health downgrades, while a weapon upgrade could take place.

The size is the cost.
And the title downgrade or upgrade should be present.

The plastic pieces could be transparent. But the second layer doesn't nesesarily have to.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
By the way

I am picturing all this as if the cards and plastic pieces are in some sort of card basket. That also allows for the plastic pieces to be put into place.

As for cards that get only 1 weapon from the player. Perhaps each "body" card needs 3 distinct special abilities. So, a card without weapons, shields and tools. Would have 3 special abilities.

What could those be?

On the other hand. I don't like this. Since a special ability would also be of value 1, 2 or 3. And those of value 1 could be in the mix of plastic addition pieces.

Perhaps some additional health then?
Add weapons, the health goes down.
I don't know.
Perhaps one of the parts can be extra movement instead. Thus adding a weapon slows down the card.
I could calculate this for each card.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut