Skip to Content
 

Too much fidling?

298 replies [Last post]
questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Okay I read in diagonal...

You can have RANKS of Troops in a Card Game (Physical). Meaning you could have for example "3 RANKS" for let's say three (3) ROWS of Troops. So the cards played in ROW #1 (1st RANK) are Melee and make contact with the opposing player's own ARMY. Sure you can have Ranged units... But there needs to be some kind of PENALTY for having Ranged units in ROW #1.

Next in ROW #2 (2nd RANK) are Ranged units which can target either the opposing Melee units (ROW #1: 1st RANK) OR Ranged units (ROW #2: 2nd RANK).

Lastly in your ROW #3 (3rd RANK) are Support units which cannot directly attack ANYONE. They offer some kind of BOOST. Like it could be a Drummer who BOOSTs all Melee Attacks by +1 Attack (for example) or it can be a Wizard who BOOSTs all Magical Ranged Attacks by +2 Attack (for example)... Or a Champion who BOOSTs Morale and gives All units a +1 Defense Bonus.

This is similar to "Monster Keep" (MK), I have three (3) rows too. But there are restrictions on my rows (3 Monsters, 2 Monster and 1 Monster = BOSS)

In your case, you can build and design your ARMIES as you like: no ranged, only Melee and Support OR Melee and Ranged (no Support), etc.

And case you could have a ?D element with 3 RANKS that allow for 3 ROWS with different use case for each row.

I would THINK in terms of ARMIES vs. ARMIES. Not units vs. units. ARMIES are a composition of ONE (1) or MORE RANKS. Some ARMIES like a Melee Army may be MORE EFFECTIVE against a Ranged Army (for example)... But you can COMBO the two and produce more neutral armies (in terms of their effectiveness).

Additionally like in MK, Build Points (BPs) or something similar may be used to CONTROL HOW armies are built. Like 50 points for ? units to an ARMY. Like a Support unit could COST 10 BPs, leaving 40 BPs. Ranged could COST 2 BPs each meaning you could get 10 of them (20 BPs) and lastly Melee could COST 1 BPs each (20 BPs). So a mixed ARMY could look like that... Meanwhile a Melee-ONLY ARMY could be 50 Melee units (50 BPs).

Something like that. I'm just sharing some of what I am using. You are welcome to ADAPT it to what works for you... MK is not a "dumb" design... There is a LOT going on for just a SIMPLE "Card Game"!

Anyhow if you have other questions, please let me know! Cheers.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Rows or ranks

I have tried this before. But the thing is that having this effect requires 2D thinking.
Meaning that there is a limited room for this to be fair and logical.
After all, everyone could go melee only.

Let's say, we consider weapons to have an attack range. That this is the whole point of disuccsion.

In a board game with a grid. You can have these units attack from a distance. And thus getting an edge on some other units that still need to approach.
In order to prevent the other units to approach, some melee units can be used to blcok the other melee units.

This represents an RTS game.
And believe it or not, the space variant with fleet would still have this effect to some extent. Since I also would have some cover mechanics within the fleet.

The card game with ranks as you described. Would need a limit too. But now, the table is filled with cards instead of pieces. And the cards are limited to being "one" each. Meaning, the smaller cards are not going to be fodder. And will not really be used anymore. It simply doesn't work for my game.

My plan is to have each card contain chips. And these chips tell us how strong the card is going to be.
A chip of 9? The card represents 9 units. And the player could decide to use up to 9 dice.
A chip of 27 with a chip of 3? The card represents 30 units. And 30 dice are used.

Well, scrap the 9 and 30. The idea behind the chips would also be. The die roll represents the hits and misses. I think I allow a player to roll 1 or 3 dice for a chip. Where the 3 + 27 could be 3 dice of 1 each and 3 dice of 9 each.

Then, with the attribute [Ranged]. These cards could take cover behind a normal card. And the cards [Melee] could provide cover to a normal card.
[Ranged] could also provide a sure way to fire without return fire on [Defences]
Where [Ranged] obviously makes the weapon a bit more expensive.

I found my list of attributes for an earlier attempt. I am going to reconsider the attributes. How they where in the other game. And how they can be used in this game.
Also, if their weight calculation can be used.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
No one will know that these concepts are used in "Monster Keep"!

If you do use these ideas... I suggest you find an ALTERNATIVE NAME for "Build Points" (BPs) because I specifically use this TERM in MK. And just to differentiate (not that the odds are people play MK and your game...) I'd just rather the term BPs be applicable to MK only. You could use "AZ" (ARMY SIZE) or "UC" (UNIT COUNT), etc. I'm sure you can find your own name.

About the ROWs ... Like I said, I use a very specific variant. But this is used in OTHER card games like "GWENT: The Witcher Card Game" ... I just suggested RANKS (because yours is an ARMY game). Both MK and GWENT use ROWs. Apparently they've simplified GWENT even more ... Now there are ONLY 2 ROWs. MK has 3 ROWS like the previous generation/version of GWENT. Again MK was not inspired by GWENT (although I had knowledge about this game) it was again something else that gave me ideas... I was thinking about BOSS and his minions. And I went for 2 ROWS to 3 instead (3rd ROW = BOSS). The BOSS cannot ATTACK nor be ATTACKED. He is a special Monster and this impacts how this card is treated an played. There is no "Knock-Out" Phase in the BOSS Round (#3).

RANKS for an ARMY game sounds cool and very specific to such a game. If you find another term you like better... Go right ahead and choose that.

Best!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
I like the CHIP idea!

Yeah that sounds cool: Cards + Chips! That could work and not require 2D thinking ... Never thought of it that way. See in MK there are only 6 cards in the Play Area (3 + 2 + 1). So no need for excessive counts of things. There are ONLY 6.

Like I said, I've seen 2D concepts in other card games. Like Hearthstone (TAUNT), GWENT (ROWS), even Magic: Arena (BLOCKERS).

So the concept is NOT NEW. It's been around and RE-INVENTED a few times over! And fairly enough, in MK it's the SAME concept just implemented differently.

BTW what do you hope to achieve with THIS version (over the older-one)??? Were you just blocked with the older-one or was it too complex?! Just curious...

Cheers @X3M!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
In MK it's supposed to be a KEEP with 3 Levels.

The TOPMOST level contains only 1 Monster (Card) and is the BOSS.

The 2nd level contains 2 Monsters (Cards) and are subject to dynamic "Reach". It depends on what you want to achieve. Exact "Reach" means that you can attack a card with the SAME "Reach" but the INVERSE is also true: The opponent's Monsters with the same "Reach" can attack YOUR Monsters (Cards). So it is a DOUBLE-EDGED sword to go on the Attack... You can close the door with using a "Reach" you think the opponent will not use.

The BOTTOMMOST level contains 3 Monsters (Cards). Again "Reach" is dynamic BUT because you don't have any warning or ahead-knowledge, it's RANDOM what encounters may occur. It's left to CHANCE and a bit of old-fashion "LUCK"!

So it's like a PYRAMID. When I had 2 ROWS, adding the 3rd ROW made much sense because of the "pyramid" nature of the cards. So this is REALLY cool and I have worked very HARD to make MK a bit different but in other ways similar to other games out-there. You know what they say: "If this reminds me of Game 'X' ..." That is cool especially if players enjoy playing game 'X'!

Familiarity usually breeds confidence and increases interest.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
All or nothing game

questccg wrote:
Yeah that sounds cool: Cards + Chips! That could work and not require 2D thinking ... Never thought of it that way. See in MK there are only 6 cards in the Play Area (3 + 2 + 1). So no need for excessive counts of things. There are ONLY 6.

Like I said, I've seen 2D concepts in other card games. Like Hearthstone (TAUNT), GWENT (ROWS), even Magic: Arena (BLOCKERS).

So the concept is NOT NEW. It's been around and RE-INVENTED a few times over! And fairly enough, in MK it's the SAME concept just implemented differently.

BTW what do you hope to achieve with THIS version (over the older-one)??? Were you just blocked with the older-one or was it too complex?! Just curious...

Cheers @X3M!


The mechanics as a whole didn't really work.
I also had this merry go around mechanic. But it seemed to be to confusing for most.
So it should be straigth to the point. Where you have your deck in fron of you. And the cards you play are based on what you already have on the table.

I want people to play with their deck. And chances are that the entire deck will be on the table, right from the start.
Where a player has a deck as their faction.

The cards are placed and visible for everyone.
This at least helps other players to anticipate what they really need.

There are cards that, once destroyed without a rebuild option. Then they can be removed from the table.
Eventually a player will have lost the deck.

A variant could still be, holding the cards until they are needed.
Seeing as how every card is going to be counted in chips. What would be a good maximum?

Just naming a possiblility of a deck.

- HQ
- Construction yard
- Refinery
- Small harvester
- big harvester
- storage
- small wall
- big wall
- cheap defence
- defence
- expensive defence
- AA
- Barracks
- Factory
- Airfield
- another factory of whatever
- Super weapon

Now I named like 17 utilities. It can differentiate.
If the table can hold 9x3 per player. We have 10 left for units.
If the table can hold 10x4 per player. We have 23 left for units.
And perhaps, the cards should be smaller, like 75 or even only 50%.

A matt would also be an option. Where there is also a position for a deck to be placed when not used. Well, the cards can be picked up and always searched for.

It is also allowed to have multiple cards of the same type in order to have multiple squads of a certain unit.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
That said

I don't think a grid for simulating range is a possiblity here.

Now, how would players build up their base?
For starters. I think a player has a starting budget.
Not sure if storage is going to be used in the game.
Maybe I should not. It would mean more fidling.

They start with an HQ that has the following properties:
- Automated harvesting AND processing of resources. Any income times 4 for the costs
- Ability to construct buildings.

Then the Refinery and Harvester come as a package:
- Harvester brings in resources. Which has a factor of 2. Which are also lost unless...
- The refinery immediately turns these into funds. Which has a factor of 2.
The harvester is equal or one tier lower in the resource rate than the refinery. And the costs of the refinery will be a basis on which the harvester should be added.

If a player looses a refinery, a new one can be build without the harvester. If a player looses an harvester, these need to be added through a factory. Or the player is forced to place a more expensive refinery.
The player also can add another type of harvester, I suspect preferably a cheaper one. Of which 2 or more can do the same job as the first harvester. The other way around sounds a bit weird to me.

In order to construct faster and/or bigger. The player can place additional construction yards:
- Ability to construct buildings.
These should be cheaper.

***

The main problem is the snowball effect:
- Players can expand into infinity for resources.
- There is a maximum per player.
- There is a maximum in total that players share.
- A combination of the 2.

Thus there can be combat in order to secure more resources.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about "BASE" vs. "BASE" type of combat???

So Player #1 and #2 both BUILD a base with a bunch of building. There is no room for a "map" just some space between the two (2) sides. So why not make it a war between 2 BASES (Base vs. Base). The player to destroy the opposing HQ is the winner of the game.

Instead of EXPLORING and TRAVELLING ... You simply LAND UP at the opponent's BASE!

This would greatly simplify things and you could have some kind of TIMER or a NUMBER of turns for when the TROOPs or ARMY arrive at the opponent base. Something like that. Giving the opponent some time to PREPARE for an attack.

Thoughts, ideas, do you like it or not?! Let me know. Cheers!

Note #1: I like the SAND TIMER IDEA... Enemy Troops arrive when the timer is DONE. And it could be like the SLOWEST unit makes for the use of a LONGER timer. So if I only have marines, then in 30 SECONDS the attack occurs or if I have Tanks, then it is in 90 SECONDS... Something like that ... It doesn't need to be founded in REALITY but maybe you have 3 timers: 30 seconds, 60 seconds and 90 seconds.

Note #2: And maybe you can only have ONE (1) ARMY attacking at a time. Meaning that you might have "reserves" that can help defend from the opposing ATTACK. You could have Gun Towers or Bunkers, to help in defending your base. And it could be ALL or NOTHING like you suggest... IDK the more I think about it, the harder it sounds to implement (like how do you fend off an attack and then go on the offensive when you've gotten totally slammed by the enemy...) Things like that!

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

No!!

***

Some troops that attack. Can't defend (exhausted)
Defences can't attack anyway.

If the build up of a base is linear.
Then troops come in cumulative.
Once the base is "finished".
The troops keep growing linear.

The cheapest troops need a higher ammount in order to reach the threshold of destroying certain buildings.

I think that having 1 HQ could be an option.
But if resource managment is limited. The players should have the option to keep producing these as well as a trophy if you will.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
No timers(?!)

X3M wrote:
No!!

Think about it... If troops come in "waves" it would make sense to use some TIMERS... Then it could be a REAL RTS game! Not some joke of continuously flipping timers to move units concurrently. No to simply control the overall flow of the game!

I think it could be AWESOME and SIMPLE in your context/situation/design.

But you PLAY that online Video Game which is "Art of War 3" and there are all kinds of timers handled by the computer (obviously) ... But if you were to add them in a simple way like handling the time to wait for an attack to LAND...

That IMHO would be freaken AWESOME! It's simple, gives the real-time feeling and is pretty NEAT again IMHO.

You should consider it ... It could be pretty SWEET! IDK... I like the idea.

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

Timers don't fit in the current design.

There is a form of simultaneous fighting.
And that is enough for a card game imho.

1. Cards go at the same time at each other, there is still a risk.
2. Cards that attack, cannot defend. This means that surviving enemies can a lot more for a turn.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
No health tracking

In my prototype wargame. We used to have an HQ with health. The health was ridiculous high. However, eventually it would be destroyed if there wasn't enough defence.

There was a fault in design though. Once one player had the upper hand at the enemy base. In some games, reinforcements would come in faster than the dying player could muster.

Thus the HQ would indeed die slowly as expected. But it was like a doom.

In my public version. There is no HQ. Only construction yards and such. These bases didn't have a goal to protect. And in some games, they could survive very long too. A player needed to have some lucky hits in order to keep the enemy down long enough to give a good blow at the base as well.

This version was much more based on luck by dice rolls. After all, an infantry squad would be only 6 soldiers, not 36. Just to have an example. And these 6 dice would have a wider distribution of results.

Now, for a card game. We could introduce this HQ again as a kill goal. And from there, other parts that a player has build up could slowly die off again. It really would depend on the choices of players.
But there are 2 double edged problems here.

1. The HQ would have a lot of armor. And this is a threshold in the card game. There is no health tracking. So, the players should gather heavy weapons. And then aim them all at the HQ if there is a chance. Once dead... the other player will have a very easy time.

2. Walls.... actually, how I intend to use structure cards would be. Walls are placed on other structures. And the whole bunch can be used as protection by units. These walls, are counted. Just like how the army cards are counted. This means that a player needs to remove the walls first before the HQ can be reached. The walls now work as if they are health. Still. The player would constantly aim for this little stronghold if other units aren't there.
The player needs a lot of wall cards in order to set up defences too.

***

Walls.

The cheapest should cost 1.
Here is all the basis for how players could determine the cost calculation of the cards. And perhaps they could say that the game is balanced in that regard.

A wall
with an armor of tier 1 costs 1 and has 1 armor.
with an armor of tier 2 costs 2 and has 3 armor.
with an armor of tier 3 costs 4 and has 9 armor.
with an armor of tier 4 costs 8 and has 27 armor.
etc.

Hey!!! I just realized, walls aren't really possible in a space game...

***

As said before, an attack would be possible in 3 ways. But this was with the ships.
Targets were: defence, defending fleet or attacking fleet.
And any of the 8 combinations.

But if I go ground army style. I can't do it all with a proper story? Well, some parts are copies.

There are 3 possible target types:
- Base (walls, defences and structures)
- Defending force
- Attacking force

There are 8 classes possible:
000; Any structure. It cannot defend at all. Although it can still be destroyed when the enemy attacks.
100; Bombers and Saboteurs. Only structures can be bombarded or sabotaged. The bombs are simply dropped. Saboteurs need time to place explosives. A force is able to move out of the way.
010; Homing weaponry. These weapons cannot be used while defending. And won't hit enemy structures either. So they are only used in an attack.
110; The biggest of weapons are only meant to be used on the enemy side. If used on the friendly side, friendly fire will happen. Splash damage weaponry falls in this category. Friendly units can be warned prior and move out of the way. But structures cannot if an enemy is close to a friendly structure. Henceforth, these weapons are only used in attacks. And can harm both enemy forces as the enemy base.
001; Defences (includes mines). Only an attacking force can be targeted.
101; Missiles (works like mines). It seems that if attackers are close by, they can be targeted by missiles. If they are all the way out there defending their base, the targeting fails. However, targeting the enemy base is also a good option.
011; Only forces can be targeted. Hmmmm....structures remain unharmed. What could I put here?
111; All basic units fit this category.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe you could...

X3M wrote:
011: Only forces can be targeted. Hmmmm....structures remain unharmed. What could I put here?

Have Bio-logical weapons, Micro-wave weapons, X-Ray weapons, things like that... Bio-Terrorism or things that don't disrupt non-living entities and creatures.

A better answer may be Pyro weapons (like Flamethrowers)... Yeah they can affect structures and such... But they are mostly for opposing forces (I think)!

Or shockwave weapons which exert force but normally don't affect structures.

Just my thoughts...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:X3M wrote:011:

questccg wrote:
X3M wrote:
011: Only forces can be targeted. Hmmmm....structures remain unharmed. What could I put here?

Have Bio-logical weapons, Micro-wave weapons, X-Ray weapons, things like that... Bio-Terrorism or things that don't disrupt non-living entities and creatures.

A better answer may be Pyro weapons (like Flamethrowers)... Yeah they can affect structures and such... But they are mostly for opposing forces (I think)!

Or shockwave weapons which exert force but normally don't affect structures.

Just my thoughts...

You know. The funny part is that I am trying to fill in every combination class. While the 3 classes actually used to emerge from my proto war game.
Bioweapons, Microwave, X-ray and even the shockwave weapons are all good examples indeed.

I am almost there now.

Although, what weapon is good in that category that is good against tanks?
Better said, what cah harm tanks, but not structures? And I mean it like 100% versus 0% :D

EMP comes to mind... but that is not a good example.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Units only as targets?

Let's expand the list a bit?
If structures are not targetted. Yet only units in a defence or offence. What weapons are even possible? I think that this way, I would be getting a clear understanding.

Anti infantry
- Sniper; while bullets do harm vehicles and even tanks when amass. Structures would take the least ammount of damage. So little, that it would be 0 in the game.
- Radiation; This is the most obvious one. Only organics would be harmed.
- Sonic Shockwaves; Normally these damage everything else as well in RTS games. But in reality, it starts with organics first.
- Acid spray; in reality less damaging against vehicles than fire, trust me. But moreso. Fire has a better damage against structures too.

Anti vehicle/tank
- Lancer; anti tank rocket in RTS games, but it did damage to buildings there as well. However, I could make it so that the rockets are too specialized in order to be used against buildings. We could say, the rocket drills in the armor of a tank.
- EMP; I don't know. Normally EMP does harm buildings as well. And better yet, EMP doesn't really do damage? It only shuts down.

Examples that are normally only used as defence?
- Anti Infantry/vehicle mines; unless there is an unit placing them at the enemy...?

***

On a side note...
If an unit has a set of weapons. All weapons should have the same classification. Or else I get the issue again with choosing which weapons can fire and stuff....

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
EMP: Electromagnetic Pulse

The purpose of this weapon is to "short" electrical circuits and not concrete and the likes. So EMP could short the limited amount of electrical circuits used in a tank too...! Anything like a vehicle (Tank, Truck, Motorcycle), they all have circuitry for their function. As such they are all "viable" targets for this kind of weapon.

But like you said the effect is to "overload" the circuitry of the vehicle. Can it be restarted after a period of time??? Does it overload or does it destroy the circuits like fried PCM boards?? Is it therefore permanent vs temporary?

If you go with the fried route, this means that vehicles become useless other than shielding the troops inside from opposing fire. Otherwise the vehicle itself is "useless": it cannot move, cannot fire, cannot aim, etc.

The other problem is that I'm not sure it is "directable" or is it like a shock-wave which starts at a center of origin and spread outwardly?! Can you have an EMP which is "aimed" forwards?


The other point I wanted to make is tanks are vulnerable to mines and repeated explosions in their tracks. So "mines" work on everyone except structures. A mine place under the surface of the ground can kill soldiers and vehicles too.

But mines normally are used in open spaces not next to buildings and structures and that means they really don't do damage to structures (by how they are used)...

Just giving you some more to think about! Cheers.

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

EMP would be directed forward for sure.

I need weapons that are used in an attack and defence.
But cannot harm buildings.

Mines are only used in defence unless placed at the enemy base.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
I figured it out...

X3M wrote:
I need weapons that are used in an attack and defense. But cannot harm buildings...

How about something "fictitious"??? Like a Plasma Cannon or Plasma Rifle or Plasma Hand Gun or Plasma Missile...

The "fictitious" part is "plasma" (what does that mean???) Well it could be like a sort of energy that is electrically charged. So it could OVERLOAD "tanks" if there is a LARGE enough "surge" (which requires a lot of Plasma Rifles and Guns but other weapons like a Cannon or Missile only require one shot)...

Since it is "fictitious" we don't really need to worry about REALITY. Call those weapons (that damage units and vehicles but NOT building) "Plasma" weapons!

That to me sound COOL!!!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Two (2) additional options

questccg wrote:
How about something "fictitious"??? Like a Plasma Cannon or Plasma Rifle or Plasma Hand Gun or Plasma Missile...

I can think of TWO (2) OTHER options:

1. Ion Cannon/Ion Rifle/Ion Hand Gun/Ion Missile.

2. Particle Cannon/Particle Rifle/Particle Hand Gun/Particle Missile.

I personally prefer "Plasma", but you may like "Ion" or "Particle" better.

Still the same kind of "fictitious" weapons which produces an energy charge which can overload circuits and electricity. Their function would be identical ... but you have three (3) choices for a name: Plasma, Ion or Particle.

I hope you like this concept... I think it would work GREAT with your concept!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Plasma is a great idea

It would harm infantry the most.

But an alternative would be a magnet shell of some sorts. But then again, maybe not :D

There is one other alternative that a famous RTS game uses. And that would be electricity. It can melt steel. But I could make it so that it can't harm concrete stuff.

Then again, having those 8 options might be too much??

What if I simply say, structures cannot attack. But units can.
And units simply can attack both the defending army as the defences.
Defences automatically can only shoot back attacking units.

Simply removing the ability to attack defences only.
Defences would have a weigth factor of 1 for movement and 1 for targets.
Units would have a weigth factor of 1.5 for movement and 1.5 for targets.

After all, the system originated from bombing a planet. Bombs can't hit ships.

A machinge gun would be worth 2.
While the rifleman would be worth 3.

***

But on a side note. I think I need to reduce my tech tree as well.
I could make a long story about how to do it differently.
But the bottom line is that the number of structures needed in order to get an army down. Is too much.

So, I already was thinking of removing refineries and silo's.
Simplifying the resource managment further.

The fact that players can pick any card from the deck doesn't sit well with me.
I want them to have the hand again.
But placing the cards needs to be simplified as well.

MtG has a simple system of 5 colours. I would like to have it just as simple or simpler.
Maybe something along the lines of "builds" "trains" "produces". So I have 3 classes. [Structures] [Organics] [Mechanics]

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Whoa long post with some great ideas!

X3M wrote:
It would harm infantry the most.

Well Plasma is HOT and so yeah it would BURN infantry and make a mess with the odor of burnt flesh... But it would effectively neutralize all types of vehicles with enough of a "surge" (the more plasma the higher the might of the attack). So which a Plasma Cannon on-board a Plasma Tank might do a lot of damage to opposing vehicles and infantry... 10 soldiers equipped with Plasma Rifles could probably stop a Tank dead in its tracks...

X3M wrote:
Then again, having those 8 options might be too much??

Maybe three (3) would be enough:

1. Attack-Only (Offensive Force)

2. Defense-Only (Defensive Blockers)

3. Attack-And-Defense (Both but weaker at both too)

X3M wrote:
What if I simply say, structures cannot attack. But units can.
And units simply can attack both the defending army as the defenses. Defenses automatically can only shoot back attacking units.

1. Offensive Forces need the player to provide a TARGET to attack (Manual).

2. Defensive Blocker automatically attack opposing units when they are in range (Automatic).

3. Both (Attack & Defense) will attack-back if provoked otherwise wait for a TARGET to attack (Manual).

***

X3M wrote:
But on a side note. I think I need to reduce my tech tree as well.

Nothing wrong with trimming the LENGTH of the game. Quicker Tech-Tree means a shorter game overall. Perhaps while reducing the tree you can ADD more CHOICES to the Tech-Tree adding a bit of RE-PLAYABILITY!? Like you have 3 choices:

A> Plasma Rifles: Uses by Veteran Soldiers pack a medium punch.

B> Plasma Hand Guns: Used by any type of Solider and pack a low amount of damage.

C> Plasma Grenades: Used by Elite Soldiers pack a high amount of damage but are harder to target specific units.

When you get the the point in the Tech-Tree where you have A>, B> or C>, you must CHOOSE which tech to research and effectively cut-off the other two "branches" of the tree. Instead of being allowed to research EVERYTHING, you have to make choices and some choices cut-off future tech that will not be accessible.

X3M wrote:
But the bottom line is that the number of structures needed in order to get an army down. Is too much.

So, I already was thinking of removing refineries and silo's. Simplifying the resource management further.

Yes indeed when I saw that list of BUILDINGS I thought it was TOO MUCH. Again to add some VARIABILITY and make the game FUN to REPLAY, maybe there are like five (5) basic buildings and one (1) special building.

The five (5) basic buildings are COMMON to BOTH Players. The one (1) special building is specific to each ARMY. If you have four (4) Armies, that means designing four (4) special building that are DIFFERENT and affect the game a bit in offering some kind of advantage specific to each army.

This is hardly new. In Dune II, Fremen from Palaces or Death's Hand, etc.

But this could add some excitement to try all four (4) armies... At least you are probably assured a minimum of four (4) complete playthrus.

X3M wrote:
The fact that players can pick any card from the deck doesn't sit well with me. I want them to have the hand again. But placing the cards needs to be simplified as well.

I see nothing wrong with having a Deck + a Hand. Maybe you could have a SIMPLE mechanic which is DISCARDING a card from your Hand to Cycle through your Deck. What I mean, let's say you have 5 cards in your HAND. And 3 of them you don't want, you discard those three (once per turn) and draw the top 3 cards from your Deck... Like I said you can do this once per turn (if some other condition is met...) such as you have not attacked a player this turn.

X3M wrote:
MtG has a simple system of 5 colors. I would like to have it just as simple or simpler.

Having four (4) armies like I explained adds replayability and variability to the game. Players may choose from the four (4) armies and play versus each other. Which means that at most the game could be 4-Players (Maybe!?)

X3M wrote:
Maybe something along the lines of "builds" "trains" "produces". So I have 3 classes. [Structures] [Organics] [Mechanics]

Not sure what you mean?! Are you saying you have three (3) types of "assets"?! Buildings, Soldiers and Vehicles. Something like that??? Not 100% sure if I understood this last bit. Tell me if my understanding is correct or not.

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the list of BUILDINGS...

X3M wrote:

- HQ
- Construction yard
- Refinery
- Small harvester
- big harvester
- storage
- small wall
- big wall
- cheap defense
- defense
- expensive defense
- AA
- Barracks
- Factory
- Airfield
- another factory of whatever
- Super weapon

Let's trim this down to five (5) buildings and players get one (1) of each:

- HQ
- Refinery
- Barracks
- Factory
- Airfield

Again this is to SIMPLIFY the "base" and the number of "things" available in-play.

And then we would add one (1) special building:

- Special Building (for unique play experience per army)

HQ: Allow for research (tech-tree) and upgrades of your scientific knowledge.

Refinery: One standard place to harvest minerals and you could have an upgrade in this building too... Which allows you to refine different types of resources that are found.

These could be drawn and once you get such a card you research it at the Refinery and voila, you now can refine it.

Barrack: Train troops and soldiers to do battle.

Factory: Build vehicles such as Tanks, Jeeps and other Vehicles.

Airfield: Build and launch flying units: Jetplanes, Helicopters, etc.

It could be as SIMPLE as this.

***

I just wanted to touch on the "Refinery". Here are some of my thoughts:

Maybe you can have 3 different types resources. One (1) which is "core" to all production, one (1) which is used for enhancements (Tech-Tree) and one (1) which is specialized (Tech-Tree II).

At the start of the game you only have ONE (1) "core" card which indicates how MUCH of that resource is available.

As you DRAW cards from your Deck, you may get MORE resource cards and all you do is play them on the side of your base. These are LOCATIONS for resources and cannot be "attacked" by your opponent, only your base can be attacked.

Figure that you could have like 5 or 6 locations (on Average) in your Deck. And maybe a hard limit of 10 locations (maximum)...

How the Refinery Works with the resource locations???

A refinery has a production maximum per turn. This can be upgraded by doing some research at the HQ. But for the sake of this example, let's say you only have Tech Level I for Mining.

Your Mining Location produces 1 Metal per 3 turns. Your refinery is used to produce different grades of metals: steel, titanium and aluminum. Steel the strongest requires 3 Metal to produce 1 unit, Titanium requires 2 Metal to produce 1 unit, Aluminum requires only 1 Metal to produce 1 unit.

Your refinery can store "X" amount of each Metal (Again upgradable at your HQ).

Next the Fuel Locations produce 1 Fuel per 6 turns (again can be upgraded at your HQ to speed up production). There are two different grades of fuel: crude and gas.

Lastly the *Special* Locations... Those allow you to extract all kinds of things that are required for Tech-Tree progression. Not sure what to NAME them but the idea is these babies allow you to make your armies stronger.

***

Something like that. Feel free to critique and keep the things that you like and adapt some of the things you feel are interesting but need some work and ignore those items which you disagree with and feel like are not useful for your design.

Cheers @X3M!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Walls and defenses

Can be tech-tree upgrades in the HQ. So while they are not elements of the base itself, they still "exist" but VIRTUALLY.

Maybe there could be some "formulas" for determining the effectiveness of enemy attacks based on the "elements" in the base...

Like Walls, Guard Towers, Missile Turrets, Bunkers, etc. All that has some kind of EFFECT on the effectiveness of the opposing enemy units.

I know you LIKE working with FORMULAS... Here's you chance to make some kind of COOL but SIMPLE formula for determining how effective a unit is against the BASE.

Let's say a Veteran Rifleman... Subject to Guard Towers and Bunkers ... you compute a VALUE (maybe between 1, 2 and 4) and this is the amount you DIVIDE the opponent's weighted attack by. No Guard Towers and/or Bunkers = DIVIDE by 1... No defenses against this soldier.

Maybe establish 3 classes: Regular, Veteran and Elite units.

We said the Rifleman was a Veteran... The Bunkers are not yet upgraded for Veterans only Regulars. But the Guard Towers are (+1). So therefore the his attack would be DIVIDE by 2.

Had the Bunkers been upgraded ONLY to Veterans, the attack would be DIVIDED by 3.

And BOTH upgraded to Veteran, their attack would be DIVIDED by 4.

Your favorite type of MATH... (LOL)

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Game Mats versus Plain Cards

Maybe you could have like FIVE (5) LARGER-sized "MATS" you could use which will have all the information that you need to manage everything. They could be like JUMBO Cards (3.5" x 5.5") or BIGGER depending on the nature of the "Building".

That might prove to be more "practical" for the various buildings.

PLUS you could have CARDS which are used in tandem with the MATS. To control the flow of "operations" at each site (think building).

IDK... I was just thinking about it and its all starting to get complicated!

Maybe do a bit of "Deck-Building" too... Like for example, in your hand you have 2 HQ cards and 3 Refinery cards. (Remember I mentioned a cycling mechanic for cards if you don't like certain cards...!) So you could play 2 HQ cards and use some *special* resources to begin a Tech-Upgrade of your Bunkers (as an example), then you could play 3 Refinery cards to mine one Metal Unit (3/3 = 1 turn).

Something like that... I personally would use "Sand Timers" (I know... you don't like them...) but I feel it would give a REAL-TIME feel to the game. But you could wait for turns (and make it more complicated). Having 3 times: 30, 60 and 90 seconds could provide some real tension to execute your orders as FAST as possible while your opponent's Timers are ticking away...

Anyhow, I honestly don't know HOW you plan to TIME everything if you don't want to use timers. TBH turns will be way too complicated. And with timers it plays into the time your opponent takes on a turn: the longer he/she takes the more beneficial it is for you because the timer may "time-out" and your operation will be done on your NEXT turn (or when it becomes your turn).

Just saying... Cheers @X3M!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the game mat...

Maybe you could use the player's Base given this kind of Neoprene Mat:

https://www.thegamecrafter.com/make/products/SmallGameMat

And you PLAY your cards on this mat... Plus you do all your tracking on the mat too... Just an suggestion. Something to consider!

***

Also I would think about a "Deck-Building" element to the game if it is going to use CARDS. What I mean is that each BUILDING has a "BUY PILE". So you would have:

- 24x HQ
- 24x Refinery
- 24x Barrack
- 24x Factory
- 24x Airfield

- 10x Resources (3x): Mining, Fuel and Special. [total = 30x]

- 5x Special Building per Faction (4 Factions)

For a total of 170 cards to play this game. Working with this as a "core", you may be able to MAKE the game ... Again ... Just ideas to work with... Whatever you like/dislike, etc. But I think working with some kind of CARD LIMIT will help you "focus" on what you need.

And you have one (1) Deck.

Each card has a BUY and SELL value. So BUY = 25 Credits, SELL = 10 Credits. This means if you see the card in a pile and want to BUY it, you need to SELL 25 Credits worth of cards to add it to your discard. The SELL value tells you how much a card is WORTH when trying to buy other cards for your Deck.

***

Anyhow you get my idea... (Hopefully). All cards can be BOUGHT, TRADED or SOLD to the highest bidder. They both have a SELL & BUY value. And 170 cards should wrap-up the game (in terms of size)...

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

The game is turnbased.
Just like MtG.

I think that if I reduce the types of units in name. The structures that are allowed to place these units will reduce as well.

So yeah:
Organics (infantry, dogs, "zerg")
Mechanics (jeeps, tanks)
Structures
But even that doesn't sit right by me.

And I was thinking. How to track resources.
The chips would do nicely here as well.

So, what about having the cards pay for themselves like how I used to have my Event Cards go?

This way, the build up (the snowball) is slowed down even further.
And there is almost no need for structures.

First you place a structure at the cost of resources and another card in your hand.
Next round, you do the same for a soldier.

I need a structure that could produce anything for the field. But how to name it?
HQ???

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Special Forces for each Faction/Army

Okay so I have been thinking about this too...

1. Cloaking Tech = Research Facility

2. Nuclear Tech = Nuclear Silos

3. Plasma Tech = Engineering Bay

4. Biological Tech = Science Laboratory

That's what I got... For the 4 Factions/Armies... I wasn't thinking about Alien Races and such. I was focuses on something like AoW3 (but skinned a bit different in terms of buildings and the RTS element).

You'll let me know what you think. Cheers @X3M!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here's what I mean

X3M wrote:
I need a structure that could produce anything for the field. But how to name it? HQ???

No HQ is for "Research" into your Tech-Trees (I, II and III). The units for an army are as follows:

A> Barrack: produces soldiers/troops (Rifleman, Grenadier, Anti-Vehicle)

B> Factory: produces vehicles (Tank, Army Jeep, Gunner Jeep)

C> Airfield: produces airborne units (Helicopter, Jet Fighter, Bomber)

Given that there are 24 Cards per building (I added +4 to keep it round). So that means is EIGHT (8) of each class.

D> Refinery: transforms a resource by boosting its value. In my thinking there were:

- 3 mining metals: Steel (3), Titanium (2) and Aluminum (1)
- 2 fossil fuels: Crude (2), Natural Gas (1)
- 1 special res: Dark Matter/Plutonium/Plasma/Nerve Agent (1) (Varies per Faction/Army)

It works in COMBINATION with the other cards to generate more revenue.

Do you see what I mean by being a "Deck-Builder"??? I modeled this a bit closer to "Dominion" ... Because it's a COOL game plus it is EASILY expandable.

Anyhow ... I'm sure you don't like any of this... I'm just sharing my own thoughts and ideas. You of course can use/adapt/ignore any of these ramblings.

Cheers @X3M!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Now someone needs to BALANCE the game... (LOL)

Of course this is just SUPERFICIAL. There needs to be BALANCE for the units and to figure out HOW to do combat and attack/defend et al. The part that I dislike and that you are really good at! Hehehe.

Anyhow why do you need ONE (1) Building for producing ALL units. Go the StarCraft/WarCraft road and have different building for troops, vehicles and airforce.

You HQ is supposed to TRACK the evolution of your BASE. It has metric to determine the DEFENSIVE assets like Bunkers, Missile Turrets, Guard Towers and Walls (too!) In addition it needs to track your progress in the Tech-Tree (somehow!)

That's what I haven't figure out...?!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The balance is planned

But the balance is depending on the combat mechanic.
If I change the set of weapons by rules. The balance shifts.
So, 1 step at a time.

***

Due to work. I can't answer your posts.

So you have to wait...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut