# Too much fidling?

298 replies [Last post]
X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Just one more thing

If a bomber is blocked by a fighter.
If a bomber in a board game would be in range, it could still drop the bomb on the ground.
But in a card game, how do I justify that the bomber can't get into range if it isn't destroyed?

Maybe allow the bomber to drop the bomb anyway, if it survived the fighter?
In other words, a battle takes place before the attack. And the type of weapon determines if it is used or not.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Let me clarify a bit...

To my understanding ... The Bomber needs to be able to fly "accurately" to be able to BOMB a specific area of land where Soldiers may be fighting on the battle field. So the idea is that is you put into the sky a couple "Jet Fighters", they prevent the Bomber from getting the correct "accuracy" for timing the bombing of the troops...

Just like in REAL LIFE. Usually a Bomber is accompanied by Jet Fighters so that the Bomber can focus on its targets, this is offset by having additional Jet Fighters in the Air to do dogfights with other sky planes... Which may still hamper the accuracy of the Bomber (BTW).

So usually if enough cover is NOT provided, the Bomber will FAIL in its task of bombing the ground forces at the correct location.

Something along those lines, I think!

Note #1: In your world of math... I guess it means that the Accuracy of a Bomber = "2". Meaning you need a lot of precision to make a successful kill. ("12" or in my version "78" ... Because I think higher numbers should be 'more' favorable than lower ones...) But I'm pretty sure you understand what I mean with a "2" (High-precision).

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
my post is a tldr i guess.

questccg wrote:

Note #1: In your world of math... I guess it means that the Accuracy of a Bomber = "2". Meaning you need a lot of precision to make a successful kill. ("12" or in my version "78" ... Because I think higher numbers should be 'more' favorable than lower ones...) But I'm pretty sure you understand what I mean with a "2" (High-precision).

Ah yes. Which brings me to the next issue:

I originally had bombers only attack structures.
But if they have a slight chance in harming units as well. Then the calculation on this should be different.
Perhaps, while all possible targets (3) equal 200%.
If the possible targets is only 1, the cost shouldn't be 100%.

Or should it?

In my proto type board game, having multiple possible dimenions as targets. Had me add 50% for a full equal worth of projectile. It was just that they had to choose. And the total worth was more than 100%.

The basic units however, had 100% costs. And a +50% would mean a more expensive weapon, which was rarer.
In the card game, it is the other way around. Cheaper weapons are more rare. However, it is harder to hit something. If the card is blocked by something that can't be hit.

So, in my prototype game, it was a matter of having more choices.
In my card game, it is a matter of having less choices.

In a sense, I could still allow the additional 50% per extra target.
Although, I have been reading back the design rules for my prototype game. It took me a long time to get to that point of pretty damn good balance.

prototype game (completely different game) wrote:
Factor by number of choices
Each additional choice is reduced in costs. This is 100% divided by the number of choices. This means that a choice out of 2, will have a maximum cost of 150%. A choice out of 3 has a maximum cost of 167% and a choice out of 4 has a maximum cost of 175%.
While not possible, in theory, an infinite number of choices will double the costs.

There are only 3 dimensions (for now), ground, air and sub. This means that a weapon that could choose between all three would have 167% of costs.

Well, with that logic and the 3 possible targets:
- structures
- units
- ability to defend
I have to tweak certain stuff. Or completely ignore it.

But no matter what path I choose.
I have a primairy weapon.
And the secondary weapon is worth 50% or less.

Meaning that a weapon with accuracy of 4 against structures, is half as much as a weapon with accuracy of 8 against units. But if the 2 are combined and only 1 weapon is allowed to fire. Then the total worth isn't 8+4=12 but 8+ 50%*4 = 10.

Opton 1:
I ignore the facts. And keep the 100%, +50% (2/3) and +100% (1/2) in weight costs.

Option 2:
167% costs is like having the card become 3/5th less effective.
If 2 targets are there, the costs are 133%. That would be 3/4th.
Seeing as how d8 is used. Perhaps a combination of the 2 systems with % can be used? 100%, 133% and 200%. Where the weapon effectiveness would follow 8/8, 6/8 and 4/8. This way, 133% is just as close to the square root of 2 as is the 150%.

Option 3:
We remove the ability to defend. If you have a structure, it cannot attack. But already has much more durability.
But this takes away the unit designs that cannot attack, only defend. In an attack, they would serve as fodder. It doesn't make much sense any more.
So, the choices would be, being able to attack units or structures remain. Where the second choice is +50%.

Option 4:
Attributes unit and structure are used for a shift in damage. For example, any weapon can attack any unit or structure. But certain weapons will be having less accuracy against one attribute and more against the other.

Personally, I like the last option. Because it stays true to the 200%. I already got rid of that 200% weight. Because lesser targets would make weapons cheaper.
If I have a weapon of accuracy 4. And it is -4 on units while +4 on structures. Or 0 on units while 8 on structures. Then having an accuracy of 4 on structures would also simply mean a weight of 50%.

Bottom line would be a more logical and simpler design.
- Structures cannot attack, yet have more durability.
- Units can attack, even if they have no weapon.
- Anything with a weapon can attack and defend.
- A change in effectivness would be with attributes on the weapons [anti structure]/[anti unit]
- A change in effectivness for defending and attacking capabilities? A BIG NO. See previous point...

- A change in effectivness would be with attributes on the weapons [anti structure]/[anti unit]
Which would not have to be mentioned for defences. They would simply have a weapon, twice as strong.

In a sense, the weight factors are:
- Structures and walls; 200% armor, while armor has to be breached 3 times.
- Defence; Same as structure, while weapon is 50%.
- Unit without a weapon; 100% armor.
- Unit; 100% armor plus 100% weapon.
- Unit with extreme weapon attribute; 100% armor plus 50% weapon.

On equal terms, the weight value's are:
4 - Structures and walls
7 - Defence
6 - Unit without a weapon
12- Unit
9 - Unit with extreme weapon attribute

What can be said about these equal terms?

An unit that is specialized in dealing with structures. I still more expensive than a defence. Other attributes need to be reïnvented in order to bring a change here. [Air] is such option.

An unit without a weapon is cheaper than defence. Which makes these units great fodder. If in combination with units. We got 7+7 versus 6+12 or 14 vs 18. This means the normal mix will still be more expensive in order to deal with more defences. Yet the losses on the attackers side are slightly less in terms of resources.

When mixing fodder with specialized units. You get 14 vs 15. The difference is very small now. Still, the attacker needs more resources. But will be losing less resources.

The real problem begins when a player decides to use a lot of defences and walls. Still, this player cannot attack. So it can be possible that the attacking player prepare's specialized units that have even cheaper weapons. A weapon with accuracy 4 is just as much as a weapon with accuracy 6 and charge of 2. 50% higher chance on damaging means that these units get an equal term value of
8.
So, a player with defences only would have 7+7=14 and the attacking player can have 6+8=14. Now this is equal.

***

Of course, there is another way to look at things. If everything is set to equal ammount of credits.
You get:
Structures and walls:
300% durability
Defences:
150% durability
200% weapon
Unit without a weapon?:
200% durability
Unit:
100% durability
100% weapon
Unit with specialized weapon:
100% durability
200% weapon
Unit with specialized slower weapon:
100% durability
300% weapon

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Weight of a card

Armor/Damage
1 gives weight 1
3 gives weight 2
9 gives weight 4
27 gives weight 8

Accuracy
as factor on the damage weight.
# divided by 8

[Ground]
This attribute is not shown by default.
These cards can only block ground.

[Structure]
The Armor weight is multiplied by 2.
Players need to reach the threshold 3 times.

[Unit]
These cards armor and damage are 100% by default.

[Air]
These cards are simply flying.
These cards can only block flying.
Armor weight is by default.

[Anti-Air]
These cards have an anti air weapon.
Damage weight is by default.

[Sub-Terrain]
These cards are underground.
These cards can only block sub-terrain.
Armor weight is by default.

[Sweeper]
These cards have an anti sub-terrain weapon.
Damage weight is by default.

Having the ability to choose between multiple attributes will add only 50% to the weight.
A lesser value is considered secondairy and will be factored by 50%.
This is even possible for 2 different weapons.
See note 1.

[Target Structure]
This allows for [Target Unit] to be used as well.
There will be a difference in the damage value.
The damage weight is 50% by default.

[Target Unit]
Defences have the [Target Unit] by default.
The damage weight is 50% by default.

[Charging #]
Some cards can have this attribute multiple times.
Charging is 0 by default and not shown.
Weight value is too complex to share with you guys. But it happens that; [Charging 0]4 = [Charging 1]5 = [Charging 2]6

***

I think that I need to classify attributes in main and sub categories.

Main:
[Ground]
[Structure]
[Unit]
[Air]
[Anti-Air]
[Sub-Terrain]
[Sweeper]
[Charging #]

Sub:
[Target Structure]
[Target Unit]

The main attributes are 100% or more.
Some weapon attributes can be a choice, thus adding less weight.

The sub attributes are individually less than 100%.
And added together while being equal in weight would mean 100% in total.

***

Note 1:
A card that has 2 different weapons, but only in terms of damage. For example 3x1 or 1x9.
The total value is 3x1+4=7.
It can kill 4 infantry, 2 vehicles or 1 tank (14).

But if the player can choose either 3x1 or the 9. It is possible to use the 50% rule on the advantage a player can get by picking the right weapon.

9 damage is +6 damage compared to the 3x1 on the right target.
3x1 damage is +2 damage compared to the 9 damage on the right targets.
Now we compare 4 x 6/9 with 1 x 2/3. 4x 6/9 is higher in value. So we pick the other weapon as secondairy;
1x 2/3 x 3x1 x 50% = 1
The weapon combination that is only a choice will be 4+1=5 in weight.
It can kill 3 infantry, 1 vehicle or 1 tank (9).

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The number of dice isn't determined yet

I don't like the 1d8. But it is going to be #d8 followed by that each card needs to be hit # times.

2d8?
The first one to create somewhat of a normal distribution. And dividing by 2 is easy enough for most players.
Maybe I should go for this. And the smarter players can use a higher number of dice.

3d8?
Since players are playing with the magic number. 3 dice is a very good option. Although, I am aware that some have trouble, dividing by 3. But the other aspects of the game would surely add to the understanding?

4d8?
In a sense, twice the 2d8. A division by 4 seems to be hard for a lot of players. 2 times dividing by 2 seems to be confusing for some. Either way, if more dice are added as a bonus. Each extra die would add +25% effect.

5d8?
The number of dice is a handfull now. And the 5 means a good nice division if a lot of cards/chips are used.
If somehow more dice are used. Then each extra die would now be a +20% bonus.

So, what will it be?
2, 3, 4 or 5 d8?
What would be the most optimal?
imho, I already can scrap the 4.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Anyway; here is the list of chances with 5d8

Just as reminder. The number in front is the factor.
Afterwards, it is divided by 5. Meaning that 1 hit equals 20% effectivness.
Of course, the units with accuracy of 8 are the most boring units. Since they always do a full 100% damage.

Accuracy 1
0 = 51.3%
1 = 36.6%
2 = 10.5%
3 = 1.50%
4 = 0.11%
5 = .003%
Halve a chance for this card to be completely useless. But it is still worth the risk, because...
1/3th of a chance to deal 60% more damage than average.
1/10th of a chance to deal a bit more than 3 times the average damage.

Accuracy 2
0 = 23.7%
1 = 39.6%
2 = 26.4%
3 = 8.79%
4 = 1.46%
5 = 0.10%
This accuracy will be used often.
While chances are high that the card is only effective for 20%, while the costs are 25%. Players will still use these cards because there is still a good chance that the card will do 40% damage. Which means that this card too can deal 60% more damage than average. The chance for this is 1/4th.
An a little less than 1/10th of a chance to deal a bit more than 2 times the average damage.

Accuracy 3
0 = 9.54%
1 = 28.6%
2 = 34.3%
3 = 20.6%
4 = 6.18%
5 = 0.74%
This accuracy will be used often in combination with accuracy 5.

Accuracy 4
0 = 3.13%
1 = 15.6%
2 = 31.3%
3 = 31.3%
4 = 15.6%
5 = 3.13%
This accuracy will be used a lot.
There is a gamble if the effectivness is 40% or less, OR 60% or higher. These cards will bring the most randomness and risk to the game.

Accuracy 5
0 = 0.74%
1 = 6.18%
2 = 20.6%
3 = 34.3%
4 = 28.6%
5 = 9.54%
This accuracy will be used often in combination with accuracy 3.

Accuracy 6
0 = 0.10%
1 = 1.46%
2 = 8.79%
3 = 26.4%
4 = 39.6%
5 = 23.7%
This accuracy will be used often.
With half the chance on getting 80% or 100% effectivness, while the cost is only 75%. This accuracy will feel nice to players.

Accuracy 7
0 = .003%
1 = 0.11%
2 = 1.50%
3 = 10.5%
4 = 36.6%
5 = 51.3%
With half the chance on getting a full score. The other half will offer 80% or less effectivness, while the cost is 87.5%. This accuracy will NOT feel nice to players.

Accuracy 8
5 = 100% Booooooring!!!
This accuracy...could...be used often.
But a player will never have the chance to make a good roll.
I suspect that full accuracy decks will be designed by players anyway.

***

Let's compare some combinations?
Accuracy 4+4
0 = 3.13%
2 = 15.6%
4 = 31.3%
6 = 31.3%
8 = 15.6%
10= 3.13%

Accuracy 3+5
0 = 0.74%
1 = 2.47%
2 = 7.00%
3 = 12.1%
4 = 18.0%
5 = 19.3%
6 = 18.0%
7 = 12.1%
8 = 7.00%
9 = 2.47%
10= 0.74%

The 4+4 accuracy shows that there is a gamble. A player has half a chance on 80% effectivness or less. It isn't really a kill. The other half shows 120% effectivness, which is overkill. Thus this combination is rather bad. Then again, there is a 3% chance on making a double kill.

There is a 60% chance with the 3+5 combo that a player will do 100% or more damage. This combination is much more effective than the 4+4 combination.

The same applies to the 2+6 combination and the 1+7 combination. Which the latter even reaches 2/3th of a chance to be 100% effective or more.

I find it very interesting that an accuracy of 7 has 1/2nd chance on making a kill. And adding an accuracy of 1 turns this into a 2/3th chance to making that same kill.
Although an accuracy of 8 will always make the kill.

So, synergy can be very important in this game.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Give me a moment to review what you wrote...

I am busy with a Death Anniversary and a Birthday Party on Saturday in addition to that another B-Day on Sunday... I will read and review the 4 post (TL;DR) and see if I can make heads or tails on any of them.

Regards!

Note #1: I'm thinking of using a 2-Tier system/framework. It's still in-design but conceptually what it means is something like this:

1> Firstly everyone builds an army of FIVE (5) cards. Those are the units that will do battle.

2> Next players add a Rank Card to provide some information concerning the DMG and DEF (Damage & Defense).

The units remain fixed while player Buy the Rank cards to use in their Deck. So the units would sort of be like a fixed deck and the Rank cards the cards used by the "Deck-Building" aspect of the game!

Again something that I am working on... TBD!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Production managment and attributes

MtG has 5 colours.
But I have tiers.
And maybe I will do subtiers in the future.

So I need to rely on some attributes instead?

Attributes to indicate types so far are:
[Ground] (not shown)
[Structure]
[Unit]
[Air]
[Sub-Terrain]

Attributes like:
[Organic]
[Mechanical]
Are missing here.

My prototype board game has these attributes as well. But they are as a given in most cases. And not needed in the "public" version.

Maybe I could have attributes like:
[Infantry]
[Vehicle]
[Tank]
But that would add an extra layer of complexity.
And [Organic] with [Mechanical] does cover this already.

My prototype boardgame has [Organic][Structure]. But I don't see room for that in my cardgame.
[Structure]
[Organic Unit]
[Mechanical Unit]
???
Or should the [Organic] and [Mechanical] only apply to units? In other words. [Unit] will remain hidden as well?
So the list would become:
[Ground] (not shown)
[Structure]
[Unit] {not shown)
[Organic]
[Mechanical] (not shown)
[Air]
[Sub-Terrain]

So, we got a list that is shown. If not, it automatically means a default:
[Structure]
[Organic]
[Air]
[Sub-Terrain]
Default:
[Ground]
[Unit]
[Mechanical]

Most cards in the game are going to be mechanical ground units. Like for example tanks and jeeps etc.

So, would it be wise to not show those attributes?
And units like infantry have the [Organic] attribute shown?

***

It is good to know that a player can place multiple chips on 1 card. So even if an attribute is rare. You can still place a lot of these on the table if you think about it.

Either way, here is a list of possible cards that will produce other cards.

A factory produces:
[Mechanical][Ground][Unit]

A barracks produces:
[Organic][Ground][Unit]

An airfield produces:
[Mechanical][Air][Unit]

A construction yard produces:
[Structure]

A mine layer produces:
[Sub-Terrain][Structure]

If the player wants to have jetpack infantry. Then the player could combine an airfield with a barracks.
It would be better if I remove some attributes.
Like for example, the mine layer can only produce sub-terrain stuff. And needs a construction yard to help.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Simplified, default attributes not shown.

A factory produces:
Any default card.

A barracks produces:
[Organic]

An airfield produces:
[Air]

A construction yard produces:
[Structure]

A mine layer produces:
[Sub-Terrain]

***

A card without attributes has all the default attributes. Thus the Factory is able to make these.

[Organic] can only be made by Barracks.
[Air] can only be made by an Airfield.
Jetpack [Organic][Air] needs a combination of the 2.

If the production of the Barracks is for example 3 and the Airfield has 6. And the Jetpack costs for example 12. Then you need 4 Barracks and 2 Airfields in order to produce 1 jetpack infantry. This is just an example, production may differ.

Mines [Structure][Sub-terrain] needs a combination of the construction yard and mine layer.
While all other buildings only need the construction yard.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Resource managment

Before I refine the resource managment. I think I need to design a couple of cards. Like a list or so. And show the prices. I am keeping it a 1 resource with the attribute requirements.

2 or more resources is too much fidling.
I know plenty of RTS games where multiple resources are used. But so far there is only 1 game where it truly shows influence on the army composition and decision making. And that would be Starcraft.

Another fact is that a player needs to be able to seek out the limits of the resources. MtG has this, where a player for example makes decisions, based on the land cards it has on the table.

My prototype board game had "Resources" "Action Point" "Experience Points (eventually discarded)" and "Strategy Points". With each their own function and to be used seperately. For separate mechanics that is.
The Resources are in order to buy the pieces.
The Action Points where in order to allow pieces to do something.
The Strategy Points where in order to balance out those pieces that had an offset in Resources and Action Points.
Of course, only activated once a complete set was present on the table. And for that set only.
And the discarded Experience Points where used to buy pieces that are stronger than normal for the same Resources.

So, 1 resource type only. Since we will be only be buying cards for the table.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Sorry I was away...

I've been helping another Designer with his "Combat System" for his Exploration and Dungeon Crawler Board Game. He's introducing the system to his publisher and see what they think of it.

Don't worry, it's nothing like the systems we've been talking about...

It's another system that I had in mind with "Symbols" and "Dice Pools". Hmmm... Come to think of it, you may like his game: there is a Dice Pool of 15 dice!

Funny thing is that it was exactly in the right direction for HIS game. He already had a pool of dice and symbols but didn't know how to BRIDGE the two (symbols and dealing "damage", etc.)

The system was created by both of us... As he challenged me to "add" or to "allow" certain aspects such as DM involvement, using Dice Pools and so forth.

We'll see what his Publisher thinks about the Combat System... And see if they have questions or other ideas to work off of. IDK... How "hands-on" they are ... Is it we want a good Combat System or are they too looking for certain aspects... Again IDK.

I'll get more information this week either later tonight or during the week at some point in time (when the Designer is available ...)

Cheers!

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
BTW I got the Fraction D8s... They look REAL PROFESSIONAL!!!

I'm still waiting to the Readiness Dice (000 to 111) but I received the Fraction D8s (1/5 to 1/1) and they look real cool. I know it's just FRACTIONS but the way they came out (right font, proper alignment, correct spacing, etc.) makes them look real nice and CLEAN.

Waiting on the Readiness Dice and see if those also come out looking very cool too! We'll have to WAIT and SEE...

Cheers all.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Regular d8

I need a stack of regular d8.
Of course I need to find the cheapest from my point of view.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Attributes

A lot of the old attributes bite the dust.
It where adjustments like Melee and such. The new combat mechanic doesn't allow for these in the same way.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The complete attribute list

The attribute names are a bit generic. The names might be different in the game. Like for example, I use flying for everything as a basis for flying buildings, units, animals. Of course I could say Aircraft or Air or Avia. But those words often only cover a smaller portion of the category flying.

I keep these attributes in a nice systematic list.
Attributes might be stacked on a card. So far I see no mistakes with it.
Some attributes are by default, they are not named here.
This is the list after the filtering. Many attributes bited the dust due to the different combat mechanics. I am thinking about the combat mechanics after posting this, where attributes like ranged might appear.
Less rules in the combat mechanic???
Then less possible attributes that might change these rules!!!

Default attributes: [Unit], [Mechanical] and [Ground]

[Flying]
- These cards can only be targeted by [Anti-Air].
- This attribute is based on the body.
- By default, these cards can only target other [Flying].
- This attribute is a production requirement.

[Anti-Air]
- These cards can only target [Flying].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.

[Sub-Terrain]
- These cards can only be targeted by [Sweeper].
- This attribute is based on the body.
- By default, these cards can only target other [Sub-Terrain].
- This attribute is a production requirement.

[Sweeper]
- These cards can only target [Sub-Terrain].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.

[Structure]
- These cards cannot attack.
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Body cost is multiplied by 2.
- The threshold of the armor needs to be breached 3 times.
- This attribute is a production requirement.
- Any weapon has the [Target Unit] by default.
- The default twin attribute is [Unit]

[Organic]
- This attribute is based on the body.
- This attribute is a production requirement.
- The default twin attribute is [Mechanical]

[Target Structure]
- These cards can only target [Structure].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.
- Weapon cost is multiplied by 0.5.

[Target Unit]
- These cards can only target [Unit].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.
- Weapon cost is multiplied by 0.5.
- [Structures] have this attribute by default.

[Target Organic]
- These cards can only target [Organic].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.
- Weapon cost is multiplied by 0.5.

[Target Mechanical]
- These cards can only target [Mechanical].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.
- Weapon cost is multiplied by 0.5.
- Any card that doesn't have [Organic] is affected.

[Target Ground]
- These cards can only target [Ground].
- This attribute is based on the weapon.
- Only used when a card has a body attribute [Flying] or [Sub-Terrain], or alongside a weapon attribute [Anti-Air] and/or [Sweeper]

***

Here are attributes, not mentioned in this topic before.

[Agile]
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Body cost is multiplied by 2.
- This card avoids all projectiles of one opponent.
- The opponent can be chosen.
- There is a RPS mechanic going on here. Low armor seems to benefit the most from this attribute. While higher armor does bad against fire by fodder. However, the opponent can be chosen, thus a higher tier weapon is removed first and can't even target something else of the same group.

[Multiarmor #]
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Body cost is multiplied by Y when the threshold is multiplied by X.
- Y = X + 0.5*(X-1); X=2,Y=2.5 ; X=3,Y=4
- If the card has Multiarmor of 3. Then the threshold of the armor needs to be breached 3 times. If the damage is for example 9, while the armor is 3. Then this 9 is still overkill for 1 time that 3 armor. You need 3 projectiles in order to defeat the card. Tier 1 to 2 is a factor of 3 on armor and 2 on the costs. But with Multiarmor of 3 you have a factor of 4 instead.

[Tough #]
- This card has a higher armor when attacking, where # is the new armor value.
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Defending body cost is multiplied by 2/3.
- Attacking body cost is multiplied by 1/3.

[Resistance #]
- This card has a higher armor when defending, where # is the new armor value.
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Defending body cost is multiplied by 2/3.
- Attacking body cost is multiplied by 1/3.
Not sure about the balancing. I need to rethink this for both.

[Equip weapon]
- Simply an extra weapon.
- If possible, it takes over the effects of body attributes. Example: [Flying] will use it as an [Anti-Air] weapon.
- Used together with the other card and the costs are added up.
- Obviously a bad idea to use this on a [Sacrifice].

[Equip armor]
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Body cost is multiplied by 1.5.
- It is considered to be an extra threshold to overcome.
- Used together with the other card and the costs are added up.
- If possible, it takes over the effects of body attributes. But free of charge.
- The card it is used on may not contain [Multiarmor]
- - Obviously a bad idea to use this on a [Structure].

[Sacrifice]
- This attribute is based on the weapon.
- Weapon cost is multiplied by 0.5.
- When this card fires, it is sacrificed.
- The order to fire has to be given prior to the die roll.
- These cards can still be used as fodder or meat shields if the card doesn't fire. Henceforth the order needs to be given.

***

[Sub-Marine] could be used in the future. And mostly it would work like the Sub-Terrain...If we have a sea side on the table. But the rules in that regard would be a bit different. Would make for a nice expansion pack. :)

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I thought about what you said ... And I've come up with an idea

Remember my "Readiness" Dice (000 to 111) ... I just got it delivered and will have a look tomorrow or Sunday. But instead of "0" simply meaning "not ready", it means choose a unit from one of your other stacks. Let me explain to clarify:

questccg wrote:
Let's say you ROLL a "011" on the "Readiness" die. This means that on the stack you chose (let's say Ground Troops) both the Middle and Topmost units are part of the attack. Since you got a "0" on the Bottom-most unit, that means you could say choose a Ground Vehicle ("Jeeps" for example) and that would complete the squadron (with a unit from ANOTHER stack) making the attack.

So basically you would take the Middle and Topmost CHIPs from the Ground Troops and ADD to this the Bottom-most CHIPS for the Jeeps and that would form your squadron for this attack.

Everything is done in threes (3s) ... And like you said, if you roll a "000" that meant NO ATTACK (previously). In this NEW version, it means you CANNOT choose units from the stack that you chose... You must choose 3 units from the other stacks in play (your own).

And so you would need to choose ALL three (3) units from the OTHER stacks and choose which of those CHIPS go into battle.

It's a bit different... But at least SOMETHING happens during every Battle and there are no "NO ATTACKS" on a turn if a player chooses to Battle!

It just changes the nature of the squadron/army that you use to battle your opponent on that turn...

questccg wrote:
In the game you can have from 0 to 5 squadrons. And each is defined by the "Unit" available at that spot (Ground Troops, Ground Vehicles, Air Units). That's all that I need...

So basically you can have other units in other stacks and add those units to an attack against the opponent. And like a Squadron of Tanks could only be one (1) Class of them meaning they can be used by all THREE (3) tiers: Top, Middle and Bottom.

Something along those lines...

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The first options

X3M wrote:

[Tough #]
- This card has a higher armor when attacking, where # is the new armor value.
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Defending body cost is multiplied by 2/3.
- Attacking body cost is multiplied by 1/3.

[Resistance #]
- This card has a higher armor when defending, where # is the new armor value.
- This attribute is based on the body.
- Defending body cost is multiplied by 2/3.
- Attacking body cost is multiplied by 1/3.
Not sure about the balancing. I need to rethink this for both.

The very first cards with these 2 attributes are in the range of 1, 2 and 4 as value for the armor tiers.

So, how to balance this?
The basis for structures is 2/3th of the costs. But an unit has this 2/3th as well if it is not going to attack at all.
In other words, the extra 1/3th, or +50% is based on a movement of 1.

There are 6 combinations and their costs:
Armor defence, Armor offence, Costs
1 - 3 - 1.333
1 - 9 - 2
3 - 1 - 1.667
3 - 9 - 2.667
9 - 1 - 3
9 - 3 - 3.333

It is going to be a rare attribute for sure.
Because the weapons are based on d8 now. And the costs of the weapons have less thirds in them...

I could make a version with d6 again. Or make a mix...
Not sure how to make the mix though. 5d8 has 10 remaining sides...
3d8 or 6d8 allow for custom dice.

***

I forgot to add 2 more attributes. But I am not sure if I should...

Structures cannot attack and thus have only the option to attack units.
But what if units cannot attack either? Or have a difference in attacking strenght?

This option for the combat mechanic comes with the card game.

[Offense] and [Defense]
Where Defense would again, only be applied to [Unit].

This means that [Defense] has one target for value.
[Offense] has two targets for value.

Where the game atm has:
[Structure] has one target for value.
[Unit] has two targets for value.

It makes logical sense that the 2 new attributes work like the [Resistance #] and [Tough #] attributes.

Now to establish the math:
[Unit] will be able to defend and attack at the same time. And can target all units and structures equally.
Defending against units is worth 2/3rd but has only 1 target. Total score of 2/3rd.
Attacking units and structures is worth 1/3th but has 2 targets. Total score of 2/3rd.

Seeing as how this should be 0.5 and 0.5. The scores should be multiplied by 0.75.

Now to test the complete list:
[Defense] 0.75 * 2/3
[Offense] 0.75 * 1/3
[Target Structure] *1
[Target Unit] *1

[Target Structure] and [Target Unit] can be added up.

Quote:
Default list:
[Defense][Target Unit] 0.75 * 2/3 * 1 = 0.5
[Offense][Target Structure][Target Unit] 0.75 * 1/3 * (1+1) = 0.5
0.5 + 0.5 = 1

The accuracy based on d8 is divided by 4 as the final factor.
[Target Unit] is a hidden attribute.
[Defense] and [Offense] are hidden attributes, when used equally.
[Target Structure] is only used when there is a difference.

So the default list actually should look like:

Quote:

:)

So if we get to design an unit that is good in attacking, especially structures. We can get:
[Defense] 2
[Offense][Target Unit] 4
[Target Structure] 2*4 (2 projectiles, or 8 for 1 boring)

0.75 * 2/3 * 2 / 4 = 0.25
0.75 * 1/3 * 4 / 4 = 0.25
0.75 * 1/3 * 8 / 4 = 0.50
A total of 1 again.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

Ideally the goal is PROBABLY NOT to have ALL "1s" (111) because this means that you are using only one SET of units. So while this is 1/8 in terms of probabilities (or 12.5%) and maybe the ALL "0s" (000) are also less desirable rolls too... Which means that the dice could be "downgraded" to a Custom D6s.

So you would get a MIX of troops according to the die roll.

I'm still not 100% sure about the D6s ... But I'll think about it further and see what is of more value. But I'm leaning towards the Custom D6s because it's less about getting troops in one-stack and more for the sake of VARIETY and ARMY Strength to MIX-AND-MATCH.

As I think of it... Here are the "outcomes" which are available:

`000, 111, 001, 110, 011, 100, 010, 101.`

And there can be a VALUABLE RULE:

questccg wrote:
A player may ONLY attack IF he/she has a minimum of 3 stacks. So while you can build and deploy 1 stack... You need to wait for more units such that you have enough to provide sufficient "outcomes" of the "Readiness" die.

Note #1: There are also many more possibilities than just three (3) stacks.

For example: "011".

This means that the Top-Most and Middle Unit go on the ATTACK and that you must choose one BOTTOM-MOST Unit. You can have a stack with only 1 Unit... And use that stack to complete the trio...

Or if you have a stack with 2 Units... You may use the BOTTOM-MOST Unit to complete the trio also...

Maybe this is a POOR example. But I hope you understand what I mean!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Would this make sense?

3d8:

First d8 has
1,2,3,4,5,6,7&1,8&2
1,2,3,4,5,6,7&3,8&4
Third d8 has
1,2,3,4,5,6,7&5,8&6

This way, when a card is based on d6 instead of d8. The second number is used on all the dice.
I am not sure if the chances are equal.

But if itnworks. I use 3d8 instead of 5d8. The end result is divided by 3.
A card can score, 0, 1, 2 or 3 hits.
No matter if it is based on the 8 or 6.

My options are:
0.00%=0/6 or 0/8
12.5%=1/8
16.7%=1/6
25.0%=2/8
33.3%=2/6
37.5%=3/8
50.0%=3/6 or 4/8
62.5%=5/8
66.7%=4/6
75.0%=6/8
83.3%=5/6
87.5%=7/8
100.%=6/6 or 8/8

12 real weapon options in total.
d6 was only 5 and d8 was only 7.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here are my Tiers... I'm still working on it.

Here is a more or less complete table with my Officer Tiers. If you want to use a particular Tier, you must recruit (Buy) and deploy (Use) the right kind of Officer for the task at hand.

Tier Desription Color Symbol Officer
1 Assault/Concussion White ">" Private
3 Flaming/Inferno Yellow ">>>" Sergeant
4 Machine Gun/Rapid-Fire Blue "|" Lieutenant
5 Rocket/Missile Launcher Red "||" Captain
6 Sonic/Ultrasonic Purple "*" Brigadier General
7 Microwave/Radiation Orange "**" Major General
8 Chemical/Biological Gray "***" Lieutenant General
9 Nuclear/Atomic Black "****" General

These are the Officer cards that will be used in tandem with the units. So basically when you DEPLOY a unit, you choose which one of the three (3) Officers will be enhanced with an extra unit. Something like that...

Note #1: Each Officer card will be MATCHED with a corresponding unit for that type of Force (Ground Troops, Vehicles and Air Forces). Each unit (like for example a "Jeep") has three (3) out of nine (9) Tiers for what it can deploy.

So getting back to my "Jeep": It has Tiers: 1, 2 and 4. What does that mean?

Simply put a Jeep may perform a Assault/Concussion, Grenade Fragmentation and Machine Gun/Rapid-Fire attacks.

You can DEPLOY ONLY these Tier for the "Jeep" unit. The Officers to be drafted in conjunction with this "Jeep" are: Private, Corporal and Lieutenant.

Note #2: Now I need to work on my CLASSES... Those things that we have been much discussing with regards to Armor/Damage (and of course the balancing of the COST too). TBD... I need some more time to think things through!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Still working on the dice here

I had yet to test if the d6 could be implemented in the d8.

Roll a 1 or less:
https://anydice.com/program/281c0

There are very small differences for the 3d6 in the 3d8, compared to normal 3d8.

Roll a 2 or less:
https://anydice.com/program/281c3

Roll a 3 or less:
https://anydice.com/program/281c4

Well, the other are inverted versions again.

And while it is roughly the same. I kinda understand where this comes from.
After all, if you roll 3 times a 1. The chance with 3d6 is 1/216.
With the suggested 3d8 where one die has 2 chances on a 1, we get 1/4 * 1/8 * 1/8 = 1/256.
Which is obviously different.

When looking at the chances. Getting one hit for 1, with a d6 is 1/6th. Yet for the d8 we have 1/4th and 1/8th.

***

Or should I roll 3d6 alongside 3d8??
I might as well go bad to 5d8 and 5d6 for the cards that require the d6.
Then we have 10 dice rolling. And players do the test twice per round instead of once.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Still working on this game "currently"

I've solved (kinda) the issue with the dice. Here's what I came to a conclusion on:

Total Damage = [Number of units] x [Unit Attack] x [Accuracy Roll]

Since the [Accuracy Roll] goes as LOW as 20%, that's the minimum amount of DMG a player can do to his opponent's squadron.

As far as the "Readiness" Roll is concerned... I'm still thinking about it. Not sure HOW I should use it. Need to wait and put in some more thought into it!

So no 0% and we'll see about the other D8 die.

Note #1: I am also working on a Victory Mechanic. How should the game play-out to one player defeating the other by ... ??? TBD I don't know just yet either.

Note #2: Currently my thoughts around this idea is that each Player has "5" Slots/Positions he can deploy his forces. When an OPPONENT conquers THREE (3) (out of 5) that player claims the victory. Something like this. I'm not 100% sure just yet. Some early thoughts...

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

X3M wrote:

What do you think I can DO with my Custom D8??? The "Readiness" Roll. The one with combinations:

`000, 111, 001, 110, 011, 100, 010, 101.`

My initial IDEA was to do something related like TROOPS being in Triplets. So one STACK of Troops has "3" different Tiers. For example: Tier 1, 2 and 4. Meaning you can RECRUIT (think Buy) the Soldiers/Officer for each one of those three (3) Tiers.

Any thoughts you could share??? Ideas or suggestions? I'm ATM not wanting to CHANGE the die... Just re-purpose HOW it may be used. Again, please feel free to share with me what you think (or HOW) this die may be good for...

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Magic number 3

Well, the dice that we came up with show a lot of possibilities.
While I personally enjoy freedom.
The dice initially intend was to get to know which stack of cards was allowed to attack.
The result can also be binary...or more with more dice.

Let's say, you roll 100,
Not only would this mean the stack that is the furthest left or up.
But in another mechanic this could be 4.

Now then, with multiple dice, lets say you roll this 3d8.
100, 010, 110. Then you rolled 4, 2 and 6.
Obviously, the original numbers would be just as good.
The 000 could be seen as 0, or 8 (1000 is 8)

A binairy game can be made too. Somehowish.

Now then, for the more advanced stuff.
Lets say it is not binary but tritary.
(Honestly, I tried googling this, it is also a chemical term, so I will use this term despite not being sure it is correct.)

Tritary counting:
0=0
1=1
2=2
10=3
11=4
12=5
20=6
21=7
22=8
100=9
101=10
102=11
110=12
111=13 (i like this one)
112=14
120=15
121=16
122=17
200=18
201=19
202=20
210=21
211=22
212=23
220=24
221=25
222=26
000=27

Although rolling 2d8 will bring different chances.
The chance on 27 is 1/64th.
The chance on 13 is only 1/8th.
But if you think, hey, this is like a normal 2d8 distribution, you are wrong.
The chance on 1 is 1/32th.
The chance on 2 is 1/64th.
The chance on 6 is 1/64th.

***

But back to my question.
3d8 with 3d6
or 3d8 modified
or 6d8 modified
or 5d8 with 5d6

When using d6, they are only rolled if those cards are in play. However, I expect them to be present.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Funny, eh?

That actually helped me... Instead of having THREE (3) Tiers... If there were ONLY TWO (2) Tiers... 0 and 1... That would make even more sense. And since the "Readiness" die provides THREE (3) unique VALUES... That means that one Roll can determine EXACTLY which Troops go together in a Battle.

Remember I named it the "Readiness" dice for a reason!

So IF there are only TWO (2) Tiers ... That means that cards are even more of USE (because I thought it would be three Tiers) and therefore when you ROLL the "Readiness" Die ... It invariably means which Troops you select (Top or Bottom)!

That could WORK... There are some minor details to work out... TBH.

And to answer your question... 5d6s is not unreasonable. 4d8s is also not unreasonable either. Something like that... I didn't follow all the MATH. Just GUT intuition... What I FEEL is reasonable in terms of die counts.

The way I reason it is something like this: 5 x 6 = 30 or 4 x 8 = 32.

Trying to keep the odds somewhat similar. I would use STANDARD dice for your way of computing the accuracy and so forth. There isn't much room on D8 for very custom values... But you could have 2 VALUES given that I've proved that with my Custom "Accuracy" dice. On a D6 ... A bit harder ... But still possible...

Note #1: Getting back to the "Readiness" Die ... If you roll "000" (for example), it means that when you determine the possibilities, here are the various OPTIONS that a player may have:

```0 0 0 X X X 0 0 0 X X X 0 0 0 ```

So three (3) OPTIONS of which Troops you want to use to build your Squadron!

I think this could work... Considering there is the possibility for "5" Positions to choose from. It may seem a bit "restrictive" ... But you don't want the game to go on FOREVER (so-to-speak)!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Alright then

If the limit is 5d6 or 4d8.
Would it make sense distributing 3d6 over 3d8??
Or should I simply let players roll 3d6 along side 3d8 when required by the cards?

It can be 4d6 with 4d8 as well.
But not 4d6 distributed over 4d8.

If it can be 1 hand for the roll. That would be great.

Ehm.... I just thought of something. I could even introduce d10.
But then the 5 dice per type would still be better for the game than the 3 dice.

Still, personally I find the 3d8 with 3d6 mixed within a nice solution. Despite it being a little unfair for the accuracy of 6.

But I am going to let it be for a while.
- I need at least 6d8, but prefferably 10d8. So that 2 players can roll the dice.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Okay ... I re-read the previous messages (again)

Considering the LIMITS to be 5d6s or 4d8s, I would NOT distribute the 3d6 over 3d8. Why? Because not ALL of the faces with have two (2) values.

I think it would be SIMPLER to have players roll 3d6s or 3d8s depending on the unit in question...

But remember if you double the amount of dice, you should reduce the QUANTITY of each one... So that you have at most 5d6s and 4d8s. And then if you need DOUBLE for the opponent to ROLL... That's 10d6s and 8d8s... That's a LOT of dice.

Maybe lower this to 6d6s and 4d8s. That means 3d6s and 2d8s per PLAYER.

Would you be able to do something with this???

Note #1: Just to explain a bit further (and that I practice what I preach...) I have TWO (2) "Readiness" dice, one for each Player. And then I have THREE (3) "Accuracy" dice per Player.

So the GRAND TOTAL = 8d8s... For BOTH Players (4d8 per Player).

I'm also fighting to keep the dice count as LOW as possible. And therefore, I am in the SAME "boat" as you: trying to make it work with as least as possible...

Note #2: In my previous note, I explained that I am using the SAME DICE LIMIT that I suggested which for my version is 4d8s. That's per Player and all that is required from my side.

Now with regard to HOW YOU were using dice for Accuracy, I think the D6s are the better choice and 3 to 5d6s should be enough. But I would forget the D8s.

Part of my reasoning is that I will use D8s. And then your concept seemed to work well with D6s... So I would stick to D6s for your version. Nothing wrong with having differences.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
True

However, the d8 did show an easier way to balance the game for me.
The d6 had less options, yet there is still a class that has more options with d6. So, it is a matter of keeping open design options for the cards.

I just had an idea. What if the maximum number of dice for each player is 5?
But the attacking player can decide if it uses 2 or 3 d6. And then 3 or 2 d8. the other player gets the other dice.

The 3dX result will be divided by 3. The 2dX result will be divided by 2.
One part of the army will be more stable. The other part of the army has a bigger chance on screwing up. But that will be inverted once the role changes. So a player can take more risk for an attack or for the defence.

If a player doesn't have a certain dice class. Then only 3 dice are used for the still present dice class. The opponent will still be using 2 dice.
If this same player is forced to use 2 dice for defending, so be it. It is only the risk that changes. And for the 50% cards, this risk is always 50-50.

So, that would tackle the problem of the number of dice. And add some more choices to the game. But also reduce the need for material. And certain math complexity.
What do you think?

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
My thoughts go something like this...

If you want to use 3D6s ... That is OKAY. But for each side, that too seems ok. So having 6D6s in total sounds perfectly acceptable. Remember, I'm using 8D8s. So you're still well in terms of 6D6s... I think that is 100% acceptable. The division by 3 or 2 is also interesting ... Which means 5D6s being used only.

It's pretty much your design. You could go with 5 (3/2) or 6 (3/3) ... Both options sound reasonable to me. Maybe you want to handicap the defender and if you do, the (3/2) option sounds like a good option. If you want to make the game more equal and fair, the (3/3) option sounds like it would work too.

Whether they are D6s or D8s is for you to figure out.

I would not use both. Why? Because it means again 10+ dice to the mix. And that is costly for production (less if they are standard) ... And could be confusing depending on which dice you are to use per unit.

The division method you proposed above I liked! I also liked the (3/2) option and that made for a defensive handicap making the attacker slightly stronger when facing off. It also means that the game promotes conflict and advantages the aggressor in combat.

I didn't understand how you get 50-50 odds for 50% of the cards. But that's ok I don't need to know and comprehend all the details (especially smaller details which to me don't matter) because I prefer to focus on the overall design...

It reminds me of my University days:

questccg wrote:
We had to code a spreadsheet application. I don't know how or why. but I got the idea of using what I called "Triple Stack" which consisted of 3 stacks to compute the spreadsheet cells. It was AMAZING and worked FANTASTIC. One of my teammates, Sarah, computed that the speed of the algorithm was n x Log(n). Which turns out to be the FASTEST possible computation to calculate a n x n sheet of cells.

Long story short, the team got all "A"s and everyone was very happy. I also was happy that I could contribute something essential to the application. But how she computed the optimal speed... That's the kind of MATH that I will leave to the people much smarter than I...

Cheers @X3M...

Note #1: And all the other teams, I think there were 5 of them... Used Graph Theory as suggested by the Professor (the teacher). He didn't have any problems with people becoming creative... So he accepted my "Triple Stack" Algorithm once Sarah demonstrated that the algorithm was n x Log(n) in terms of performance.

It was much SIMPLER than Graph Theory and also MUCH FASTER since it was like "almost" assembly language Push and Pop operations only...

Note #2: Don't quote me ... I'm not sure it was n x Log(n) or was n2 x Log(n) ... But it was simpler and faster to code that Graph Theory and the important part was that the ALGORITHM "worked"!

Note #3: Getting back to the DICE... You may want to FORMULATE a "difficulty" mode. EASY = 3d6s vs. 3d6s. HARD = 3d6s vs. 2d6s.

So you would have two (2) GAMING MODES: one easy, the other hard! Something along those lines is what I would consider for the two OPTIONS.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
But I am using 10d.something at a max

More when I am sober. This time I really hit a ceiling :D

aka, I read the rest next day.... this post tooke me 1 hour