Skip to Content
 

Too much fidling?

298 replies [Last post]
questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just wanted to add an important comment...

questccg wrote:
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!

There would be two (2) Tiers per Unit: Primary (0) and Secondary (1).

The Primary Tier would be the TOP and the Secondary Tier would be on the BOTTOM. This will make it very easy to comprehend what unit is due for a battle and can make things much easier to handle.

BTW just to be clear, here is another example with "011":

0 1 1 X X
X 0 1 1 X
X X 0 1 1

Same three (3) positions with variations on the units being used in combat. I really LIKE this concept, it adds a level of STRATEGY which is "Hard to Master" and all the while, pretty easy to explain and understand.

Thoughts???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Just to make sure

1. Your mechanice. what are you doing there???

2. You do know that your mechanic of activation is not used in my design?? Not to be rude, but simply asking because you keep getting it mentioned while I discarded it for my game a week or 2 ago.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
No worries...

X3M wrote:
1. Your mechanics. what are you doing there???

While you decided to "drop" the idea of a Game Mat... I'm still actively pursuing that specific idea. And with that IDEA, at the TOP of my mat there will be FIVE (5) Positions in which you can play Troop cards... But you need to "populate" your forces and require a minimum of "6" Troops to be deployed BEFORE being able to combat your opponent...

Think of that like a sort of "summoning sickness" (good).

You MUST have THREE (3) Troops deployed and 6 Tiers added to them (2 each).

X3M wrote:
2. You do know that your mechanic of activation is not used in my design?? Not to be rude, but simply asking because you keep getting it mentioned while I discarded it for my game a week or 2 ago.

No I'm just explaining what I am doing... In the event IF you see something WRONG ... Or something that may have skipped my mind.

I'm still "wrestling" with the whole "summoning sickness" because what if the OPPONENT doesn't have the same amount of Troop (2x 3 Troops = 6 Tiers) what happens then???

You can handle my concepts much easier than I can figure out your MATH. Again in the event that you see something which is WRONG or that. I've pretty much figured out my combat and dice counts. But I'm working on the rest too... How to get everything WORKING with the combat too...

Again ... Working on it too. Not 100% sure about HOW to get this to work. The concept sounds cool... But how to ENFORCE it and what is the minimum required and how do you ensure it is fair... All kinds of details like that!

Cheers.

Note #1: I want there to be a "build-up" recruiting of forces to battle the opponent. But I need to figure out how a game is WON. Why??? Because I'm not planning to have "Buildings to destroy"... I plan to use the Game Mat as a way of keeping various LOCAL Piles (think of it like blueprints and designs) that each player has (but could be same or different -- more likely different) and the various Classes work with the Soldier Tiers.

I'm still actively working on HOW it all comes together and there are details that are sort of making more and more sense.

But I still have to figure out how my "Buildings" will be used. And how the pieces come-together...

Note #2: Funny (and not so funny either), the idea is to build-up and amass your Troop to invade your opponent. But there needs to be a way to ensure that a player is not sufficiently weakened from an initial attack that he/she cannot defend or go on the offensive either.

Since this actually SEEMS like HOW wars are fought (proof in Ukraine). This is both exemplary by Polish Forces reinforcing their Borders with Nato Troops and what Putin did the months prior to the "invasion": he camped all his forces on the border on the area of interest.

I still have more to ponder in order to make something more NATURAL feeling. I mean this is sort of a "war game". Your GOAL is to defeat (or Win under some Victory Condition) the opposing forces. And somehow stop them from conquering your own "base"! I guess it means that BOTH players need to be focused on training soldiers and pumping out vehicles (and Tanks)...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Summoning sickness

Well, in my case. The build up is a bit like in MtG.
Your HQ starts with a resource managment. Then a cy. Then a resource managment again. The resources are limited. But there are positions on the table, on which players can decide. Points of interest if you will. Still working on that too.

But eventually, you build yourself a base. Perhaps with some base defences like a bunker, turret or even a flametower.

The base is sturdy. So it takes a round or 2 before sufficient unit cards are present. In order to reach the threshold for defeating a card. For this, a player builds up production facilities. The opponent can see this. Just like how in MtG you see lands appearing first.

You need higher tiers of weapons for the bigger things. But those are easily blocked by a cheap target that jumps in front.
Or defences where erected in front of a building. Like walls.

The players can build a lot with the chips. But the additional chips are harder to get if certain cards are used too soon. There is a strategy in using your cards. There is also a strategy in not removing certain cards from your opponent.
After Ll, a player may only hold 7 cards and only discard one in order to pick a new one every round.

So, as you can see, there is a long summoning sickness. But also the possibility for a long waiting time for reinforcements if a player plans it wrong.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yes ... I understood.

But my version is not focused on Magic: the Gathering (MtG) but something closer to "Dominion" (DOM). As a DOM variant, it's goal is to somehow BRIDGE the gap between unit warfare and building a deck of officers to command your units. I'm still working on it TBH... Not all the logic and details have been figured out.

Right now, I have only brief IDEAS in what I want to do.

In a MtG version, it may be more obvious because it's just cards. And you've got to figure out how to deploy the cards (like a Barrack or a Factory, etc.)

In the sense of DOM, you would CHOOSE a variety of buildings (IDK how many ATM... Again more details in development) and that will affect how you play the game. My Officers stacks are ALWAYS the SAME. What changes is the pool of custom player buildings you choose to use. I'm still actively working on it.

I too am a bit struggling with how to "encourage" deploying of forces... Obviously there could be a "rush" strategy to WIN the game outright. Again still working on the design to see how flexible it can be.

When I get more information, I'll share additional details. Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Designs.... I got a lot of possibilities....too much actually

So.... Since I got many, many design possibilities. I wonder how I could approach this the best.

With my proto-type game. I always made factions like copies from existing games. And then some of my own with their own theme. And applied a bit of balancing. I already had small alterations as options, with having over 10 different designs for all my little cheap grenadiers.

There where some ground rules in there. Like having a range being +1 on top of the previous tier of target. Or more of an assault based unit. Yes, I designed back then with defeating the previous design in mind. Or a design was planned to deal some damage on the base instead, while the enemy didn't had anything to counter it with yet. The designs, while still a lot of freedom, had a clear goal in mind.

Now, with the cards. I wonder. Of course I could do the same. But the first designs would have no clear goal to be honest. All are infantry and then anti infantry. The first step is getting out of the comfort zone with a higher tier of armor...while having the ying-yang twin of an anti armor infantry. But again, there is so much balance in the design choices. That it doesn't really matter what design I pick here. Most of the freedom is within the accuracy and number of projectiles. And to top this of, which is very important. There are no factions...?

There is one design that cannot really be altered much. And that would be the very first rifle infantry.
Still, I can adjust the accuracy. Or change it into a dual weapon or even have it fire a bit later for more damage. But overall. This design is the very basic as usual. If not....it would become a flamethrower, sniper, ranger(infantry), etc.

So I wonder what my best approach could be here:
- I make a super table with all the combinations possible for the first 3 tiers. Which is a 3x3 table. Then I start making a design for each of the 9 designs. And then I make duplicates on top. Eventually, I might feel some sort of possibilities for factions.
- I start with the primairy unit. And work from there. But making a branch. Where the factions switch sides constantly. AB1, A2/B2, B3/A3 etc.
- I do start with factions. And each gets their own primairy unit. Then I design the second tier with 2 options each faction for dealing with the other facitons.
- I stay away from the factions while still doing one of the above options.
- I try to design as much tier 1 armor, tier 1 damage combinaitons as possible. First without attributes. Then with attributes. And see how much chaos I can start with...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Cleared up my mind

Well, I have begun to set up some ground rules for myself.

I could go technical.
But I think that setting goals was indeed the way to go.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe this can HELP you?!?!

X3M wrote:
...There where some ground rules in there. Like having a range being +1 on top of the previous tier of target. Or more of an assault based unit. Yes, I designed back then with defeating the previous design in mind. Or a design was planned to deal some damage on the base instead, while the enemy didn't had anything to counter it with yet. The designs, while still a lot of freedom, had a clear goal in mind...

Hmm... I don't think that's the BEST strategy ... It sorta like Troop Creep. Meaning that each time you design some troops, you need to design better ones to defeat the previous ones. Yeah, I get it... But there is virtually no way to stop from making next gen units stronger.

I work the opposite way: take your strongest unit and create a weaker deterrent. Like for example: Bomber. It can only target the Ground and without any competing Jet Fighter can bomb the ground forces without any problems (other then accuracy rolls).

So HOW do I FIX this Bomber? By creating a Weaker and CHEAPER Jet Fighter. While Troopers with Missiles can ALSO Target the Bomber (an even cheaper alternative), the Jet Fighters are good to deal damage to the Bomber and reduce their number in the sky above the ground forces.

This is more subtle that Troop Creep.

In a way I try to COUNTER the Stronger Unit with something weaker... And I do this because it's an EXCELLENT way to balance out the game with various units.

So say instead of Jet Fighters, I used Troops with Missiles. They may be effective against my Bombers ... But generally speaking they are very WEAK and can be easily defeated by other Troops, Vehicles like Machine Gun manned Jeeps, etc. Therefore we see that the BEST deterrent is Jet Fighters. But if you don't have the monies for them... Go with some ground forces as a mechanism for defense!

Maybe this can help you think in PARALLEL not simply sequentially.

IDK ... This is how I approach the design of units. Have an effective solution and then create cheaper ones that are more vulnerable to attack by the other units in play ... Making the game FEEL more balanced (not from a MATH POV) but from an OPTIONS POV... Here's what you can do to counter an attack of unit "A" with unit "B" ... But you can produce cheap units "X" which does something similar...

Hope this helps in showing HOW it is possible to ignore the MATH and focus from a GAME PERSPECTIVE and having ALTERNATIVES to balance the overall feel of the game. I find that PURE MATH solutions are BORING ... Because they are usually tied to Troop Creep. And that just seems like too much escalation without the thought of what works best in real life.

Cheers @X3M!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I never said

That in the prototype, the units would be more expensive.

Example:
Triple Tank (costed 1800)
To be countered by Tank Buster Infantry (costed 450 each)
To be countered by Riflemen (costed 100 each)

But in the card game they kinda are in half of the cases. Especially at the beginning. Because I kinda design from the first tier.

***

Right now I have the Rifleman or Rifle Infantry.
Followed by the Ranger.
And the Ranger is functioning as a support unit. Meaning, you need Riflemen to make the army more durable.

A delicate synergy. But I can design several different Rangers.
1 that costs the same but waits with shooting and has a better chance in hitting.
There is a cersion on top of that one.
There is a version that does more damage on units and/or organics. Less to mechanical and/or structures.
There is also a version that costs more, simply for dealing more damage.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
oh.... of course....

So.... there has been a time when we had a board game where we had the bodies and weapons separated.
I am going to see if this could work for the card game.

So, I get just some simple units and structures.
Without weapons.
These are called the body cards.

Then I attach 1 or more weapons to the card.

But how to reproduce them???
Having a new batch of them being reproduced by spending another body card?

I need to think about this. I don't remember what the fault was with this design. But when I figured out what it was. I will try to tackle it.

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

Well, it happens that if I keep the body and weapon separated...

Pro
- Any weapon would fit on any body. Instead of 120 cards is 30 designs (in a normal game). We could have 60x60=3600 combinations, with 900 active designs.
- A player can re-design during a match.

Con
- There are designs that are not possible anymore. Because the costs would be halves. With my prototype, we never had halves. We had another issue in regards to balance.
- In case of some early designs. We got just as many Ranger weapons as we had Rangers. Except for that we now add body cards. So the number of designs remains the same. The number of cards increased.
- No factions..

I can't really resolve the con...

- Should I cut some body and weapon designs? It would reduce the work.
- I need at least 2 body designs in a match for this to be a valid approach.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
You don't need to take my advice... But

If I was YOU ... I would be thinking in terms of Magic: the Gathering (Magic) and understand BASIC Deck Construction techniques. While Standard and Modern use Decks of 60+ cards ... Your Combat Card Game may require a bit more FLEXIBILITY and I would use something closer to the Commander format which has a Deck of 100 cards.

Now that you have a format and understand the NATURE of it (something like 100 cards), it's important to understand HOW you are going to make this game WORK.

What I mean by WORK ... Is to figure out HOW to cycle through the Deck to get the cards you need. Obviously you can have ONE (1) COPY of certain cards, but for most cards you'll want to have 3 to 5 COPIES of the SAME card...

Why? Well this is a question of having the cards available to the player at any given time. Understand that ONE (1) COPY for most cards is not enough.

I would NOT separate "Body" from "Weapon", instead I would have various Ground Forces (Troop cards) with different weapons combining the Trooper and his Weapon. Again why? Because you've just DOUBLE the complexity in terms of card count: with TWO (2) Cards you need BOTH the Trooper and the Weapon. That's harder to handle then let's say FIVE (5) Soldiers equipped with an Assault Rifle. Understand that the MORE you ADD, the more complex it becomes to PLAY and harder to have the RIGHT cards at your disposal.

So I would go with Units having both the body and weapon. That's my opinion.

Another thing that I think for YOUR card game... Maybe you could START with THREE (3) Cards from your Deck. Make it ANY THREE (3) Cards. So a HQ, BARRACK and Basic Soldier (Assault Riffle) or HQ, FACTORY and Tank (Concussion) could be another alternative...

See what I am doing here??? I'm IMPROVING the ODDS of having a BETTER game experience ... Because EACH PLAYER chooses the "3 Cards" he/she starts with. They can be different (obviously) or they might be the same (similar strategy) but the FUNDAMENTAL idea is to SIMPLIFY the GAME and make it MORE PLAYABLE.

So now you've got "3 Cards". So let's now say that 97 cards are left-over.

And let's just use one of those start setups: the HQ, BARRACK and Basic Soldier. Obviously you may want an additional BARRACK because that could allow for MORE TROOPS. Let's say ONE Barrack = 10 Troops Maximum. This means that at the start if a player deploys more "chips" he can have up to 10 Basic Soldiers... Makes sense so far???

So maybe you want 4 MORE BARRACK cards to allow you up to 50 Ground Soldiers. 1 + 4 (10 each) = 5 x 10 = 50 Soldiers. And they don't all need to be Basic Soldiers... Some can be Grenadiers others can be Missile Launchers (to counter a Tank, for example).

Now you'll want 5 FACTORIES that can produce 2 Vehicles per Factory. So that means a TOTAL of 10 Vehicles... Again showing you some of the numbers about what makes sense in correlation with the Ground Soldiers. But a player may not have CHOSEN a FACTORY to start with... So he will need to WAIT until he draws ONE (1) of these cards to deploy that "structure" and allow the player to DEPLOY Vehicles (Jeeps, Truck, Tanks, Buggies, etc.)

That counts so far 11 cards. 89 remain.

The other option we didn't talk about is a "AIR BASE" that too can produce 2 Air units per base. So you could have 5 AIR BASES for a total of 10 Air Units.

So that's now 84 cards... Do you need some kind of RECYCLE PLANT to "Trash Cards" (like exile with some resource bonus)... Maybe that's 5 more cards. We're now at 79.

Another structure could be a REFINERY. That may produce more RESOURCES on a turn giving a surplus to be used to Units other than TROOPS (Who would require maybe petrol) ... And Petrol could be a SECONDARY resource (for example). So that mean 74 cards.

Maybe the game could have CONSTRUCTION YARD. That's allow for building of WALLS, TOWERS and Bunkers and other DEFENSES that are stationary. That could be 5 more card and now we are at 69!

So with 69 cards that is the BULK of your DECK and you'll need to SEED it with MORE UNITS. You could also include EVENTS which are like things that happen to both BOOST your OWN UNITS (Like "Extra enrollment" means you earn +5 Troops) or ("Broken Pipeline" means your opponent loses 2 Petrol per turn) until that card can be countered... by maybe DISCARDING 2 Vehicular Units (Ground or Air)...

And this is HOW I would approach BUILDING the RIGHT kind of DECK using Magic as a FORMAT. If you've played Magic you are aware that you NEED TUPLES of a card not just one.

With 69, maybe you require 4 more Basic Soldiers (equipped with Assault Rifles) that 65 cards left.

More Events at 3 Cards per event is reasonable ... And you could think of BONUS or PENALTY cards that can affect the game much like an Instant, Enchantment or Sorcery (grouped in POSITIVE and NEGATIVE Events). Maybe you can have 15 of these card (so 5 different Events). So that leaves you with 50 cards worth of units...

This is how I DESIGN games. From what is realistic in terms of CARD COUNTS. And not from MATH or other method. I would one what a DECK CAN CONTAIN to be PLAYABLE.

So do you think you can CREATE the rest of the DECK???

Because if we have 5 Bombers and 5 Jets, that's 40 cards. If we have 5 Jeeps and 5 Tanks, that's 30 cards.

Now it seems like the remaining 30 cards can be DIFFERENT kind of cards. Maybe you need some DEFENSIVE structures (as we talked about above). So like 5 Walls, 5 Towers, 5 Bunkers and 5 SAM Sites. That's 20 additional cards... All that is left is 10 cards...

Those 10 REMAINING cards should be SOLDIERS. Different kinds. Maybe like 2 of each (for 5 different classes). And then you are DONE! 100 cards with a DECK that is more or less playable.

This is how I would DESIGN your card game. Given a FORMAT and CARD COUNT. With enough TUPLES of each card and sufficient VARIETY to make the DECK PLAYABLE.

Of course, you don't need to do it MY WAY... But I've shown you a DIRECT PATH to making the game like Magic using the Commander format. This is a complete DECK with all the cards and structures that your PLAYERS NEED. Like I said, I'm not telling you HOW you should design YOUR game... But you seem a bit LOST after the MATH... And not knowing HOW to design a deck and what is required by one, etc. I would seriously take this into consideration and MAKE a Deck (prototype) as I have explained and figure out if this is sufficiently INTERESTING for the players.

Again not everything is about MATH. It's about FORMAT and UNDERSTANDING How to Build a Magic Deck. And then understanding and imposing limits like "5" of any one type of card. (This could be a hard limit and cap the duplicates during a player's Deck Construction).

I hope this HELPS you. By no means am I a MASTER Magic Player. But I have built some Magic Decks and have a fundamental experience with what is REQUIRED in terms of understanding. Am I the BEST Deck Construction resource? No. But I have built some Decks and understand how to do this. This IMHO is HOW YOU should design the REMAINDER of your Card Game.

Cheers @X3M... And if you have question, don't hesitate to ASK.

Note #1: You could also CAP the number of BUILDING or Structures in a base to let's say 10 Buildings (excluding Meat like Walls and so forth). This is a number, you can playtest and see if there is no AP (Analysis-Paralysis) if this number is TOO HIGH ... It just messes with the layout and what is REASONABLE!

Note #2: Also I re-read this ... And although it is COMPREHENSIVE, it may need fine-tuning. Like for example the amount of Units versus the number of CARDS. When I say FOR EACH AIR BASE you can have 2 Units... What I mean is TWO (2) DIFFERENT (or same) CARDS. Each card can determine the amount DEPLOYED (Number of Chips)!

Whereas some other CARDS like WALLS and such are required to produce one of the wall to protect like you HQ or your REFINERY or a BARRACK. So having FIVE (5) of these means you can DEFEND 50% of you BASE (if you have 5 walls). Other structures can have SAM Sites or Defense Towers or Bunkers.

Again this is more TWEAKING to figure out what is BEST for a Deck.

But I'm sure you get the point and this is a VERY NATURAL method for BUILDING a Deck akin to something like Magic.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Singles and Multies and a new Attribute or...

The mechanics of placing cards on the table is currently as following:

Cards on the table provide production points.
Together with resources, these cards allow for the placement of what they can produce.

The player needs a particular card in their hand in order to produce them (placing on the table).

With chips, the number is increased.

If a player wants to increase the chips in another round. The player has to have a copy of that card in its hand.
Same goes for multiple groups.

***

Perhaps I should simply allow a player to buy more of the same, once the card is already placed on the table.
Or add a new group.

This way, a player can have 1 copy of each card.

Then the suggestion was given, 0 chips means the card is empty. But you can still add new chips.

This would mean, the card doesn't go to the graveyard/hand/deck.
But remains on the table.

Honestly, I wonder why a hand is needed in the first place, this way...

***

Strange how we suddenly went from too much design possiblities, to redesigning the deck itself.

Still, adding chips in the original way, would have been done through only the body cards. But yeah, having body/weapon choices does make it more complicated for players.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
I agree with you 100%

X3M wrote:
...But yeah, having body/weapon choices does make it more complicated for players.

Again it depends on the DESIGN of the game and how you PLAN to PLAY. Like I said in MY version, I am focusing on Deck Building. In this scenario, I plan to have 90 Officer Cards (Dynamic Deck) and 30 "Development" Cards (a separate deck for drawing cards from...) So (maybe) in total 120 cards.

This is probably 20 cards over the Magic format... But the PLAY STYLE is very different. Your 30 "Core" Cards are accessible from your HQ and the HQ's Action is "Draw +1 'Development' Card. Your have a limit of 3 of these cards." So this means you can have a SET of "3" Core cards. These are the Development cards which allow you to "develop" your Base and Units. So maybe at the start of your turn you have ONE (1) HQ card and you "reveal" ONE (1) "Development" card at the top of that deck (30 cards). And so you can REVEAL "3" at any given time.

Then the remaining 90 Officer cards define the Tiers and Classes of the cards that are played. I'm still trying to determine if they TOO have "Actions". Or maybe ONLY your "Buildings" have Actions and in this case they would come to fruition from your Development Deck.

I think with 30 Development cards, there isn't much room for "Duplicates". So the cards like "WALLS" which provide MEAT for ALL Structures if "built" (card in play). Or maybe your HQ will REQUIRE a "Construction Yard" to build Walls. So IF you play the "Construction Yard", all your building get a WALL. Something like that a "Passive Action". So some cards may REQUIRE another card. Like "SAM Site" (Surface-to-Air Missile Defense) requires the SAM Card and a "Construction Yard" (requires BOTH to put the SAM Card in-play)... And it's like a PASSIVE Action which means it can attack Flying Vehicles which attack your forces from your base.

The Deck-Builder version is bit more complicated because you are building a Deck on-the-fly... But it's more the direction that I want to take. Because it just means that there are LESS cards to design (IMHO) and I don't need to get into "Booster Packs" with a pool of 300+ cards. Sure you can make a STATIC Deck... But then it's best to MARKET the "game" as a GAME (not expandable). And that's kinda the opposite direction I wanted to go with. Not sure TBH, I need to think about it some more. Hmm...

But expressing my thoughts has helped me THINK through MY version too. I'm also thinking about "Tapping" existing "Development" cards in your base. Not sure... Again more thought is needed. But I'm liking this approach with a SIMPLE 3-cards from the "Development" Deck (which is LINEAR)... So 10% of the Development Deck is available after playing a couple Actions.

Again more thinking to do with this version.

The Officer card also need to have BUY/SELL options such that they provide income (Soldiers) and income & petrol (Vehicles) and a "Refinery" can improve on the production of Petrol (some kind of BONUS... Not sure ATM).

Also a trash card like "Junkyard" which allows you to discard Vehicles from you armies (and produce monies and Petrol). But this is a Development card and you could maybe have one of these cards in the Development Deck.

I'm also uncertain about the number of doubles in the Development Deck. Maybe at most 2 to 3 of any given card. Again Chips count as unit counts but the cards define the Unit and Tier of that card... That's the direction that I am headed with my version.

It's different... And just because I want to rid myself of the NEED to design too many cards (like in Magic) where there need to be counts of 300+ cards if you want randomization or 100 cards if you want fixed packs... Again it's a different play style that I am aiming for (in my case). In your case, I've described a FORMAT that you can work with.

More thoughts into my version for sure is needed. But I've got some headway with the "Development Deck". I was MISSING this ... And now it is starting to come together... SLOWLY.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Also ...

X3M wrote:
Honestly, I wonder why a hand is needed in the first place, this way...

Otherwise you would be restricted to having ONE (1) card at-a-time. I've found this to be undesirable and have a negative play style. Even with my Development Deck, I using a SET of "3" cards... "1" would be much too restrictive IMHO.

X3M wrote:
Strange how we suddenly went from too much design possibilities, to redesigning the deck itself.

Because that seems like the NEXT logical step. Build a deck and test it. Then you have a GAME if it WORKS. I don't believe in THEORY. I expect PRACTICAL implementation to determine IF a "Design" WORKS or not. Too many design possibilities is not the focus of positive energy. You need to REFOCUS onto something PRACTICAL (A sample Deck and see how it plays out...)

About the "chips" ... you could have a DEFAULT "Deployment Value" with each Unit. Like "5" Assault Rifle Soldiers when you play such a Troop Card.

Note #1: IF there are TOO MANY design possibilities... That is IDEAL. Congratulation your format is COMPATIBLE with Magic. That's what you WANT... To many combinations that the players can design their own Decks and play around for hours at a time, tweaking and improving their configurations until their NEXT battle which will determine how successful they really are with their new DECKS!!!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
If only there was a board present...

questccg wrote:

Note #1: IF there are TOO MANY design possibilities... That is IDEAL. Congratulation your format is COMPATIBLE with Magic. That's what you WANT... To many combinations that the players can design their own Decks and play around for hours at a time, tweaking and improving their configurations until their NEXT battle which will determine how successful they really are with their new DECKS!!!

Yeah, I need to steer away from the combination cards.

I have been thinking about placing cards on the field though.
This "3" you are talking about. I could allow the player to draw 3 cards every round. Make a choice, 1, 2 or 3 are placed with a number of chips. Then the remaining cards are placed at the bottom of the deck. With a special card indicating the border for a reshuffle.

Then as for a base. The players already could place their buildings. According to a number of resources. Even if the card remains empty. That way, both players can see if one of the players will be having air units while the other doesn't have anti air. Thus saving them from a round that isn't fun.
This placement is even done before shuffling the decks.

Players can produce:
1. Organic,
2. Mechanical (default),
3. Flying,
4. Structure,
5. Unit (default),
6. Sub-Terrain,
7. Sub-Marine (special)

A game could allow for 3 or more of these structures. Depending on the opponent having a counter. Imagine someone playing MtG without any way to stop all the flying. I will prevent that.

If a player can produce Flying, Sub-Tarrain or Sub-Marine. Then the opponent should have counters avaiable to these. Or else it is a no-go.

Walls and Defences are considered combat structures.
Then we need a form of income. So, a refinery will allow for the processing of resources. But you still need harvesters of any kind in the field. This will let a strategy emerge. Target the harvesters or the refineries.

The field. Each player has a side, there are also 1, 2 or 3 middle's. One or more middles might be water, depending on the game they want to play.
5 "mats"

Wait.... now I am heading to a board game again. And we don't want that.
Even a middle means a board game...
No middle...

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some very good thoughts in that post!

X3M wrote:
Yeah, I need to steer away from the combination cards.

I agree with this too... It will make building a deck too hard. Ergo why I am favoring a 30 Development Deck which progresses SLOWLY.

X3M wrote:
I have been thinking about placing cards on the field though.
This "3" you are talking about. I could allow the player to draw 3 cards every round. Make a choice, 1, 2 or 3 are placed with a number of chips. Then the remaining cards are placed at the bottom of the deck. With a special card indicating the border for a reshuffle.

Well what you can do is have a DECK which you DRAW FROM and a DISCARD which you PUT CARDS TO. Then when the DECK is empty, you reshuffle the DISCARD and then this becomes a player's DECK. That could be simple and not need an EXTRA CARD.

X3M wrote:
Then as for a base. The players already could place their buildings. According to a number of resources. Even if the card remains empty. That way, both players can see if one of the players will be having air units while the other doesn't have anti air. Thus saving them from a round that isn't fun.
This placement is even done before shuffling the decks.

Yeah having an initial setup is the way to go. Maybe this could be a point-system with a certain amounts of points you can PRE-CONFIGURE and still draw more structures as you play... But allowing an initial configuration would be beneficial (as you have suggested).

X3M wrote:
A game could allow for 3 or more of these structures. Depending on the opponent having a counter. Imagine someone playing MtG without any way to stop all the flying. I will prevent that.

EXACTLY! No fun for the player who has no planes. So a "SAM Site" could be a defensive structure that can launch missile up to the enemy planes. With a certain amount of shots fired per turn. Yeah, me too... I figure this would be bad if ONE (1) players has birds in the sky and opponent has none.

X3M wrote:
Walls and Defenses are considered combat structures.

I agree. I'm using ONE (1) Card in play (The Construction Yard) and it will benefit each building with WALLS. There is no "Walls" Card. You might want to do something similar. I said similar because you also may have Towers or Bunkers too...

X3M wrote:
Then we need a form of income. So, a refinery will allow for the processing of resources. But you still need harvesters of any kind in the field. This will let a strategy emerge. Target the harvesters or the refineries.

That's where MY version is different. There are no "Harvester", resources (only Petrol) and money (only Credits) only. Players use their "Officer" HAND to figure out what they want to "SELL" (Think Discard) to earn monies or res. That's where the Magic flavor and Deck-Building Version are different. You SELL cards to earn monies and res to be able to build more Troops/Units. So in my card game there are NO "Harvesters" and while there may be a "Refinery" it may be tapped to produce more Petrol on that turn. You can ONLY TAP ONE building at a time (so one action only).

X3M wrote:
The field. Each player has a side, there are also 1, 2 or 3 middle's. One or more middles might be water, depending on the game they want to play. 5 "mats"

Wait.... now I am heading to a board game again. And we don't want that. Even a middle means a board game... No middle...

My version will have "5 Positions" in which you can play up to "5" Units. Then by rolling the "Readiness Die" you determine what forces can attack (Top or Bottom = 0 or 1). And then from there you can choose the best combination of troops/units that you want to engage in battle.

Originally I was going to say ONLY "3" Positions need to be "conquered" to WIN. I'm not sure about this... Hmm. I'm thinking all "5" positions would be very hard and would just prolong the eventual losing game. What I mean is if a player "controls" "3" opposite positions, while possible to beat the opponent a bit... It could be very frustrating to prolong a losing match ... So (Maybe?) three (3) Positions is enough. I THINK... Not sure. More thought on this is required.

Anyways you seem LESS LOST than before. This sounds like progress and moving forwards to an interesting GAME! Cheers.

Note #1: I think there might be the NECESSITY for like 8 or 9 positions and an opponent needs only to conquer 3 of them... Maybe that MIGHT be better... IDK. More thoughts on this is required.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Removing the Resource Managment

Cards for Cards

Well, the card for a card principle has been used by me before as well. But the more expensive cards would simply come into play just as easily. Although in my proto-type game they where shared with all players.

Having a fixed value for a card would fix this. Then you would need to get like X resources per card in order to get cards on the table. But then a simple division by X would quantumize the optimal choices... Unless the resources can be stored.

Lineair income

Games like MtG can have a ever growing income rate. Every round it is +1 on average at the beginning. Then depending on the number of land cards in the deck. It will drop down.
To roughly 1 per 3 rounds. Unless you use elves...kek.

I want a bit more freedom in this. So a player could invest in their resource managment. The oppnent could already attack this. It depends on gambling if the opponent has the right tools avaiable. Without a hand, that is impossible.

However, an upper limit is nessesary to make the game properly balanced. (Even though I design with infinity balance in mind).
The main reason will be that the number of chips added each round should be limited.

Of course, a player can have more than the allowed harvesters and refineries. But then this is overkill.

If more than the 2 players where locations. More places could harbor harvesters.

This Cardgame has no territories

Alas, only my board games have these regions. And thus only in the board games, the harvesters could truly be harmed by planning.

In the card game, a decent player will immediately throw in the whole army in front of the harvesters. IF, they where to be attacked.
It is too early to add an attribute for that.

The same goes for structures etc. A player cannot attempt to wear them down unless the opponent lacks cards.

It is a huge difference with a 2d game where range and movement speed and sizes are a thing.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Cover Mechanic

That said about sizes.

I could still do the cover mechanic. Where you can only protect a card, if it is smaller than the card being thrown in front of it.

An upside down pyramid if you will.

This way, a harvester of, let's say a cost of 10 and some tanks in front of them with a cost of 7 each.

If you have 3 harvesters, you need at least 5 tanks. If 1 tank goes down, the attacking player can also remove one of the harvesters with some remaining hits.

Previously I wanted to have the cover mechanic to be simpler. But this way I kinda enforce the strategy of targeting the resource managment.

The structures and thus the Refinery can be dealt with the same way. While a cannon is good in dealing with a structure. You need a lot of infantry in front in order to protect the refinery.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ranger designs...

Ok, so the cover mechanic based on card costs works once again, perfect.

The Rangers of 3 each need a cover of 3 or more. The Riflemen that cost 2 each. You simply balance them out or have more of them compared to the Rangers.

Seeing as how the durability is 2 on average. About twice the costs of Rangers will be used. Meaning, a normal player will have 6 in front and 3 in the back.

Something like an APC will work perfectly. Although the name APC should be different.

I got a better feeling now for the faction designs again. After all, the second card will have to be in synergy with the first.

Maybe if I have time, I will lay down some fundations during my night shift.

***

The factions will have colours.
I certainly have some solid idea's for orange, blue, red and yellow.
Also, a number will be shown a lot with those factions in terms of number of projectiles.

Orange:
Will have mortars, grenade launchers and the Triple Tank (one of my favorite designs in any game)
Mainly 3.

Red:
Will have flame based weaponry, rockets that are slow but deal a lot of damage and most designs come with a double barrel. Doesn't matter what the weapon is.
Mainly 2.

Blue:
Basic shit. But will have the snipers and a ridiculous MRLS.
Mostly 1 then 6.

Yellow:
Basic weapons, like blue, but more durable. Yes, I am planning to make yellow stronger than blue especially at the armor. 2nd and 3rd tiers for that. But they will be a lot similar in the design.
1 and 4.

Purple:
IDK.... The auto-cannon often goes between blue and purple in my designs. But the basic riflemen too had a ridiculous damage. However, range is not an option in the cardgame. Perhaps they also can have some Sadaukar themed stuff.
Mostly 1 then 5.

Green:
...I think I will have them being durable by making the weapons relatively weaker. The 3 here is more for the accuracy... IDK.

White:
??? An extension on yellow armor. But with weapon stuff that purple does.

Brown:
Your basic military, will look like blue. But anything goes here.

Black:
Pure evil. This faction will have optimal designs after all the other factions. Or do they?
Their first card will be relatively unstoppable. Although, the damage will be relatively less.

***

As usual, I like to start with blue.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Different approach...

I'm not designing "Factions". Instead I focus on my "Development Deck" which features 15 unique Building/Structures and 15 types of Units. Right now all I plan to "design" is some generic/vanilla units (just to build a deck) and leave it at that.

The other point is the "Officers Stacks" ... I've already got them planned out ... but I need to flesh-out more details about how to use them (in combination with the Development cards -- Units only).

And that's pretty much it... Different approach has different challenges. Like one (1) Building/Structure is "Nuclear Silos" and obviously this is to STOP the opponent from using Tactical Nuclear weapons against the player. So if BOTH sides have "Nuclear Silos" no nuclear war will occur or to be more precise the use of Tactical Nuclear Missiles in the field will not be used due to the possible retaliation and escalation of the war.

I still have a LOT to design ... But I'm not ready to do so, just quite YET!

Like I said different approach for different play styles. I don't need COLORS or Factions, my "Officers Deck" provides the variety required to play. And the "Development Deck" contains enough units/buildings/structures for any player to choose from this deck to build his forces.

I still have to figure out the WIN condition too... That's something that I am actively thinking about. I know I want it to be a CONTROL win solution ... Just not sure how to implement it ATM!

Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Winning conditions

MtG has (that I know of):
- Remove all health of the player.
- Opponents deck is depleted.
- Opponents give up.

***

Prototype game:
- Opponents give up.
- Target(s) has been killed/destroyed.
- Other mission objectives have been completed.
- Games with VP; the highest VP wins.

***

This card game:
- Opponents give up.
- ...

Ok, there are no missions. Nor are there specific targets. So no VP here.
The deck could be depleted though. While I didn't do that yet.
It is entirely possible that an opponent is completely annihilated. But that would be it.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yeah me too ... not sure

Even if the Opponent "Gives up"... This is not a GOOD "Victory Condition" IMHO. I think there needs to be some kind of "definite" Victory Condition. I want something like OCCUPATION. Not because I am modeling anything here about Ukraine but if you can "take control" of the area AROUND the Base, you win. Sort of like what is happening in the Donbass region and Mariupol. Not for the same reasons, but in general "controlling access" to the Base is a CONCRETE Victory Condition.

So something like having FLANKS to your Base might be a GOOD idea!

Hmm... Maybe there are CONTROL AREAS... And you must control a certain amount of them to cut off the opponent from the "outside" (whatever that is). IDK. I still need to think about this some more.

Basically what I want as a Victory Condition is CONTROLLING access to the enemy Base. When you cut off the opponent ... You WIN the match.

Hmm... I just got the idea that there are THREE (3) FLANKS: Left, Centre and Right. And it varies according the NUMBER of players:

1. Centre only if 2 Players.

2. Left and Right if 3 Players.

3. Left, Centre and Right if 4 Players.

How to achieve a victory is TBD. But I like these IDEAS so far... They're REAL COOL (and make a lot of sense in a war game). Really like this...! Could work pretty decently TBH.

The question that I need to work on ... is HOW to "Control" one of these Flanks?!?! Hmm... That's going to take more thought. I'll leave it at this.

BTW IF you have any ideas that you want to share about "Flank Control" ... Let me know... because this is a popular Game Mechanic (Area Control). Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
For you...10 hexagons

We played with this configuration before.
https://images.app.goo.gl/sqUq4hF6QKF6AABr9

A player begins either up or down.
Next to that starting hexagon, the player has 3 hexagons. 2 of them are flanks if you think about it.

Maybe you can leave out some middle hexagons.

Instead of hexagons, some square mats are enough. Simple have the middle lane go up by a half and have 1 more mat.

Idk, did I explain that sufficiently?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I need to find a way

To get the deck depleted...

How about this?
Each round, a player can pick 3 cards.

- 1 card can be placed on the table with chips on it.
Once the chips are depleted. This card is removed from the game.
If not, with a repick of this card from the deck. The player can buy more chips for it.

- 1 card can be put back in the deck for later.

- 1 card is removed from the game anyway.

***

Each round, 1 card is discarded. With 120 cards, it would take 120 rounds.
But the cards that are played at the beginning can be removed as well, by being destroyed completely.
First I need to get the designs done before I get to test this.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Re: I need to find a way

X3M wrote:
To get the deck depleted...

I like your idea... But 120 Turns is too much TBH.

You could DRAW "5" Cards per turn. You KEEP "3" and Exile "2" (removed permanently from the game). The other cards, they go into the Discard which can later be "re-shuffled" to the Deck or are put into the play area.

This would mean 120 / 5 = 24 Rounds to go through the Deck with 72 cards left-over. Assume that there is two (2) left over means a deck of ~48 cards to draw from again 48 / 5 = 9.6 Rounds. Under 35 Rounds to a game. Not unreasonable and not too short. Sounds good to me!

Cheers @X3M!

Note #1: My Deck-Builder version uses the Private (Officer) to: "Draw three (3) from your Deck, place one (1) on the Top and the other two (2) on the Bottom of the Deck."

So the "Private" allows you to CYCLE through your Deck quicker than simply using the "Corporal" which states: "Draw two (2) cards from your Deck into your Hand. If at the end of your turn you have more than five (5) cards in your hand, discard down to five (5) cards."

You can only play ONE (1) of these ACTIONS per turn, unless the Action states otherwise (with something like: "Take one additional Action this turn."

Most Actions do not have this "additional" clause as the GOAL is to MOSTLY do ONE (1) Action PER TURN.

This is VERY different than the Magic version ... Because in the Magic version, you can PLAY as many cards into the area of play as possible. There are more strict rules in how you can play cards in my version (Deck-Builder). But I'm still working on DESIGNING all the "Actions" and rules that are to go along with my version.

So far it is still INCOMPLETE. And I'm still working on the Victory Condition!

Note #2: I think I've finalized the Actions per Officer. Some are repetitions of existing Actions in other games, some are a bit unique also. I'm pleased with the variety of Officers and their corresponding Actions... Nine (9) Officers and therefore nine (9) Actions.

And BTW two (2) Actions have the "Take another Action this turn." Just because some are more "passive" than "attacking" Actions and so you can benefit by gathering some Intel and then perform another Action (for example). Or refresh your entire Hand and also allow the player to perform another Action (this is like looking for better options/prospects).

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
TBH I'm thinking about doing something RANDOM and LUCK BASED.

What if behind friendly forces, let's say there are FIVE (5) per FLANK. When one FLANK is compromised, the opponent can choose from FIVE (5) positions to reveal a card... There are four (4) Blank cards and one (1) White Flag card. When a "White Flag" is revealed that FLANK is done... The opponent wins the battle for that FLANK.

The player is IN the GAME until ALL THREE (3) FLANKS are resolved.

Of course this varies per players as I explained before:

1. Two (2) Players and there is the Centre Flank. The player who finds the opponent's "White Flag" first is the Winner.

2. Three (3) Player and there is a Left and Right Flanks. A "tie" is possible or one of the players finds two (2) "White Flags"; one (1) on each Flank and is therefore declared the Winner.

3. Four (4) Players and there is the Left, Centre and Right Flanks. Not sure... The positions are really getting to me. I have to do it on PAPER and edit the post with the solution... Hehehe. (LOL)

That's what I've come up with... It's sort of like "Stratego" where you MUST find the "Flag" and the odds are initially 1:5 or 20% rate of success on the first successful attack. But you have to eradicate the opposing player's Forces and/or Platoon before you can attempt to figure out the location of the enemy Flag...

So far this has been the most CLEVER solution I have found: it's all RANDOM and up to LUCK... But your LUCK improves with each passing VICTORIOUS Battle. The odds can go from 20%, 25%, 33%, 50% to 100% from 1 to 5 Victories...

Note #1: I am thinking that FIVE (5) Victories over the opposing Platoon is a bit TOUGH. I think it would be best to have 4 Positions and therefore 25%, 33%, 50% to 100%. "4" might be more feasible and "3" is just not enough (33%, 50% and 100%). Of course this is something that I can "fine-tune" to see what is best. But from my analysis, I think "4" is the Magic number! (Pun intended)

Note #2: This "mechanic" serves to CONTROL the flow of the game and ensure that the game is NOT too long. I know @X3M you and your comrades like games that take hours to play... a 60 Minute game may not impress you enough... But for most people 60 to 90 minutes for a REAL GOOD game is enough.

I know some games of TradeWorlds have taken 2 hours (120 minutes) and some of the players said it was a "bit long" to win the game.

That's why we sped up the pace of the game to TRY to ensure that MOST games will get resolved within 60 to 90 minutes (1 hour to an Hour & half).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Faction design helps bring structure to the game

I am planning to start with each faction having a 3x3 table being filled.
Columns are the 3 armor tiers.
Rows are the 3 damage tiers.

Then 3 more specialized units, covering 1 of each column and 1 of each row.
There are 6 options for this.
A diagonal (2) or a corner with 2 knight jumps in the table (4).

And 3 existing units will have a secondary damage tier being added to the mix. In order to counter the 3 walls. In this too, there are 6 options.

When an option overlaps, I can even decide to have the 2 weapon tiers going with the factions speciality.

***

Regarding specialities.
An attribute will be used for this. Or the unit will simply show a lot of projectiles.

Then again, the secondary damage tier could be a faction speciality.

So... 2 specialities per faction. Distributed in a way that it is at least balanced.

Still a lot of options. But at least I have it themed. And a future expansion will simply have the combination shifted. For example, diagonal is used first, then 1 of the free corners with the knight jump.

***

Blue will have; 6 projectiles, damage tier mix.
Red will have; 2 projectiles, targets (organic, structure, mechanical+unit)
Orange will have; 3 projectiles, charging.
Yellow will have; 4 projectiles, multi armor.
Purple will have; 5 projectiles, and something else.
Green will have; 3 projectiles, and something else...

***

Perhaps I can have multicoloured factions.
Perhaps have the colour adding just one theme for the first configuration. Then a second theme for the second configuration.
If blue has 6 projectiles as theme 1, and multi damages as theme 2.
While red has 2 projectiles and then target damage.
A blue, red faction can have 6 projectiles with target damage.
And a red, blue faction 2 projectiles with multi damage.

Main point would still be, that one of the 2 theme's will add 3 extra units.

It is ridiculous how much freedom I still have in this.

***

Here are the 6 configurations for the table:
Where X is a design for the faction.

XOO
OXO
OOX

OOX
OXO
XOO

XOO
OOX
OXO

OOX
XOO
OXO

OXO
OOX
XOO

OXO
XOO
OOX

If I don't do the overlap. We got 6x6 faction themed combinations.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Funny, eh?

I think my COSTs which were a bit "designed" using your constraints of proper "progression" in terms of Power Creep ... It is just NOT going to WORK as I had hoped for. Why? Because if a unit costs 20 Credits, that means I need at the minimum 5 intervals: 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100.

But if some of the HIGHER tiers of units are like 125 or 150, etc. That implies 4 intervals: 25, 50, 75, 100.

These two are NOT compatible IF I take into account that I don't want 5 or 10 Credits as a measure of wealth. It just doesn't work. And I would want to "streamline" the values such that the divider is EITHER "4" or "5".

Unless I make Credits "5" and Petrol "4"... That could be a viable option.

So the cost to produce Units go from 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100+. And the cost to operate Motorized Units go from 25, 50, 75, and 100+ (for Petrol). Two different scales just to make the game ... A bit more FREAKISHLY challenging!!! (LOL)

What do you think??? Is this an acceptable idea?? Let me know!?

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Cool beans!

X3M wrote:
Here are the 6 configurations for the table: Where X is a design for the faction... If I don't do the overlap. We got 6x6 faction themed combinations.

I think that's NICE too! You were questioning how to POSITION Units if there was NO BOARD... This formation/configuration method seems like it has a LOT of POTENTIAL! It's very different than anything that I've seen before!

Let me know what are the NEXT steps are... Cheers @X3M.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut