Skip to Content

RPS in a card game

29 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Since I scrapped that mechanic about elimination. I am going to try to put something together using the vanilla combat of MtG. (But then with my own RPS system)

A simple question:
Where MtG has a, 1 sufficient hit = card is defeated.
I would like to have 2 or 3 or more hits required for defeat.

But, without tracking health.

This means that you can only start killing opponents when you have at least 2 or 3 or more cards.

The reason why I want to do this is to have big tanks with big weapons, not being able to strike down simple soldiers in just 1 hit. Because this would mean that the simple soldiers would die off before there are sufficient on the table to fight back. With health 2, the dying goes half the speed. etc.

What would be the acceptable range of cards needed?

***

With costs, I have
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc.
My old system for the board game had
1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36 etc.
My last system that I tested for my card game had
1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21 etc.

My goal was to have overkill and insufficient firepower, bringing the RPS in the games. For my board game, it is a 100% success. But there is health tracking. For my card game, the first list is a bad idea. After all, I don't want to have health tracking on my cards. Simply an elimination system by comparing 2 numbers.

But I tested my ass off. The system provides RPS, but you need to invest in a lot of cards to pull it even off.

As my favorite example, I have 6 infantry equal to my battle tank. With health tracking, the infantry have a good chance. Even with the second list. 6+5+4+3+2+1 is a dead tank, and in return, the infantry die one by one.
Perfect...

But is there even a way to remove health tracking?
I already tried the double health, then you need more cards. And both sides die to... 1 set each.
But the game never ends this way. It is always a remise with both players standing.
I need a game with both players dying.

Help? Any one?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Sure, edit a post, but no

Sure, edit a post, but no bumb after editing. -.-
Bumb it is.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Return of the card game

This topic is very old. And in the mean time, I had a simplyfied attempt at a war game with still some health tracking.

Now, I got experience. So I wanna know how far I can get with my card game attempt.

***

Things that changed in idea's for the card game.

Costs are 1, 2, 4 or 8 for the A/D values of 1, 3, 9 or 27.
A weapon can target only 1 target at a time.

Units can attack and defend.
The total costs are times 2.

Structures can only defend.
The total costs are as they are.

When attacking, it is 1 strike only.
If the opponent blocks, it is counting damage on both sides until a card perishes.

Example; 4 Grenadiers attack a Combat tank.
Grenadier has 1/3. Combat tank has 27/27.

The Combat tank doesn't block. There is only 4x3 damage is 12, which can't beat 27.

Or the Combat tank does block. There is 12+9+6 damage until the tank dies. There are also 3 dead Grenadiers.

A wall can block. But always dies.
Or is targeted by sufficient damage.
The choice happens when 1 Armor walls are treatening to block a high damage weapon.

Multishot weapons can divide damage. And thus should be blocked by multiple walls when needed. Or 1 big one to eat away the ammo. 1 Armor blocking 3 projectiles means that 2 get through for targeting something else.

***

I don't like resource cards to reduce the unit pile. So I thought of also have sacrifices to be used, just like with my Event cards in my hobby game.

For balance, i am going to add temporary upgrade cards for almost each unit. So that the total resources of each design is exactly the same.

***

Attributes like Range and Speed. This is actually the one problem remaining. I want it to be as simple as possible. Range could be multi shots before an enemy will return fire. But what about Speed?

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
it looks like youve been busy

it looks like youve been busy these last 4 years :)
in your final problem (range and speed) i would say what you described as range fits better with speed (or firing speed at least). presumably the game looks a lot like Mtg when its played. with this in mind i would have say 3 rows for each side (maybe a neutral zone aswell). then give your units 1-6 range. a unit with 1 range can only attack the row in directly front. a 2+ range means being able to shoot over friendly or enemy units. you could make things more complex by counting sideways/diagonal range but i would just keep it simple.
also looking at your example (tank vs grenadier), somthing seems odd. i might have misunderstood but if the tank blocks, it and the troops eventually kill each other eventually (thats fine, 2 units digging in for a battle). if the tank doesn't block the troops can't throw enough grenades to do any damage. i dont know alot about the game (just this post really) but that seems to jar with the theme.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
MtG mechanic

Haha, yes. It is going to be along those lines.

I know it looks odd. But the complete combat mechanic isn't complete yet.

It goes roughly like this:

- Attacker declares attack: And sends all units that will attack.
- Defender declares which attacking units will be blocked. The defender can use units and structures for this. Blocking initiates a battle to death. You can assign as much cards as you want, given they were not exhausted yet.
- Remaining attacking units can join the battle to death. Or target something else.
- Both players can decide in what order the cards die in the battle to the death.

Suffice to say, it needs testing.

In case of the 4 Grenadiers against the 1 Tank. If the Tank is the only card in the field, it will not be destroyed as long as it doesn't block. As soon as it blocks, it can fire back and will be killing Grenadiers as well.

If only 3 Grenadiers would attack. The Tank will not die if those are to work together. So the attacking player would only use 1 Grenadier to occupy the Tank. The other 2 Grenadiers could do something else.

If multiple targets can be killed by 1 Grenadier. Then it is wiser to have fodder units to do the blocking. Each fodder unit would block 1 Grenadier. But each Grenadier would be occupied now.

***

I think that I need to put Fast and Ranged into attributes. They would be modifiers to certain situations regarding the damage. But it would be a x2 modifier in those cases.
Unit and Structure are the basic attributes. All other attributes are additions.

Maybe....
Fast: More damage in the attack.
Ranged: More damage when blocking.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
ok that all makes more sense

ok that all makes more sense (you could change the terms- maybe engage instead of block- but thats just semantics).
reading your description of the turn order also made a lot of sense. especially the first two points (i presume players switch who is the attacker each turn).

the point about being able to add remaining units to a battle seems a good idea but i think both sides should be able to add or it gives the attacker an advantage (or maybe not. thats what playtesting is for)

your final point though is somthing to look at again. as its a zero sum game any decisions that involve both players is asking for trouble. you are both trying to win after all. who is removed and when should be either automatic or up to one side each turn (maybe the defender if you dont let them reinforce like the attacker)
if you meant that the attacker decides the order the attacking units die (and vice versa) this makes more sense but you will need to pay close attention to weather it gives an advantage to either side. i have a feeling the second player has an adv but this would get mitigated a bit by switching who is first each time.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I need to start prototyping on this

wob wrote:
ok that all makes more sense (you could change the terms- maybe engage instead of block- but thats just semantics).
reading your description of the turn order also made a lot of sense. especially the first two points (i presume players switch who is the attacker each turn).
Yes. But attacking will make the used cards exhausted. The starting player is the one that has the highest card to show. But could choose not to show the highest card and simply go second.

wob wrote:
the point about being able to add remaining units to a battle seems a good idea but i think both sides should be able to add or it gives the attacker an advantage (or maybe not. thats what playtesting is for)
You might be right. That is why it isn't finished yet. I am considering allowing the defender to add defending forces to the forces that already block. But it would probably lead to a math fest. And both sides having only 1 huge squad battling each other. There would be less tactics. So therefore, blocking 1 unit will almost Always result in killing that unit. The attacker simply could decide to kill the blocker as well if it doesn't happen yet. The squads remain small enough this way to initiate multiple squad.

I need testing to decide how high the complexity bar comes. But declaring an action without calculations skills is in a sense a risk. The skill in this game is for players to determine if they can get the best results.

wob wrote:
your final point though is somthing to look at again. as its a zero sum game any decisions that involve both players is asking for trouble. you are both trying to win after all. who is removed and when should be either automatic or up to one side each turn (maybe the defender if you dont let them reinforce like the attacker)
if you meant that the attacker decides the order the attacking units die (and vice versa) this makes more sense but you will need to pay close attention to weather it gives an advantage to either side. i have a feeling the second player has an adv but this would get mitigated a bit by switching who is first each time.

Indeed.
The defender can defend with one or multiple cards. At that point the order of those cards are decided as well. The attacker can't choose for the defender. Only how its own attacking squad will be build up in order to vengeance on that one blocked attacker.
So, defender decides its own order of losses.
Then the attacker.

Seeing as how the attacker may only reinforce a blocked unit with those units attacking. The defender could often make clear decisions in what order his forces block.
The attacker will have not much choice if it chooses to reinforce the blocked unit. The attacker could Always choose to target other cards instead with the remaining attacking units. It can't choose individual units from the blocking squads. It starts with the order they are in.

Attacking exhausts.
Exhausted units can't defend in the next turn.

The defenders often have better chances.
But the multishot units will be the ones to initiate attacks.

Example: Flame Tank.
It has 27 armor and 8 projetiles of 1? That means that it will have to be blocked and killed asap. If it is blocked by 1 infantry unit. The other 7 projectiles will act as a one time trample. If no other cards block, it could target 7 more infantry to die. Including the Bazooka Infantry. And while the armor is counted to go down. It will only go down cumulative against squads. Targeting individual non blocking targets will result in each only returning fire once.

It will also be the Multi shot units that can act as multiple blocking squads. If 8 infantry attack. They have no other choice than to cuddle together in order to make sure the flame tank dies as well. If not, all of them die by the flame tank.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The cards, first concept

A tldr post. But perhaps you have some cool idea's to add.

A card should contain the following:
Basic stats: Costs, Armor, Damage, Number of projectiles, Maximum allowed on the table.
Basic attributes: Unit or Structure.
Extra attributes: Fast, Ranged, AA, Air, AG, Production.

- Unit; Can attack and "engage".
- Structure; Can only "engage".
- Fast; The number of projectiles will be higher for when attacking.
- Ranged; The number of projectiles will be higher for when "engaging".
- AA; Can target air.
- Air; Basicly will only be attacking and engaging other air. Until it gets AG.
- AG; Can target ground while flying.
- Production; These cards are needed to be on the table before producing Units. (the hardest part now to balance)

Logic fact: Fast structures simply can't exist.

Each card can be sacrificed from the hand for getting the resources to place other cards.
There will be a steady flow from resources cards, these will allow the player to get about half the resources without sacrificing the card.

Maximum allowed on the table is another balancing factor. These days I solve it with "upgrade" cards. Where one of the units or structures can get a personal benefit. The upgrade card will only be apliable to that design.

Of course, I could also put in upgrade cards that are free to be placed on any other card as if it is a MtG enchantment.
One of the cards could be a shield generator. Simply an extra armor to overcome. Once placed, it cannot removed unless the costs are paid again.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Silent night

Got my brain cell to work this night.

An adjustment to the attack sequence. In order to give certain units a safer path to the enemy. The attackers might already be divided in squads. Woth certain units being under protection.

I got this idea while designing the priciples around engineers.

If the defending side blocks with something that doesn't die right away. Or is even able to attack the 'to be protected' eventually. The attacker can add another squad to the initial squad that is stopped.

***

Walls. I am not going to add X walls of 1 resource each. In fact, depending on the scale of the game, each design will be added into a more balanced chance kind of way. Once walls are placed, they can be increased when drawing another wall card. I am unsure about the cheapest units in this matter. Maybe a card acts as a token counter.

***

New attribute: Take over. Which will turn an opponents card into yours.
It does conflict though when the opponent has only one card with tokens on it. As extra rule perhaps: drawing from the opponents deck and reshuffle?

***

To have big units more often in the deck. While allowed to place only one on the table. How about having these cards double in function? In fact, they can all have the double function.

Example, the Combat Tank.
Option A: the unit itself.
Option B, once an unit is placed on the table. Another card of the same kind can be added to add X armor as an extra set that requires breakthrough. A personal wall if you will.
This will once again reduce the number of cards.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
double function cards are a

double function cards are a great way to add depth to the game. from a graphic design point of view it might make your cards a little cluttered (thats the bit i struggle with). you will also need a way to say "this is A" "this is B". in the example given it wouldn't matter as its attached to another card, but if there was a tank that could become a structure (adding extra blocking etc) you might need a way to show what it is at the moment, maybe splitting the card in two.
for the add-ons that can be a border down one edge that shows when a card is placed on top.

saying all that its best to start as simple as possible. ignore the air units, tanks, and anything with more than basic mechanics. once you have tried a few skirmishes add units one at a time for playtesting. with one of my designs i have made the mistake of trying to play the whole game from the start. it was a nightmare to try and figure out what was actually working.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I feel yah

My main worry is that I have to many cards for a complete deck.

Each player its own.
To simulate factions, players cannot cover all weaknesses.

The deck should not be to big.
The table should not be to filled.

I think I start with tier 1 and 4.
Tier 2 and 3 are often the ones with "special" abilities.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Some new rules

- The battles are deck vs deck. If the deck AND table are empty. And the player can't place new cards. The player looses.
- It doesn't matter what you put in the deck. Even if it is a gazilion sand bags. Yeah, I figured I would remove that disorder from me. Wanting perfect balance is no more an issue here.
- Each round you fill your hand to 7 (or another nifty number, but keep in mind that the next rule needs a minimum of 3 cards)
- To be able to place a card from your hand onto the table. You need to sacrifice its value twice with cards that you hold in your hand.
- Production facilities will reduce this sacrifice to 1 time its value.
- Resource facilities will be able to supply resources that can be used instead of sacrifices.
- When placing a card, it will act as one entity. But depending on the times the card has been paid for. That many counters are on it.

***

So, these rules any good?
I know I need to sort them.
I also need to add the other rules.

Next post, strategic build up of the card desings.
So some of you might be able to start playing soon.
I feel, I feel something building up with this.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
it all looks promising. i

it all looks promising. i look forward to the fleshed out rules (they probably explain everything im about to ask)
my question is what are the counters for? i know you were planning on having multi-use cards so i presume its for that. is more counters better? if it is, is there a way to "upgrade" later? also if more counters on a card are better (i might have misunderstood - but its a gaming convention) why would i build facilities to reduce that number?
actually i can see the facilities help with hand management. so it could be an interesting decision.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Answering questions/A problem to tackle

This post is long.
First I try to answer your questions as good as possible.
Then in the second part, I try to tackle my resource management.
I still have a lot of work cut out in front of me.

***

wob wrote:
what are the counters for?
A counter tells the player how many times that one card is worth.

Instead of having 12 rifle infantry cards in the deck. Any will be sufficient, even 1. A player will draw and play 1 card. Then pay multiple times its value. As if you play the card multiple times. Only this way, the table can be kept relatively empty. Yet the player can build a massive army.

A squad card can still be partly used. Walls will only be used for blocking X times if an attacking squad contains X units.

If 3 Grenadiers are enough to destroy a flame tank, while the flame tank would kill 4 Grenadiers. The card with 5 Grenadiers would only be sending 3 Grenadiers.

The rest of the counters of that card could be used for blocking or attacking something else now.

If a player attacks with a card. The whole squad on it attacks. This is the only disadvantage that a player would have by having 1 card on the table.

wob wrote:
i know you were planning on having multi-use cards so i presume its for that. is more counters better?
More counters is better. A card with 5 counters on it will mean there are 5 of them. But the counters are not for the multi-use.

I am not so sure about multi-use any more. Since I thought of that to tackle the limitations of a deck. I was having trouble fitting all the cards in a balanced way. Now it isn't an issue any more with the counter mechanic in mind. Counters is a replacement of the multi-use if you will.

wob wrote:
if it is, is there a way to "upgrade" later?
Yes

Upgrade cards too can get a counter. They are attached to the main card to which the upgrade applies.
The counters on the upgrade card are less to that of the main card.
The protection system during combat allows for non upgraded counters to be removed first.
The upgraded units are removed later.
So the main card with counters will reduce first until it has an even amount of counters as the upgrade card. Then the upgrade card can go without counters and be moved halfway under the main card.
As in a way of being of equal amount now.

Upgrades: More damage/Extra armor/Increased resources/Making faster/Making ranged/What else could I do?

Fast and Range can have a number. It simply multiplies the damage on attacking or defending.

The upgrade cards will be getting a list of the costs for certain upgrades. Extra armor of one type has one cost. Its down side is that only one armor type is possible, but a tank with 27 armor can get multiple times armor 1 that has to be chipped of now.

A multi possibility armor card would be getting the costs of each armor; its down side would be that the type is exactly the same as the main card.

wob wrote:
also if more counters on a card are better (i might have misunderstood - but its a gaming convention) why would i build facilities to reduce that number?
Facilities would reduce the costs to place other cards.
If a Rifle infantry has a value of 4. The cost is 8. But if a Barracks is on the table. The cost will remain 4.
If a player wants to place 2 rifle infantry, it needs 2 barracks to do so. If it has only 1 barracks, the costs are 12 instead of 8 or 16.

***

X3M wrote:
I try to tackle my resource management.

My sacrifice mechanic has a flaw. All players would be going to the most expensive cards. And only have those in the deck. If 1 rifle infantry costs 2 more rifle infantry. Then 1 infinity tank would costs 2 more infinity tanks.

So, I need to change this into something that will make expensive cards more expensive in another way.

Keep in mind, there is resource gathering in the game in the form of harvesters and refineries etc. But the player needs something to start placing those as well.

There are some ways:

Resource cards
I design instant resource cards. Like crates or something. But I feel this is a bit to much of a risk to a player.
It could be abused if the player has like 6 resource cards for every unit. Maybe limiting the effect to only one resource card each main card.

Making the weird deck going 50-50 in this regard. Which leads to the fact that different amounts of resource cards spells trouble. Every player would gather only the best. Unless the crates are all worth equally.

Starting resources
The player starts with a given amount of resources in the form of counters. (I am using counters any way)

A different kind of sacrifice
Each card in the hand counts for X.
Each card still on the deck counts for X+Y.
Players first consume cards from their hand and/or deck in order to place a certain card.
I think this should only be allowed as a one time payment. So no huge armies could be summoned by simply depleting the entire deck. Just one card at a time.
Also, the double costs are still applied here.

---

I would like to cut the costs of all cards into 2. Having the rifle infantry cost 2, and grenadiers cost 3. Right now, they are 4 and 6.
The cheapest walls would be costing 0.5. But that is ok. You would always get sets of 2 this way.
I need to prevent having X+0.5 on other cards. But so far, all cards seem to be having an even number.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
when you discard to buy i

when you discard to buy i think you can go 2 ways.
1) to play you must discard x cards. it doesnt matter what they are its just the number.
this evens out how much each card is worth in buying value.
2) to play a card discard x resource. lets call it gold. each card has a different amount of gold printed and a gold cost to play so to pay 3 gold you could play 3 infantry (1/1/1), 1 infantry and 1 heavy artillery (1/2) or just 1 tank (3). to be fancy you could have a mix of resourses, infantry costs gold but provides meat and bullets.

i also think you should only be able to pay from the hand, but maybe give ways to draw extra cards.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
wob wrote:when you discard to

wob wrote:
when you discard to buy i think you can go 2 ways.
1) to play you must discard x cards. it doesnt matter what they are its just the number.
this evens out how much each card is worth in buying value.

Seems so far the best option in the sacrificing mechanic.
wob wrote:

2) to play a card discard x resource. lets call it gold. each card has a different amount of gold printed and a gold cost to play so to pay 3 gold you could play 3 infantry (1/1/1), 1 infantry and 1 heavy artillery (1/2) or just 1 tank (3). to be fancy you could have a mix of resourses, infantry costs gold but provides meat and bullets.

Do you mean that the player sacrifices cards AND pays some resources that it has beforehand? That could work too.
wob wrote:

i also think you should only be able to pay from the hand, but maybe give ways to draw extra cards.

Agreed. No touching deck. The hand is 7 cards, refilled every round.

Maybe having a player discard cards from the hand and start saving them up in a sacrifice pile??

Also, I plan on having radar station cards. In a cumulative way, each set adds 1 more card for the hand.
1 provides 1.
3 provides 2.
6 provides 3. Etc.
It can't go over the top this way.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Counters, dividing or not?

I already discarded dividing counters in certain, if not, all situations.

I need to rework on this one.

Perhaps not allowing it.
Or to several with the help of new cards that allow this.

I can't stand having 1 stick, stopping 100 rifle infantry. I need to fix this asap.

...and fixed...

Those cards that attack and have not been defended against yet. Can be defended against.
10 infantry attacking can be blocked by 10 walls again.
This shows that I need to be careful with my combat rules. One mistake, and the game is broken.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Anything that matters

I compiled all the bits into one document. I now need to reorder them into making clear rules.

I am happy to share that it is 3 pages at the moment.
The card costs calculation should be removed and put in a personal document.

A 3 pages rule book for a card game is neat. If I manage to get it into 2. That would even be neater.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
what i meant by my second

what i meant by my second option was...
a card takes x to play. x could simply be cards like option 1 or x could be a separate resource that each card has.
if they were worth 1-3 of that resource they would effectively work as 1-3 cards in option 1.
this means you can add a separate layer of value to a card. ie its not good for fighting but its great when it turns up in my hand because i can play somthing big.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
wob wrote:what i meant by my

wob wrote:
what i meant by my second option was...
a card takes x to play. x could simply be cards like option 1 or x could be a separate resource that each card has.
if they were worth 1-3 of that resource they would effectively work as 1-3 cards in option 1.
this means you can add a separate layer of value to a card. ie its not good for fighting but its great when it turns up in my hand because i can play somthing big.

I will keep it in mind. But if possible, one resource.

Here is what I got so far on resources.

I have each card being 1 resource on sacrifice.
Applying your idea could mean making cards weaker, but worth more when sacrificed. Unsure yet on the balance.

A special resource card that supplies 2 resources on sacrifice.
A special resource card that supplies 3 resources on sacrifice. But only one or a few can be played each round.
6x2, 4x3, 3x4, 2x6 and 1x12 per round is my first thought on this.

Players start with depletable resources to get something on the table. Not sure yet about the amount. Seeing as how 1 soldier costs at least 4 resources with a sacrifice. And a hand has 7 cards.
24 resources sound like a good number.

Most cards have to be paid twice their value.

Some cards supply with a steady stream of resources. Like the mana from MtG. You just have to spend it right away.

Some cards can convert temporary resources into a depletable source. Saving up resources for later.

Some cards make other cards cheaper. By only one time the resources.

Upgrade cards cannot be made cheaper? So they have normal costs in any case? Or should I add an armory or science lab?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Resources are out of wack

Most resource cards are good. But the constant stream of resources is giving a snow ball effect.

My first attempt had it doubled for every next set.
My second attempt had it adding like 50% every next set.

MtG had it linear (until the weird cards started showing up). Perhaps limiting the player to place only 1 each round? And having the bigger ones cost cumulative?

So...
1 resource per round could cost 2.
2 resources per round could cost 6.
3 costs 12. 4 costs 20.
To compare with a tank, a tank costs 16.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
your cost levels seem fine

your cost levels seem fine (no idea what the right term is). its simple and easy to work out and will make getting to playtesting easier.
there are other patterns you can use though. a lot of games use triangular numbers (1,3,6,10 etc) to make the steps more substantial. i like Fibonacci (1,2,3,5,8,13) but thats just a preference.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Here is the snowball effect playtest log

Both players have a construction yard. All structures have default costs.

Tier one solar panels costs 2. And supplies 1 each round.

The player that managed had a fodder wall up and could keep it for 3 rounds.

Round one with wall up:
The player has 4 resource crates of 2 each.
The player manages to place solar panels.
4 counters.

Round two with the wall up:
The player has 4 resources from the solar panels.
And sacrifices 4 more cards.
Another solar panel card is played.
This one gets 4 counters as well.

Round three with the wall up:
8 resources now from the solar panels.
2 resource crates and 4 cards are sacrificed.
The third and final solar panel card is played.
8 counters now.

The player has 16 resources from now on.
The opponent only had 4 at that time.
Seeing as how 1 card gives 1 resource at least. It was now 22 vs 10 resources.

***

I did a calculation of what would happen if someone had like at least 1 solar panel every round and can build them for 2. No resource cards.

6 cards gives +3.=3
6 cards and 3 resources gives +4. =7
6 cards and 7 resources gives +6. =13
6 cards and 13 resources gives +9. =22
6 cards and 22 resources gives +14. =36

In just 5 rounds, a player could multiply the resources by a factor 6, from 6 cards to 36 free resources.

Sure there is a risk. Because during that time, the opponent had the chance to spend 30 resources. But from that moment onwards, it is 1 to 6. A wall that is strong enough gives the time.

The play test was close. 1 to 2 after 3 rounds And I wonder about the chances when a full deck is ready and designed.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Where was my last post?

I did one with improvement on the last. With new calculations and all.

O well, here is a shorter answer then. :)

Players may place "constant resources" cards each turn as much as they want.
But are not allowed to place counters on them.

It ends with 21 instead of 36 in the same situation, as described in the previous post.

21<30<36. So it is truly an investment now.

Players also need more of these cards in their decks. I am sure there is an optimal distribution now.
Chances are also very low that they have that much resources cards in their hand to get the most optimal result.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
it sounds like your well on

it sounds like your well on the way. now its time for spreadsheets to balance everything then playtesting to tell you its unbalanced.
the balance is the bit i hate the most, especially when its 100% balanced on paper but it still feels off in testing.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I talk too much.

wob wrote:
it sounds like your well on the way. now its time for spreadsheets to balance everything then playtesting to tell you its unbalanced.
the balance is the bit i hate the most, especially when its 100% balanced on paper but it still feels off in testing.

I know that feel.

Also, how do you feel about 'defending cards only' have twice their armor? And then twice their armor costs added to the total?

That way I can keep the simplest unit, the rifle infantry, at 2. Not 4. And the simplest wall at 1.

***

I noticed in a playtest that only fodder walls are used to stop any unit. Even fodder killing units.
Stronger walls are only used to be part of a squad. Especially when dealing with fodder killing units.

Perhaps I should change the rule that when anything stops an opponent. And the opponent has multiple projectiles. That only the overkill in projectiles in 1 shot is allowed to have 'trample'.

I should make a distinct difference between ONE and INFINITE combat.

The results would be like this:

Any wall that defends, will be destroyed.
If the armor is higher than the total damage, the weapon is depleted for a next target.
If the damage is higher than the armor. The player needs to see how many projectiles are stopped. The remaining ones can hit a next target or defender.

A wall of 9 armor (tier 3) would work like this against 4 weapons of the same cost:
Against 8 projectiles of 1. All are stopped.
Against 4 projectiles of 3. 1 projectile of 3 can continieu.
Against 2 projectiles of 9. 1 projectile of 9 can continieu.
Against 1 projectile of 27. All are stopped.

This shows a very balanced RPS regarding wall function now :)

The original armor set had only one weapon getting through. But fodder sucks in a triangular battle resolution. 1, 4, 16, 64 was changed into 1, 3, 9, 27 for that purpose. The triangular fodder numbers are 1, 3, 10, 36.
Trust me when I say that flame based weapons are the norm in the game to begin with.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Combat, can it be made simpler?

The combat rules are almost a full page.
I tried to simplify them.
Tried making them understandable.

Maybe something can be scrapped. IDK.

But when I look at the rules.
It looks so confusing.
I know how it is to be played.
But I doubt that others would understand.

Edit:
I am going to grind on it for a while before posting it here if any one is willing to take a look.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
im sure plenty of people here

im sure plenty of people here will critique them for you.
i find one of the best ways to test rules is to give them to someone in your playtest and let them run the game. it will soon become apparent if they are workable.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Something came up when playing

Before I continue working on the combat mechanic itself (needs some simplifying for sure). I need to work on tier 2 attributes. They will be of influence on the combat mechanic itself.

The interesting part is that I want them to be more than just a modifier on damage. Now I said that the combat mechanic also needs to be simplified, but perhaps these 2 attributes will help in this.

Tier 2 attributes:
-Fast; each addition adds another multiplier to attacks.
-Ranged; each addition adds another multiplier to defending.

How do these 2 work so far?

Let's say that a normal rifle man has 1/1 and costs 2.

A rifle man that is ranged will do more damage when defending.
A rifle man that is fast will do more damage when attacking.

If it is ranged/fast +2, the rifle man will do 3 times the normal amount of shots when defending/attacking.
The costs would be the average of 2 and 4, which is 3. And this would create a natural RPS as well. Some cards will be good in attacking and other in defending.

I want to spice things up.

If I where to use both attributes on the same card. It would be the same as having a multiplier on the weapon by default. Why would anyone choose for either?

What I could do is that these attributes are self-annihilating. No matter if they attack or defend.

Ranged +2 vs Ranged +2 would mean a difference of 0. One of the sides is attacking. Thus the weapon would already be reduced to 1 time. But the opponent that is defending is also reduced to 1. The same could be said about Fast.

Perhaps I could have Fast +2 also reduce Ranged +2 and vice versa. This would make any card with these attributes handier for a cost. Namely becoming a meat shield against the same type of cards.
Although, a fast defender against a ranged attacker would make no difference; they where already at only x1 damage.

If one of the cards still manage to break through; the effect of reduction remains.

I should also tell the players that each player can choose which attribute is reduced on their side when dealing with cards that use both attributes.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Tripple dots!

I can't bring myself to just posting the combat mechanic here. I don't think that any one would understand without having some cards ready to try it out??

What would be a good way to approach this?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut