Skip to Content

What is an normal amount of pieces per player?

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

I am pondering about the amount of pieces that I give to each player in my game.
A&A has about 55 per player.
Risk has about 60 per player.

But when I count my idea's. I get to 100 to 300 per player. Any structure or passive piece included.

Is that to much? Should I reconsider?

Mosker
Mosker's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2014
Three (to start) "too much and many" aspects to consider

1. Sorting at the beginning of the game.
2. Keeping track of during the game (both on the communal playing service and in reserve piles for possible use).
3. Manufacturing.

How do your games compare to the examples you listed viewing these criteria?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
You'll also want to consider this (maybe)

Jamey Stegmaier reported having troubles fulfilling orders because of all the "wood" being used in his games. While I'm not sure if it was only Scythe or a combination of several games like Viticulture, expansions and Scythe ... the problem did arise with too much wood being used in his games.

That's a bit of a bizarre problem to have... It's bad because it slows down manufacturing and you hope that the order that are HOT remain so... He wasn't talking about orders to consumers but ... to distributors.

So his manufacturer was having a hard time keeping up with the demand of Jamey's distributors...

Knowing this to be a real fact... if you're dealing with wood and Jamey deals with Panda Manufacturing ... don't manufacture with Panda or reduce the amount of wood you are using (knowing that Jamey is hogging up all of Panda's wood making facilities).

I doubt that this would cause you any problems... but it's anecdotal and light, so I figured I'd share this with everyone else.

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

I tried to answer those 3 questions for my game.
It shows that I have waaay to much pieces for every question. Although the second one was kinda fixed.

***

I initially had 4x4=16 different types of units.
An equal amount of defence designs; 16.
4x walls
4x harvesters
4x refineries
4x production facilities
4x construction facilities

That is a total of 52. A deck of statistics.
The average amount of pieces is 2 to 6 times higher, depending on designs. Henceforth the 100-300.

***

Having 4 races would give me this amount:
Each race had 2x4=8 different types of units.
An equal amount of defence designs; 8.
2x walls
2x harvesters
2x refineries
2x production facilities
2x construction facilities

A total of 26. With 4 races, that is 2 decks of 52 regarding statistics.
That plan backfired because it would require me to have 200-600 pieces.

***

My last idea was to scrap 2 types completely.
This also removes the idea for races for the "starters" set.
2x2=4 different types of units.
An equal amount of defence designs; 4.
2x walls
2x harvesters
2x refineries
2x production facilities
2x construction facilities

A total of 18 designs to begin with.
36-108 per player.
I think the box would only contain for 4 players max. Thus a total of around 400 pieces.
But there is room for 6 players, depending on the amount of races that I might design.

I still could do different races (any amount). The total would not change much. But the different designs would. With 3 races and 6 players. I could have very nice team games with each player being a different race.

***

In conclusion. I think I will come back to this topic when I decided on how to cut half of my game.

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Probably a good plan. If

Probably a good plan. If you’re planning to manufacture this, it would already be a large, heavy box that cost a lot. And can players really wrap their heads around so so many pieces? It strongly implies that the game is too complicated.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Parts are expensive

I don't know about parts from China – But parts from "The Game Crafter" (TGC) are rather "expensive". I have 160 wooden 10mm cubes and that's costing about $40 USD (+60 card deck)... But still it make the price point of the game rather high. With volume (100+ orders) that drops to $32 USD... Still kinda HIGH for the "core" game.

I'm trying to be able to use TGC as my "core" manufacturer. Fulfillment is all managed by TGC "Bulk Order Fulfillment" (or BOF) and shipping varies per country. Shipping is not part of the KS reward, it gets added to the price of your order.

But still it's not cheap...

I've got to struggle with the price point and balance with the parts... So that the minimum used by the game is covered and that in most cases, there are not too many parts left unused.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Jay103 wrote:Probably a good

Jay103 wrote:
Probably a good plan. If you’re planning to manufacture this, it would already be a large, heavy box that cost a lot. And can players really wrap their heads around so so many pieces? It strongly implies that the game is too complicated.

How many different kind of pieces do you find complicated?

Or is it more or less the possible statistics?

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
X3M wrote:Jay103

X3M wrote:
Jay103 wrote:
Probably a good plan. If you’re planning to manufacture this, it would already be a large, heavy box that cost a lot. And can players really wrap their heads around so so many pieces? It strongly implies that the game is too complicated.

How many different kind of pieces do you find complicated?

Or is it more or less the possible statistics?


Without knowing anything about the game, if at some point during play I have 300 pieces of ANYTHING I need to be thinking about, I'm either going to have a VERY long turn, or I'm going to lose my train of thought completely.

Would 100 have that problem? I have no idea. But I'm pretty sure 300 would.

Also that means that there are 1000+ pieces in the box. That's a lot of stuff.

QuestCCG wrote:
I don't know about parts from China – But parts from "The Game Crafter" (TGC) are rather "expensive". I have 160 wooden 10mm cubes and that's costing about $40 USD (+60 card deck)... But still it make the price point of the game rather high. With volume (100+ orders) that drops to $32 USD... Still kinda HIGH for the "core" game.

I'm pretty sure it's MUCH cheaper in China. I don't have any cubes in my game, but spielpro.com has 8mm painted cubes for $0.10 each, or $0.06 if you're buying at least 500 (plus free shipping over $20).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Some more info.

I have been working on a smaller amount of pieces.

Right now, I think that I will only allow infantry and tanks.
Expansion sets can contain the other 2 classes and all additional suplements.

I will be having 100 - 130 pieces per player at the moment.
And this all should fit in 18 hexagons. That is a radius of 2.

Some FAQ's:
-With only 2 classes of weapons/health's. There are 18 designs to be one complete army.
-About only 15 - 20 pieces will be able to move towards the enemy.
-About 30 - 40 pieces have health tracking IF they are attacked by the weaker damage class.
-About 30 - 40 pieces will be able to fight. They might be removed or be damaged.

***

8 statistics for each design:
- Costs per piece
- Weapon costs of a piece
- Speed
- Health
- Range
- Multiplier
- Damage
- Accuracy

There are 18 different designs. However, a structure that has another function then being defence. Would only need these 2 statistics:
- Costs per piece
- Health

I think I will change the list of statistics per design class. That would be:
- 4 units; 8 statistics.
- 4 defences; 7 statistics (no speed).
- 2 walls; 2 statistics.
- 2 harvesters; 3 statistics.
- 2 refineries; 3 statistics.
- 2 production facilities; 3 statistics.
- 2 construction facilities; 3 statistics.

***

I'll put some together, and post it all here. But that takes a day or 2.

Further, I think I will only "tell" players what a production facility can do. I am not going to have different designs in this like I had in my original game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I know China is less expensive...

Jay103 wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's MUCH cheaper in China. I don't have any cubes in my game, but www.spielpro.com has 8mm painted cubes for $0.10 each, or $0.06 if you're buying at least 500 (plus free shipping over $20).

Well I'm looking for 10mm painted cubes. And TGC sells them for $0.12 each. I have 20 of each color, and that's multiplied by 8 colors = 160 cubes. If you do the math that's $19.20 USD. Plus I need a bag/pouch and separator for the box to better organize the content into three (3) sections.

All that is over $20+ USD.

With POD, you get a single unit price (say $xx.xx USD) and then they give you a POD rebate for 100+ games made. So you get the best price break at 100 units but nothing more... If you make 1,000 units or 100 units, the price point (and savings) is the same.

I also need to see if we get 1,000 units, would TGC allow for "bundling" within the order one (1) Fixed Booster for the "Adventure Pack" (think Quest). The game will come with one quest... Now how I handle this there are two (2) possibilities: 1> Bundle it with the TGC orders – it would probably take 1 box for 1,000 boosters. And TGC warehouses the box until all orders are fulfilled. 2> Would be purchasable from the online store. This means a required purchase at a later time. Basically I would ship via post office mail the boosters in a standard letter-mail envelope.

I prefer option #1 since it would all be in ONE (1) ORDER/shipment... But we'll see what is possible. A couple of boxes temporarily warehouses until the fulfillment can be done, isn't such an "unreasonable" request. And then whatever is left over (if any) can be shipped home. Basically requiring no mandatory space in TGC's warehouse (after all the orders are processed and shipped).

We'll see what is possible. I'll keep you all posted on my progress and direction. I could go with a Broker that will handle my orders from the USA and it might be less expensive than TGC and more expensive than China Direct. Still another possible outcome.

TBD – still too early to contemplate which direction to go in. I'm still working on the game too. Cheers!

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
questccg wrote:Jay103

questccg wrote:
Jay103 wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's MUCH cheaper in China. I don't have any cubes in my game, but www.spielpro.com has 8mm painted cubes for $0.10 each, or $0.06 if you're buying at least 500 (plus free shipping over $20).

Well I'm looking for 10mm painted cubes. And TGC sells them for $0.12 each. I have 20 of each color, and that's multiplied by 8 colors = 160 cubes. If you do the math that's $19.20 USD. Plus I need a bag/pouch and separator for the box to better organize the content into three (3) sections.

All that is over $20+ USD.
!


Oh sorry I thought you were saying it was $40. For a POD site, 12c isn’t bad.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Pricey but ... affordable.

Jay103 wrote:
...Oh sorry I thought you were saying it was $40. For a POD site, 12c isn’t bad.

Well you need to account for a Deck of 60 cards too! So the "Starter Kit" COSTS me $39.99 USD to MAKE. So that means I need to price it ABOVE that price, say at $44.99 USD... I make profit if it sell over the 100 units (due to the Bulk discount).

But IF you ADD the price of the "Adventure Pack", that's another $10.00 USD. So this 2 Player "Deck Construction" / "Engine" Game will cost about $54.99 USD for two (2) Players.

Pricey ... but not so unreasonable. You're getting a bunch of parts, a material pouch, two (2) Mini-Decks (of 30 cards each), one (1) "Adventure Pack" (additional +20 Cards) and a rulebook (10 pages).

Again pricey... But I'm hoping to have an awesome game that is worth the few extra dollars ($$$). We shall see, more thought into the game is what is required at this point.

Cheers!

Update: I'd need to see how costly a "broker" would do the job for. They work on MOQs of 500 units and quote for 1,000 and 1,500 units. There are economies of scale and usually the price points are attractive enough to make you go: "Hmm... for $x+ dollars I get more games?!" And usually the difference is manageable (in terms of pricing)... What to do with overstock?

IDK that either. Keep it for more KS' with new "Adventure Pack" (think +1,000 Fixed Boosters)... or whatever amount of backers there are for a specific quest! Then we can re-sell the original "Starter Kits" with the latest and greatest "Adventure Pack".

TBD – still very good questions at this point.

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
I’ve found manufacturers to

I’ve found manufacturers to be quite responsive if you ask for a quote with clear specs. PrintNinja probably the best source for education and also a quote but I don’t know if they do the exact wood cube you want (their prices are a bit higher than direct-to-China). Can get a deck of cards quote instantly though. 1000 is the “real” moq even if places do 500, because prices on 500 (that I’ve seen) are much much higher than 1000.

http://www.printninja.com/calculator/card-game-quote/

For example 54 cards in a tuck box is like $2 for 500 order or $1.50 for 1000

60 cards is a bad size though.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
TGC sounds very

TGC sounds very expensive.

Games using cardboard counters often have several hundred units. I believe a pretty standard countersheet has 180 counters, or maybe around 100 if they are bigger. But boxed games often have 2 or more sheets.

Not sure what the cost for an die-cut sheet is though. It would be a lot cheaper to ship. Not to mention the mechanical benefits (stats and decorations, two sides, stacks very well).

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
I have a quote for punchout

I have a quote for punchout sheets if that's any help..

3 sheets of 8x10, single-sided, quantity 1000, for $0.78 plus $50 setup charge. If you roll the setup into the per-unit amount, that's $0.83 for 3 sheets, or $0.28 per sheet.

(printninja quoted $1.32 for 3 8x8 sheets, which is.. not as good. but still better than PoD by a lot)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
3D aside. 2D options:

pelle wrote:
TGC sounds very expensive.

Games using cardboard counters often have several hundred units. I believe a pretty standard countersheet has 180 counters, or maybe around 100 if they are bigger. But boxed games often have 2 or more sheets.

Not sure what the cost for an die-cut sheet is though. It would be a lot cheaper to ship. Not to mention the mechanical benefits (stats and decorations, two sides, stacks very well).

For the units, 8 stats.
I think that is a bit to much on the "backside".

The front can use the 3 most often used stats:
- Costs per piece
- Weapon costs of a piece
- Health

So I am left with 5 stats for the units for the backside. I have not seen this before.
Perhaps putting Speed in front as well. Having 1 stat in each corner. The weapon stats on the backside. Since they are used only in combat.

Kinda like your avatar.

***

PS. for the rest.
I am not even interested in the costs just yet. Just to see what design path I need to take to keep things simple for players.
It almost feels like a hyjack.

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
X3M wrote:It almost feels

X3M wrote:
It almost feels like a hyjack.

Well, if that's not what's interesting to you, certainly. I (and others) thought you might find it relevant. The wooden cube thing was definitely a change of topic though :)

For my own current game, I actually changed the size of the map tiles (and therefore the map layouts) based on manufacturing optimization..

Daggaz
Daggaz's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2016
Keep in mind that A&A(2ed)

Keep in mind that A&A(2ed) uses red and white chips to count as extra units, and that the 55 molded pieces per player are rarely used in their entirety in most games (you need to have 55 seperate divisions to actually need this).

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Sorry about that

X3M wrote:
...It almost feels like a hyjack.

I thought you were concerned with PRICING. Now I see it's only a question of manageable parts (meaning you may have too many parts for the various versions of your game). At some point, when you will want to price your various parts, you'll be like: "Hmm... More expensive than I thought!"

Parts can quickly ADD up the cost even if only like $0.12 each. In my particular case they are 10mm painted wooden cubes... All 160 of them!

Might be different for your game.

I'm just saying parts = pricey.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
In my language, you guys are

In my language, you guys are called "unguided projectiles". But that is humor in our country. Not to think much of it, ok?
I was the one that had to redirect the guidance to begin with.

That is also why I said, it almost feels like a hyjack. Because I knew for certain there was a slight misunderstanding.
I asked for amount of pieces.
I got prices for pieces.
Small difference I would say :D

True that the prices will matter on the subject when the real production starts, so I didn't put a direct stop on it.
Was curious any way.

But seeing as how things are now with my game. That would take a year or 2? If everything goes right. It would be a simple matter of asking again. But still.
First planning on the amount of pieces. Before I design an army completely would be my best bet on this.

To be short. 3D is something that is probably not going to happen. Certainly not wood. It would be pressed plastic like Risk and A&A.
Health tracking could be done with chits though. No need for fancy holes with pins in it, or something similar.

After reading Pelle's comment. I am starting to feel that I need to go with the ASL route. 2D squares.
If 2D, then I got the option of putting all the stats on each piece. Some on top, battle stats on bottom. And most pieces will have only 2 or 3 stats. It should be easy enough.
And table's are not needed this way. Nor statistic cards.

Unlike A&A. My 100 pieces per player (still declining) would actually be used. A player will have a really small amount of pieces on the board per design. After all, 6 rifle infantry and 3 tanks are the initial army. Of course, 3-4 anti tank infantry and 3-4 anti infantry tanks are to join the club. And the exact same can be said for defence structures.

The above would be in the starting box.

But expansion sets would add some more pieces per player. Not much. And these would be cheap. That was my initial goal.
And I still didn't get to designing the "small" starting set, life is interrupting me as we speak.

That all said.

Let's assume my pieces will eventually be equal to the ASL pieces.
How much would those 2D pieces cost?

And is team colour an option?

How about team colour in expansion sets? How do you feel about having new units being brought in 4 or 6 different colours?

***

I was not angry or anything.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
I would not worry TOO much

I would not worry TOO much about the number of stats either. Having to flip counters to read some values is not ideal, and probably worse than crowding the front a bit.

You might like the final published counters from my game better than the early prototype I use for avatat. :)
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/485637
Those also show how 5-6 values still leave a lot of room to spare. But it helps that there really are very few different uses for all those stats. The letter is unit type, only used for setup (zero special rules are tied to unit type, so you can ignore that letter during play). The big number is movement. The row of dice in hexes are attack value at ranges 1-4. Never had any trouble with players not grasping that. If all the values have different uses you have to make sure there is a very clear symbology, or you will end up like some ASL counters with numbers everywhere (and underlines and symbols) you have to memorize what every position is.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Trenches of Valor is your game?!

That is awesome!

But it worries me. Since some units will be that machine gun, rifle infantry and grenadier. Those 3. I had them a lot in my original game as well. I don't want to sound like a copycat.

I am going to have tanks and more of a futuristic theme plus a dessert environment.

***

From here on, another tldr.

Arrangement of a piece

Well, 8 stats means 4 on each side.
Left and right I mean. I could give some logical order. But some are often double digits in my game.

I can replace a lot of 10's with an X and keep 10 as a maximum.
A range, speed or multiplier of 11 or more will have no reasonable function in the game.

But the "costs" of the piece and the weapon, are both 2 digits in 50% of the times.

On top, I can have only 1 weapon per piece now. Or else the piece would be to crowed with digits.
It is 4 statistics per weapon.
Or I find another way around.

As arrangement I think that it would be best to have all weapon statistics on the right.

On the left, we have the costs obviously in the top left corner. But the weapon costs should be in the lower left corner. Speed and Health will be on the left, mirroring the Range and Damage from the weapon statistics.

The list:
CC - Costs per piece
WW - Weapon costs of a piece
S - Speed
H - Health
R - Range
M - Multiplier
D - Damage
A - Accuracy

The piece arrangement with all stats:

CC-M
H--D
S--R
WW-A

The piece arrangement for defence would be the same. Simply having a 0 for movement. Sometimes (machine gun placement) it isn't obvious enough for players.

Walls will have this:

C---
H---
----
----

And structures that do something will have this:

CC--
H---
----
P---

P="produces "health=1"" Something along that line. It would be another symbol.

In my original game, I had harvesters throw around the resources. So, they will be having some more statistics as well:

CC-M
H--F
S--R
----

Where F is fuel or something. I dunno yet.

Jay103
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Any way to eliminate the

Any way to eliminate the double-digit values? Do you need that much precision?

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
10 or 11 do not necessarily

10 or 11 do not necessarily use up much more space than some single digits, with a good choice of font. 20 is where it gets difficult.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Jay103 wrote:Any way to

Jay103 wrote:
Any way to eliminate the double-digit values? Do you need that much precision?

Right now. I think that is impossible.

But the list for total costs is always the same:
36, 18, 9, 6, 4, 3 and 2.
There are no other costs.

The weapon costs are more variable.
But often 50% of that of the total costs.

Sadly, both numbers are the most important for balance.

pelle wrote:
10 or 11 do not necessarily use up much more space than some single digits, with a good choice of font. 20 is where it gets difficult.

Because of the one. I see.
Luckily, a range and speed of 19 is ridiculous.
But 12 was used a lot in the original game for support weapons and airplanes.
Now it might be 13, but only range so far.

I Will Never Gr...
I Will Never Grow Up Gaming's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2015
Jay103 wrote: I'm pretty sure

Jay103 wrote:

I'm pretty sure it's MUCH cheaper in China. I don't have any cubes in my game, but spielpro.com has 8mm painted cubes for $0.10 each, or $0.06 if you're buying at least 500 (plus free shipping over $20).

8mm Translucent Acrylic cubes will run you about $0.01 each (and around the same for wood) when you're manufacturing in China, so yes, absolutely cheaper.

For "what is a normal amount of pieces per player" .. 1-1000. There is no normal. It's very dependent on the game itself.

That said, your best served to reduce the number of components to get to your minimum viable product. The less pieces, the less "fiddly" work for the players and the lower your costs (therefore the lower you can set your retail price).
It's a win-win-win to get your components as low as possible while retaining a good core game.

What that number is, nobody can really tell you without sitting down with your game for several sessions and figuring out how much they really need to use.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
TRUTH!

I Will Never Grow Up Gaming wrote:
...It's a win-win-win to get your components as low as possible while retaining a good core game.

What that number is, nobody can really tell you without sitting down with your game for several sessions and figuring out how much they really need to use.

Yeah it's the same with my own WIP. Right now I have 20 of each wooden colored cube. But is that the best, most optimal value? IDK – Yet. It needs playtesting and then maybe a small "buffer", in the event that some extreme play-style results in more of one cube being used (over 20 for example)...

But IWNGUG is correct: playtesting is the only way to know!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
First playtest results; "still a bit clumsy"

I have the following composition of the army for one player:

Walls:
18 Wooden Fence
9 Concrete Wall

Units:
6 Rifle Infantry
4 Rocket Soldier
3 Chain Gun Tank
3 Combat Tank

Defences
6 Sentry Gun
3 Rocket Emplacement
4 Guard Tower
3 Turret

Resource Gatherers
4 Worker
2 Harvester

Resource Refineries
6 Processor
3 Refinery

Production Facilities
6 Barracks
3 Heavy Factory

Construction Facilities
6 Light Crane
3 Construction Yard

A total of:
70 structures, of which 16 can shoot. (There are 27 walls within these structures.)
22 units, of which 16 can shoot.
So a complete total of 92 pieces exactly per player.

(All hand drawn at the moment, with numbers on the sides)

Single sided punch out pieces??
I can't manage with 8x10.
But having reserves doesn't hurt either.
I pretend, 2 sheets per player for this. And 4 or 6 players to start with.

$2,24 per box or 3,36 per box.

A stack of walls though, aren't what I seek. Some players like to have 18 wooden fence in a choke point.

***

Amount of Damage counters
How much would I need?
There are 33 pieces per player that will have 4 health.
1 to 3 damage is to be tracked, IF anti infantry weapons are used. And there is only a total of 22 projectiles of those.
This means that each player needs 66 of damage 1 if they try out the worst combination?
The back side of a damage tracker is 3 damage.

I don't know, for the whole box, just two "sheets" of 8x10 double sided cardboard damage chits?
Single sided would be $0,28 per sheet. That is 2 sheets of 1 damage and 1 sheet of 3 damage per box. 3 sheets in total.
$0,84 per box.

(waaay ahead of myself, right here)
How much would double sided cost?
Of which I only need 2 sheets then.

***

Units do the most in the game. They either move or attack (or do both with an Event Card).

A third stack of pieces?? Or just something simple like a resources sheet??
Resource gatherers just sit on resources. They can move, but it is more or less a 1 time only worker placement. If an enemy approaches, they can move away. For now, slow moving units.
And Refineries are a second checkpoint for players to gather resources.
eg. A player has 3 workers that get 9 each. And 2 Refineries that process 12 each. This player will get only 24 resources.

I think. And asked my cousin about it. That it is possible to make some sort of wheels with numbers on them. A little slot machine. But a disk might work as well.
If not. Pieces of "bronze", "silver" and "gold" might be used. Where bronze is 1, silver is 10 and gold is 100??
A player can gather a maximum of 72 per round at the moment.
It is best to go with something like a wheel with numbers here.

For the playtest, I used some of Kristophers stuff:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.thegamecrafter.com/5e97c0b53b329eff6a08f8...

Might as well use that idea, but make one where the 1000's are also present. Maybe a bit more shock resilient as well.

1 sheet and 4 cubes per player.
I don't know yet, maybe 1000's are to much. But a maximum of +72 per round is only the beginning. Players will get estimated +36 with each expansion pack.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
(sidetracked) 1 new rule

Also. During the play tests. I added a new rule.

Just like how an entire squad is exhausted after only a part has attacked another player.

So will movement be, if only a part of a squad can move to a new location. The rest that stays behind will be exhausted.

Choke points and player blocks will have much more of an impact now.

I don't know yet if friendly blocks also will have influence on this.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I don't know if this helps or not

But instead of maintaining HP stat for each unit/building, maybe you can simplify it just a bit:

  • A building can be Undamaged, Damaged and Destroyed. Undamaged means no damage token, Damaged means ONE (1) token and Destroyed is removed from the field of play.

  • Same principle for units too.

It could go a long way in simplifying damage tracking.

I'm not saying "do it this way", I'm just offering up a suggestion on how to simplify damage tracking.

Alternatively you could use 3 winks (of different color: Green, Yellow, Red) and that would mean:

  • Undamaged = no token

  • Minor Damage = Green token

  • Moderate Damage = Yellow token

  • Serious Damage = Red token

  • Destroyed = no token (and you flip over the unit/building).

Just another perspective, a bit more complicated ... but still cool too.

Anyway this is neither here nor there. Just something that came to mind when reading your posts. All those structures and units need Damage Tracking ... And it seems like this might be the "make it" or "break it" part of the game.

Feel free to critique/comment/etc.

Cheers.

Update: If you use multiple colors (Green/Yellow/Red) you can do something like Magic = You must inflict ENOUGH damage to get the unit/building in a weaker state... If not the unit rests or the building get repaired and all damage is ignore.

I don't know if I have explained myself well... Basically you need to do "X" damage to go from Yellow to Red. If you do "X - 1" (for example) that is insufficient damage, that unit or building will remain in the Yellow state...

So it's kind of like ALL or NOTHING with various degrees of damage. You MUST inflict "X" + "Y" damage (so at least X and over the top Y) and this means you can do more than one level of damage too.

Again hard to explain myself. If you have questions don't hesitate to ask.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I explain poorly myself, no worries here :)

questccg wrote:
But instead of maintaining HP stat for each unit/building, maybe you can simplify it just a bit:

+ A building can be Undamaged, Damaged and Destroyed. Undamaged means no damage token, Damaged means ONE (1) token and Destroyed is removed from the field of play.

+ Same principle for units too.

It could go a long way in simplifying damage tracking.

I'm not saying "do it this way", I'm just offering up a suggestion on how to simplify damage tracking.

Alternatively you could use 3 winks (of different color: Green, Yellow, Red) and that would mean:

+ Undamaged = no token

+ Minor Damage = Green token

+ Moderate Damage = Yellow token

+ Serious Damage = Red token

+ Destroyed = no token (and you flip over the unit/building).

Just another perspective, a bit more complicated ... but still cool too.

Anyway this is neither here nor there. Just something that came to mind when reading your posts. All those structures and units need Damage Tracking ... And it seems like this might be the "make it" or "break it" part of the game.

Feel free to critique/comment/etc.

Cheers.

Update: If you use multiple colors (Green/Yellow/Red) you can do something like Magic = You must inflict ENOUGH damage to get the unit/building in a weaker state... If not the unit rests or the building get repaired and all damage is ignore.

I don't know if I have explained myself well... Basically you need to do "X" damage to go from Yellow to Red. If you do "X - 1" (for example) that is insufficient damage, that unit or building will remain in the Yellow state...

So it's kind of like ALL or NOTHING with various degrees of damage. You MUST inflict "X" + "Y" damage (so at least X and over the top Y) and this means you can do more than one level of damage too.

Again hard to explain myself. If you have questions don't hesitate to ask.

Well. You have a point there. There is a reason why I still have some damage tracking. It supports the RPS mechanics for at least 2/3th of the game. In the future, units with 2 and 8 health would enter as well.
The thing is; damage tracking is rare.

8 damage kills 8 health and is obviously overkill on 4, 2 and 1 health.
4 damage needs 2 shots on 8 health, and kills 4, 2 and 1 health.
2 damage needs 4 shots on 8 health and 2 shots on 4 health. It kills 2 and 1 health.
1 damage only kills 1 health units.

Right now, I only allow 1 and 4 health.
Mathematically speaking, <25% of the combat will result in damage tracking.
With all 4 types, this will be <37,5%. But 4 times the amount of piece types. <6 times more.
Players tend to use the right weapons for the right targets. And Event Cards will help too in this.

***

Another route that I could take.

With double sided pieces, I could apply 2 health to all units.
In the past I considered "do or die" principle, just like how you described it. Where it was 1 hit and dead.
With double sided, it is 2 hits.

But a demand of the game would be that tanks would have less chance to be killed. This limits me in several ways:

1- durability roll is always needed to be applied instead of simply applying damage after a hit. This means that combat takes twice as long to be concluded.

2- balance is thrown of again. I don't know if the outnumbered rule will be of use here. I do know that using a "50%" factor on durability has awesome concequences for the game balance. And my bonus rule could be forfit. But it limits me to only 3 armor types. AND I need to properly test this theory.

3- while I have 1, 2, 4 and 8 health right now. Durability would be limited to 6, 3, 2, 1.5, 1.2 and "1" with 1 die roll. 36, 9, 4, 2.25, 1.44 and "1" with 2 dice rolls. Probably not using the decimal durability factors. Either way, I need to rethink the RPS balance. It would be easy to adept again. But no one liked the 1/36th chance.
I also would need to go back to larger armies to keep the combat declining force going. 36 rifle infantry have a decent chance in damaging a tank. That, and, range and speed factors are less. Thus needing a bigger board.

Seeing point 2, my true armor types would have the rolling chances of 1/Xth:
Tanks; 36 --> 9
Vehicles; 9 --> 2.25
Troopers; 4 --> 1
Infantry; 1 --> 1?? Maybe Infantry on the spot of Troopers. IDK yet.

It is hard to design with an expansion in mind.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut