Skip to Content

What is an normal amount of pieces per player?

36 replies [Last post]
X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Bye >33% of the pieces!...But what about walls?

I want once again, remove a lot:

X3M wrote:
18 Wooden Fence
9 Concrete Wall
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

There are games out there that have removed specific purpose base building. Structures now have have multi purposes.
All a player gets to have is a base structure.
This way, I combine construction, production and refineries into one. Even resource can be added. This way, there aren't resources needed on the map. It is produced directly and used directly.

But I don't know yet how to do it exactly.
Simply saying it has multiple purposes?
Or something comparable like a worker placement.
Let's say, a base structures has worker placement points. And this can be customized by the player.

The more I think about it. I could simply have basic structures with points on them. Players can simply get these points every round and spend them for placing units or defence structures. But let's not forget, the base structure itself; "can reproduce itself". I think that I will allow some cumulative penalty to this, because we don't want players to take over the map that fast. Let's say, expanding by 1 or so, costs a fixed percentage of all building points.

Saving up money will not be allowed any more. This immediately removes tracking it for players.

The player now only has the following:
- 27 walls
- 16 units
- 16 defence structures
- X Base structures; of 1 health/1 point and of 4 health/2 points. Or a multiplication of that.

Those 27 walls, I don't like the fact that I would be needing 27 pieces for them. Either if those are wall pieces, or something along a piece and counters on it.
Removing them from the game won't do. Walls are THÉ way to fodder or meat protect ANYTHING.

If I get a good replacement. Then the major game would be 32 pieces per player. Then some pieces that is the multi purpose base. And something to replace the walls with.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Walls to overcome

I have been pondering about the walls in my game.

There is not much information on a wall. It has its costs and its health value displayed on them.

Since damage counters can be another size then a piece. I thought of having these being 25% in area compared to the normal pieces.
And walls will be 50% in area. Thus 2 damage pieces can fit one wall.

In future expansions, there are 8 health walls. These will be normal size again, since there are only 6 of them per player.

Would this be more expensive?
Or would this cost the same?
Or less?

How about game play?
How would you picture the effects on the game?

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
I have an IDEA

X3M wrote:
...Either if those are wall pieces, or something along a piece and counters on it. Removing them from the game won't do. Walls are THÉ way to fodder or meat protect ANYTHING.

There might be an "interesting" mechanic that I remember from "Sid Meir's Civilization"... When you "deploy" units, I believe at some point in time (technology or units-based) you get the ABILITY to "FORTIFY UNITS".

Instead of having WALLS for "fodder", how about just having a FORTIFY where the stats of that unit get altered...

An example: A TANK fortifies. Normally it's a 4 Atk and 3 Dfs. Using FORTIFY transforms it to a 4 Atk and (+5) Dfs = 8 Dfs. How it works is that the "fortified" unit cannot "initiate" an ATTACK. It may DEFEND from other units who attack it (and have an impressive defense bonus) and VOILA...

No need for WALLS... Maybe you like this, or maybe you don't... It's just and IDEA that you might want to borrow and get rid of all your WALLS.

Use it if you like it... If not... Well think about it. It might give you other ideas...

Cheers @Ramon.

Note: You could therefore use ANY of your units to FORTIFY and "make walls" DYNAMICALLY without the need for an "actual wall". Sure your "frontline" could be FORTIFIED and your combat troops behind the fortified forces...

Usually there is some rule like, troops BEHIND "fortified" units may attack "within range" AND "through the 'frontline'"... What this means is that the "fortified" units act like WALLS for the enemy, but for your own forces, they can allow ranged units to penetrate across the fortifications and attack the oncoming opposition (or the ones attacking your frontline).

Note #2: I believe it also allowed you to STACK a certain amount of units. Perhaps you could ADD +1 Stat which is STACK SIZE. Basically your FORTIFIED unit can allow "X" units to occupy the SAME space and the fortified unit would defend all those units.

I don't know if this would work in your game or not... It's just another idea I thought up of (for melee units). So you could have your TANK and maybe like FIVE (5) Marines (melee units)... And your TANK protects your Marines from the enemy (like a WALL) but your Marines can attack opposing melee units in range.

The idea is that SOME units can act as walls and PROTECT other units. You can have a STACK stat as explained above to make more sense about what units can protect other ones. Like a FORTIFIED "Marine" could STACK = 3. So he could protect three (3) other "Marines"...

Something like that too might help...

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I got an idea!!

I appreciate your suggestions.

But I don't see most of them work in my game as how it is right now.

Only the A&A rule that you described, I already have that.

I can see fortified units working in my game. I would use "transform" on those units. And then they are simply a stronger front line indeed. Perhaps still able to shoot, but with less accuracy.
But I have to meddle with durability of those units. And I got rid of durability since it slows down the game by 100%.
The only thing left is the accuracy on "wrong" targets. A player rolls all dice and gathers them in a line, and when the wrong target is dead, the rest of the dice don't count. Then I could have this 3 being lowered to 2. And the normal dice being lowered to 4. So even if the right target is in front. If it is fortified, you already have the die rolled.

Health change is also not an option. Or I have to forbid a player changing the unit back. Or a penalty??
Normally a tank has 4 health. If it gains 8 health, it might take 5 damage, 3 health left. Transforming back would be 1,5 health, rounded down is 1 health.
I think that health would be the best choice here, if this fortifying is applied.

As strange as it sounds, I prefer the altered dice roll. I wanted players to not think about the damage change on units.
My original game had a example tank shoot with 9 and 25 damage. On targets with 1 armor, it would be 1 + 1 damage. On targets with 9 armor, it would be 9 + 9 damage. On targets with 16 armor, it would be 9 + 16 damage. And on targets with 25 armor or above, it would be 9 + 25 damage.

Units and structures could be double sided. And "transform" will flip them over.
Transform costs an action. But will also be possible right before an attack commences on this unit.


In the past, I had like a ton of movable walls. These units where fodder or meat. And had no weapons.

Now, with the transform ability. I could have them move around. Then fortify the place by transforming.

Since normal walls would have no purpose on transforming. I could have them have a higher durability any way. But I really need to be careful. Not to go back to the chaos that I had. "wrong" target and "durability" need to remain in one roll!!!


I can lower wooden fence from 18 to 12 or 6 pieces.
6/6th becomes 4/6th or even 2/6th.
3/6th becomes 2/6th or even 1/6th.
I can lower concrete wall from 9 to 6 or 3 pieces.
Same story with the rolls.
I can add more complexity to the game in the form of "transforming" pieces.
And a new line of justified pieces will be in one of the expansions.

There is one demand by the game.
ALL pieces need to be able to transform.
Transforming rules have a penalty. Like, transforming back costs a round.

Going to "expand" my list of units now :)

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
A pebble in the way

X3M wrote:
Going to "expand" my list of units now :)

And the first thing that I realise is that the movable walls. After transforming, have the same properties as the stationary walls. Except for, they can move around.

I need another penalty besides of loss of 1 action.

If it is making these units more expensive, it would mean a percentage.

Multi weapons to choose from had a 33% addition in my original game. But here we have a weapon and body transformation.

I need to test +33%, or +50%. I don't know yet what would be the best penalty.

I will examine on the rifle infantry. Which have all stats on 1. But cost 6.
If possible, the rifle infantry that are able to transform, will have a 50-50 army. Where the front line is transformed. And the back will do the fighting. And the transforming units should win the game by a small margin.
That is the balance that is needed to justify getting these transforming units. Or else, there is no point.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
The end is near.

I am not making much progress.

Transforming units is something that I rather not use. AKA, simplifying the game.

I am leaving walls as how they are. They are simply placed. And most players tend to go around them in other ways. Just like mines. It is like the player modifies the map. The number of pieces might be high, but since they are walls. These pieces should be simple and cheap.

I did not have time yet to work on the basis structure. And how these should work with the game. All I know is that they will provide the player with points to spend on new units and defences. I still can have variation in weak structures with a lot of points. And strong structures (sort of walls) with less points to spend.

Since my work is asking a lot of time of me. And I can't access this site any more through the new computer systems. I can only post when at home. But I have better things to do. I will work on point 3, if I want too. But I will not work on the pieces for a proper prototype.
There is no one to play with any way. I got my eye's on a project that I want to bring to life again. Something that my cousin even might want to play. A new single player game in Brood War. With all the experience that I gathered on board games. The single player missions should be much more fun now!

X3M... signing off.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut