Skip to Content

Why in War Games/RTS, certain units are "use(-)less"

36 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Have you thought about

Have you thought about combined attacks.

In NES conflict I had this situation where I used let say a SAM to attack a fighter but he survives with 2 out of 15 HP. So then I attack that fighter again with a supply truck that has a simple machine gun in hope finishing off the unit.

I also exxperiences this in Dai Senryaku where units have 10 HP, I could use 2 units with strong matching weapon to attempt destroying it. But if it survives, the weak useless unit could come in and try finishing it.

In board games, you would need to implement a kind of support system, where adjacent units can help other units to attack. Hill 218 or Ogre 218 card game use that mechanism.

Zone of control can also make those units annoying by preventing ennemy units to pass through. They act like pawns.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I did! That is a good comment!

larienna wrote:
Have you thought about combined attacks.

In NES conflict I had this situation where I used let say a SAM to attack a fighter but he survives with 2 out of 15 HP. So then I attack that fighter again with a supply truck that has a simple machine gun in hope finishing off the unit.

I also exxperiences this in Dai Senryaku where units have 10 HP, I could use 2 units with strong matching weapon to attempt destroying it. But if it survives, the weak useless unit could come in and try finishing it.

In board games, you would need to implement a kind of support system, where adjacent units can help other units to attack. Hill 218 or Ogre 218 card game use that mechanism.

Zone of control can also make those units annoying by preventing ennemy units to pass through. They act like pawns.

As strange as it sounds. I even got forced to do so in certain missions that I created. Since your opponents might be something heavy, with fodder. It was better to have a weaker cannon with "super" weak rifle's. This to be dealing with fodder opponents as well.

1 and 49 is still effective against 100.
9 and 16 is still effective against 25 and 100.
2*9 and 64 is still effective against 81.
etc.

I intensely researched the possibilities with 9 and 16 against 25. The results are fun. And are implemented in some missions that I designed.
The same happened with 1 and 49 on a bigger scale.

***

Sadly enough. Zone control requires fast units in my game. There is no fog. So... slow, cheap units. Ah, right, transport and dropping them of.

It would be in uni-sing though. No fast and/or armored transport. And they can't do that for me.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
In the war game idea I talked

In the war game idea I talked in the recent months, I decided to abstract transportation, by making moving out of cities give you access to transportation to certain units for a turn.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:In the war

larienna wrote:
In the war game idea I talked in the recent months, I decided to abstract transportation, by making moving out of cities give you access to transportation to certain units for a turn.

Like a road adding movement to the units?
I can't recall what you decided for.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
If you are or move to a city,

If you are or move to a city, you get a free helicopter,truck or plane transportations. Which can make infantry very mobile in the presence of cities, but mostly used for defensive purpose. Or capture purpose.

For example, an infantry unit has a movement of 2 and helicopter movement has a movement of 5. You can move 2 space into a city, then move up to 5 space by air.

But now that each player would start with 40% of their cities under their control, like explained in the other thread, it will reduce the number of capture required in a game.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I still like the fact

That you brought up synergy.

While that little damage is of use. I find it important to see the difference between compensating synergy and bonus synergy

Yeah, making these words up. I don't know if there are official terms for them. But I guess this is how I explain things.

Compensating Synergy
I am very familiar with this concept. The balance that one seeks is 100% or just a bit above this 100% to make sure that the opponent is easily to be defeated.
The 1 + 49 against a 100 is one of those examples. While against a tier 10 armor. A tier 8 cannon works better than a tier 7 cannon with a rifle. Why would a player choose for the latter?

Bonus Synergy
My board game uses the concept of overkill. A tier 8 cannon simply does the same damage as a rifle on infantry. After all, 1 bullet or one cannon blast, and the soldier is dead. Only the 5 health per armor might throw things off. But the bottom line is that more damage than armor means death in real life.
The cannon blast is wasted on that soldier. The tier 7 tank is still alive if not targeted. That means that this tank can shoot twice. This is the bonus synergy. It effectively increases the higher tier weapons by letting them survive longer.

***

Due to mechanics. It is needed for players to have at least 7 rifle infantry to protect one tier 7 tank. And only 1 infantry is truly going to bite the dust at the total of 7.

If I don't want this mechanic. I have to look at the focus/sniping for balance. Because micro is now removed from the game.

Spotting the weakness and chaos are both situations that only ask for attention in RTS games. I rather look at the board game only. Where chaos doesn't exist. And spotting the weakness is a bonus strategy.

There where 2 formula's that I had for focus/sniping. But only the one for "any" design counts.

damage points(%)=%health*%damage*(n^2+n)*0.5
AND
damage points(%)=%health*%damage

While the n can be a constant. It will change once I think of a new balance formula.

The one that I currently use:
100%(cost)=%health+%damage

I have placed a lot of mechanics and rules around this one to make the board game balanced:
- Bonus rule; a high n is close to equal to n=1.
- Cover; size is of concern here and the higher size protects a lower size.
- Event Cards that change the positions in an army; will become obsolete once cover is removed.

These 3 mechanics can be removed after fixing the balancer formula. That is if, their use might disrupt things afterwards. So each has to be carefully examined.

The Event Cards are going to be a waste, once I find the right balance formula fitting the focus/sniping.

***

My goal for next time.

100%(cost)=%health+%damage
Has to change such that:
damage points(%)=%health*%damage
Shows better balance.

In other words. I will be working on the Compensating Synergy.

Of course 0 damage units should still cost something. But not 50% compared to medium units as for now.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut