# Multiple resources

22 replies [Last post]
X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Regarding wargames.

How to allocate different resources to what a player can buy.
Without having a resource becomming obsolete in consideration?

I often see games where multiple resources are used. But during the game, some of the resources starts accumulating. They are no longer a factor. Since another resource is dictating how many units a player can buy.

Age of Empires deals with this by having a Market. Here you can trade the resources.

Settler's of Catan also allows trade routes. Which makes it a better game.

So, should this mean that I too should have some trading mechanic?
Limited by time as well. (As QuestCCG suggested)
So, 25 oil becomes 10 steel, or something weird like that.

And how many different resources should I allow?

I know that I can do 2 without much illogical effects.
For example. Balanced units in body and weapon will cost 1 resource.
Then if there is a difference, this is changed into another resource.

However.
A soldier and a tank would both require the same resource.
A wall of any material would always cost the secondary resource.
And if a support or meat unit is build. These with a body:weapon ratio of 3:1 or 1:3. Would cost 50% resource A and 50% resource B. This because the total cost is 1+3=4. And the difference is 3-1=2. So 4-2=2. And we have a cost ratio of 2:2.

I want to keep it simple. Yet logical.

So, if there are only 2 resources. Which 2 would serve best for a game where both the basic soldier as the basic tank cost the same resource. And only the primary resource?

This way, the secondary resource automatically means that the unit has a specific task in the army.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
3 resources?

I have been thinking about more than 2 resources too.

4 resources based on 2 variables. Seems to be impossible.

Here is my idea for 3 resources.
Resource B would be based on the body value.
Resource W would be based on the weapon value.
Then there are credits or C, that are based on 2 options.

Option 1 is that C is based on the difference again between B and W.
Option 2 is that C is based on what is equal or actually the lowest value.
In both cases, the value C is subtracted for half from B and from W.

Examples:

Normal units have 50% body and 50% weapon points
Option 1: costs 50% B and 50% W
Option 2: costs 100% C

Support units have 25% body and 75% weapon points
Option 1: costs 50% W and 50% C
Option 2: costs 50% W and 50% C
This seems to be the same.

Meat units have the same as well.
Meat units have 75% body and 25% weapon points
Option 1: costs 50% B and 50% C
Option 2: costs 50% B and 50% C

Walls?
Option 1: 100% B
Option 2: 100% C

I don't like these results tbh.

Maybe I can do something with the attributes.
I have:
Organic and Mechanic
Units and Structures

I think that Units would mainly need credits.
Structures would go with building components.
Then we have Mechanic, which is obviously steel.
And lastly, Organic.... credits again?

Not sure...

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Three resources?

Depending on how abstract you want the resources to be, you could go with Soft Goods, Hard Goods, and Energy.

Soft Goods would be your foods, clothing, medicine, bandages, tents, etc.

Hard goods would be armor, machinery, computers, vehicles, bullets, etc.

Energy would be electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc.

These lend themselves to simplified logistics if you want to introduce a small upkeep cost, just round it at the theater level to prevent dealing with fractional units of upkeep.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
FrankM wrote:Depending on how

FrankM wrote:
Depending on how abstract you want the resources to be, you could go with Soft Goods, Hard Goods, and Energy.

Soft Goods would be your foods, clothing, medicine, bandages, tents, etc.

Hard goods would be armor, machinery, computers, vehicles, bullets, etc.

Energy would be electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc.

These lend themselves to simplified logistics if you want to introduce a small upkeep cost, just round it at the theater level to prevent dealing with fractional units of upkeep.

Sounds good.

Another suggestion from my group was similar.
Organics, Mechanics and "Energenics"

I think that having the "Energenics" fit nicely with units that are fast in movement and rate of fire. Also the distance of the projectiles fit in this one.
But now to find a good balance.
And I guess I have no choice other, than to get something in the game that converts resources.

Once a certain ammount is reached, that resource is less needed.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
No choice?

X3M wrote:

And I guess I have no choice other, than to get something in the game that converts resources.

Depends on the level of challenge or "realism" you want. In the real world, having a lot of one thing doesn't get you some other thing. The Spanish Armada lost against the English largely because most of the ships were carrying the wrong ammo for their cannons.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
FrankM wrote:X3M wrote: And I

FrankM wrote:
X3M wrote:

And I guess I have no choice other, than to get something in the game that converts resources.

Depends on the level of challenge or "realism" you want. In the real world, having a lot of one thing doesn't get you some other thing. The Spanish Armada lost against the English largely because most of the ships were carrying the wrong ammo for their cannons.

You are right.
Although I don't want to dissapoint Questccg.
Stone pebbles should be able to be refined to a strawberry cupcake!!!

I think trading would be the only option.

What if players can gather only 1 resource. And in order to get another resource, this resource has to be refined. Not as complex as other games like factorio.

Either the units become cheaper this way over time. Or more access is possible.

So, units cost metal.
And advanced units cost metal AND steel.

Or another resource.

let-off studios
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Inflation

One of my favourite conversions of a board game to a computer game is War! Age of Imperialism. The game's tech tree is massive, and at certain intervals you would eventually need to invest in "Inflation 1" to unlock the rest of the tech tree. Of course, "Inflation II" wasn't too far away, either.

In both cases, costs for certain things would increase by either a set amount of cash or with the amount of resources required - I can't remember which. What's more: once one player invested in that tier of Inflation, all players were subject to the increased costs, regardless of where their particular faction was on the tech tree.

I can't imagine the amount of fiddlyness and book-keeping required for such an endeavor on the tabletop version. However, the computerized version smoothly integrated the cost increase.

Might there be some way you can implement some variation of this cost increase mechanic into your design?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:One of

let-off studios wrote:
One of my favourite conversions of a board game to a computer game is War! Age of Imperialism. The game's tech tree is massive, and at certain intervals you would eventually need to invest in "Inflation 1" to unlock the rest of the tech tree. Of course, "Inflation II" wasn't too far away, either.

In both cases, costs for certain things would increase by either a set amount of cash or with the amount of resources required - I can't remember which. What's more: once one player invested in that tier of Inflation, all players were subject to the increased costs, regardless of where their particular faction was on the tech tree.

I can't imagine the amount of fiddlyness and book-keeping required for such an endeavor on the tabletop version. However, the computerized version smoothly integrated the cost increase.

Might there be some way you can implement some variation of this cost increase mechanic into your design?

Why yes, it is possible :)

Although, it isn't like several different resources and different costs for the units.
The inflation can actually be done in an easy way.

After a set of time. All resources, including the income. Are lowered. This way, designs will be constant. And the variables are more variable.

Here is an "realistic" example:
The inflation is 25/24 each round.
That is roughly 4%.
And after 10 rounds, roughly 50%.

How it works?
Each round, the players pay 1 credit for every 25 credits they have.
And the resources reduce in income.
Every 25, 1 is subtracted.

Only the resource income might be difficult to handle.
This could be done with 2d10 or a d100.
If a resource starts with 50, the next round it will be 48. Then it reduces every round with 2 until it reaches 25.

It depends on the game, hoe many rounds you have. And how fast you the inflation want to be.

You need to test it out a bit.
It is fidly if there are a lot of resource income.
And the credits a player owns might also be difficult to track.

Let me know what you think?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Designing with rarity in mind

After a lot of consulting. It is better to have a primairy resource for more than 50% of all the things a player can produce.

The secondary resource should be something rare. It is like the first few units that a player can build in starcraft. But without the overflow that happens afterwards.

If I where to have 3 resources. The third one should again be a complete different class.

So, how would this look like?

Everything has need for the primairy resource.
Let's say, a player has 12 choices of units.
They all cost an ammount with resource X.

6 or less choices of units are advanced enough to require a secondary resource. Thus half of the units. But this should mean, this resource is NOT being avaiable for half in the map. No, this resource should be for only a third avaiable in the map. This means, that the 6 choices of units. Are rarer to be chosen to begin with.

Now, if even a third resource would be present. The same factors could be applied.

I think that was a bit too vague.
I try again, wording it a bit different.

All units cost X. The map offers of X.
1/2 of the same units cost Y. The map offers 1/3 of Y.
1/4 of the units that have Y will also require Z. The map offers only 1/9 of Z.

So, how would this play out?
Let's say the map offers a player 36X, 12Y and 4Z
And the 3 units that can be build cost:
1 X
1 X and 1 Y
1 X and 1 Y and 1 Z
Then the player can get 4 of the third unit. 8 of the second unit and 24 of the first unit.
The true worth of each unit is simply, 1, 2 or 3.

Not only are the more expensive units, more expensive. They are automatically rarer by total value. Because you can have only 4 of costs 3, which is 12. While the first unit is 24 of costs 1. This is 24. Not only that, but the total resources do allow for even 36 of costs 1.

Now, 3 resources is a bit hard for me.
But I could still attempt to see if 2 resources are possible with the set goal in mind.
While the map offering of a certain resource can be limited. It does limit the design choices of the players.
Depending on how I allocate the distribution of X or Y, I determine how rare these units are going to be. Once the rarer units are build. The remaining resources would automatically be USED UP as well on the more basic designs.

This is a pleasant outcome. But I still need to walk the path. And thus I need to determine. What are basic units, and what are the more advanced units?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Summary so far

A primary resource for all:
Meat units, walls, production facilities.
The border is at 50-50. Meaning that a 40-60 unit will cost 80 primairy and 20 secondary.
A 60-40 unit will simply cost 100 primairy.

The secondary resource is for all specialists:
Attributes to weapons and body, support units, projectiles that are produced on the spot, and other modifications.

The primairy resource is going to be materialistic.
The secondairy resource is going to be of energy nature.

It looks a lot like Starcraft now. But with a good logical basis.

I think the resources should be Iron ore and Oil.

The basis of each army will be mid 20th century technology. And the advanced is like 2 centuries ahead.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yes and no...

FrankM wrote:
X3M wrote:

And I guess I have no choice other, than to get something in the game that converts resources.

Depends on the level of challenge or "realism" you want. In the real world, having a lot of one thing doesn't get you some other thing. The Spanish Armada lost against the English largely because most of the ships were carrying the wrong ammo for their cannons.

I beg to differ. If you have GOLD BRICKS today, that will net you \$80k+ USD in money. Same goes with "crude" which can be sold as a commodity to get "credits" (or Money). But the process of transforming "crude" into petrol requires refining and the sales of the end product. If you have an OIL RIG (sea or land) that extracts "crude" and then you have a refinery by which to transform that "crude" and it is sold as a commodity.

Therefore if "crude" is your primary resources and "credits" are your secondary resource, you can use "credits" to recruit any type of unit be it a person or a vehicle. But vehicles require additional "crude" to operate (like a Jeep, Tank, Motorcycles, Ships, etc.) So this means if you have a TON of "crude" to refine... Yes you need "credits" but you also need some "reserves" of "crude" to power your larger vehicles which are NOT personnel.

And don't worry @X3M ... I won't be disappointed if you stick to only one (1) Resource. I just think it's a bit "one-dimensional". But I guess if you are extracting "crystals" and sell them because they are in a futuristic sci-fi universe (like SC I and II) you don't need another resource. But yet both SC I and II use Vespene Gas to control a secondary resource which "throttles" the game.

Again this is my personal opinion... But I'm sure there are one-resource RTS out-there too. Not sure. But I bet there is. However I think the argument is that some Resources are MORE RARE making some UNITS more valuable. And this allows for some kind of Tech-Tree of the units and their abilities.

And like I say, it's not MY game. It's YOURS. I'm just expressing one opinion and I'm sure there are others too. I explained myself in how I see it to be realistic and more flexible. The other opinions also matter.

I'm not rail-roading anything. I'm just expressing my thoughts as clearly as possible so people understand what it is that I am saying. Best!

Note #1: @X3M ignore THIS post... It's just a clarification for @FrankM. I don't think he knew exactly what you meant by "converting".

Also I like your approach for the Metal/Iron Ore and some kind of Energy resource make sense... In Transformers they used ENERGON CUBES. Which converted any type of power to a cube of power that could harness any type of Energy. They could be stockpiled too... FYI.

Note #2: @X3M ... Maybe have multiple resources that CONVERT to "ENERGY". Depending on the nature of the mission?! Like if one is a Camp-to-Camp combat... Well you could have Windmills that collect electricity to earn "Energy".

But in a Canyon Pass ride-the-gauntlet, you could have solar panels which produce electricity to each "Energy"... Depends on the mission. That might open up the game a bit too. IDK. Just another idea!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The balance is often the

The balance is often the issue.
I spend some time on RTS design forums.

2 resources are often already a mess.
Why even bother..?

But there was one guy who actually had the same idea.

1 primairy resource. Only half of the designs (or less) the second resource on top of it.
But os also exponentially rarer.

So, you get a resource managment.
And on top of it. A second resource managment.

Only then, a new dimension is added.
But the next problem popped up.
Supposedly, people are too stupid to manage 2 resources that way :D

I am not worried about my game buddies though.

Now to find a good formula in order to split the resources.

let-off studios
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Conversion

Keep in mind that if you provide for a means of conversion/refinement from the plentiful resource to the rare resource, then you can benefit from streamlining costs to being only one of the two instead of some mix of both.

This might help players understand the resource economy system and then make quicker decisions about how to use them. It also provides late-game utility to the common resource - since players will still need to convert them to the rare resource, so in any scenario the more they gather, the better off they'll be.

This is not realistic, but it may at least prevent the resource economy from getting in the way of the fun.

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Conversion = Yes!

let-off studios wrote:
...It also provides late-game utility to the common resource - since players will still need to convert them to the rare resource, so in any scenario the more they gather, the better off they'll be.

This is not realistic, but it may at least prevent the resource economy from getting in the way of the fun.

Well in truth, anything of a nature can be sold and earn "Credits". That's why paying for troops and vehicles makes sense. But you can have different RATIOS per mission. Like in Mission #1 everyone is starting a 5x multiplier to convert raw resources to "Credits" is realistic.

But if Mission #3 is sort of like Last-Man-Standing, maybe a 2x "Credits" multiplier makes more sense and it makes "Credits" earned from a previous Mission all that more "valuable".

So Conversion, YES! But variable to control the difficulty of the Mission... Something like that. Cheers!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Opportunity mission

A mission could be applied to have a resource being refined at a cheaper cost.

Another reason for refinement?
Instead of having units cost different resources that are of the same cut.
What if a production facility will use 100 points of any resource in order to produce an unit. But here comes the catch. Tier 1 would be worth 100. Tier 2 resources would be worth 300. Meaning that if you use the refined resource. The production facility will be producing 3 times as much units that round.

***

Regarding different resources.

The fun starts when a resource is depleted for the players. And it is important to have the secondary resource to deplete first. And due to that reason. A third resource would be actually awesome.

The story in regards of resource managment would be like following:
Then they conquer the secondary resource and start getting uncommon units. Which need more protection. But are adding more damage.
And after that, you get the third resource. Where this goes 1 step ahead.
Eventually, the third resource is depleted.
Then the second resource.
And finally the basic resource.

The players will need to protect whatever they have as support units.

Now, the question is. How to fit in the third resource.
I think it should be properties based.
One of the most important properties is that an unit can be a support unit.
A 50-50 unit wins against a 25-75 unit.
A 50-50 unit also wins against a 75-25 unit.
But 2 50-50 units loose against a 75-25 units that protects a 25-75 unit.

Meat and Basic:
Units that are 100% body to 50% body with 50% weapon.

Support:
Units that are more % weapon than % body.

Specialists:
Units that are more % weapon than % body.
And/Or
Have anything special as attribute.

Example of specialists???:
IDK, the units that have an adjusted size is a start.
If an unit costs 600, yet the size is only 150. Then the total costs is 1200. A player still can have 6 of these. But would have room for 2700 more in the same region. Meaning that the total effectivness is 6300 in that region instead of 3600. That is a huge difference after combat.
The extra cost of 600 could be the third resource.

It would make an army a lot more effective. But you absolutely need to protect these guys since, once gone, they are gone.

***

Now then. I simplified the reasons for another resource. And it could be that I can have 3 resources. Of which 2 resources mean that the player needs them as upgrades for their squads.

It would be too much work. Even for me to think of sub reasons.

The designs can have the following tier combinations as resources: 1, 2, 1+2, 1+3, 1+2+3.
The only ones missing are: solely 3 or the combination 2+3.
PS. Solely 2 is a weapon that lives 1 turn. Like a scarab from SC1.

Right now I am applying the following math:

Weapon - Body = Tier 2 (unless negative)
Weapon + Body - Tier 2 = Tier 1

If an unit has a body of 25 and a weapon of 75. The costs are 75-25=50 for tier 2
50+50-50=50 for tier 1
So the costs are 50/50

If would love to see solely 2 more often. And solely 3 would also be possible?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
First big problem, logic limbo

The access to any part of the RPS system should be conserved.

The rocket soldier is an infantry unit with a rocket against tanks.
This is clearly a support unit.
But the costs should remain basic.

My second attempt was to have only the first projectile being part of the basic costs. Which would units with a projectile multiplier to 3, easily in a unit with basic costs.
Thus the rocket soldier AND the flamethrower would both be basic units.

The second attempt failed at the moment that there is a choice between 2 (or more) different projectiles.
I can't simply have an average. Because that isn't abuse free.

I have yet to try the "hitting" projectiles. Which would immediately discard the abusement of the calculation.

***

Right now, I have arrived at the following option.
I factor the costs.

A design has 2 parts.

Basic = 0.2 x Hfactor + 1
Support = Σ(Multiplier x Accuracy) - 1
Total = Basic + Support

If Support > Basic then
Secondary = 2 x (Support - Basic)
Primairy = Total - Secondary
endif

If Primairy < 0 then
Primairy = 0
Secondairy = Total
endif

Total factor = Primairy + Secondairy
Costs primairy = Design costs x Primairy / Total factor
Costs secondairy = Design costs x Secondairy / Total factor

I think this will do for now. But I need to test it.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Oof

Now the guy with accuracy 1 and then having 6 projectiles is also a basic unit.
I should say, the highest accuracy will be the trendsetter for the "1" that is added and subtracted....

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Finishing notes

It has come to an end for now.
And so far, what I thought of has worked after several adjustments.

There is still something to decide on though.

X3M wrote:

If Support > Basic then
Secondary = 2 x (Support - Basic)
Primairy = Total - Secondary
endif

I have an alternative to this one:
Secondary = 2 x Support - Basic

Not sure, which one of the 2 would be best.

But that is for a far future concern.

Right now, I decided to postpone the story/quests campaign.
Things have taken so long again.
It has costed me valuable things too.
Unknowingly something was going on, while spending some "autistic" time here.
And the total time has depleted.
I rather focus now on having some proper games again.
Hoping that work life and the retarded will leave me be.

I want to focus on the fun things and my family now.
And I did already this weekend.
Whilest a lot of protest arrived from anything related to work.

Being happy, is that too much to ask from me?

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Being happy is what counts but...

X3M wrote:
Being happy, is that too much to ask from me?

Not at all. Just be sure to keep BGDF.com in mind and if you are not working on your projects, maybe post some of your thoughts on some of the other threads... What I mean is "stay a member". And share with us some of your wisdom and insight.

If spending time with Family makes you happy... Well then do this too!

All I'm saying is that your opinion matters on BGDF.com, don't lose your "voice"! Cheers.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Little update

Another reason for not having multiple resources.
If they are based on the properties of units. Then having the games where we use our combination cards. Are not to be readjusted.

In that case. We have only one choice.
Resource A is entirely on the body.
Resource B is entirely on the weapon.

All walls would be entirely be made of resource A.
All 1 shot weapons (except suicide units) would entirely be made of resource B.

Basic units would have a 50-50 distribution.

It is self balancing.
And it looks very simplistic (in a bad way for the smart).

However, in order to win. You need weapons. So resource B would be priority 1. Strategy based on specialism is not an option any more. Production facilities would have the special ability perhaps that their production (resource gathering) is all based on resource A.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
What is A and what is B?

Are the crew represented in your unit costs? That could be a resource C.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Other resources

Some games have XP.
You get XP for the kills you make. Then spend them all at once for units that are like 3 times more powerfull or adjusted in other area's.

Earlier versions where sickening complicated for new players. So we go with the factor of 3, predesigned, nowadays.

***

Some games have SP.
Strategy points.
This is a bit more complicated.
Players choose designs, which have a certain worth.
Like 300 or 400 or 500 per unit.
The thing is, the region limit and game limit can be for example 1200.
This means that 1 AP, action point can be used on 1200 worth of units.
(We handle retro RTS prices, but single digits are possible too)
The number of units that a player can have is 4x 300 or 3x 400 or 2x 500.
As you can see, the last design is missing 200 credits.
A squad of these is weaker in the long run.

If a player has this design in its faction. Then each round, the player will receive 200 SP.

There are 2 modes.
Mode 3 is spending the SP on any unit.
Mode 2 is spending the SP on designs that give SP.
Mode 1 is spending the SP only on the design that gets SP.

The SP spend will allow for the same worth of units to perform an extra action.
Players can also save up the SP.
So that eventually a certain unit will perform many actions in a round.

In the given example, every 5 rounds, the player has enough SP to have both units worth of 500 to perform 1 extra action. Meaning that while 1200 would be able to do 5 actions in 5 rounds. 1000 would be able to do 6 actions in 5 rounds.

Depending on the number of designs per faction. We might decide if the SP-AP are used in a separate system. Meaning that if a squad performs an action, the cumulative AP will not increase for the SP action.

***

AP, action points.
Each player has 7 per round. It depends on the game though, sometimes we pick only 3 or 6. But 15 has also been tested (and discarded). Sometimes a player can upgrade the AP per round. But this has been proven to be over powered.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
FrankM wrote:Are the crew

FrankM wrote:
Are the crew represented in your unit costs? That could be a resource C.

I simply gave them a symbol A and B.
I don't know.

Minerals and Gas are used in Starcraft.
I was thinking about ore and oil to begin with.
But seeing as how the game mode with modular designs requires a different approach. I don't know.

The basic units would ask for 1 ore and 1 oil if you will. That would be a soldier with a rifle.
Would that make sense?

Producing it also occupies the Barracks. I think this would fit the "crew" the most in my game.