Skip to Content

Something between a board and a card game?

45 replies [Last post]
X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Still getting over the big oof.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
I understand you want the crunchy numbers for percentage styles. Makes the game slower and sort of more realistic in combat of how i comprehend it.
Yes, that is one of my goals.
And my other goal was honestly 6 dice tops for all the normal units.

But I design by certain rules. And while expecting a double roll of 6 was to occur for some specific unit designs...
It turned out to be 4 times as much. Not only that, but there is an overkill happening. A really big overkill. And this is due to having the game use 3 turns per force. While riflemen look normal. A burst weapon like the flamethrower is immediately too strong...
I could say that a 1 roll to hit would cause 2 hits or 3 hits with 1 damage as a result. Thus reducing the dice.
The chances on the desired roll go up. And instead of twice the costs, I could increase the costs if the roll is changed in regards to the distributed chances.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:

But have you thought of just using a d20 and a d4 to get results for 24 instead of rolling 6 die 4 times?
It will be more like a 6 dice with a 1/3th success roll being changed. I think the basic roll should not be touched. But the results can be altered still.
The flamethrower would be rolling half the dice. And have a doubled result per die. Then the costs are increased by 2.5.
If I divide the rolls by 3 and tripple the results, the costs are multiplied by 4.5
This way, I reduce the dice AND the damage.

With 6 dice going down to 2 dice. The weapon accuracy is not 6 but 4 instead (3/4.5 equals 4/6) I got an exceptional roll of 8 (there would be 4 flamethrowers).
Then again, I could design in such a way that the flamethrowers are 33% more expensive. And the number of dice goes down by 33%. But the weapon accuracy might go up again.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:

You can still get percentage rolls or something of a percentage roll with the dice mentioned above in my comment.
I understand. But a force can be a mix too. So, for percentages, we need a table of results. I did think of that. But it is tedious. I try to keep it to dice only.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:

Jesse Aka StormyKnight1976


But for now. I need to figure out how to reduce the damage output.

I already realized that vehicles should be having 4 health.
2 health is then solely reserved for bikers and troopers. Which would die from flame attacks fast as well.

As for the grenadiers and their 16 grenade dice...
One grenadier rolls 4 dice.
2 dice per grenadier and a hit result of 2 per die. With a cost of +25%.
1 die per grenadier and a hit result of 4 per die. With a cost of +75%.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Results may vary

I do not like having multiple hits with just 1 die.
Unless it follows a standard deviation.

But the basic roll is 1/3th chance on hitting.
And there is also an accuracy roll.
Eventually there would be penalty rolls too.

Speaking of penalties.
I still got the rule of melee units being able to hit moving targets without a penalty...
And 1 penalty is a 5/6th roll.

Perhaps I should change the penalty a bit too.
Instead of:
Closest attack range compared with the movement distance.
And using the lowest value as the penalty.

Take the average of the closest attack range to the movement distance.
And round down...up? IDK this yet.
I can imagine that a super fast unit takes less damage from a melee attack. Especially if they are flames. This should help the buggies that go with a speed of 5.


I need to test again.

But basicly the attack buggies have to go from 2 to 4 health.
And when fighting flamethrow infantry, they first strike while the flamethrowers move. Then they move when the flamethrowers attack.
The attack distance is 1 at that point while the attack buggies would move with 5. The average is 3. A penalty of 3 halves the number of hits.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I will round up

0 vs 1 will be 1.
1 vs 2 will be 2.
0 vs 2 will be 1.

Flamethrowers have an attack range of 0. But.... they get +1 if they do not fit in the targets region. It is the bonus range rule that has helped me for more than a decade. yaaay.

So, what I am trying to say is that the minimal penalty for flamethrowers CAN BE 1.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
The biggest problem

Is it possible to reduce the dice by having a die roll for a standard deviation?

If the accuracy is 1/3th.... Then 3 dice could be 1 die that rolls at most a 3?
How would that look like?

Well, this die should be a d27....
But that is not the biggest problem.
There might be accuracy rolls by weapon design and penalties too. These are rolled as well.

I know Kristopher that you suggested something similar. But my damage output WAS too high. Fixing dice was of no concern at that point.

And it doesn't work anyway. Except for the cost penalty design.


Since the flamethrowers are a burst type. Fixing them into making them a continues firing type. Will reduce the rolls as well.

6-0-0 is the same as
Where in approaching their target actually have them fire only twice in a round.
Still 3 dice per unit. Which results in 12 dice without adjustments.

If I then have 3 dice being 1 die with a hit of 3. The weapon accuracy roll would go from 6 down to 4.

1 Flamethrower would either deal 0 or 3 damage. With a succes rate of 1/12 instead of 1/27. Although, with more dice, 1 or 2 kills is also possible.

The 3 damage would be able to hit 3 infantry, 2 troopers (1 dies 1 is injured and is down to 1 health), 1 vehicle (down to 1 health). This kinda looks like a bit like C&C.

Should I? Should I really change the burst into a continues attack?
6 dice would go down to 2 in the same way. But then 8 dice would be the result, with 3 hits per succes.
And if I have 6 dice go down to 3. The squad would be using 12 dice in total, with 2 hits per succes.

I will be designing both. And apply the cost penalty. And see what happens to the number of dice in both cases. Maybe a design isn't even possible.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Right, so multidamage on 1 die seems to work.

Given that the player has no choice but to roll accuracy on this die too.

Also given that it is mentioned in the special abilities.
So the weapon will look weaker at first.

As for the increased costs.
I was thinking about having this die as option if there are more than 6 dice nessesary.

1 die per unit remains untouched.
2 dice... well, here you already get the increased costs. Since chances are that the total would exceed 6. would only be applied if a pure squad can have more than 6 dice.
Actually, this can even be applied to units with 1 die, if they cost 1...because the total number of dice would be 12. And in that regard, I should not allow such designs... so, a wall minimum cost is going to be 2 as well.
0.6 is the wall part. Barbed wire would have 0.4 for damage value...
But maybe i will anyway.

The increase of costs should reduce the better chances on the roll, in terms of damage.

If there is only up to 6 dice by the lesser units. The player can choose if multiple dice are used or not.
Now then, I must look at a pure squad and determine the required factor.

In case of barbed wire that costs 1 in total.
The number of dice would be 12 in a full field.
The required factor is 2.

As replacement factor, not sure. But I think an increase of 25% per die that can be removed.

5 dice would become 1, while the cost is 10.
It is more of a gamble with these weapons.
But the good result is also more devastating.

That said, the 0.4 should become 0.32
And I doubt the barbed wire can stay at a cost of 1...
A "takes only 1 damage per hit" is still possible.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
I must design with the maximum collapse in mind

But also display on the card what other options there are.

For example.
2 can be 1x2.
3 can be 1x3.
4 can be 2x2 or 1x4
5 can only be 1x5
6 can be 2x3, 3x2 or 1x6
7 can be 1x7

It is going to be hard in some designs. Since I only want to alter the number of dice.
I will not allow the accuracy to be altered. Unless it is also a choice. And the cost penalty would be applied as well.
So, 2 dice with accuracy 3 or 1 die with accuracy 6.
Seeing as how I calculate balance for choices.
This is an oddball for me.
And I think, I should not do this. Since designing the 2 options would separately could turn out to be good.
So, if I do this, I will only do this if the unit squad would get above 6 dice.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Right, the dice mechanic got a new rule

If your squad needs more than 6 dice:
You have 2 things to modify for that turn.

1. You divide the number of dice of the same type, until you get under 6 dice.
2. The dice that get divided by a factor, will get an increased chance on the basic roll.

/1 gives 2/6
/2 gives 3/6
/3 gives 4/6
/4 gives 5/6
/5 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the basic roll.


Simple huh? Well, that is only the beginning.
And keep in mind, the following is a summary of my findings.


There are several units that require this rule, even at 1 unit.
And when we have something like mines (12 dice per mine), we rather roll the mines 1 by 1 anyway.
However, it is possible that the 144 dice of a full region of mines, will be turned into just 4 damage that occurs absolutely certain. But at the cost of all 12 mines. So, I must allow players to roll multiple times anyway. And perhaps for the flamethrowers as well.

There is some down time with a mix of units.
Simply divide the maximum. And then see if some can have more dice, in case you want to take a bit more risk. But also get rewarded by more damage on average.
So far, a mix of 1 or 2 flamethrowers, a flame-atv and then 3 or 1 rifleman is possible.


The same can be done for a weapons accuracy. But there are a lot more flavours here:

/1 gives 1/6
/3 gives 2/6
/5 gives 3/6
/7 gives 4/6
/9 gives 5/6
/11 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

Yikes, 4 primes. But then again, 1/6 rolls are really stupid. I prefer only 4/6 and 5/6 if nessesary.

2/6 is like the basic accuracy.
But like I said, these are stupid.

1/1 gives 3/6
3/5 gives 4/6
3/7 gives 5/6
1/3 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

This time, a prime is reduced to 3 dice instead.
3/6 is rarely used. Might as well divide the dice by 2 and double the accuracy for the weapon. But perhaps the unit is a specialist that has an odd number of projectiles. Like 5...or 7.

/1 gives 4/6
/1.5 gives 5/6
/2 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.

/1 gives 5/6
/1.4 gives 6/6 and effectively removes the weapons roll.


At last, if it is really nessesary. Penalty rolls can be adjusted too.

A penalty of 1, is 5/6
A penalty of 2, is 4/6
A penalty of 4, is 3/6
A penalty of 6, is 2/6
A penalty of 10, is 1/6

Other penalties are combinations. And treated as separate rolls as well.
3 is 1+2.
5 is 1+4.
7 is 1+6.
8 is 2+6.
9 is 1+2+6.
Either way, if you have a penalty roll of 10. Then you can turn 11 dice into 1 die, that simply doesn't roll this penalty.

In order to get a penalty of 10, or an extra roll of 1/6th. You need a melee unit target a moving unit that moves with a speed of 20. No worries, those units don't exist....
But the fastest object in my game, could be going at a speed of 57. Which would ask a penalty of 29.

I designed a Stealth Bomber.
It will go with a speed of 27.
Which will ask for a penalty of at least 14 by any AA gun.
The load can be anything.....
Given that the weapons accuracy is 6. And the drop is a melee.
O man, this will be fun. I should find a way for players to combine bodies with weapons.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
What should be in the manual?

Right, so the dice are to be divided to a lower number.

And then the accuracy changes.

The players can adjust the accuracy of the basic roll.
Maybe the weapon accuracy roll (which is often 4/6 or 5/6.
And the penalties. Which will reduce the penalty.

In the manual. It is best to tell the player what they can change. And I think it is best to tell them what the change of an accuracy means.

There are 15 changes possible, if we only look at the accuracies.


Manual wrote:

Your squad will be needing multiple dice that will be rolled each, multiple times.

There are 3 groups of accuracy rolls, per die.
- Basic roll, which starts at 2/6.
- Weapon accuracy roll, which starts at the given accuracy for that weapon.
- Penalty roll, which depends on the penalty for that turn for that weapon.

A multiple penalty can be reduced in rolls per die by replacing X rolls, but the accuracy will go down for 1 roll. Here are the penalties that are reduced to 1 roll and the accuracy this roll represents:
1: 5/6
2: 4/6
4: 3/6
6: 2/6
10: 1/6

In order to reduce the dice, the accuracy will go up for 1 roll. Here are the increase in accuracies that the roll represent. And the number of dice that are reduced:
1/6 to
2/6: 1/3
3/6: 1/5
4/6: 1/7
5/6: 1/9
6/6: 1/11
2/6 to
3/6: 1/2
4/6: 1/3
5/6: 1/4
6/6: 1/5
3/6 to
4/6: 3/5
5/6: 3/7
6/6: 1/3
4/6 to
5/6: 2/3
6/6: 1/2
5/6 to
6/6: 2/3 (or 5/7 if possible)

A change in accuracy may only occur once per roll.
Thus a multi penalty will be treated as such.

eg. A penalty of 2 will be considered a roll of 4/6. And thus can only have 2/3 and 1/2 as dice multipliers.

So, any good for the manual?

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Only the "squad roll"

Well, I discussed the mechanics about less dice on BGG.

I also tried to get a table going, but man, is that complicated.

So, I settled with the so called squad roll.
Which starts at d6 is 2 or less is a hit.
Divide a number of dice by (1+n). And the chance of the roll goes up by (2+n)/6 for those dice.
Practically, every 5 dice, you have 1 die that is added to the pool. After the squad roll is rolled.

Also, I am going to allow at most 12 dice.
The maximum number of dice that a player could end up with is 48 for the flamethrow infantry. And these would turn into 3d6 + 9.
Which is, at most, 12. :)

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Penalty replacements

Obviously, penalty rolls can also be replaced.
We got our standard penalties being replaced with just 1 or 2 rolls per die.

But only the very advanced players can meddle with these as well. In fact. If a penalty ends up with being 6. You get the same rule again. 25 dice would be 0d6 + 5.
Then the 5 dice would be 0d6 + 1.
This is a very extreme situation though.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not much to say

Except for 2 things.

Deciding on the first "package".
What I want in it.

Going for infantry and tanks. Thus 4.

Obviously Barracks, a Factory, Construction Yard and a Supply Centre. Again 4.

Further more, 2 different walls. However, you buy them as a package.

Then 2 defences, which are both more or less in a form of support. This means the walls need to be used to give them more durability.

I got 4 units and 8 buildings.
Perhaps I add 2 to 4 more units.
Specialists if you will.
So far, the movement speeds are 0 or 2.
The attack ranges are 2 or 4.


I also devised some new rules for having different force sizes. Simply for making the game fair.

If one design gets an attribute to get to a bigger size. Then another design will have a smaller size. It has to even out.
25 with 23, 27 with 21, 30 with 18 etc.

The most important rule here is that the tracking of said forces is simply having the designs in that force. And thus the force gains the attribute of the design on itself.

Since the SC (Statistic Cards) are going to be used. I need to track the design size somehow. Perhaps normal is small. Turned is big. And the pair that interacts is together as a cross.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013

I got the following 4 units:
RPG (guy with a simple rocket launcher, can't hit air)
Combat Tank
AP Tank (anti personel)

The RPG has a range of 4.
The AP Tank can fire 3 bullets per turn.

Both defences have an attack range of 4 as well.
There are 2 ways to deal with these.
1. The units barge in so fast, that the defences can fire only once before there is a battle.
2. The units stay even farther away.

Assault Tank could get a movement speed of 4 and a better cannon than the Combat Tank. But in a sense, the Combat Tank will be better in fighting and destroying an enemy base that is not protected. The movement speed does allow the Assault Tank to move into range of the enemy defences. And in the second turn is able to deal a lot more damage.

Sniper....that is....yes.

Saboteur would be the anti building specialist that runs very fast.

GtG Rocket Launcher would be the long ranged version of the Combat Tank.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Kiss, in regards to building design

The Barracks and Factory will have a placing distance of 0 or 1.

The rules of placement include:
- the placing distance provided by the building. All are 0 to begin with.
- the movement speed of the unit (and yes, structures are 0), which is given only once. Not twice, nor trice.
- a +1 rule on the placing distance if thenstarting location doesn't provide space for said unit/structure.

A construction yard has a distance of 0.
If the spot is filled, surrounding places will be filled. The base can expand, but 1 spot at a time per round.

Thinking about having an HQ that will provide building construction AND resource managment.
A mix if you will.


Resource managment will be build up by supply points.
Thinking about a reversed cumulative effect.
1 point supplies 1
3 points supplies 2
6 points supplies 3
10 points, 4
15, 5
21, 6

Seeing as how 24 is a limit per design. And the hq will have half of its points. I could get to 12+24=36.
This equals to 8 per round.

This is a good number, since the production of units is 1/3th of a complete set.

Barracks will be 4x6=24. Thus, 8 worth in infantry can be produced per round.
If the player wants tanks or defences instead. A choice has to be made.

Production will be in total 36, thus 12 at most. If the player safes up resources. This will be no problem.

Depending on the number of factories a player wants, 1 or 2.
18 or 36 in total. Thus, 6 or 12.
With 8 per round. The player seems to be saving up 2. Well, 1 unit will cost 8.


Main goal is to have the player build up the base a bit, in 2 to 3 rounds.
Then a force. 2 to 3 rounds.
And this force will be able to destroy an enemy force in only 1 to 2 rounds.

In between, some time is needed to move. With the lowest speed set on 2 for now. This is a distance of 6 per round. The fastest is 4, thus 12 per round. I think 12 would be a good distance here.

I need to playtest this.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Infantry die instantly, crap baskets :)

In the future, medics will act as a 1 time shield per infantry in the frontline.
Depending on the design. 1 medic might be able to double more than 1 friendly.

But this is for a future.


Right now, everything that has 8 health....
Dies instantly too, against anti tank material. Dûh

But the 1 damage projectiles that hit should be tracked. Simple acrylic cubes should cover this. 3 colours.
1, 2 and 4 damage.
And I never have to add more of these.

A squad might go up to 4 tanks.
In the worst case, we got 12 cubes in the squad.
But they all migrate with the plateau where the tanks are standing on.

Yes, my plan is to have some sort of basket that moves from hexagon to hexagon. In the colour of the player.
The miniatures can be standing on this little plateau, so you move an entire army at once.

Only 1 challenge:
Multiple players should be able to be in the same region. This is because of melee units.

The total will be limited to a total of the region.

Practical, not perfect yet...

Theory adds another challenge.
I have certain high and low quantity units.
Where 4 of 7 or 7 of 4. Both cost 28 in total.
Ok, 24 is the basic. So, if I have a 4x 7. For balance, another force will be 20 in total. So, 5x 4.
This player can have 1 force of 28.
And all other forces with that less quantity unit will be 20 at most.

I have been thinking a lot. And perhaps I should refrain from this "extra".
There has been a time where we designed a compensation variant instead.


If 2 players occupy the same region. What kind of rule should we apply??
A basic, "first come, first serve", rule?
Sounds best tbh.

Either way, I think I should allow for "smaller" baskets.
50% and 33%.
Maybe set this as a maximum.
So 24, 12 and 8 or 16.
And the rule is replaced by occupation.
1 soldier can deny 8 points for another player.
This way, only 3 players can be in a region too.

X3M's picture
Joined: 10/28/2013
Difficult decision, why I actually don't like this.

5x 5 is the first design... That ends up larger than 24 points. Just by 1.

Either, we have 4x5 +4.
Or we have 3x5 +9.

That 9 design is almost twice as strong.
But that 4 design is weaker, why not the 4 design all the way??

So, we only should add stronger designs for balance.
Soon we will have combinations that cannot be added.

Further more, the stronger version will only be doing more damage. You rather give these cover with the weaker units.

15 > 9.
And 10 > 9.
So, this is ok.


6 is ok.

7 needs 4x7 is 28.
So, we have 3x 7 + 3....
Right, only stronger versions.
2x7 + 10.
14 > 10 for cover.

8 is ok.

9 needs 3x9 is 27.
Only 9 + 15 is possible.
We now enter the realm where the weaker version cannot give cover to the stronger version.

Unless I start applying the size adjustment rule.
I have to keep this in mind for the fiture as well.

10 and 14.

11 and 13.

12 is ok.

13 and above reverse the situation. These will be single units. And the other design can be anything as addition. They don't have to be the same in terms of anything. Well, maybe the same goal in mind if you want to have a balanced faction.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut