A reboot of the game nights (wargame, hobby variant)

For these missions, we need a gamemaster as well. Since the AI needs to follow a script. The script will be kept simple. So that if buddy wants to be a gamemaster, this is no problem.

There might be some randomness in what the ai will do. Either way, in order to follow the script. The board will be needing coördinates.

The latest Projectile path rules

I forgot to mention, the board will be simple in such a way. That height is displayed. But no centre dots. And no graphics. Only colours to indicate the terrain. Light colours. Perhaps I display a number to show what portion of a hexagon is what kind of terrain. But I rather work with simple colours for now.

There are ridges too. But all of that doesn't matter much, compare to the most important rule:
Terrain influence.

If a hexagon is between 2 attackers, it might block projectiles. How to determine if a hexagon is in between? We used to use a rules or rope to see the path. That is history.

The projectiles may follow only one path.
The path of the projectile can go in 12 direction. Since it is a hexagon field.
Between 2 hexagons will take the average of the 2.
The projectiles pick the most direct path. Can make a 30 degree turn at some point. Then from the opposite side, a mirror path is used as well. The projectiles will form a zigzag patern. And all hexagons in between might have influence on the projectiles.

It is rare, but possible. That there are 2 paths to choose from. The player may pick the most optimal one. This might trigger that both sides pick a different path due to weapon attributes.

Sorry, I have no visuals. But let me ensure you, this way does not require helping tools. And is 100% "digital" and thus considered 100% fair.
It is just looking a bit weird and sometimes unlogical at the extremes.

Note
I didn't create the boards yet. It could go any way. These are just rough idea's for now.

Mission 1
Board segment...Will be just 1.

The first unit:
Rifleman, cost 100, size 100, (sumsize 100)
Movement 2, Attack range 2, (Salvo 1)
Armor 1, health 5
Damage 1, Projectiles 1, Accuracy 5/6

I am sure that most people understand most of these numbers, knowing it is a hexagon board.
But those who are new or need a recap:

Salvo will be the cost of action points if this unit fires. Most have a salvo of 1 by default. But it will be mentioned once it is 2 or more. Because then there also should be a mention of how the salvo looks like.

The sumsize is for internal cover. Meaning that this size is used to see if they can go into a transport or bunker. The normal size is used to see if they can take cover behind a special designed wall or shield or tank. By default, the sumsize is the same as size. Only support or meat units will have a larger sumsize. The logic??? Inside an object, you got 6 sides that are limited. Behind an object has plenty of room into 1 direction.

As for the armor and damage. In combat, these 2 are compared. The lowest number will be the actual damage multiplier. This means that 1 vs 36 remains 1. But 36 vs 1 becomes 1. I know it is counter intuitive, but you might as well read armor-tier.

As for accuracy, 5/6 is a d6, 5 or less remains a hit. After that, a damage roll will occur.

Still mission 1

We both start in the corners at the bottom. We both have 6 riflemen. The enemy is at the top. We can move through a thick forest (space 600), but not together. Behind the thick forest, we can move as one. Or stay in separate groups.

Enemy forces are also 2 groups of 6 riflemen. They are inside a dense forest (space 1200 and 1200). We need to work together. But not act as 1 group. If one has an action, then the ally has a reaction. The ai will return fire. The special rule here is that victims alternate between the 2 of us if we are 1 group. But the enemy will have bonus damage if we are one group. We need to remain separate here. Unless, we take 1 more distance. We get a bonus attack range. If this happens, the enemy will retreat. After the first group, the second group can be attacked.

There should be an high ground option. If firing from here, the ai will choose between return fire or retreat. Then we need to get down, but the enemy will have regrouped. See previous block.

There should be a forest (space 1200) option. If firing from here, the ai will return fire. The other group will be within attack range as well. They will be outnumbered though. But only 1 group can fire per turn. The ai will now divide the action points into 2x3=6. And can fire 4 times with 50% power here. The bonus is +50%. The penalty is 50% that 33% hits. Thus -33% on average. The total power will be 200%. While we have 1+2+4=7 each in terms of action points. We have not 4 but 6 attacks in total. And can even fire at the same time. But no bonus. And we do get a penalty of -33% as well. Our power seems to be 200% as well. And our only advantage is that our initial attack is slightly stronger than the ai.

I want to see if my buddy can recall the tricks through the rules.
1. We should act as if we are outnumbered for getting bonus damage. We still can fire together.
2. We should act as one big group for getting bonus attack range.

Either way, if we position ourselves right. We can choose between the 2.

Mission 2
We add a new map segment adjacent to the previous one.

We get 1 new unit:
Combat Tank, cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 600)
Movement 2, Attack range 2, (Salvo 1)
Armor 36, health 180
Damage 36, Projectiles 1, Accuracy 5/6

The units reset. But now we can choose what we want. Both of us can spend 1200 now.
We start in the same corners.
Either we get 2 tanks, 1 tank with 6 riflemen or 12 riflemen.
We need to make use of the fact that the units can block enemy units. They will try to get close for optimal fire. We need to keep our distance. Perhaps even take highground for that -1 attack range on the enemy. No matter what we do, one squad blocks, the other one does some wacky actions and keeps its distance.

The enemy will be having 3 groups.
In mission 1, we hade 2x600 vs 2x600. "Difficulty" 100%.
Now it is 2x1200 vs 3x1200. "Difficulty" 150%.

The groups are futher appart and will only act when we get within range. Thus mission 1 had 1200 in total vs 2x600 or 1x1200.
Mission 2 will be having 2400 in total vs 3x1200. While we have the upper hand at first. If we don't use strategy, the ai will win this. We need to make use of the RPS that comes through the tanks. We need at least 2 tanks together.

We can choose, one player gets 2 tanks while the other has 12 riflemen. Or we both get 1 tank and each 6 riflemen.

I let him decide. And the complex tactics are embedded within the action points. And the fact that a re-action can cost 0. Thus we can exhaust the action points of the ai here.

When calculating, I should sometimes look into the weirder number.

ATV
Cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 720)
Movement 4 with 2 through water, Attack range 3, (Salvo 1)
Armor 36, health 216
Damage 1, Projectiles 2, Accuracy 4/5 x 4/5
Cargo is a value of 600 Organic Units

With a cargo of 600 (sumsize), it can transport infantry of the same value as itself. On being destroyed, the infantry can walk out. There is no chance on losses of the personal.

It can go through water. But not park in it. Thus a river of 2 hexagons wide can be crossed.

The ATV is a tanky unit that can take a decent beating. 20% more durable than a combat tank for the same price. The machine gun has an accuracy of 64% that can outrange riflemen and combat tanks. Although the damage compared to that of a rifleman is only 53% higher. It is more than enough to win in the long run against a whole squad of riflemen.

On average, 1 ATV can survive a full squad of riflemen for 4 attacks. In the time of 5 turns, it can deliver enough damage for killing 2 of them. There is even a 11% chance a kill can occur in the first turn.

With a maximum of 6 ATV. 7 Riflemen on average can be killed in 1 round. When comparing with 6 combat tanks, this would be 5 on average. The ATV is clearly not THE choice for dealing with infantry. But if a player needs to make a choice, the ATV is a better choice than a combat tank. With that 20% extra durability and 40% extra anti personel power, the effectivness is a bit more than 60% higher.

***

Perhaps renaming size and sumsize.
What about cover size and cargo size?

***

The first RPS right now is:
Riflemen = Combat Tanks > ATV > Riflemen

It is a very soft RPS in general. In fact, the riflemen might actually beat the combat tanks.
The combat tanks cannot catch up with the ATV, but if they do, the ATV will suffer greatly. And the ATV are slightly better than the riflemen.

Mission 3 needs another unit. One that can counter the RPS effect of combat tanks vs ATV.

***

While I said that the ATV is needed to get accros water. There is a path to the enemy barracks. The goal is destroy the barracks. The river crossing will give access to a higher ground. And the enemy will only be able to start returning fire once enough infantry are trained by them. It is a race against the clock. Not only that. But the movement speed of the ATV is 4. And the distance should be a bit shorter too, than the go around. It will be a mission that is a given.

***

4th unit.
The Bazooka
I would like to have it cost no more than 300.
But the cargo size will be bigger.
Either I make it a 1:4 or a 1:9 unit.
Meaning that the cost can be multiplied by 1.2 or 1.5.

With 300, the cargo size would be 360 or 450.
With 200, the cargo size would be 240 or 300.

The body and weapon value would be either;
300: 72+288 or 45+405.
200: 48+192 or 30+270.

If I pick the 30+270, then the movement speed has to be 2 for this bazooka. It is an option.
If I pick the 72+288, I got this design ready. But the cargo of the ATV goes to only 600. Meaning there is 240 room left.
If I pick the 45+405, I have no idea what would fit this description. The 45 is not allowed at all.
If I pick the 48+192, I can have another design. But the weapon will be much weaker than the 72+288 design. But, we then would get a cargo size of 240.

In a sense, I did say that I would be designing options at a certain time. Perhaps I should have this 48+192 version go alongside the other version.
240+360 = 600. It is a neat fit. And the 200 and 300 are also nice options.
Googling shows me that the RPG is a better version of the bazooka. In most games in terms of damage. I have an better idea. I have the attack range be the difference.

So, I design both!!

Bazooka
Cost 200, size 200, (sumsize 240)
Movement 1, Attack range 2, (Salvo 1)
Armor 1, health 6
Damage 36, Projectiles 1, Accuracy 4/5 x 4/5 x 5/6

RPG
Cost 300, size 300, (sumsize 360)
Movement 1, Attack range 4, (Salvo 1)
Armor 1, health 9
Damage 36, Projectiles 1, Accuracy 4/5 x 4/5 x 5/6

If we look at their difference. With a full squad. It is 18 vs 12.
The triangular numbers are 171 and 78.
The RPG is 50% more durable too, thus 78 becomes 117.
If it comes to damage, the Bazooka deals 46-50% more.
The RPG however can deal damage before any target can return fire. This in numbers, scores a 12. So, 117 becomes 129.

And if the 2 groups fight each other. The RPG can even shoot twice.
But with that low accuracy, the average damage would be 21 for those 2 turns.
The other group would loose no more than 3 Bazooka. And their number ends up with 15.
They too can still kill 3 RPG. It would be very close. But a 15 vs 12 > 12 vs 9. You can tell who will win this. The RPG can only get an extra advantage if they are located on a spot where the Bazooka need to walk around more. A +2 turns does wonders here. And they end up as equals.

When dealing with ATV. The RPG can fire any time.
The Bazooka have a 1 attack range disadvantage.
A full force of ATV can deal 12 damage. Enough to kill 2. The RPG are actually a better choice for this. No matter how you look at it.

What about micro managment?
1 ATV can carry 1 RPG. For 3600, we can have 4 couples.
As for actions. It is possible to keep a distance to an AI opponent. But you need to get out of the attack range of the RPG as well. The AI needs to get closer during a round, while wasting precious actions. And the player can then pack up and move further away, at the end of a round. Next round, unload and wait again.

As a player using Bazooka, the map is small. You can indeed start running. But you need to wait for the enemy to waste their turns. And only approach if the round is over. You need to move twice. The second move could be an assault with a +1 bonus range. This is very hard to pull. Because the other player might as well not unload at all.

It is an impasse thanks to the ATV.

Medic, cost 150, size 150, (transport size 180)
Movement 3, Attack range 0, (Salvo 1)
Armor 1, health 3
Damage -1 on organic units only, Projectiles 8, Accuracy 100%

The transport size of 180 means that 2 of them take 360 room and a Bazooka could ride along. (I should design an unit with transport size 120.)

Enter;
Light Infantry, cost 120, size 120, (transport size 120)
Movement 2, Attack range 3, (Salvo 1)
Armor 1, health 6
Damage 1, Projectiles 1, Accuracy 4/5
It is just annoying

Medics
Designed as a support unit. If they are right behind an infantry squad. Chances are, they are not targetted. But... even if they are.
What effect do they have?
If we have 6 riflemen, we need 6 medics to give all of them 1 medic to be assigned. For the cost of 6 riflemen, we have only 4 medics.

But even so, if we have 1 medic per 1 rifleman. The healing is 8. This means that outside of combat, a rifleman can be completely healed. And a RPG down to 1 hit point can also be completely healed. It sounds like overkill. But there are 2 other rules. One, after combat, healing can be spread over multiple units, even multiple regions. Two, the healing does last slightly longer during combat.

What I mean is that if combat takes place. Each damage roll is not d6-2 but d6-3 instead.
And this only counts for the hits.
If the target is injured and the next damage roll is 0, it actually can heal for 1.

This all rarely happens. Why?
Damage rolls are sorted from low to high.

There are Event Cards that allow the attacker to sort the dice. Or the defender. The latter allows for 0 damage in total.

There is also the option for having the roll not to be sorted. There is even a new Event Card for this too.

In general, if units die and cannot be healed. The medic is rather useless. But if the healing can be stacked somehow, the medic is a sure way to counter all that damage.

The Cumulative rule comes in action here!
If you want to heal 1 damage immediately. It costs 1 medkit.
If you want to heal 2 damage immediately. It costs 3 medkits.
If you want to heal 3 damage immediately. It costs 6 medkits.

In a way, 4 damage would be 1 damage this way as well. Then, the next 2 projectiles can be healed for only 1 each.
Healing 2 damage would cost 3. This can be done twice, then 2 times 1 remain.
3 projectiles can still kill a rifleman this way. But, you need to roll really lucky. And rolling 3x4 damage having it result in only 1 kill is rather bad. Not to mention. If a rifleman has 2 medics assigned to it. There is another medkit ready to reduce that 4 damage to 1. And yes, we reduce the damage here. The rifleman does not die.

Mechanic, cost 200, size 200, (sumsize 300)
Movement 2, Attack range 0 and 1, (Salvo 1)
Armor 1, health 3
Damage -36 on mechanic units only, Projectiles 1 and 1, Accuracy 100%

I should mention, that -36 is actually the armor value. And thus, a mechanic unit with armor value of less than 36 will also get less repairs done.

The mechanic looks very cheap. But can keep tanks easily alive if they are dealing with simple weapons. During heated combat however, they aren't that usefull.

At an attack range of 1, they can repair only half.

You might have noticed that they cost the same as a bazooka. But their transport size is 300 instead of 240. This is due to the fact that they are an extreme support unit.

I kept the health the same. But movement is 1 less. They carry heavy tools if you will. Speaking of which. Multiple mechanics can work together for reducing damage as well. So, 3 mechanics would offer a total of 6 repair kits. Meaning that 3x36 can be prevented as well. You need 5 mechanics if you want to prevent 4x36.

There is still so much I want to add. But with 4 missions. I think we are busy for the night.

Mission 5 and 6 would both add 2 portions to the map. Making a total of 8. Where in mission 6, we certainly would have a base ourselves.

By then, we need production facilities, resource managment, base defences (the ai should get them too).
I want to add vehicles too. I have 2 infantry in mind. 3 vehicles. And we still need that one tank that is anti infantry as well.

That one light infantry was only designed to accomondate the transport. We need more of these units too, that have a cost with a base of 20.

Let's see. Not sure how the designing will work out. But here are my wishes for the designs:

Grenadier
Should get an attack range of at most 1. It will be a fast infantry unit that is anti vehicle. The attack will have an explosive die.

Mortar Infantry
Should get the transform option. It will also be a fast infantry unit. But cannot move, once transformed. It will have the artillery ability. It needs a scout. And once more an explosive die.
I have no idea how much penalty cost this unit should get for the transformation. It does cost an extra action point. Perhaps consider the changes in terms of costs as well. And take 50% of this.

Assault Buggy
Will be a fast vehicle with anti infantry capabilities. Perhaps this one will have a cooldown of 1. Meaning it will be sniping infantry.

Missile Buggy
Will also be a fast vehicle, but with anti vehicle capabilities. The missiles can fly very far. The only counter is the inaccurate mortar infantry. Thus micro with action points is a must. Salvo of 2? And shooting missiles in the first AND second turn?

Rocket Launcher
Will be a slower vehicle, perhaps a bit more durable too. The rocket(s) can fly even further. The missile buggy will be a good counter through manouvering well. But to counter the rocket launcher, the grenadier (with some medics) might be the best option. Considering giving this unit a cooldown of maybe even 2 (16/37) or 3 (64/175). (Salvo would be 3 or 4)

Artillery
Will be the tank variant of the mortar infantry. Except, it cannot transform. But the projectile will be explosive. To an extend, it will be relatively effective against infantry too this way. Maybe I give this one a charge. But not sure how long.

We now have 2 short and 4 long range weapons. This is added to the other relative short range weapons. The RPG is more like a midrange weapon now. But I do have the feeling that most anti vehicle weapons do a lot with long range and bigger salvo's.

We need one more unit. The ATV isn't that well versed in dealing with infantry. And the Assault buggy immediately has plenty of counters. We need a tank that is anti infantry.

CATV
I am bad in names, you know that. The Combat-ATV is the same as the ATV. But it has less movement speed. Maaaaybe the crossing of water. No transport capabilities. And deals much more damage. It will be having a machine gun.

There are 2 more units that could see the day.
A sniper, with a specific weapon against organic units.
A....whatyamightcallit, vehicle-anti vehilce. Like a quad from Dune 2000. But if it is not attack range, it is speed that a mid tier of armor will hold. I believe I talked about this before.

And what about another type of mechanic that can fix vehicles too? Perhaps I should change the mechanic a bit. And have one of the 2 change from -36 to 2x -9.
I can have 4 variations of the mechanic. Kek.

I also need an engineer if we want to fix mechanical structures.

Base buildings?
Barracks (1); trains organic units
Factory (36); builds mechanic units
Resource node (9); gives resources every round
I don't feel for adding more here. All 3 tiers are covered.

Base defences?
A wall (1) that only blocks movement
A wall (9) that can give cover
A bunker (36) that can give internal cover

A guardian (1), immobile gun turret, very weak in durability.
A guard tower (9), similar to the assault buggy, but immobile.
A modular machine gun, which can be placed on that bunker instead of having infantry go in :)

A mortar pit (1), same as the mortar infantry. But cannot transform. Slightly better though, in all ways. Due to not being able to transform.
A missile turret (9), that can shoots 1 missile. This missile has the seeker ability. Thus you place it behind a forest. It has the best attack range. It also probably has a salvo of 2 or more. Depending on what works best.
A modular missile launcher.

Tank Trap Mine (1), It really is just a barrier. These mines are not the burried types. You can not get close though. The explosive is insanely strong. While they are useless due to being avoidable completely. They do help in protecting something like a cannon turret. And on usage, they dissappear.
A rocket turret (9), with a main purpose of damaging incomming combat tanks.
A cannon turret (36), classic!! Yes, classic counter, they are simply more durable than a combat tank.

3 types of walls, of which the bunker can double with one of the 2 modular weapons.
6 defences. And 1 mine that just sits there.

***

Now, I do want to spend time on the mine and its tactics.

1. The mine can be shot by anything that has a weapon.

2. The mine is truly a melee weapon. But a big force can be targetted at a distance of 1. The rule here is that sufficient mines need to take action. And overkill might occur due to spending more mines for that +1 attack range.

3. The mines used, could easily get a +50% damage boost. Since a player could decide to spend only a few instead.

4. Defences or units behind the mine field can be protected against shorter ranged units, see the 2nd line.

5. Combine with walls for immobility. Since destroying walls does give access to go through them. Having some mines in the vicinity will enforce the walls in their purpose. Take note, the mine field should be in a separate line of hexagons. Since this way, the player needs to use several types of weapons and blast 4 regions instead of the 3 regions with mines.

6. Spread out the mines. Having them being spread out might reduce your own mobility. But it will hold back the enemy too. And the enemy can attack only 1 region at a time. Just remember that spreading them out is a choice. They have less a chance to get that +1 attack range this way.

7. Do not combine mines with units. The mines are there as a waste of time. But you don't want to reduce the attack power of your own squads. See the 4th line.

8. Be a bastard like me. Have room between the mines in such a way that the enemy feels safe and moves closer. Then, move into your own minefield. So these little shitters get that +1 attack range. And voila, in the next turn you can use them as intended. But keep in mind, the action points of the mobile force is added to that specific region.

I might have made a mistake with the ATV design?

Modular weapons should not influenced by the transport attributes.

In fact, transport can appoint attributes.

Modular weapons can have any attribute, thus this is 2 or 4 times more expensive. A modular weapon should be as if it is a weapon.

Transporting units that have a body and thus attributes is different.

The ATV cannot carry a modular weapon of 600. But I should mention, it can carry a weapon worth 150. I need to calculate this to make certain.

But with this knowledge, I assigned the attributes of the ATV itself to the "attack range" of the transport.
That is wrong.
If a transport gets an attack range, it should apply to loading and unloading on a distance.

I forgot what I agreed upon with myself.

Long story short. I did make a calculation mistake. But the original one is still correct.

I did a lot of testing and calculations. But I will try to refrain sharing these. Since it would be a complete mess and chaos. Based on a mistake, based on the assumption of another mistake.

The correct way to calculate transport is to use the weight factor from the movement speed of said transport.

Thus, the weight for a modular weapon that comes with the ATV will be 48.

Modular Weapon:
Attachable Machine Gun
Cargo size 48
Attack Range 3 (salvo 1)
Damage 1, Projectiles 1, Accuracy 4/5 x 4/5

I hope I did everything correct now.

***

... ehm....

I just realized that this modular weapon is exactly the same as the weapon the ATV already carries.
So, I guess I should have the transport of a value of 600 infantry units. Be modular too!!

I can allow players to decide on training the ATV. If they are going to be full transport without a weapon (1800). Or a full fledged tank with a level 3 machine gun.

But.... would this not make things over complicated again?

There is a limit to this rule. The "transport" is linked to the design. It can not be exchanged with other designs. Because the attributes of the bodies of those designs might change too.

Since modular weapons have not attributes themselves. They can still be exchanged.

The ATV comes with the option to have 0 to 3 times the cargo hold of 600 infantry. And 3 levels of the machine gun as modular weapon.

If you want another unit with modular weapons to have an exchange. You need to build both in order to get the modular weapons. The weapons can be stored at the factory. And can only be exchanged there for the cost of an action point.

Or, in the field, between the 2 units. It should cost an action point.

***

I can see the F-kening happen now.

My biggest concern now is the rule for having modular weapons in the first place.

Is it only allowed when transport is involved?
Would this not trigger my cousin to ask for all designs to have the cargo ability, then the designs would all get a modular weapon...

Not only that, but if it is possible to have a transport that can transport itself. Then we get a stack of units...
We can... If the ATV can transport mechanical units only. And uses 2 transport modules. It certainly can transport itself.
Thus we have a stack of 6 ATV. And there is room for a value of 3000 more.
Imagine if this is finetuned. And we do this with structures only. We would get 1 region to be infinitaly big.

***

Knowing my cousin. I have to think of better rules regarding this.

Any idea's?

I have 2 options.
Option 1. I add an replacement projectile. That is discarded once transport is filled.
Option 2. I add an replacement projectile. That is discarded once transport is filled.

Lol, yeah, but one of the 2 options has a different roll-set. And the other option is actually a complete weapon that simply has less projectiles. I see first if the latter is possible. So from a game point of view, it is easier.

And no, you cannot exchange twice or trice or whatever. The whole weapon set was only good for 3x 600 as transport.

Several things I want and need for later missions.

Mission 5: Assault attribute.
I need to re-establish still. Or scrap it and simply advice as action.

Mission 6: Concusive and Splash.
I re-read this topic. And in my designer manual.
I might have to re-establish the weight factors. But these are more a gamble and skill related. Yes....skill related. That means that the theoratical balance has a range.
For concussive, this is 100% or less in weight.
For explosive, for some reason I had 167% as weight. But this has to be lowered for certain. Both of the attributes are going to get synergy with the normal dice rolls.
A simulation is out of the question these days.
A calculation has to be approached slowly, and with a plan.

Perhaps open a new topic for each problem? Well, I could re-open older ones. I should do that.

Either way, concussive is for a sniper.
Splash would be for rockets.
Also, perhaps I should make sure to re-name splash. Since I got several mechanics with similar names. THAT, should be an entire topic on its own.

100% for normal.
90% for concussive due to having the option to get a possitive synergy with normal.
120% for focussed due to having synergy as well.

Concussive is good against 1 health.
Focussed is good against 5 health.

Splash is troublesome. I need advice on the mechanics.

I copied the 4 page document into the weapons document. Keeping the original alive this way. And keeping paragraphs title's in which I point to the original document.

Certain paragraphs are removed this way.

First, I removed the rules on sets. It is for when there are over 100 designs avaiable to players. And I am designing only 1 faction at the moment.

Since by default, there are always 2 attributes combined. Adding 1 more, like for the construction yard. Simply means a 25% addition in weight. Or a 20% reduction on build points.

Movement and attack range on production facilities are rewritten for more clarity.

The new rules on calculating costs. Made me realize that I have less "fair" options for designing a resource facility.

I tried on the Barracks. Which has 100 BP, which results in a 150 weight value for the "weapon" side. And automatically has 150 weight value for the "body" side.

Due to the attack range and movement speed rules. The default factor is 1.0 for both. Not 0.6.

If a barracks costs 300, the most optimal BP will be 100. That is my goal. I cannot find round designs when jugling between "tanky" or "supportive" production facilities.
Almost everytime I need to round things.
The thing is. I wanted to have 2 versions. One to optimal train 100 riflemen. The other that other version of 120.
Now it is a requirement of 6 barracks to train 5 of the 120. And the cost would be 1800 in total. No worries. This is cool.

***

Once set with good rules for myself in the designing proces. The 3 production facilities will be good to go. I should then throw in the rules on resource managment. Which should be exactly the same. What this means is that you gather 33% per round at maxed out resource nodes and refineries. And you can produce 33% at either infantry, vehicles or buildings.
Well, the latter would be 80% of 33%, thus 26.7%.

The income at a 3600 game should be 1800.
Production would be 1200 for the barracks and the factory.
This means that I cannot exceed a cost of 1200 for 1 unit.

Only 960 for the construction yards. And I think that I need to add "attack range" to it too. Thus reducing the BP.
My options here are "Attack range" versus BP for a "full squad":
0 - 960
1 - 800
3 - 600
5 - 480

(I changed a bit in my excel calculator program in regards of range factors, this is separated from the attributes now)

I would like to have 3 construction yards being able to build 1. So I certainly need to look into the "supportive" versions here. So less health, more BP.

My other goal is to have the factory having a cost of 1800. Thus the first tier is 600 BP for mechanical units. So...

I should add some sort of HQ. That can also build in the same way. But moreso, it builds construction yards too. 1 at a time. The HQ is given to the player. Perhaps it generates some income by itself. But I rather not do this. Just have the players start with money. The HQ can certainly be a supportive type. Allowing the third armor tier only.

The total production of the construction yards and the 1 HQ should be at least 1800. Or exceed this.
With an attack range for both at 3. We have a total of only 1200. The HQ does have a bonus range of 1 all the time due to it filling the entire region. But I rather not.

So, "supportive" designs are required.
The 50-50 designs are for the HQ costing 3600 with 600 BP and the construction yards costing 600 each with only adding 100 BP.

TBC

All of the following designs have:
Produces Biological and Mechanical Structures.
2nd option for getting RN in the field.

I also removed the Salvo, Projectiles and Accuracy.

Engineer [balanced version]
cost 120, size 120, (sumsize 120)
Movement 3, Build range 0
Armor 1, health 5
Build Points 20
Full squad build points 600

Engineer [support x3 version]
cost 400, size 400, (sumsize 600)
Movement 3, Build range 0
Armor 1, health 5
Build Points 180
Full squad build points 1620

MCV [balanced version]
cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 600)
Movement 3, Build range 0
Armor 9, health 75 (8.3)
Build Points 100
Full squad build points 600

MCV [support x2 version]
cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 720)
Movement 3, Build range 0
Armor 9, health 36 (4)
Build Points 192
Full squad build points 1152

CY [balanced version]
cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 600)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 9, health 150 (16.7)
Build Points 100
Full squad build points 600

CY [support x3 version]
cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 900)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 9, health 45 (5)
Build Points 270
Full squad build points 1620

HQ [balanced version]
cost 3600, size 3600, (sumsize 3600)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 36, health 1800 (200, 50)
Build Points 600
Full squad build points 600

HQ [support x2 version]
cost 3600, size 3600, (sumsize 4320)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 36, health 864 (96, 24)
Build Points 1152
Full squad build points 1152

HQ [support x3 version]
cost 3600, size 3600, (sumsize 5400)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 36, health 540 (60, 15)
Build Points 1620
Full squad build points 1620

What are your oppinion on the designs?

I rather keep nice round numbers. But the HQ feels so weak. And having a support type of building seems rather wrong. They can die very fast. So, I certainly need to add walls that can protect the CY.

As for the MCV, I don't know if these have use to a player. They are like the Engineer, but 1 Engineer can enter an ATV. Thus gaining even more mobility. And the MCV comes in very late. The Factory costing 1800 will need 1800 BP in total from all the production facilities.

I will ponder on the options for a bit.

When looking at the costs and the BP of the CY and the HQ.
HQ B can build 1.
HQ S2 can build 1...
HQ S3 can build 2...
While the S2 and S3 can build more overall. They lack optimalisation.

The Engineer can provide 180 BP.
This means that 1152 + 180 > 1200
and 1152 + 4x180 > 1800
Or
1620 + 180 = 1800.
Perfect...

As for protecting the HQ. Once walls get out with the cover mechanic. It doesn't matter much where these walls are placed. As long as they are adjacent to the HQ region. They can offer protection. It is just.... the protection needs to be more than the size. Thus the walls should get a lot of cover points. And I suspect I need to enlargen walls in such a way that they become cheaper.

I feel strange in this progress.
I design with a goal in mind that can only be done after the previous design is done.

As for the things I would like to choose to be in the game?
I feel like having the S3 HQ would be good as well.

If I choose the B HQ. I can build 1 CY at the end of each round.
If this CY is the B version. My total BP grows with only +100 per round:
BP in round 1 is 600.
+ 1 CY.
BP in round 2 is 700. 1 CY.
+ 1 CY.
BP in round 3 is 800. 2 CY.
+ 1 CY.
BP in round 4 is 900. 3 CY.
+ 1 CY. +1 Bs.
BP in round 5 is 1000 and 100. 4 CY. 1 Bs.
+ 1 CY. +1 Bs.
BP in round 6 is 1100 and 200. 5 CY. 2 Bs.
+ 1 CY. +1 Bs.
BP in round 7 is 1200 and 300. 6 CY. 3 Bs.
+4 Bs.
BP in round 8 is 1200 and 700. 6 CY. 7 Bs.
I guess, now we do a +4 Bs and + 1 E.
BP in round 9 is 1380 and 700. 6 CY. 7 Bs. 1 E.

Only after 7 rounds, I would be able to place 2 more CY. But... I would have reached the maximum of 1200 BP. And you need to add other things now. Perhaps start with Barracks at round 4. But that is too late.

There is only 1 version of the Engineer. An Engineer adds 180 BP. But you need 2 rounds in order to get 4 Barracks.
Then having at least +600. You will be needing 4 more rounds. This starts in round 3. So, you end up at 7 rounds.
However, in the mean time, you keep adding Engineers as well.
And also more Barracks. Once summoned, they cannot do anything yet.
BP in round 1 is 600.
+2 Bs.
BP in round 2 is 600 and 200. 2 Bs.
+2 Bs.
BP in round 3 is 600 and 400. 4 Bs.
+2 Bs. +1 E.
BP in round 4 is 780 and 600. 6 Bs. 1 E.
+2 Bs. +1 E.
BP in round 5 is 960 and 800. 8 Bs. 2 E.
+3 Bs. +2 E.
BP in round 6 is 1320 and 1100. 11 Bs. 4 E.
+1 Bs (limit reached). + 2 E. + 1 CY
BP in round 7 is 1780 and 1200. 12 Bs. 6 E. 1 CY.
+ 3 E. + 2 CY.
BP in round 8 is 2520 and 1200. 12 Bs. 9 E. 3 CY.
+ 3 CY (limit reached).
BP in round 9 is 2820 and 1200. 12 Bs. 9 E. 6 CY.

This method is more than twice as effective. I simply don't like the fact that it takes 9 rounds. And the costs?
12 Bs = 3600. 9 E = 3600. 6 CY = 3600.
A Refinery will cost 1200. And each resource node is 300.
Engineers can build these for you. If you have at least 2 of them. So, in round 6, you head out with 4 Engineers to 2 resource spots. And in the mean time you build 1 Refinery in the base? No, that refinery costs 1200. And thus, you need to build it with the Engineers. Thus, in round 5, they finally head out. While in the base, you can get 5 more Engineers and get a CY. Which also grants you more than 1800 BP in the base. This for that Factory.
In round 6, the first tank could roll out. But the opponent can have walls by the time it arrives. And also lots of RPG and Bazooka infantry.

If I pick all the support types. The total BP can be 6012.
If I pick the lowest types. The total BP will only be 3420.
With almost half of it comming from Engineers though.
Should I see for a balanced version? Yeah, I added it to the top now. And I picked the cheapest doable version.
The total BP would now be only 2400.

What I should do is find a way to increase the BP to at least 3600. Without the HQ. And thus being able to rebuild this thing as well. You know...Just in case :D

Perhaps it is time to put the BP into the Body stats instead.
It takes away 50%. And then gives 33% BP compared to the total costs.
The concequence is that a design will get 3 times more health.

As for how BP works. I guess I could keep the Weapon system. And calculate accordingly. Simply having a 1/3rd attribute added to the body side. Thus the health is x3.

It offers a problem when a production facility is having a normal weapon. I do have to calculate this manually.

Here are the results, and new strategies:

Engineer [support x3 version]
cost 400, size 400, (sumsize 600)
Movement 3, Build range 0
Armor 1, health 15
Build Points 180
Full squad build points 1620

As said before, a strategy is to get to some resources with the help of ATV. Even over water.

MCV [balanced version]
cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 600)
Movement 3, Build range 0
Armor 9, health 225 (25)
Build Points 100
Full squad build points 600

The strategy here is...look how tanky this one has become. You need a lot of tier 2 weapons already in order to kill it. 25 hits instead of the normal 5 hits. Although, the relative costs is twice as normal. So, lets say 12.5 hits. Relatively speaking, it takes 2.5 turns instead of 1 turn. And 2.5 turns is thus 3 turns. Meaning that these units cannot fight other targets. And the MCV can build defences on the spot. Even perhaps a wall, if this one is designed right.

CY [support x3 version]
cost 600, size 600, (sumsize 900)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 9, health 135 (15)
Build Points 270
Full squad build points 1620

Expanding the range of base building by base buildings by 3. That's it.

HQ [support x3 version]
cost 3600, size 3600, (sumsize 5400)
Movement 0, Build range 3
Armor 36, health 1620 (180, 45)
Build Points 1620
Full squad build points 1620

45 shots hits required.
This requires 27 dice with an average damage roll.
The combat tanks have a 5/6th accuracy. Thus the number of shots 1 has to do is 32.4, or 33 if you want to be nitpicking.
We can have 6 at most, leaving us with 5.4 turns.
This is 2 rounds.
Yikes....it looks like the MCV is way more durable. Despite it being smaller.
Perhaps I need to consider the death rate of these combat tanks as well.
If there are 6 combat tanks defending.
In 1 turn, they can destroy 1.67 combat tanks on average.
So while the attackers target the HQ. They do die off.

6 or 6 shots
4.3 or 5 shots
2.7 or 3 shots
1 or 1 shot
A total of 15...which is less than half that of 33. Succes!!!!

I need to set up what I want for my production facilities:

1. The durability should be high. Preferably close to the ratio of simply placing an object somewhere. This is x6. But x3 for the durability compared to what it represents is good too.

2. The BP should be equal to that of "shooting 3 times in a round on a balanced unit". If this is the case. The BP should even be equal to that of the costs of said production facility. While I prefer having a 1/3 or at most 1/2 ratio in this.

3. The BP should be part of the Weapons calculation. In order to allow fair versions.

A. I certainly will add the option for allowing cumulative costs. With enough credits, everything is possible.

B. I certainly will add the option for gathering credits on the production facility. It adds a sense of time. And provides a weakness that can be strategised on.

***

One

Ok, what happens if I don't look at BP in the first place.
A structure without a weapon has 6 times more health.

Let's consider the barracks first. The goal is having a cost of 300 for it. This means 3x the 5 health a rifleman has.
Another factor is 0.6 since it cannot move around. 5/3 x 15 = 25.
However, since there is this root factor. Solely a body system without weapons would multiply the health by 6. We are now at 150.

If we target this by the basic rifleman. We can use 3.
150/3=50.
The accuracy is now also applied.
50/ (5/6)=60.
Riflemen can shoot 3 times per round.
60/3=20.

This means, 3 riflemen need 20 rounds per barracks.
And we didn't include the fact that a full body is also x2 because there are no resources in the weapon. Or else, it would have been 300 health and 40 rounds.

This is too much. Clearly I need to discard the x6 now.
This happens automatically when we add BP as a weapon to the calculations.

We are left with 25 health.
This means 3.33 rounds or 10 turns are needed for 3 riflemen, in order to destroy 1 barracks.
This is acceptable.

Assuming we use this logic. What is the durability of the HQ against 6 combat tanks?

We have 1800 health, the damage is 36 per hit. So, we have 50 shots. Again the accuracy of 5/6 means we need 60 rolls.
60 by 6 tanks is 10 turns.

And a decent dying squad of combat tanks would only apply 15 on the 60 rolls. Thus 25%. Well.... I think this is the goal I had in mind. So, the "supportive" versions should be a choice by the player. And the counter effect can only be the walls that provide cover. Thus, we need to keep this way of calculating things on the Body side. And thus point Three is included here as well.

Two

If we consider the destruction of an unit. It takes on average 3 turns. Not 3 rounds.
3 turns is like 1 round.

And production of the same "object" should be 1 round as well in terms of "damage".

What is the best logic here?

If the object that is being destroyed was only body. And we don't include the root factor. We would be needing 2 rounds. And thus, we should need 2 rounds for production as well.

So, 300 cost for a facility would mean 150 BP. And this BP is at an "attack range" of 2. (I double checked, I have this applied in my calculations, including that the addition is only +0.2)

For the normal production facilities. 50% is too much imho. But 33% is just right.
The other production facilities for producing 3 attributes instead of 2. Would provide 40%. And if we follow the 33%, it is 26.7% there. At 40%, we have 1440 for the HQ.
At 26.7% we obviously have 960 BP. And applying a 3 attack range would mean: 25% or 16.7% in comparisson.

25% isn't that bad to be honest. And perhaps we should allow the Barracks to have some "attack range" as well?

I am stuck on this part for now. But I don't have to look at A and B. Because if I add these, both solve the low production rate of my HQ and other stuff. And having a support version is now optional.

How do I make this division of 1.5 explanable or logical?

As said before. For now we don't use sets for the structures. If I would, we would be having differences in the costs as well.

Good to know that a plan A and B are ready for production as well.

But here is a thought. We need "storage" of things. Perhaps it would be interesting to set a default of this as well, compared to the cost of a building. And the storage is added as default if a production is present.

While production has a certain "speed" due to range and other effects. The storage can be linked to the total value.

If production is 1/3 of the total cost.
And resource managment is 1/2 of the total cost.
Then... lets look at existong RTS games.

Most don't have a storage system. But some do.
Some have it directly on the field. Some have it piled up together.

C&C td has it in the field, divided. Aside from a feature, it can be taken over as well.
If we copy this, the total storage would be tracked. And resources can pile up here. Not on the field.

Resources can then be placed on the production facilities until they reach an ammount, like suggested in plan B.

Since they are chips, this is done before the combat phase.

This way, resources are reduced on the big pile.

If I allow structures to be taken over. Production will also give stored credits.
But a resource storage of the big pile, only that, what is too much.

Storage for both resources, credits and production...
Thinking about having the root factor times the cost.
This means that most production facilities have 1, 1.2 or 1.5 as factor. A silo has 6.

The resource node and refinery have 1.

In the future, when the rule is applied of having to transport the resources from a pool to the refinery. The movement speed of a harvester will reduce the cargo. But so will the range.

Just like how production facilities have a default range of 2 due to start and placement added to the production.

The ammount doesn't matter. But each squad moves as one. Each squad gets a number.

1. You roll a d6 to determine which squad will take an action.
Once a squad is removed from the map. The corresponding numbers move forward. If a squad is targetted by a player. The roll will be a yes/no question first. In order to determine if the squad that is being "attacked" will take a re-action. Or that another squad will do something.

2. You roll a d6 to determine the action.
Move/Attack/Move+Attack
If there are not enough AP left for this AI, you roll a d6 on the move+attack in order to determine if it is only a move or attack. If the AP is still not sufficient for any action here. The AP is simply lost. But if it is a re-action, the AP is simply NOT lost.

3. You roll a d6 to determine the direction. This is the start of the "clock" in regards of attacks. You see what squad of the player is aimed at, and you go clockwise (or counter clockwise with help of a d6 roll) If an attack would not connect, it will be a move instead. However, if an attack will not connect due to the action being a move+attack. Then the move is done afterwards. Or follows the attack patern.

If the squad doesn't fit or can't attack. It tries to get as close as possible to a convenient target.
In case of chokepoints. If possible, the squad pays extra AP in order to get through these chokepoints.

Final note: a squad will always target as optimal as possible. With 2 players against the AI. 1 of the players will make sure the AI will fight properly. Because the 2 players, while being allies. Will still see who is the better one (or more lucky one)