Well this will be a bit of a "mysterious" BLOG entry. I have a military Card Game that I am working on with two (2) Factions. That's about as generic as it can be. Hehehe.
I had the idea of an "ATTACK" Value in the TOP-LEFT-HAND corner... But as I continued to design, I realized that instead of JUST "ATTACK" I could have several SUITS (Attack, Heal, Repair, etc. etc.)
My ISSUE is figuring out WHICH "suits" would be appropriate for the game.
A HEART could be HEAL. A SPADE could be REPAIR, a STAR could be ATTACK...
These are some embryonic ideas ATM. Not sure what could be a FOURTH. But I would think that these SUITS would be available to BOTH Factions (or maybe just to one...) Not sure about that just YET either!
If anyone has ideas for additional SUITS, feel free to reply. I will continue to ponder about more. Not sure how many I need... But we'll definitely think a bit more about these SUITS.
Cheers all.
Comments
Another alternative
Maybe a SHIELD of some kind to "protect", "defend" or "Counter"?!?! I'd need to ponder the logistics of such a SUIT. IDK TBH. Just thought of Attack and Defend and thought that you could only ONE or the OTHER but not both.
Like ATTACK can attack but both cards can be "wounded". Where as DEFEND can act like a "blocker" and protect the defending card. Two DEFEND does nothing as a bad consequence...
Just thinking about it. It could alter the composition of the Player's Deck too.
That's something more to consider and there are variations that can be used to make COMBOS. More on that later. For now... I'm still thinking about MORE SUITS and how they can be used.
More thoughts to ponder about...
So I definitely need something like "3-Suits" which could result in a RPS-3 mechanic (Rock-Paper-Scissor). Maybe something like:
Not sure ... I like the idea of INJECTING an RPS-3 into the game instead of having just two (2) Suits (Good and Bad). Kinda like the Elven Rings in "The Lord of the Rings"... Hehehe. Perfect BALANCE.
Where as SAME "Suit" follows normal rules (the greater the value wins).
Again not sure about this. I definitely get the impression that something ALONG these lines and rules could work. It really depends as I figure out what is the best possible RULES to follow.
TBD.
There could be a BONUS instead of a BEAT
The RPS-3 mechanic doesn't need to be "absolute" like a traditional RPS-3. What I mean by this is instead of "BEATS", there could be a BONUS (like +3 Points) and this could impact the "SCORING" mechanic.
Like IF I have a "2 STAR" and I am battling a "4 SHIELD", the STAR PLAYER would earn a "+3 STAR BONUS" for a total of "5 STAR" vs. "4 SHIELD" and therefore the STAR Unit BEATS the SHIELD Unit 5 vs. 4.
Something like that could IN-BETWEEN "absolute" rules. This also gives me the possibility to ADD "Abilities" that BOOST stats too. I'm not 100% sure YET...! But this definitely sounds like a step in the right direction as I DISLIKE your Vanilla RPS-3 rules which means that one choice beats the next.
I like the idea of "Minimizing" the impact but also allowing the possibility of having different types of suits and that could add more STRATEGY to the "Deck Building" aspect of the game.
Again this is a WIP (Work-In-Progress) so we shall see... I'll keep you all informed as to the direction that I experiment with soon enough!
Cheers all.
Similar to Card Jitsu
Oh hey, this is a lot like Card Jitsu, the Club Penguin in-game TCG. They had 3 suits: water, ice, and fire. Each suit would beat another, and cards of the same suit would go by value of the card. The high-value cards also had special abilities, like "destroy one of your opponent's scored cards" or "your opponent can only play high-value cards next turn". Maybe you could check out Card Jitsu to jog some ideas.
Also, I've always thought managing troop morale is cool. If you wanna make it RPS-5, you could introduce that.
Hello and yeah this is a cool reference...
Thanks for SHARING that @Noah McQ ... I like the Battle Mechanic of Card Jitsu. Yeah it's hard to design novel concept when there is so much OUT-THERE that we are not all aware of.
This was like 75% of the Combat idea except in MY game you can STACK multiple cards (up to 3 Cards). But yeah that's almost EXACTLY what I was going for:
It's interesting that you point out that game... Because I've never even heard of this Trading Card Game (Card Jitsu) and I would have never had any prior knowledge for when this game was around (2008 to 2017). So almost 10-Years ...
Very cool that you shared that with me... MY Angle will be:
And of course STACKS plus BONUSES make for a bit of a DIFFERENT feel than Card Jitsu... But real great that I've read more about that game and made my own a bit different.
Cheers and again thank you for sharing!
How to further BALANCE the combat mechanic
So IF the FIRST card dictates the SUIT, each card of the SAME suit deals the same BONUS amount. Like I said, I am using up to 3-Card STACKS. So you draw your own card and let's say it is a STAR and your opponent is showing a HEART. You earn +2 BONUS ATTACK Points.
Then the player needs to determine if he wants to INCLUDE more Units in Combat or resolve the battle AS-IS:
2 HEARTS vs. 3 SHIELDS = 6 STACK #1 vs. 6 STACK #2. So this means that it is a TIE. Player #1 can decide that BOTH Player must "Wound" their two (2) cards OR he can choose to reveal ONE (1) more card. Player #1 tries to go for a win...
5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS = 11 STACK #1 vs. 10 STACK #2. Player #1 is the Victor and therefore Player #3 needs to "Wound" his three (3) cards and place them at the bottom of his Deck.
Of course there is an OPTION for EACH "Duel" between two (2) cards to be a PART of the RPS-3. And obviously this is a PYL (Push-Your-Luck) mechanic to TRY to defeat the opponent rather than TRADE losses on both sides of the battle.
This to me seems to be ONE (1) ALTERNATIVE. Let's look at another:
2 HEARTS vs. 3 SHIELDS = 2 HEARTS vs. 5 SHIELDS (+2 BONUS RPS-3 Win). So this means that it is a TIE (1 to 1). Player #1 can decide that BOTH Player must "Wound" their two (2) cards OR he can choose to reveal ONE (1) more card. Player #1 tries to go for a win...
5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS = 5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS. Player #1 is the Victor (2 to 1) and therefore Player #3 needs to "Wound" his three (3) cards and place them at the bottom of his Deck.
But that's not the ONLY option. You can choose to WOUND the "LOSERS" ONLY. This would mean that Battle #1 and #3, Player #2 as the LOSER needs to "Wound" two (2) Units. But because Player #2 won Battle #2 ... Player #1 needs to "Wound" his 2nd Unit. And then the score would be 2 to 1. Rather than an ALL-OR-NOTHING scenario (3 to 0).
I need to think about it some more TBH. ALL-OR-NOTHING makes it MORE PYL... You try to WIN across three (3) battles and the winner wins EVERYTHING and the loser "Wounds" all of those three (3) Units.
It's a bit more DRAMATIC and adds a definite amount of TENSION.
I will definitely need to PLAYTEST which method is better but we clearly have three (3) options:
Stack with a BONUS ONLY on the first (1st) Battle and the result is ABSOLUTE where the loser "Wounds" ALL of their cards and the Victor "Wounds" NONE of their cards.
No Stack but you can have 3 battles and the winner of the MOST "Battles" wins and therefore the loser "Wounds" ALL of their cards and the Victor "Wounds" NONE of their cards.
No Stack and battles are won individually meaning that each Battle is either a WIN or LOSS (Wound) and there can be from 1 to 3 battles per turn.
Those are my options ATM. Which is BETTER... I'm not sure. But I definitely feel like I have OPTIONS to TRY and see what is better.
Obviously in MY BOAT a STONGER more riskier PYL mechanic is VERY desirable. There is the FOURTH (4th) OPTION which is closer to Option #1. Same as Option #1 but instead of ONLY have the BONUS on the FIRST card, you get a BONUS on EACH CARD (whomever wins the RPS for that position). All or nothing means that in the end, the Victor saves all of their Units and the LOSER "Wounds" all of their Units.
I will continue to PONDER these options ... I like Option #4... The ALL-OR-NOTHING with BONUS checks for each Battle.
More thoughts into these various approaches.
And @X3M ... You now know about 4 Battle Approaches that I am looking at. Like I said, MY design has only been since November 2025... Even though something embryonic has existed since 2023 but never went anywhere.
Cheers all!
What I LIKE about the PYL..???
Is that IF I use Option #4 (Stack plus Bonuses for each Battle) ... It becomes very STRATEGIC for a player who is ALREADY AHEAD of the BATTLES to just RISK IT and try one more time BECAUSE they have a lead.
You're a bit playing with FIRE... In that it's DANGEROUS but MITIGATED with ODDS of SUCCESS versus odds of failure. This make the PYL much more flexible...
Yes there could be an UPSET if the opponent draw a STRONGER card and the whole plan goes down the crapper... But that's the deal with PYL: At your OWN RISK!
So I'm strongly leaning towards Option #4...
Sincerely.
Let me show you the difference between #1 and #4
2 HEARTS vs. 3 SHIELDS = 8 STACK #1 (+2 BONUS RPS-3 Win) vs. 6 STACK #2. So this means that Player #1 is ahead 8 to 6. Player #1 can now decide to reveal ONE (1) more card. Player #1 tries to go for a bigger win...
5 SHIELDS vs. 4 SHIELDS = 13 STACK #1 vs. 10 STACK #2. Player #1 is the Victor and therefore Player #3 needs to "Wound" his three (3) cards and place them at the bottom of his Deck.
That's what Option #4 looks like. And in this case Player #1 clearly won the STACK Battle 13 to 10 which is pretty good and results in all of Player #2 Units being "Wounded" (All three of them).
Again maybe playtesting will figure out which is the BEST approach... But from an Analytical POV (Point-Of-View)... I am strongly leaning towards Option #4. It may be too GOOD (too easy) so playtesting will determine the best method.
If Option #4 is too DRAMATIC, I would then go with Option #3 (No Stack and individual wins). That seems to be the most LOGICAL method TBH. So it will be between TOO DRAMATIC and MORE LOGICAL.
We shall see.
Best!
Feel free to share additional thoughts...
Curious how an RPS-5 introduces "Morale"?! If you care to explain... I would be indeed interested in reading your "thought-process". As of now, I have only used an RPS-5 when there would be Five (5) Factions or Entities.
An RPS-5 is a CYCLIC version of 5 RPS-3s. That much I know and have learnt.
Not sure HOW(?) that works for Troop Morale.
But would like to understand more for sure... If you care to explain, I'm all ears because this is something beyond me ... You must have some kind of specific ideas which I don't know or have never heard before.
Sincerely.
Option #4 All the Way!
Option 4 excites me just reading it. I can imagine myself as the attacker going, "Oh? Looks like I've bested you by 4 points? Should I let you lose just your one unit?" and then acting cruel and sinister and being all, "No! Push the attack!" and then they get the advantage suit on my next card and I'll be all like, "What?! His stack is now 10 to my 9?! I can't lose both my units! I need to push the attack again!" and then getting reeeeaaaaal anxious for the third duel. Option #4 100%
Sorry for being ambiguous haha, I was just throwing out an idea for a theme. I thought that if you're making the game military-themed, then the suits wouldn't be stuff like "Star" and "Shield" but maybe things like "Munitions", "Personnel", "Position" etc. I just thought it would be neat if one of the suits was "Morale". For RPS-5, it would just be 5 suits, one of which is Morale.
I thought you might want to use RPS-5 to make the game more interesting than simply playing Rock-Paper-Scissors with your hands, but that Option #4 seems very interesting and fun with the 3 suits. I can imagine myself as defender thinking, "Please don't attack again, please please please please please"
Hehehe! Yeah I knew someone would ...
But I'm a bit worried about the STACKING. I know @X3M talks a lot about how he must BALANCE his H/D ratio and measure his STATS too; well this for me is a bit similar.
My PRIMARY concern is that in a DECK of 16 cards when 5 are LOCATIONS and 1 is the HQ... That leaves 10 Unit cards. Ten (10) cards is not much ... If you do 2 Battles that's 6 cards which is 6 out of 16 which is almost ~40% of the Deck.
Plus you can have CYCLE 9 cards which means you advance into your 16 Card Deck by 9 cards. Not sure as to all the variations... I need to think more about the game and how it's supposed to WORK. As of today, it's just a bunch of ideas which are not 100% cohesive, they still need more rules and more designing needs to happen.
I have a TON of abilities too since I learned the METHOD to making Magic: the Gathering (Magic) cards. Follow the rules for each aspect of the game isolate that portion and design abilities that respect the rules. Later on when the game becomes more established BREAK the rules and design newer abilities that are over the top.
I currently have 175 different abilities in my spreadsheet and 32 unique ones with different CYCLE counts (which vary from 0 to 9).
Like for example:
What this ability does is CONDENSE Units in a bunch to allow for a FUTURE STACK attack during the next Deck run-through. Since it is a "0 Cycle" your turn ends after you perform the ability.
Or another example:
What this ability does is MAKE the FUTURE less predictable by ADDING +2 cards to the cycle for your NEXT Action (3 Actions per turn) or if this is the 3rd Action to the 1st Action of your NEXT TURN.
Stuff like that... I had FUN defining a bunch of neat abilities (like I said there are currently 32 UNIQUE ones). And there are a total of 175 different abilities (with different Cycle counts) when you factor in the variations.
Anyhow that's probably more than I wanted to SHARE. But it gives you a better idea of what I am working on.
I will keep in mind that Option #4 is your preferred method of play and we'll see if it WORKS well or not. From there if it's not feasible it'll probably be Option #3. We shall see.
Cheers everyone.
Also why the "Mystery" Card Game vs. a NAME?
Well I had released YEARS ago (like maybe 2-Years) the name of another card game which I called: "Battle Botz". Well it looks like someone TOOK my name and put up a BGG Game Entry for 2027 (Coming in the Future). Anyhow I'm annoyed about this because I had reserved this name way back in 2024: May 19, 2024. And the entry can be read here:
https://www.bgdf.com/blog/duel-botz-%E2%80%94-complete-overhaul-order-fo...
Anyhow ... I haven't been working on that game ... It's on the bench for future projects but it also is very unique in that AGAIN it's a "Card Game" but uses dice in a unique way. Dice are central to the "core" of the game.
I have an EARLY version that was printed from "The Game Crafter" (TGC).
So that's why I don't want to release TOO MANY details unless someone tries to TAKE the SAME NAME that I have planned for this design. As such, I remain a bit "mysterious". I don't mind sharing ideas and have topics in which we explain a bit more of what it is that I am working on.
But I draw the line at NAMES of games. That entry was probably since 2024 sometime and mine was about 1-Year prior.
Anyhow we'll see in the future even if this is one project that I don't plan on publishing even IF it may be cool. I'm just working on it as an exercise and to see what I can design for it.
So Kudos to @Noah McQ for stating that he favors Option #4 ... And for now the name will remain a "mystery"! Until I too figure out how to RESERVE a name on BGG... Hehehe.
Best!
Well I had some more ideas...
I came upon another "Card Game" which is a "micro game" and it gave me some ideas as to HOW(?) to handle the "Combat" and that's great... But I am in a way STUCK again... WHY(?) Because the game has ATM no resources so there is NO METHOD to "DRAFT" units to engage in "Combat"...
The whole "Combat" is resolved... And is PRETTY GOOD.
But HOW(?) do you draft the units is still something I have yet to figure out...
There needs to be a KIND of "Resource Engine" or "Resource Planning", etc. etc.
That's where I AM STUCK.
***
And I've seriously re-thought some of the game and to see HOW(?) I can implement my NEW ideas from this other "Micro Card Game". Strangely I feel like I can "borrow" some mechanics from "Magic: the Gathering" (MtG) too... Hehehe. Yeah, I've got some GOOD IDEAS.
But still NOT 90% complete. I'm about 65% done... What is missing is some of the progression (engine) on the resource side of matter and that would go a LONG WAY in helping this design.
For NOW, I'm fresh out of "ideas"... I will put this on-hold. Until I get some firm ideas about "resources" and how to create some kind of BASIC "engine"...
If anyone has ideas or feedback you'd like to share, please feel free to reply to this comment.
Cheers.
Note #1: And don't worry the MtG IDEAS are NOT like in MtG. It's just a few foundational bricks may surface making the cards feel FAMILIAR but yet are 100% different in implementation AND usage. No copying is being done. And I've just gone and busted my AUDIT for the "Design Space" by INTRODUCING NEW Mechanics to the game. Some older ideas are gone and the newer ones probably need a re-audit. We'll see how long it take to make that happen in the not so distant future!
It's much too SIMPLE...
Currently the game is based on a "Set Collection" Mechanic. While that may be GOOD it is also TOO SIMPLE. Collecting cards to accomplish a GOAL is good but still is not the most AMAZING "concept" out-there. I really feel like I do need an additional "recruit" mechanic which forces players to do more than just use the units in-hand to conquer a "location".
Again while this is TRUE and it's NOT BAD. It still doesn't exactly FEEL like a COMBAT game if there is no "economic engine".
While writing this entry... I had the idea is IF "locations" could be on the TABLE and "economic cards" or "recruit stats" be part of the Deck ... That could split both and mean that LOCATIONS are in-play but NOT part of the Deck and that Units are the ONLY cards that are part of the Deck...
I had already surmised that Unit cards have TWO (2) Sides: A Tactical one and a Economic one. But putting the LOCATIONS on the TABLE "Face-Up" allows a player to decide on WHICH location to "conquer" first. Which is neat in that it setups CHOICE and deeper strategy.
More to think about... But I am keen on trying this CONCEPT out.
Keep you all informed on HOW(?) this game evolves. But so far it's COOL!
Kudos!
Okay so I am going to do something DIFFERENT with...
My "Resources". The NEW plan is to use an RPS-5 for combat types. So basically instead of have a resource like "Melee" you can also have "Melee", "Stealth" AND "Explosive" or three (3) Options of the "Resources" required.
This is just an IDEA ATM. I am exploring how to introduce MORE "flexibility" in the "Resources" because with this being a Micro Card Game, you have LESS Cards and they need to be able to "do more".
This would mean that EACH ONE (1) Resource would have three (3) options making it easier to collect the correct set of Resources for reaching an Objective. I call them Resources but it's a question of Units. Again this is not a Wargame, it will be a Micro Card Game.
So if a Base requires you to have forces of "TWO (2) Melee" to capture it... (Yeah it's turning out to be a real cool Combat Card Game). I've never seen this in any card game... But I'm not sure if there are other Card Games or Board Games that use this option. I can't say it is UNIQUE because I am unsure as to the complete repertoire of games using RPS mechanics.
I had the idea because I was thinking that Aerial Units may be less readily available in the game and I didn't want that to mean that it's harder to make an Aerial Strike because there are LESS "Aerial Units". And so while those cards/Units may be NEAT and COOL ... Not having them is a DRAG and DISAPPOINTING. Especially when they are higher ranking in Rareness and that means LOWER "frequency" and "availability".
But by using the RPS-5 we can use "Is Beaten By" to determine which Units can "replace" the "Aerial" Units by "Aerial" (Identical), "Ranged" or "Explosive".
Making the collection process a bit simpler and less "restrictive" when it comes to some types of Units which are perhaps "not as readily available" in frequency.
Like "Stealth Bomber" is "Aerial", "Explosive" and "Stealth". It's going to be a "Legendary" Unit one of the more sought after cards for COLLECTORS but for the PLAYERS not so much of a Deep Impact since there are ALTERNATIVE cards that are "Common" Units which are more readily available. So while my "Stealth Bomber" is a "Black Ops" Card (Legendary), "SAM Site" is a "Specialized" Card (Uncommon) which is "Aerial" and "Explosive".
Definitely some potential in what I am aiming to do for the "Genre" and what I WANT to do on a personal level (what my Micro Card Game will look like).
More about this as I work out more of the "kinks".
Best!
Note #1: I would have a LONG TIME ago released the Tentative Name of this product but seeing as someone USED one of my Game Names in development (and I'm totally pissed because his game is not even RELEASED yet...), I don't want someone else taking the name of the game seeing as I've already checked and there are no Game Names (Video, Board or Card Games) and I want to ensure it remains that way!
Note #2: This direction seems more "perfected" than the combat mechanics with the RPS-3 and the BONUS system. All of that is GONE now. I also need to re-audit the "Design Space" since that too has changed dramatically based on this last comment and how the game has EVOLVED quite a bit.
More on this tomorrow... TBD. But definitely moving forwards.
I am still not sure...
What I mean is that I can have cards with "ordered" Actions (something like "Race For the Galaxy" (RACE) in which there could be PHASES of a Turn. I am NOT trying to compete against RACE just looking to see what kind of "possibilities" exist with the PHASES.
***
The other approach is to have TYPES of Combat (as in the previous comment). So I would have like THREE (3) types of Combat (out of five) and each one would allow a specific ACTION to be played. This is good because it offers more CHOICE and therefore that adds to the strategic depth.
The problem lies in what to allow per TYPE.
***
Something of concern is that to conquer a "Base" you need to collect the RIGHT SET of THREE (3) Units (or less). That's still an ACCURATE measure of STRENGTH versus the opposing "Base". So that still is IN-TACT and something to work with. However the "recruiting" process and "resource" management is still NOT final.
Therefore I need to figure out if the cards either use Combat TYPES or PHASES of a turn to determine which will be the better "concept".
Keep you all posted as the projects continues to develop further.
Cheers!
Some additional thoughts
Well I was just THINKING that the "PHASE" could be the better option. Why? Well it offers more choice to the players. When I mean choice, I mean that let's assume I went with the "TYPE" of combat and I used a RPS-5, this means that certain ACTIONS can occur depending on the "TYPE" of "Resource" Cards in-play.
So IF my Unit has a "MELEE" Action and I have a "MELEE" "Resource" Card in-play, I can PERFORM that Action (or I garner the BENEFIT of that Action).
While this sounds OK... Look at the alternative:
If I have specific "PHASE" like "Scout / Assault / Defend" would mean that depending on the "PHASE" different options would be made available to the player and that would mean that depending on the "PHASE" you options would VARY ... Making the gameplay very "fluid". More so that the "TYPE" (IMHO).
Again these are some preliminary ideas and I NEED to figure out a "DEFEND" which would be like a "Counter" to an "ASSAULT should be implemented to allow some type of retaliation but also NOT 100% end the conflict by countering it... But puts on some kind of DELAY until additional Units can come into play to ensure that the maximum Power is played making Countering not possible.
So it would be to ensure that an EARLY strike "could"(?!) be countered but not in all situations.
My goal is to DELAY the destruction of "Bases" that might be easier targets but still with the right DEFENSE require more "Attack Power" to destroy them (the weaker bases).
***
I still need to think about it some more... Because there is some DISCONNECT with the "Resources" and "Unit" recruiting. Not sure how BOTH are expected to work TOGETHER.
Let me come back to this at a later time.
Sincerely.
More along that line of thinking...
Instead of JUST having "3 PHASES", there could be MORE and their IMPACT different from one another.
If I INSIST on "3 PHASES" with an series of VARIABLE "Actions" but all ALONG the lines of the SAME PHASES, that could introduce more variability and add to the strategic depth.
So "Recon", "Scan", "Infiltrate" are all SCOUTING actions but done by different types of "Units" and the Actions are "different" too meaning they can add variability to the game.
***
PHASES make for a better "overall" experience. Why? Because it means that before a "Base" can be destroyed or conquered, you must be capable of "Scouting" it out in the first place. I'm still ACTIVELY working on this. And this is a bit of "Top-of-my-head" thinking in Real-Time.
But my thoughts so far are that NOT every unit will have ALL three (3) PHASES: Scout / Assault / Defend. Some may have TWO (2) different SCOUT Actions (for example). Or others will have TWO (2) different ASSAULT Actions (another case).
Given that each PHASE has it's OWN Actions and modifiers. And how you PLAY the game is entirely up to YOU. But once you use a Squad of Units to do "Recon" on one opposing "Base" those cards get put back into your Deck and the game continues...
Again still all EMBRYONIC stuff.
Best!
Here's what I mean
So now I have FIVE (5) General Actions and they go as follows:
- Scout: This will allow you to discover a "Base".
- Attack: This will allow you to destroy or conquer a "Base".
- Defend: This will allow you to protect a "Base" (to a certain extent).
- Cyber-War: This is a bonus way of attacking or scouting a "Base".
- Support: This is a bonus way to support your units in play.
***
The ONLY "Actions" which are REQUIRED is "Scout" and "Attack"; the rest are optional and can help in destroying and conquering a "Base".
Why is this WAY COOL?
Well firstly it means that the QUANTITY of "General Actions" can change from one edition to the NEXT... Even if some are REQUIRED "Actions". This means also the "Sub-Actions", because as it stands currently I will have FIVE (5) "Sub-Actions" per "General Action" for a total of twenty-five (25) different types of Actions in the "core" game.
And that is why this "PHASE" Version is really cool!
***
Just wanted to discuss "Race for the Galaxy" (RACE) and what INSIGHT that I gained. Obviously this is NOTHING like RACE. It was just a question of do I do "PHASES" or "TYPES" for the Actions. It's a bit closer to RACE in that you have three (3) PHASES per Unit with the possibility of having up to THREE (3) of the same "PHASES" with different "Sub-Actions" depending on the nature of the "Sub-Action"...
The "TYPES" (as a reminded) was leaning towards a more "Magic: The Gathering" (MtG) sort of approach where the "Resources" would dictate which Actions would be available. I like this LESS even if it COULD work because it is LESS flexible. I prefer the DYNAMISM of the "PHASES" because it allows me to introduce NEW "General Actions" and "Sub-Actions" as needed by the future versions of the game.
All that to say that I'm still WORKING on it. But now I have a couple more elements and components in-line with what it is I am trying to achieve!
Best!
Oddly enough, it was NOT planned
Just a bit of a REMINDER, "Race for the Galaxy" (RACE) and FIVE (5) "Actions" per Card: I, II, III, IV, an V. And another "$" as a Trade Action. My five (5) Actions are not the same and they may or MAY NOT occur on a given Unit. So a bit like RACE (There are 5 General Actions) but UNLIKE RACE (There are only 3 per Unit).
***
On another note, I feel like "Exhausting" a card should be one of the mechanics in this game. And I've been thinking of UPPING the "Deck" Count of cards. In the "core" game you would get a Booster Pack of 18 Cards: 3 Bases and 15 Units. While that all seems cool, I think the Player's will need MORE cards especially if they are using some as "resources" and others as "units".
So in this vein, I had thought of using a Mint Tin which holds 55 Cards. Obviously I don't plan on having 55 cards. But 36 cards for a "core" (30 Units and 6 Bases). This would imply that a Deck contains 36 cards plus 8 cards of instructions. And this does leave room for the parts (11 cards in terms of size) to reach the Maximum of 55 cards.
Basically what it means is that you have ENOUGH cards (2 Booster Packs full) in order to be able to PLAY the game. Will the "core" cards be RANDOM or not... That has yet to be determined. TBD.
Booster Packs contain 18 Cards: 8 of each Faction and 2 Bases (one for each Faction — There are currently only 2 Factions in the game ATM).
We shall see... I LIKE the IDEA of having a "Mint Tin" Product ... But we'll see if this is the optimal FORMAT for this game. TBD.
Cheers.
Let me clarify a bit...
Although the goal was to design a Micro Card Game, I am THINKING about bringing the Deck count of cards from 15 to 30 Units. And the Bases from 3 to 6. Why? Because I feel like 15 Cards (Units) when you start playing cards in your Area of Play reduces DRAMATICALLY the number of cards in your Deck. Now that you have FIVE (5) "General Actions" that means 30 "Units" a factor of 5x (25) plus five (5).
The idea being that you NEED TWO (2) Booster Packs plus some additional game parts in order to PLAY the game.
This makes 100% sense and in a way, it solidifies the FORMAT and DECK.
Why is this important???
Well playing cards into your "Area of Play" thins out your Deck. This will of course AFFECT the CYCLE mechanic severely and with LESS cards, it makes the Deck feel "empty" or that some more CYCLIC cards too influential. One Ability has the capabilities to CYCLE 9 cards. If you only have 18 cards: 15 "Units" and 3 "Bases", the problem is with 15 "Units", if 5 are used to produce Resources that leaves 10 Cards in your Hand. And if you have 3 more as "Units" that means 7 Cars left over. Just not the direction I want to go in...
I'd prefer a STOCKIER Deck and have more Cyclic Cards that allow you to traverse a Deck "quicker" but still in a HEALTHY way (not the 7 "Units" issue from above)...
Although this makes the game LESS of a Micro Game (Which are usually < 20 Cards), I'm doing what is best for the GAME and to ensure it is HIGHLY strategic and makes sense to play without worrying about mechanics failing due to the fact of a LOW Card count...
More on this soon enough.
Best!
With the EXPANSION of the "Area of Play"...
This gives me a bit of a SHIFT in how I approach the design.
One of the FIRST points that comes to mind, is that from YOUR Deck is the only way to "re-assign" a cards purpose. Again this is a MASSIVE strategic aspect of how you USE your cards.
Since each player has THREE (3) "Bases" that they choose to play... The opponent's Deck CANNOT be optimized for THEIR OWN "Bases" since the goal is to destroy the OPPONENT's "Bases". Again this is significant because unlike OTHER card-based games like "Magic: the Gathering" (Magic), Pokémon (Poke) or Yu-Gi-Oh! (YGO) which are all Collectible Card Games (CCGs), you build your Deck in such a way that YOUR "Deck-Strategy" comes to "fruition" and that leads to a Victory.
But in MY design... The opposite is TRUE: the OPPONENT's SELECTION of "Bases" is what you TRY to defeat. And that is SUPER IMPORTANT and very strategic in terms of HOW(?) are you going to construct your 30 Card Deck and which 3 out of 6 "Bases" will you choose to use yourself.
So there is HIDDEN Information and as the game progresses that HIDDEN Information becomes PERFECT Information revealing HOW(?) you must beat your opponent: given that you SCOUT all the "Bases" and ATTACK them one-by-one and how your OPPONENT plays on DEFENSE and SUPPORTS in order to COUNTER an attack!
I mean Players will need to BALANCE their Decks as such as they don't lose to a weak RUSH strategy and go for a LONGER game time which maybe squeaks out a Victory given a HARD fought battle.
Anyhow I'm working more on this design to see it mature more completely.
Keeping you all posted about how the game evolves.
Cheers all.