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
RPS-5 and ALL Available Operations. Need INPUT!
Okay so after some research I have devised five (5) different Categories of Operations that can exist. These are performed when there is a MISSION occurring.
Here they are (as in the current version):
1> Scout
2> Invade
3> Defend
4> Cyber-War
5> Support
Mission #1: Scouting is required before Invasion of the enemy Base can occur.
Mission #2: Invading is done to try to win the game by capturing the enemy Base.
Okay here is where things get a bit FLUID:
Mission #3: Defending affects the "Invasion" efforts and provides ways to reduce the efficiency of an enemy Squad on your Base.
Mission #4: Cyber-War allows for BOOST to your "Invasion" efforts.
Mission #5: Support is a mix-bag of tactics that work in tandem with your Squads and other Mission cards.
Each of those Actions are divided into FIVE (5) Categories... That make up the RPS-5 used in the game. What do I mean???
Well there are FIVE (5) different TYPES of Units. They go as follows:
1> Melee 2> Explosive 3> Aerial 4> Stealth 5> Ranged 1> Melee.
Each TYPE of Unit has it's OWN "Mission" Ability.
For example: "Aerial" + "Support" = "Refuel" Action... OR
"Melee" + "Defend" = "Guard" Action...
There are in total 25 different Operations all revolving around the Unit RPS-5. Each Mission provides some kind of Operation/Effect based on the Unit (and the RPS-5 too)!
Each Mission has a COLOR too... Which makes it EASIER to understand WHICH "Operation" (think Action) is being conducted. So ALL "Scout" Missions are "GREEN" in color for ALL Units.
Enough said about all of that. It's ALL COOL...
***
My problem lies in how to STACK these Missions and HOW does a "Deployed" Unit get to go on a Mission!?
At first it was EASY (Too Easy): You just Flip the Card and Voila ... On a Mission.
The next version was the players need to Capture a Unit in Combat and then the Enemy's Captain is Captured and the Attacking Player's Captain is then allow to perform a Mission.
This seems a bit TOO COMPLICATED.
So...
***
Somehow I need a WAY to PERFORM Missions and I need for Combat to be relevant for some kind of reason.
Any and all feedback is welcome. If you have comments or questions, feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer. Clearly this is NOT an easy question and it makes up a good part of what the "core" of the players will be doing while PLAYING this game.
Sincerely.
Maybe I'm over-complicating matters... IDK
But I need two (2) things to make sense in the game:
1> First there needs to be a REASON for Combat among the two players.
This is very important because there needs to be a REASON to Deploy Units.
2> The next thing is that there needs to be a METHOD of going on Missions.
This is also important because Operations on Mission cards allow a player to get sufficient Scoring to WIN the Mission (Scout or Invade). There are other Missions as I explained in the previous comment, but they are OPTIONAL.
Some additional NOTES...
3> Deployed Units can Attack the Opponent's Deployed Units and then CAPTURE a Unit.
Captured Units CANNOT go on Missions. Enough said about that. That makes sense.
4> From "Ready" to ??? (Deploy and/or Mission)
This is MY PAIN-POINT ATM. This is the biggest issue that I currently have. I am unsure how to proceed with this particular problem.
I will ponder some more and report back in a day or two.
Feel free to add your ideas and/or share with us your thoughts on this matter.
Best!
Trying to figure out an alternative...
I DON'T like that Combat has (at the moment) TWO (2) effects:
1> That an opponent's Unit cards get "Captured".
2> That this somehow allows for the winning player to go on a "Mission".
Unlike most of these games which require TRADE as the engine for the game, my version is SPECIFIC in that it is focused on COMBAT.
So Point #1 about "capturing" an enemy unit... That makes sense and it works with the mechanics in the game.
My problem with Point #2 is HOW(?) do I get players' Units to "Go on a Mission". Essentially to either "Scout" or "Invade" the Enemy Base.
I've figured out that "Scouting" is done FIRST and once that is completed that "Mission Ends" and the next step is to "Invade" the Enemy Base to WIN the game.
That all makes 100% sense. But...
There still remains the HOW(?) to handle missions.
***
So Combat in itself can be a "Throttling" Effect. Why do you Battle the opponent??? Because this can LOWER the enemies capabilities to CYCLE their Deck. So you don't necessarily want to Battle ALL Units, only one here-and-there such that you break-up the speed at which the opponent may cycle his Deck.
That WORKS and it's a different effect than Missions.
There is a REASON for Combat/Battles. And it works as explained.
But the "Mission" ASPECT which is NEEDED to PLAY and WIN the game... Doesn't have this same kind of REASON.
Yes I know that "Missions " are REQUIRED to PLAY and WIN. But HOW(?) does one manage to get a Unit to "Go on the Mission" is my issue!?!?
***
ATM I don't know. Knowing this would tremendously IMPROVE the design. And could maybe lead to a PROTOTYPING phase (as we move beyond the design and test out what remains).
Again if anyone has ideas or wants to share their thoughts, feel free to reply and give feedback. I know it's a bit HARD since these are intrinsically deep aspects in the design... But you never know what might come up and strike you as something that could finalize the design.
So cheers all and thank you for your collaboration!
Some additional thoughts
One point is this:
So Combat has it's place and is useful for two (2) very different REASONS.
***
"Missions" are the NEXT BIG thing in the game.
Again it all MAKES SENSE... But for one (1) SMALL (maybe TINY) aspect is HOW(?) to allow for "Missions" to take place???
I'm still thinking about this... And I'm fresh out of NEW ideas for this particular aspect of the game.
Again any help is muchly appreciated whether you have a fix or maybe some ideas that I have not covered ... Your feedback is welcome. I know it's a bit hard to THINK about since nobody is in the full details of the game... This is as simple as I can express the existing challenge/issue right now.
Cheers all.
Still a bit "embryonic" but...
The idea would be to INTRODUCE a "special" Unit known as a "Captain" which is the card that allows a player to "go on a Mission"!
You can ONLY have ONE (1) Captain per Stack and obviously you can ONLY have one (1) Stack for a maximum of 3 units plus the "Captain".
Without a "Captain", you can have a Squad of maximum three (3) Units. And this Stack may ONLY be used for "Combat".
So you can have a NORMAL Squad of 3 units and then ADD a "Captain" to the mix to TRIGGER a "Mission". When you do this, all 3 other Units get flipped over to their "Mission Side" and then as that player can determine if you have enough "Mission Points" to "Scout" the Enemy Base (or "Invade" it if it has already been Scouted).
This seems to have the BEST way to GLUE everything TOGETHER. Yes it DOES introduce a NEW Type of Card ("Captain") but it would change the Booster Packs to having ONE (1) "Captain" per pack.
You are ONLY allowed TWO (2) "Captains" Per Deck (Deck Construction restriction). This is taking a lot of THOUGHT because it seems to do everything I WANT to do... All the while "re-using" the Squad configuration.
I will ponder this solution a bit more... As I THINK it has the most amount of potential.
Keep you all posted...!
Note #1: I say it's a bit "embryonic" because I'm not 100% sure how the "Captain" card will work. Yes, yes ... It will cause the Squad to FLIP and ALL "go on a Mission"... But there is the question of INSUFFICIENT points to "accomplish" the "Mission"!
I will think about it and see if I can IRON out all the issues and address the various question about HOW(?) this will all work.
TBD. Let me think about it some more and I'll come back with better results and more accurate design with this "Captain" card.
Sergeant looks to be the actual Officer for a Squad
So I'm thinking about using "Sergeant" instead of a "Captain". A "Captain" leads 3 to 4 Squads and that's a "Platoon".
This is just some "Fact Checking"... What's more logical in Modern Warfare Today and what feels more "authentic". I'm not trying to aim for realism... But if the design leans more towards a more REALISTIC setting ... Nothing wrong with that IMHO.
"Sergeant" works good thematically. And is "somewhat" a real officer that would command a Squad of Soldier.
I'm trying HARD not to make this a "memory" game. Meaning if you have a GREAT memory ... You'll have a much easier time to win. I don't really like that and so I'm trying to figure out how to BALANCE "relative" vs. "absolute" cycling...
Because "absolute" would blow past a "sergeant" unit ... But a "relative" unit would be ideal to "transform" your Squad for a "Mission".
Again I have more to think about: how it can work fully work without no hiccups... So-to-speak!
Cordially.
Further thought has led to an interesting outcome
So I was thinking that WHEN you "Cycle" to your "Sergeant", you can FLIP over the Active Squad Units and SEE IF you accomplish the mission.
If you DO NOT, you flip the Squad Units back and you can choose to EXHAUST from 1 to 3 Units to the bottom of the Deck.
Then you need to "Cycle" back to one of your two "Sergeants" and repeat the process to see IF you have enough "Operational Power" to perform the mission successfully.
Something like that FEELS DO-ABLE... Still will ponder on this to see what the results look like from a Gaming perspective. Maybe other ideas may come to mind ... We'll have to wait and see.
Cheers!
Balancing act TBD???
Okay so it's official, I think I got the "Missions" aspect of the game locked-down. GREAT! But that's not the entire story well ... At least not 100% of what I have to figure out.
Some general direction that I have goes like this:
A Stack has three (3) Units in it. Until you reach THREE (3) you CANNOT take on a "Mission" and it's in a way better to have three (3) Units due to Initiative.
Therefore there are some interesting FACTS to consider.
1.> If you have three (3) Units you may attack an opponent for the cost of 3 "Action Points". Each turn you get 3 APs and therefore combat requires all of them to strike at the enemy.
2.> If you defeat the opposing Stack, the opponent's TOPMOST Unit gets Captured (flip over and 180 degrees) and you must "exhaust" one (1) of your Units from your Stack to the bottom of your Deck. That unit is NOT captured just recovering from Combat and can be back in action on the next full Cycle of your Deck.
3.> To "ready" a Unit, simply use 1 AP and place that card in your Stack (at any position you like - but remember at MOST 3 Units in the Stack)
***
All that SOUNDS good. But there is something UNCLEAR when we consider the BALANCE of it all. So let's say (for some reason) you want to BATTLE your opponent (why? - I'm not 100% sure about this...) and this means that SOME HOW you must MATCH the opponent's Stack (in terms of Units).
More Units means HIGHER "Initiative". And that works out for several reasons because each additional Unit (up to 3 maximum) adds to the TOTAL "Initiative" which could have DIRE consequences IF you don't MATCH UP.
***
For the sake of discussions, it's ALWAYS "best" to put your STRONGEST OFFENSIVE unit on the TOP of your Stack (Card #1). This is your RAW "Firepower" and the Higher it IS... The more likely it's HIGHER than the combine "Resistance" (think Defense) which is ADDED UP and DIVIDED by the number of Units.
So STRONG Firepower doesn't equal Combat Victory. Instead you pair the enemy's Resistance (Added up and divided). If your "Firepower" is GREATER than your enemy's "Resistance" (Combined), you Capture that Unit. And you must "exhaust" one (1) of your Units from Combat.
***
What happens when you have NO Units in your Stack???
Well the easiest fix for this is the CURRENT Unit in-hand (if "ready") becomes the "Deployed" Unit and it's a Stack vs. one (1) Unit.
Something like this is starting to make sense and "all of the pieces" seem to be falling together and fitting in-place for this design.
I will continue to ponder it some more and see what I can work-out. Is the Balance RESTORED or not!? IDK ATM. We'll let these ideas simmer and see what comes of them.
Sincerely.
Changing the Stack Component of the Game
So initially I had planned to use ALL three (3) of the Units for Combat against your opponent. "Initiative" was added from all three Units and had meaning for all the various results that went above the opposing "Initiative", that would allow for different options for Combat.
Firepower was the primary Unit and the Resistance (think Defense) was ADDING all of the Units and dividing by the number of Units.
All of that sounded as "GOOD" ideas but in TRUTH it lead to many issues which include "turtling", hard division, illogical "exhaustion", etc. etc.
***
After chatting with @X3M ... He told me some of his ideas for a "Card Game" or a "Miniatures Game" and what struck me was his idea of "Movement". He explained that according to his ideas, a card could move from 1 to 3 positions.
That got me thinking about "Initiative". Could it be a "Matching Mechanic"???
What do I mean?
Well when you have a Stack the TOPMOST Card is visible. And you know both Player's TOPMOST Card (and therefore the "Initiative" of both).
So the ATTACKER "Declares" his ATTACKING "Initiative". Let's say "3".
The defending player now has the option of using ANY "3 Initiative" Unit in his Stack or PASS (because he doesn't have a card of that value).
Combat takes place with the BOTH Units (if there is a MATCH) and costs 1 Action Point (AP). The result determines who is okay and who gets captured. All of that works the SAME as BEFORE.
***
This means that you can "turtle" all you want, it only reveals your WEAKNESS. And obviously because you WANT to go on "Missions" to WIN the game ... You will decide to DEPLOY "Ready" Units and therefore have units for Combat.
There is no FUNKY "Division" by 2 or 3... There is no overkill on "Initiative" either. Which is also very important because all of that led to more confusion.
And also now Combat is 1 vs. 1. Which card gets Captured and Exhausted are LOGICAL NOW: the ones used to Battle!
Of course as with ANY plans to alter a design, I will of course ponder and think about these changes further. Once I have had enough time to figure things out only then can I determine if these changes offer the BALANCE that I am looking for.
So far... So good!
Fog Of War (FOW) - 2nd attempt at it???
@X3M revealed than my initial Battle Concept could have "Fog Of War" (FOW) and what that means is that the Units used in battle would be "Unknown" before the Battle ensues.
And I thought about this and responded ... "It's not really FOW if you keep track of the Units being put into the Stack." In addition, the TOPMOST Unit from your Stack would be revealed and visible. Felt more like a BROKEN MECHANIC TBH...
***
So I thought some more and figured: "What if the Stack of Units is placed BEHIND the "Base" and its Mission Card? This would mean that ALL Cards would be SECRET unless someone remembers something from when they were "deployed" into the Stack.
This made for an even BETTER FOW that the initial concept because NOW NO Units would be visible.
Again same principal as before, the Attacker DECLARES the "Initiative", the Defender responds with a Unit from their Stack or says "PASS" if he doesn't have the corresponding "Initiative" Unit.
***
The problem with FOW (required or optional) is that it makes the RESULT of battles LESS predictable. It's like shooting into a tunnel, once the bullets disappear, who knows where they go.
Similarly here, when DECLARING a Unit and their "Initiative" means that you are never sure IF you will BEAT your opponent. The outcome of the Battles is unpredictable.
***
This leads me to believe that FOW is NOT the "greatest" thing to have. And even if you do HAVE IT, it leads to "unpredictable combat results"!
Tell me what you all think? Feel free to offer your feedback, thoughts and make some further analysis on this particular Mechanic (FOW).
Cheers.
More thoughts about Fog Of War (FOW)
Okay so here are some FACTS about "Fog of War" (FOW) and I think they still merit more pondering and thought.
I can have a sort of "Perfect" FOW which means that Units in the Stack are hidden by the "Base" Card (Behind). And maybe someone remembers some Stats (or not) but generally speaking the idea would be to make "Combat" a bit of a surprise for BOTH players.
***
So when someone Declares an ATTACK, both player's FAN their Units from the "Base" and reveal them to both Players what each player has in their Stack. The "Fog of War" (FOW) is LIFTED and both players now see what Units are available.
The Attacker goes FIRST and declares an Attack on a Unit with the SAME "Initiative". NEXT, the Defender then checks his Stats versus the Attacker and the result is either Conquered, Nullified or Exhausted.
***
The ideas that I am putting forth is some kind of BALANCE between NO INFORMATION and PERFECT INFORMATION. And I realize that with those two (2) options, I have yet to determine what is the best for a Deterministic method of Combat which does NOT rely on Health Tracking.
I have some other options for Combat which I will explore further.
One is called "Resource Burn" which allows for "Complex, Tactical gameplay". The other option is called "Momentum Burst" which allows for "Aggressive gameplay". There was a "defensive" type of attack but it requires DIVISION and I don't want complicated MATH of Dividing by 3 ... or even 2 ... To be a part of the Combat Mechanic.
More on these two (2) Combat Options as I feel ONE (1) of them may be the KEY to solving my Stack issues.
Soon back with more feedback and explanations.
Cheers all!
FOW is now resolved...!
I had been struggling about deciding HOW(???) to handle Combat given that there could be FOW (Fog Of War). I had a Combat Mechanic that seemed to be very "backwards". Not because of it being too simple or anything like... It failed the LOGICAL way to do Battle. What do I mean? Let's take a look at the OLD version of Combat and then I'll discuss the NEW version of Combat.
***
Okay so the OLD method was that the "Attacker" would reveal one (1) Unit/Card from their Stack. This leads to PERFECT INFORMATION concerning the Unit and it also lead to PARTIAL INFORMATION for the composition of the "Attacker" Stack.
Next the Defending player would look at the "Attacker" Unit's Initiative and figure out what to play AGAINST that Unit/Card. So this yields control over to the "Defender" and gives him TOO GREAT of an "advantage".
Why(?) Because he knows the Initiative and how he can conquer it and he also knows the STATS: Firepower and Resistance.
Maybe the "Defender" doesn't have the BEST Unit/Card to COUNTER with but he could easily take over the Battle. And that's why it felt BACKWARDS: loss of control and the "Attacker" needing to play "catch-up".
***
How did we resolve this issue? It's not too hard of a fix TBH. Instead of just the "Attacker" revealing a Unit/Card... BOTH players choose to reveal one (1) Unit/Card per side: Attacker and Defender. It's done blindly and leads to a FAIR yet UNPREDICTABLE (a bit RANDOM) result and Combat ensues afterwards.
Maybe this could yield some "Table Trash Talking" to try to anticipate what the opposing player is planning on playing. This is a bit of a "Mind Game", a question of bluffing and planning...
***
That's the main difference between the two. Instead of the "Attacker" being on the end of a wrong pick of Unit... Now NEITHER player has an advantage at the start of Combat. It's a BIT of a "Random" start to combat depending on how the two (2) Players approach a Battle.
FOW is 100% and is reduced to 66.6% after the first card gets revealled.
PARTIAL INFORMATION not PERFECT INFORMATION (unless we are talking about the Units/Cards that have been revealed).
I think for now... I will let this simmer and think about it some more. I do like it, it's not PERFECT but I guess it's like in real life: On the Battlefield you never know who you will run into and so first encounters are a bit RANDOM too... And then it goes into REACTING and CONSEQUENCES of a Battle and how it ensues thereafter.
Best.
Not 100% just yet
Okay so the remaining ISSUE facing Combat is if the TOPMOST Unit/Card from your Deck should ALSO be a PART of Combat.
So what I am thinking is that the "Squad Leader" is the VISIBLE Unit/Card. On both sides. The "Squad Leader" doesn't partake in Combat at least not directly.
Instead Combat is a bit a type of "operation".
The idea as the "Squad Leader" is the ONLY Unit/Card that is AFFECTED by the END RESULT of Combat. There are only two (2) options for the outcome of the "Squad Leader": they are "Exhausted" or "Captured".
The REST of the Units/Cards in each Stack are used during Combat but are not directly affected by the outcome of Combat. Why am I thinking this way about "Combat"??? Well it feels something like "Missions" with the "Sergeant" but in this case is "Squad Leader" with the remaining of each player's Stack.
***
It's a SHIFTING of "States". Like a Transistor (1 or 0). "1" means "Captured" and "0" means "Exhausted". The Attacker has the choice to continue combat to TRY to "Capture" the opponent's "Squad Leader" if this does not happen with the first Unit/Card.
***
There can be a maximum of three (3) Units/Cards in a Stack. But Combat can occur when there is AS little as one (1) Unit/Card in BOTH players' Stack. This gives a PURPOSE to the "Active" Unit/Card in-hand.
I think Combat could be also like a SCORE (0 to 3 Points).
I need some more time to think about this ALTERNATE version of Combat!
TBD all... Needs more thinking. Now 95% (or 100% with the existing system).
What I am thinking about
My current thoughts seem to revolve around "forcing" a 3 Unit/Card Stack from the start of any game. You would obviously get the opportunity to swap Cards as you play, but each player would REQUIRE to maintain a 3 Unit/Card Stack at ALL TIMES.
This improves BALANCE quite a bit.
And it furthers my agenda when it comes to the "Combat Mechanics". How? Well it simply means that Combat could cost "1 AP" and involve all three (3) Units in the Stack. This would work BOTH ways with each of the Players seeing as there would not be any "weird" match-ups in Combat (3 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 1 or 3 vs. 2). It just SMOOTHES things over a bit and makes the overall experience "feel" more BALANCED.
The reason for this BALANCE is to enforce a "Scoring" Mechanic for Combat.
The result of Combat is a "Momentum Differential" Table which has actions according to the difference in scoring during Combat. This table looks very similar to the "Initiative Differential" but that is Order-specific this is Combat Result-specific.
Anyways Combat would FLOW more naturally if there were ALWAYS three (3) Units/Cards in each player's Stack and the Scoring could go from 0 to 0. to 3 to 0... Where as in the first scenario it would be a nullified result and in the latter scenario one player destroying his opponent.
This would all work much better and in all honesty, it's a SET-UP question. You can PERFECT it and this is fundamentally the same principle as DEPLOYING the first three (3) Units/Cards in your Deck.
I am still examining the ramification of this decision as I work through the design.
Cheers.
Fog Of War (FOW) - Continued analysis
I have come to the conclusion that Combat will have HIDDEN INFORMATION and reveal PARTIAL INFORMATION as Combat goes from one Round to the Next. For each Round, we reveal PERFECT INFORMATION for the revealed "Unit/Card" from the Stack. This means that as the FOW was dense and the Units/Cards UNKNOWN gradually lifts and this cause the FOW to be none as PERFECT INFORMATION reveals ALL the Units/Cards in-play.
Combat is a 3 Round mechanic and FOW at the end of Combat is NIL.
This means that even if one (or more) of your Units/Cards is still in your Stack, you MAY want to switch them up to other Units/Cards just to restore the FOW from your end of the Battlefield (in your Stack).
This makes for very FLUID dynamics and innovative design. As @X3M pointed out, FOW could also be the composition of your opponent's Deck. But since the game allows for "off-line" Deck Construction, the players can vary their Decks and which cards they favor to keep the experience NEW rather than rely on the SAME Units/Cards for every game.
Those are my conclusions so far. I've been getting some help to refine the design and make Combat a bit "tighter" and more BALANCED.
Sincerely.
More issues arise from FOW...!
I have discovered yet another "flaw" with the 3 Unit/Card Stack. The main issue is that "maintaining" that Stack is "troublesome". It would simply be easier to "somehow"(?) have Stacks of different sizes be COMPATIBLE. This would need for a way to ALLOW "Turtling" and not prevent an opponent from having a larger Stack and there needs to be no "real" penalty from having LESS of a Stack.
Basically you should be able to choose your Stack Size and it should go from zero (0) to three (3) without any issues to how Combat is resolved.
Okay that's a TALL ORDER!
It seems like it should be POSSIBLE. I just need to figure out HOW(???).
And so I leave you with these thought tonight. Let's see IF these issues can resolve themselves with a bit of rest and some further pondering.
Cheers.
Maintaining a Stack vs. Auto-Stack
The primary ideas that I had earlier were something like an "Auto-Stack" where the stack would always renew itself to "3-Units/Cards". But this is a very flawed idea since "Missions" require you to SELECT the Units/Cards to go on a "Mission" given a "Sergeant" Card.
So the Auto-Stack just doesn't at all work for the Theme nor the Concept that I am trying to achieve. If you BUILD a "Stack" it should be YOUR decision not because the opponent has a 3-Unit/Card Stack and suddenly you realize you need the same to stay competitive.
While this could be "partially true" it's not the absolute Truth. Watching what your opponent is doing can be "important"... But I want a player to be ABLE to "Turtle" if he wants to and focus on sorting his Deck rather than carrying out a "Mission" as soon as possible.
Different styles of play make for a more interesting experience because someone who may have SEEMED like they are far behind could result in the opposite and actually Win the game with some clever sorting of their Deck.
Is it the "recommended" way to play? Probably No. But then again, who am I to tell a player what Strategy they should employ. If it works for them... Well then that is what matters.
Short version of the story: I want Stacks to be 0 to 3 Units/Cards. And I want somehow for the Stacks to be "compatible" when performing Combat. Again HOW(?) this is to happen... IDK YET!
Let's see what may come... Cheers all.