Jump to content
X3M

Creating a board game based on RTS games.

Recommended Posts

so what percent of it have you finished by now???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

% of what? Shall I give a summary?

 

The manual?

Almost 100% of what it is supposed to be. 1 more page about units. But I like to add new things as well :D. Example: extra range when you are in a higher altitude. Less range when you are lower.

Further more, now I am not clear yet on the unit statistics card. See last post about the special weapons :| . I might rethink this since I loved making unit descriptions like in those old manuals from C&C and Dune2000. But with a bit of humour like in KKND. Some from the old days still crack me up.

 

4 of my favourites (dating from 2008 where the game was without a board but online) Simply copy paste now:

 

Sandbags

They do notching. Yet notching they do. They are very good at doing notching. Like catching big rockets and stuff. Like making sure that your units survive significantly longer. And on top of that, they are almost worthless. Meaning, you can buy a lot. Really a lot. Which makes their function appear to be perfect in comparison with other walls. Your opponents will spend a lot of useless time in attacking you. Yes, very “useless” indeed.

 

Guard Tower

This is a little tower with 3 (Cripple and thus cheaper) Rifle Infantry inside. Due to the stupid construction, these Rifle Infantry will die as soon as the tower gets destroyed. Anti vehicle weapons work great on this defense. It is foolish to use infantry for attacking a Guard Tower, but this tower can easily be outranged. So a couple of mortar infantry can do the job without a problem.

 

Cannon Bunker

Cannon Turret not enough for ya? Improved armour! Improved LESS range! Just 60 extra costs on top of it. Enjoy… And it’s destroyable by Bunker Busters. But good news; it has the same speed as a Cannon Turret. So not all is lost in the improving process.

 

Siege Quad

This vehicle launches a grenade towards it’s enemies. Then they are supposed to die. Something like: BOoom!!! Urgg!

Well, I have a better understanding of the English language now. So I could make better ones. However, the humour will stay the same crap :).

 

The board('s)?

By the looks of it. Never 100%. But the preparing sequence itself is about 80% paper/cardboard based. This could reach 100%.

 

For every mission there is a design ready on paper. Yet the real fields should be adjustable pieces. Then they can be used many times. This is something that is easy, but taking much time for me with my current material. I like to print things out. Then it has quality on top of the quantity.

 

And now something for my to do list:

Hmmm, that reminds me, slopes don't hold cards that are to small or stacked up above their gravity point. I need to add more multi unit cards for the many. Reminding myself later for recalculating the main gravity point forces on paper and cardboard under the angle's 15% and 30%, where the maximum unit cards hight may not exceed 50% of the maximum size in addition of permanent's and player pointers.

 

The single/multi player missions?

This will never be finished. It's way to fun.

I have thought of 14 single player missions now. From which have 5 that can be played by 2. All vs an AI. 1 map can have 4 players now.

My favourites:

- The map, Battle 3, original 2 players. Mission map 1 player. Is one of those missions once you half the map down. The original symmetric map is for a 1 vs 1 with many ways to annoy the other player. And it was the first map played till the end by me and my cousin. It holds a special place in my heart. It has thought me that having a one sided army of ranged units is weak in a build up. And resources far out of the main base can be taken out quickly by speedy units (why didn't I see that coming :D ).

- Sniper Spanky: 1-2 players. Where you have to deal with camping snipers or where you are the camping snipers that have to take in good shooting points. Involves low/high ground and a lot of blocking view. It's a 2 sides map that can also be a 1v1. Very well balanced in chances as well. The Event Cards make it interesting for taking opportunities. Only Rifle Infantry and Snipers on this map.

- Outnumbered: 1 player. Inspired by the nuclear symbol. You have to be taking out an opponent which has 3 times more units. However, they don't move. They only support each other when possible. So you need to start somewhere, then take in the right positions. Take incoming hits and then fire back. Only Rifle Infantry for both sides on this map. You have 12, the enemy has groups containing 1 to 8 at fixed locations. This map teaches you to use experience in the right way ;). I reviewed this map last month as well since range and speed ups are in. And I have to say, it is even more interesting now.

- Something for notching: 2-4 players. This one is out from a Generals map. You get constantly harassed by the enemy. But you have healers and a special designed, for this mission Event Card. No other way of replenishing your forces than: Your main goal is to increase your unit experience in the right way before your permanent's run out. Further more you can take over enemy units as extra "meat". You could even play this with 4 players. Where the defending side can have 3 ways in. 3 Players. And the attacking player can decide to go with better forces and actually win by simply training some of his own.

 

The armies?

This is also a never ending process. But each world can be considered something on itself.

Lets see,... I have designed worlds with (-out the structures)

- 3 opposing armies and 4 armour types each, 6 damage types each. I posted parts of them here in the thread. This one was going to be big. But people wanted crushing too, so I paused that one back then. Plus I can't come up with so many names :D. It was over 72 units already. And I was thinking of doubles too. About 50% finished I guess. Not including production etc.

- 2 opposing armies and 3 armour types each, 3 damage types each. I completely posted them once. But deleted them. Contained only 1 version of each combination. No defences. So 9 fighting units and 3 wall types. There is a major speed or range imbalance depending on the maps. Total 24. The build up, resource management and tech tree was completed as well. 1 Army was not designed by me. This one was 100% complete, and back then the map was also 100% complete.

- 1 self fighting army and 3 armour types each, 3 damage types each. Contains 3 versions of each combination. And 1 defence version. 27 fighting units. 9 defending units. 3 types of walls. Total 39. 100% army and 50% others.

- 1 self fighting army and 4 armour types each, 4 damage types each. Contains 2 versions of each combination. And 1 defence version. 32 fighting units. 16 defending units. 4 types of walls. Total 52. 100% army and 50% others.

- 2 opposing/self fighting armies and 6 armour types each, 10 damage types each. Contains 2 air types; each side 1. A big one that never was finished. Estimated 60% army, so a total of 30%.

- Tried to copy Dune 2 (1 army with the 3 specials) Best way seems to be to have 3 types. This is the first time that I looked at special weapons for crushing and the saboteur. 0% is what I give it. Ow, and no air.

- Tried to copy Dune 2000 (1 army with the 3 specials and the 3 different combat tanks) Best way is to have 3 types and 1 air type. But multi weapon systems wasn't done yet. Therefore this needs review. 80% because it needs review?

- Tried to copy C&C3 (2 armies). On the side line of Dune 2 and Dune 2000. But somehow this one succeeded with the units. However, there is no special weaponry, nor crushing. And I don't have the tech tree with resource management and build up done yet. It did give me the knowledge of adjusting unit costs to alternate dimensions. However, once a stealth is detected, only the detectors can shoot it. 100% army, 50% including the rest.

- Tried to copy C&C Dawn (2 armies) Actually, this is fun to know... Before I tried to create board games, before I tried to get a text based game, even before I tried to find the balancing formula's... I actually tried cracking the statistics by testing out each unit against another unit in this game. The only knowledge that I had was that the Rifle Infantry had 50 Health. On which I based all Infantry with 50 Armour these days. No crushing though. But redesigning was 100%. Complete design with production etc. only 50%.

- Added Red alert to the last one. This time 98% army and only 49% total. The attack dog was something bothering me. It can't hurt tanks!

- Before the board, I had this 1 self attacking army. In a text based simulation. Range and Speed was used differently. Actually, there was no real dimension. When my cousin tried to add them for real. He kinda had given up since he didn't understand any more. He also wanted 4 different resources. The first version was also imba due to cheap support units. This game was called Wargame X. Played by, actually tested by, no wait, ehm,....only 2 watched.  Me and my cousin, That's It. Designing on my part was 100% done.

- Before that; only Armour, Damage and Multiplier was used. 3 different resources. The game was imba since support units costed less. But, the dual units like a flame-thrower didn't existed yet. So only 3 of the 9 units where cheaper and this fact was not very noticeable due to differences in resources and players.

This game was called Wargame and about 100 played it. It was here where I discovered a way to give expensive units, in a logical way, a weak point. Let's say, the work on my part was 100%. Due to 1 mistake (selling building parts), players didn't build armies any more. They only amassed money for structures. You could not destroy structures, while I had the design ready for my cousin. O well.

 

 

 

This project of mine...

It is a self repeating process where I add things and try to fit it perfectly. I discover new things every time. And during the testing, I already had lots of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I like your cracked up language it's really funny...

great job x3m...

I can see this game is good....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want it, I could PM you all the units. Some are serious, some are hilarious. I read them all again, I noticed how I used the same kind of sarcasm a couple of times. By repeating something important of the unit. Or compare an unit with another one and only explain the improvements. With some I felt like that the player should have some real guidance, like telling them that a certain AA launcher is the only way to stop incoming nukes. Or a Rocket Launcher that has absolutely notching to fear from defences. Or that the AA fighter is the air unit with the longest anti air rockets. In this old game, ranged units could fire first. (Speed didn't even had much use)
 
On my board game it is the other way around now. Since the enemy has actually take some turns to walk closer. More that of an RTS.
 
Meanwhile in the Creeper-cave:
I calculated some more on the special weaponry. Since I really really want the crushing in the game now.
By testing type sequences. Meaning, I tested (calculated) what the factor should be with the types 50 and 100. Then 50 and 150. Then 100 and 150. etc.
It just so happens that I came across the infamous factor 2. The first one is the 50, 100 and 150 all together.
Adding more and more types will increase the reduction factor.
 
I need to make a list of this. But a table would be better. The only problem is. How do I make a table of having 3 or more types in 1 sequence. If it becomes a list. There are 2 ways to put the combinations in order.
 
Or I place them in order of total score, meaning I add up all the types. Where the highest type in the combination comes first.
Starting with 50 and then go up.
Example would be the sequence 300, where I have 250 + 50 and then 200 + 100 and then 150 + 100 + 50.
 
Or I place them in order of the highest type in the combination. And then add the other types.
Starting again with 50 and then go up.
The previous named example would be the other way around then.
 
1 thing is sure, I can make this only partially automatic in Excel. Meaning, I have to calculate and fill in the results by myself. Reminds me of the 2300 unit combinations from 2009. :) It took me 2 days back then. But this time its only going to be a couple of hours. Nah, I think about it during a game. Maybe I get lucky. :D.

 


 

Well, I conducted the tests on 50 to 250 with all possible combinations. I have to say, it looks like crap. Calculating an average factor brings forth crazy numbers like 300/857 for example. This is not going to work. I also took a look at the decimal variants. Only a few with good usable factors. But it is only in 2 type systems. The best one is still the one from 50 + 100 + 150.

 

A though occurred to me. I could give them all separate factors. That would also be fair. The separate factors are a bit better,.... by a tiny weeny bit... But then, even the one with the 50 + 100 + 150 system would fail.

 

So, what now? Only apply this when the factor is good in a system? But chances on this is very low. Even for the separate factors. Further more, those units still wont make it to other worlds. Lets see for some options:

 

- Should I allow imbalance by using factor 2?

Rather not. :( It has proven to make things very bad in the beginning.

 

- Should I apply the minimum factor then?

This could be a valid option. But is still system based. And the minimum factor can go very low. Nor would it give round numbers.

 

- Should I create a new system on top of the existing one? Back to square 1 with special weapons. :|

And I have no idea where to go next now. Even saying that 1 type has double damage does not cover the miscalculations and imbalances.

 

- Applying factor 2 (or 3) anyway, but then basing the system on this?

Way to much work, and not satisfying at all.

 

- Perhaps a separate factor for each type that (A) never exceeds 2 and (B) depends on the type?

Could work. But needs research. And I suspect that this one fails Looney Tune style. After all, with infinity, all the types get a factor 0. So no.

 

Sigh. This is now 0% finished. Like trying to see sound and hear light. Flying under water or swimming in the air.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

penguins 'fly' underwater...

Well pm me those cuz i need to see how hillarious they can get...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of weeks ago:

I thought I had figured out the costs calculation for special weaponry. So that the game would be balanced.

 

But with each armour and damage type added. This costs calculation changes.

 

A special weapon has only 1 target type, so 50S means it can only hit armour type 50. While the normal 50 can hit any type. Where a normal type has effects 1, 0.5 and 0.33333 a special has 1, 0 and 0.

 

A normal weapon 6 x 50 would cost 300.

If a game contains 50, 100 and 150 as types. Then 6 x 50S would cost only 150.

But an addon pack will change this. If for example 200 and 250 are added. Then the 6 x 50S will cost only 100.

But that is for the average factor. Each weapon itself has its own factor.

 

This means that:

- Or I make a list of reduction in prices in a manual.

- Or I decide on some new rules that allows these units or not. With a fixed factor for all. Where most special weapons are indeed cheaper and better on target, but in combination with all specials for that world, are actually worse.

 

So far, if I keep it linear. The reduction factors on average are linear. I can use this for future planning. The list looks as following:

50 gives 1

adding 100 gives 1,5

adding 150 gives 2

adding 200 gives 2,5

adding 250 gives 3

etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more testing today.

 

Previously I looked at linear progress. And combining all the special weapons in 1.

Linear progress is adding one in a tech tree every time. This means that the power of units slowly increases.

If you would think unit costs, you could see clearly 50 - 100 - 150 - 200 - 250 etc.

You see most of these progresses in RTS games like KKND or the Warcraft and Starcraft series. It is these games where amount of units is very important.

Basically most games where the factor between the weakest and strongest unit is 2 to 9.

 

Now I took a look at exponential growth in unit costs (and thus statistics),

you can think of 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 (powers of 2) or

you can think of 50 - 150 - 450 - 1350 - 4050 (powers of 3)

You see the "power of 2" in most RTS games, like all the C&C and Dune (except 1) games.

The "power of 3" is very rare. I believe Supreme Commander applies this. However, the very first game in 2006 (not a board game) that I worked on had also this rare concept. And I think I now remember why :).

 

Anyway, applying my damage and armour calculations with the "power of 2" and "power of 3"

By pretending that my game could expand infinitely. Wow 8) some interesting results.

 

Linear system in infinity:

Lowest D weapon (50): infinite

Average D weapon: infinite (infinite x infinite compared to Lowest D weapon)

"strongest" weapon: infinite (Average D weapon + a little bit more)

Highest D weapon (250, 800 or 4050 so to speak): equals the Average D weapon! = infinite

 

"power of 2" system in infinity:

Lowest D weapon (50): 2

Average D weapon: 3 (but with a slower progress)

"strongest" weapon: 3

Highest D weapon (250, 800 or 4050 so to speak): actually equals the Lowest D weapon = 2

 

"power of 3" system in infinity:

Lowest D weapon (50): 1,5

Average D weapon: 2 (but with a slower progress)

"strongest" weapon: 2

Highest D weapon (250, 800 or 4050 so to speak): actually equals the Lowest D weapon = 1,5

 

Choices, choices. That factor 2 doesn't look so bad now any more. I think I have to choose some extra rules of when and how applying these special weapons.

Further more, when I apply factor 2:

The linear starts overpowered but quickly becomes infinite underpowered when adding new types. However, you still can kill targets twice as fast. Not a nice choice.

The "power of 2" starts overpowered, but eventually becomes underpowered by a factor 1,5. So in early games it's abuse, later on, a choice. Very stable and a good choice.

The "power of 3" starts overpowered, but eventually becomes underpowered by a factor 1. Well, not really underpowered, but lets say, the journey to that 1 takes infinite time. So in a "power of 3" system, the special weapons are always overpowered. This choice should not be taken.

 

So, if I apply factor 2, then a "power of 2" system with the types is the best system. However, a linear system will not be balanced, but is balanced in a "good" way none the less.

"power of 3" is the upper limit of the systems that I could design. I need to keep away from that one and first add some to the "power of 2" system to make it look like a linear system.

 

I still could take a look at the "total divided" system, that's a system that I use a lot these days.

You take 1 upper type, and all the others are fractions from this one.

Examples are 50 -100 - 150 - 200 - 300 - 600

or 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 hmmm, I need to be careful.

 

But now,...

I think I choose beer now. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This stuff doesn't come in the manual :).

 

- A type is a value that is damage and/or armour for an unit. If the damage equals the armour, it's effect is a maximum. More damage then armour is overkill on 1 health. Less damage then armour is not enough to kill 1 health.

- A system of types is a sequence of types that is used for one of the worlds in which the units are going to be designed. Only these types may be used. Exceptions are rare and only allowed if both sides have an exception.

- Target type, is a type that is being targeted by a certain damage type or damage value.

 

I still could take a look at the "total divided" system, that's a system that I use a lot these days.

You take 1 upper type, and all the others are fractions from this one.

Examples are 50 -100 - 150 - 200 - 300 - 600

or 50 - 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 hmmm, I need to be careful.

 

Well, I went deep into this one. I tested 50 -100 - 150 - 300 and I tested 50 -100 - 200 - 400. As if the special weaponry is indeed only 50% of the costs.

 

Not only did I test each single type and all the 4 combined. I also tested 2 and 3 types combined.

- A single type is a normal unit with just 1 weapon. Effective against 1/4th of the opponent. (Example, Rifle Infantry versus infantry)

- 2 types combined is an unit that has 2 weapons. In this case, both weapons are allowed to fire. Effective against 1/2nd of the opponent, but more of a supportive kind of unit. (Example, Flame Tank versus infantry and structures)

- 3 types combined is an unit that has 3 weapons. All 3 weapons will fire. The weapon is effective against 3/4th of the opponent, so there is still some sort of weak point to this unit. However, the weak point isn't really there, still some in some situations. This unit is kinda weak overall. (Example, Mammoth Tank versus infantry, vehicles and air)

- All types combined is an unit that has effect against all opponents. These units have no specific weak point, yet they are weak overall.

 

Any way, lets start with the 50 -100 - 150 - 300 type system.

 

- The single weapons (4 versions: 300 or 2 x 150 or 3 x 100 or 6 x 50)

Special versus none targets: 0%

Special versus targets:  200%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: 16,7% - 50%

Normal versus targets: 100%

Normal average: 50% - 62,5%

 

2 normal weapons equal their special versions, yet there is difference on the targets. The other normal weapons are 25% stronger overall. This means already that in the long run, the normal weapons will win.

 

- The dual weapons (6 versions: any combination of the 4 versions mentioned above)

Special versus none targets: 0%

Special versus targets: 100%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: 25% - 58,3%

Normal versus targets: 58,3% - 83,3%

Normal average: 50% - 62,5%

 

1 normal weapons equals its special versions, yet there is difference on the targets. The other normal weapons are 12,5% - 25% stronger overall. This means once again, that in the long run, the normal weapons will win.

 

- The triple weapons (4 versions: any combination of the 4 versions mentioned above)

Special versus none targets: 0%

Special versus targets: 66,7%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: 33,3% - 50%

Normal versus targets: 50% - 72,2%

Normal average: 54,2% - 58,3%

 

There are no special weapons that can beat or equal the normal versions. The normal weapons are sometimes even stronger when they are on target. The normal weapons are 8,3 - 16,7% stronger overall. In the long run, normal weapons will win.

 

- The super weapons (1 version: 300 and 2 x 150 and 3 x 100 and 6 x 50)

Special versus none targets: all are targets.

Special versus targets:  50%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: all are targets.

Normal versus targets: 50% - 62,5%

Normal average: 50% - 62,5%

 

It is obviously clear who is the winner now. The normal weapon is 12,5% stronger then its special variant. This is good, this will discourage designing them. However, if it comes to giving experience to the weapons. Then the special will have a moment of superiority. But then again, after giving the experience to all weapons. The normal version will again be stronger.

 

But remember the fact that each unit has only 1 armour type. You need to block with other units with other types to be protected. If the normal super weapon amass fights special super weapon amass. The normal will have some kills, but the special will have some kills afterwards. They can simply upgrade their weapons twice as fast then the normal super weapon.

 

This calls for another experiment :).

 

Any way, lets continue with the 50 -100 - 200 - 400 type system.

 

- The single weapons (4 versions: 400 or 2 x 200 or 4 x 100 or 8 x 50)

Special versus none targets: 0%

Special versus targets:  200%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: 12,5% - 50%

Normal versus targets: 100%

Normal average: 46,9% - 56,3%

 

2 normal weapons are worse then their special versions, yet there is difference on the targets. The other normal weapons are 12,5% stronger overall. However, in the long run the normal weapons will win since the negative strength is only 6,3%.

 

- The dual weapons (6 versions: any combination of the 4 versions mentioned above)

Special versus none targets: 0%

Special versus targets: 100%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: 18,8% - 50%

Normal versus targets: 56,3% - 75%

Normal average: 46,9% - 56,3%

 

1 normal weapons is worse than its special version, yet there is difference on the targets. The other normal weapons are 3,1% - 12,5% stronger overall. However, in the long run the normal weapons will win since the negative strength is only 6,3%.

 

- The triple weapons (4 versions: any combination of the 4 versions mentioned above)

Special versus none targets: 0%

Special versus targets: 66,7%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: 29,2% - 41,7%

Normal versus targets: 45,8% - 66,7%

Normal average: 50% - 53,1%

 

There are 2 special weapons that equal their normal versions. The normal weapons are 6,3% stronger overall. In the long run, normal weapons will win.

 

- The super weapons (1 version: 400 and 2 x 200 and 4 x 100 and 8 x 50)

Special versus none targets: all are targets.

Special versus targets:  50%

Special average: 50%

Normal versus none targets: all are targets.

Normal versus targets: 50% - 62,5%

Normal average: 46,9% - 56,3%

 

It is obviously clear who is the winner now. The normal weapon is 3,1% stronger then its special variant. This is good, this will discourage designing them. However, if it comes to giving experience to the weapons. Then the special will have a moment of superiority. But then again, after giving the experience to all weapons. The normal version will again be stronger.

 

This still cries out for testing :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But remember the fact that each unit has only 1 armour type. You need to block with other units with other types to be protected. If the normal super weapon amass fights special super weapon amass. The normal will have some kills, but the special will have some kills afterwards. They can simply upgrade their weapons twice as fast then the normal super weapon.

 

This calls for another experiment smile.png.

 

So I did test this.

We take 2 different kind of juggernauts. 1 kind with normal weapons, 1 kind with special weapons.

They both have:

€1500, 300 armour, no range or speed for this test.

Normal weapon has 1 x 300 and 2 x 150 and 3 x 100 and 6 x 50.

Special weapon has 2 x 300 and 4 x 150 and 6 x 100 and 12 x 50.

 

They both are equally effective against the 300 armour. It just so happens that the total damage would be 2 by each. They have to kill 6 for killing a juggernaut.

So a minimum of 3 juggernaut on each side is required for a first kill.

So 3 normal and 3 special fight.

On both sides 1 juggernaut will die.

On both sides another juggernaut will gain 1500 XP. They can spend this now according to the rules. And normally 1500 XP is a lot.

The normal has 2 logic choices in this battle. Upgrading its health (type 300) or upgrading its damage type 300. He can do 5 upgrades.

The special however has the same choices. He too can do 5 upgrades. But the damage type 300 will be upgraded twice as fast.

If both would choose for the damage upgrade then the normal would gain 5 x 300 while the special would gain 10 x 300.

So both sides with each 12 health remaining. Now have 9 normal damage or 14 special damage. Well, that 2 special damage would be overkill. Lets put it in 1 more health then.

12 health with 9 normal damage vs 13 health with 12 special damage.

Special wins with 4 out of 7 health. And another 3000 XP to spend :). Which will spend it when another type will approach.

 

 

 

Of course this looks like a very imbanced situation. Which is for the moment with these kind of units in these situations.

 

There are still some weak points to this unit:

- The prices are based on the range+speed=4. This means it can be killed from a far distance by support units. These aren't that expensive. Some might even cost only a mere €300 each.

- Spending XP on countering range or speed would cost for the first upgrade, an astonishing 4500 XP. For cheap units that are luckily to kill a big unit are more likely to gain this kind of experience.

- The unit is only ground based. So units in air, space or from underground will have a good chance in beating it.

- And don't forget that an unit with armour 200, 250 or 350 and above cannot be harmed by this unit in any way ;).

 

So a new set of rules according special units have to be set up:

1) In a complete type system. The juggernaut units can never have all weapons of that system.

2) The price for the special weapons is indeed only 50% that of normal weapons.

3) The XP spending on the special weapons is indeed only 50% that of normal weapons.

4) A special weapon unit may only be introduced to a system if that unit would be weaker in statistics then the normal weapon unit. Meaning, a normal weapon on all targets will have a bit more damage on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, so much NOT understandable language :D

Anyway, the special weaponry have their rules included in the manual now.

 

Now I need to review the unit movements before I review the duality of 1 weapon. After all, I need to make sure the rules are logical and correct.

 

The rules regarding size and projectile movements in the regions are completed some time ago. But the rules regarding unit costs and balancing need to be reviewed and be made clear.

After all, the weapons, special weapons, and weapons of choice are going to make use of different terrains and dimensions. This will be linked to range adjustments for all 3. And the range adjustments are linked to the speed adjustments. Since range and speed are intervened.

 

So 1 side are all the weapons (that are now complete)

The other side are the unit movement rules plus costs calculations.

When both are complete, it will be clear on the range balancing rules; or how the range adjustments can be applied in the cost calculations.

 

 

Movement rules: (And here, suggestions are welcome)

For this I decided that there are 4 dimensions. Space, Air, Ground, Sub.

Each dimension will be having a total score, and partial scores.

 

Let's start with the normal dimension. The ground.

The ground has Land, Water, Forests and Mountains.

Land and Water are basic terrains, while Forests and Mountains are additions that influence movement on sizes.

These terrains can be combined too. So 1 region could contain Land, Water, Forest and Mountain (rocky terrain or water)

Mountain terrain is by default on Land for the normal units. But if it is on Water (water cave) then this will be mentioned.

 

I need to decide on the factors now:

Land + 1

Water + 1

Forest + 0,5 (If an unit has no influence from the trees regarding space for this unit)

Mountain + 0,5 (same as forest)

 

So, the ground has a total of 3. I need to use this one for the other dimensions as well.

 

Let's begin with the Air. There is only Air in Air. The factor is:

Air + 3 (this means that all air units have their speed times 3 for the cost calculations)

 

Now for Space. There is Space, and there are Space rocks or debris (Mountain) There will be units that can dig into meteorites :)

So I need to divide these 2 into a total score of 3. So I am not sure now about the factors:

Space + 2 (Land + Water)

Space Debris + 1 (Forest + Mountain)

 

Now for the sub terrain and sub marine. However, these units can switch constantly between the ground dimension and the sub dimension as if the land or water are something to hide in. Going underground or under water is going to be expensive? And is this really correct? The sub marine are bothered by the Mountains and Forests while the sub terrain are not, only if they surface. Factors are:

Sub Marine + 1 (Water but 1 level lower)

Sub Terrain + 1,5 (Land but 1 level lower, "plus Forest plus Mountain" when moving)

 

Opinions about the factors?

 

Personally I find it odd that Space will be costing less then Air.

Unless I ignore this. And simply add + 1 Range modifiers for reaching another dimension. But then again, I need to see what the proper factors are going to be for the range adjustments on the weapons. These will be dimension based? Probably for 2/3th. Since Water and Land will be sharing the same freedom in projectile movement. Need to think about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
penguins 'fly' underwater... Well pm me those cuz i need to see how hillarious they can get...

Any comment on the unit descriptions from 2006?

 


 

Further more, Special weaponry plus rules; 100% complete :)

Speed modifiers, 100% complete. Some mentioned in the previous post are a bit different. But I feel logic and correct about it ^^.

Manual on the Speed modifiers is 90% I need to scrap some info that players wont use and get cofused about it.

But if the Range modifiers (0%) fail, then the Speed modifiers fall back to 0%.

 

When ready, I review my manual once again. I will (if I remember) post here how an unit statistics card looks like.

But I have some issue's with that. I wonder if someone would be having an oppinion about that.

 

The manual's:

There is going to be a clear cut between the players manual

And some balancing rules (3 pages) that I use for myself.

Further more, there will be a second manual containing the units for the first world.

 

Chances are high now that I will be creating worlds that are not going to becombined.

Instead, each world will gain new units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short one.

 

I split the manual in separate stuff (names of the manuals pending):

- Default Manual. This one is going to be adjusted for the first world. It explains everything except units specific. 100% ready.

- Main Manual. The one that is adjusted for the first world. 90% ready.

- Event Cards Manual. This one contains the explanation to the Event Cards specificity. For the first world. 0%.

- Calculations Manual. This one is only for me. 100% ready.

- Event Cards Default Manual. This one is only for me. This one contains the complete overview of cards to come. 100 % ready and growing.

- Units Manual. This one is going to be added for the first world. It will contain all the units for that world. 20% ready. It's written on paper with only the numbers. You know :D posted them here before how they look like. I also think, I adjust some units yet.

- Missions Manual. Guideline for players to play missions.

 


 

- All the modifiers are 100% certain now.

- Mines and their working is 100% certain now. Thanks to my colleague's advice on WW2 mines and the Mine sweepers.

- Added rules on trespassing area's. The game has become a bit more deadly now. No rushing past barriers ;). The necessity for this is due to the mines and their now back to 0 range abilities.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you liked it AQIB.

 

A lot of work is done. Making manuals proves to be hard. But not to hard.

And during the manual making, you actually learn new stuff about your own game.

And then you need to adjust rules, make things easier to understand, improve things, add things and remove things.

 

Dividing the manual into different documents has helped me greatly in keeping overview. And it has resulted in faster results.

It's truly enlightening.

 

- Adjusted some Event Cards. Some are now split up in 2 versions, where they were a single unit based, they now can also be based on unit worth. Meaning 2 tanks of 600 or 1 of 1200 is affected.

 

- A clear definition of where to get those extra turns from.

  • Basic: Actions are size based. 1 region is size 3600. Specialists are good in here.
  • Extra by Event Cards: A lot are still extra Actions indirectly. But one is now divided into 3 different ones. 1 based on size, 1 based on stats and 1 based on costs. Based on costs? Specialists are bad.
  • Extra by units self: Communications Centre/Radar's/Outposts provide extra turns, as if the units are produced. This is based on stats just like production facilities. They can only be played afterwards and are self limiting. Specialists are normal in here.

- Players need to be made clear that production facilities produce units based on stats. This means that expensive units through size reduction are relatively fast produced. They simply cost more money. I need to make this clear in the first game, since the specialists come in, in the additions.

 

- My Co-worker has great idea's. Players can now react with a region if another player moves over this region. This means that the region can fire on passing units. This however costs a turn. It is the same counter turn as if you are under attack. Mines have become very, very useful and cheap this way. However, you still can deal with them. I already mentioned this before, but the rules are now clear in the manual.

 

- The entire resource management has been redefined, refined and upgraded. In explanation and in workings. This also has helped balancing the game in total. The only thing that has to be tested here is if the resources come in fast enough with each possible method. All the methods can and will be possible in the future. This means that you can get resources by 7 different ways. All have different tactics and work best at a different distance.

 

- In the resource management, Harvesters can have 2 ways of workings in the same game. Moving as a squad or, providing a line of income. It is tested and balanced very good. Some (speed) designs prove to be good for one way, the other (range) designs are good for the other way. Creating good choices for players is the best fun in this work.

 

- Added restoration area as an unit. It heals and repairs everything. However, it is not self healing. But has incredible healing/repairing range. It takes long for destroying one in the first game. And by that time, a player can build a new one. Once additions come, the healers and repairers will be separated. However, from that point on, no new types of unit armour is added. And a new world needs to be created.

 

- Extra structures like for example Refineries or Communications Centre. Should have the same armour like other basic structures. This helps keeping an overview for players. I need to do this for the next.

 

- Personal note: I hate, hate, hate balancing the Construction Yard over and over again. It is a real pain in the ass. The fact that it is the only unit again and again that has an artificial price and workings, makes me angry. There is no clear way into keeping this one in line with the rules that I have set up. Balancing seems no problem, but the price that you get is what makes it non-useful in design. €3550, omg, €3000, close, €2875 ah come on!. Armor 750, then 350, suddenly 450. It needs range according to the rules. This is happening to me over 5 years already. And once done, it chances again when additions are added.

 

But hey, I don't let that spoil the fun 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i like it if we all get a good game out of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a board game, for nerds, I don't even know if a company would accept such a complex game.

 

But I am scraping from all directions right now. And put it in 1 complete stand alone game. With explanation for just that game.

The manuals will be printed out first for my co-worker to read and correct/suggest. If he doesn't understand the game, I am still far off.

I estimate that I need some weeks for finishing the units manual (except pictures). Finish the other manuals adjusted to the first "box".

I don't know how long my co-worker needs to reading them. Perhaps he doesn't read. In that case its your turn.

 

Once done, I pm you the stuff as well. I am not going to post stuff here. Only the work that I have done.

You need the manuals and the board plus board pieces.

But you need to use cardboard yourself for making the pieces stronger ;)

If you are alone, I will also provide you with some single player missions. That is, if you have will power, not to cheat :D.

 

Biggest problem until now is how the units look like. Of course I can use pictures from other games. But I have original units (in the future) that need new pictures. I need to make it as if it is one set. Drawing them myself will look like !@#$. So, do you have suggestions? The units are sort of WW2 in "1951-1955". There are more people who like WW2 then Dune games, sorry for that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are alone, I will also provide you with some single player missions. That is, if you have will power, not to cheat :D.

You underestimate my honesty...

I like playing by the rules but sometimes, mind you, sometimes i get high and cheat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then.

 

I will keep that in mind and come up with some 1v1 missions. ;)

Or do you have more then 1 buddy that like these kind of games?

 

O well, you have not tried that other game yet that I pm'ed you. But perhaps that one was to much yet.

 

I do need to make some example fights for the manual. Preferably with pictures.

 


 

Unforeseen problem. Which was to be expected. Silly me.

 

Usually I have unit prices that are like, 100, 200, 300. So a 100 card will do for experience tracking and spending. But now that the experience spending has become more dynamic, 25, 75, 225. And there are now more units with prices like 30, 60, 150.

 

..........It has become some sort of second cash flow..............

 

I need to fix this first, before I continue with the units manual. I want to print out the unit statistics card first, including structures. Then I can have a better tale for each unit. I have a lot, but not all. I want to give players advice in how to use the unit, but also in how to best train the unit. After all, it's a "starters" set.

 

So, XP cards with value's that are handy enough for the game.....

 

Suggestions? (nop, nop, nop...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussed the calculations manual with my cousin yesterday. This forced me to review.

 

If the speed modifiers are done right. The range modifiers have to be taken into account.

 

But I discovered that the range modifiers for weapons are not right.

 

Normally a weapon of 100, costs 100 at range 4.

2 weapons of 100, costs 200 at range 4.

1 weapon vs ground and 1 weapon vs air, both range 4, still costs 200.

 

But if you have to choose 1 or the other. In other words, the weapon is 1 projectile that has to choose a target. By the rules of the speed modifiers, it would cost 150. I tested other ranges as well. And I was happy about the results.

However, higher ranges seemed to be a little more expensive then expected, compared to the lower ranges.

 

This was something that I calculated some years ago. The range gets the same modifiers then the speeds. Back then, I didn't do infinity checks.

 

And now I did. Then the 2 weapons of 100 cost the same then the "choice of dimension" weapon. Which is only half effective. So you have great imbalance above a certain range. This already might be at range 4, where the choice of dimension weapon is 50% more expensive then a single dimension weapon.

 

I am sure the speed modifiers work correctly. After all, you can move and hide somewhere, where other units can't reach.

Luckily this range problem, does not influence the current first box. All those units are basic or simple.

 

2 none basics:

Mines and minesweepers, but they have only 1 dimension weapons.

 

Balancing games? Do infinity checks besides of 0 checks.

 

So, what now?

 


 

This is what should be balanced:

 

1 weapon against ground, is worth 1

1 weapon against air, is worth 1

2 weapons that hits ground and air at the same time, is worth 2

1 weapon that hits ground or air, is worth .....?

 


 

Edit:

I have had things way to complicated.

- First I modified Range and Speed depending on the characteristics of the unit. Propulsion influences damage as well in costs.

- Then I scraped this and turned it into modifiers of the default statistics. So propulsion still influenced damage. But the factors where easier.

- Once again scraped it. Now I have this main factor separated in factors for Armour, and factors for Damage. They should become equal now in effects. And no matter how much range you have, Armour will always have the same factor for a certain type of unit.

 

Air will cost twice as much for armour. Hoovers are the same. Yet Hoovers have influence of mountains and forests for movement. Air will only have this with large quantities of a high land scape. That's right, "super mountains". But they are very rare. Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short one:

 

- Simplifying balance of movement through dimensions.

- Has simplified weapon balance and costs.

- Has complicated experience costs for Armour and Speed. But that one was do-able.

- Has allowed an addition of X weapons. These can actually go through closed environments without fail. And are now balanced.

- Has showed me the true factor for "choice of dimension" weapons. The factor is square root of 2. 1,5 and 1,333 are both equally away from this factor. I have chosen 1,333 since with 4 dimensions, you get a "perfect" balance between "choice" weapons and "juggernaut" weapons.

 

Well, back to the manuals.

- Added a Mine Placements Centre. Not so sure about the name though :D. Perhaps Mine Deployment Centre?

- Discussed the Grenadier and usefulness of all other units compared to the Jeeps. This discussion starts every time when players take a look at the speed and range. Once again, get the low ranged units close. Low range means they are cheaper. Of course the Jeeps can outrun. But that is all they can do ;). And once trapped, they are done for.

 

Now I wonder:

- Risk has 40 infantry, 12 horses, 8 cannons. For each of the 6 players, that is a total of 360 pieces.

- My game has 636 units for each of the 3 players. This includes the squad cards.

 

Structures, XP, Permanents, Regions, Player cards, reserve units and Damage counters not counted.

That is 1908 pieces!!! already. But only for the multi-player maps you need this amount. Lets forget about miniatures :D

Each card with a thickness of maximum 1 mm. This is already 2 meters of cardboard. Lets say that the end result is 2,5 meters high. With a 2 x 3 cm size. It will be 1500 cm³ or 1,5 dm³. Total weight of the first box will be about 1 kg?

 

Do-able?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very short one:

 

- I am stuck....

on the fact that 1 player has a little over 700 pieces in the first box. And I wanted to make a box for 3 players. 2200 pieces!

Removing this and allowing players to have a small armies will reduce the game in all aspects.

Not gona name the aspects since it would be a tldr post again.

 

Help?

 

Edit:

There are games out there with over 6,000 pieces. But they are with "5" add-ons included. So 1,000 per box.

I made a little calculation on my future progress. I will probably have over 55,000 with those "24" add-ons. :D.

23 kg. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 10.000 views. I feel honoured. But who is watching? No one really replies here :D.

 

I still wanted to discus with my co-worker the fact about the 700 pieces a player. It bothers me really a lot.

If you think about it, a much played game like risk has only 60 each player. But it has a fixed board as well.

I have it all dynamic. The board is always random. And each piece can have damage, experience, permanents (personal upgrades) and if it has done something or not.

 

Anyway, here goes "the downfall" of the game.

I am going to give a list of things that might as well be removed if I try to reduce pieces. Some sort of chain reaction occurs.

Neglecting the fact that I have also thought of missions with only 20 - 50 pieces per player.

Normally you would be having about 5 to 30 units per region, in a pile. I already thought of reducing this by "squads" of the cheapest.

 

The following indicates utter failure:

At least, that is how I feel.

 

Action:

1 - To reduce pieces, perhaps unit counters? It would be as if 1 unit is actually a squad. And some counters like, 1,1,1,5 would mean, 8 pieces. This can go on to about 120 tops.

Consequences:

A - Tracking damage becomes hard, or even impossible.

Consequences:

a - The damage can only be on the group. If there is enough, a counter is removed. But this is still to do.

O wait, this means no splitting up forces. Perhaps singling out those who will receive damage? But then I am back to where I started.

b - Removing damage, might as well remove the health system then. It would be 6 is a hit, 1 to 5 are misses. Then permanents regarding damage and health become obsolete.

XP used to give only health AND damage, now it's just range and speed.

B - Tracking experience becomes hard, or even impossible.

Consequences:

a - Impossible to do on a group. All permanents become obsolete as well.

b - Perhaps singling out those who will receive permanents? But then I am back to where I started.

C - Tracking permanents (personal upgrades) becomes impossible.

Consequences:

a - Singling out is necessary. Thus I am back to where I started.

D - Tracking actions becomes hard, or even impossible.

Consequences:

a - No split actions or splitting forces. Normally 1 part of a region doesn't fight back because it wants to fire on another region. This gives great tactics.

E - Some units don't have need for this, unless more are allowed in 1 region. But this makes the game chaotic.

Consequences:

a - There are units worth 3600 each. So only 1 would be there. So then it is an overused action. Nevertheless, this is only some times.

b - Allowing more units (into infinite) makes range and speed obsolete. If you are limited in numbers. Then range and speed become useful aspects of the entire game. They however might merge into 1. But then we have Axis and Allies type of game.


Action:

2 - To reduce pieces, perhaps removing unit types?

Might as well burn the game. I am already at an acceptable lowest kind of game. If I where only to start with infantry. That would be stupid. It is already a build up in the "single" player missions that you train with Infantry first.

Action:

3 - To reduce pieces, perhaps removing range and speed? Only allowing damage and armour?

A - No need for a big board.

B - No need for range and speed permanents.

C - No need for hexagons.

D - No need for turns.

Well, not even going to go further into this list.

 

As you can see, I have given the spoiler a try.

Further more, I await my co-worker. He can be brilliant with giving solutions.

I wonder if anyone on this forum has an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updates? Yes:

Placed a lot of spoilers.

 

I still wanted to discus with my co-worker the fact about the 700 pieces a player. It bothers me really a lot.

If you think about it, a much played game like risk has only 60 each player. But it has a fixed board as well.

I have it all dynamic. The board is always random. And each piece can have damage, experience, permanents (personal upgrades) and if it has done something or not.

 

I did have some discussion. But it didn't last. 1 Main point is, I have to remove all the "squad" cards. They have no real function after round 1. Only the "squad" cards for the walls can remain. But this changes as soon as a player uses that region. Might as well remove that. The 12 centimetre high stack of wooden fences will be a "funny" situation, notching more. Players are limited to 18 regions each, this includes the necessary structures. Result would be, only about 210 cards on the board.

 

Did some simulation tests. The kind of "what if?" All tests had the goal: playability.

Summary:

I kept a watchful eye on units, damage counters, experience counters and permanents.

Speed and Range Permanents where not assigned since those are only really useful after destroying a region.

The unit cards themselves can be handled fast. With a battle board where players put there armies on, things go faster and easier. All cards, also the damage counters, XP and permanents have the same size than the units cards.

If an unit has done something, you simply turn it 90 degree's including all it's extra's. This will remain when put back on the board until the next round.

 

Results of the 5 tests are:

- The small and plenty versus the small and plenty;

Numerous but weak. They die fast enough to keep the damage counters to a minimum. This however means that each round 1 unit still receives some damage counters. And retreats to another line for the next round. The experience has to be planned before hand. This means that if there is only 1 line, XP units will be targeted first anyway. If you suspect that about 6 units will receive XP, they have to be in a supportive line.

 

Each player can throw dice, unit by unit. Of course they can agree on assigning XP later on, on those units that didn't die or received damage. Then it is range by range. And players can divide their optimal damage. This makes the game more fun too.

 

Well, there is another tactical advance for ranged units now. Not much, but still.

Experience can be spend fast anyway.

The permanents will be low for each, but this means plenty in mid-game. The last one will be having a lot. Best choice is Health permanents for meat function. Maybe 1 or 2 times a Damage permanent in the mid-game. But then on a group. If each unit has a separate amount of Damage permanents, then you need to re-roll for each unit.

 

Damage counters, low but cumulative.

Experience counters, low.

Permanents, low, then chaotic, eventually cumulative for the last man standing. Both damage and health get a turn. But during mid-game, health will have the upper hand.

- The small and plenty versus the big and few, damage on target;

Well, the same can be said for the small and plenty like in the previous example.

 

The big and few, and both sides on target. Results in a lot of damage counters on the armoured units. Experience will be divided, but not really spend until the fight is almost over (6 rounds have passed). Only in the end, there might be some noticeable permanents around. Most are spend on health for saving the unit while the numerous clearly choose damage now. This is nice, since there is a change of tactic now.

 

Small and plenty:

Damage counters, low but cumulative.

Experience counters, low.

Permanents, low, then chaotic, eventually cumulative for the last man standing. Mostly health, but the very high damages will have some as well. Even though it is expensive.

 

Big and few:

Damage counters, high and cumulative.

Experience counters, eventually high. But then a fall.

Permanents, non existent until, eventually high for the last man standing. Depending on the targets, anti infantry, damage will be useful here.

- The small and plenty versus the big and few, damage is not on target;

Basic the same as on target.

With 1 major difference. If the small and numerous are a bit lucky. They too receive a lot of damage counters. The big and few will have even more.

 

Experience wont be piling up until dead occur. But in the last round, it might be over in an instant. No need for permanents then. During mid-game, I had once a stack size of 21 cm. Average was 12 cm. But these kind of fights would mostly be avoided. Unless there is notching else to do. However, in some missions. You really will be getting these, but you will be using event cards as well.

 

Small and plenty:

Damage counters, high and cumulative.

Experience counters, low.

Permanents, low till the end. Mostly health.

 

Big and few:

Damage counters, very high and cumulative.

Experience counters, might be medium, but mostly cannot be spend due to high XP costs.

Permanents, non existent until the end. Unless 1 unit got lucky. Mostly health.

- The big and few versus the big and few, on target;


It goes the same as the small and plenty. But even though it can go fast in the first round. It will take a lot of rounds for the last one. The random factor actually has more influence on numerous, while it is closer to the average. This surprised me. But it is understandable. Some maths behind it:

A little survivor counts 100% if it takes cover. And there is a big army for covering. A big unit however, doesn't have much buddies to hide behind, and survival doesn't really give a cumulative effect. Where 1 on 36 means a usefulness for 36, a 1 on 6 is only 1/6th in effect. This is a difference in the army is 666 strong or 21 strong. The very next would survivor would have 630 or 15. This is a difference of 95% or 71%. And that is a lot. If you want to know more about army effects during combat, pleas PM me.

Damage counters, low but cumulative. Eventually medium.

Experience counters, low, eventually medium. And well spend.

Permanents, low, eventually cumulative for the last man standing. They are spend on damage and health.

- The big and few versus the big and few, is not on target;

Ok, this would be like an APC versus APC combat. It takes very very long, And then, some more time.And the bigger they are, the longer it takes. In the first box, Big units will be needing 3 to 5 times more round to finish each other of then the small units. So instead of a healthy 6 rounds, or 12 with filled regions. We are talking bout 18-30 rounds, or 36-60 rounds with filled regions. Each round might take about 5 minutes. So, the worst possible case takes 300 minutes or 5 hours to be played out.

 

Those 60 minutes for a healthy filled region is based on 6 regions versus 6 regions. Depending on numbers of units and player skill of course.

 

Anyway:

Damage counters, low but cumulative. Eventually ridiculous high. It would not surprise me if the counters of 9 are used before those of 25.

Experience counters, Non existent until the last rounds.

Permanents, low, eventually cumulative for the last man standing. Most are spend on health.

 

And here is the Unit Statistics Card, that will be included in the first box:

This is a complete one for all the players. Missions are based on these units. Please tell me what you think about it.

post-2682-0-80319100-1366037630_thumb.gi

 

Ow, almost forgot something. A map. Perhaps some might recognise this map from a previous post. Long, long ago ^^. Quality is very low due to size. The useful version is almost 20 mB. Further more, this map has a bit to much in the lowest and highest regions, those regions need to be deleted or halved. The Dungeongrapher does not allow this, nor will future maps have this:

post-2682-0-24654000-1366037883_thumb.pn

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project is getting close to a close.

 

I finally had a good discussion with my co-worker:

 

- I showed him the first missions, and the last missions. He considered it a good build up. However, the build up is needed a lot.

 

- I also showed him the 2 files that I posted in the previous post. Telling him, this is the maximum that players will use. That includes a maximum of 18 regions. This invokes more tactics and planning. He thinks that, that part of the game will be to hard for players.

 

- He finds the addition of a combat field a good choice, this helps players planning and doing the fight. However, I need to work on the layout a bit more. It needs sufficient lines, first game could use 9 lines each player. There is no need for a field for units that don't fight, they simply wont get tapped (magic style). Once used, the units are placed back on the map, tapped. If the player colour is placed on top, this one can be tapped instead.

 

- 1 region stack will be having an average of about 6 cm hight in cards, including damage, experience and permanents. With a 2 by 3 cm card size, this is do-able. However, he suggests to make the cards a bit larger. The hexagon regions themselves have sides 6 (height 10). With this, 3 players could fit easily in 1 region. For regions in a slope, I indeed need larger cards, or they fall over. But then, 3 players that are all 3 tapped, wont fit any more. Unless the tapping is less then 90 degrees. No slopes, no larger cards. But walk paths to higher regions will get triangles for the corners. Height difference of 1 cm would be enough. So, 1 mm thick region cards are going to be placed on 10 mm thick region fillers. They can be stacked.

 

- He thinks that 3 players is too much for the learning missions. Because you will be needing all 3 players to be learning. 2 would be optimal. And, with 3 players, when 1 dies, the game is mostly finished for the other 2. They won't finish since 1 can't play along any more. A lot of blabla:

However, I will simply keep the 3 player missions separate. You wont be learning new things in the 3 players missions. This means, first I complete the designs for 2 player missions. Then I think of some 3 player missions that mirror the 2 player missions. Further more, I can simply copy some 2 player missions, but then add something for the third player to be the third force in that missions.

Example 1: the third player has an infinite amount of units or is just an immortal. Just there to be annoying.

Example 2: the third player actually joins forces with 1 of the other players.

 

I could add more players as well now. But only for specific tasks. And keeping a maximum on 2 teams helps a lot too.

 

- 1 set of units instead of 3?

(or 2 if the game is for 2)? This needs new rules to be added. Then with a bit of luck, players could monopolize units. However in my opinion, this makes the game less fun. The unit limitation is already by the regions that you control.

 

- Had another idea for designing production structures.

I might be getting lower armour, but more durability for structures. This means that a construction yard might be getting a simple armour of 9. But then more health against high weaponry, way more health. As if it is a pile of sand bags. This reminds me of C&C where low weapons from rifle infantry and grenadiers are excellent construction yard killers. While tanks did almost notching. The maths for me are simple here, if you compare. 36 armour has 216 health, 9 armour has 54 health. But a structure with 9 armour and costs of that of a 36 armour unit, would get 108 health now. The results are simple, all the weapons, 36 damage or higher in this case need twice as much time. But the on target weapon or lower in damage need only half the time. In between the 2, you have a shift. Infantry has just become even more useful.

 

- By above, I need to review the structures. However, they now can receive faster repairs as well ^^.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had another discussion with my co-worker

He finds the game way to complicated. Understandable, but way to complicated. To complicated? YES.

First let's compare chess with my board game. Then you will understand with why to complicated.

 

A little example of chess:

There are 6 pieces to be learned:

You learn how to use the pawn

You learn how to use the castle

You learn how to use the knight

You learn how to use the bishop

You learn how to use the queen

You learn how to use the king

Some noticeable ending combinations:

There is 1 special rule regarding the king and 1 of the castles

2 castles

a castle with the queen

an incoming pawn with a guarding castle or queen

Well, I am not a chess player since long, long time ago. But I remember the complicated protecting system where with almost all pieces on the board, the king went down anyway.

 

A "little" example of my board game, the example has noticeable differences that influence tactics and strategy:

Learning units:

There are X armour types, but it varies between low, medium and high, so lets say 3 types as example. To be learned when to use them.

There are corresponding X damage types, lets say 3 types again as example. To be learned when to use them.

There are X speed types, lets say, 0, slow, moderate and fast, so 4 types. To be learned, because influenced by the map.

There are X range types, lets say, 0, short, moderate and long, so 4 types. To be learned, because influenced by the map.

3x3x4x4 will already give 144 different kind of units. Each there own purpose.

There are combinations of 2, 3, 4 etc of them. Sometimes 2 weak types defeat 2 strong types, simply by "micro management". In other words, who serves meat and who serves support?

I almost forgot, there are different damage types regarding reaching a certain terrain or dimension.

There are different armour/speed types regarding reaching a certain terrain or dimension.

There are special types of damage that can hurt only 1 type.

Learning the board:

There are different terrains, normal, water, mountain. (2-D)

These terrains can be combined by 2, 3 or all 4. This also greatly influences tactics and strategy.

There are different dimensions, ground, air, space, and sub (3-D)

The other 3 besides of the ground, are a bit easier in design. But this also gives some sort of 3-D movement.

Learning which regions block projectiles

Learning which regions block units

Learning the cards:

I thought of over 40 Event Cards

Some can be combined to increase effects linear

Some can be combined to increase effects exponential

Some neutralise each other, so not to combine

Some are good on half of your army, while the other half of your army might become worse, so caution is required

Some can be used on yourself and your enemy, depending on the situation

Some can be used on your allies as well, depending on the situation

Learning experience and permanents, a total of 5:

To increase health, damage, range, speed, multipliers. Certain rules are needed to know.

Damage in particular needs attention with this. Due to constant effects in combat

Event cards might become more useful in some cases, less in others. Especially with the multipliers

Learning resource management, a total of 7:

Each their own strong points and weaknesses.

Also dependable on the units that are used.

Also dependable on bonus experience or other event cards.

Not to mention production rules, use of actions, first player in each round, etc.

 

The path to learn this game, you don't simply need to know basics like how to use the 6 pieces in chess. And perhaps some "special" rules. You need to learn a lot over time.

Even though I planned "single" player missions. To learn each aspect of this game and learn to combine the aspects. Well, I don't see it happening with other players. Not even if I start out simple like what I showed to my co-worker. 16 pieces a player versus 700 pieces a player. max map size 100 versus 54. And that's only the first box. I had it simply planned to have 25 boxes total. Story line, and progress in the rules etc. Chaos, chaos, chaos.

 

There is only an end conclusion left:

The game:

The intended game only works for me. I know all the rules. But god forbid, others might learn completely.

Some parts of the game really are only needed for 2 players. So I wont be needing them.

No one in the neighbourhood to test it with anyway. My co-worker has refused now that it looks and feels to complicated.

A lot of printouts needed. While I can play the game in my mind. No need to continue on graphics. For my feelings, the board game was completed at a certain point. But not for general publishing.

 

My learnings:

Based on RTS, I learned a lot for balancing a real RTS.

I learned a lot of designing a "war" board game. ---> Not suited for me.

I learned myself new math for determine balances (50.000 simulations in 1 second ftw).

I learned specific math on strategy. I learned specific math on tactics. And yes, there is a clear difference. And yes, you need both ways of calculating if you want to balance RTS.

With a few modifications, most of the formulas work for RTS as well. Some I discovered by thinking in the board game universe, if I never did this project, I probably never would had known. Others where already derived by analysing existing RTS.

 

This project:

Ends

 

Some sort of afterword; the help that I got:

Not naming them, since they want to remain anonymous on the internet.

- Some thought I did great. Some of them never said how or why. But some others did. Anyway, thanks for the support. You know that I am talking about you. I roughly estimate this on 20 people.

- 1 person, that held me back at certain points, which forced me to go board game instead of a MMO-text based. He showed me that wanting to much, kills a project. I learned from that.

But he did not show me that knowing to much, also can kill a project. I was the only one, cheers to that :D. If I realised back then, I never started.

- 1 person, that had the idea of Event Cards, which immediately increased fun potential and game flow. If this did not happen, then the project was closed before even mentioning it on this forum.

- 4 people that had good interest. Sorry for bothering you by my intensive blabbering :D. 2 Are from this forum. 2 others are from my private life.

- 1 person in particular, he had really good discussions with me, my co-worker. The best help I could get. Since he knows it all. If someone like him, draws back. That says enough.

 

Future?

- Perhaps if I can get my hands on miniatures and terrain. For some story telling based on my board game rules :D.

- I will not reduce tactics and strategy by scrapping parts. Or I scrap every thing, and reduce the game to a specialized RISK type of game. But then I want it programmed again.

- RTS balancing? why the !@#$ is that SC2 editor so complicated?

- Specific situation testing, I will keep it now to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know you could program that into a small Flash game :) and no one would be able to cheat :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×