Jump to content
X3M

Creating a board game based on RTS games.

Recommended Posts

A small update:

 

Since everyone had talks about tanks crushing infantry. I thought to take a look at it again:

 

So I did, and I have reached a conclusion.

But god forbid posting it here. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked many board games already, including warcraft and starcraft. They aren't really RTS, they are simply based on RTS. And there is a lot of gamble in those games too. (No one likes the starcraft game anyway)
However, those other 2 will be looked at as well.Maybe they give me some new idea's.
 
Reinventing the wheel is not the case here. I have something new that gets new additions in the rules so now and then. (Just like Magic) And thus I post something here.
 
The game was completed in its "new printed" version 2 years ago. And currently I have warred several rounds, most against myself.
For better map printouts, I started using the Ogre Map editor. For units I still use the pictures from RTS games sidebar icons. Just like the NOD buggy in the beginning of this thread.
 
Here's the Dune2 section:

 


 

Falconius

 

I checked Gears of War and ASL.

ASL is actually one that comes closer to my game. And I have heard good stuff about it.

But if you want to have an even better idea: Axis and Allies is currently the game that has 2 systems that I also use. The "which unit goes first in shooting system" and the "which unit dies first system". Even though I handle this a bit differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a player blocks 1 region completely with a pile of 120 "wooden fence"s (smallest game piece). Their function is to block movement and incoming projectiles. Just a couple can shift a battle completely. But non the less, if 120 are allowed, then 120 are placed. And 1 entrance to the base will be completely sealed of. Only high anti infantry weapons can do the trick.

 

That's right, 120 units in 1 region. It kinda looks like this:

Pile-o-Cards.jpg

But about 4 times higher. They are 20 x 30 x 1. So the pile is 2 x 3 x 12 cm. Easy for tumbling. Luckily the fields are hexagons with a diameter of 12, so a lot of piles can fit in.

 

If I want to change cards into miniature figures. Then I need to think of something new. Yet I need to keep the rules intact and the usage of these walls.

 

Possible solution?:

I was thinking about counters, but each wooden fence has 6 health. So a total health counter could do the trick for the entire pile (720 health, or as counter a 10 sided clip with the numbers 1+2+4+8+15+30+60+120+240+240). Yet when you want to place units in between the walls before a battle starts, you need to split the counter up in to 2 or more. And what if someone is building up the pile? For every attack that is received, a new counter needs to be added for pointing out the damaged walls. This means that for every wall, there is 1 counter.

 

I might as well keep the cards for the walls or change the rules into building up health instead of tracking these units each as 1.

Apparently I have no good solution for changing into miniatures regarding the walls. Suggestions are welcome.

 


 

During my search for possible mixed terrain pictures. I came across this:

http://www.inspiredpress.net/2012/09/mark-2-hex-prototypes-and-kickstarter.html

 

They are indeed inspiring. :) And I wish them the best of luck with going public with their board game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have some updates. Working on my manual lately. Fixing grammatical errors, changing rules. Rereading refines.

 

Pile O cards problem:

I fixed my pile of "wall" cards with mutli unit replacements. 12 groups of 10 can be placed now instead of 120 separate cards. Just like in Axis and Allies. The only difference is that you can add more damage to 1 group of walls, 60 Health on the group. As soon as a player wants to hide within these walls. The group of walls needs to be replaced by the basic, still living walls.

 

Pile O Experience problem:

I fixed my experience on units. Previously, you needed the XP to remain on the unit and add Ranking Permanents to these units. With each RankingPermanent your unit would have more Health and more Damage. But a lot of recalculating each round was needed. And you would get another pile of cards on just 1 unit. Now that it has been fixed, spending XP is easier. And you can spend XP on 4 different statistics. Health, Damage, Speed and Range can all be adjusted separately. For the Health and Damage, I also have created 6-Health and 6-Damage Permanents which indicate a new level of XP spending. For range and speed, this was not needed. If an unit has a lot of range, then the speed upgrade will cost more XP. If an unit has a lot of speed, then the range upgrade will cost more XP. For Health and Damage, the Armour and Damage type indicate the amount of XP needed.

Killing your own units is allowed. But not recommended since the bonuses are at best a +16,7%.

The exponential effects when statistics are combined is what bugs me the most during the XP balancing. There for Range and Speed Permanents cost a lot more then they should cost. The map itself is also limited in size, so cheap XP spending on Range and Speed would mean overkill. I need to rethink this though.

 

However, now that the pile of experience is gone, piles of Permanents take their place. And the Ranking Permanents (Bronze, Silver, Gold stars) can be thrown away (in a box since I might need them in the future again).

 

If an unit has a secondary or tertiary weapon, then for those Damage and Range Permanents, I need to add a 2 and 3 Permanent to be placed on top.

 

The Experience is complex but understandable now. But during most combat, only surviving units (mostly support units) will survive. They will receive mostly Speed and Damage Permanents and thus the game speed is increased.

 

Pile O Event Cards:

I modified the rules on/for them for better understanding. These come the closest to the game Magic. Yet I am unsure to put the text on the card itself or only the name. And then add a little Event Card manual to the big manual. There will be a lot of hurting other players with these. Some "positive" cards might even be used as a weapon by rewarding enemy units. :). Here is an example:

15 Range Permanent:

The selected unit has 1 more range for the entire game. This unit also fire’s later according to the rules. So this card can be put to good use on the enemy as well. This card may be played anytime. Place a Range Permanent on this unit and place the card back under in the deck.

There is a section in the rules regarding abusing :)

 

Unit statistics:

For each unit, I am planning on creating a unit statistics card. This card is great to have, but also serves a purpose in certain game modes. It contains all the statistics and the first 3(?) XP costs for each of the 4 mentioned statistic that can be increased. But I still wonder on how to design these cards. I already know what to put on them. But some units require more space if they have 2 or more weapons. I think I will keep the maximum on 3 different weapons. Which might include crushing infantry :).

 

Vision issues:

I have rewritten the rules regarding the chance of projectiles reaching destination. This chance is depending on the regions that the projectiles cross. And I added 2 pictures in the manual for this to be explained. Its a big section, 2 pages out of the current 15.

post-2682-0-24317800-1360447715_thumb.pn

In another section of the manual, I have explained region properties, that knowledge is needed before a reader learns about the projectile movements.

 

Players income:

Regarding Income for the players, I still am not sure how to do this. I have created a list of possible solutions.

By domination, harvesters or resource nodes. I don't know yet. Suggestions are welcome.

 

What is needed?:

At the beginning of the manual. I have created a list of things that are needed to be in the box. It is odd to realise that some things aren't needed in amounts while other things require more cards.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google is not my friend today. I tried searching for letters in bronze, silver and gold. The trick is, to get them all in the same writhing style and size for printing.

I will be needing H, S, D, R and M (P) for the statistics levelling.

No problems with the other 4, even the P was available while the M was sufficient.

 

Only the H and D are really needed in bronze, silver or gold. Since they increase a lot.

A big pile of M, R or S is intimidating :)

 

Well, I also could say that I am having problems with getting the bronze, silver and gold colours in Word. Since all other cards can simply be printed by Word.

 

So, any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, there are no suggestion then. Doesn't matter, I keep the colours red, blue and dark yellow then :D. Works just as fine.

For H and D: Red is +1, Blue is +6 and Yellow is +30. That would be the best configuration. The R and S will remain black just like the M.

 

Next issue's:

Deciding on starters set where expansions are additions to the story? This way there are still way to many starting units as possibilities. Further more, I need to keep them small and without much technology. This should come with expansions packs.

Each expansion pack should be another decade of war. Starting in 1941, yet another world, would be funny. Where the starting units are existing tanks. Yet the technology goes in a different way. Just like in Red Alert. But perhaps that is a bit too much of a rip off.

Suggestions or opinions are welcome.

 

My co-worker doesn't like the idea where 2 players choose units on before hand. Each has the choice of every type out of 3 of that type. In the first box.

"Why?" he asked. Well, I want to refrain from 2 or more sides with colours. I rather have custom armies where players can decide which units they want. With one colour on all units, I reduce the amount of pieces for the board. After all, if you look at magic, all players can have all cards. It's more of an economic and dynamic goal. He understood that but would think about it too for another solution.

 

With the unit statistics card you can claim which unit is yours. Unless a mind control card is on the unit.

However, perhaps I should allow some sort of equal starting units to indicate fairness. But how to indicate this on the board? It is sure that I should refrain from using colours. The same "problem" arises for the production facilities and income units. But I could double these simply by giving another picture.

Suggestions, opinions?

 

I also wonder if I should have 3 armour types in the first box. Special units are out of the question. I tried having 3 types, that's a total of 9, then 3 of each with a defence structure and wall, plus the production facilities. But soon the amount of types would go in the 40. O well, that's a bit to much for the first box :D. So only 2 types then.

 

Infantry and ..... If I do tanks, where are the lighter vehicles? And vice versa.

With vehicles as second choice, players lack the power for destroying certain key structures.

With tanks as second choice, the game might lack destroying speed in normal combat.

 

With each box, a new armour type would be added. Plus some new anti units from the previous boxes.

Perhaps someone could tell me which one they like to see as second choice, in the first box:

Infantry (first choice), and since the technology should be low...

Second choice?: 4 wheeled that are light armoured, other slower 4 wheeled, very Light tanks or just Light tanks.

Not much choice now, is there? The Light Tanks do give some balancing problems. I want to keep them out as well.

What would you like to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ogremap does not have what I want. The map that I "re" created has even less the feeling of a desert. So I went looking on the internet.

 

 

 

 

I found something like this:

 

 

 

And why, for the love of god, why aren't there any games out there with this texture? Imagine the next dune game in an environment like this. Of course you are looking from a great distance.

 

 

canyon_desert_game.gts.jpg

 

 

desert_rocks3.gts.jpg

 

 

 

This calls for experimenting. The site is located here: http://www.geocontrol2.com/e_index.htm

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well x3m can you break down the questions cause I can't nake them out....

I would gladly like to help but your posts are a bit confusing....

my word what a b-e-a-utiful landscape....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there was no question in the last post. But it is a result of what I was currently doing. You can always suggest something. Or ask what I was asking in previous posts. Just quote them if you want ^^.

 

0. I draw hexagons on paper and draw a map in them. Then, if I want to, I cut out the hexagons for reshaping the map.

The build speed is extremely slow

The result in quality is extremely low

The playability is high

 

My current main goal is to create better maps still existing out of hexagons. I use 3 possible new ways to approach this. All 3 are still paper based.

 

1. I print out a map on paper and draw in the hexagons later. This doesn't give the wanted results since maps are not following the pattern. The build speed is slow (drawing hexagons later)

The result in quality is medium for hexagons, high for texture

The playability is low

 

2. I print out pieces of maps and cut out the hexagons. Then I can relocate these hexagons at will. But the transaction between fields can be very abrupt.

The build speed is slow (but mistakes are small if they happen)

The result in quality is high

The playability is medium

 

3. I create the map in a hexagon editor. The map is immediately correct to the hexagons. And I could cut them out. But I also could create another map in the same hexagon editor.

The build speed is high

The result in quality is (supposed to be) high

The playability is high

 

Ogremap falls under the third category.

Ogremap has a medium quality. But the build speed is high and the playability is medium due to incorrect textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why, for the love of god, why aren't there any games out there with this texture? Imagine the next dune game in an environment like this. Of course you are looking from a great distance.

 

The clue is at the bottom of the pics: generation time 12min and 24min respectively. Games have to render their graphics in real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Spectral Paladin.

 

Of course it took time :D. It is a picture creator.

 

Once created, it is saved and can be recalled. That's why there are a lot of pictures of them already. You simply can click them.

 

I haven't tested the program yet. But if possible, I will use it to create good looking textures. Besides, the regions don't have to be that big. And 1 picture can be cut into smaller interesting segments. All I need to do is view one directly from above. Not a 45 angle.

 

Test planned this Tuesday. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I already have tested it. Installed the demo version 2.

 

2 times, and I waited patiently with the first time.

 

First time result. After 30 minutes a blue screen except for the top. I am pretty sure that with only a map size of 64 where default is 1024 and 100 X 100 meters instead of 22500 x 3000 meters. Well, that would be no problem? Right?

 

Second time, it crashed right after clicking generating. While I tried exactly the same.

 

So Ogermap >>> Geocontrol for what I had in mind.

 

 

I tried Hexographer, simply the demo

 

And here the results:

 

post-2682-0-26057200-1362424505_thumb.pn

 

Well, I still need to cut of some edges. That I have to do in pain. But never the less. I new that my squared map would not be squared after applying the right editor :).

I am very happy with what I have found.

 

And it is great to use for Dune maps as well. It has in the demo also sandy dunes and less mountain than the one I have used. For the orange regions, I used lava. For the forests I also have a choice of less forest.

 

Starting regions have a vortex symbol and 3 resources. The crosses have 2 resources, and the 1 has just 1 resource. At least on that map.

 

And the best part of it all is that the hexagons can be cut out separately and twisted 60 degrees and still fit with an inaccuracy of 0,0004%. (209 x 181 for the hexagon) The editor also allows for other shapes of hexagons. Great for slopes to go up/down hill. But I need to calculate those and come up with an adjusted hight.

 

Yes, now I am happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worked on the manual yesterday evening. I worked on the "what if a unit has 2 or 3 weapons" and the extra costs. And the "why 2 or 3 weapons?" 8)

 

This brings us back to the special weapons; or ways to crush infantry or light units. Special sabotage like blowing up structures yet not be able to kill other units is also one of these special weapons.  Even some sort of EMP that kills the heavy units yet leaves alone the infantry and structures could be considered to be special. 8)

 

Then we have also the hard counters where a part of the weapon is special. This means that Bunker Buster Rocket has 450 + 450S. Where all targets with 450 will receive twice the normal damage. Yet the weapon is (was) only 1,5 times expensive. :)

A small update:

 

Since everyone had talks about tanks crushing infantry. I thought to take a look at it again:

 

So I did, and I have reached a conclusion.

But god forbid posting it here. :D

I posted that 14 december 2012. And yeah, I recalculated some stuff about this issue. But I did some calculations again, since I didn't have a good feeling about it today. I worried about the balance. Where normal combined weapons work perfectly. What about the special weapons? ???

 

The rule about special weapons is that they can only target 1 type of armour. And this is only possible if there are 2 or more armour types.

As solution for the costs calculation I had the price multiplied by 0,5 for the weapon. It seemed fair and logical back then. :|

 

But after doing some hard math I discovered that each set of types has it's own reduction factor. I should have known, since having only 1 type would have no reduction factor. Or actually 1.

So in other words. The set 50 has 1. The set 100 has 1. The set 150 has 1. etc.

After some calculations as example, the set 50+150+300 has 0,6. :O Not 0,5.++

 

So where the heck did I get that 0,5 from? :blink:

 

Normal weapons are not supposed to be in "other worlds". But by adding the right mix (another complete system), they are OP and UP against the one world and of course balanced against themselves. 8)

 

Special weapons are not to be used in "other worlds" then. But I already warned for this for the normal weapons. :(

But it gets worse. As soon as a type is added to the existing list. Where normal weapons are still perfectly balanced. The special will get a different factor. >:(

 

I tried reaching infinite number of types. But that results in 0. No costs for a special weapon. :wacko: And yes, if there is only 1 divided by infinite. Indeed 0.

 

Depressing post if you ask me. I guess I just have to prepare 1 list of types with a good looking factor. And declare that the specialized units are only to be used in that world. As soon as another list of types enters from another world. The specialized unit will be OP or UP, there is no balance then. :(

 

¿ R.I.P. ?; BunkerBuster/TankKiller/CrushingInfantry/Tanya/ExtremeSniper/Dogbite/Virus/EMP/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...