Jump to content
X3M

Creating a board game based on RTS games.

Recommended Posts

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

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

I can't program. I don't have the time to learn. I have a busy life: work and private.

However on work: I practically created this game in my head. Only to type some rules back home. And test stuff on paper or in excel.

 

And someone already tried out programming for me.

Turns out, he didn't understand the rules.

Let alone that players would understand what to do.

 

Maybe, I recreate the battle simulation for WargameX (old text based game) again in excel. I got some new experience now, and easier ways to calculate. But that would also be for me personal. My cousin doesn't want to program that game any more. He wanted to much anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you don't have to do it now :) It's not like I have too much free time for my mod either. Just small steps ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you know what you are doing. I still have to start at 0.

And perhaps programming is your field. Not mine, I am an analyst.

I don't even know where to start. A line has 2 starting points. A circle has infinite starting points. My game resembles a moving sphere through time and space.

 

If someone has a RTS. I simply could say, here are the numbers you need. And add 1, 2 or 3 units for the balance. Period :D

But PM me if you are interested in how the board game works. I will try to explain 1 part at a time. Perhaps you understand the difficulty.

Or you are indeed the first to understand the mechanics. (That would be a wonder).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what makes chess a classic - simple rules that yield an incredibly rich game.

 

As someone who has tried to program your game - and might still go on if I get the chance - I have to confess I simply don't have the time to read your posts in their entirety and decipher your thought processes. It would help your cause to distill the final conclusions of your posts and exclude all the details about how you arrived at those.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you'd given up, every one did that.

 

Shall I email you the manuals? In that case, I need to extract the right event cards for the missions. I did not do that yet.

But the main manual, except what the box had to contain. I can email that if you want.

And the list of units is already present. You can take that one to start with.

I hope it is possible for you to make some sort of experience spending system.

There wont be any need for a limit on actions, as long as every unit only does 1 thing each round.

 

It wont be dune based, in the version that i nearly finished.

It will be a, army got on another planet by german experiments during WW2.

They will evolve there. Each new addon to the game is a next generation with previous still in use. Ok with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never give up. My backburner has plenty of room for projects postponed indefinitely. 8)

 

I 'll be happy to download the manual if you provide a link to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did indeed do some programming in high-school... but that was 9 years ago. Damn I'm old  :blink: Aaaand being an architect helps with design, 3d modeling and texturing. Though I've discovered the whole game industry is a very different matter from what I'm used to. Those are the "+". The minuses are the language for M&B source code is an invented one specially for that game based on Python (which I have no idea how to use), low-poly modelling is a real headache, texturing is hell if you ask me because I have no idea how to UVW unwrap a surface, and most of the game-related additional programs are made by fans... therefore full of bugs.

 

The idea would be, once you finish your design, to simplify the structure. Do a bit of clean-up. Try to describe the behavior of a unit (let's say) by what it does when it encounters a problem. For a programmer to put it in code he needs if clauses and repetitive functions. 

 

Let's say a unit will loose speed if hit. If my C++ syntax is still correct the code for that would e something like:

 

while ( health != 0 ) speed = health; // means that at full health the unit will have full speed and the speed is directly proportional to the health

 

If you want to add some adrenaline boost:

 

while ( health != 0 ) if ( health < 25 ) speed = 50;

                                                         else speed = health;

 

Meaning speed is proportional to health as long as health is above 25. under 25 adrenaline boosts in and jumps the speed to 50.

 

Obviously you don't have to know any programming language. But as long as you can disassemble your game in some basic conditions/clauses it will be easier for someone to put it in code. 

 

Send me a pm with a download link for the manual, I'd like to look at it. Your posts here are too long for me to be able to focus, sorry  :( And yes, I know how it is with work, personal life, hobbies... I got my parents coming up next week for a month so no more work on the mod in May, unless some magic happens and I get free time at work, and that would only be some small map icons or something. And after that I'll (hopefully) start teaching english part time to fill up the 20% salary cut that came up with the Chinese New Year. Gonna be a rough summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Busy now on cleaning up the main manual.

But I am not permitted to upload this word file on this forum.

 

With the statistics card posted before, you also know the units.

But here it is once more:

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

 

Perhaps it is better to get a version with only the units, before we add structures?

Also, leaving out defences, unless both players get some beforehand, on the map.

Most starting/learning missions contain only units anyway. But beginning with missions is to hard too.

 

So, create a 1v1 game? Where you buy your units before hand and start in 1 or more locations. Then you fight with the other player. If there is income, then a starting location for new units could take place.

 

I remembered again why it was 6 actions per round. It is to prevent slacking and abusing. And limiting players movement through choke points. So I will let that one in.

 

Manuals:

I indicated red stuff, for not worth reading. And green stuff for some sort of correction.

Lets see, how to give the stuff.

 

Edit 25-04-2013:

Only one of you has received the documents. Perhaps I should not include the unit statistics for the other one?

 

Edit 02-02-2014:

Wow, that USC is very outdated. That is the imbalanced version :D

Edited by X3M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My cousin wants to take a look at it again. But this time not that mmo like 10 and 5 years ago, but the board game itself.

 

If players are guided, and the cards are electronic. There is less hassle.

But then again, I need to be very strict. If something is different. The game will be unbalanced.

He has a lot of experience with hexagon grids now. That should be a good thing.

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...