Creating a board game based on RTS games.

[X3M]

Still to think about the textures.

I don't know how to make swamps with tree's.

I think they truly need to be made out of several triangle's.

 

But here are all the mixed terrains that I have made so far. Created in Paint. Then parts are copy pasted in word. Size has been doubled:

 

Any thoughts on those?

[X3M]

I am happy that you like them THE AQIB, but if I would not tell you what each region means? Would you be able to tell what those 14 are supposed to be? (I have not yet added swamps and beaches to the list)

 

---

 

Almost forgot to make swamps and beaches (full mixed). But they look like crap.

One version has 6 holes in a full hexagon and the other has 3 corners in each triangle, thus resulting in connected rings in the complete hexagon.

For those 2x2, perhaps I should come up with 1 colour instead of green/blue=swamp or yellow/blue=beach.

 

I don't know about beaches and perhaps I should keep sharp beach lines. But then adding white foam waves towards the sand instead. A wave line can also be used between 2 hexagons (*a different development story).

 

Swamps should be getting a teal kind of colour instead. There are 2, thus the lighter version gets turquoise?

 

*Ok, going to tell it anyway. I might think of removing the black lines between hexagons and add instead a 5 thick line that connects 2 adjacent regions. This way I can add more detail. And keep the map more as one. Only the corners of the hexagons have black lines added. Those are important to the game. Including the dots in the centre's of the hexagons.

[Nyerguds]

You know... isn't creating a board game based on an RTS like creating a game of a movie based on a game? DOOM: The Movie: The Game? RTS has its origins in board games, after all; Westwood started going towards RTS by making video game versions of Battletech board games :P

[X3M]

Well, my initial goal waaaay back then was getting the R part working for the board game. And thus no need for a computer to do the stuff.

But instead it ended up in having a form of simultaneously playing. Where players actually can react to other players actions when they have the means to it. They can actually say, "its my turn".

 

And with "based on RTS", indeed it has no use of making a board game based on a video game that is based on a board game. But things have been added when board games became RTS.

 

The second goal, which is achieved in my opinion. Is making a board game that gives players the strategic feelings of mechanics that only RTS games have to offer. While board games simply do not:

- A proper balance between Range versus Speed versus the Both of that versus the None of that.

- A proper balance between Meat versus Support versus the Both of that.

- A proper balance between Quantity versus Quality versus the Both of that.

Starcraft has those balances worked out fine.

 

But it came to my attention that a lot of players love the Infantry/Vehicle/Tank types and the additional weapons against them, just like how Westwood (and later EA) used to make. And there are other things in RTS that makes those games so much more fun.

 

- One fundamental design for all the possible types of Armor and Damage. Meaning that a given number to that is immediately a strength and a weakness.

- Different ways of resource gathering, all coming from one mechanic, yet in combination with the different Armor/Range/Speed.

- RTS can now be copied for a major part. I already posted a beginning of a Dune version here. I could do that again with the new rules, but only if asked.

- Proper ways of retreating and protecting injured units.

- Terrain influence; on movement, on maximum placement, on projectile movement. Thus resulting in...:

- Tactical placement just like in chess.

 

Things that I don't have, while RTS does have:

- Forced time. So do or die in not a forced option.

- Cool-Down or Rate-Of-Fire of weaponry. So no super weaponry. Except suicide units, they have a Cool Down of infinity.

- Proper AI. I got some working, but you might as well put another player on it. Thus no AI.

 

---

 

On a side note. After another round of play testing. They both asked me to increase health of the units. This can be done. But I will be going from 3 to 8. 8 is providing the easiest solutions. I am going to keep both systems. :) And I will try to use the same amount of units, thus I will rebalance them in the same way.

 

A down side to this is that maps once again need to be increased in size. 18x18 is now a needed solution. 2 reasons. The Speed and Range will increase to most units. And since 8 health means 1/8th of opportunity instead of 1/3th. With that I mean that players move around and a mistake costs them 33% of the moved squad. But that will change to 12,5%. Thus by increasing map size, the map width will increase. And the opportunity will more often be doubled.

 

Further more, the Speed and Range costs will become less. Instead of 33% increase, there is only 12,5% increase. The difference?

3 Health system:

Mine costs 60

Rifle Infantry costs 100

Ranger costs 180

8 Health system:

Mine costs 80

Rifle Infantry costs 100

Ranger costs 140

 

The Range would get a bit different stats for keeping them in balance with the 3600 size rule. 20 x 180 or # x 140. # must become a solid number.

 

Walls too will become a bit more expensive. Every 30 goes up to 40.

Thus I have 30 / 90 / 150 and these become 40 / 120 / 200, No problems with the used walls so far.

A350 (costs  210  > 280) would give problems first, but now it is A200 (120 > 160).

 

XP costs for Damage will change. And it too is causing problems. It requires changing the costs for the Damage XP, or changing the effects on Health.

[Nyerguds]

Whoooa, you clearly put some serious thought into this :)

More health is always fun. In real battles, most things are destroyed with one good hit from the correct countering weapon, be it a soldier or a tank. One bazooka hit, one well-aimed bullet, and bam, gone.

When I playtested the "Return of the Dawn" mod for Tiberian Sun, we found out that everything just died much more easily in the Tiberian Sun engine, compared to TD. (This was mostly due to the fact all tank projectiles in TS hit instantly, which inevitably makes them more accurate against moving targets). Simply giving everything more health made battles way more fun, and much more tactical, since retreating and regrouping was actually useful then :)

[D2k Sardaukar]

Still to think about the textures.

I don't know how to make swamps with tree's.

I think they truly need to be made out of several triangle's.

 

But here are all the mixed terrains that I have made so far. Created in Paint. Then parts are copy pasted in word. Size has been doubled:

14 textures displayed in word.png

 

Any thoughts on those?

They look nice. It's a certain style, I think it can work, only problem is they look low resolution. Perhaps try to make them in vector in Inkscape? I can help if you want.

[X3M]

Putting thoughts on the game.

Those mentioned above, most of them where already known for several years.

The different ways of resource gathering is the youngest.

Since that I joined the forum BGDF, I got some extra good pointers. Things that I never thought about. And the resource gathering was questioned as well.

 

---

 

The Health issue.

It was a request of my friends. Our old semi imbalanced game had 6 Health. Due to getting things right, it went down to 3. But we immediately noticed how balanced it became. The fact that a squad of Infantry could loose 12 out of 36 with one fight is way to fast in their eye's. It used to be 6. Now it will become 4,5. The 3 Health system is good, so I keep a choice open.

 

3 Health for small maps.

8 Health for the giant maps.

 

Of course, some units that normally cause instant death, need to be upgraded and become more expensive.

The Sniper is the most extreme in that one. It needed at least 3, was awarded with 5. The old version had 7. Now I need to give it 8 or higher.

I think 9 will do. This is still work in progress.

 

Didn't had much time either, but I checked the first 4 Infantry. The Worker and Rifle Infantry wont change at all.

The Grenadier wont change either. But here is the fun part. The meat factor went down from 150% to 122%.

The Rocket Soldier changes if I want to keep the price the same. Twice as strong in Health but damage is -33%. Instead of a support factor of 400, it now has one of 122% as well. Thus Grenadiers offer resistance for the Rocket Soldiers.

 

---

 

Thank you for reviewing the textures. They are tier 2 prototypes. And still experimental.

The low resolution has some reasons.

- Think lines

- Easy and quickly to make

- Looking for a good placement of the symbols

 

My 2 primary goals where to make textures that could be mixed up with a program. But also indicate what kind of region it is for the color blind.

It still needs lots of work though. But my buddy B can see clearly now :). When every possible combination has valid statistics. The new region textures are done for a next tier of play testing.

Hmm, now that I think about it, they suit the 3 Health better then 8 Health. O well, let's see what my buddies think :)

[X3M]

 Simply giving everything more health made battles way more fun, and much more tactical, since retreating and regrouping was actually useful then :)

That is so true.

With Tibed, I used to multiply all the costs with 5, and the health with 5. A bit extreme, but funny to do.

And thinking back to it, it doesn't make sense with the knowledge that I have these days.

All ranged and speedy units became obsolete too. Whoops

 

But why did people do that? I know of more who did that. The reason is that those annoying Quality units would become weaker in comparison with Quantity units. An unit that almost died could back off and let another one take the hit. While continuing the fire as well.

Quality always was > Quantity. No one liked that fact. And it is the main reason why a lot of people say that C&C Dawn infantry sucks. While with proper use, they do not.

It is also the reason why EA games started to use Tanks and Bunkers that allowed infantry to shoot from.

 

To counter that effect myself, I use several ways. That no one else has in board games for all I know:

- Allowing protection by other units, kinda like the bunkers, but a welcome fact is that walls "in a board game" have use.

- Allowing retreating, getting out of range, or simply have 2 lines of units where the second line is protected by the first. A recently new addition to this is that speed units have reduced hit chance compared to their speed while moving. My buddies clearly needed that :D.

- Allowing units to gain XP, where the Quantity can put all XP in 1 unit. Thus that one unit becomes a Quality unit. And more easily than natural Quality units.

- Allowing players to choose what kind of XP they want to spend. Sometimes units need more speed or range against an opponent. The most favourite upgrade of my buddies is one or twice a range upgrade on Rocket Soldiers, to outwit the Chain Gun, Quad Gun and eventually Guard Tower. But I have thought of a very nifty counter to that one :).

[D2k Sardaukar]

I kinda meant like so:

 

 

The left one is cleaner.

 

If you like the 8bit jagged line, that is also possible.

[X3M]

O wow, that is kinda smooth. I like it.

But let me first check if all combo's are correct. Chances are that the basic locations for the symbols are not correct.

And that the complexity is to much too.

Once they are checked, and all the desirable hexagons are ready. I will give you a call.

 

My cousin already abandoned the programming of the map editor. He doesn't know how to turn large maps into 1 picture -.-

Which is needed for large scale printing. It is a disappointment really. Since editing a map would have been so much easier.

 

 

I have several things running at the same time at the moment, top priority first:

- 8 Health army. Highest priority, since it has to be taken into account for point 2. Can be applied immediately once done.

- If 15 x 15 fails. Checking size 18 x 18 or bigger; perhaps a review of map and piece sizes.

Secondary objectives:

- Tier 2 terrain textures; hexagons and triangles and all the needed combinations.

- Checking usefulness of the complexity. Perhaps simplifying afterwards.

Tertiary objective:

- Tier 2 unit textures. Yeah, terrain got more priority since terrain is "easier" in design. And those pencil drawings are kinda cute.

 

---

 

On a side note.

The Rocket Soldier is probably going to be cheaper. €225 instead of €300. And has Range 4 instead of 3. This way it is a support 400% unit again. The other designs of €300 where all very durable units. And a support 122% at cost 300 means that it is 3 times stronger then a Rifle Infantry in health. Which is a big no no against Snipers. However I am going to keep that design in thought for the Tank Blaster Infantry (add on) When the Rocket Soldier gets AA capability. But that is a long time from now.

 

In turn, the Grenadier too will be reduced in costs from €200 down to €150. To give the feeling of the infantry getting more expensive with 50% each step. 100-150-225.

If my friends don't like this. I also could try range 5 with the Rocket Soldier and a prize of €300.

Grenadiers are free of choice: 150 or 200. My friends prefer 150.

 

The Sniper, well. I think he will become very expensive. But a €600 design is possible. Bigger designs actually will be less use full for the intended usage. It is so strange to see that something like that is possible. However, another expensive design will lead to other uses. Primary objective is to have an above average one shot ability for the Sniper. That with the cheapest cost.

[X3M]

The 3 Health version of the Sniper has

Speed 2

Durability 3 (= 6 Health)

Range 7

Multiplier 6

Accuracy 5

 

With a bit of luck it can kill 2 Rifle Infantry or 1 Grenadier in 1 shot.

It is a 500% supportive unit whereas the Rocket Soldier is only 400% supportive.

With a cost of 600, you can have 6. And kill 10 Infantry on average, while a Rifle Infantry squad does 12.

 

---

 

The 8 Health version of the Sniper could be

Speed 2

Durability 3 (=16 Health)

Range 8 or 7

Multiplier 10, 12, 15 or 16

Accuracy 6, 5, 4 or 4

 

The supportive is 800%. Which is very high. But I could have a 1700% version. But that is just to high.

I am having doubts of having 7 or 8 range. After that it would be obvious to choose a version that allows 2 kills with luck, but has not a reduced chance on this.

With a cost of 900 this time, only 4 can be placed. Their average kill is 5 Infantry. While the Rifle Infantry squad kills 4,5.

 

In the 3 Health version, Snipers can win from Rifle Infantry if they are in an open field. Often 6 Rifle Infantry remain once they start fighting the Snipers. Not to mention that the Snipers will have spend some XP by then. I have to test them with the 8 Health system. But I suspect that Snipers are worse now. However Range 8 gives a fundamental difference of 1 free action on top of 3. Thus 4 shots before Rifle Infantry return fire. This means that 18 Rifle Infantry remain. After calculating without XP, Snipers win with only 3 remaining and a lot of bad Health.

 

Thus without Event Cards and Walls the Snipers once again win. They are still supposed to be support units.

 

Range 8

 

Now for determining the Multiplier. Note that the accuracy is the opposite and the average remains 10 damage each shot.

With an accuracy of 6, the chance of killing 2 is only determined by the Miss/Hit/Critical Hit dice roll. And to get 16 the chance is only 1,5%.

With an accuracy of 5, the chance of increasing the Multiplier is what is needed to make a better roll on the M/H/CH roll. However, the possible results are 8 to 12 and the chance on hitting 12 is very low. 0,8%. Not noteworthy. Even if it would increase the MHCH roll to 10,9%

With an accuracy of 4, the chance of increasing the Multiplier to 15 is even lower. However, the desired 12 comes closer. So an accuracy of 5, which worked perfectly in a 3 Health system. Now has become obsolete. And having an accuracy of 4 for Snipers, does not really fit my style.

 

---

 

With 8 Health, the accuracy starts to become blurred into the duration of the game. Not to mention the numbers of units which is the very first notable effect in the game.

 

Is it even wise to allow 8 Health?

Should I say no to my buddies?

[X3M]

I have several things running at the same time at the moment:

A1 - 8 Health army.

A2 - If map matrix size 15 x 15 fails in being useful to 8 Health army. Checking matrix size 18 x 18 or bigger.

A3 - Reviewing map size and pieces sizes.

 

B1 - Tier 2 terrain textures; hexagons and triangles and all the needed combinations.

B2 - Checking usefulness of the complexity. Perhaps simplifying afterwards.

B3 - Reviewing definition of the terrain influences.

 

C - Tier 2 unit textures.

 

D - Manual updates.

 

I think this to do list will be more of use to me.

 

A1:

Open for discussion is the 8 Health system. The work is sort of on hold. Perhaps if I have some time at work, then this is the only thing that I can work on.

 

B1:

Re-modified my swamps and "beaches". Well, beaches will be pure sand and water terrain combined. But Mud is the new complete mix. With only a passage of 900 land and 900 sea units.

I also need to describe sand in a new way. There is plenty of room for hoovers, in fact, they have 3600. The full 100%. Thus I need to say

that sand has only 50% stability for land units. Thus B3 has been added.

[X3M]

Added D; manual updates.

 

I noticed how I forgot to add the new rules regarding moving units.

 

If a squad of the enemy moves around, and you only have a chance on shooting it while it passes by. Then there is a chance of missing the targets. 2 factors need to be taken into account:

 

1) The movement of the squad on the board. If speed is 6, while they only move 4, then 4 is the number you need.

2) The range of your own units.

 

If Range is lower then the movement. You take Range for the number of extra dice rolls.

If movement is lower then Range. You take movement for the number of extra dice rolls.

Thus the lowest number counts.

 

For each projectile, you throw an extra number of dice. Meaning with a movement of 4 and a range of 4. Thus 4 is the result. We have 4 rounds of dice throwing. Every dice that lands on the number 6 is discarded (disdiced :)) Thus having a 5/6th chance on hitting for 1 range/movement, 25/36th chance on hitting for 2 range/movement, 125/216th for 3 etc.

 

0 ranged units have no need for these rolls. Except if they are provided with the temporary +1 bonus range.

That same bonus counts for all units though. But only if the squad would move in a region out of range of those units. This changes during the firing, so keep it in mind.

 

Attackers can keep in mind:

attacking with more action points at different levels, if a long ranged could attack at a stage without terrain influence. While the shorter range can only attack when they move behind forests or something else that blocks.

 

Movers can keep in mind:

If the moving squad can move faster by using another region that is not in the path. They should do so. Example would be if a squad would normally only move 4, while they have speed 6. It is wise to have them move an extra 2 during this movement. Thus an extra reduction of 25/36th. However, this cannot be done if other units are part of the squad with only speed 4. You pay 1 action for 1 movement. Split the squad, or take the damage. (divide and conquer)

 

Extra example:

An army passes by on 3 range with speed 4, it is a full squad of 3600.

You decide to attack it with all the ranges available.

0 range, gets +1, but is still out of range.

1 range, gets +1, but is still out of range.

2 range, gets +1, now the moving squad is in range. 3 < 4. Thus 3 dice.

3 range, perhaps gets +1, but there is no need any more for extra range. 3 dice.

4 range, 4 = 4, 4 dice

5 range, 5 > 4, 4 dice

6 range, 4 dice

etc.

 

Without a full squad, 2 range does not get +1.

[X3M]

Normally 6 actions per player per round.

Upgradable with Event Cards and Structures.

 

A squad is allowed to play 1 Action.

Thus 6 squads are allowed to do something.

 

Moving a squad costs 1 Action.

Attacking with a squad costs 1 Action.

You can't have both. Unless you play for example an Assault Event Card.

 

---

 

Should I allow players to pay 2 action points for an Assault?

Movement + Attack, but with hit chance reduction as a penalty?

 

Should I allow players to have a squad do more then 1 Action in a round?

The second Action would cost 2 Action points. The third Action would cost 4 Action points. etc.

Thus 1 squad can do 3 Actions if a player has 7 Action points to spend.

 

Should defenders be allowed to do the same with the new suggestions above?

 

These improvements to the game could result in more complex strategies. Like, moving in, harass the enemy, then run away.

[X3M]

I had some brain dead activities on my work. Thus I spend that time brainstorming new idea's.

 

The new rules regarding spending Action Points (APs)

 

Main concept:

1 player is in turn forced playing at least 1 action point. Then other players can interfere while paying action points as well, but those are not forced.

 

The main action costs for each player are:
- 1 AP for movement.
- 1 AP for an attack.
- No movement or an attack while the player is in turn, results in 1 AP discarded for that Round.
- 1 AP for defending (not forced).
- 1 AP for moving "away" with a reduced damage effect (not forced).
- 1 AP for intercepting a moving player with a reduced damage effect for the interceptor (only one squad/player).
- 2 APs for moving and attacking with a reduced damage effect for both players. (Comparable with an Assault, which costs 1 AP + the Event Card)
- 2 APs for defending and moving with "an extra" reduced damage effect for both players.
- If the Squad already paid an APs, then the next one costs: what has been paid + what has to be paid = the total AP costs.

 

Further detailed information:

Since normal combat allows short ranged to fire first. An Assault with short ranged units can be very effective. However, if the victim decides to defend. He/she might also decide to intercept instead. Which can often be a more useful approach.

 

When attacking moving players. You start looking at each region where they move though. And you deal with it in that order. Meaning, longer ranged units might fire before your short ranged units.

 

When both players move, [attacker and victim]. The Attacker moves first. So the victim deals with each region where the attacker move through, first. Once the attacker arrives. Then victim will move away. Where the attacker deals with each region, where through the victim moves. Mostly resulting in firing all projectiles at the first region.
- However, this way one might suggest:
That there is no extra reduced effect for both players. But normally there is already a one time reduction if the defender moves away if the attacker stands still or vice versa. That is why the reduction is done twice when both players move. Just for balance.
- The second suggestion that I discard is:
Having both players move at the same time and keeping the distance the same. This will be to complex. And could result in having no combat at all.

Fast units targeted by long range (speed/Range = 7) already have a hit chance of only 28%. With both players moving, it is only 8%. Still enough to kill one or two units though. But this 8% can be compared with keeping the distance. It is as if the defending player thinks: damn, need to move, I am under fire.

 

Range of flying projectiles are compared with the Speed of targeted moving units. Lowest counts and is a reduction with 5/6th with each dice used. Speed/Range = 7 means having to roll 7 dice for each projectile targeted at this unit.

[X3M]

Need to redo the terrain.

 

The rules regarding determining the value's of projectile reducing chances and movement by size limitations is inadequate for inexperienced newcomers to the game.

 

Ehm, let me rephrase that...

 

A terrain, mixed by several types. Is too confusing for new players.

Used to have 4 types. Need to go down to 2.

 

1 region, has 6 triangles.

And each triangle has a center and 3 corners. Or 4 information spots.

 

Tree's cover 2 of the 4 information spots. But automatically say if it is grass or dessert.

But the other 2 spots need to give additional information about the region. So every spot will have to be a factor instead of a solid number. Not just the tree's. This gives problems when you have 24 information spots in the entire region.

There are no lines.

 

Well, I have tried. But mistakes are to be learned from.

Thank god I only created a very small piece of map with the new terrain :D.

Thank god I didn't ask you to smooth all things up D2k Sardaukar.

Since I can now throw the results of this concept away.

 

I need to rethink this.

Suggestions, anyone?

 

Having 6 segments is still a good idea though. Just not going into detail.

And having the 3 corners act as 1 information and the center as the second information is still good to go.

 

There is either tree's with water, or

tree's with rocks, or

water with rocks.

 

Not tree's with and water and rocks.

[X3M]

Lets see, what has my to do tumtiedo list for me?

 

I have several things running at the same time at the moment:

A1 - 8 Health army.

A2 - If map matrix size 15 x 15 fails in being useful to 8 Health army. Checking matrix size 18 x 18 or bigger.

A3 - Reviewing map size and pieces sizes.

 

B1 - Tier 2 terrain textures; hexagons and triangles and all the needed combinations.

B2 - Checking usefulness of the complexity. Perhaps simplifying afterwards.

B3 - Reviewing definition of the terrain influences.

 

C - Tier 2 unit textures.

 

D - Manual updates.

 

Current status:

 

A1 = Discarded.

But the 8 Health option is now memorized. Meaning that the little new designs are saved if I continue on this version.

 

A2 + A3 = Yeah, going for 15 x 15, unless I find a way to make 24 x 24 a good option for either 3 Health or 8 Health. The main problems lies once again in board size and pieces size compared to region size.

 

B1 = Completed once.

 

B2 = Done by play testing. Results are lower then expected. The problem lies indeed within complexity. Thank you Buddy-B and Comrade-C.

 

B3 = Far from being done. But first I need to fix the basic rules for terrain influence. Once this is done, all expanding rules can be altered and perfected. (I really want to add the boats and such)

 

C = Not even touched by me since that post. We love our sticks and stones units, no reason to upgrade them yet while terrain isn't done yet.

 

D = All the new rules are spread through this and another forum. I need to gather the new data. But only after the terrain has been upgraded. Luckily there is no need for new data tables.

 

---

 

Thus the list got shorter.

I have several things running at the same time at the moment:

A3 - Reviewing map size and pieces sizes.

 

B1 - Tier 2 terrain textures; hexagons and triangles and all the needed combinations.

B3 - Reviewing definition of the terrain influences.

 

C - Tier 2 unit textures.

 

D - Manual updates.

 

And I got new stuff on the terrain too.

 

A region has 6 triangles.
Each triangle is from now on a basic terrain and can be:
- ...Water, ...0 space, 6/36th hit chance
- ...Grass, .600 space, 6/36th hit chance
- ....Sand, .300 space, 6/36th hit chance
- Mountain, ...0 space, .....0 hit chance

 

Tree's divide space and the hit chance by 2.

 

Terrain with tree's:
- .....Forest, .300 space, .3/36th hit chance
- Dead Forest, .150 space, .3/36th hit chance
- ??? tree's in water are called? ....???
..................0 space, .3/36th hit chance
- ??? tree's on mountains are called? ???
..................0 space (=S), .0 hit chance (=HC)

 

Terrain Combinations:
- Water with Grass; Swamp, ............300 S, 6/36th HC.
- Water with Sand; Mud, ...............150 S, 6/36th HC.
- Water with Mountain; Rocky sea, .......0 S, 3/36th HC.
- Grass with Sand; ???, ...............450 S, 6/36th HC.
- Grass with Mountain; Rocky terrain, .300 S, 3/36th HC.
- .Sand with Mountain; Rocky dessert, .150 S, 3/36th HC.

 

Combinations with tree's:
- Water, Grass; Swamp Forest, .......150 S, ..3/36th HC.
- Water, Sand; Muddy Forest, .........75 S, ..3/36th HC.
- Water, Mountain; ???, ...............0 S, 1.5/36th HC.
- Grass, Sand; ???, .................225 S, ..3/36th HC.
- Grass, Mountain; Chaotic terrain, .150 S, 1.5/36th HC.
- .Sand, Mountain; Chaotic dessert, ..75 S, 1.5/36th HC.

 

In case of 1.5/36th HC, there are always 2 segments with these. Unless the region is a halve one.

All the space is added up, and all the hit chance are added up.

No multiplying or dividing any more.

Then the region is complete in design and in statistics.

 

Halve regions have 12/36th or 6/36th hit chance per triangle
and one-third regions have 18/36th or 9/36th hit chance per triangle. As if the rest of the missing region would be the same.

With 20 different terrains, there are 64 million design possibilities for 1 region. However, I rather have only the possible 20 triangles being placed in 1 hexagon. And 400 possibilities of the lines in between. That is 420 pictures as a basic setting.

D2k Sardaukar, if you are interested. Please ask me for the details. The request is solely about making proper "professional" terrain pictures.

For others who might be interested in helping:

Please give suggestions at the ??? spots since I will be needing to give proper names now.

[X3M]

Using 6 triangle's for each hexagon doesn't work. Still to crappy regions.

So back to "pure" terrain.

 

Now I ask any one to come up with names for "mixed" terrain. Since my english is only good to understand people, but not for comming up with good names.

 

For example.

Sand only is Dessert.

Rocks only is Mountains.

Sand with Rocks can be, Dessert hills or mountain passes.

 

Grass only is Plains.

Grass with Rocks can be, Plain hills or mountain valleys.

 

Stuff like Deep Forrest or Deep Sea are welcome too.

 

---

 

The more names I have, the more detail I can add to a map.

So shoot!

 

All mixed terrain can come from:

Water/Grass/Sand/Mountain/Forrest

[X3M]

Some teeny, weeny, little updates:

 

- Gathering HD foto's for terrain. They will be turned into hexagons. They will be having an up and down side. But terrain is going to be printed in "1" piece any way.

 

- Pondering about pictures for units. I do have foto's, but this list is less than the terrain.

 

- Trying out yet another way to apply terrain rules:

+ Trying out altitude. For each extra height, 5/6th hit chance from down to up. Only range reduction for those on low ground. Thus firing up 3 levels means 125/216th hit chance and -3 Range. If another region behind it is lower again, it cannot be hit. See next rule.

+ Terrain behind altitude terrain counts as blocked by 100% mountain. Those rail guns will prove to be very usefull. Equal or higher ground behind the altitude is again hitable. But extra Range reduction and reduced hit chance is possible.

+ Not only Forests, but Rocks (mountains) as well are additions only. Actually I simplified the terrain. Thus only 3 basic terrain: Grasslands, Deserts, Water. These are open terrain. Forests add 50% block in speed and projectiles. Rocks 100%. They have subterrain and roots or bedrock. Only Air above, no Space any more.

+ Basic movement is 100% on grasslands, 50% on deserts and 0% on water. This is a factor 1. Boats have 2/3th in factor. Hoovers have 2 as factor.

+ Ignoring Forest effects on movement gives +50% costs.

+ Ignoring Rocks effects on movement gives +100% costs.

+ Air is a Hoover that Ignores Forest and Rock effects, except Spires. Effectively factor 2 + 50% and 50% = 4.

+ Projectile factors are applied the same way.

 

- Grenadier permanently reduced to a €150 unit.

- Minesweeper Infantry permanently increased to a €450 unit.

- Mines are the same, thank god! But they will have a different placement then Basic structures?

- Minesweepers overall must have their damage modified to the new rules. But I am lazy. :)

 

- Removed Mercenary rules. If a player is defeated, he/she will return with a standard starting base after 3 rounds. Enemy players are wiped out. The XP bonus equals unit costs at the first tier, then increases with 100% each tier.

 

---

 

The terrain by general names, also the pictures are like these:

 

Grassland ( (G) Grass)

Desert ( (S) Sand)

Sea/River ( (W) Water)

 

G+S Savannah

G+W River Crossing/Swamp

S+W Beach/Mud

 

Forest additions

on Grass is Forest

on Sand is Palm Forest

on Water is Mangrove Forest

on Savannah is Savannah Forest

on River Crossing will have Mangrove and visible grass in water

on Swamp is Swamp Forest

on Beach is Palm Beach

on Mud will have Mangrove and visible mud as ground

 

Rocks additions

on Grass are Rocky Terrain or Hills

on Sand are Rocky Desert or Desert Hills (Dune's)

on Water are Rocky Sea

on Savannah are Rocky Savannah or Savannah Hills

on River Crossing are Rocky River Crossing

on Swamp are Rocky Swamps

on Beach are Rocky Beach or Beach Hills (Dune's)

on Mud are Rocky Mud

 

Better descriptions are welcome. But this does give an idea of how the terrain will look like.

 

An Arrakis version would only have Buildable Rocks and Desert, and only Rocks as addition. All structures are to be placed on the Buildable Rocks only now. Thus cheaper by an additional 33% then normal units. And so is the Sandworm.

 

I wonder, who reads this besides of those who have posted?

[criver]

Why don't you try to make a video game out of it (I am sure a lot more people will be interested)? There are plenty of user friendly tools around even if you are not into low level programming with C++. You seem to be doing the whole job that a game designer would be doing (with bonuses) and you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in this area and you seem to be progressing at a steady pace.

I like your concepts so I'd normally be all in for helping you, but I need to find some time in between all the math we do in uni. I mean if I finish writing my engine (which wouldn't be anytime soon judging by the amount of math/programming assignments I get, and my laziness) we could even do a test project with some people from the community if you like the idea - I can do the whole C++/graphics rendering/pathfinding algorithms etc. part - the biggest problem is that it won't be anytime soon. I mean you seem to have most of the concepts down and it would be a wast imo if they just stay this way.

 

P.S. I am still alive even if I don't come online much ( if you can call proving theorems/solving math problems, most of you time being alive xD ). How's AQIB doing btw?

[X3M]

Huray, a reply.

 

My goal is creating a board game. I got offerings for a video game more often that you think. (This includes Spectral Paladin, who did the best job until now ;) )

 

I appreciate your offer.

There are plenty of RTS (real time strategy) games already. And players rather have RTS then a TBS (turn based strategy). This when they do video games.

So, no programming, unless it is a complete RTS. Then I would be more then happy to design the balance for your units. Even though I have no references to this.

 

With the board game design I can add whatever I want. Just like Magic the Gathering. I am completing the design for 1 design system. But can change it into any thing.

And yes, there is slow progress. I already did many battles. But often I have no time for weeks due to private stuff.

 

I am busy on this forum, and BGDF. You can´t miss me.

My latest work is still the regions. I have set up a new rules. But still play testing what is best for players to understand. It turned out I have to go to separate regions again instead of 1 giant map. But the plans are now having real foto´s cut out into hexagons. Still deciding on the resolution and size though.

 

The new rules:

Size unit is multiplied into the size on the type of terrain. To see if they fit.

A region is divided into 3 terrains by full numbers. Grass, Sand and Water.

The combination of the 2 above will help players determine when using hoovers etc.

Forests and Rocks/Hills will reduce the terrain size, but players have to do this themselves. Units like ninja and air can ignore these additions.

As you can see, the rules are a bit different.

 

Good question about AQIB.

AQIB?

Hello?

:)

[criver]

I suggested a video game, because you seem to have an awful lot of calculations for a board game (it could be just me though, I don't play many board games, but I still think too many calculations kill the fun of it) - and computers are good at doing calculations behind the scene. TBS are not bad thb, I still remember when I used to play Warlords 3.

 

Good luck with the game!

[X3M]

The calculations are just the background of balance. Players wont see any of it. Except buying stuff and region limits in size. Furter the counting of dice is important. But those are numbers dealing with 1 to 6.

[X3M]

That's the one I offered back then to balance. But he never returned the call completely.

I guess he was too busy with other stuff. He does have a wife and at least 1 kid. And a job to attend to.

 

---

 

I did some research 1 year ago on what players want. If it is a board game, they want to add their favourite stuff. And the board game tries to come as close as possible to RTS. But a board game will never ever be completely RTS.

Turning the board game into a video game will not work any way. After all, RTS are out there to play freely. So, no video version of the board game.

 

- However, I have one thing in my board game that RTS have not. The expandable balance formula. Where applied to games like C&C and Starcraft. These 2 universes can actually meet each other in combat. There is however 1 rule we need to keep in mind then, that is the types of damage and armor. We can't have one race being in the numbers of 50-200 and another race in the numbers of 200-800. All else can be toyed with for the fun of it (range/speed etc.)

- Another thing to keep in mind with having a RTS version is that combat will be completely triangular. This means that the smaller units will die faster. The only ways to counter this are: 1, having XP being cheaper as well and 2, having special bunkers and apc's that offer first protection and 3, size needs to be implemented in the map. Thus having infantry path ways.

- Almost forgot about the cooldown or rate of fire of the weapons. In my board game the rules are simple. 1 shot each round, and some weapons shoot more then 1 projectile. And some weapons have less effect too.

- Crushing infantry, will make tanks weaker who can do this. However, calculations turned out that we need 4 types of armor at least. Before it becomes a fair weapon. (yes, crushing is not an ability, but a secondary weapon)

 

---

 

So, anyone of you building a RTS at the moment?

 

Worked on a cutter that will help me getting nice hexagons out of pictures. Here is the basis for all the possible cutters:

 

Who wants to get high?

 

Still, the foto's that I have, have sharp and un-sharp regions. Thus I need better ones.

[X3M]

If any one knows good terrain pictures. No matter the viewpoint. As long as a big part of the picture is sharp. The links are welcome.

Google and other search engines are starting to fail me :).

 

---

 

- Created a check list of how many designs I have of a certain terrain combination.

- I will make 2 versions of a terrain. One with only the centre point and one with terrain information added as well.

I would like to have opinions:

 

This is just a picture from paint. But the result would be 4 cm for each size.

- Is the centre point obvious enough?

- The colour purple, right choice?

- Should I change this into a monochrome dot centre, with white/black circle's?

- Where to place additional information? It's going to be 4 numbers in total. A 4 x 4 box if you will.

- Additional information in a cleared out box?

 

---

 

When I place several terrains in 1 word document. I only have to print it once. And the modifications for all the terrain are the same. Each picture even tells me the % in size it is in after inserting. Thus I can make the same size in paint, then place it in word. And give them all the same %.

 

Even though they all have the exact same size. One of the 4 pictures gets completely different scale. And word says it's 100% !!! WTF is up with that?

 

 

All are on 27%. Well, I did discover a difference. The little one is saved in 2008 apparently (bits doing time travel). Any one care to explain how that happened?

 

And I sincerely hope that the hexagons remain hexagons. Some Microsoft programs simply change a square pixel into... something else.

 

Any way, all stuff is fixed at the moment. Awaiting comments.