Creating a board game based on RTS games.

[THE AQIB]

It isn't real time. And there are no timers.

But it isn't completely turn based either.

 

There are situations where players can cut in whenever they want.

This means that 2 or more players do an action at the same time.

This happens when:

- One player is moving around. And others want to attack him/her. Then players play their turn ahead of time completely, the maximum is until a player spends all actions in that round. But there is also a penalty for the attacking player. So better spend the action points with care.

- A player gets attacked while standing still, the defending player can shoot back at the exact same time. That is kinda playing his/her turn 0,5 ahead of time. This is actually the normal fight.

- Some Event Cards give the right to play a normal action before other players do so.

- Some Event Cards allow a player to play several actions on 1 squad, while it only costs 1 action point.

 

Once an unit has done anything in 1 round, it is done doing stuff. It can be either shoot or move. Unless certain Event Cards are played.

 

- My manual needs updates after last 2 weeks of testing. You get a copy as soon as I have updated it.

I always suck in explaining things.

 

What more do you need?

- As said before, try to print one of the maps on paper. Each region should have a side of approximately 4 cm.

- Until now, for the units, we used papers with names on them. If you can get your hands on paper and scissors, you can simply add units while playing.

- We also used the same size papers for damage inflicted, XP, upgrades (and resources)

- For the event cards, we used normal cards and pasted the word on it.

 

The game is very complex if you play it for the first time:

- First things first. When you start, only pit 2 little armies against each other for training. Force them to fight.

- Once you get a hang of it. You can play on the map instead.

 

---

 

You are working on a card game? That is different than a board game.

I am curious what you thought of?

Mine is based on a multiplayer campaign..

Choose a house insignia, give a name and start of in the vast arrakis..

2p minimum and can hold upto 6p..

but in versus battle until now i've made gameplay only for 2p..

Upgrades are available to all but only one upgrade per level and this upgrade is available only after we have a number of regions under our control..

It's based of Dune 2000 and mostly it's same except only 2 players can play one map and it's turn based..

Spice coins are used to buy stuff..

We will have defense buildings with us and can build more..

And offense is also possible..

A unit can handle two hits only..

And there are few rules of one shot kills like sniper hit infantry is one hit kill..

If we have repair pad we can repair our units..

And excess carryall other than the ones used by harvesters can help in immediate transport of the unit back to base..

If no carryalls they have to be moved by their speed (Siege Tank 1 move per turn, Trike 3 moves per turn)..

Harvesters need to be on map for three turns for one spice coin(still not decided yet) to be in your possession..

Spice Refinery and Silos are needed to hold your spice or you might loose a lot..

Unit construction buildings allow you to build new units as per your research..

Startport cost differ by dice throw..(I still haven't fixed this as of yet)..

SuperWepons also available..(Ornithopter Strike, Death Hand etc..)

Well thats all for now..

 

PS : I'm not creating a new topic as of yet so i posted here.. You can just point out any problems there is in this post..

[X3M]

I don't mind. It is somehow the same topic. Its just your work.

On BGDF it is often confusing if one is doing a board game or a card game.

And sometimes they simply have only dice.

 

The Health is something that I always wonder about in games.

I had 6, but now I use 3 because of various mathematically and balance reasons.

The difference with other games is that I want Speed and Range to be balanced as well. There for it is important to know the Health.

I got an excel with all Health possibilities for my game. This for easy; balancing, XP and costs calculation, and normal default values on R and S.

I checked 1 to 15 Health values. But those values are only for my game.

 

You said you only have 2 Health for each unit? Each unit is at some immediate risk. Same can be said about having 3 Health, but less.

 

What are the statistics that you use on your units?

What is your combat mechanic?

Can you give me examples on both questions?

 

Dice throwing for Starport differences in costs. Is a good idea. Allow the player to do that only once in a while. Harvesters take 3 turns as well. 1 Dice doesn't offer much options. You can't have a 100% value combined with the same down and up limit. 2 down and 3 up or 3 down and 2 up. Not very balanced. Unless you allow re-rolling. But then you could get into an infinite loop. Try to refrain of that. Unless...

1 = 60%

2 = 80%

3 = 100%

4 = 120%

5 = 140%

6 = out of stock.

 

---

 

Meanwhile, I am marking unneeded text purple in my manual. I think I make a copy for future works. And clean 1 version entirely based on the current game. But working on manuals requires a lot of work and rereading. I am now on 1/3th to give you an idea of the progress.

[THE AQIB]

units have

defense

range

altitude

speed

defense is based on terrain..

mountains, sand, rock etc.

if both attacker and attacked are on the same terrain higher probability of attack being successful..

else success varies by other factors..

range allows long ranged units to attack short ranged without getting hit..

altitude is used for differing air vehicles and land vehicles..

for example missile tank is both aa and anti land..

speed determines number of squares that a unit can move per turn..

extra stuff

1. attack sickness: some units can't attack even after they are moved to a position..

2. stealth: only infantry standing within range=1 can attack these vehicles..

3 splash damage:

this is of two types

3a bullet splash damage : seige can do 1 attack on units around the unit it attacked..

3b self destruct splash damage: does 1damage to units around it..

4 sonic effect: all units between attacker and the attacked are damaged..

unit can be repaired if we have a repair pad in base buildings..

extra carryall can pick up a vehicle to instant transport.. or it has to roll back turn based..

4unit per order in starport and each unit will have seprate profit loss percentage..

well this game can extend to infinite time..

also we can play random maps also..

other than multiplayer campaign..

i'm also trying to create a singleplayer campaign but it's problematic..

what about in map elemdnts like capturable neutral buildings or factions which might help/attack us..

Unfortunately I suck at making board game ai..

[X3M]

So its a board game that you work on. :)

Anyway, you are mentioning things that I had done some research on:

 

AI:

I tried to create AI for my board game too. But after 1 week of plotting. I decided to quit with the AI. My game is too complex for that. The game is not fool proof, not to mention the AI.

Although I did come up with some "basic" AI rules to follow for some of my first missions. Players would act the same way any way. But these would be complex too.

 

For all missions: In a most optimal combat; target selection if there is a choice:

Tier 1 choices:

If one shot remains to death, place that shot.

Tier 2 choices:

In case of the light weaponry, shoot light, then medium, then heavy.

In case of the medium weaponry, shoot medium, then light, then heavy.

In case of the heavy weaponry, shoot heavy, then medium, then light.

Tier 3 choices:

One that has been slightly injured before.

One that has spend XP on Damage (then on Speed or Range, depending on XP costs for those 2)

One that has spend XP on Health has to be saved for last if possible.

Bonus Tier choice:

Play an Event Card if it gives access to a better target following the above. This means that another target is in another line.

 

There still might be situations where these choices are not optimal. Nor will these choices work in cases where the AI was supposed to plan ahead. For example, if an squad is moving around, planning on attacking the AI that has Infantry. Then you want to damage or take out the Infantry killers first. Players can recognise this. The AI cannot.

 

Further AI notices (Starcraft Editor experience got me working here):

In missions, defences, units and units with patrols can be fixed before hand.

Main problems that I encountered are the build up of a base and forces for the AI.

That too had to be fixed before hand, the base is not to be expanded by the player, only to be replaced if shot down.

And forces or expands that would be build by the AI had to be written down as well.

 

Before the above, I had some discussions with board game designers on BGDF, regarding AI:

http://www.bgdf.com/node/13512

Where notching is mentioned about the above. :)

 

Splash Effects:

Man, did I had trouble with these.

It is one of the hardest things to balance. And for a board game, never recommended.

I already had trouble with suicide units, special weaponry and the squishing of Infantry. But those troubles are over.

 

A siege tank splash is very tough to do. In RTS there is still some simple way to deal with it. But in a board game, all you can do is allowing multiple projectiles to be divided amongst the targets while making sure the maximum is killed off.

 

A sonic tank splash, the same as the siege tank splash. However, friendly fire is a no no in my game. Unless you go for a kill on your own, then there is no enemy fire, sort of speak. In my game you can only target 1 region (or 2 if an enemy is standing in your own region where you are firing from). However, I did come up with a "flack" type of sonic splash. Where you can fire 1 projectile at a range of 6, 2 at a range of 5, 3 at a range of 4 etc. Resulting in a long range with a weak weapon, but a short range proofs to be very deadly.

 

Minimum range? :

Do you have that one? I do :). In my version, this is how it works:

You can strategically approach units by using mountains as cover. If you manage to move inside the minimum range. The other unit cannot return fire. 0 range is common in my game.

Since I don't want to shift infinitely. A Sonic blast would have no 0 and 1 range, and the maximum range has +1. Thus certain flame units and very fast units will already be a treat. Then the missile or rocket launcher might have no 0, 1, 2, and 3 as range. But the maximum range has +2.

The 2 minimums in these examples.

So a range of 2-2 (=12 fields) for the cost of range 1 (0-1= 7 fields).

And a range of 4-4 (=24 fields) for the cost of range 2 (0-2= 19 fields).

But the more fields, the less cost efficient. And thus minimum range has more risks and less bonuses.

Also keep in mind, when 1 unit approaches another. A minimum range shortens the time when the opponent can be hit.

Minimum range is actually used for making cost efficient versions of long ranged units.

 

In combination with special weaponry and a minimum range. I could upgrade my Snipers to "deadlier" versions against Infantry. But that only works on open or large maps.

 

Rules:

Although you have written down stuff for me. Is it sufficient to play the game? It is often recommended to board game designers to write down every new rule immediately in a manual. That way you can simply share your current version with any one. And you know that I have failed that in a way. However, I need to check 16 pages already :D.

 

RPS:

Do you know what RPS means? Rock Scissor Paper. What beats what?

There are natural and artificial versions.

An example is the long range and speed in my game. Where unit use the terrain for cover. That one is a natural one.

 

The artificial one is often damage effects against armor types. Mine is natural from the base. But is starting to look like an artificial one due to making things simpler.

If you see something like: Sniper does 150% damage against Infantry, that is artificial.

If you see something like: Sniper shoots 6 times, with 1 damage each, then it is natural. Because it depends on the other game mechanics how the Sniper is good against Infantry.

 

Which RPS do you use or occurs in your game? And how?

[X3M]

Instead of 12x12, I have now created a 15x15 map.

No more orange regions, since I want to put resources in dessert, grass and forests.

Player starts are now crosses instead of purple.

The prototypes are starting to become color blind friendly?

 

The map is very symmetric, except for 1 resource. That one is "spiral" symmetric.

I need to do more spiral symmetric maps. They look more random in a way. Just like the one of 2 players above on this page.

 

 

Roughly needed 10 minutes for that one.

A little bit more experimenting is needed to see if this size will support up to 6 players.

I think not. But then I simply create a 18x18 map. If I keep up with the 1 metre max. Then regions would be 2,6 cm. That is 1 inch. Hmmm... of the odds.

[X3M]

Play tested 2 maps.

 

- 15x15 seem to be working well for 2 or 3 players. Although, I have not yet tried to make one for a max of 6. We decided to cut some into pieces and simply use one board as a base.

 

- Me and my friends are starting to doubt the use of having dessert alongside of grass. 1 of them should get a little bit of a different property.

 

- My friends are wondering when I add mixed terrain. For the prototypes, I could use striped or squared templates. Although this takes time in paint. And Hexagrapher doesn't really support that either. They only have 50-50 terrains like swamps and lesser mountains.

 

- 1, 2 and 3 regions only support the player with that much resources (50 - 100 - 150 each turn). They also are depleted after harvesting 72 times. Resulting in 3600 - 7200 - 10800 as a max. So some new maps called Spiral. They have more in the centre. They also will support the use of the other 2 resource gatherers. Until now we only used Workers. Which are slow and need to be placed in line. The first one had 12, or 600/turn and a total of 43200. Which allows for an army size of 1/3th of the maximum possible. It was a win for me since I prepared my Gatherers and Cargo Trucks with sufficient anti Infantry material. No workers to be found :).

 

- Low resources where for fast testing. I made that clear to my buddies.

 

- However, they now do know that once the main bases have no resources left. The one who is fastest in hunting, will probably win. So there is a declaration of loss halfway the game. Unless all prepare in time. I expect harder games (for me) to come.

 

- Perhaps a rate different then the total storage? Having low rates with high storage in a resource point expands game time and increases tactical decisions. Great for the main base. Hunting spots should be limited in storage or have high storage as well. Either way, some stay to the end, others should perish once gathered. Although putting this on the map in numbers seems to be difficult. I am testing this already for an hour. :(. And to top it of, I only thought of a good way for the complete Hexagons. The parts simply don't support the new way. hmmmm. Maybe symbols instead of numbers. But that is for a next time.

 

- For the picking. No limit in gathering rate. The storage is all that matters.

 

* Above all, my prototype map making goes faster now then printing them. :) My protocol for editing goes fast.

First I make the map, in the same time I decide where resources are placed by placing an orange block in the lower right corner. Then I place numbers outside the map and simply copy paste them where I want them. Cleaning up around the text and removing the orange blocks.

 

 

 

The progress on 1,5 hours between the 2 maps.

 

THE AQIB,

you didn't answer my question about RPS? :)

 

[X3M]

A thought just occurred to me.

 

If I use this forum for my maps. I can print them out on work in high quality and high definition. Without wasting my own paper and "expensive" ink. And without having to log in on the slow hotmail network. Nor will they see my hotmail password.

 

[THE AQIB]

I still didn't understand rps properly..

can you explain with examples??

[X3M]

RPS; Rock Paper Scissor,

Paper beats Rock beats Scissor beats Paper.

 

Another example; dune 2000:

Light Infantry beats Troopers beats Quads beats Trikes beats Light Infantry.

[THE AQIB]

RPS; Rock Paper Scissor,

Paper beats Rock beats Scissor beats Paper.

Another example; dune 2000:

Light Infantry beats Troopers beats Quads beats Trikes beats Light Infantry.

no I still haven't done rps system yet but it'll match dune 2000's..

although there are extra infantry and super weapons to accommodate upto 6 players..

also tech tree's vary by player's choice..

ie : sniper will be taken by one while someone else will take mortar infantry..

 

hence only thing common is tech tree levels..

infantry

engineer

heavy infantry

special infantry

light vehicles

harvesters

combat vehicles

medium vehicles

heavy vehicles

special vehicles

[X3M]

If you are planning to have a RPS, design this first. Because it determines your combat speed, which is your game speed. And you have to base you resource management on your game speed. I am lucky that my combat speed is limited by turns. This way I have a bigger array of resource management possible. Build up is also limited. However, we haven't reached that speed yet.

 

Game progression:

I have a clean build up.

After a while the build up goes slower.

Then the armies reach a max.

Then resources start getting depleted.

Then there is a decline for every one.

It is during the entire game, the most tactical person wins. However, disturbing build up for others or nagging the most of resources are both tactical advantages that a player should try to grasp.

 

Army build up:

So a choice of units then. That is a good idea.

However, when I tried that I discovered that you need to do this in classes.

It is logical that a player should not choose between a trike or a combat tank. Different type of armor and different type of damage.

But I had choices like the one you mentioned. Just a difference in weapon. That too is a bad choice.

The best way is to allow players to choose out of unit that are having the same armor type, and the same damage type.

 

Unless you want to have some sort of chaos game. Those are fun and you should allow players to make the weirdest combinations :).

 

---

 

Working on terrain pictures. These will also allow me to have the one to 5 parts of 6 types of terrain.

 

Maybe you can help me with something.

Me and my friends are wondering what the difference between grass and sand should be? Technically they are the same. Visually they are only a difference in color.

- I personally thought of speed restrictions, but I already have that in the form of terrain blockades. And speed restrictions makes things unbalanced and too complex. So, no speed restrictions.

- And having a size reduction on the sand is also something weird to do since I already have forests or terrain combinations for that.

- Having building restrictions is also a no no.

 

Gona need some time on this one. But it will be rewarding if I find a solution.

[X3M]

- And having a size reduction on the sand is also something weird to do since I already have forests or terrain combinations for that.

- Having building restrictions is also a no no.

 

Gona need some time on this one. But it will be rewarding if I find a solution.

 

Well, after some advice from several people on several forums. Even though some had suggestions that I already had worked out. The main problem was not solved by any of them.

 

So I simply asked my co-worker, the ww2 specialist.

He said, Sand gave bad footing, and damaged machinery over time.

The units also kept more distance.

 

For basic units:

So Sand has become 50% movement/placement, 100% projectile movement. The sub terrain is still dirt.

In comparison with the other region types:

Water is 0% movement, 100% projectile movement. Sub terrain is water

Grass is 100% movement, 100% projectile movement. Sub terrain is dirt

*Forest is 50% movement, 50% projectile movement. Sub terrain is dirt

Mountain is 0% movement, 0% projectile movement. Sub terrain is bedrock

 

* Forests are more of an addition now. The 50% will be a factor instead. On grass, they have a default effect of 50% movement. On Sand they will now have an effect of 25% movement.

On water, they are combined with grass or sand.

On mountains, they are combined with grass or sand.

For both meaning that players first take a look on the distribution between water/mountains with grass/sand. What remains is factored with the forest.

 

I could name combinations out of these. Like swamp or Beach. But I have decided not to. Since 1 region will exist out of 6 segments based on these.

There is a lot of work to do. Even if it sounds logical. Eventually, there will be terrain that players don't understand and apply wrong.

So there will be an extended terrain section in the manual.

[X3M]

Detailed designs of textures. How far should I go?

It is 100% home made. That is for sure. :)

 

Textures done:

 

Water symbol

Grass symbol

Dessert symbol

 

Tree's on Grass addition

Dead Tree's on Dessert addition

 

A hexagon has 6 triangles. Each triangle contains 4 symbols. And a Tree can be added. Each hexagon can have 6 different triangles.

 

However, for even more detailed changes. Or better yet, a good distribution of the textures on 1 hexagon:

Removing the middle symbol, and 33-33-33 type of terrains can be made.

When a Tree is added, 2 symbols disappear. And 2 remain to leave options open for a mixed terrain of 50-50. The Tree has influence on all 3 symbols. If a terrain is going to have 3 types, then a group of 3 triangles need to get each a different combination.

 

---

 

Troubles are encountered.

 

Textures pending:

Mountains. Seems to be the hardest. The texture is brown with boulders on it.

I also want to have these boulders in;

Water

Grass

Dessert

 

But that in combination with (Dead) Tree's?

There is hardly any room to draw the boulders and distinguish the rest.

 

My options are:

- Find a way anyway to put in boulders as well, not on the symbols, nor on the Tree's.

- Replace Tree's with the boulders. Since Forest properties are 50% that of Mountain properties.

- A complete Mountain texture can have smaller boulders on the place of the symbols.

 

---

 

When making maps. At first placing the textures will be a bit clumsy. But after making more and more maps. The combination of textures with neighbouring textures will increase. And a simple copy paste will be the result.

 

I never knew that making the board itself with proper textures (also regarding color blindness) would consume so much time.

[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.