I started to design new factions.
But moreso, new units.
With the renewed balance through math. I do have to rethink designs.
Since the SP system works perfectly, I am not restricted in certain areas.
I also can advice players on what combinations they can choose for their faction.
With a 1/3th basic hitchance. The formulas work in all areas as well. Basicly, I am copying my prototype balance. But with reduced rolls and health tracking.
Before I would write this post. I wanted to double check my options.
What I want to do is prevent the usage of colours, in order to indicate which units belong to who.
I want to go greyscale, but with variation.
This means that only 1 player can use a certain design.
The numbers on the pieces will simply show the differences. And the art... I guess will be different as well.
What I double checked are my options on the rifleman.
I want to start designing with them as my basis.
Everything else will have a RPS relation with previous designs in mind.
The RPS in mechanical terms will be based on the armor and damage types. These will be exactly the same for every design of a particular unit. For the rifleman, this means that we use 1 armor and 1 damage.
The number of shots can vary. But only for designs that use 2 or more projectiles.
I want the designs with 1 projectile, to stay at 1 projectile.
The variation that I allow for each type of unit will be within the movement speed, attack range, accuracy and accuracy on moving targets. (This reminds me, I have to implement the assault calculation as well).
The variation for the riflemen is a factor 2 on movement speed and attack range. With 2 being the (factor)middle.
Thus 1 to 4.
The accuracy can be 1 to 6.
If the projectile velocity can be changed, this will be going from -6 to +6. But chances are rare.
And of course the assault factor (not the attribute)
The goal is to have a nice round number for the rifleman as a cost.
2 will be the average. I already have spotted 1 and 3 for the most extreme cases.
But it is mostly 2.
I also discovered that if I allow squads (no seperate units). I can design a bit more. A rifleman can cost 1.5 or 2.5 or even 1.25.
Once done, I can post all the variations here. There are more than I hoped for. Which is a good sign.
After that, I go deeper on the mechanical RPS path.
With the set parameters...
I tested over 100.000 options...
I have found 746 different designs...
Of which 29 are single...
Of which 10 have no different projectile velocity, nor a different assault property.
Ok, I guess I can post these ten then?
Costs-Speed-Range-Accuracy
1-1-2-1
2-1-2-6
2-1-4-4
2-2-2-5
2-2-3-4
2-3-2-4
3-3-4-6
2-4-1-4
2-4-2-3
2-4-4-2
If I want to be really picky. I should remove the 2 versions with a cost of 1 and a cost of 3.
What other parameters could I cut in?
If I remove the speed of 4 and the attack range of 4. Then only 4 versions remain:
2-1-2-6
2-2-2-5
2-2-3-4
2-3-2-4
Okay I get why you removed the COSTS "1" and "3" made sense.
But WHY(?) would you remove SPEED & RANGE "4"???
How does that make any sense... It seems like RANDOMNESS from what I gathered. Maybe I am wrong, but you did not explain so I could not understand where you got these secondary elements you wish to restrict further!
10 => 8 => 4... I get the "8" but not the "4"...?!
Sorry I know you enjoy penning your thoughts... I read most messages. This one I felt like replying because I could not find any logical JUSTIFICATION for the rules you chose.
Something must be missing, am I right???
It does look random.
However, I want to be as close as possible to the "average" design as possible.
Let's just say, I removed the "standard deviation"
But, I could also simply keep them all and sort them from close to far away, from the "average".
Which is something I would like to do.
(The fun starts soon(unless work screws again))
When the number of players go up, more variation could be chosen.
I am keeping all the possible designs in a tab.
And will add new tabs for other designs.
Now to figure out, how to sort properly.
I think that the one costing 3 will be the 5th one though.
Riflemen are equiped with a basic rifle. These infantry are effective against other infantry.
They have an average movement speed and average attack range. Their cost is low and they can be numerous.
Combat tanks are like an armored version of riflemen. These tanks however are effective against other tanks. They have an average movement speed and average attack range. Their costs are medium. And they can offer great synergy with riflemen in terms of RPS combat.
***
A combat tank can take some rifle bullets. A tank shell can take down only 1 rifleman. A mix of riflemen and tanks will always have the upper hand against a squad that is purele 1 type.
***
Rocket soldier. Equiped with a RPG rocket, only capable to attack ground targets. Effective against tanks. But relatively weak against infantry. The movement speed is slightly lower than riflemen and combat tanks. But the attack range is slightly higher. Making them an excellent choice in dealing with basic tanks. Yet have to stay out of range of riflemen.
Anti personal tank. Is the opposite of the Rocket soldier. This is a tank that is effective against infantry. Equiped with a machine gun, it can mow down multiple infantry units. It has a bit more movement speed than average. So it can hunt down riflemen. But the attack range will be only average. Thus it has to have orders from a commander that can time a strategy right.
***
The APT is outranged by the rocket soldier. So the rocket soldier has a chance in defeating it. But if the APT manages to get close enough, the rocket soldier chances are low. In order to defeat an APT, simply use combat tanks. Or have combat tanks being supported by rocket soldiers.
Against combat tanks, the rocket soldiers can also work together with riflemen. The riflemen will be enough to distract the combat tanks. While the rocket soldier take out the combat tanks.
Purely rocket soldiers, will still work against combat tanks, IF they manage to have the first strike.
When dealing with rocket soldiers. Riflemen, sometimes supported by an APT. Can move in. There might be losses. But the rocket soldiers are relatively bad against riflemen.
And are surely mowed down quick if the APT manages to close in.
***
Attack Recon. A light vehicle with a smaller machine gun than the APT. It is fast. But has a short to average attack range. It is great for taking down rocket soldiers. Due to the fact that it can move around fast. But also can avoid hard targets.
It shares a function with the APT, when dealing with riflemen.
Grenadier. An infantry unit that is exceptional effective against light vehicles that come to close.
Artillery. A tank that is effective against light vehicles. It is a slow unit with an attack range that even outranges the rocket soldier.
All Terrain Flack Cannon Vehicle.
The ATFCV is a light vehicle that shoots multiple grenades at the target. But this is at a close attack range. In order to reach the targets, it has to move around fast.
Rocket launcher.
Your basic long ranged anti tank vehicle....
What? It is in almost every RTS game.
O well, it has a relative slow movement speed.
An obviously an attack range that is slightly less than the artillery...or is it equal?
***
Special attributes can be used here.
The attack recon could be an assault recon. And thus using the attribute assault. This together with a better accuracy on the assault. It can deal with any target while moving and shooting at the same time.
The grenadier can use the charging attribute. In such way that it will aim first. And the next turn it will deal more than twice the damage (2.333). When defences enter the battlefield, this will come in handy.
The artillery can use the charging attribute as well. But this time, the attack range will be important. It will keep enemies away.
Or it will get a cooldown attribute.
The ATFCV can have the cooldown attribute as well.
But the explosive attribute can make it funnier. Where a succes can roll again for more hits. This way, tanks risk dying. And infantry risk.... well dying in great numbers.
The rocket launcher...
Can have the attributes: assault, charging, cooldown AND explosive for all I care.
Cheers, X3M
Ps. From now on, I should do wacky stuff.
The basic 9 are complete. Let's add 2 specialists per class.
Sniper. With a rifle like the riflemen. The speciality will be a long weapon range. Accuracy will be maxed out. And to make matters worse. There might be multiple shots by the sniper. It is even possible that some light vehicles fall victim.
Possible attribute here is a cooldown and charge. Perhaps a high velocity projectile will assist in hitting moving targets. Or a slow aim will add up to the damage if the targets are NOT moving.
Snipers can benefit from the same synergy as riflemen. The difference is, they are more like a support unit. And actually can also benefit from having some riflemen as squad partners.
Flamethrower. A fast moving short ranged unit. Actually, the weapon might even be a melee weapon. These guys need cover in order to get close. But then they can do so much damage. It is worth the planning and micromanagment. The attribute that works best here is a cooldown for more damage.
Missile Tank. Is like a little cousin of the Rocket Launcher. The armor is weaker, the damage is weaker. But just like the rocket tank. Let's add any possible attribute for the fun of it. Assault with explosive and low velocity and a cooldown seem to work best. Probably killing any target despite the RPS effects. Yes, this unit offers great mayhem.
Actually the ATFCV is more of a specialist than this next unit. A grenade launching humm-vee... It is relatively fast and has a little bit above average attack range.
Attribute? Not needed. Let's call the unit Bummer.
Tank Killer. A tank with a cannon that has an average range and movement speed. The tank killer is simply a support variant to the normal combat tank. It has multiple projectiles in one go. The only usefull attribute here could be a cooldown. This in order to increase the damage by a factor 1.75.
Hyper Velocity Cannon Tank. Or HVCT for short. This tank is the same as a combat tank. But the cannon has more attack range.
***
Let's add troopers and very light vehicles. Since the armor classes so far where 1, 4 and 8 (costs "2", "4" and "6")
Troopers and very light vehicles are 2 armor and costs 3.
Most anti infantry weapons will be half as effective against troopers and very light vehicles. And so will the light weaponry.
We now need heavy caliber guns in order to penetrate this armor. With 9(+3) designs in place. 7 more have to be added.
4 of this armor class and 3 to counter this armor class.
***
Basic Trooper. Is like a rifleman. But heavier in any possible way. In the long run against rifleman. A trooper has 1 benefit. It has a chance to survive a rifle shot. And can take cover behind another trooper in the next turn.
Inferno Trooper. Since the flamethrower wasn't enough. A cooldown will buff the damage. And assault will allow it to move and attack for that SP discount.
Grenade launch Trooper. Is like the Bummer. But then slow moving. The other statistics will be the same. But... The armor is less too. So this guy will be cheaper. Since the projectile goes with an arc this time. The velocity can be lower. Maybe, just maybe, this will be the first design where a new attribute comes into play. Let's say that the terrain might offer less cover now.
The same goes for some other launcher designs. Now variants with that same attribute can be added.
The C&C td Recon Bike.
Nuff said.
A new type of grenadier. High Explosive Grenadier. Or HEG for short.
This guy throws a grenade like his brother. But the grenade has a lower tier of damage. Which means this guy can be cheaper. If he is not cheaper, it means this guy can deal more damage to infantry and troopers.
The explosive attribute will do nicely. Also the charging will add some damage. This guy too needs to get close first. Then deals a massive ammount of damage.
The following unit is effective against Troopers and very light vehicles. The armor class is that of a normal vehicle. This unit is comparible with an armadillo from AoW3. But can't shoot air (yet).
Quad cannon. The projectiles are a simply of a heavy caliber. This guy is kinda like the APT. But is slow moving. There are no special attributes.
Cheers, X3M
Sorry for Highjacking the thread, but the original question is interesting because I have the same issue with one of my game.
I want 4 factions, 8 units per faction. Each faction should be unique and have their own strategy, but how can you achieve this. here is a couple of indicators I found so far.
* Stats: Some stats could be more common to certain factions. For example, in Magic TG, green faction tend to have strong monsters. So certain stats are better, or the maximum is higher.
* Abilities: Some abilities are exclusive or more popular to certain factions. For example again, in magic TG, the blue faction had a lot of flying monsters. There can be flying in other colors, but it's more common in blue. Or the cost is cheaper.
* How: There are various ways to get/use certain ability. The ability remains the same but how you get the ability changes. For example, in Star Craft, all faction needs to have the capacity to detect invisible units, but they do it in different ways. Some faction have invisible observers, some faction has a splash attack that detects enemies, etc.
From what I am describing above, it seem that there are some essential abilities that all faction needs, but I need to vary how those abilities are used an triggered. As for making abilities only exclusive, they have to be non-mandatory. But using only exclusive abilities will create a boring faction since all units will be the same.
As for the stats, yes you could differentiate with the stats, but it does not have any flavor, and most of the time, there is not much possible variation. For example, in Magic TG, you only have strength and toughness, it's hard to create anything unique out of this.
@larienna
In the long run, changing the stats will make it look bleak indeed. You got a point there. But I planned ahead :)
I guess... read in parts?
Let's see what statistics I use.
- Armor (body)
- Damage (weapon)
Those 2 are the same as in MtG. But I have hidden a RPS mechanic in them.
- Movement Speed (body)
Is the only flavour to the Armor.
- Attack Range (weapon)
- Shots (weapon)
- Accuracy (weapon)
Those 3 are the statistic flavours to the Damage.
I plan on 7 armor types and 7 damage types in "the end".
I start with 1, 4 and 8. Then 2 is added. Then 6 and 12 will be added. And to finish with 16.
49 classes if you combine.
Movement speeds go from 0 to 9.
Attack range goes from 0 to 9... although I might add in higher speeds later on.
We are now on 4900 options...
Let's not forget walls and weaponless units.
+70
Accuracy can go from 1 to 6.
29470...
And the shots can go from 1 to 9...although I might add in more shots later on.
294070...
Factions could be missing out on a certain armor type. But then I would truly be designing with a theme in mind. Copying Dune games is relatively easy here. Other games a bit harder. Starcraft doesn't even have this.
Some factions could be fast.
Some factions could have more long ranged weapons.
Some factions throw a LOT of dice.
Some factions always have an accuracy of 6, in other words, they don't need to roll that die at all. This faction is the hardest to design. But perhaps, I should see if I can even design this faction.
Thus far the faction flavours with the basic statistics.
***
Then I got some attributes that can add flavour.
Ok, here the post explodes, be warned.
All are planned to be added at one point.
Most are for weapons, but some are for bodies. If ( 3D ) is present, the map design is also of influence on the balance.
Some are already mentioned and/or used.
[Some need a rework in balance or better properties]
Some are simply >discarded< since they require a mechanic that is only in the proto-type version.
- Air (3D body)
- Sub (3D body)
- Anti Air (3D weapon)
- Anti Sub (3D weapon) [needs rework];
--water
--terrain
- Terrain Ignoring weapons (3D weapon);
--spread
--arc
--flow
--seeker
- Assault Modifier (weapon)
- Assault (weapon and play style)
- X-ray (3D weapon)
- Balistics (3D weapon)
- "Scouts" (3D weapon and play style) [needs rework]
- Velocity altered (weapon and play style)
- Turn altered (weapon)
- Specific (weapon) >Discarded<
- Concussive (weapon) >Discarded<
- Explosive (weapon)
- Chain Reaction (weapon)
- Cooldown and Charging
- Minimum Range (weapon) [needs rework]
- Multiweapons(weapon);
-- By choice
-- By no choice
While parts of the next list, are done, most does [needs rework] of the separate body adjustments. Or at least a double check if it still works. Perhaps they get discarded like the Specific and Concussive weapons.
- Propulsion types (3D body)
- Climbing (3D body)
- Change of dimension (3D body and play style)
- Jumper (3D body and play style)
- Pop-upper (body)
- Health modification (body) >Absolutely Completely Discarded!!!<
The ones with the playstyle. Are the ones that truly change the behavior of players when using those particular units.
As you can see, I am drowning in options. Thus I start small. And start with variations in the basic statistics first. :)
Of course, the whole idea behind the public version is that Health is abolished, annihilated, completely gone. Nah, scrap the latter. The armor double functions as health. And 2 or more armor does need health tracking when a weaker weapon targets a stronger body.
Still, if I have squads, then health will come back.
The last attribute that I tested last week will be:
- N
Or the number of units in a squad. The cost of this squad is a complex number. As in, the body and weapon are calculated completely different.
Cheers, X3M
Before continuing. Let's count the combo's first. By the tiers of armor and damage.
3x 1/1
Rifleman
Sniper
Flamethrower
1x 1/2
HEG
1x 1/3
Grenadier
1x 1/4
Rocket Soldier
1x 2/1
Inferno Trooper
1x 2/2
Basic Trooper
1x 2/3
Grenade Launch Trooper
1x 2/4
"Recon Bike"
1x 3/1
Attack Recon
1x 3/2
"Armadillo"
3x 3/3
ATFCV
Missile Launcher
Bummer
1x 3/4
Rocket Launcher
1x 4/1
APT
1x 4/2
Quad Cannon
1x 4/3
Artillery
3x 4/4
Combat Tank
Tank Killer
HVCT
***
Mistakes
A little mistake on the Missile Launcher. I forgot that I made the Rocket Launcher being a tier 3 vehicle with a tier 4 weapon.
So the missile tank doesn't have weaker armor in this case.
But normally the chances are that such launchers have a weaker armor than their weapon.
I did not make use of a balance table, in order to keep track this time. A mistake almost happened here. But purely because I did it with words, not with numbers.
A mistake in the attributes. I used "explosive" in order to explain a projectile. But the projectiles that will hit multiple targets are actually the "chain reaction" type.
Not sure if I ever made a topic about this naming. But let's say, a truly explosive attribute means they are suicide bombers.
Let's think of units to fill in every 1x.
So, 12 more units on top of these 22. :)
Why? Because it is fun!
***
1/2
Mortar Infantry.
This guy has the attribute that it has to deploy its mortar launcher. This takes a turn. And then this guy is more of a defence unit. The range is slightly more than the Missile and Rocket Soldiers.
1/3
Missile Soldier.
Works basicly the same as the Rocket Soldier. But is a bit cheaper and does a bit less damage. Except against lighter targets. The attribute chain reaction will do wonders as well.
1/4
Tank Kill Infantry.
Erhm.... Probably they use a hand held cannon.
In order to keep these units cheap. The attribute cooldown will be used. The attack range is simply the same as that of the rifleman and the combat tank. Thus behold. A bland RPS shaped unit to bolster the ranks.
2/1
Dirt Bike.
A very light vehicle that is extremely fast due to rocket fuel. The biker has a rifle for short range attacks.
An attribute could be, vertical launch rockets. Which allows the bike to jump short distances as well.
2/2
Samurai Trooper.
This trooper wields a fibrating sword. That is strong enough to also cut heavier targets. This unit is also a little bit faster than most troopers.
2/3
Missile Trooper.
Nuff said.
Too bland you say?
Ok, how about this missile has the attack range, that outranges the howitzer? I guess this trooper will be slow...o wait, the missiles are light, so this trooper has a decent movement speed. O well.
2/4
Rocket Trooper.
Nuff said.
Too bland? All right all right. Let's add a second weapon then. Thus if an enemy gets too close, the Rocket Trooper uses the rockets as extremely strong grenades. Thus a bit more damage in a closer range.
3/1
"Humm-vee".
Is like the Attack Recon. But has a bit more mobility and a little less damage. The attack range is a bit more. Making this unit an excellent choice as replacement for a sniper. Even though the attack range isn't that great to compare with.
3/2
This guy is actually the last one for me to design in this list, this post. This guy has no chance against the missile trooper?...So it needs cover? And what if it gets close to a target? Well....it explodes. This vehicle is a "suicide bomber". There is no driver, it is moved from a distance, no worries. The damage is massive while being tier 2.
I did a calculation because the shadow rules are difficult.
Speed 7, Range 0, Shots 4, Accuracy 5.
Velocity attribute not needed.
Assault (attribute) modification not applied.
"Suicide" attribute multiplies the shots by 4 (not 3 due to infinite cooldown). And the same attribute will add another 1/3rh of the body costs into the weapon design. Which is in turn also multiplied by 4. This latter is very difficult to do. I kept the statistics simple. The true number of projectiles is 20. So this guy is a bucket o'dice feast.
With 20 dice * 1/3 * 5/6 = 5 to 6 hits. It will do 10 to 12 damage in parts of 2. That is 5 to 6 infantry or trooper kills. 2 to 3 vehicle kills or 1 tank kill.
"Chain Reaction" of 3 with an infinite number of re-rolls. Can really have a lot of hits. These rolls are determined after the basic accuracy and the unit accuracy roll.
The first roll needs to be 3 or less. Thus cutting the initial ammount of damage in 3. Which means roughly 2 hits. Then for every hit a die is added and rolled for 3 or less, it will count as a hit. Which adds yet another die. etc. etc.
To give you an idea of how powerfull this unit can be. The costs are 6. While basic riflemen are 2, 12 of these are capable of intercepting 1 of these guys. Still, natural defences can help stop this guy as well. So, what would be a fancy name? Boomer?
3/4
"MRLS".
This guy is almost the same as his simple Rocket Launcher.
But more rockets! And a bit more attack range! And of course, a charging attribute. Let's just say that this guy is designed in such a way that...if the weakness is not abused. It can overcome the RPS effect to some extend. In other words. Sometimes this guy has an overkill.
4/1
Flame Tank.
A tank that is melee. It is like a brother to the APT. The difference is that the ammount of damage is so much higher due to lack of attack range.
4/2
High Explosive Missile Tank. HEMT.
Maybe change "Chain Reaction" into "Explosive" and then have a different name for those suicide bombers. Yeah, going to make a new topic for this. Either way, this tank is like the missile and rocket launcher. Except, it has the "explosive" attribute.
4/3
Howitzer.
Just like the Artillery. But with a bit more attack range and attack power. The catch? It might be possible that the attribute cooldown is also worse. But not sure if it is going to be a cooldown, charge or transformation. I think a combination of 2 of them. Thus turning this guy into a defense unit.
***
Some units here, also can get the arc or balistic attributes.
I think that all the rockets and missiles earn the balistic attribute.
The howitzer and other non propelled projectiles earn only the arc attribute.
...I think...
The Boomer is the most unique unit at the moment.
Before I continue... The damage pins are coloured:
1 = red
2 = orange
4 = yellow
8 = not sure... a mix?
And I am not sure. But perhaps, damage pints should be stackable in order to reduce holes in miniatures???
That would save me from having 4 or more counters.
Walls....
Well, I don't name them really...
Chain Fence, Sand Bags, Concrete walls... I don't know.
All I know is that due to my design method. Walls are forced to come with multiple hitpoints. Meaning that I have to tell a player that a wall needs it's armor pierced several times.
Either way. Most board games surely have no use for walls. A rare occasion where they offer "cover" points of some sort.
I simply use them as fodder or meat that is the cheapest in the whole game. I also can add mobile versions. Either way. Units take cover behind walls if the walls are big enough. Some units need 2 or more walls.
Due to the mechanics, a wall will mainly be a 5 or 10 parter. A rare case of a 2 parter...
All the parts are one piece and placed in only one region.
The one of 1 armor is a 5 parter. It will simply have room for 2 pins:
1, 2, 1+2, 2+2, destroyed.
It will cost 3 (rifleman is mostly 2). ANYTHING that costs 3 or less can take cover behind this wall. Even defences.
Does something cost 4 or more? Simply add more of these walls.
Of this type, the player can have 8.
The one of 2 armor is a 10 parter and thus 20 health. It needs room for 4 pins: 1, 2, 1+2, 4, 1+4, 2+4, 1+2+4, 8, 1+8, 2+8, 1+2+8, 4+8, 1+4+8, 2+4+8, 1+2+4+8, 8+8, 1+8+8, 2+8+8, 1+2+8+8, destroyed.
The one of 4 armor is a 5 parter again. It also has 20 health.
While the 6 armor is not present yet. This would be a 2 parter. And only 3 pins are needed for health tracking up to 12.
The one of 8 armor is a 5 parter. This time we are facing 40 health. Not sure how many pins we need. But I think if I look at 2+4+8+8+8+8=38. We need 7 pins... Unless I introduce a pin of 16 as well. That is only used for this wall segment...
Ok, so I am a bit divided about this.
With the armor values of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 planned....
I don't really need a pin of 16.
Would anyone be interested in the numbers???
And/Or should I simply name all the options per design that I selected???
Now, how does this work? Well...surpricingly, you can have a lot, really a lot of different factions this way. Even if all other stats aren't avaiable.
For my Dune variant. I have 4 Armor types and then 4 Factions.
Each Faction is missing 1 of the Armor types. And somehow, it makes the Factions interesting. There are still 3x4 unit types as a basis. And that is ok. The game is balanced and fun.
For anyone curious. The Ordos faction misses the highest armor type.
And the Sardaukar faction is missing the lowest armor type.
Atreides is missing tier 2 and Harkonnen is missing tier 3.
Infantry/Troopers/Vehicles/Tanks
***
With the Armor values of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16.
With 7 Armor options for a faction.
I could do one of the following:
- 7 Armor types per Faction. 1 option.
- 6 Armor types per Faction. 7 options.
- 5 Armor types per Faction. 56 options.
- 4 Armor types per Faction. 210 options.
- 3 Armor types per Faction. 56 options.
- 2 Armor types per Faction. 7 options.
- 1 Armor types per Faction. 1 options.
It would be kinda funny...to have 210 different Factions in the end.
Each Faction would have 4 Armor types. And thus 4x7 designs as a basis. The minimum Armor types that a faction shares is 1. The maximum is 3.
I think that I better start building from 2 Armor types, towards 4. Thus the Factions will get more types in the future.
***
There is another way. And that would simply be taking from a pool of options.
4 Factions?
4 of tier 1,
2 of tier 2,
3 of tier 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Each Faction ends up with 3 Armor types. Of which they all share 1 Armor type.
21 types needed.
6 Factions?
6 of tier 1
3 of tier 2 and 3
2 of tier 4, 5 and 6
I guess 6 of tier 7. They are heroes anyway. Everyone deserves a hero...?
This time, every faction has 4 Armor types:
1,2,4,7 weakest
1,2,5,7 exception
1,2,6,7 yingyang
1,3,4,7 middleman
1,3,5,7 linear
1,3,6,7 cumulative
28 types needed.
***
Oh man, I really have a lot of options.
I could start with 6 Factions and no heroes.
1,2,4,7 weakest
1,2,5,7 exception
1,2,6,7 yingyang
1,3,4,7 middleman
1,3,5,7 linear
1,3,6,7 cumulative
Simply scrap the 7.
The Factions are balanced here.
And when I start adding more Factions, I first have to add the heroes.
Now for a good thematic approach to these factions.
I am thinking about human factions, that are fighting over a new world. This way I can have sci-fi stuff. And new factions in the future might be aliens.
So for now we have the following tiers:
Tier 1; 1 A are infantry or soldiers
Tier 2; 2 A are heavy infantry or troopers or very light vehicles
Tier 3; 4 A are light vehicles or very light tanks
Tier 4; 6 A are medium vehicles or light tanks
Tier 5; 8 A are heavy vehicles or medium tanks
Tier 6; 12 A are very heavy vehicles or heavy tanks
Tier 7; 16 A are very heavy tanks or heroes
The faction tiers, name pending:
1,2,4
1,2,5
1,2,6
1,3,4
1,3,5
1,3,6
I am going to think of some names and describe them.
Clearly one faction is going to use troopers and one is going to use heavy infantry. While the third is going to use very fast very light vehicles.
The other 3 factions have a tier 3. Which are either light vehicles or very light tanks. I think one faction will have a mix of them. Probably the linear guy...probably.
After 100 suggestions, I just knew that it was not going to work. There are some facts about the first 6 Factions.
They are all from Earth:
- Some are linked to big companies.
- Some are linked to countries (or a group of countries).
- Some are more of a mercenary group.
- Some are linked to a religion (a new one for comfort).
- Some just wants to rule them all.
Behind the name, the backstory might automatically develop.
As names, I want to keep it simple. Here are some thoughts:
- The Union; can be from a big company or countries.
- The United; can be countries.
- (The) Metalic Group; can be from a big company (in metals).
- Vortex (Group); can be from a big company (in liquids).
- Bio (Group); can be from a big company (in bio-engineering).
- The Enlisted; can be countries or a mercenary company for some countries. I think the latter.
- Gathering of the Hermits (GotH); religious...why not?
- The Scientists; They want to rule them all, and have a lot of new technology.
Other idea's are welcome.
Now to get 6 from this list that feel...connected.
Might as well scrap the jokes.
I have; The Union, The United, Metalic, Vortex, Bio-Group and The Enlisted. All 6 will fight for the resources on the new planet.
The tiers and the Factions:
1,2,4 The Enlisted; is a mercenary group that will fight for the highest bidders. Their technology is very basis.
1,2,5 Bio-Group; is a company that want to use the resources for bio-engineering and create new nano-technology. They also want to prolong the lives of the richer.
1,2,6 The Union; are several big countries that worked together from ancient times.
1,3,4 The United; are several smaller left over countries that bundled their forces in order to get the resources for themselves.
1,3,5 Vortex; a company that is specialized in liquid processing. Their aim is to get their share of resources and process into materials for the highest bidders.
1,3,6 Metalic; a company that is specialized in the metal industry. Their aim is to process the resources into products for the highest bidders.
In a sense, most of these factions might work together with other factions. Or at least sell their products.
This leaves story telling room for players to get certain designs from other factions.
Perhaps I should keep the army options really small. If I really ever want to start publishing.
It would be a civil war though? Or just 2 factions?
So, 2 variants of either unit can allow the 2 players to have any faction they want.
But what types do I need?
Perhaps I should build up from scratch.
Buildings and defences should come in pairs as well.
And to honour the RPS. I need 2 types with anti types.
Then the list is already ridiculous if I go for "perfection".
AND, there are designs that are so limited. That I can't make variants of them without adding colour for the factions. The walls are the biggest problems here.
They only have armor. Can't move, can't do damage. That would be the idea of a wall. Unless I am very diligent and add walls that actually can do a very little bit of damage.
Of course, production needs attention too.
I need to work with attributes:
- Biological or Mechanical
- Unit or Structure
Since it has to be printed somewhere on the cards. Perhaps 2 colour codes as triangles in the background? Making use of a colour wheel (from google) here.
Biological = Light Pink
Mechanical = Variscite
Unit = Butter
Structure = Forget-me-not
In the future, 2 more attributes could be added this way. A system of 2 all the time though.
So, here is the list of minimum.
Note: The Infantry and Tank armor is only an indication for the Armor, it can also be applied to structures. And some might have multiples of the health too.
The list:
Infantry - Anti Infantry
Barracks - Produces Infantry
Tank - Anti Tank
Factory - Produces Tanks
Infantry - Anti Tank
Tank - Anti Infantry
Infantry "wall", 1 version with melee damage
Tank "wall", 1 version with melee damage
Tank - HQ - Produces structures (and itself)
Infantry - Construction Yard - Produces structures (and itself)
Def Infantry - Anti Infantry
Def Tank - Anti Infantry
Def Infantry - Anti Tank
Def Tank - Anti Tank
Infantry - Independable Harvesters (One that can move around, but needs to be on top of resources for a fixed income)
Tank - Independable Harvesters
Infantry - Resource node (can't move, but gives more)
Tank - Resource node
18 combinations for a complete game experience.
Thus 36 designs.
There can be 262144 factions by combining the 18 options of 2.
Now for the big question... Which armor for these tanks should I start with?
Infantry = 1 with a value of 1
2 is to low.
4 is the first option. Still weak. The value would be 2.
6 can be handled with a die. The value would be 2.5.
8 is the last option. It is relatively strong. The value would be 3.
I think I should go for 8 armor. These are the "medium" tanks after all.
Well, I am missing some fun factor.
The 2 factions are missing long ranged and fast units in general.
I should face it. The options are too vast. I want to much. I should cool down and think of cutting even more in the game.
Do I want RPS through armor and damage?
Why yes.
Do I want RPS through movement speed and attack range?
Why yes.
I guess, I should design the extra's anyway.
So the Snipers and Rocket Tanks for the attack range.
And a Saboteurs and Flame Tanks for the movement speed.
That means I go up from 38 to 46 designs...
This might sound strange. But would it be interesting if I cut some more?
I mean, I can cut a lot. And yet keep a bit of RPS here.
The basic infantry and tanks. Not RPS units.
The defences would be infantry type.
And the only thing countering a tank, would be another tank.
When a tank is supported with infantry as fodder. It is better in defending. And the only goal of the tank is to...tank.
Maybe, having bunkers as well. But the majority of the targets would be the structures, which would mostly be tank types.
This means, that you build tanks in order to attack the enemy base. And you build infantry in order to be fodder.
With this, I also steer the player in getting tanks constantly.
I only need the following:
Infantry - Anti Infantry
Barracks - Produces Infantry
Tank - Anti Tank
Factory - Produces Tanks
Infantry "wall", 1 version with melee damage
Tank "wall", 1 version with melee damage
Tank - HQ - Produces structures (and itself)
Def Infantry - Anti Infantry
Def Tank - Anti Infantry
Tank - Independable Harvesters (One that can move around, but needs to be on top of resources for a fixed income)
This is only 10. Thus 20 designs for 2 factions.
It would be very...WW1 like, right?
The tank being the only anti tank unit is needed against:
The tank "walls", factory, HQ, Def Tank (bunkers), other tanks, the harvesters.
That is 6 targets of which 1 returns fire.
The infantry are only used against:
Other infantry, barracks, infantry "walls", Def infantry (sentry gun).
That is 4 targets of which 2 return fire.
Still, the infantry can hide behind the tank. And only a tank with a sentry gun is the best option to deal with mass riflemen.
I kinda like this approach and the theme would be WW1 on an alien planet like, with very fancy looking infantry and tanks for some prophetic reason.
Eventually, I add more units. And those riflemen will surely start becomming very usefull.
Every other infantry unit will probably be designed for dealing with various vehicles and tanks. And all of them would fall victim to the riflemen.
And there will be plenty of structures in the future that can't deal with simple rifle fire.
So, what do you guys think? Would it be wise to reduce the list to only 20 different pieces to begin with?
My goal is a 24 CP per type.
This means that the CP per unit or structure can only be 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 or 12.
I had to reshape the "Tank" walls. Both have an anti infantry weapon. One has 2 projectiles with an accuracy of 1/6th. And the other has it vice versa; 1 projectile with an accuracy of 2/6th. Not sure how to name them thought. I call them Spiked Wall and Needle wall for the time being.
The "Infantry" walls have wooden fence for 3 CP per piece (5 hits to kill, but no damage) and the barbed wire for 2 CP per piece (2 hits to kill, 2 projectiles with 3 accuracy).
I had trouble with the "Tank" defences. Until I simply only adjusted the attack range and the accuracy of each.
Not yet satisfied. Looking for perhaps adding a double weapon. So they get a bit more expensive. For now, they are more like a wall than a defence...
The harvesters will be able to move to a spot and sit there, gathering income. For balance purposes, they should be equal in costs or total income. 6x4 or 4x6 are options...But in reality, this is complex. I can only toy with the movement speed and the number of resources 1 can take. The "attack" range is 0.
The production structures should get some value. These have always been very hard to balance.
I need some more time. In order to solve all the "imbalances". But they we got 2^10 factions to choose from :)
Except for the produciton facilities.
Are balanced out now.
***
I even managed to get 2 different versions of the harvesters. That give the player the same ammount of resources.
These harvesters go out and sit on a resource point.
They bring in either 6 or 8 resources per round.
The value just happens to be the same, 6 or 8 will be the cost.
In RTS games we have income to cost; 7 to 3, 4 to 25 or 1 to 2.
I simply choose to have it being 1 to 1. And the result is that "harvesting" costs equal to the hero type. With the accuracy times multiplier being the income.
Another result is, a player can have 4 harvesters that bring in 6 each. The maximum is 24.
Or 3 harvesters that bring in 8 each. The maximum is again 24.
The one that brings in 8 resources is also faster. The movement speeds are 3 and 5. 3 is barely something to outrun the enemies. 5 is currently like super fast.
There are 2 infantry and 2 tanks in the game. Of which 1 of each type can move with a speed of 3.
If we only consider the tanks, which are the ones to take out harvesters. We see that the tanks with a movement speed of 3 are able to keep up with the slower harvesters.
Still, it would be wise to go all the way around and cut off any retreat point.
The same can be done to the faster harvesters. But they are almost twice as fast.
Since the faster ones have only 3. Succeeding in killing them will bring down the resource income, faster.
Where the slow goes like 24+18+12+6=60. The fast goes down like 24+16+8=48.
Another thing that helps while them being faster is. If I make the resource points depletable.
Let's say, a point has 96 resources.
The slow harvester will bring in 6 at a time and needs 16 rounds.
The faster one will bring in 8 at a time and needs only 12 rounds.
Then the faster one has to move to another point. And the speed of 5 helps here a lot.
That said. I need a way to track resources if I want to make single player missions as well. Or I want a multiplayer to end faster.
I have 2 squads of 24 each that can be offensive.
I have to either cut my income in half.
Or add at least 2 more squads that can be offensive.
Looking at the possible future development and a lot of pondering.
I have to do the latter.
Now then. What would be more fun?
Infantry - Anti Tank with Tank -Anti Infantry.
Or
2 Support versions that outrange the defences?
My prototype had a 2 to 1 resource income.
My public version must have the same.
So I have no other choice than cut it in half.
The production facilities had a 3 to 1 ratio.
However, I had many more options for the Barracks and Factories.
And the point system there was comparable with a 36 with a 12 per round.
If I do this now, I would have 24 with a 8 per round.
This 8 is a problem. Since you would have as choice a 6...
Or I should make the production a 4 to 1. Meaning that the income is twice that of the production...
This might force players to mix. But there is no choice either.
I need to make the production facilities a 2 to 1 as well.
I talked to my primairy testing buddy.
He thinks that I have to add at least 4 more squads. Making the total production time 12 rounds for 6 squads. And the choices are 3 infantry and 3 tanks per player.
So, I re-introduce the 2 support versions. And the RPS versions.
I ponder about the defences now.
I still need to make sure the facilities are properly designed.
But if income is a 50%. And production is a 50%.
A player can produce the following:
- 6 riflemen
- 3 riflemen and 1 tank
- 2 tanks
The defences... I must make sure that the costs are a nice round part of 12. Or at least have a 5+7 going on.
My other goal should be that the:
* infantry - anti tank
costs around 4 or 3
* support infantry
costs either 3, 4 or 6
* tank - anti infantry
costs either 4 or 6
* support tank
costs either 6 or 12
If it costs 8, then the tank - anti infantry should cost 4
 | How to design and balance a Rock-Paper-Scissor like mechanism (27) by X3M |
| End of Year Playtest Event at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Board Game Pieces: 13mm Wood Cubes (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | DuelBotz: Sample New Card (13) by questccg |
| Board Game Blueprint - New Episode Every Wednesday (24) by The Game Crafter |
| Madison Game Design Cabal (0) by The Game Crafter |
| PoA — Major shift back closer to FCE (13) by questccg |
| Voting Begins for "VHS Case Challenge" at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Product: Large Quad-Fold Game Boards (0) by The Game Crafter |
| 2025 New Year Sale at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Board Game Design Contest: ZSA Cards Challenge (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Black Friday Sale Ends Tonight (0) by The Game Crafter |
| The Shadow Of The Nokizaru Update! (0) by Jacob |
| Build your own [insert game genre here] (11) by questccg |
| Black Friday Sale at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Power Creep, a Dungeon Pages adventure (0) by jasongreeno |
| Premium Bullet & Premium Toxic Waste Board Game Pieces at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| What “Should” Be in an RPG Design Book (11) by lewpuls |
| Blank Poker Card Sale - 3 Cents Each! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Blank Playing Cards - Bridge 57mm x 89mm UK (1) by questccg |
| Finally returned after all these years (1) by DyminoMonsters2004 |
| State of the let-off Union - November 2024 (0) by let-off studios |
| Shoppe: The Simulation of Guilds (1) by questccg |
| The fine line between a game and a simulation (22) by X3M |
| Only 24 hours left to bid on games for the Extra Life Charity Auction (0) by The Game Crafter |
I have several options for designing a faction. But it is better to design multiple options for units. This allows me to go into the greyscale. In other words. Players can design their own faction by using units that other players don't have.
Of course, I need several versions of the same unit.
***
The rifleman is one of the simplest units. But I need a lot of different verisons. Not sure if this will be balanced.
In a sense, I could use the same pieces for multiple players. But then I need Unit Statistic Cards.
And if I go for the greyscale. I could add a colour pawn to a stack of unit cards (20 x 20 mm).
This means, no miniatures.
With that in mind. The statistics could be printed on the little cards. Any special feature is very hard to implement.
But the number of statistics that are basic seem to be 7.
- Cost
- Armor
- Speed
- Shots
- Damage
- Range
- Accuracy
7 is too much for a little 20 x 20 mm piece.
Perhaps combining numbers with symbols.
- Cost; number of 1 or 2 digits.
- Armor; there are 7 different armors, these can be symbols.
- Speed; a number of 1 digit, that can be placed inside the armor symbol.
- Shots; this is a number, by default it is 1. So perhaps not display like this.
- Damage; there are 7 different damages, these can be symbols.
- Range; a number of 1 digit ( I try to refrain from 2 digits) It can be placed inside the damage symbol
- Accuracy; a number of 1 to 6. Maybe have a symbol for this. And then put in the shots. Not sure if I display the default 1.
This way, I have 3 symbols and 4 numbers. The 4 corners can be used for this. With the price in the top left corner. The body stats in the top right corner. And the weapon stats in the 2 corners at the bottom.
If any special ability might arrise, I can use an attribute and display it in the middle at the bottom. It will be a lettercode with a number for sure.
V-3 or V+3 have a big chance of appearing.
Cd and Ch also can have a spot.
But I wonder about something like an unit having 2 or more weapons.
There are 2 variations in this. A choice or all at the same time.
This means, all of them need to be displayed on the piece. Maybe on the sides if needed.
If they are choices, the weapons will be surrounded by a []
In all other cases, all wepaons shoot at the same time.
The Minotaurus would have V-3, Ch2 and then 2 weapons, where the accuracy is 3 and 4. Both can fire at the same time, so no [] is used.
The range and damage type remain the same. So I got a copy on the left side. The accuracy would be 2 different symbols with a 2 inside of them.