RPS in a card game

This topic is very old. And in the mean time, I had a simplyfied attempt at a war game with still some health tracking.

Now, I got experience. So I wanna know how far I can get with my card game attempt.

***

Things that changed in idea's for the card game.

Costs are 1, 2, 4 or 8 for the A/D values of 1, 3, 9 or 27.
A weapon can target only 1 target at a time.

Units can attack and defend.
The total costs are times 2.

Structures can only defend.
The total costs are as they are.

When attacking, it is 1 strike only.
If the opponent blocks, it is counting damage on both sides until a card perishes.

Example; 4 Grenadiers attack a Combat tank.
Grenadier has 1/3. Combat tank has 27/27.

The Combat tank doesn't block. There is only 4x3 damage is 12, which can't beat 27.

Or the Combat tank does block. There is 12+9+6 damage until the tank dies. There are also 3 dead Grenadiers.

A wall can block. But always dies.
Or is targeted by sufficient damage.
The choice happens when 1 Armor walls are treatening to block a high damage weapon.

Multishot weapons can divide damage. And thus should be blocked by multiple walls when needed. Or 1 big one to eat away the ammo. 1 Armor blocking 3 projectiles means that 2 get through for targeting something else.

***

I don't like resource cards to reduce the unit pile. So I thought of also have sacrifices to be used, just like with my Event cards in my hobby game.

For balance, i am going to add temporary upgrade cards for almost each unit. So that the total resources of each design is exactly the same.

***

Attributes like Range and Speed. This is actually the one problem remaining. I want it to be as simple as possible. Range could be multi shots before an enemy will return fire. But what about Speed?

Haha, yes. It is going to be along those lines.

I know it looks odd. But the complete combat mechanic isn't complete yet.

It goes roughly like this:

- Attacker declares attack: And sends all units that will attack.
- Defender declares which attacking units will be blocked. The defender can use units and structures for this. Blocking initiates a battle to death. You can assign as much cards as you want, given they were not exhausted yet.
- Remaining attacking units can join the battle to death. Or target something else.
- Both players can decide in what order the cards die in the battle to the death.

Suffice to say, it needs testing.

In case of the 4 Grenadiers against the 1 Tank. If the Tank is the only card in the field, it will not be destroyed as long as it doesn't block. As soon as it blocks, it can fire back and will be killing Grenadiers as well.

If only 3 Grenadiers would attack. The Tank will not die if those are to work together. So the attacking player would only use 1 Grenadier to occupy the Tank. The other 2 Grenadiers could do something else.

If multiple targets can be killed by 1 Grenadier. Then it is wiser to have fodder units to do the blocking. Each fodder unit would block 1 Grenadier. But each Grenadier would be occupied now.

***

I think that I need to put Fast and Ranged into attributes. They would be modifiers to certain situations regarding the damage. But it would be a x2 modifier in those cases.
Unit and Structure are the basic attributes. All other attributes are additions.

Maybe....
Fast: More damage in the attack.
Ranged: More damage when blocking.

Yes. But attacking will make the used cards exhausted. The starting player is the one that has the highest card to show. But could choose not to show the highest card and simply go second.

You might be right. That is why it isn't finished yet. I am considering allowing the defender to add defending forces to the forces that already block. But it would probably lead to a math fest. And both sides having only 1 huge squad battling each other. There would be less tactics. So therefore, blocking 1 unit will almost Always result in killing that unit. The attacker simply could decide to kill the blocker as well if it doesn't happen yet. The squads remain small enough this way to initiate multiple squad.

I need testing to decide how high the complexity bar comes. But declaring an action without calculations skills is in a sense a risk. The skill in this game is for players to determine if they can get the best results.

Indeed.
The defender can defend with one or multiple cards. At that point the order of those cards are decided as well. The attacker can't choose for the defender. Only how its own attacking squad will be build up in order to vengeance on that one blocked attacker.
So, defender decides its own order of losses.
Then the attacker.

Seeing as how the attacker may only reinforce a blocked unit with those units attacking. The defender could often make clear decisions in what order his forces block.
The attacker will have not much choice if it chooses to reinforce the blocked unit. The attacker could Always choose to target other cards instead with the remaining attacking units. It can't choose individual units from the blocking squads. It starts with the order they are in.

Attacking exhausts.
Exhausted units can't defend in the next turn.

The defenders often have better chances.
But the multishot units will be the ones to initiate attacks.

Example: Flame Tank.
It has 27 armor and 8 projetiles of 1? That means that it will have to be blocked and killed asap. If it is blocked by 1 infantry unit. The other 7 projectiles will act as a one time trample. If no other cards block, it could target 7 more infantry to die. Including the Bazooka Infantry. And while the armor is counted to go down. It will only go down cumulative against squads. Targeting individual non blocking targets will result in each only returning fire once.

It will also be the Multi shot units that can act as multiple blocking squads. If 8 infantry attack. They have no other choice than to cuddle together in order to make sure the flame tank dies as well. If not, all of them die by the flame tank.

Got my brain cell to work this night.

An adjustment to the attack sequence. In order to give certain units a safer path to the enemy. The attackers might already be divided in squads. Woth certain units being under protection.

I got this idea while designing the priciples around engineers.

If the defending side blocks with something that doesn't die right away. Or is even able to attack the 'to be protected' eventually. The attacker can add another squad to the initial squad that is stopped.

***

Walls. I am not going to add X walls of 1 resource each. In fact, depending on the scale of the game, each design will be added into a more balanced chance kind of way. Once walls are placed, they can be increased when drawing another wall card. I am unsure about the cheapest units in this matter. Maybe a card acts as a token counter.

***

New attribute: Take over. Which will turn an opponents card into yours.
It does conflict though when the opponent has only one card with tokens on it. As extra rule perhaps: drawing from the opponents deck and reshuffle?

***

To have big units more often in the deck. While allowed to place only one on the table. How about having these cards double in function? In fact, they can all have the double function.

Example, the Combat Tank.
Option A: the unit itself.
Option B, once an unit is placed on the table. Another card of the same kind can be added to add X armor as an extra set that requires breakthrough. A personal wall if you will.
This will once again reduce the number of cards.

My main worry is that I have to many cards for a complete deck.

Each player its own.
To simulate factions, players cannot cover all weaknesses.

The deck should not be to big.
The table should not be to filled.

I think I start with tier 1 and 4.
Tier 2 and 3 are often the ones with "special" abilities.

I already discarded dividing counters in certain, if not, all situations.

I need to rework on this one.

Perhaps not allowing it.
Or to several with the help of new cards that allow this.

I can't stand having 1 stick, stopping 100 rifle infantry. I need to fix this asap.

...and fixed...

Those cards that attack and have not been defended against yet. Can be defended against.
10 infantry attacking can be blocked by 10 walls again.
This shows that I need to be careful with my combat rules. One mistake, and the game is broken.

Most resource cards are good. But the constant stream of resources is giving a snow ball effect.

My first attempt had it doubled for every next set.
My second attempt had it adding like 50% every next set.

MtG had it linear (until the weird cards started showing up). Perhaps limiting the player to place only 1 each round? And having the bigger ones cost cumulative?

So...
1 resource per round could cost 2.
2 resources per round could cost 6.
3 costs 12. 4 costs 20.
To compare with a tank, a tank costs 16.

Both players have a construction yard. All structures have default costs.

Tier one solar panels costs 2. And supplies 1 each round.

The player that managed had a fodder wall up and could keep it for 3 rounds.

Round one with wall up:
The player has 4 resource crates of 2 each.
The player manages to place solar panels.
4 counters.

Round two with the wall up:
The player has 4 resources from the solar panels.
And sacrifices 4 more cards.
Another solar panel card is played.
This one gets 4 counters as well.

Round three with the wall up:
8 resources now from the solar panels.
2 resource crates and 4 cards are sacrificed.
The third and final solar panel card is played.
8 counters now.

The player has 16 resources from now on.
The opponent only had 4 at that time.
Seeing as how 1 card gives 1 resource at least. It was now 22 vs 10 resources.

***

I did a calculation of what would happen if someone had like at least 1 solar panel every round and can build them for 2. No resource cards.

6 cards gives +3.=3
6 cards and 3 resources gives +4. =7
6 cards and 7 resources gives +6. =13
6 cards and 13 resources gives +9. =22
6 cards and 22 resources gives +14. =36

In just 5 rounds, a player could multiply the resources by a factor 6, from 6 cards to 36 free resources.

Sure there is a risk. Because during that time, the opponent had the chance to spend 30 resources. But from that moment onwards, it is 1 to 6. A wall that is strong enough gives the time.

The play test was close. 1 to 2 after 3 rounds And I wonder about the chances when a full deck is ready and designed.

The combat rules are almost a full page.
I tried to simplify them.
Tried making them understandable.

Maybe something can be scrapped. IDK.

But when I look at the rules.
It looks so confusing.
I know how it is to be played.
But I doubt that others would understand.

Edit:
I am going to grind on it for a while before posting it here if any one is willing to take a look.

Before I continue working on the combat mechanic itself (needs some simplifying for sure). I need to work on tier 2 attributes. They will be of influence on the combat mechanic itself.

The interesting part is that I want them to be more than just a modifier on damage. Now I said that the combat mechanic also needs to be simplified, but perhaps these 2 attributes will help in this.

Tier 2 attributes:
-Fast; each addition adds another multiplier to attacks.
-Ranged; each addition adds another multiplier to defending.

How do these 2 work so far?

Let's say that a normal rifle man has 1/1 and costs 2.

A rifle man that is ranged will do more damage when defending.
A rifle man that is fast will do more damage when attacking.

If it is ranged/fast +2, the rifle man will do 3 times the normal amount of shots when defending/attacking.
The costs would be the average of 2 and 4, which is 3. And this would create a natural RPS as well. Some cards will be good in attacking and other in defending.

I want to spice things up.

If I where to use both attributes on the same card. It would be the same as having a multiplier on the weapon by default. Why would anyone choose for either?

What I could do is that these attributes are self-annihilating. No matter if they attack or defend.

Ranged +2 vs Ranged +2 would mean a difference of 0. One of the sides is attacking. Thus the weapon would already be reduced to 1 time. But the opponent that is defending is also reduced to 1. The same could be said about Fast.

Perhaps I could have Fast +2 also reduce Ranged +2 and vice versa. This would make any card with these attributes handier for a cost. Namely becoming a meat shield against the same type of cards.
Although, a fast defender against a ranged attacker would make no difference; they where already at only x1 damage.

If one of the cards still manage to break through; the effect of reduction remains.

I should also tell the players that each player can choose which attribute is reduced on their side when dealing with cards that use both attributes.