A simple goal in a card game

Then a single player card game could be born.

Then the AI could be replaced by another player.

Right now, I got a lot of "no time to test" responses. Or it is in their own time. Alone...

***

My idea is to have some sort of 1 dimensional chess.

I think that if players had a deck based on points. That the decks in hand are small.

When cards are played and return to the hand. The fog of war is slightly lifted. Just like Stratego.

Oh gota go.

My game would be more of a chess game. Since players keep sacrificing.

The idea of the deck also being the hand is something that came to mind since I don't want randomness.

The only randomness there is, is the opponents deck choice.

So, both players start with a card of their choice. It can be any card, from 1 point to 9 points. Obviously a 9 pointer has the highest chances to survive the first round. But immediately will die by excessive RPS effect in the second round.

And the other player can choose to have this done by any set of cards. It doesn't even have to be worth 9 points. In fact, tieds are possible. Where one bazooka could kill a super tank by being sacrificed. And then both players have to choose a card again.

So the first round is a "gamble". And every next sutuation where a sacrifice took place.

If more than 1 card is used. One card is left behind, ALWAYS. So a player could also choose to choose 2 cards that won't die. But only 1 will retreat. This one is now known to the enemy.

Light Infantry:
Cost 2
Armor 1
Damage 1

Combat Tank:
Cost 8
Armor 9
Damage 9

Important to know:
9 damage can be only targeted at one card.
And thus can kill only 1 Light Infantry at a time.

Flame Tank:
Cost 8
Armor 9
Damage 4 times 1

Important to know:
The Flame Tank can kill 4 light infantry at a time.

Bazooka Infantry:
Cost 5
Armor 1
Damage 9

A "balanced" deck will contain 20 Light Infantry, 8 Bazooka Infantry, 5 Combat Tanks and 5 Flame Tanks.
A total value of 160 and 38 cards.

***

So, I play test this.

The first card to play?
In the first round, both players play 1 card and reveal it once it has been decided.

- Light Infantry:
obviously a move to loose the first round on purpose. No matter what is played, the second round will surely make a kill move on whatever the opponent had placed on the table in the first round.
In the first round, it is able to kill the Bazooka Infantry.

- Combat Tank:
The combat tank will take out any opponent. But can be destroyed by the Bazooka Infantry and another Combat Tank.

- Bazooka Infantry:
The Bazooka Infantry can also take out any opponent. But will die in the proces.
In one case, this is bad. In 2 other cases, this was profitable.

- Flame Tank:
Has a certain overkill in the first round on any infantry choice. And can't kill the Combat Tank.
It will be destroyed against the Bazooka Infantry and Combat Tank. It will trigger the enemy to play a Combat Tank or Bazooka Infantry in the second round. On which the player can anticipate.

***

The second round...

There will be no Light Infantry nor a Bazooka Infantry that stays behind after round 1.

When a Combat Tank stays behind. The opponent might choose 9 Light Infantry. This strategy can be used until there are insufficient Light Infantry. In that case, the choice would simply be a Bazooka Infantry. You cannot mix Bazooka Infantry with Light Infantry, since the opponent will select the Bazooka Infantry for efficiency.
Then there is this rule of no more than 9 points unless there are sacrifices. With 9 Light Infantry, you need 9 points worth of sacrifice. Let's pretend, it was 8 for now. Which would mean that 5 Light Infantry worth should be sacrificed. And thus this would be a bad, bad tactic.
Of course another Combat Tank remains. Which would clear out the table and trigger a new "first round".

When a Flame Tank stays behind. The opponent can use a Bazooka Infantry to clear out the table. Or use a Combat Tank in order to win. In a rare situation 9 Light Infantry might be used. And it is only in this situation that 4 Light Infantry will die. Due to the design, the losses are equal. And 1 Light Infantry will stay behind. If a game would only consist of Light Infantry and Flame Tanks. The Flame Tanks will have the last call. Since you need a minimum in order to destroy the armor.
The funniest situation would be that another Flame Tank is used. Because then there would be a double fight. And this could even cause a chain reaction. Where both players have all 5 Flame Tanks out. Needless to say, this only happens when all Combat Tanks are already gone. But here is the joke: If one of the Flame Tanks gets help of 5 Light Infantry, that squad wins. 4 Light Infantry die. And the player can choose to leave either the Flame Tank or the last Light Infantry on the table.

***

Was that interesting enough for the first 2 rounds?
[idk, you tell me?]

Should I allow multiple cards for when a table is clear?
This could result in a bit of chaos.
[idk, you tell me?]
At the end of this post, I kinda decided on this.
But I need more play testing.

Should I remove the sacrifice rule?
Then the Light Infantry beating up a Combat Tank is a good option.
[Yes]

Should I force players to leave behind all surviving cards?
Then if the Light Infantry (9 went down to 8). Would surely fail against the Flame Tank afterwards.
The player would do better if there are at least 10 Light Infantry to begin with.
[Yes]

Should I allow players to retreat cards when they suffer losses, but did loose entirely?
The Flame Tank would kill the 8 Light Infantry in 2 rounds. And both players can't do anything about it. But if a losing side suffers losses. Then that squad could be allowed to retreat. So the Flame Tank would kill only 4 Light Infantry.
[Yes]

On a side note. Once Grenadiers are used...

Grenadier:
Costs 3
Armor 1
Damage 3

3 Are needed to kill a Tank. But against the Flame Tank. All 3 Grenadiers would die.
You need less Grenadiers than Light Infantry. But the sacrifice is one more.

Should I allow players to have a front and support squad instead?
It would become very complicated. Although Tanks could protect the Infantry. Thus Bazooka Infantry could survive longer. The maximum points could return again. Since you can mix units now in order to win.
[Maybe]

But what would be a nice maximum this time?
[Most expensive card x2]

Should sacrificed be allowed?
The one where you pay double by already removing cards from the deck.
[No]

Costs vs Armor/Damage
1 - 1
2 - 3
3 - 6
4 - 9
5 - 12
6 - 16
7 - 21
8 - 27

Where the addition is cumulative. Yet creating better numbers to work with.
Now only 16 (previously 17) is the ugly one in the list.

All others are easy to combine with the given attacks. Players certainly need that 1 damage for 16.

I think that the 1 to 9 armor is for beginners.
Then adding that 12 and 16 for when players know the game.
And 21 and 27 for good players.

Of course, adult players can get to understand higher tiers. But I am not sure yet of how to distribute the increase here. Cumulative will not yield good numbers. Linear neither. I guess I should use higher math for the exact numbers. Then see towards which numbers I can round up. However, I think I cut off at the costs of 8.

I should focus on gameplay again for the beginners for now.

But it is the opponent who is going to tell you that you won.

The player in turn needs to make a winning combination for fighting against whatever is occupying the table.

A winning combination counts when the occupying force still looses cards. Even if it is that 1 point card.

As soon as a player cannot kill their opponent cards anymore.
This player has lost.

I am not going to allow a draw.
Just like chess, I say you need to make sure you are not the one making the failing move.
In other words: Try to get your opponent to fail.