Skip to Content
 

A test for fodders

9 replies [Last post]
Thu, 09/13/2018 - 16:30
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Since the Strategy Points have made their entrance in my life. I feel I can work on my more professional version of my war game.

I decided on the following and need to test it.
But I wonder how you guys think/feel about it.

Would it be theoretical acceptable?
If a small squad of infantry runs around the map for several rounds.
Until sufficient Strategy Points have been build up.
To have a well prepared attack?

What I mean is that in a way.
Units can build up their effectiveness before going into combat.
Making them 2, 3 or even more stronger.

By default, every unit on the board can perform 1 action (move or attack). If the players wants more actions for the selected squad. SP is being spend until the desired situation has been reached.

Spending SP on extra actions follows the next rule:
1 extra action costs 1 SP/€.
2 extra actions costs 3 SP/€.
3 extra actions costs 6 SP/€.
Then 10, 15, 21, etc. per €.

Tanks have it easy against infantry.
But if infantry get the time to prepare...
After a couple of rounds, infantry are able to perform this one super action that can mean the end to a tank.
This with mere light weapons.
A prepared fodder squad is the strongest thing in the game.

Top
Thu, 09/13/2018 - 16:34
#1
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
I think thematically that's a

I think thematically that's a problem. Walking around shouldn't make you better at strategy.

Why not have Training be a thing, and that's how you accumulate the points?

Top
Thu, 09/13/2018 - 17:10
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About fodder

Maybe Soldiers are usually configured with a Machine Gun at Level #1. Which is great against other Soldiers and that's about it. A Level #2 Soldier could have a Grenade Launcher which is a more effect weapon against opposing Soldiers. And lastly a Level #3 Soldier could have a Missile Launcher which is HIGHLY effective against Tanks.

So think about it in Levels... A puny soldier, given the right kind of Firepower (aka Missile Launcher) can be very effective against a unit such as a Tank or a Jeep, etc.

Jeeps may be also weak against "Mines" and you could have a Soldier which is a Mine-Layer. So good defense with the RIGHT kind of Firepower and properly setup field of battle can make a HUGE difference in how mere Soldiers can defeat stronger units.

Just some food for thought.

Top
Thu, 09/13/2018 - 23:18
#3
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:Maybe Soldiers

questccg wrote:
Maybe Soldiers are usually configured with a Machine Gun at Level #1. Which is great against other Soldiers and that's about it. A Level #2 Soldier could have a Grenade Launcher which is a more effect weapon against opposing Soldiers. And lastly a Level #3 Soldier could have a Missile Launcher which is HIGHLY effective against Tanks.

Those are already running around ;)
The grenadier does 3 and the rocket soldier does 9. I knew I should jave posted some more about the game.

In the original game. Light infantry are able to beat tanks because they always can do damage. Given that it takes 6 times longer against light tanks. Which is a whopping 18 rounds. But the damage is there. So instead of health tracking per unit. I currently am focussing on strategy points for the whole type of units. I thought that it would be better for a simpler game in terms of handling. Strategy points can be done of the board.

Seeing as how infantry runs when facing a tank. They could get into better positions?? They are out of range in a sense. And just as fast as the tank. The tank player needs a jeep to catch the infantry before it is to late.

Or should I simply accept that infantry has no chance when being outnumbered? Perhaps limiting to only a double attack? That would mean that only 5 or more light infantry have a chance. Which is easy enough to achive.
But still better then needing at least 9 infantry which is 18 points. I wanted to limit to 16 points per type.

Top
Thu, 09/13/2018 - 23:41
#4
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... I don't think I like those odds!

5 Infantry against 1 Tank??? That seems maybe a bit excessive, no? Why would you only have Level 1 Infantry and not Rocket Soldiers to deal with Tanks??

Like I would say TRAIN 1 Rocket Soldier and get him in a Trench or some place he can hide and target the Tank... Or train 3 Rocket Soldiers and come from different ANGLES, no?

So you are suggesting that 5 Level 1 Infantry can "destroy" a Tank??? I don't know about that. Just thinking about RL and that seems HIGHLY unlikely...

I would FORCE players to use the Rocket Soldiers to deal with heavily armored vehicles. That to me makes sense. Infantry should be good against Jeeps, other Infantry, Rocket Soldier. But weak to Tanks and Grenadiers...

That makes sense to me... You need to BALANCE your army and how you build... Just a bunch of Level 1 Infantry ... Good for some things, but not defeating Tanks...

IMHO!

Top
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 02:39
#5
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not implying that they are

Not implying that they are good against tanks. The chance is 0 until you have 9 light infantry. Then the chance is (2/3)^9 to make one damage. Seeing as I hope to limit the game to just that ammount. Lets just say, I want to give them a chance.

As said before, grenadiers and rocket soldiers can be used as well. But situations where infantry are isolated. I don't like the odds of 0.

Some more info:
Light infantry, costs 2, damage 1
Grenadier, costs 3, damage 3
Bazooka, costs 5, damage 9
Tank, costs 8, damage 9

Damage is reduced to the armor. So 3 and 9 are reduced to 1 when fighting infantry.

Top
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 07:48
#6
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Tank Bustin'

X3M wrote:
Would it be theoretical acceptable?
If a small squad of infantry runs around the map for several rounds.
Until sufficient Strategy Points have been build up.
To have a well prepared attack?
On the face of it, it seems this will reward the player for avoiding attacking their opponent. Are you sure you want to do this?

I imagine a player thinking, "Okay, so I have three infantry units I want to turn into tank busters. I'll recruit them, and then they'll hover in the corners until they're powered-up. Once that happens, they'll attack."

Does that thought process fit in with your theme?

Personally, I'd say you already have the units (bazooka/rocket launcher). If they are able to "dig in" to a hex or location, allow a defense bonus. In this case I don't see the point of an attack bonus.

Another alternative is to allow a bonus to heavy artillery units that have an infantry squad adjacent to/stacked with them, since the infantry could be mobilized as support to the artillery. There would be no defense bonus, and the infantry themselves don't somehow magically become more powerful. The thought process behind this would be, "I'll recruit a tank buster, and with these leftover points I'll recruit infantry to support it."

Top
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 09:10
#7
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:X3M

let-off studios wrote:
X3M wrote:
Would it be theoretical acceptable?
If a small squad of infantry runs around the map for several rounds.
Until sufficient Strategy Points have been build up.
To have a well prepared attack?
On the face of it, it seems this will reward the player for avoiding attacking their opponent. Are you sure you want to do this?

I imagine a player thinking, "Okay, so I have three infantry units I want to turn into tank busters. I'll recruit them, and then they'll hover in the corners until they're powered-up. Once that happens, they'll attack."

Does that thought process fit in with your theme?

Personally, I'd say you already have the units (bazooka/rocket launcher). If they are able to "dig in" to a hex or location, allow a defense bonus. In this case I don't see the point of an attack bonus.

Another alternative is to allow a bonus to heavy artillery units that have an infantry squad adjacent to/stacked with them, since the infantry could be mobilized as support to the artillery. There would be no defense bonus, and the infantry themselves don't somehow magically become more powerful. The thought process behind this would be, "I'll recruit a tank buster, and with these leftover points I'll recruit infantry to support it."


That comment of "powering up" and the other posts, has convinced me to not go in this direction.

Then I will turn Strategy points into something rare again. That is also limited to just 1 extra attack.

Light infantry are still good as fodder in combination with the bazooka. Losing 2 or 5 points matters in this game.
Artillery can have decent protection as well of fodder holds up the enemy.

The minimums:
When there are 9 light infantry. Costs 18. They have a 3% chance to damage a tank.
When there are 3 grenadiers. Costs 9.
They have a 30% chance to damage a tank.
Just one bazooka that costs just 5, has 67% chance to damage a tank.

I am considering to do strategy points for all units. But the system has to be based on the structures. I still need to think about that. But the walls will cost 3, 6 and 12.
So either 12 or 24 points in total per type. Or I redesign the last wall into 18 points.
But to make sure there is no light infantry overkill, the extra leverage will be kept to a minimum. Players will rather spend their points in hunting down infantry.

Modular terrain is also opening up :)
Trees, rocks and.... I need a third one that isn't buildable. These are going to serve as natural walls/fodder.

Top
Sat, 09/15/2018 - 16:04
#8
Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Hills?

Could use hills as a type of natural fodder?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_slope_defence

Top
Sat, 09/15/2018 - 18:39
#9
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
0% chances for other units as well.

Fri wrote:
Could use hills as a type of natural fodder?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_slope_defence


Sure, why not.

I am leaning towards terrain that looks like ASL.

***

I am preparing a game where units and defences get at least 2 SP per round and can save up to 18 points. This to test if it is worthwhile continuing the game.

The theme is going to be futuristic. So perhaps a lot of high tech guns might be able to harm a tank when well prepared. I am thinking Dune here.

However, allowing for a one time double attack. Well, light infantry can harm a tank. But not destroy it unless it was already harmed.
Seeing as how other mechanics work. They are sitting ducks after that double action.

There are more units that can't harm tanks. Even if I use SP on them. But they serve other purposes while sacrificing the ability to harm tanks.

The sniper with the longest range has the same issue's with jeeps as light infantry has with tanks.

In fact, there are MG tanks that can't even harm a tank Even IF they receive SP. In other words, these units can't harm their own kind.

But I guess that this is a RPS system that is absolute.

SP is needed either way. Assault is needed to make sure that players keep on moving. Because having only a choice in attack or move means that no one would make the first move. Squads need to be able to do an assault. Or else, they move in, and then receive a deadly beating before even being able to do any thing.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut