Due to certain testing and developments. I have come up with 2 versions for the same unit. The differences are small, yet fundamental for the game play which the players might like.
But...
It is only that unit. The other 32 units don't have this.
So my questions are:
- Should I really allow players to make this choice? Or just choose for them instead? Fixing it to only one version permanently?
- Should I create a choice like this for other units too? Or just keep it on this one? Which might look very strange to players. Having only this choice for one unit.
Having a choice for all the units might raise the question, how about having 3 or more choices then?
- What is the best way of approaching this while I have the same figures for whatever choice the player makes? For example, player A chooses version A and player B chooses version B. It might give confusion. How to keep track of this?
Imagine having at least 2 choices for over 30 units. That would give a lot more table's and confusion.
Players are limited on units for each type.
Examples: 36 Rifle Infantry, 6 Snipers, 6 Combat Tanks, 3 Rocket Launchers etc.
The difference would go for all of the Grenadiers for 1 player. There aren't more actions, nor are the actions different. The subtle strategy with the units however would change.
There is "infinite" ranking.
This is tracked on the unit itself.
Well, the stats can be upgraded individualy.
One unit might get pumped in health while another gets extra range. But the army needs to work for it. Cheaper units have cheaper XP costs for increasing stats. Most effective on range and speed upgrades.
The table is only for the stats. We found it easier to work with a table then with cards for each type of unit. Besides, players will memorize the statistics better with a table, just like how players learn what they have in their MtG deck.
The difference in this case are subtle:
150 versus 200 costs
150 size versus 200 size
75% XP versus 100% XP costs
total of 24 versus 18
Durability of /4 versus /3 (75% versus 100%)
Accuracy of 3 versus 4 (again 75% versus 100%)
The first version was 100%; 200 costs. This for the list of Infantry prizes:
75-100-200-300-400-600
But a player would need 2 barracks for a good production of Grenadiers (1 barrack produces a total of 300). Thus having costs of 150 would be better since you can do a 100% production now. 2 Grenadiers with 1 battacks
Further, a full fight of 18 x 200 beats 24 x 150 due to durability. But only with 39% remaining at best. On average it is only 5% difference in the end, which is very very low. Lower then the gamble ratio of 33%critical-hit-miss/projectile.
The unit of 150 has one major disadvantage, and that is being shot to death in 1 action by a Sniper. (5 average damage versus 4,5 average health instead of 5 average damage versus 6 average health) Thus 200 is better in walzing in and protecting other units. While 150 is better of being there and supplying with cheaper upgrades.
Having this choice for only 1 unit or 1 army of these units is weird.
Having choices for all the units means having yet another table. I already have 2 (3 Health system and 8 Health system)
And should I then think of a second one for the 8 Health system?
Choices for other units?
I don't see the use for having different versions of the same wall. After all, players simply want these to be as cheap as possible. They are real fodder. Or having an expensive version of a wall that have better XP upgrades since the second tier takes longer to get, yet gives the same upgrades relatively? That just happens to be an illusion. If one wall is twice as strong, it has twice the costs and twice the XP costs. But having on the other hand, 2 times the cheap wall, will have the same XP costs. It only matters with units that can fight as well.
Perhaps placing walls on the Structures table? Those wont change.