Skip to Content
 

StarCraft II the Board Game

31 replies [Last post]
Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013

Starcraft II the Board Game

Map:
A map that has a layout reminiscent of Lost Temple. The map is divided into square hexes. Modular board with terrain features such as rivers, forests and cliffs.

Economy Phase:
Each Faction begins with a hand of 6 Control Cards, or 8 Control Cards if you are Zerg or Protoss.

Worker tokens are placed at Mineral or Gas patches in order to Mine or Gather that particular Resource. High Yield Minerals count as twice their amount. Harvested Resources can only be processed by a Base within at least a distance of 3 hexes.

To build Buildings or expand into further Resource Nodes, a Worker has to be placed in the Active Employment Area, from the Worker Pool. You can build as many Buildings, Bases, Units, Workers and Upgrades as you want, as long as you have enough Workers working the required amount of Resources, with any Building or Base being purchased requiring the movement of an available Worker to the Active Employment Area, to show it being occupied with the task and unable to be diverted to another one. A Base must first be built at a Resource Node, before further Buildings can be added within that region, which includes Defensive Buildings like Spine Crawlers and Photon Cannons. Terrans though have the versatility of being able to build anywhere, allowing them to fortify a position before expanding. Defensive Buildings have their own Stat Cards, denoting the Damage they can inflict, and the Armour resistant to the Damage they can sustain before being destroyed.

You can use your Resource two ways, either to expend them to draw additional Control Cards, called in this way Research, and might also require you the purchase of certain Buildings first, or to purchase that particular Unit, Research, Upgrade, Building or Base, adding them onto your Faction Sheet Interface, to show what particular Units are purchasable by you, and as a record of the advancement of your Faction's technological state and level. The purchase of new Units gains for you the Stat Card for that particular Unit, delineating certain values and special rules for that Unit purchased: Damage, Armour, Range, Speed, Reflexes, Energy, and Cost, and Ground or/and Air Attack Capability.

An explanation of how the statistics listed in a Stat Card works this way: the Damage value refers to how much Damage it inflicts in a single attack, which is subtracted from the Armour of the target enemy Unit. Damage Counters to record the amount of Damage suffered and inflicted before the Unit is completely destroyed, is used by placing them on the Stat Card of the enemy Unit. Range refers to the number of hexes the target Unit must be within, for your Unit to be able to attack it. Speed refers to the number of hexes in distance your Unit may move, when mobilised over the map. Reflexes is a very important feature, that will be explained in greater clarity, later. Energy is only relevant to those Units with Special Abilities, reflecting the amount of Energy they have in the casting and usage of their abilities. Cost refers to the amount in Minerals and Gas those Units require, in order to be purchased. And the last statistic, Ground/Air Attack Capability refers to whether the Unit can attack ground only, or is able to attack air Units too.

Protoss Units have the Racial Trait, Plasma Shields, which is a statistic that only they have, separate from their Armour, these Shields having to be reduced and damaged first, before Armour health level can be subtracted. Plasma Shields may be regenerated, but Armour may not, unless you are Zerg, with their Regenerative Healing Racial Trait.

There is one final statistical attribute, being the Energy Cost of spells and abilities. A Terran Ghost for instance, may have an Energy capacity of 5, and the use of separate abilities like Cloak and Snipe requires different Energy Costs, for Cloak being 1, while with an upkeep of 1 for the duration of the Cloak, and Snipe might have an Energy Cost of 2.

Military Phase:
All actions taken during the Military Phase are decided by Control Cards, drawn from the Combat Control Deck. New Cards can be added into the Control Deck through researching technologies and upgrades during the Economy Phase, of which find their use by the initiation of any Military Conflicts through the encountering of enemy forces by opposing sides. In such a case, depending on who is the Attacker or Defender, they draw a corresponding amount of Control Cards, 3 for the Attacker and 1 for the Defender.

Combat Control Cards include Move, Attack, Focus Fire, Overwatch.

Move your units according to their Speeds. 1 Speed equals 1 hex.
Each unit can only move once, unless otherwise stated in its special rules.

Attack a single model within Range of your unit's weapon. Each unit can only attack once, unless otherwise stated in its special rules.

Attack is done this way: Damage of your unit, which is displayed in its Stat Card, subtracts from the Armour of the targeted enemy unit. The damage done is the difference, of which Damage Counters will have to be placed on the Card of the target unit, denoting its remaining vitality or lifespan. A single Stat Card represent the vital hit point values for all units of the same type, of which the Armour acts as the lifespan, with Damage being substracted from the Armour value, having it reduced to zero signifying the death of a single unit of that particular type.

Logistical Phase:

(These are my bare few general ideas, which will be added on in time to come, laid here now for your scrutiny and aid in improving and further refining the mechanics of the game. Hopefully we will get to sell it too.)

ThinkBuildPlay
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2012
Should an RTS become a tabletop game?

It sounds like you have thought a bunch about how to capture in a boardgame most/all of the aspects of a computer game, which is commendable. However, with all of the detail, I feel like potential players (and buyers) may just want to play the actual computer game.

For example, unit cards that are covered in different stats may be appealing to some, but I think there is certain point where the average gamer just says "too much". For the Protoss units, you'd be looking at 9 different stats/icons per card, many of which would be tracked by physical tokens on or nearby the card.

There are some people, somewhere, who would love to play the game you described. However, I suspect that a lot more players would rather see a simpler version. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas for reducing the amount of stats you need, or how to track them more elegantly. I think one way to start making changes would be to ask "what makes one race feel/act differently than the others without simply being a change in numbers/stats?" Ultimately, I feel like being tied to the Starcraft universe could be a limitation.

Also, I think it almost goes without saying, but I believe you'd have to get some kind of agreement or permission from the folks who own/made Starcraft before you start cashing in on their brand.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
werhner wrote:...Also, I

werhner wrote:
...Also, I think it almost goes without saying, but I believe you'd have to get some kind of agreement or permission from the folks who own/made Starcraft before you start cashing in on their brand.

And Blizzard has already invested in a Collectible Card Game: Hearthstone. So I *strongly* doubt they will be interested in a simplified version of their RTS.

I know you probably really LIKE "Starcraft II"... But do like TBone has done, forget the branding and all the races and create your OWN game.

Best of luck with YOUR game!

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
Thanks for the swift response!

Thanks guys for responding and offering constructive criticism. I do imagine making an entirely new franchise with my ideas, but somehow, I feel it is more fitting for these mechanics to apply to a board game version of StarCraft II. I understand too, the troubles with having too many Statistics to follow and note, but I can't see any other way of implementing it. Also, some of the ideas here that I have, can be applied to another game design idea of mine, that is based on the Space Pirate War RPG custom map from the first and original StarCraft computer game. At the moment it is called Space Drama or Space Cowboys, probably the latter. Space Cowboys is a game about completing guild missions and earning credits to spend on military hardware, and finally beating and destroying the opposing Space Pirate faction.

Any input or ideas for my work will be greatly appreciated. At this point, I am more interested in making a StarCraft II Board Game with certain influences from the StarCraft the Board Game that is already out by Fantasy Flight Games. To me, it is the best board game I have ever played, at least until I implement my rule variants to it. In this sense, it is the best board game I have ever "designed", and it has become quite a fashion with me, that most of my creative works have been implements and editions to established works and franchises, like Warhammer 40,000. I can show you guys some of what I have done with StarCraft the Board Game, if you want, mainly to do with refining the Leadership Cards.

Also, if any of you are interested in working on an original work with me, add me on Facebook, my name in full being Calixtus Ashley Wee.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
My 5 cents.

So you are making a boardgame starcraft. Fair enough. But starcraft is not about stats or hp tracking. That you would need if you were to make Diablo.
Starcraft is about builds and micro. So this is what you should imitate. The rest you can safely discard if it harms gameplay.

Using damage markers is not a very good idea, unless you plan on having 3-4 units per player max. And even in that case, I`m not sure if it's worth it.

Here's an example of how it can be done without tracking of hp and such.

Use cardboard markers. On one side you have undamaged unit. On the other side you have unit that have taken damage.
For protos flip all units that have taken damage back to the undamaged side at the end of turn, to represent the shields replenishing. For zerg do the same, when they end their turn within certain radius of a friendly building.
Terrans flip 1 unit for each nearby worker.
If the already damaged unit is damaged again - remove it.

Now about builds i've mentioned. SC is heavily based on the stone-paper-scissors principle. Here's how that can be done:

Give units offensive and defensive properties, represented by an icon on their token (Don't use more than 2 on one unit!)

Example:
A marine (basic unit with properties 'weak' and 'quick fire') attacks a stalker (shielded) and removes it's shield. Now the other side of stalker card has armored property. So marine's second attack from his quick fire property can't damage the stalker at all. Because weak property = armored units ignore weak attacks.

A marauder, on the other hand (with property armor-piercing) attacks a stalker, which lost it's shield, and kills it.

Zergling would be 'squishy' (removed instead of being flipped, unless attacked by weak attack), but have 3 attacks.

Also, i would not use cards for the combat. Star-craft is not about randomness - it is more chess-like and competitive. The approach described above would work without cards.

Also, as mentioned above, consider renaming units and inventing your own races if you even consider publishing. This is not needed if you only going to play with friends, of course.
You don't have to make a boardgame starcraft, when you can make a 'Boardgame sci-fi 'RTS' with three distinct races' :)

Good luck!

Soulfinger
Soulfinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
Calixtus wrote:TAt this

Calixtus wrote:
TAt this point, I am more interested in making a StarCraft II Board Game with certain influences from the StarCraft the Board Game that is already out by Fantasy Flight Games. To me, it is the best board game I have ever played . . .

If you enjoy that game then you may be interested in FFG's upcoming Forbidden Stars. As I understand it, the game play is based on their StarCraft board game but set in GW's Warhammer 40K property.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/3/17/forbidden-stars/

Noimage
Noimage's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2015
Can't be that complicated...
Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
Any inspiration of suggestions?

So you guys got anything of interest and relation to what I have come up with? We might get to sell this! They say work for your passion, I say earn with it. Any ideas will be welcomed. I know as it stands, the amount of statistics to keep track of is a bit overwhelming. I believe we can do without Energy, as a source of mana to draw from when using your abilities.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Question

Is this your FIRST board game that you are designing?

I wonder, because if you have played board games like Heroscape, Settlers Of Catan, Eminent Domain, Dominion, King of Tokyo, Bretrayal on the House on the Hill, just to name a few, you will notice that the games are much simpler than your average video game.

ElKobold makes a good point when he talks about "damage" and how to keep track of it. Sure a computer can keep track of over 200 units at a time, but like ElKobold said, keeping track of more than four (4) units via damage tokens is HARD and a very clumsy way...

And so you need more ORIGINAL mechanics to make the game more fluid. ElKobold proposes an interesting idea about damaged vs. undamaged units... Still creating a MOB of units will not be possible, it will be HARD to keep track of which units have moves and which ones have not...

So when you go about designing a game that is UNIT-INTENSIVE, you need to make a lot of compromises. Things like "you can only move 5 units per turn" is an example. Typically wargames also have this challenge - I would look to those to see how they handle having more than say 10 units.

It could be something simple like "flip" the tile (to the opposite side) to indicate that the unit has taken its actions. But then you cannot use
ElKobold idea of using the reverse to indicate damage. It may be possible to have damage tokens 1 to 5. If you reach the threshold of that unit (say the max damage is 4), when you are damaged a fourth (4th) time, that unit is destroyed. Damage tokens can be easy to produce.

Things like this - is what you should be thinking about - when even ATTEMPTING to design a game about a video game...

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
Good points on activation, Questccg

Now, when I think about it, I would use area/hex map for the purpose of moving units.

I.e. I would use hexes for ranges and such, but for activation I would use the "activate only units in one area per turn" rule. That way one could have a lot of units, but actual activation would only trigger a part of them. That would also make winning through sheer numbers more difficult.

And yes, I agree with the advise you're giving to the TS -

The core of the game mechanic shouldn't copy the PC game. It must be much easier to handle and should have as little things to keep track of, like HP, energy etc as possible.

Don't copy the game mechanics of a PC game. Copy it's "feel".

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
I understand

I understand, and have actually been further inspired to some cool ideas. The controlling of your units depends on your hand of Control and Command Cards. Basically, they detail directives of which to control and act with your units, and which they are supposed to follow. Simple actions like Move, Attack, etc., have certain limitations as to how they apply, given one action can only be assigned to the control of one unit. My idea of using Stat Cards and the placing of Damage Counters on it to keep track of the accumulation of damage to units is actually based on Magic the Gathering's creature mechanism of having two prime values to show the strength of a creature, its Power and Defence. Mine, although having several stats more displayed on the Stat Card, is actually not as unmanageable as you guys have suggested. After all, it works with Magic. I will have about 6 of the same type of basic units, the ones that rely most on numbers, with 3 for the more powerful units. If that's how many units that need to be tracked, I don't think it will be too inconvenient or laborious.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
In Magic HP of units is only

In Magic HP of units is only relevant during one turn in most cases.
And almost always only changes during blocking. Where it would either live or die. So players don't have to track it really, since at the end of each turn the damage is removed and if one plans to finish-off the creature he would usually do it immediately, so no tracking is necessary either.

There are, in fact, no actual damage counters as such in MTG.

But all in all, it's your game. Do as you see fit :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A very common used mechanic

A very common used mechanic would be action points.

This way, every player is limited to a number of actions per round. But you also prevent the chaos that is brought by "tapping" every unit.

Further, with action points, you sort of copy the APM that is used to declare a part of a players skill level. And you can keep the players in a more simultaneous style of play.

I have for example, a limit of 6. With some upgrades it can become a bit higher. And certain actions cost 2 or 3 points. Bottom line, players rather use the points against each other defensively that offensively. But with the use of Event Cards, they use them rather offensively.

By using limits, you keep the game going.
When allowing each unit to do something in 1 round. You pause the game.

But it depends on the mechanics that you are using. So you still need to think about your own variant if you want to use this mechanic.

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
I call it Reflexes

I have that same idea in the game, but I call mine Reflexes. Works similarly along the lines of Action Points, with some other effects.

I have decided on only 4 statistics altogether: Damage, Armour, Range, Speed. This simplifies things to a bare required minimum. Anybody with ideas please contribute.

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
I have worked the formula, it

I have worked the formula, it is now much better. Have a look!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttODLvuYcZ9YQf37rBb1EooCVPSDiLC6-Uqc...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I suspect you already planned this.

I think that your manual can benefit a lot from having you put the statistics in a table.
Maybe turn it 90 degree's too.
A little alternating colour per unit.

Wargames always intrigued me. Especially if they are based on existing RTS games that I love.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I read the thread in

I read the thread in diagonal. From what I understand, you played both the board and video game. I also played both, designed a solitaire variant for SC board game, and also thinking of making my own new Star Craft(SC) like game playable solo in a Tron like theme (previously known as Rats Craft).

I am not sure if you want to create a strategic game like SC the board game and forbidden star, or if you want to make a tactical hex based board game. Both paths are valid solutions depending of your focus.

Many suggestions by others are valid:

* Combat resolution is about rock paper scissor in SC. And it's variable, as new tech upgrades can unlock new RPS relationship. I have been struggling myself to have a solution that works. Using a combat matrix indicating who can kill who with what probabilities could help adjust the stats of your units. In the end, any stats that does not influence the results of the combat matrix can be discarded.

I am wondering if I could create the matrix first and then determine the stats, could be easier this way. I have been doing a lot of Machine learning for one of my class, maybe this is why I am thinking the other way around. Maybe with a kind of decision tree. It still might be hard to justify te mechanics thematically.

Another idea is to give traits or categories to units that makes them target-able to certain effects. In SC for example, you have Biological vs Mechanical units. Certain units could have bonus vs one of those types. That builds up your RPS.

* It's important to capture gameplay of the unit, not the stats. With Zerglings, you make rushes, despite to convoluted mechanics of SC the board game, can you make Zergling rushes, of course. So video game stats does not matter much. It can help just create broad categories for your units and have something playable early on.

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
Thanks for your reply! I

Thanks for your reply! I don't quite get what you mean by "read the thread in diagonal". I understand that StarCraft II is a RPS type game, but you can't have one Marauder destroying a single Ultralisk, just because of this formula where the Ultralisk is weak against anti-Armoured attacks. That's not just unrealistic, but not feasible as a game.

In my game, every Unit has a Type or Category, where it is listed if they are Ground, Light, Biological or Armoured. Certain Units have bonuses against these types of Units. I understand Zergling Rush is a thing in this game, but as it stands, that's quite hard to pull off given my mechanics.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Simple to simulate the Zerg Rush.

Calixtus wrote:
Thanks for your reply! I don't quite get what you mean by "read the thread in diagonal".

It just means he read the thread quickly and may not understand all the details contained in the thread... So what he proposes may not 100% apply.

Calixtus wrote:
I understand Zergling Rush is a thing in this game, but as it stands, that's quite hard to pull off given my mechanics.

This is one of the simplest elements in the game and in any version EASY to implement: increase SPEED of movement. How does this affect the game??? Well let's say your are fighting Terrans and they have a Bunker... The idea would be because of the increase SPEED of movement, the bunker would be able to deal LIMITED damage allow the Zergs the chance to move past it and out of range. Presumably towards the Command Center or Workers mining the ore.

That's pretty much how SIMPLE to have Zergling much FASTER in movement which means they can EASILY get past defenses and do damage to a Command Center or other inner-base units.

Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Keep the number of pieces low

I think that some "weaker" units should be made stronger.
Like the Marauder vs Ultralisk example that you mentioned. But perhaps you could work with "squads". Where you have like 2 or 3 Marauders in a squad. And add more later on, if you train more.

But either way, the Marauder piece would be just 1 piece that contains all the Marauders in that location where it is placed.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
That is is the F reading

That is is the F reading pattern, almost the same meaning as reading in diagonal.

https://media.nngroup.com/media/editor/2019/09/04/f_reading_pattern_eyet...

It does not have to specifically use RPS mechanism, but in the end, there is a RPS relationship between units.

For example each unit could have a unit strength + a type (Rock Paper or Scissor). During combat, the strongest unit wins, or get +2 strength if you win the RPS challenge. Ties makes both units dies.

With a simple system like that, in the end, if you computer all permutations, you will end up with a matrix each each line tooks like this:

Unit A:
Kills unit B
Kills unit C
Both dies vs UNIT D
Dies VS unit E

It's the entire combat system that becomes an RPS.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Natural RPS vs. other RPS systems

larienna wrote:
...It does not have to specifically use RPS mechanism, but in the end, there is a RPS relationship between units.

For example each unit could have a unit strength + a type (Rock Paper or Scissor). During combat, the strongest unit wins, or get +2 strength if you win the RPS challenge. Ties makes both units dies.

With a simple system like that, in the end, if you computer all permutations, you will end up with a matrix each each line looks like this:

Unit A:
Kills unit B
Kills unit C
Both dies vs UNIT D
Dies VS unit E

It's the entire combat system that becomes an RPS.

I think there is a minor correction:

A versus A: Both units die
A versus B: A Kills B
A versus C: A kills C
A versus D: A dies
A versus E: A dies

That's the REAL RPS (Natural one) if you take into account the natural order of how an RPS is supposed to work. 2 For, 2 Against and 1 Tie. 5 relationships in total.

But this is just me be nit-picky ... @larienna has the correct "vision", I just was talking about the NATURAL version of the RPS versus ANY OTHER RPS which also qualifies as an RPS.

Anyways... You all get the idea.

Sincerely.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
OH!, unit A can fight against

OH!, unit A can fight against unit D which is equally strong and both die. That can happen. It does not have to be a perfect RPS relationship. You can have a unit that has little win, but lots of ties.

If you use magic the gathering style resolution, you can even have situation where 2 unit attacks each other and neither side dies (ex: a 1/3 creature attacking an 1/2 creature)

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
Tactic Cards: There are 20

Tactic Cards:

There are 20 Tactic Cards for each Faction, each with a representation of several Units. Any Unit making an Attack requires a Tactic Card. If the Unit involved in the Attack is represented on the Tactic Card, use its Major Values, if not, its Minor Values. Add those Values to the Base Stats of the Unit, and then compare the results with the Enemy doing the same in response to the Attack.

Have you guys read this? This is inspired from StarCraft: The Board Game.

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
Tactic Cards: There are 20

Tactic Cards:

There are 20 Tactic Cards for each Faction, each with a representation of several Units. Any Unit making an Attack requires a Tactic Card. If the Unit involved in the Attack is represented on the Tactic Card, use its Major Values, if not, its Minor Values. Add those Values to the Base Stats of the Unit, and then compare the results with the Enemy doing the same in response to the Attack.

Have you guys read this? This is inspired from StarCraft: The Board Game.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I think that was the my most

I think that was the my most hated mechanics in Star Craft BG.

In my game, instead of cycling the cards like a deck building, you chose the cards from a pool. But my game does no have combat values, so they are basically tech boost cards. So no need to wait for the card to get in your hand.

In my solo variant, the AI used a combat table, he rolled the die and it gave you the stats of the combat cards. That is another alternative.

Maybe the problem with that system in SCBG is about group battles, having units behinds, and all that complexity. If they were to be single duels, that could solve the system.

It reminds me of age of mythology board game where players selected randomly or manually a unit card from their hand and those 2 units dueled and rolled dice. There was a strong RPS in that game. Played cards could only match units in play. Maybe that could be a better solution. You have a hand of cards, both players play a card face down, reveal, resolve the duel, resolve the casualties, then continue playing.

The only issue with this is if you only have 1 type of unit left, you know what you are fighting against. But in the case of SCBG, the stats on the cards vary (In age of mythology the stats were fixed), so it does not ensure victory/defeat as your opponent could have good or bad cards in hands.

That idea could actually be very interesting. Feel free to use it. It would also resolve the problem of having to move units off board to resolve the battle it just adds fiddlyness. Now it's just play a card with a matching unit in the combat area.

I like it so much, you are making me reconsider this system for my game as it is straightforward. I did not find my combat system yet, but that could be it. Still, the stats on those cards would be different as I did not like the limited range that were used. More importantly, I'll have to make sure it's playable by an AI. Can the AI just play the top card of the deck?

I'll take a look at my old prototype as I remember using cards before and it failed. Let me see if I can find a picture. Here you go:

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/uploads/Mainsite/GameIdea/GameIdea-RatsCr...

Another problem was the thickening of the deck by buying additional cards. I removed that issue in my game, again, by selecting X cards of your choice as boost in your hand. Unless I keep the tech cards as a separate pool of cards, I could also have deck tinning mechanism to keep the deck clean. Not sure if I want to go this way. It could be something as Simple as select 10 cards from your pool and that is the deck for the turn. Forgot to put cards for one of your units, it will simply not attack.

Lot to consider here with different variants. Does everybody understands what is going on in here?

So far, I was thinking of rolling 1 die for each unit in play and then assigning hit like axis and allies, but the RPS is weak and the NxM units targeting is complicated for and RPS system involved. With cards, everything is there, you just compare both cards. I'll sleep on the idea.

Could combine both ideas like Age of mythology, select card, then roll dices. Another variation.

Does the card play duel mechanism looks more interesting than rolling 1 die per unit and multi-targeting?

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
What do you like so much? You

What do you like so much? You said you like it so much, you are thinking of implementing it in your system?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
That is an interesting

That is an interesting question?

I truly started to appreciate the game when I played solo with the solitaire variant I made. I made an illustrated guide for it if you still have the game:

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/index.php?n=Guide.StarcraftInvasions

One of the benefits of playing solo is that you can plan your entire turn at once, order tokens, purchases, etc. Place everything in front of you open, no need to remember anything like in a multiplayer game since it's private information.

I like the synergies between units, and the fact there is so many units that you can play 2 different games without the same unit set. Unfortunately, by playing solo, I played the game more often to realize that some units are useless or way less efficient than others.

I like the resource management, I like shopping for units, buildings, modules, tech, etc.

The fact that I have multiple ways to reach the same objective. Need to produce more units, either I build a module that allows me to do so permanently, or either I use a golden order that does the same thing temporarily.

In my game, I decided to move the production and technology phase out of the planning phase so that each player can plan their resource management synchronously. The planing phase is strictly for moving units and engaging in battles.

-----------------------------------------

For card combat, I gave it move thoughts. One solution is to have a fixed set of cards (ex: 20 cards) that act like dice. This deck never change. Tech upgrades are marked on your dash board and activate abilities on those cards, making certain cards more powerful than others. But the deck does not get fatter.

I did not like much the +1,-1 linear variation of strength on the cards, makes it difficult to design. One idea is to use strength + RPS value. In case of ties you use the RPS. Not sure I like the idea. Else there need something else to make the cards unique and have equivalent strength.

I though of maybe having unit synergies on the card. For example, a card could have an attack that unit A or B could perform. But if you have both units in the battle, and additional effect can trigger. Encouraging players to both use unit A and B together. A card combat system could allow such flexibility.

As for the AI, I could simply flip the top card of the deck, or flip until I find a card matching a unit in play.

maybe I should as BGG is there is a game that use a similar card combat system.

Calixtus
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2013
larienna wrote:That is an

larienna wrote:
That is an interesting question?

maybe I should as BGG is there is a game that use a similar card combat system.

What is an interesting question, and is there and are you saying a game that uses a similar card combat system on BGG?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
It's called mechanic

It's called mechanic searching, we do that in board games all the time. Look for other games with similar mechanics, to make sure you do not miss anything already explored and build something out of this.

In research they call this: Review of literature.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
@larienna has a point...

Working with @X3M has taught me a LOT about "wargames". Although I am not very interested in "wargames", I have learnt a lot from him and this allows me to make suggestion and for him to explain "systems" which exist from which he is deriving a work of his (his OWN "wargame").

So yeah @larienna makes a good point: you should research the mechanics you are using and see what games may be similar.

Obviously as @X3M explained, if he would DESIGN a "StarCraft" game, he would probably make it in some way, shape or form a "Real-Time Strategy" Game (RTS). There is already a StarCraft Board Game... And even if you THINK(!) you can make a better "board game" ... The effort will be wasted as the Original game was made by "Fantasy Flight Games" (FFG) and we all know that the games that FFG publishes are usually BIG HITS. Most are evergreen for a certain period of time anyways.

RTS would make the "Board Game" one-step AHEAD of all there is out-there. Yeah I've seen people play "RTS" Games and not have TURNS. You can still have turns and RTS-like mechanics too.

It just depends on HOW(?) you implement the game.

Anyhow I wish you the best of success... But if it's not going to be RTS, it's not going to be very NOVEL and it won't push the boundaries of what there is out-there already.

That's why I think @larienna and @X3M both suggest doing more research and seeing what other games there are that compete with YOUR ideas. One thing for sure, you need to do better than FFG's StarCraft... And that will be HARD unless you have some kind of RTS system that will be very clever and innovative that people are drawn to YOUR game.

Cheers!

Note #1: Here is a BGG link for mechanics you can start to look over and see what mechanics you ARE using and what mechanics you MIGHT want to add/try:

https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgamemechanic

Again that's a START and you can see SOME games with those mechanics and you can dig a bit deeper and see if you can find other games.

Here is a WIKI with mechanics you can also take a look at:

https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/mechanism

Anyhow you should have some ideas of what to explore with these two Links/URLS. If you cannot find something via those two (2) links, Google for more on "Board Game Mechanics" and see what other Links/URLS exist.

My two (2) links are not "exhaustive" but they will help you define what it is you WANT your game to have and how your implementation of those mechanics compared to OTHER Board Game is DIFFERENT.

Best!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut