Pet Peeves

Forced application of rock-paper-scissors mechanics, instead of using some of the very interesting complex relationships between historical unit types and terrain etc. More generically it is sad when someone has a theme that is very rich in interesting dynamics that could lead to great player decision-making without making the game more complex, but then that is thrown away (or more likely the designer did not bother to research) and some generic far less interesting mechanic (but equally or more rules-heavy) not based in history at all is used instead.

Exactly that, Kroz1776. This is typically seen in historic RTS, but also on forums like this when designers describe their new ideas. Probably a few have ended up with them in completed boardgames as well, but I can't recall playing one luckily.

Gave this some more thought and I think it is mainly a design-process problem. The resulting abstracted game mechanic might make it difficult to see if RPS was applied or not, but when you see someone talking about their game project and all of the combat system is built upon trying to artificially force X-beat-Y-beat-Z-beat-Z that seems like a useless way to structure your design and much too restricting. I can't see how that will result in a game that is as good as if RPS is completely ignored. Of course you every type of piece in a game to have its uses, and no piece to be invincible, but you will have that anyway if you just use some minor inspiration from eg history. If the real unit was useful to a real commander (or a sci-fi/fantasy unit would be useful to its imagined commander) that unit will be useful to the player as well if its characteristics have been properly kept intact. If you need to add artificial ways to make it useful I would say something else is missing from the game.

I studied the balancing a lot of a lot of RTS games, just to make sure mine would work the way I wanted.

So I am sorry to correct you regarding SC2.
In SC2, they do use RPS mechanics. Although not very noticeable for people who are only used to percentage table's. And I am not talking about speed and range effects.
However, there is also one RPS mechanic to be found in low damage, high fire rate weaponry against armored units.

Normally a RPS mechanic has (R>S>P>R) A>B>C>A
Or A>B>C>D>A where A=C and B=D

In SC2 you have a little bit bigger system. A bonus to a certain type, with just a little number. The effects are the following:
A=C and D (but C and D differ to each other)
B=D and E (but D and E differ to each other)
C=E and A (but E and A differ to each other)
D=A and B (but A and B differ to each other)
E=B and C (but B and C differ to each other)
While A>B>C>D>E>A

The Stalker is such an example where there is a damage of 10 and a bonus of 4 against armored. 40% more damage means in overall, 68% more effectiveness against armored units.
And another ability is that special blocking shield for the Immortal. All damage reduced to 10. So rapid fire weapons are the best against the Immortal. (I used that one trick in SC1, for making one of the units super weak against marines, and super strong against tank blasts).

Ow, and WC2 also has the RPS system. A very weak one in damage mechanics. But a strong one in range effects against the speed of units. And of course, the ground/air targets where there.

A question. Are we discussing all the RPS systems? Or only the one where damage effects are taken into account?

Ah, but then you are talking about the RPS system that comes from other game mechanics.
And I am not just talking about those in SC2 now. There is a big list where that comes from (lots of mechanics), yet the source is very rare (not much games where it is implemented). Then the only question remains, how can they be implemented in board games?

This... is a long post. But please let me know if you have read a part of it :),

Here there are 6 mechanics that always draw my attention:
- Speed/Short Ranged versus Ranged/Slow Projectiles (with minimum range), The Speed unit wins. Example is in Dune2 where Trikes and Quads versus the Rocket Launcher. Or Warcraft 2 where you see the same with Grunts/Footman and Ogres/Knights versus Catapult.
- Inaccuracy versus Small Units, Small units win if they are not with a big group. The example in this is 1 tank trying to shoot several infantry that are spread out.
- Slow Projectile/straight ahead projectile, Fast units could dodge this. An example is tanks trying to squish infantry. A better example is in Red Alert, the V2 or V3 Launcher trying to kill moving units.
- Splash Damage versus Small. 1 Big unit, or 4 small units, the big unit gets hit 1 time. Each small unit gets hit 1 time. But that would be 4 times 1 hit. You see this in C&Cdawn with the MRLS against either a group of infantry, or a tank.
- Terrain effects on the speed. Some propulsions still can keep going, others can not. Against certain slow moving projectiles, this means a big difference.
- Out ranging, this one is very noticeable in any game. All the long distance firing units, no matter how inaccurate or how slow the projectile moves; they kill shorter ranged defence structures.

Mechanics that I do not count is:
- Terrain hight on the range. It does not give a RPS system.
- Air and anti air. That is a RPS system based on damage bonuses. Simply multiply by 0 or 1.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

To know if your unit is useful?
There is also a RPS system if it comes to the choice, attack units or the base? Or being the meat? Simply looking at how fast an unit is and how far an unit can shoot. But also if the damage is in balance with the health of that unit. If the unit has something good, they are more expensive. Thus if the goody part fails, they are actually weaker.
Speed can be either slow or fast (I am leaving out 0 Speed here)
Range can be either short or long (0 Range is short too)
Health can be either low or high (There can't be 0 Health)
Damage can be either low or high (I am leaving out 0 Damage here)
2x2x2x2=16 different classes: I shall only name the good parts if they are there:

----
An unit that has none of the above. Is meant to be fodder meat. Might block enemy movements. These fodder meat units are often used to take the hit. Then another class can safely move in during the cool down time and do their job.

S---
An unit with speed. Will likely attack the base only. But is cheap enough to be meat as well.

-R--
An unit with range. Will likely act as support in attacking units. But needs meat in front.

--H-
An unit with health. Again only fodder meat. But more durable. Could penetrate defences and harass a structure.

---D (no matter what, this class fails if used alone)
An unit with damage. Will likely act as late support in attacking the base. These units are good in destroying things fast. But since they are slow, weak and have short range. They are often not used at all. The only reason, and only reason that players would use this class is if they have a damage type that no other unit has. Which is what we are not looking for in this thread. If you think of them as useful, please tell me how? The only reason that I can think of is, protecting them until they are in the base. You might as well use fodder only.

SR-- (outdated once SR-D comes in)
Having speed and range makes these units annoying. They are very good in harassing other units by simply hit and run tactics. They are also good in attacking the base. But are a bit more expensive then the other base harasses.

S-H-
Having speed and health makes these units not only durable. But they will penetrate the base with ease. They also can safe other units by simply move in and take the hit instead.

S--D
These units are the same as ---D class. But they can move around quickly. Therefore excellent base killers.

-RH- (-RHD will replace this one once the time arrives)
This class will take hits, but it's only purpose is getting a job done any way. Not much used by most players. It is more of a FU unit. The best way to use this class is to set them up somewhere and give them closer back up. If the enemy decides to shoot the -RH- class first, they simply need time for that and actually die. I love using them for the FU situation :).

-R-D
This is a classical support class. Either supporting in killing units, or the base.

--HD
This is a classical steam roll class.

SRH-
Just like -RH-. This class is a FU class. But they also share the SR-- tactics. However, if the enemy comes to close, the H will say FU man, kill you any ways. These classes are more common than you think.

SR-D
SR--, but then fine tuned. Players choose SR-D over the SR-- class. Simply because they also get the job done faster. Great again in killing units and the base. Not only annoying, but painful too.

S-HD
A steam roll that had a nitro upgrade. Suddenly this unit stands close to your units, then inside your base. Simply harassing everything. Be warned, the --HD class beats this class simply by cost efficiency.

-RHD
Just like -RH-. Getting the job done. But then faster. -RH- becomes obsolete at this point.

SRHD
Not necessary godlike. This class has it all. But is also very expensive. It loses in cost efficiency to all the other classes. And some classes are just as good. The best classes to counter SRHD would be SR-D for hunting it down and -R-D is great as defence and even cheaper.

Further notices:
All the units without H, can be overkilled. This means that all units with D might do to much damage on just 1 unit. The cheaper the H-less unit, the better they stop D units.
S is mostly used for running away.
R is mostly used for doing things before the enemy reacts.

I have not named the defences (none moving units), since I wanted to keep the choice on 2 for each statistic and the list short. But if you like, I could add them. And the none damage as well. There is no none H and having none R would actually mean low on R. Adding these 2 choices would make the list bigger. But a certain combination would make no sense to players. R would automatically be 0 if D is 0.

I don't know about the colours. I don't look at the pieces, but I do look at the board itself.
Some games are meant to look like ugly terrain.
Yellow and brown are mostly dessert and rocky terrain.

I too dislike the black, grey and white.
And I also dislike big parts that are blue, water, or green, grass.

How about having flower fields?
Sakura tree's? Autumn does the trick too.
Red sand, why not.

And a dungeon map could have a flashy room with colourful carpet.

The only thing about colors that often annoy me are prototype or print'n'play hobby games that often come in horrible primary colors only, like someone used some default Windows 3.11 MS Paint palette. Softer colors please! If you make water #0000ff and grass #00ff00 it is going to hurt everyone's eyes, make the game stand out as very non-pro and cost lots of money for anyone interested in printing.

Not that I am a very skilled artist, but PLEASE, just a quick look should tell you how awful it looks and it isn't that difficult to figure out how to select a less saturated color. A few times when printing such games I had to load all the components into GIMP before printing to play a bit with the color levels tool to make it somewhat less distracting (and save myself from having to guy some extra ink cartridges to print it).

Power Grid is like that for me. I LOOOOVE the game, but during the bidding round, if you get a factory early on, you can be sitting around waiting on everyone else to finish bidding for like 10-15 min with nothing to do.

They really needed to find something for waiting players to have done. I messed around on facebook for like 30 min of the 3-4 hour game. I NEVER even pull my phone out with most games, but I was ALWAYS sitting around during the bidding round for at least 5-10 min, and there were 6 or so of them I think.

O god, I was like that when I played MtG with my friend.
He always took like 5-10 minutes each turn thinking about what to do. While I could place my cards within seconds.

I was always AFK, until he was done playing. Then I had to look down the table to see what he had done.