Real Time Strategy games are different than (board) War games

I can't recall the name of the game.
But I have seen a card game that uses FoW as following:

Players would have several decks for base construction and units.
There is a wall between the players. But the decks are visible to each player.

First they picked a number of cards from the base construction.
A couple of cards would be placed behind the wall.
Then a number of cards for units.
Again they would be placed behind the wall.

The remaining cards. IDK what would happen to them (discard or hold in hand).
But both players played at the same time.

Once done. The wall would be removed (a timer perhaps?)
And any resolution would take place.

Players also took notice of resource managment, if it changed.
The wall is placed back. And the players would pick cards again. According to resource managment.

Either way, the cards where so diverse. That choice could be made. Eventually a player would win by defeating the other player.

That is the best FoW that I have seen regarding RTS games in tabletop mode. That besides of Stratego.

***

I just thought of a battleships variant for soldiers and tanks. Where a hit might mean health loss and a new position for that piece if it still has health. Of course, only a limited movement on that piece.
The damage done is maximu, as long as the right weapon still exists for the right target.
If all anti tank projectiles are gone, then the tanks on the enemies side will take less damage :)
I can flesh that one out.

***

I wonder about the weight of vision in RTS in video games. Because on tabletop it was actually relatively easy.

Seeing as how body and weapon added up together create a good balance.

Vision is a new factor in this.
I already deducted that vision and the weapon have nothing to do with each other.

This because of several reasons:
- This is regarding something else than accuracy.
- Anything without a weapon has vision as well.
- Vision is shared. So it has no use to link it to a weapon.
- As long as an object is alive, it supplies with vision. Which places vision in a category that looks like a weapon. But is actually linked to the health.
- Vision acts like a weapon when the object can move around. In this regard, the weight of vision will not be increased when the movement speed is increased. After all, the movement speed will also increase the health.

***

After long debating. My first guess would be that vision will stand alongside movement.

This means that a movement of 0, will still have that default factor. Which will also act as default vision.
Increased movement speed increases the factor. So will increased vision be.
In other words. A tower with a lot of vision, will be just as weak as an unit that has a lot of movement speed.

There is one catch now. And that would be that longer ranged units. Need more vision. Either they get help. Or they get better vision themselves. Rendering them weaker in health as well.
This is the only way that long range will affect the body. But it is only by choice...

And thus, this is also appliable to board games now. With assuming "good" balance. Simply check if anything can actually see the target. While putting long range in place.

I have been thinking about an alternative battleship.

One where you actually fight with ground units instead.

But this time, RPS is possible.
So, it can be fairly easy to design this game.
Each player will have 9 different units on the map.
3 infantry, 3 vehicles, 3 tanks. And obviously the 3 different weapons as well.

Infantry are 1x1, vehicles 2x2 and tanks 3x3.
The chances in finding an unit is obviously a factor of 1, 4 and 9.

These will be health multipliers.

Now to get RPS kicking in.
Anti infantry do 3-1-1 as damage.
Anti vehicle do 1-3-1 as damage.
Anti tank do 1-1-3 as damage.

The coresponding health will be:
Infantry 15
Vehicles 60
Tanks 135

The total damage that a player will do at the start is 15. Obviously the infantry will instantly die. But bigger targets simply need multiple rounds.

Loose one weapon. And an infantry target immediately will need 2 rounds (+100%).
Loose an anti tank weapon. And a tank will not need 9 rounds. But 11 rounds instead.

Is improvement possible on this idea?
Is it a bit too complex?
While there is RPS...the players can't really work with this. Unless you agree to place different army compositions.
For example, 9 tanks instead.
But the problem that I see here is that players will do a perfect mix of weapons. So 3 of each, every time.
Maybe an announcement of new placed units?? Saying which type is added. Players would be placing new units on the map. Everytime another one died. Or... Every X rounds.
Units cannot be placed on locations that are already hit. This way, it will end with infantry. And perhaps players will be using anti infantry weapons at the end. Just to keep that advantage over the other.

Looking back at how the gameboy version worked.

If a certain ship (unit) was still alive. You could use its special ability.

In case of the designs.
Each unit could do a special patron of firing projectiles if it is still alive.

Of course, this will be depleted after an usage of one. Maybe 2 or 3 times for other units.

A rifleman might be able to shoot in 2 completely different locations.
A grenadier might be able to shoot in a 2x2 grid (effective against 2x2 designs)
A rocket soldier might be able to shoot in a 3x3 grid. Or a star like formation with only 5 places to hit.

The other units can have something like this as well.
But if the unit is dead while the ability is not used yet. This ability is lost anyway.

Vehicles and tanks could get multiple charges.

What you get is a "hit". But a mention of what is hit, isn't nessesary. Only if something dies. It will be mentioned what died at that moment.
Meaning that if a hit is a hit, but not a dead target. A bigger target is in that place. And a special ability can be used now.

The ability of the riflemen sounds like the most useless one at first. But if you know, you need only 2 locations are left. The rifleman ability will be a cheap solution.

***

The submarine had the ability to see in a 2x2 grid. And later on a star like grid. But nothing would be destroyed.
We can have scouts for that. A scout would be able to see a XxX grid. But this place still has to be shot. If anything is there.

I think that the balance is completely different. Seeing as how RPS is now based on natural sizes of abilities instead of a mechanical RPS.
This reminds me of the projectiles of Unreal. Where certain weapons simply where more effective in the way how the projectiles moved. In contrary to other weapons against certain targets.
Still, in a sense, all weapons did the same amount of damage.

***

Certain units could have 2 abilities.
The Pitbull of C&C3 has 2 rockets and a mortar.
I could have a similar 2x2 design. Where the abilities are a rocket fire that has a 2x2 grid. And a mortar fire that has a star/cross like grid of 5.

it looks like that due to a change in field size and other effects. A balance can only be found if you force players the exact same army.

This will also be a reason for having imbalanced designs. Like a 1x1 soldier with a super weapon.

Either way. I rather go back to topic.

Ok guys, behold. The mystery of the F*$@ed up balance.

For every new entity, the value of durability changes.

The durability of an entity depends on several factors:
-Playfield size
-Target size

From this, several factors can be calculated:
-The number of minimal misses required before a hit is issued. This depends on the target's size in accordance to the playfield size. It is literly playfield size divided by target size. Once hit, this is no longer an issue. All the misses prior take 50% chance prior.

A=((Playfield/Target)-1)/2
A is also an error in judgement

-After the hit, in case of a bigger size. Multiple posibilities of misses are stil possible. Going left until it misses. Going right until it misses. Going up until it misses. Going down until it misses. There are 4 directions. The 4th one will not be taken into acocunt. Because then the target will have been destroyed.
So, 3 additional misses are still possible.
Some might be discarded if the target size equals to one of dimensions. And if there is a gap of 1, there is also a discard.
Every miss will take a 50% chance as well. Seeing as how a "destroyed" announcement will cancel the rest. (not sure if this part is correct yet)

So, a list of tests for extra durability reduction:
Going left possible?
Going right possible?
Going up possible?
Going down possible?

B=(Number of possible misses - 1)/2
B is also an error in judgement

Finally, the number of hits are taken into account. Which is simply:

C=size of the target

Evetually, we get A+B+C=average durability

***

For a 6x6 field.
We can have the following options:
1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 2x2, 2x3 and 3x3
For fun sake, let us throw in a 6x6 as well.

Let us assume, only 1 of the 7 will be placed in the field.
The results:
1x1:17.5+0.0+1 =18.5±17.5
1x2: 8.5+1.5+2 =12.0±10.0
1x3: 5.5+1.5+3 =10.0±7.0
2x2: 4.0+1.5+4 = 9.5±5.5
2x3: 2.5+1.5+6 =10.0±4.0
3x3: 1.5+1.5+9 =12.0±3.0
6x6:0.0+0.0+36 =36.0±0.0

Take note:
These value's change when the playfield changes.
Or multiple targets are added.

I am not sure yet, how to deal with adding multiple targets. I am using the 1x1 as reference in this. Having multiple of these should only result in a value that never exceeds the durability of 36.

A very basic formula. On which RTS games can base their balance formula.

It contains health, speed, damage, range and cooldown.

I would like to add charging (time for the weapon to fire a first time)

And of course the post above this one.

With that most basic formula. I want to inform some RTS designers. Especially the one who is trying to copy my board game.

It hasn't been the first time that a switch between "platforms" (cardgame, textbased, boardgame, video game) has cause trouble to the balances.

He tries to copy my board game (real time turn based) in regards to stats of units. But is building a RTS (video) instead.
But those stats are:
- to fast for comfort.
- incorrect apllied.

Further more, he was one of my board gamers. I know him personally.
Knowing him, this game of his too will die in a week or 2.

It is honestly a lot of fidling.
Not just that, but the rest of the board game we played as well.
We never got a prototype for the version without tracker cards too.

We simply have options in the form of Actions and Re-Actions in combination with Event Cards.
It is mostly turn based. But once the player in turn is done saying its move. All other players may react.

Players can suddenly pitch in at other moments with an Event Card.

***

All of the above is nesesary to look a bit like RTS. But the RTS as video game is way better to handle. Henceforth the attempt. I wonder how far he will get though, he is doing this alone.

The original game has rounds that take even up to 20 minutes. And a normal game might take weeks.

My "public" version was a set goal to get the absolute minimum. But then... life. And still, life.

Through my Youtube activity. I met some more RTS designers. I offered them advice. But I do realize, that my advice has to become as simple as possible. Without steering them all in the same direction.

Henceforth me trying to get a basic formula that would help them all.

What RTS games have more than board games. Are the practical balances reached by testing.

A RTS game is easier to test. Since you can simply play the game very fast. And adjust accordingly. So a design of an unit will have a starting point by theory. But is practically balanced to the designers and community taste.

A board game only has this feature amongst play testers. But has to be balanced first by a firm theory.

***

Whilest not having much time for my own games. I am pondering on a more correct way to begin balancing RTS through theory instead of practise.

The main reason for this is that there are a couple of RTS designers out there. Who's public is a bit to small. A bad start will often lead to a fast loss of attention.

The most important balance theory is one of weapons.

Yes...
I am busy trying to design a proper way to determine the weight of weaponry once again.

Why I had this idea is because I play a certain game a lot. And that game has a unique way of salvo fire.

Some designs are really cool. You will soon understand what I am getting at.

What is a salvo fire?
A basic example would be a tank shooting 6 rockets. It shoots the rockets one by one. Then needs an awfully long time to reload.
During the salvo?
The first one already hit a target, while the 4th or so is being fired.

An advanced example?
In a game that I play a lot (AoW3: Global Conflict) There is this simple infantry unit called the Assault.
Now, what does its weapon look like?
It can throw a grenade and then shoots 5 times with its rifle. Before throwing its grenade again.
Each time when it shoots its rifle, this too is a salvo of 5 bullets. There is actually a chance of the assault dying during one of these salvo's. Nullifying that little bit of damage.

It kinda looks like this:

-Picking grenade animation
250 ms
-Grenade gets thrown
1 second
-salvo 1 bullet 1
100 ms
-salvo 1 bullet 2
100 ms
-salvo 1 bullet 3
100 ms
-salvo 1 bullet 4
100 ms
-salvo 1 bullet 5
500 ms
-salvo 2, which takes a full second including cool down
-salvo 3, which takes a full second including cool down
-salvo 4, which takes a full second including cool down
-salvo 5, which takes only 750 ms including cool down and taking grenade animation
-Back to the grenade, without the charging this time.

The big Q here is. How much does this damage weight in comparison to all damage at once?
What if the little salvo's are 1 burst as well?

***

To have a better understanding. I have been breaking my head over the past 2 weeks. Knowing I can't rely on anyone for the math this time. It is too complex...

Each weapon contains a cool down and some even a charging property (taking grenade and then throwing it)

But to understand the problem at least:
Try to consider the weight of the following weapons. All doing a total of 3 damage through the entire set of 3 seconds. Before restarting:

300
030
003
210
201
120
102
021
012
111

Picture the enemy having 3 health. Obviously W-300 is better than W-030, which is better than W-003.
So W-300 should cost the most.

W-111 and W-003 yield the same results. But if there are enemies with 5 health. 111-111 is better than 003-003.
Not only that, but 3 weapons of W-111 will kill of 2 units with health 3 before 3 weapons of 003 can do so.

The ones with the 0, 1 and 2 in them are the weirdest of the bunch.

So I thought. Let me quantumize the problem. And only observe how W-100, W-010 and W-001 would relate to each other.

100 + 010 + 001 should equal in weight to 1 of 111. Correct?
Now, here is the problem. I don't know how to solve this!!!
Whatever W-100 costs more over W-010. W-001 would have the lineair discount over W-010.

Because having 3 of 010 should equal 1 of 030. That would mean that 030 would equal to 111. I can have peace with that.

Here is another problem.
100 + 010 + 001 should equal 1000 + 0100 + 0010 + 0001.
Because W-111 and W-1111 are the same damage patern.
111-111-111-111 and 1111-1111-1111 do the exact same damage. So they must cost the exact same.

Meaning that the lenght of the set is very important to the distribution of the weight of each individual part.

Ok, enough bumbo jumbo. The summary would be. Changing the output of a salvo. Not by damage. But simply by bullet times within a salvo. Can already change the balance of the game.

While my board game is balanced by practical means in this regard. And of course theory. The theory itself is limited to having no use for salvo's.
I can't use a salvo fire in my board game. I only have charging and cooldown. And both are already rare.

Either way, I hope to find something interesting. Which would benefit my board game. As any other RTS designer.