Skip to Content
 

Some simple questions for (war)gamers

75 replies [Last post]
Tue, 09/28/2021 - 16:10
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

The odd bunch. Would be me and a couple of guys I know.
We discussed that only RTS players out there would understand several discussions that we had. But then again, maybe wargamers or other types of gamers, might as well.
So, I got a couple of questions.
Just to see if the group is really limited or not.

So... how many wargamers are there on this forum?
Those who aren't. You still might be familiar with the following questions. I understand that some card games can be used for the same questions. Perhaps other games as well.

Who of you know the meaning of unit types?
There can be several meanings. So, if you have an idea, let me know what your point of view is.

Do you understand the difference between natural and mechanical RPS?
Obviously, one need to know what RPS (Rock-Paper-Scissor) means in the first place. And if the games that you play have this at all. MtG has it! I know that. :)
Tradewars has it too.

Do you understand the difference between hard and soft RPS?
Which is obviously the same category. But on a different axis. Obviously, we got our point of view. But you might have a different one.

How do you view the 1D, 1.5D, 2D, 2.5D and 3D games/strategies?
Clearly the layout of the game.
Most wargames are 2D, where the terrain might add effects (imagining a 3D object). Which makes it 2.5D imho. I wonder who thinks there is a 3.5D, of which I am one of those people.

Variables or Statistics. How do you look at these?
I often talked about these on the forums. But I always wondered if I was talking an alien language to you guys. Health is a statistic. But lately, Hit Points, has gained a second nature to the meaning Health. Further, I like to use the word durability. Which was a statistic for a roll at first. But later on, after discarding the roll, an emergin factor instead. For example in our hobby game, infantry have on average: 5 health, 3 hit points and a durability of 3.662. Well, that was just an example of how wacky things can get when you over analyse mechanics.

Other statistics can be damage, cooldown, armor, range, speed, turn speed, attributes etc. There are many more.

Well, these are just some questions. Just curious how you folks look at these.

Top
Tue, 09/28/2021 - 22:30
#1
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some quick answers

X3M wrote:
So... how many wargamers are there on this forum?

Oddly that I know of TWO (2): Dr. Lew (@lewpuls) and Joe Pilkus (@The Professor).

X3M wrote:
Do you understand the difference between natural and mechanical RPS? ... Tradewars has it too.

Not sure if you are talking about TradeWorlds... If yes. To my knowledge there is no RPS mechanic in the game. If you feel like it does, well I'd be open to someone explaining WHERE?!

X3M wrote:
Do you understand the difference between hard and soft RPS?

Nope. But maybe it might be good to explain what your interpretation of the two are... Then maybe we can be on the same level in this discussion. Even if I am NOT a "War-Gamer" ... I take War-Gaming to be a lot like "Miniatures" in games (like Warhammer 40k, Hate or Zombicide and the like) ... I don't know if you have the SAME viewpoint or not... But I'll just throw it out-there: Minis remind me of War-Gaming (in many ways).

Top
Tue, 09/28/2021 - 22:37
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just wanted to add an important comment...

If you "RE-BRAND" your RTS (or the think you think is a War-Game) to something more align with "Miniatures" you go from 1% to 75% maybe HIGHER in terms of people who are interested in these TYPE of games. War-Games are a bit old and no longer so popular... It takes special PLAYERS to sit down together and play a campaign.

However if you talk about "Miniatures", well then EVERYONE (or a lot; a majority) can relate and be very interested and invested in these types of games. "Minis" = Very Popular, "War-Gaming" = Not so Popular.

Just keep that in mind... For future reference. Cheers!

Top
Wed, 09/29/2021 - 10:11
#3
pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
I play and sometimes design

I play and sometimes design wargames, and I played many, many hours of RTS in my life, but I do not recognize ANY of those terms. Maybe because I never got into competitive RTS, mostly focusing on singe-player and coop.

The overlap between wargames and RTS seem pretty small. RTS share some characteristics with many miniature games, with the bathtubbed scale, but the weird mix of strategy and tactics that most RTS have (as opposed to RTT) is not really common in non-digital games. It can be fun to have that "let's play base-building or even civilization-building on a tactical battle map", but it is a bit too weird to be popular in board wargaming where games tend to be a bit closer to reality or/and history. The design of RTS games from everything I read also seem a lot more focused on weird artificial things instead of trying to create historical results like in most board wargames (and even many miniatures wargames).

Unit types in any wargame I have played just literally means what types of units there are in the game. I suspect some people might think of the different slots of roles for different units that exist in some RTS to be "types", like in Rise of Nations when you research a new type of heavy infantry it will replace the old type in the slot for what type of heavy infantry you can build... but if you refer to that "slot" (i.e. heavy infantry) as a "type" then I have no idea what word to use for the actual, uhm, types, of units that you research that go into the slots.

Natural RPS sounds like it would be the good type of RPS, i.e. something that comes naturally from how the game works, like cavalry is good for fighting artillery as it can ride fast to reach it before being shot at too many times. Mechanical RPS sounds like the bad type, where the rules of the game just specifies "cavalry has a +50% attack value against artillery". But that is just my educated guess, as I never heard those terms before.

Hard and soft RPS, just a wild guess, would be that with hard RPS a unit is a full counter to some other type and will just wipe them totally with no chance for the other type to survive. Or something like that. I never heard of any such thing in a game though.

The various 1D, 2D etc strategies I never heard of at all.

Top
Wed, 09/29/2021 - 10:14
#4
pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
BTW when I first joined this

BTW when I first joined this forum there was an explicit rule about no wargame discussions, which is pretty funny considering that for many years now the majority of threads seem to be about wargames. I do not know when it changed. Think it was a very long time ago.

Top
Wed, 09/29/2021 - 13:11
#5
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
pelle wrote:BTW when I first

pelle wrote:
BTW when I first joined this forum there was an explicit rule about no wargame discussions, which is pretty funny considering that for many years now the majority of threads seem to be about wargames. I do not know when it changed. Think it was a very long time ago.

Oh, that would be solely me I think. But i never heared, "no wargames discussions please" comment heading my way.

I will respond to the other comments another time. Kinda busy right now. But Pelle, you hit the nail on the head with understanding some terms. :)

As for Tradewards. I need some time to explain how we got to that RPS conclusion, I guess :D

Top
Wed, 09/29/2021 - 16:04
#6
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:So... how many

Quote:
So... how many wargamers are there on this forum?

I am a light war gamer. Or more a turn based video war gamer (KOEI games)

Quote:
Who of you know the meaning of unit types?

YES

Quote:
Do you understand the difference between natural and mechanical RPS?

NO

Quote:
Do you understand the difference between hard and soft RPS?

NO, I don't play RTS, I get too much stressed.

Quote:
How do you view the 1D, 1.5D, 2D, 2.5D and 3D games/strategies?

I imagine it's related to terrain.

Quote:
Variables or Statistics. How do you look at these?
Other statistics can be damage, cooldown, armor, range, speed, turn speed, attributes etc. There are many more.

I know a rought deal about stats and probabilities.

Top
Wed, 09/29/2021 - 16:52
#7
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
RPS in Tradewars

Well, it has been a long time since I played the game.
So I need to dig in my memory.

The RPS in your game is a hard one.
Except for the initiative part.
If the firepower is equal or higher than the opponents crew. That ship can be destroyed.
The only risk you have is the initiative.

It is also, how the ships can be designed.
You allow 5 to 9 in building components.
1 to 5 for weapons and 1 to 5 for crew.

Seeing as how used cards are temporarily are out of the game. It is wise for players to spend the cards wisely.

Each ship design has a chance on destroying the other ship.

Anyway, here are 4 designs for the ship with 6 slots:
qS = Crew + Weapon: Can it destroy the other ship?

2=1+1: YYNN
6=1+5: YYYY
6=5+1: YYNN
6=3+3: YYNY

The first ship is cheap. But can destroy the one ship that can beat them all. Since the costs is only 1/3th that of the target. The hidden chances of these shipS are much higher against other soft targets. This is a fodder ship.

The second ship can destroy any other ship. But is very vulnerable to the initiative. The main goal of this ship is taking out even more expensive ships. This is a support ship.

The third ship is more of a wall. Only the second ship is able to take out a wall. Of course, a little bit more of a crew, and the wall has no chance in counter attack.

The fourth ship is a balanced ship. It can beat any fodder ship. But cannot get through walls. And is on equal grounds with support ships. It is the fourth ship that completes the RPS circle.

Instead of a list, if ships can destroy the other target. A list of most important task would show more. So, the question is, is the ship designed with the proper tactic in mind? I have added a ship of 10 as symbolic ship that covers any ship more expensive than the support ship. This way, there are 5 designs that can create a RPS effect.

2=1+1: -YNNN
6=1+5: N-NNY
6=5+1: NN-YN
6=3+3: YNN-N
X=5+5: NNYN-

See how there is some sort of RPS to be seen in this block? Each column and each row contain only one most optimal use. That is why we loved the game so much!

Top
Wed, 09/29/2021 - 17:14
#8
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How I view the terms.

I am more curious now in how others view things. If even they play card games that contain strategy.
MtG, Tradewars, etc. It doesn't even have to be RTS or wargames. As long as there is strategy involved.

***

Well, to my understanding. Hard and soft RPS is like hard and soft counters.
The game rock paper scissors had one beating another. This is a hard RPS.
Once there are chances involved of, for example, paper surviving the scissors, or even beating them when there are enough involved or by chance. Then it is called a soft RPS.
At least, that is how we see things.

Tradewars is a typical hard RPS. However, the initiative softens it up. There are still hard counters around that can at least stop an enemy ship without dying. But the initiative makes sure that a weaker ship is still able to defeat ships that have stronger weapons and such, without dying. We don't have that in MtG.

Now, for the natural and mechanical RPS.
This too, might be some terms that we came up with one way or another. But the natural RPS would indeed be cavalry being fast enough on the map so that the artillery can't do much damage to them.
The mechanical part would indeed be like: artillery does only 25% damage to the cavalry, or cavalry does 50% more damage to the artillery.

As for unit types.
Cavalry, Artillery, Heavy Infantry, those are terms that most people seem to be familiar with. But it is more or less like the next list.
Then there is this list of: support, meat/tank, fodder, all-rounder, hit'n'runners. This list kinda describe how the units are supposed to be used.
And of course, the unit types based on their armor types: infantry, vehicles, tanks, air, ships, etc.
We are familiar with the second and third list, by a lot. But it seems that it is truly fixed to RTS players, and not board games.

As for the dimensions of a game.
The more dimensions you add, the more statistics one needs in order to describe how a soldier or tank works in the game.
2D is a board. On which units can move around in 2 directions. Movement speed and weapon range can be a big factor.
1.5D would be like a card game with various zones. There is hardly any speed involved. And the weapon range is based on which other zones can be targeted.
2.5D is the same 2D board again. But this time, the terrain has influence on the movement and/or weapon range.
1D is a simple card game in our eye's.
3D is having 3 directions instead of 2. A game where ladders are present can be considered 3D. But is in a grey area with 2.5D. No, the true 3D would be a game where pieces can move in 3 directions. Now, if there are tunnels in a game, that too can be considered 3D, since a piece can be on top of this tunner or inside the tunnel.
3.5D is obviously with extra terrain rules. I think that a 3D space game with stellar clouds that slow down ships, or planets and stars that would block a ship movement, would be the best example of this.

Top
Thu, 09/30/2021 - 20:35
#9
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More on TradeWorlds

You bring a FRESH and different perspective to the game. I really like that. About "Worlds At War" (the Valorians vs. the Krei), I understand that I can maybe "soften" the distribution and make it less "stark". This was a very good suggestion. I will consider this.

Also your #10 (or X) that could bring into play this design for the two (2) races. Maybe the starship distribution could look like this:

5x 6 Capacity
4x 7 Capacity
3x 8 Capacity
2x 9 Capacity
1x X Capacity

This brings in that "X" starship which is the "Tank" and completes the RPS.

For the Valorians, the idea would be to make them more agile on the defensive side of things.

Firepower could look like normal like the Exterra (maybe) and be

3x 1 Firepower
3x 2 Firepower
3x 3 Firepower
3x 4 Firepower
3x 5 Firepower

But their Resistance could be improved with something like this:

1x 1 Resistance
2x 2 Resistance
3x 3 Resistance
4x 4 Resistance
5x 5 Resistance

This gives more ODDS on being able to create a "Tank" to complete the RPS.

The Krei would be opposite:

1. They would have improved Firepower
2. And then normal Exterra Resistance

What are you thoughts on this kind of "softening"?! These distributions may be more BALANCED since they are KINDA like the "Exterras" but not the same when it comes to either Resistance or Firepower.

Plus you can have "Tanks" too; those 5/5 which are not possible with the Exterra race.

I don't want to rail-road your thread. I just thought because we were talking a bit about RPS ... I just might share some of my newer thoughts and see what you think about these. Obviously I value your opinion and I like the RPS Analysis that you did for TradeWorlds... So I figured instead of PM-ing ... I'd add a public comment, you could comment on...

Again this is because I really value your opinion... And the calculations you made are very interesting and I'd like to know HOW these NEW distributions have an effect (positive or negative) in comparison with the Exterra Race...

Note #1: The starship "capacity" changes are because the Exterra Race has the following:

3x 5 Capacity
3x 6 Capacity
3x 7 Capacity
3x 8 Capacity
3x 9 Capacity

The Valorians and Krei ... Have 2x 9 + 1x X which is like 3+ the Exterra. And then both have 3x 8. 4x 7 is +1 better. 5x 6 is +2 better (again in terms of capacity). And generally this opens up better 5/1 or 1/5 because the lowest capacity is "6" and you get 5x those starships.

Just some additional observations. Again please feel free to comment!

Top
Fri, 10/01/2021 - 03:07
#10
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The X ship was for "extreme"

The X ship was for "extreme" comparisons. Obviously the highest ship would have 4/5 or 5/4. Not 5/5 which creates a better understanding. I didn't want to go into linear balancing, but the 4/5 and 5/4 could fill in the 5/5 spot.

Instead of simply trying things out. How about you make a table of combinations with the odds. And see how much of each combination is possible.

Then you automatically see how the distribution of ships of 5 to 9 are needed as well.

I am not at home, so I can't check the old game for the distribution of ships that you put in.
And it is important to remember that a ship with size 9, can still cost 2 Qs.

Top
Fri, 10/01/2021 - 16:03
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
"X" = X3M Starship! Hehehe...

X3M wrote:
The X ship was for "extreme" comparisons. Obviously the highest ship would have 4/5 or 5/4. Not 5/5 which creates a better understanding. I didn't want to go into linear balancing, but the 4/5 and 5/4 could fill in the 5/5 spot.

Don't you mean: "The X ship was for X3M comparisons..." Hahaha! Indeed I see this "starship" as being the "ultimate" Tank unit. But there is only 1/15 starships with this capacity. So 6.67% probability. However it is still up-there with 2x 9 capacity (total of 20% probability).

X3M wrote:
Instead of simply trying things out. How about you make a table of combinations with the odds. And see how much of each combination is possible.

I have no idea where to begin to calculate the odds. Maybe something like this:

5x (6 Capacity) + 4x + 3x + 2x + 1x = 15 Total = 100%.

5/15 (6 Capacity) + 4/15 + 3/15 + 2/15 + 1/15 = 15/15 Total = 1.

33.3% + 26.7% + 20% + 13.3% + 6.67% = 100%

This means (more clearly) that the odds are:

33.3% (5/15) = 6 Capacity
26.7% (4/15) = 7 Capacity
20.0% (3/15) = 8 Capacity
13.3% (2/15) = 9 Capacity
6.67% (1/15) = X Capacity (the X3M starship!)

X3M wrote:
Then you automatically see how the distribution of ships of 5 to 9 are needed as well.

I'm wanting the Valorians and Krei to go 6 to X! I really think that the "extreme" starship (even if ONLY 1) should be something DIFFERENT and COOL for those 2 Races.

X3M wrote:
I am not at home, so I can't check the old game for the distribution of ships that you put in.

No worries... Those probabilities are purely based on the variant of the capacities (think starships). I have no idea how to compute Firepower + Resistance to see the real odds...

Take the "X" Tank starship. It's odds are 6.67% (under 10%) and 1/15 cards. For the ultimate configuration it needs 5 Firepower + 5 Resistance so this is like:

3/15 (5 Firepower) + 5/15 (Resistance) = 8/15 = 53.3%

20% + 33% = 53.3%

Am I doing this MATH for the probabilities CORRECT??? And if Yes, how to I factor in the Starship Capacity (which is 6.67%).

X3M wrote:
And it is important to remember that a ship with size 9, can still cost 2 Qs.

I am lost here... Starships don't cost "credits" (in the old game QuickSilver = Qs). I think this is what you mean?! Not sure... Maybe you could clarify a bit (on this point).

Would also appreciate some help with the probabilities ... Am I doing them correctly??? If not, please provide corrections because I'd like to better understand the correct odds (and/or probabilities).

Cheers!

Top
Fri, 10/01/2021 - 18:04
#12
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Enlighten me in the PM

Because most of the games we played. Everything accidently costed Qs. Remember? :D

If the ships are "free". Then some RPS is lost. The costs of ships is part of the RPS. The effect will be that players go for balanced ships only. Maybe sometimes the support classes by lack of crew. But the area between walls and fodder are almost a no go from that point onwards.
Which brings us to the defending faction. Not a nice faction to have, I think.
While this player receives not much damage, nor will it do damage. But if ships are relatively free. There is a build up without much breakdown, I think. It needs playtests.

Also, see PM for the first example of the combinations.

Top
Fri, 10/01/2021 - 23:07
#13
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How to play TradeWorlds...

In a general sense, ALL starships act as WALLS. They protect your homeworld from being attacked by any and all opponents. So even if you have a Fodder starship in your Space Lane... That cheap starship PROTECTS you.

Unless you ATTACK it and defeat it... It will serve as a WALL making sure that nobody can directly attack your homeworld.

Then the other thing is that there are ROLES to IMPROVE starships in the Space Lane. See that's what I can't figure out?! How do you PAY for changes to starships in the Space Lane???

The Engineer allows you to re-configure 2 Weapons, The Commander allows you to re-configure 2 Crew, and The Captain allows you to re-configure 2 Starships...

These ROLES are there for a PURPOSE. They allow you to PERFECT your "Space Army" with better cards WHEN you get them. So if you have 2 starships and you can use one of these ROLES, the odds are that you are improving the selection of starships in your Space Lane.

Paying Credits just would not make any sense and it would CONFUSE the heck out of everyone. I'm just saying... Playing the game the way it was designed to PLAY... Is better. If it took 3+ hours to play and the right way only took ~1 hour... Well then that proves it!

BTW I've playtested on TableTopia with experienced Gamers, a game took just almost 60 minutes. And that is GREAT! Enough time to play and get involved, but not too much time to become bored with the game taking too much time!

Most people prefer 60 minute games... And dread games that take too much longer. This is from what I have seen and heard from gamers.

However you are entitled to PLAY the game how YOU want. It's just that with all the ROLES, it doesn't make much sense.

Cheers!

Top
Fri, 10/01/2021 - 23:23
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More small but important subtleties...

I wanted to ADD one last comment about the NUMBER of starships in a Space Lane. Again not to hijack your thread... However I wanted to ADD a detail which I am NOT sure many people understand.

Example: If I have ONLY unlocked 1 starship and my opponent has unlocked 2. There is an inherent DANGER. If ONLY ONE (1) of his 2 starships (opponent) has higher or equal RESISTANCE to my 1 starship, that means no matter what the outcome of the BATTLE, his 2nd starship will deal DIRECT DAMAGE to my homeworld!

I think we did a good job of explaining this in the NEW "core" rulebook!

So keeping pace with the opponents is very crucial... Otherwise you will land up taking direct damage because you have insufficient WALLS. As you get more starships unlocked... The game becomes more OPEN and you've got to watch what your opponents are doing and try to keep pace with the leading player(s)...

Enough said... Cheers!

Top
Sat, 10/02/2021 - 07:09
#15
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:In a general

questccg wrote:
In a general sense, ALL starships act as WALLS. They protect your homeworld from being attacked by any and all opponents. So even if you have a Fodder starship in your Space Lane... That cheap starship PROTECTS you.
Fodder walls :)

questccg wrote:
Unless you ATTACK it and defeat it... It will serve as a WALL making sure that nobody can directly attack your homeworld.
correct.

questccg wrote:
Then the other thing is that there are ROLES to IMPROVE starships in the Space Lane. See that's what I can't figure out?! How do you PAY for changes to starships in the Space Lane???

The Engineer allows you to re-configure 2 Weapons, The Commander allows you to re-configure 2 Crew, and The Captain allows you to re-configure 2 Starships...

There is a reason why my cousin and I went for paying for everything. This is it.

questccg wrote:
These ROLES are there for a PURPOSE. They allow you to PERFECT your "Space Army" with better cards WHEN you get them. So if you have 2 starships and you can use one of these ROLES, the odds are that you are improving the selection of starships in your Space Lane.

Paying Credits just would not make any sense and it would CONFUSE the heck out of everyone. I'm just saying... Playing the game the way it was designed to PLAY... Is better. If it took 3+ hours to play and the right way only took ~1 hour... Well then that proves it!

Your rules, it was over in 15 minutes. The other way, we played 2 games in 3 hours. So 1.5 each, well, the first one was learning the game (but incorrect). Anyway, the 15 minute game was 2 weeks later.
Note from my cousin: your rules where hard to grasp. He had a much easier time with pokemon and MtG. Although MtG, he thinks of boring and RL money consuming. Your game was more fun in his oppinion.
After the "no strategies" 15 minutes. We decided to play with our own rules again. Sorry. We just wanted to have fun.

questccg wrote:
BTW I've playtested on TableTopia with experienced Gamers, a game took just almost 60 minutes. And that is GREAT! Enough time to play and get involved, but not too much time to become bored with the game taking too much time!

Most people prefer 60 minute games... And dread games that take too much longer. This is from what I have seen and heard from gamers.

We are a different breed. We like a Settlers of Catan game that takes 3 hours. Kek :D

questccg wrote:
However you are entitled to PLAY the game how YOU want. It's just that with all the ROLES, it doesn't make much sense.
Cheers!
IDK, it slipped right in for us. It made so much sense to play it as if it was partly MtG style. :D

As for the roles.
We don't know anymore what we did.
But we did a lot of banking. And thus, there must have been some sort of penalty for us when changing a ship on the table. The opportunity of no banking.
I think this was one of the places in the game where we got confused about your rules.

Top
Sat, 10/02/2021 - 07:12
#16
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:I wanted to

questccg wrote:
I wanted to ADD one last comment about the NUMBER of starships in a Space Lane. Again not to hijack your thread... However I wanted to ADD a detail which I am NOT sure many people understand.
Those that remain, are used to it.

questccg wrote:
Example: If I have ONLY unlocked 1 starship and my opponent has unlocked 2. There is an inherent DANGER. If ONLY ONE (1) of his 2 starships (opponent) has higher or equal RESISTANCE to my 1 starship, that means no matter what the outcome of the BATTLE, his 2nd starship will deal DIRECT DAMAGE to my homeworld!
Ah yes. We had this threshold to overcome. Once the upgrade was done. There was not much resources left for getting that 2nd ship. Thus this left the other player some room to take proper actions.

questccg wrote:
I think we did a good job of explaining this in the NEW "core" rulebook!

So keeping pace with the opponents is very crucial... Otherwise you will land up taking direct damage because you have insufficient WALLS. As you get more starships unlocked... The game becomes more OPEN and you've got to watch what your opponents are doing and try to keep pace with the leading player(s)...

This is part of balancing the techtree or development path of players.

questccg wrote:
Enough said... Cheers!

ok :)

Top
Sat, 10/02/2021 - 13:33
#17
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I read in diagonal the recent

I read in diagonal the recent replies. I can share my experience with WW2 war game ship configuration.

Each ship category has a strengths/weakness but also a purpose. Japan and USA had different design objectives with their ships, but they have a lot in common. So the idea would be to define a purpose for each type of ship to give a reason to have different configuration of ships.

Note: the information below is not 100% historically accurate.

Destroyers(DD): Weakest of ships, serves as cannon fodder. But equipped with torpedoes, they can be deadly vs other ships. They are useless for landings as their gun power is too weak. They are also equipped with depth charges allowing attacking submarines. Later in the game, they can replace their torpedoes with rockets giving them land bombardment firepower, but losing torpedo attacks.

Battleship(BB), Dreadnought(DBB): Strong cannon useful against ship and ground attacks. Later in the war, they also had strong Anti-air capabilities to defend themselves against planes. They are strong and hard to sink. The Dreadnought is unique to Japan, and is just bigger than a regular battleship.

Light Cruisers(CL): Stronger destroyer which are bigger, have stronger cannon with depth charges and torpedoes.

Heavy Cruisers(CA): Weaker Battle ships, Japan equipped torpedoes on them but not USA. They don't have anti-sub capabilities.

Carriers, light carriers(CV, CVL): They allow carrying planes, which is very effective for long range attacks, and allow escorts to defend yourself against enemy planes. Good anti-air capabilities, light carrier are smaller and carry less planes. Planes can either carry torpedoes (vs ship) or bombs (vs ship or ground). So they are more versatile, but complex to manage as you need to resupply planes. Different plane models have different capabilities too (Fighter, bombers, attacks) See the midway "movie" for more info.

Submarines(SS): Designed for attacking ships. Still, later in the war, could be equipped with rockets for land bombardment.

Other unique models:

Anti-air Cruiser(CLAA): A light cruiser designed for anti-air capabilities.

Carrier Battleship(BCV): Japan converted battleships by adding catapults to launch a small number of planes. They had to land elsewhere.

Carrier submarines: A submarine carriying 3 hydroplanes launched by a catapult. Was designed to attack Panama.

This should give you an idea between the synergy of the various ship models. Design your own synergies.

Top
Sat, 10/02/2021 - 18:38
#18
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Synergies

larienna wrote:

This should give you an idea between the synergy of the various ship models. Design your own synergies.
Nice read.
While I am used to a particular synergy. I wonder if other ways of synergy are easy explanable?

I know of 2 synergies that occur in RTS games. And also in my own wargame.

An ability in relation to terrain
Fast units can hide in patches of fog of war. And thus taking less damage when moving around.
Units with a long weapon range can attack from a point that is harder to reach. And thus making the weapon range relatively longer.

Particular role
A game has walls, meat units, fodder units, normal units and support units.
A normal unit often beats a meat unit or a support unit.
But 2 normal units have a lot of trouble when a meat unit and a support unit combine their forces.
The same can be said about normal units and the addition of fodder units. The fodder units are cannon fodder. Thus the normal units are the support units in this regard.
Walls are a higher version of meat units. Although, they often can't shoot. Towers might fall in the same category.
It depends on the game. But in most RTS games, support units are forced to be more of an artillery or another long weapon range. Just because the player could attack any unit.

Did I mis any synergy?
Of course, card games and other games are welcome to show synergy. I have always been curious how other synergies can be described.

Top
Sat, 10/02/2021 - 19:43
#19
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another bit of Analysis for you...

Some units might have LONGER RANGE for "weapons" but still be prone to Fog-Of-War. What I mean is that you require a SCOUTING unit to be ahead to show the longer ranged units if the enemy is approaching. So while they can FIRE further... They can't SEE as long of a range.

Could take some kind of OBSERVER or SNIPER to ensure that the opponent is not nearby. With the combination of both (Observer + Long Range) that makes for a deadly team.

Obviously the OBSERVER or SNIPER can be in the air or on higher ground which means more visibility. And as such that why they are good to pair with the Longer Range units...

Just a bit of additional analysis (with regards to synergies) to consider... Cheers!

Top
Sat, 10/02/2021 - 23:35
#20
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
"Dai Senryaju" had perfect

"Dai Senryaju" had perfect fog of war. So you had to use scouting units like Bradleys to uncover units and allow your artillery to fire.

A way to simulate this in board game is that if a long range unit wants to attack, there must be one of your unit in scouting range of the target unit. That incite players to move scout first, then attack. Scouts could be vulnerable, so you might not want to send them alone. Any unit could be used for scouting, but scouts have better range. You would not want to waste a tank for scouting unless you are desperate.

Top
Sun, 10/03/2021 - 13:32
#21
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Scout synergy

Interesting concept.
It is still one of those mechanics that is almost impossible to balance.
What kind of discount on the long ranged unit should be applied is the main question.

While I have a penalty for having artillery to get some level of arc. I do not have a penalty for being a scout. Let alone a discount on said artillery.

The best thing I could do is having the penalty for the arc, not being paid for when building the artillery. But the scout should have the cost that is required in order to fullfill said level. In other words. If the penalty is 300 on top of 900. The artillery with the higher arc level costs 1200. But instead, could cost 900 with a scout costing 300.
If the scout dies. The artillery can only see that far on a flatter surface.
To make this even more complicated. The costs of the scout(s) can depend on the various levels required.
We do have artillery that have a level 5 arc. Meaning it can go over a mountain with a height of 5. It is rare, and such units are only build when a world has been constructed to a big size. Either way, it is savely said that the discount can be over 60% at this level.

I like this scout synergy.
Is there more?

Top
Sun, 10/03/2021 - 13:40
#22
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
That was fast...

I just had a short discussion with 2 other members.

Suggestion 1:
The required costs of the scout for each level should be twice than that of the discount. Despite the scout being at a higher risk.

Suggestion 2:
The discount doesn't include the penalty of the various artillery levels. Thus the scout can cost the difference. The discount is only 50%, thus paying more money yet granting the ability if a scout is used.

In both cases the costs of the scout is twice that of the discount. It is the second suggestion winning the argument. Since we don't want players to abuse and simply grant ALL units this artillery ability. Thus, a design will have a 50% discount on the penalty if the design needs a scout.

The 1200 artillery can be a 1050 artillery with a 300 scout.

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 06:16
#23
pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
"Dai Senryaju" (Senryaku?)

"Dai Senryaju" (Senryaku?) was the game that heavily inspired Panzer General if I remember correctly. I played (and play) the latter a lot, but never the former, so not sure if the scout mechanics differ in any significant way. Anyway in Panzer General I do not think I ever build scout units. Maybe because I am just not good enough at the game. I always feel like I need the limited slots for something else, and that the regular units are good enough for scouting even if they have limited range. In particular as long as I can maintain air superiority it is easy enough to fly some aircraft across the front every turn to reveal any nearby enemy units.

For balance, I still think that any game that can be balanced well using spreadsheets is pretty dull (and unrealistically simple, if the game is playable at all). There should always be more complex interactions than what you can realistically account for in your formulas, and scouting ranges sounds like an excellent type of complication that will affect the value of other units in interesting and terrain-depending ways. Playtesting is the only way to achieve balance anyway. Tune the cost and capabilities of scout units until X% of playtesters decided to spend resources on scout units, for some X that you decide is good for your game.

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 08:43
#24
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Senryaku Sorry, typo I played

Senryaku

Sorry, typo

I played a bit Panzer General on PSone, and the similarity between both games is that they use an hex map and have different type of unit.

In Panzer General, I think you had defense levels you could build up when camping cities, and there was other complex mechanics I could not remember. I think it is much more easier to camp in PG, and the progression of the front is slow, in DS, the gameplay is much more dynamic and open, you can punch in the enemy, send units as baits, move units around, ambush units, etc.

"Dai Senryaku" ressembles more to Conflict or Super Conflict on the S/NES, but the game is more advanced (ex: different height levels) . Super/Conflct both games don't have artillery.

Personally, DS is the best game in it's category. The user interface is not the best, and there is a lot of information not always easy accessible that could screw up your strategy if missing when in tight situation. The FOW make it impossible to undo a move, so it can be sometimes problematic.

But besides the interface issue, it's a great game. Try it if you can, from what I know "Dai Senryaku VII" is on PS2 and XBOX original(playable on 360). Not sure if there is a PC version. The company making this game would be the successor of KOEI but almost all their game are never released outside Japan. Shame for me!

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 09:06
#25
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I searched a bit, and

I searched a bit, and Daisenryaku perfect 4.0 is on steam, but the reviews are really bad as the game is considered inferior to it's predecessor. The main issues are User interface, incomplete translation, Lame 2D graphics, etc.

It's fun to know that their are at least trying.

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 09:34
#26
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Fairness = Balance

pelle wrote:
There should always be more complex interactions than what you can realistically account for in your formulas, and scouting ranges sounds like an excellent type of complication that will affect the value of other units in interesting and terrain-depending ways. Playtesting is the only way to achieve balance anyway. Tune the cost and capabilities of scout units until X% of playtesters decided to spend resources on scout units, for some X that you decide is good for your game.

True that playtesting is on the menu once a new mechanic is introduced. First we need to flesh things out. Then to test the fairness, we playtest obviously.

Fairness (through balancing) is top priority.
We brainstorm on this and shared our idea's.

Who needs a scout anyway?
Balistics and X-ray weaponry overcome the effects of 3D terrain. Currently, they can see through the terrain if you will. They need a scout once you remove this connection to the satelite. And the only reason you would do this is to make them cheaper.

Discount
The ability to have a balistic or x-ray weapon are extra costs to this weapon. It can be calculated by simply calculate the same unit without the ability. Then the difference can be subtracted by 50% from the unit cost.
Whatever we use for the scout. The compensating value should be 100%.

Scout
This is tricky and still debatable. Because, what is fair?
- Anything can do as scout as long as it has unblocked vision? Keep in mind, vision is kinda unlimited. It is range that counts.
- The scout stats value could be used? Body+Weapon. We rather not...anymore.
- The scout weapon value could be used? A cheap weapon with a lot of range or an expensive weapon with a short range. If both are IN RANGE of the same target. It should count. Meaning that the scout unit is actually the one being supported by the cheaper artillery.
- If the scout has limited vision. Can it still be used? And how much? Clearly the reduced vision effects of the scout should be added to the balistic weapon.
Meaning that other balistic weaponry with a full cost can easily assist. And weapons like a seeker missile can also do better than a normal missile when finding its way through a forest.

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 09:41
#27
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Synergy with emptyness

I simplified the bonus rule in the past. So that the weapon value wasn't needed anymore.
In regards to the balanced scouting, it should return.
Would this mean I could have an alternate version on bonus damage for the advanced players...?

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 09:46
#28
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:"Dai Senryaju"

larienna wrote:
"Dai Senryaju" had perfect fog of war. So you had to use scouting units like Bradleys to uncover units and allow your artillery to fire.

A way to simulate this in board game is that if a long range unit wants to attack, there must be one of your unit in scouting range of the target unit. That incite players to move scout first, then attack. Scouts could be vulnerable, so you might not want to send them alone. Any unit could be used for scouting, but scouts have better range. You would not want to waste a tank for scouting unless you are desperate.


I have seen similar mechanics. But can't recall where.
Isn't this based on attributes? Like, this is an artillery, so it always needs a scout?

I know that in Warzone2100, you also could use any scout. However, the vision was always the same for any unit. Except the sensor units. And the cheaper ones simply could die faster. Thus making the entire artillery numb.

I could add something like a sensor. But I rather not for various reasons. I think that any unit should be the trick. Yet some units do have special vision capabilities, including normal artillery (connected to satelite).

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 09:53
#29
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Yes/No

It really has to be a yes/no situation.
And if we plan on using the vision mechanics of some specialized weapons. This is making a paradox.

100% vision in range, yet using the total value of a unit. Makes cheat units.
So we either don't allow the special vision to take part.
Or we do, yet we use the weapon value only.

Another discussion is the total value. Should we use 1 scout per artillery piece? Meaning that if 3 artillery pieces are watching. The scout either has sufficient vision for all 3. Or several scouts are used in that regard??

The more complex this becomes. The more I have the tendency to return to the older more complex bonus damage rules. Where weapon value was acounted for as well.

But then again, who wants to calculate constantly in a game. It has to be a yes/no situation.

So how about 1 scout per artillery piece? Yet the value of the weapon of the scout has to make up for the lack of vision value that the artillery piece has?

It is a yes/no situation. And a player needs to check only once per unit. If the value is sufficient, there is no need to check in the future. Only count the scouts and that much artillery pieces are allowed to fire.

Top
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 10:18
#30
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Personal manual for the designers

I added a new paragraph.
(USC= Units Statistics Card)

personal manual wrote:
Scouts

The cost penalty on X+B weapons can be reduced by 50%.
The now locked projectile ability to go up and down can be accessed if a scout is present.
The scout needs to be in range of the targets as well.
A scout can be anything on the board and the scout accuracy rolls are added to the X+B accuracy rolls.
The weapons value of this scout is also taken into account.
And has to be covering 100% of the original cost penalty, which is displayed on the USC for each level.
Only one scout per X+B unit is allowed, thus creating a RPS effect in the usage of the right weapon value of that of the scouts.

What players see:
- Weapons value on any USC.
- The need for a scout on the artillery USC.
- The need for the scouts weapon value per level.
- In the rules, only 1 scout allowed per artillery piece that requires a scout.
- In the rules, the accuracy rolls of the scout are added to the accuracy roll of the artillery.

What players experience:
- There are optimal scouts. Which have a weapons value that is enough to get the required level for the artillery.
- Not all units can be used as scouts due to the same effect.
- Overkill with a scout is also possible, allowing for only 1 artillery piece to support the super ultra heavy tank. Yet 3 artillery pieces can support the 3 light tanks.
- The scout always needs to have the target in attack range as well.
- Tier 1 with a weapon range of 18 and tier 5 with a weapon range of 2 have the same weapons value. The tier 5 does have the firepower against more targets. But the tier 1 with range 18 has gained another use besides of being annoying.
Given that the vision is not obstructed for this range 18 weapon.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut