(785) 408-4717
Thou Curator
A company dedicated to helping people create video game ...
Created: 10/30/2013 9:54:00 PM
Updated: 12/13/2013 8:28:00 PM

Game Designer

Joined: 10/30/2013
Thread Replies: 5
Thread Followers: 0
Category

Combat suggestions for Century of War.

If this is something better discussed on chat, I don't mean to mucky up the board. Just thought I'd write down this as I spent a good hour or two thinking about it's ins and outs.


COMBAT FOR GAME:
Today's meeting emphasized needing to come to emphasize combat before anything else. The core mechanics require combat and than from there we can build upon it so we have something to work with. Only by knowing how we are going to handle combat can we possibly know how to handle everything else.

As one guy said for holofoil cards as a good marketing ploy, Pokemon actually had decent mechanics and could be coupled with Magic as far as a more competent resource system but with Pokemon's HP and turn based attacks. Here's a primtive example;

American Soldier. [Unit] HP: 50.  Morale: 40. Rice cost: 1.
1S: Knife Combat.
Damage: 10HP. 10% chance of paralyzing a unit struck. Cannot be used on vehicles. This attack deals -10 HP damage against vehicles.
2+XS: Shotgun.
Damage: 20, plus an additional 10 damage per every steel resource you expend beyond the second. This attack deals -10 HP damage against vehicles.


Black Hawk. [Vehicle] HP: 120.  Morale: X.  Steel Cost: 3. Rice cost: 1. (Was made via green technology, how progressive...)
Special Power: Green Hawk.
Once during your opponent's turn, there is a 50% chance you may search your graveyard for up to three resource cards and put them into your hand.
4O: Drone Strike.
Damage: 30 HP, plus an additional 10 damage for every resource card you control. Drone Strike attack costs -1 oil for every other Black Hawk in play. (Whether you or opponent's side.)

Vehicles are almost like evolution cards in pokemon. A unit must man a vehicle in order for it to work. You need a unit in play before it can man a vehicle. The vehicle card overlapses the unit card, and when the vehicle is destroyed, so is the unit. Any HP/morale damage, status ailments, etc done to the unit prior to going into the vehicle is ignored. And the vehicle's morale is the same as the unit "driving" it.


Ayahtollah. [HQ]  HP: 110.  Morale: 120.  Rice cost: 2.
Special Power: Religious Convinction.
Once during your turn, there is a 20% chance you can remove all Morale damage from your units.
3S: Rifle Rush.
Damage: 80HP, and if you discard a card from your hand as you attack, it also deals 80 Morale damage.

HQs are leader type cards, you can only have one HQ under your control at a time, they're incredibly strong as command a strong presence on the field. This is also a chance to illustrate the second way to "kill" a card. Morale damage. Morale represents the willingness to fight, and general sanity of a unit. War can tax a person's perception of reality and emotional stability. A morale of zero represents a completely broken person who if they don't end up in an asylum, probably killed themselves.

As a typical rule of thumb, units and HQs as living persons will require rice resource to summon as this represents a healthy diet and the breath of life, their attacks will be steel resource, vehicles will typically use oil or steel resources both to summon and attack, and other times might use rice for like biological weapons or "green technology".

Resources should be like Magic's land cards. Oil, Rice, and Metal. These three can reflect innovations in factories, agriculture, warfare, etc.
Resources like land cards, are in their own little line up separate from combat, and sit there until tapped for their mana like Magic lands. Unlike Magic however... your resources are directly at risk without a way to defend yourself. Every resource card functions a little bit differently, but typically when attacked by a unit or HQ, resources can be taken over and controlled by the opponent when attacked, typically vehicles destroy, but can also control. Biological weapons always destroy and are known for that.

Because attacking resources does not take into account normal functions of a unit or vehicle's attack, it's best they use their cheapest attack to conserve resources and just have the opponent roll probability for destruction/take over.

Cigar Factory. [Resource]
Tap: Add one rice resources to your pool. There's a 15% chance you will add two rice points instead.
--When a unit or HQ attacks Cigar Factory, there is a 70% chance it'll be controlled.
--When a vehicle attacks Cigar Factory, there is a 5% chance it'll be controlled.


I made a drawing via paint of what the game might look like during play. The cards are laid down flat, blown up is their description and stats when your cursor hovers over it.

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1377519_218766244964091_1110496524_n.jpg



Created: 12/13/2013 8:28:00 PM
Updated: 12/5/2016 3:49:51 PM

Game Designer

Joined: 10/30/2013
Member Replies 5
Member Follows 0
Rather then make a new thread, I figured I'd ask my team what they thought. We've established lands, but an agenda item I assigned myself was varying the pros and cons of how one goes about destroying/taking over land cards. Should lands have HP, or it be based purely on probability?

For example; if a soldier has an attack doing 20HP damage, a land card might take a while to dwindle downward if it has 50HP. But if say the land card's take over rate is 50% and destruction 34%, it does not matter what attack the soldier uses. It's a great equalizer, and means fewer resources are needed to go right for the goods, but my thought was how this would effect our target audiences. Some might like it, others might not. There is no way to predict the future, but I have a feeling hardcore gamers, competitive types, would not be fond of random, where as the more laid-back, casual sort would. Casual players are going to feel left out if the game is cut-throat and the most powerful cards dish out faster wins, and we want to reach a broad audience, but at the same time we don't want core players getting bored and viewing the game as pure chance.

Honestly, I lean more toward the randomness, as I am reminded of the rat and pellet study. Scientists found that random allocation of pellets makes the rats more likely to keep pressing the button anytime they get the chance, then something that can be calculated, regardless of it's abundance. This is why random drop systems in rpgs do so much better then linear progression dungeon crawlers where progress is either assured or disproportionate. Another words, players may in fact respond better to lotteries then they would everybody wins or everybody loses. But humans are a lot more complex then rats, and we have to consider the slope of the first few months of how people will respond to the game.


Created: 11/1/2013 3:45:00 PM
Updated: 12/5/2016 3:49:52 PM

Game Designer

Joined: 10/21/2013
Member Replies 2
Member Follows 0
Well why dont we add in a card attribute called mobility.

So, infantry will have higher mobility but lower defence, a tank would have the opposite.
 
With a higher mobility the card has a greater chance of evading the attack, balanced by the lower defence. 

With who goes first there are a few ways we could do it.

-50/50
-Based on a attribute (such as the player with the highest total mobility in the pack)
-Card based. So each turn is dependent on a cards attribute. The turns wouldnt then go one player then another but may be player 1 for 2 turns then player 2 for 3 turns.

A minor one, lets change rice to just food? not everyone likes rice ;) and lets have oil? infantry would need more food and a tank unit more oil.


So if we go ahead with this it would be this so far

Health
Defence
Attack
Mobility
Special

 


Created: 10/31/2013 11:14:00 PM
Updated: 12/5/2016 3:49:51 PM

Game Designer

Joined: 10/30/2013
Member Replies 5
Member Follows 0
Oh, okay. : ) Still getting used to everybody and their names.

Defense is a good idea. I was trying to imagine if it functioned as pokemon, but used Magic like land production for mana, how it would prevent massive attack spam for whoever went first. Limiting the number of attacks per turn? Perhaps limiting the number of resources landed as pokemon did with energy cards or Magic with lands?

But defense answers that question for us. Because if let's say defense is something like 10%. There's a ten percent chance the attack will utterly fail. Those resources were squandered for that turn. And unlike limiting attacks or lands it does not slow down gameplay or force players to think only in terms of cost dips.

I had also written down on notepad while I was celebrating Halloween with my family the possibility of armory cards as previously mentioned to be much like "enchant creatures" with in Magic as a sort of buff to a unit, HQ, or vehicle. It would specificy what it could be attached too, and grant HP bonuses, new attack possibilities or defense if that is implemented.

I think one time use cards can add depth to gameplay as well. Something like Magic's sorcery card or Pokemon's trainer card. "Global warfare" cards do something once, than go to the graveyard. Probably the sorts of meta-game things you would not expect out of an attack anyway. Like drawing cards, messing with your own or the opponent's deck, etc.


Created: 10/31/2013 12:09:00 PM
Updated: 12/5/2016 3:49:52 PM

Game Designer

Joined: 10/21/2013
Member Replies 2
Member Follows 0
Hey it was me that said about the shiney cards. I think it would definatly work well. I also agree on using the pokemon style combat, its got lots of documentation and translates easy to cards. We need to define the values each card is going to have and what it does.
 
The basic three would be
 
Heath
Attack
Defence


Created: 10/31/2013 1:52:00 AM
Updated: 12/5/2016 3:49:51 PM

Game Designer

Joined: 10/30/2013
Member Replies 5
Member Follows 0
I figure the creator wanted it to be realistic, and in some regards this would make it so. So long as someone is aroud to defend land, it can't simply be taken. A wave of humans with guns isn't a very practical method of warfare compared to vehicles and their tremendous fire power/resiliance, but it's certainly cheaper resource wise.

I am unsure as of yet if perhaps resource should play a part in the win/lose condition. It would make sense. Every player starts out with all the resource cards in their hand at the initial set up put into play.

Alternatively for fluff reasons every player could start off with the first resource being the mysterious new island. (Atlantis?) In my mind the island contains some sort of magical mineral and in-game this means it could be tapped for any sort of resource. Rice, Metal, Oil... whatever.

So in essence the game becomes a race to take over or destroy the other player's territory and claim it as your own if possible.

With these staples, it would not matter if we went the route of pre-made factions or players making up their own countries. Thus it also provides us with more leg room for what we want fluff wise.



×
SERVICES
Animator Artist 2d Artist 3d Audio Engineer Game Creation Game Producer Graphic Designer Marketing Package Asset Programmer Story & Asset Writer Tutorial Video Production
ARTICLE CATEGORY
Services