Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Design Queries and Problems

Subject: How i can evite a snowball atack effect?? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andrés Bellocq
Uruguay
flag msg tools
(First, english isnt my first language so sorry if i misspell something)


I'm making a game inspired by Chinese feudal era, 3-5 players, with farms, soldiers and generals as the main tabs. A player can transform their farms into soldiers or generals and attack or defend them. And loot some farms to another player. The player who reach 50 farm, wins. If a player dosnt have any farm, loses.

The problem is that when a player starts attacking to another a snowball effect occurs and the game is reduced to the total annihilation of another played by brute force and luck. And never ocours any of strategy or negotiation what its something i want include.
The idea is not to be a "Cold War" where nobody attacks, but neither be a rush of troops of the lucky guy to the win..

Sooo... anyone have any idea can i implement?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Williams
United Kingdom
Worcester
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Andrés, welcome
Your English is much better than any of my other languages!

Without some detail of how your game actually works, it's difficult to offer specific advice, but a few ideas come to mind.

d10-1 Introduce some kind of "upkeep" mechanic like a lot of computer strategy games have, where in order to have x number of soldiers/generals active, a player must provide food from y number of farms. This would limit a player's ability to transform into a massive army and could encourage them to leave some troops behind to defend their farms. Otherwise they risk not being able to support their army.

(This could be quite time-consuming and fiddly to keep track of with larger armies)

d10-2 Pinch an idea from the many variants of Risk or Small World, where the more a player attacks, the more thinly spread they get, and the more vulnerable to counterattack they become.

d10-3 Spread actions out over multiple turns. ie: Transforming a farm into soldiers takes two turns, so other players have a chance to see this and react, rather than just being surprised by a huge army. Or perhaps once a farm has been taken over, it takes a turn before it can be defended efficiently (troops taking time to dig in, costs extra soldiers to defend), and several turns before it can be transformed into soldiers (it takes a while to get an enemy farm working again)?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Lennert
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a post here discussing this general issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Fatula
United States
I don't even know where I live anymore
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
By the way, for "evitar", I'd use "avoid" or "prevent" in English. With a title like "How can I evite..." you run the risk of people thinking you mean "How can I invite..." which has the opposite meaning.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Lennert
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
buffalohat wrote:
By the way, for "evitar", I'd use "avoid" or "prevent" in English. With a title like "How can I evite..." you run the risk of people thinking you mean "How can I invite..." which has the opposite meaning.

When first reading the title, I was wondering whether it was a typo for "invite", "evoke", or "evince", or perhaps a contraction of "electronic invitation" (none of which have the intended meaning).

The body of the post made the subject clear, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrés Bellocq
Uruguay
flag msg tools
Thanks to all, you gave me things to think about..

spitfire23bc wrote:
Hi Andrés, welcome
Your English is much better than any of my other languages!


Google translate helps a lot


spitfire23bc wrote:
Without some detail of how your game actually works, it's difficult to offer specific advice, but a few ideas come to mind.


there is some photos how it looks like, maybe that helps:



There you can see a castlle, some farms (the colored tokens), some wariors (the white one), genereals (blue dots(?) on the white tokens) a emperor and the philosophy token (gives somes bonus). and far away a atacking army.



And there how it look from above, three castlle with his farms and wariors, and some troops attacking.. And in the center one calendar who gives bonus in each round.. (some positives, some negatives, like reduces or incress the atack, the defense, etc)

the pillage mechanic is: the attack untis - the defensor units = number of farms pillages

spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-1 Introduce some kind of "upkeep" mechanic like a lot of computer strategy games have, where in order to have x number of soldiers/generals active, a player must provide food from y number of farms. This would limit a player's ability to transform into a massive army and could encourage them to leave some troops behind to defend their farms. Otherwise they risk not being able to support their army.

(This could be quite time-consuming and fiddly to keep track of with larger armies)


That's a variant that I thought and had not yet the time to prove: the amount you may have wariors and generals equal to the number of farms, maybe that can stop some large armies, but if someone has few farms also it becomes more vulnerable.. but it's try.

maybe another thing can be, the attacker losses the half of his army.. this is disusive idea...


spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-2 Pinch an idea from the many variants of Risk or Small World, where the more a player attacks, the more thinly spread they get, and the more vulnerable to counterattack they become.


that's what 's going on, if someone attacks him becomes very vulnerable and it is very hard to avoid dont attack that guy



spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-3 Spread actions out over multiple turns. ie: Transforming a farm into soldiers takes two turns, so other players have a chance to see this and react, rather than just being surprised by a huge army. Or perhaps once a farm has been taken over, it takes a turn before it can be defended efficiently (troops taking time to dig in, costs extra soldiers to defend), and several turns before it can be transformed into soldiers (it takes a while to get an enemy farm working again)?


this is a interesting idea, this can work... I'll try that and then tell you how it works




Antistone wrote:
I have a post here discussing this general issue.


thanks, I do not know, I'll read it



buffalohat wrote:
By the way, for "evitar", I'd use "avoid" or "prevent" in English. With a title like "How can I evite..." you run the risk of people thinking you mean "How can I invite..." which has the opposite meaning.


ohh.. sorry for the misspell
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Williams
United Kingdom
Worcester
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Byshocker wrote:
the pillage mechanic is: the attack untis - the defensor units = number of farms pillages

You could modify this to make attacking less easy/snowbally. Some examples:

- Have a set of predetermined outcomes. If attackers - defenders >= 1, pillage 1 farm; if >= 3 pillage 2 farms; if >= 6 pillage 3 farms. This way you can impose limits on the damage a large army can do on a single turn (obviously, you'd need to modify my numbers for your game);
- Give attack/defence bonuses based on adjacent/flanking units to encourage strategic placement of units, rather than just rushing to the closest farm.

Byshocker wrote:
spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-1 Introduce some kind of "upkeep" mechanic like a lot of computer strategy games have, where in order to have x number of soldiers/generals active, a player must provide food from y number of farms. This would limit a player's ability to transform into a massive army and could encourage them to leave some troops behind to defend their farms. Otherwise they risk not being able to support their army.

(This could be quite time-consuming and fiddly to keep track of with larger armies)


That's a variant that I thought and had not yet the time to prove: the amount you may have wariors and generals equal to the number of farms, maybe that can stop some large armies, but if someone has few farms also it becomes more vulnerable.. but it's try.

maybe another thing can be, the attacker losses the half of his army.. this is disusive idea...

It doesn't have to be a 1:1 ratio of units to farms. You could rule that a single farm will support 10 units, the second farm will support another 5 units, the third farm another 2 units, and every other farm only 1 more unit after that (again, you'd need to tweak the numbers). This way, it becomes difficult to build up an enormous army quickly, and losing farms doesn't necessarily destroy a player's army.

Yes, losing half your army for a successful attack feels like it might be frustrating. No-one will want to attack if they're arbitrarily punished for it. I think in Smallworld and Risk, the attacker loses units equal to the number of defending units, so this could be explored.

Byshocker wrote:
spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-2 Pinch an idea from the many variants of Risk or Small World, where the more a player attacks, the more thinly spread they get, and the more vulnerable to counterattack they become.


that's what 's going on, if someone attacks him becomes very vulnerable and it is very hard to avoid dont attack that guy


If a player has made the strategic mistake of spreading their forces too thinly, then perhaps they should suffer the consequences?

Byshocker wrote:
spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-3 Spread actions out over multiple turns. ie: Transforming a farm into soldiers takes two turns, so other players have a chance to see this and react, rather than just being surprised by a huge army. Or perhaps once a farm has been taken over, it takes a turn before it can be defended efficiently (troops taking time to dig in, costs extra soldiers to defend), and several turns before it can be transformed into soldiers (it takes a while to get an enemy farm working again)?


this is a interesting idea, this can work... I'll try that and then tell you how it works


Best of luck to you
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrés Bellocq
Uruguay
flag msg tools
spitfire23bc wrote:
Byshocker wrote:
the pillage mechanic is: the attack untis - the defensor units = number of farms pillages

You could modify this to make attacking less easy/snowbally. Some examples:

- Have a set of predetermined outcomes. If attackers - defenders >= 1, pillage 1 farm; if >= 3 pillage 2 farms; if >= 6 pillage 3 farms. This way you can impose limits on the damage a large army can do on a single turn (obviously, you'd need to modify my numbers for your game);
- Give attack/defence bonuses based on adjacent/flanking units to encourage strategic placement of units, rather than just rushing to the closest farm.

Byshocker wrote:
spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-1 Introduce some kind of "upkeep" mechanic like a lot of computer strategy games have, where in order to have x number of soldiers/generals active, a player must provide food from y number of farms. This would limit a player's ability to transform into a massive army and could encourage them to leave some troops behind to defend their farms. Otherwise they risk not being able to support their army.

(This could be quite time-consuming and fiddly to keep track of with larger armies)


That's a variant that I thought and had not yet the time to prove: the amount you may have wariors and generals equal to the number of farms, maybe that can stop some large armies, but if someone has few farms also it becomes more vulnerable.. but it's try.

maybe another thing can be, the attacker losses the half of his army.. this is disusive idea...

It doesn't have to be a 1:1 ratio of units to farms. You could rule that a single farm will support 10 units, the second farm will support another 5 units, the third farm another 2 units, and every other farm only 1 more unit after that (again, you'd need to tweak the numbers). This way, it becomes difficult to build up an enormous army quickly, and losing farms doesn't necessarily destroy a player's army.

Yes, losing half your army for a successful attack feels like it might be frustrating. No-one will want to attack if they're arbitrarily punished for it. I think in Smallworld and Risk, the attacker loses units equal to the number of defending units, so this could be explored.

Byshocker wrote:
spitfire23bc wrote:
d10-2 Pinch an idea from the many variants of Risk or Small World, where the more a player attacks, the more thinly spread they get, and the more vulnerable to counterattack they become.


that's what 's going on, if someone attacks him becomes very vulnerable and it is very hard to avoid dont attack that guy


If a player has made the strategic mistake of spreading their forces too thinly, then perhaps they should suffer the consequences?



welp, the changes I made was: putting uppkeep 1:1 on farms and units and added a few strategic cards:



[Direct Atack (with normal attack and pillage), makes double angaist Terrain Adventege, normal to Defend in the City, and zero to Tactical Retreat]

[Besiege the City (half attack, double pillage), zero angaist TA, double to DitC and normal to TR]

and Acid Rain (just kidding
[Flanking, (Double attack, half pillage), normal to TA, zero to DitC and double to TR]

the attacker player choose one in secret, the deffender too, and according to the card they have chosen as the combat is resolved.. perhaps making attacks very strongly and still fail for a bad decision.

And the game now is so much fair in the metagame.. sooo thank you

now is a long process of testing and balancing XD

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Williams
United Kingdom
Worcester
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Glad to be of assistance
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.