 | Request for Comments on the Standard Catalog | 2/21/06 1:50 PM |
Game #341 has presented the potential need for some adjustments to the standard item catalog. IronFire has conducted this game magnificently; nevertheless, it’s a game that diverges from a couple of fundamental ideas in Rozz (especially in contrast to Risk): first, that games be relatively quick; and second, that games see fewer huge masses of pieces. Of course, there will be the exceptional games, but the purchasing of huge masses of Industry (IU especially) as in Game #341 will probably become the norm, rather than the exception.
We have in the past actually had a hex-limit on Industry of two IC and/or eight IU per hex, and the game would probably be better if we re-introduced something along those lines. As an effect, Bombers would regain some of their former value (whereas now they’ve been marginalized). In the past, when we’ve had playability problems, we’ve usually been able to adjust item prices or characteristics, or introduced new items -- and I think we should continue in that spirit.
Thoughts?
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:07 PM |
| |
 | 2/21/06 2:59 PM |
I think there should be a cap on ICs in a given hex. I’m playing a game right now where there are MANY ICs on a couple HQ hexes. The problem is that you can buy an MDS and a couple Patriots and be safe from missile attacks even from an opponent who has five LRNs. The cost of defending those ICs is minimal compared to the vast revenue one can pull from them round after round.
Once you have 8 or more ICs on one hex, the chance of another opponent getting within one hex of them (to strike with a tank) is minimal.
I think four to six ICs on a hex is fair. That way players would have to spread their industry around and pay more to defend it.
Another viable option might be to make some kind of armored vehicle that fires multiple rounds in one turn - that way an opponent (if they can get within a hex of the ICs) could destroy them relatively quickly. Of course, a unit like that would need to have a hefty price tag. Probably limiting the number of ICs on a hex would be good for now.
OR...  Maybe there could be some kind of missile that could dupe Patriots into thinking it was a nuke (or, better yet, to take priority targeting over a nuke). That way an opponent with multiple CCs could fire 3 dupe missiles and one nuke at an opponent who has several ICs and one MDS, and the dupes would attract all the defensive missiles, then the nuke would take everything else out on the hex.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:08 PM |
| 2/21/06 3:21 PM |
The impeneraturable IU mass, hehe I like the sound of that
The only ways I can think of to counter it is to either stop it before it gets to far or use the same strategy yourself. So it definitly needs tweaking.
An armored vehicle that fires multiple rounds in one turn?
*drool*
Dupe missles...nice idea, but I think it would be too hard to balance, and it would make things unnecessarily complicated.
Limiting hexes to $20 income (2 ICs or 10 IUs) sounds good to me. That forces you to expand if you want big income(*coughgame341dontlookatmecough*).
Last edited by IronFire, 2/21/06 3:22 PM |
| 2/21/06 4:38 PM |
In the old game, Armor had "exploding" and "imploding" firing, so three tanks in the same hex could fire out at different targets in the same command; or, surrounding a hex they could fire in at different targets. The strikes were legal as long as the source hexes were the same, or the target hexes (much like the exploding/imploding movement of Infantry). It’s all too much to implement here online though: not just the hassle of implementing it in the engine, but also adding complexity to the rules. It’s just another instance, though, where there used to be a little more balance against the impeneraturable (sick!) mass.
The neutrons are a bit of a dupe missile. Those are supposed to balance the Patriots, but that’s thrown out of whack when you can mass all your targets in one hex.
I’d prefer to set the per-hex limit for each item, rather than a monetary limit for the hex. The main reason is that the engine can already handle per-hex limits (e.g., CC) but also it will be easier for people when we start letting them design their own item catalogs, etc.
With a $40 limit via 2 ICs and/or 10 IUs, there would still be those super-target-rich hexes we all love to attack ... I could go either way on it.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:10 PM |
| 2/22/06 3:58 AM |
See game 310 in addition to 341. Its whack  |
| 2/22/06 4:41 AM |
A hex-dividend-limit (as opposed to a hex-limit on items) has its appeal, in terms of realism, etc., but let me clarify some things in case we go that route. It’s not so much that it’s difficult to add to the engine, since I could add the hex-dividend-limit at the scenario level and simply have the engine stop producing dividends when it reaches that limit. This restriction would occur at the time dividends are actually distributed, though, rather than at purchase, so it wouldn’t generate a sanity-check issue with the command. That leads to the question: would we allow players to over-stock their industry in the hex, knowing that they’d have a dividend cap, or restrict the purchase based on an expected generation of dividend? Would it add to game play if one could anticipate losing an IC and purchase one in advance to stay at the hex-dividend-limit (the risk being an IC not producing anything), or does that open a hole for impeneraturability?
As far as people designing their own item catalogs, etc., I suppose it wouldn’t be much of an issue since it would just be an additional option at the scenario level.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:12 PM |
| 2/23/06 3:45 AM |
I think we’ll go with a 2 IC, 8 IU per hex limit for now. It’s what it was originally, so we might as well try that first and then tweak as needed. That provides a potential $36 (besides the $5 "bene" for the HQ) so it puts the hex just shy of supporting IC/ARMOR*2/IU*4 purchases on its own.
I did add hex-dividend-limit support to the engine at the scenario level, in case we ever want to go that route (or if people want to try it in their own scenario designs).
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:13 PM |
| 3/2/06 5:17 PM |
Bombers. As they are, why would you buy them?
Consider their usefulness. They’re no good for assaulting a HQ as 1 patriot will take them out, and the enemy has time to buy one (if they don’t have one already).
They’re no good for triggering patriots, obviously nutes are better at that.
The only thing left is attacking inf/trap/armor. Attacking inf is basically pointless, as you can only kill one. Attacking traps is handy, but taking them out with nukes or armor makes more sense. Attacking armor, meh, this I can see, but again, why not use nukes or armor?
Look at the costs:
Bomber $25
lrnuke $25
mrnuke $20
armor $20
srnuke $20
The bomber is simply not practical.
Even if the cots was lowered ($15?) I’m not sure I would use it though.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:14 PM |
| 3/2/06 5:42 PM |
Under the old rules where the price was established, bombers could fly in formation and then each could target something in the same command -- so, they’re definitely overpriced now that they can only hit one target. Their main strength is re-usability, and I think they are still a necessary item for keeping the balance slightly on the side of offense. Here are possibilities for restoring their effectiveness:
A. Reduce their price, say to $15 for starters and see if they’re being purchased at that price.
B. Change patriots so they no longer take out Bombers at all, which means you’d need ADS or Jets (neither of which are seeing any action) to stop them.
C. Increase the number of items they can target. I’d prefer not to make them nuclear since that’s a fun piece on its own. But maybe they could take out all the pieces of a chosen target type.
D. Increase their range.
Perhaps some combination of the above.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:15 PM |
| 3/3/06 4:30 AM |
All good ideas to balance it.
However, another gripe I have against the bomber is that it’s command intensive. You have to purchase it, move it, and strike with it. A tank on the other hand, can destroy things as soon as it’s purchased, whenever it moves, and with strikes. The only benefit of the bomber is it can fly over troops. But if you need to get around troops, why not just go for the transport with more range and practicality?
I’m not sure how to fix it, but I’ll be thinking about it.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:16 PM |
| 3/3/06 5:36 AM |
Bombers can be very dangerous, exactly because they can fly over troops, and in formation. On hand, a Bomber can deliver strikes where tanks cannot (having to get past tank traps, etc.) and they’re not expended like nuclear missiles. I think that once we tweak them you’ll agree they can get pretty nasty. Also, and this is one of their greatest benefits, they can be used strategically to force your opponents’ attentions (and precious commands) to the sky, which is often a nice complement to a ground campaign.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:17 PM |
| 3/3/06 6:43 AM |
Here are some possible ideas:
1. Lower their cost to $15. When they strike an INF, the strike has the same effect as a nute.
2. (Maybe lower their cost to $20) Make them impervious to patriots. Increase their range to 3.
3. Hear me out on this one! Lower their cost to $15 (or less). When they strike an INF, the strike has the same effect as a nute. Make them impervious to patriots. This is the key: Jets destroy them by sriking OR simply being in the same hex.
Just throwing out some ideas.
Last edited by IronFire, 3/3/06 6:44 AM |
| 3/3/06 7:03 AM |
We could try $15 (or $20 and impervious to Patriots), and range of 3 and see how that plays. That’s a lot of sudden changes as is, when the tweaking is best done gradually. I think they’d already be extremely powerful with those characteristics, without having nuting cababilities as well.
Having jets destroy them when in the same hex would really *reduce* the effectiveness of Bombers, since then they could be taken out by surprise with a cheap jet purchase. Traps have this effect in really slowing down armor, which has a good "feel" for the ground war; in the air, though, the Bomber needs more freedom, especially as the unit tailored to balance Armor (taking advantage of Armor’s slow movement). Besides, the dogfights with jets are pretty fun, in terms of the predictions required.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:19 PM |
| 3/3/06 7:20 AM |
| Good point about the jets. I like $20 and impervious to patriots. Also, would the ADS decrease in cost along with the bomber? |
| 3/3/06 7:46 AM |
Going off bombers for a sec, it seems to me that the transport is overpowered. It’s extremely difficult to stop a transport from getting on your doorstep. On jousting grounds for example, if a trans is on ROZZ it can get to B1, B2, B6, and BRAXX. That’s four hexes to defend. The difficulty is not the money, but the commands required. There usually isn’t enough time to defend all four hexes. And if you do defend all four, you sacrifice advancing offensively.
I don’t think this was problem in the tabletop version because of exploding troop movement: one command to purchase 20 INF, one command to defend each hex with 5 INF.
The only thing I can think to change (if it needs changing) is decreasing the transport’s range to 2 (but that seems way too low).
Another thing, right now a player can build all his IC/IU/CC at his HQ and never have to build any of those anywhere else. This pretty much leaves the enemy with one hex to target. Here’s what could change (I realize this is a lot): IUs cost $5 give $1, ICs cost $20 give $5, and only 4 IUs and 1 IC per hex. This would force players to build on more than just one hex and would increase the number of targets for sure.
Another idea I have (and this one I like the most) is to reduce the cost of a CC to somewhere between $20 and $25. (In the tabletop version each command was worth more with exploding and imploding stuff)
Now try and imagine all of these ideas together :-P
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:21 PM |
| 3/3/06 10:36 AM |
These are great ideas -- part of the fun of the game has been tweaking the standard catalog, so it’s good that the online version presents new opportunity for modifications. The tabletop version was actually different in several ways besides the imploding and exploding: for example, each round you had a purchase, then a move and a strike. A CC would give you another move and a strike. So, even with a CC you could only move two tanks, whereas now you can move four ... so there’s a little give-and-take with regard to the value of commands.
I think it’s universally agreed that having targets is a good thing, and right now things are out of balance with single hexes being defended so well. I don’t want to take away the *option* of putting all your eggs in one basket; rather, it needs to be a riskier strategem, so you’ll at least weigh the benefit of spreading the targets to other hexes. IF we take away the option, then we’d also take away those sweet moments where those nukes make it through and the carnage is taking up rows of history.
Reducing the cost of a CC would increase the chance of multiple strikes on a target, so that’s something to consider. Increasing the cost of Patriots, MDS, or ADS are also options (an ADS would be more valuable in any case, with the enhanced Bombers). Decreasing the price of nukes would also encourage spreading out.
I want to generate some purchase statistics on all the items in the standard catalog so we can make some pricing decisions based on the game-play market. That would be a nice feature to have, regularly updated with a graph.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:22 PM |
| 3/3/06 5:22 PM |
Decreased nuke prices? I’m scared aleady lol.
I really like the idea of making bombers impervious to patriots though. That gives 3 means of taking out IC/IU/CC: Tank, nuke, and bomber (before nuke=bomber because patriots nullify both).
Hey, here’s a neat thought, prices could "scale up" on IC/IU depending on how many are in a hex. So, for instance, the first IU in a hex would cost $9, the next would cost $10, the next $11, the next $12, ect. So your fourth IU in a hex would cost $12 whereas your first would only cost $9! This would greatly encourage spreading out! The more I think about this idea, I really like it! It would leave the option of creating a super hex, but it would be costly. Heck, you might even be able to remove the IC/IU cap if its balanced right.
In a similar vein, all items could scale in price. Like every time you buy an item (except IC/IU which works as above) its price goes up $1 (or maybe every time you buy $10/$20 worth of an item). That would encourage players to use a variety of units, but wouldn’t force them too. It would also mean players would continually need to build more IU/IC to keep up with the increasing cost of units.
Also, units could decrease in price when they are not being bought. Basically its like an economy, the more you buy of something the higher the price goes, the less the buy the price goes down.
It would definitely make things more complicated though, so its probably not a good idea, but its fun to think about
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:24 PM |
| 3/4/06 4:33 AM |
Yeah, that would probably make things too complicated, but perhaps it could be implemented in a specialty scenario. The "Age of Empires" series does that to some extent, where the market prices change throughout the game. Definitely something to think about.
I was trying to figure out why gameplay in the tabletop version was more diverse and better balanced, and I’m thinking that the largest factor is the surprise purchase of Patriots and Tank Traps. Tabletop, there was a phase of just purchases. Then, when you suddenly realize that your opponent has purchased two nukes (to launch now in the move/strike phase), you could counter with a purchase of Patriots -- but the second purchase phase was used INSTEAD of your move/strike. So, surprise purchases were of a much greater command cost, and pieces like Bombers and nukes were more effective. Also, you didn’t telegraph your intentions as much, since your purchases could be used in the move/strike phase BEFORE the next round where your opponents would get more money.
So, there’s the history. I really like the simplified version online, where a command is a command and we don’t have to try and explain *phases* to people.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:25 PM |
| 3/4/06 5:03 AM |
I’ll start a new thread on this ...
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 3:26 PM |
| 8/7/12 7:02 PM |
I was just now reading over this old thread. So many great ideas! IronFire, where did you go? We need you!
|
| |
|
