 | Comments on Balanced Gameplay | 3/4/06 5:06 AM |
(copied from Request for Comments on the Standard Catalog)
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 2:21 PM |
| |
| 3/4/06 5:23 AM |
The proposed adjustments to Patriots (not taking out Bombers) and Bombers (price and range) will improve the current situation, but it would be worthwhile exploring solutions to the "telegraphed intentions" problem, and the related "so what, I’ll have more money and time to make purchases before you can do anything" problem.
One thought is to simply allow you to move or strike with items you’ve just purchased. That would tip things in the other direction though, since tabletop you could at least see what your opponents had purchased (and they could see what you had purchased), before they attacked you. Sure would lead to some crazy games, though, wouldn’t it?
Another thought is to re-introduce phases in a way: by restricting your command sets to either (1) all purchases, or (2) all moves and/or strikes. Your opponents would still get money before you could strike, but at least they wouldn’t just be laughing at your LRNUKE*3 purchase.
We could also look into adjustments to distributions (in general), industry, and Command Centers. These are just the first things I though of, so it’ll need some more pondering.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:24 PM |
| 3/4/06 5:57 AM |
I like how you described the problems, very accurate.
Purchase and move /strike would be...hmmm...so that means things like P:LRNUKE + S:LRNUKE and P:TRANS + M:TRANS and P:ARMOR + S:ARMOR. Kinda scary at first, but it could work. The nuke thing would practicly require everyone to have a patriot on hand at all times. The other things...could balance each other out I believe.
Phases would solve certain problems for sure, but I like the way one command can do anything, its simple and sensible (but then again I’ve never used phases).
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:25 PM |
| 3/4/06 6:07 AM |
Purchase and move/strike (let’s call this "active purchases") would be scary all right. It would probably make it just way to hard to anticipate commands, though.
Another thought is having productions (which includes monetary distributions, and also things like GC INF) every other round. Combined with restricted command sets, that would be pretty close to the phases ... but it seems like it might be getting too complicated then.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:26 PM |
| 3/4/06 6:42 AM |
I like the idea of productions every other turn! This means you don’t have as much money to spend = more commands to spend on moving/striking. I’m not sure how balanced it would be though.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:26 PM |
| 3/4/06 8:22 AM |
The more I think about it, the more I’m liking it also. I’d really like to have per-unit production cycles, so GC could still produce every round and Industry could be every other round. There’s a realistic aspect to that I like: if we had an "Armor Factory" item, we’d probably have that produce only every third turn.
The trouble with the per-unit idea, though, is representing that information during the game. If *all* productions are every other turn, it’s a simple matter of having "Productions after THIS round" or "Productions after NEXT round" in the game info panel. Per unit, we’d need something like "Next Round Productions: cycles 1, 2, 5, 10" (indication that productions will run for items that would produce every round, every other round, every fifth round, and every tenth round). I don’t know ... would that be too confusing?
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:28 PM |
| 3/4/06 8:45 AM |
Another idea is a production DELAY, where you have to wait a certain number of rounds after purchase before the item starts producing anything.
That would give rise to "Death Star" type specialty scenarios. Say, a special industry that produces $1000 per round, but you have to wait 10 rounds for it to start producing.
Or, productions could be progressive, with an IC returning $1 the first round, then $2, etc., up to $10 on the tenth round.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:29 PM |
| 3/4/06 10:14 AM |
Progressivie production seems better than production delay, but I like production cycles the best. I think it’s important that govs produce every turn, so I don’t like simply having all productions every other turn. Per unit production sounds exciting!
Now, let me clarify some things. Lets assume an IC produces every other turn. I buy an IC on round 1 (IC#1). IC#1 produces at the end of round 1, 3, 5, ect. Now say I purchase an IC on round 2 (IC#2). Would it produce at the end of round 2, 4, 6, ect or would it synchronize with IC#1 and produce on round 1, 3, 5 ect? Unsynchronized production makes more sense, but it would complicate things for sure. If there is synchronized production, then that means you would only want to purchase production units on certain rounds (rounds 1, 3, 5, 7, ect in the example).
Oh, and did you say armor factory? I should start a thread on new unit ideas 
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:30 PM |
| 3/4/06 10:53 AM |
I think we’d have to make the production sychronized or it would be too much to keep track of, from a player’s point of view. Also, the point in terms of solving the "so what" problem is that there will be rounds without dividends. If an IC produces every other turn, it would produce at the end of rounds 2, 4, 6, etc., even if it were purchased in round 1. Programmatically, I’d just be checking for no remainder after the division RoundNo/ProductionCycle.
Players would probably plan to purchase their ICs on the even rounds, so dividends will start right after the purchase ... but that’s not far from how things were with the tabletop game also: players would wait to purchase IC during the move/strike phase for the same reason.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:31 PM |
| 3/4/06 12:25 PM |
Yup, that all makes sense.
One forseen problem: How could someone defend against a rush? Suppose at the start I opt for an industry purchase and you for a transport. My industry would take too long to be of much help defending against your trans (and soon armor).
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but that it would be harder than it is now.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:31 PM |
| 3/4/06 1:38 PM |
I think that’s the kind of thing people *should* worry about when they buy Industry. Tabletop, you’d often see people start off with a LRNUKE purchase to take out anyone who went IC right away ... so, that led to a lot of "Nothing" on the purchase phase and IC on the Move/Strike, so the next round (with $10+5+10=$25) there’d be enough for a Patriot. In general, there was the sense that IC purchases (especially multiple IC purchases) was a risk in that you were making yourself a target -- and that’s the kind of decision making that’s a lot of FUN, rather than the stock "1. Build up Industry, 2. Grab Space, 3. Grab Doorstep, 4. Overwhelm" we’re seeing now. I’d like to see more games ending in the 15-20 round range, rather than the 30-40 round range.
BTW, I want to thank you, IronFire, for bringing a fresh view to the online game. Most of us playing now are used to the tabletop game and can’t help making assumptions about game play that might no longer be the case. For instance, we’ve had a built-in "don’t push your luck with IC" warning light, even though the source of that warning came from games played under different circumstances. You are free from such prejudice, and it’s really cool that you’ve been pushing the envelope with the system in front of you.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:34 PM |
| 3/4/06 5:33 PM |
Yeah, I do like to push the envelope, as I try to express in my name IronFire (The indesctructable unstopable consuming flame that drives me). To the MAXX is my motto ;)
After reading your last post Matt, I think I finally see where your coming from and why you guys play the way you do! And while I’m not prejudeced like you are, I’m still prejudeced in other ways. I’ve always played strategy games where building up your economy was key. I’ve always followed the 4 step strategy you described (every real-time-strategy game without fail follows this formula). I’m starting to see how Rozz could be different though, and it’s pretty exciting. Alot of the suggestions I’ve made would have made Rozz follow the 4-step plan, so I’m going to have to re-think things now.
Now thank YOU for giving me an opportunity to stretch my mind and grasp new concepts and ideas!
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:35 PM |
| 3/5/06 4:33 AM |
You’re very welcome! I’ve enjoyed this game for many years, and I’ve enjoyed seeing it evolve. We stopped playing much over the past eight years or so because those few of us who actually knew how to play ended up in different areas of the country. So, we’re not just hampered by preconceptions, but pretty foggy preconceptions in some cases!
Going with per-unit (I should say per-item) production cycles, it wouldn’t be hard to have "Producing after this round: GOV, IU, IC" now that I think about it. Might also want to have a "Producing after next round: GOV" notice.
We have a lot of potential changes on tap:
1. Per-unit production cycles.
2. IC and IU distributions every other round.
3. Patriots no longer taking out Bombers.
4. Reduced Bomber price to $20.
5. Increased Bomber range to 3.
6. Increased Jet range to 3.
(The last one is needed if we increase the Bombers range, since we want Jets to be able to at least catch up to them.)
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:36 PM |
| 3/5/06 5:39 AM |
After more reflection, I think we should hold off on increasing the Bombers range to 3. As memory serves, we may have had them with a range of 3 originally, but found that it was too hard for the Jets to predict where they were going. Also, with Bombers no longer having to worry about Patriots, they’re going to be effective even at the current range of 2. Just purchasing one, you’ll be pressing your opponents into ADS purchases -- so even if your Bomber just sits there, it will be a net gain of $10 ($30-$20).
I think we should still increase the Jet range to 3 though.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:37 PM |
| 3/5/06 9:11 AM |
| All the improvments sound great! I think your right about the range of bombers, 2 range is plenty (the other improvements supe them up enough). |
| 3/5/06 9:51 AM |
OK, I’ll repeat these in a "speak now or forever hold your peace" thread.
Matt
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:38 PM |
| 3/5/06 4:06 PM |
I’d like to see a decrease in CC cost. More commands are just cool! I know I enjoy the game more when I have more commands. (but not a 310 amount of commands...)
More money = more options. More money being produced by your HQ would be sweet. $10/round seems a lot, but who knows?
An alternative to both of these is to make generally larger maps. This will allow players a little more time to build IU/IC/CC before clashing offensively.
Something else, I’d really like to see more battles fought on the middle ground. Right now, it seems to me that transports own - there’s no point of battling in the middle when you could pop onto their doorstep (and not just 1vs1). Reducing the transports range to 2 would fix this I believe (yes, I know its radical). However if it was changed, I would make it so no map had only a single entry point to the HQ sector like on jousting ground. Reducing the trans range would also likely increase the length of games. It could work though.
So, there are some more ideas to kick around. (not meant for the upcoming update)
I have no clue how balanced these ideas are or what they would do to the game, but I DO think they would make it more fun, which is what its all about
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:39 PM |
| 8/7/12 7:26 PM |
This is an old thread, but here are some thoughts after reading it:
(1) We did lower the price of bombers and jets, and make bombers impervious to patriots. There was some uptick in bomber purchases, but not enough to lean the game toward air campaigns. I buy bombers from time to time. They’re probably OK for now.
(2) Reading about productions on alternating rounds seems overly complex now. One rule of thumb we should keep in mind with the online (and now Android!) version, is that the rules should be the same when/if we actually play it as a board game. As a board game, keeping track of production cycles by hand would be tedious.
Last edited by MATT, 5/31/14 2:40 PM |
| 5/31/14 2:40 PM |
| My edits to this thread were to fix quote marks that got scrambled when I had to recover the forums at one point. |
| |
|
