A few fresh insights needed!

[bartvbl]

For the next part of the netBattle game project, I need to make some decisions about how things are to work or be, and I can't really make up my mind

Perhaps you guys have some nice ideas that could help me out?

The problems:

- How to balance the game?

When you start the game, you ideally should have a situation like in chess: you start off with equal units, with equal strangth, and conquer each other by tactic. However, starting off all the time is not fun at all, in my opinion, and does not allow players to use their own tactics: one likes to use slow units that do a lot of damage, the other likes to use fast and weak units (for example)

My idea was to give both players a budget of points, and can decide themselves what units to use. This budget could be the sum of the range and power of the weapon. But then arises the question whether different types of weapons should be counted differently. Say you have a unit that can boost another unit, and attack an enemy. Do the hitpoints from the attack weapon count more than the boost weapon?

- What to make of the credits?

in the original spybotics game, you could pick up credits which you could use to buy units. In my remake, they suddenly are pretty much useless, as I don't have anything like a campaign like there was in the original game. So my idea was to let the player use credits the let units spawn in the middle of the game, while playing (during the player's turn, that is)

• Pros:
  
• 1. Players are encouraged to get as much credits as possible
  
• 2. adds an extra bit of tactic to the game
  
• Cons:
  
• 1. If you don't manage to capture credits, you are probably going to loose, as you have less units (and so less firepower) than your enemies
  
• 2. Maps must be very much balanced, so that the credits can be easily taken on one side, while they require effort on the other side.
  

Any kind of suggestions are welcome!

[TheDoctor]

This sounds like an rts. Like BA. I would try to take some ideas from there and modify them to fit your ideas. I kinda like that 'main/starting unit has credit income' or whatever.

[bartvbl]

It is a turn-based board game, which is a remake of the old "Spybotics: the nightfall incident game".

see here

The point is that you start with a few units, that have a certain number of steps they can take each turn. To finish the turn, they can either use one of their weapons, or do nothing.

The weapons come in different types; there is one that takes health from one unit, one that can "edit" the map (turn squares on or off), ones that give other units more steps, etc.

So it is a strategical game, yes, but it is not real-time. I don't think a resource based system is what the game needs.

On the other hand, the credits can be used as a base for a somewhat basic resource system. So you have a point there.

[TheDoctor]

You sound unsure and indecisive.

HOMEWORK: Figure out how you want your game to be played.

[bartvbl]

You sound unsure and indecisive.

HOMEWORK: Figure out how you want your game to be played.

I know how the game is played, that is not the problem. As a matter of fact, I have come far enough in the programming process to have a playable version.

I just tried to explain the essence of the rules in a few lines.. I guess I failed there

the problem is that I need a few thoughts on the matters I stated above, since they may or may not affect the gameplay quite a bit.

[Addictgamer]

Add an option that enables/disables credits in-game.

[Aki Dazrold]

I think what you are essentially trying to create is a game very similar to Advance Wars. Try looking around there if you need some ideas.

[admalledd]

a simple way to balance the map credit wise, is have the map "mirrored" for every player. so if player one has a unit 3 moves away from a credit, you have a unit 3 moves away from a credit.

as for how to balance the whole game, try exponential upgrades: for +1 to power, that's 100c for +2 that's 200c +3 is 400c (all below + 100c)

exponential upgrades tend to be easier to balance. but beyond that, LOTS of beta testing. just try it out. best yet, have the game keep records of every battle's starting stuff (upgrades, units ect.) and record who wins. through that you can get a lot of statistics to help decide if something is wrong. (eg, if you have upgrade FOOBAR you have on average a 25% better chance to win...)

your major enemy is not enough information about how other people play your game. if you can get more information, you can do better.

[bartvbl]

Mirrored maps is an option, yes. But part of the fun of playing on a map might also be to have it differ slightly on both ides, so you can or can not use certain strategies. So I also think having the maps differ a bit on both sights is not such a bad thing either.

Linking the power of a unit's weapon is a nice idea

The only problem comes in when you consider ranged units: units that can shoot very far, but do not do a lot of damage. So that is why I think the range should also be included in that equation.

One other consideration to make is that weapons that speed units up, or slow them down have a different value in the game than the regular units that just do damage.

So the question there is if the special weapons should count more than the regular ones.

Also, units may carry multiple weapons that are of different kinds. But I suppose you could just add them to the equation in such a case, and just add them up to one big weapon.

[admalledd]

i never said to use equations to help balance... (but that may help. i have no experience with balancing)

i was saying to just make a guess as to a balance, then test it on a large audience.