Do players alternate playing their cards or do they play all of them, one after another... and then the game switches to the other side?
There are no 'stacking limits', right? In one space there may be more than one unit of each side?
Also, just to clarify - does 'blocking' mean that units cannot move away from the area occupied by enemy ('stuck')?
Play wargame
SplinterCard's itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Playability - Mechanics | #5 | 4.250 | 4.250 |
| Theme | #19 | 4.250 | 4.250 |
Ranked from 4 ratings. Score is adjusted from raw score by the median number of ratings per game in the jam.
Comments
327 days ago(+1)
Hi Ryszard,
Yes, alternating cards as you say. I had thought to limit the size of the hand, or allow players to forgo a turn in order to play more on the next turn, but these would not fit in my word count budget! At first it can slow the game down as players place their first units, but once things are moving, it's almost too quick.
No stacking limits, correct.
Blocking is not clear in the rules - I have thought of it as though the units cannot move forward past the enemy, but can move back.
See you Thursday/Friday!
Re: blocking and some of my thoughts
And Your idea is the same as I read it initially... but then I thought of a possibility of 'freezing'/locking up enemy units with the best defensive unit (or units) - not to eliminate them... but to keep them fixed in place. Time limit of 4 rounds may mean that if the units get stuck on the hill-side or valley-side, they may not be available to the player where it counts.
Also, You have arranged the defensive values in such a way that every unit is able to defeat every unit, so this tactic may simply not work with certain.
It is, however, interesting/ puzzling (in a positive sense) that the attacker can only achieve 'no effect' or 'enemy eliminated' result... there is no way to hurt yourself with a bad die roll :)
Side note:
Is there a significance to the fact that unit symbols on the KIA side are reverted? Take a look at red infantry counter with a city skill - it looks like the symbol ended up rotated 180 grades :)
Thursday/ Friday I hope to have more questions. I like the lore and that this is the original setting.
"It is, however, interesting/ puzzling (in a positive sense) that the attacker can only achieve 'no effect' or 'enemy eliminated' result... there is no way to hurt yourself with a bad die roll :)"
[edit - I missed your point about the blocking strategy to stop them respawning. I think it can work sometimes, but as you say the unit values aren't really set up for this. Maybe in future designs. At the same time, I tend to shy away from mechanics that can be gamed in a way that wouldn't make sense in a real conflict, where possible]
Mm, this was because with one card played at a time, I thought it would be ok to leave the choice to return fire up to the commander. If it were more like a standard wargame where you play many units attacking at once, I would build in a return fire mechanic I think. In the larger version of this game I was working on before the jam, dead units get to return fire at half strength, and there is an overwatch system.
Good spotting on the KIA thing! I think I'll leave it - upside down = dead, no? haha
One thing that kept confusing me in my solo games was the meaning of "a round" and "a turn". In the rules, those two are introduced in a section 'round structure' and it starts with:
"On their turn, the player chooses a card..."
I had to reread this few times and keep reading about the subsequent usages of 'a round' (a card can be used only once per a turn and per a round, nukes are claimed at the end of a round, not a turn).
Part of it is my own grasp of language: I always thought that 'a turn' is a longer unit than 'a round' - that players take rounds in a single turn of the game.
The designers managed to create a game where a lot of depends on decisions of players - which unit to send, when and which way. I'd like assymetrical sides with different ratings/ special abilities but this design works. It is simple - it certainly serves as a teaser for the "bigger game" that is in the works :)
Ah, you may be correct about rounds vs turns. I am by no means a seasoned wargamer - I may be getting the convention wrong! I've jumped in the deep end despite minimal recent experience.
I was thinking of boxing - you take turns hitting each other (effectively) for a while, then the "round" ends, and then you start over.
Yes, I agree about symmetry. I did it this way to save myself having to playtest as much :p - the next/bigger version is very asymmetrical, a kind of clifftop scifi Dday landing scenario.
Thanks for the detailed response! Much appreciated. I'll do my best to respond to each point :)
- 2.2 PDF still says 2.1 at the very top
Yah, need to fix that.
- the font of the unit stats is quite hard to read
I agree. That's one to do better next time.
- Maybe the uni markers could also have the city symbols on the back for easier identification
Fair point, especially on the low ink version without the colours.
-
I'm not sure, I understood the attacking cities part. "cities automatically lose one die value per unit". So my units can attack a city and then the city always uses one value from the attack (except the unit has a special ability)? Does every fight in a city location count? Or only undefended cities? What if an attacker kills the last defending unit? Does that also remove one city HP or is a new attack necessary?
This is the least clear part of the rules, sorry. Every time an enemy unit enters a city, that city immediately loses one value, even if there are live defenders there. There is no need to roll for the attack. For each turn the enemy remains in the city, on its turn the city loses another health value. I had considered changing this such that the unit must be alive in the city at the end of the round to do damage, but didn't - this comes down to the relative utility of attacking in person vs using nukes. I wanted them to be roughly equal. Killing defenders can happen *in addition to* the damage done by the unit being there.
Honestly I'm not sure this was the right way to go, but it's how it ended up. I calculated about a 600 word rules limit and was really struggling to fit it all in, so, no extra complexity allowed.
- printer friendly PDF is super nice service!
:D
- extra game case to print is an even better idea. I printed mine and the game fits nicely. Will definitely steal that idea.
:D - yeah, saw so many people putting it in a plastic bag, seemed like a good idea.
-
first round, command cards can only skip, right? (Nobody could move already two location onto the relic and no city could be damaged already for repairs)
They can repair - city max health is 6
- is 4 the max city value?
See above
- What happens if there are multiple defenders in a location? Attacker choses one unit to engage, right?
Correct
- solo rules "match what is attacking with" is a bit unclear to me. I always attacked the weakest defender
AI will generally attack plane with plane, tank with tank, is what I meant. But one thing about the bot is it's so stupid due to the word count limit. If you want to make it harder, go right ahead.
- a losing attacker loses no units, right?
Correct
- solo bot improvements idea: prioritize going after the relic somehow
- solo bot improvements idea: prioritize attacking of empty cities if in reach
- solo bot improvements idea: city value handicap seems to so hard, since the first two rounds no nukes are possible, so two repairs will happen anyway
I've tried to balance going for either attacking option, but I do agree that it needs to choose one or the other. Word count again :(
As discussed, you can repair the first two times to get your city to 6.
- Really awesome that there are explicit solo rules!
:D
- I think attacking should have more risk, I played it so that the attacker never lost anything. Only the defender could lose units. That lead to less "hard decision" making
Generally the idea is that if you fail your roll, you'll get attacked back. I could add a rule that attacking kills the attacker on a 1. Interesting idea.
- Losing a fight also wasn't so bad for defensive play. In one instance, I even wanted to lose a battle to respawn the unit in my city for defense in the next round! Maybe there should be a bigger penalty. On the other hand, losing a battle means that the unit can never reach the opponent's city again because it's so far away.
Yeah, I agonised over this one. I'd perhaps make certain units a one-and-done thing in future.
- I'm missing a bit a more elaborate setting (on the postcard). Who are the two cities? Why are they fighting? Why has the relic site nukes? Giving the player something to immerse helps with engagement, gives purpose and is a big part of the fun in my opinion.
Well you know, lore is hard to fit on a postcard :)
There's plenty though. It's part of a bigger universe. I'll explain soon! Thanks again for the epic feedback.
Vijil
1 year ago(+1)
Separate reply for Lore:
The Shell is a world roughly 10x earth diameter, roughly 3x earth mass, and completely hollow. The shell itself is about 250km thick on average. Most of the external surface is glassy, endless plains with a wispy atmosphere.
Air settles into the valleys and craters, some of which are the size of earth continents. At about 180km below the plains, whether in valleys or Brobdingnagian cave networks, gravity is about 1G. Continue down and gravity reduces to zero once you reach the level of the interior surface. Go up to the plains and you have to deal with about 3G. Reaching orbit is possible, but with no atmosphere worth mentioning in which to aerobrake, few have returned alive.
The Shell is considered artificial by most scientifically advanced cultures, of which there are at least 20, with a war raging somewhere most of the time. Inside the shell, there is air. Breathable. Lights flicker and glow in the weightless, humid depths. Who knows what goes there.
How did humans get there? Who knows. An ancient colony ship, perhaps lost. Or were they created by the planet itself, which appears to be alive and occasionally non-eucludian? That depends on your religion.
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.