I think i could have explained the "maneuvers" a little more clear. So just to reiterate; these are meant to be played in conjunction with the units regular attack/defending abilities, but would add certain bonuses or "maneuvers" to add an element of surprise and chance to the game. Let me know if you have any questions or input, thanks!
Really like the idea, also kind of reminds me of Risk-cards, which is good recognisability ;) Maybe some buffs or debuffs by civil buildings could also spice things up. This concept is full of possibilities, so stick to it :)
I don't know exactly how using an "Ambush" card to deafeat a piece differs from just a normal attack with a land piece. In both situations my piece is taking the enemy piece and using that card seems to be useless, or maybe i am missing something. Could you explain that card more?
@@Matiowskyy the idea is that your opponent would be able to counter with there own maneuver card (if they have one). The "ambush" card would essentially keep them from countering, killing them immediately. I am realizing that some of the cards essentially have the same functions, so it's still up in the air what they will all actually end up being.
My biggest criticism with this system is that it makes it feel as though your ability to manoeuvre and think tactically is based on luck of the draw rather than your planning ability as a commander. I would rather see the manoeuvres always be available, but you need ro have the right resource(s) and/or be in the right place to utilise them. This way it more represents your ability to plan strategically and develop your lines of logistics before engaging in battle rather than lucking into one of the limited manoeuvre cards. You would still have the suspense of not knowing which cards your opponent had in hand unles you really paid attention everytime they drew and spent resources, which is also a skill-based ability.
My thoughts exactly. How would a player feel if he draws NONE of those maneuver cards, and his opponent gets ALL the maneuver cards? Being able to use a maneuver card should be something a player has planned for, not for something he got because of luck.
I mean if this is supposed to be the ultimate strategy game it should govern more pure strategy than luck based strategy. Don't get me wrong, luck makes games more fun, most of the time, however it shouldn't be overused in a game like this, in my opinion.
@@CANnickhughes I see what you're saying, but I think if it's not somewhat random, it'd be basically the same as not having them. You can still move and attack without the cards but they're supposed to just add a small bonus to the combat. I think you could still strategically plan what maneuvers you'd like to utilize, for example; If I know I'd like to use the "outflank maneuver" a lot, I could make sure I'm colonizing near a mountain, in order to get that card. You could also trade in cards in hopes to get one. Another thing I like is that if you're focusing on building infrastructure, you can save the maneuver cards in case of an attack, and not need to build as many units.
@@sadkefekaya6442 does this add luck? - yes. However, I think it's somewhat manageable. If my opponent is positioned on a wood tile, I know I run the risk of being ambushed, so I might avoid getting close to them. In a real war, you could always be at risk of an ambush, so it's about weighing risk/reward.
@@julianbirke I do agree that it shakes the game up but as the original commenter said the strategies are unusable if you don't have them the ability to use them, I think, should either be available all the time or most of the time. I tried fixing this myself so I could help you and get to provide even better criticism but just know that one version turned into an RPS style combat and the other had a table where some terrain, somehow, had an advantage over the other. Maybe this info will help you
One way to diversify the combat would be to allow combinations of different units on the same tiles. You could also make the cannons just equipment that need to be occupied by infantry and can be captured if the occupying infantry is defeated by enemy infantry or cavalry (but destroyed if defeated by enemy artillery). In fact it would be thematically appropriate to have the strategy revolve a lot around the placement of the cannons relative to terrain and elevation. For example: Terrain tiles are classified by elevation and obstruction: - Fields, water are low elevation and hills, stone are high elevation. - Forests and mountains are obstructions. The cannon has different possible actions: - It can attack a tile that has lower elevation 2 tiles away if there is no obstruction in between. - It can attack enemy units that are on or enter neighboring tiles that are on the same or lower elevation, but not into forest. - It can fortify and defend the tile it is on against an attack (or perhaps all attacks from a certain direction) The idea of tying maneuvers to resource cards is pretty intriguing as well, though. Even if it kinda makes the game a bit more random.
This initial idea with the different cards and formations is so interesting. I actually came up with this idea last year when working on my own game. I wanted a really Napoleonic style game that balanced combat with political and economic aspects. I came up with this “rock, paper, scissors” idea where each group used a different formation, countering and attacking one another. I came up with this because of how important formations were to this style of warfare back in the day.
Hey, I found your channel yesterday. I started thinking about combat myself and I think the units could have hexagonal bases instead of squares. Then the direction of arrangement of the elements would be important and it would be possible to assemble, e.g. - the cannons could only attack forward and would be vulnerable to attack from 5 sides. - infantry could attack forward, to the left and right, while from the back it would be volnerable to kill them without hesitation - cavalry could attack in any direction or only in 5 directions, not from the rear This way you can use the cavalry and its 2 moves to bypass the musketeers from behind and kill them instantly. However, it is also worth thinking about a counterattack (if you attack with cavalry from the front, the enemy can defend himself - shoot the rider from his horse bayonet its almost like pike-and-shot formation) This system also opens the possibility of creating formations: - 3 infantry units form a square to defend in all directions - use 2 infantry units to protect field guns - 3 cavalrymen perform powerful charges, etc
I think this concept could really shine if the terrain affected movement. Imagine a single infantry unit blocking a passage between two mountain hexagons. Imagine cannons on the hill having better range.
Dude! Great idea! Having maneuvers tied to recourses is pure genius! It creates more decisions and satisfying moments! Also I’m rely glad that the chess like element of the game is remaining intact.
Maybe it's something you've considered, but in the game of Diplomacy, the way to win territory is to have more units (naval and/or land) support each other. I think that would be a cool mechanic to have in game. I also loved the aspect of planning moves and coordinating with my allies on a map so they can support me in an attack with their units. I think the maneuver options you came up with with the resource cards is an excellent idea. I also wanted to ask about supply lines? Maybe capturing a settlement or a strategic point on the map could essentially cut off enemy unit ability within so many tiles of the settlement/strategic point while they engage another unit in the front. Basically a pin and hold while another unit takes the rear to cut off retreat and supplies. Encirclement of a group of enemy units should also be a feature somehow like in the game of Go.
I do like the concept of units supporting other units, that could be pretty fun. It'd also be awesome to create alliances somehow. I'm thinking on how supply lines could work. Possibly something with the roads and ports? Could be interesting to develop.
@@julianbirke What do you think about medals as victory points, and promotions for units? I thought it would cool and satisfying to win medals for battle fought and won. And, you know the mission cards in risk? How about medals for completing mission cards? So many medals wins you the game. Promotions for units allow them to do other things, like move more than once, or move more or less spaces than they could before, add to defense/attack, etc.
@@julianbirke supply lines would be far too complicated for a game such as this. if you want the experience of having supply lines without the complexity, then having certain terrains be unsupportable, if you do go with that, would work.
@@aidenaune7008 I think supply lines would be possible. You need to have a clear path from the source of food to the unit, the distance along roads doesn’t matter, but otherwise the trrrain type slows it down. Food production would need its own unit type. A cart or a crate. Small so you can have many on one hex. And it might take a few turns for them to reach the front. That would make the logistics really vital to the game. An army marches on its stomach. And laying siege to a town would require careful distribution of resources
I wasn't sure I liked where you were going with it at first, but I think you settled on a very interesting solution. I'm not certain about the mountain manoeuvre, but I really like the other options.
I have an idea for what the mountains could be. I my idea is to take the heights, you can move onto a mountain tile and while you are there your opponent can’t attack you but you can’t attack them until you move out of the mountains.
Both players can place a Tatics cards (Ambush, Fortify etc...) facing down before a Battle starts. If you are in a Tile that represents a tatic then you can make it for free. (If in the woods ambush can be made for free etc...) Soo players can bluff they might use the free tatic from the tile, but use a counter to the counter. Encircle wins vs Fortify Fortify wins vs Ambush Ambush wins vs Outflank Outflank wins vs Encircle Retreat always ignore the combat but the unit who retreat must be placed in the nearest city. Or a simple version were the retreating unit must move 3 times to the closest city
I really love the system. Enough that I think maneuvers could probably be a bit more common, though you definitely have the right idea by wanting to keep them relatively uncommon. If you do find yourself increasing the number of maneuvers per resource, I think a way to maintain that sense of unpredectability at higher maneuver counts would be to add one or two "complimentary" maneuvers to each resource deck. So the forest deck could have 4 ambush maneuvers and like 2 retreats or something like that. This would mean that while youre more likely to draw a maneuver, its also a bit more difficult to figure out which maneuvers your opponent has. Players would still have a very good idea of what their opponent is capable of.
I love the concept of manoeuvers cards, but you need to think about how freely you can use them. The ambush card, for instance, is very powerfull, so if you can freely convert one wood into an ambush, it's a guarantee no one will ever attack a unit in woods. Also, do the manoeuver correspond to the tile you come from(which require either memorising the original tile or playing the manoeuver card on its visible side) or the target tile? And were the "bluff" part come if the manoeuver chocie is entirely restricted by terrain? A choice between playing or not playing a card? A suggestion I have would be is to have the ability convert ressources into manoeuver at the beginning of the turn, which expire at the end of the turn. That way, you're forced to target specific tiles(which your opponent may avoid, willingfully or not) in order not to waste ressources. Since the opponent can react during the fight phase, there is no certainty he will not move his pieces to avoid the tiles you targeted. Also, for the moutain manoeuver, I suggest using it to give the ability to go on a moutain to an infantry unit.
Some suggestions I have is to make maneuvers attached to ALL of the resource cards, reducing randomness that these sorts of games despise. Making it a game of "do I use this to save my troops in play or do I use it to get my troops out of a tough spot but lose out on using this potential resource on any troop." Making it a game of risk/reward. (It would also be nice if the opposing player could also start making plays of ONLY maneuvers to try and counter the other opposing player maneuver so if that troop was going to cause severe disadvantage to them they can instantly shut the opposing player down unless the other opposing player had another maneuver to get away, a few restrictions I can see to this idea is to limit it to the 2 selected pieces (1 per player) so you cannot start making another piece maneuver while one has already made maneuvers during their turn. Also, kinda implied but I feel it needs mentioning that if the maneuver train (the term I'm using for when both players play more than 1 maneuver) keeps going until one loses all their cards, they cannot play anymore and the opposing player may do what they want with their resource/maneuver cards to control that one piece selected during their turn which may lead to the capturing of the piece and suffer a huge consequence and have permanent disadvantage for the rest of the game when they could've let the troop go and still be at a stable position to regain it back.) Now, you can try to find a way to implement this system into your game and maybe even make it better, sorry for the huge wall of text, however, something as important as the combat system needs to be done just right in order for great gameplay. (Especially considering this is a war game.)
I appreciate the feedback! I guess I'm not opposed to the maneuvers being on all the cards. In my head they're suppose to be a rare, "ace up your sleeve" type thing, that really takes your opponent by surprise; to add small upsets here and there. I'll have to think through what would happen if all the cards have them. It could be better.
Just an idea I had to keep up some more variety in the combat: You could have every resource type have the possibility of every maneuver type. So forests, for instance, aren’t 100% designated for ambushing. BUT the forest cards are just more LIKELY to be ambush cards. So the majority of forest cards would have the Ambush maneuver… but not all of them. To keep some variability. Just a thought.
Ive always wanted to combine risk, catan, and chess into one game. And i stumbled upon you today. Love your work, i would LOVE to buy this! The closest game I've found is Civilization 6 and I love it, but the game just takes way to long to play with family.
As someone who is currently working on a personnal boardgame project, just watching your vidéo helped me come up with a combat system for my game. Thank you for the inspiration :)) (Also watched your other vidéos, they are high quality and entertaining, keep it up brother !)
I think the combat needs to be a little more complicated than the take-retake system in order to add the nuance you want. Maybe units could be in a Ready position, or placed on its side in a ‘not ready’ position. Imagine this: when cannons or horses enter a mountain range, they switch to the Not Ready position, because the unit has to dismount/disassemble cannons and carefully climb the mountain. The next turn, the unit has to Ready itself before it can move/attack. (Perhaps with the cost of food) Combine this with the hexagonal base idea, so unit direction matters. If you hit a unit in the flank, they die. If you hit it on the defensive side, it switches to Not Ready. Units that are Not Ready are vulnerable from all sides. Then in your classic example of 2v1 infantry, instead of equal losses on both sides. The first attacking unit wears down the defender, and the second attacking unit gets the kill. I think this style would make the combat a bit closer to the system in Diplomacy, where you attack units just so they can’t support other units, and the whole warfront becomes an orchestrated attack. There could also be certain unit abilities, maybe when your infantry unit defends, you could make an adjacent infantry unit Not Ready instead of the defending unit. (Reinforcing the defense). If cavalry is on hills or plains, they can turn faster, so they can flank the enemy. While a forest would slow them down. Infantry on a hill or mountain could defend in all directions (because they can see the enemy coming)
How long does it take to play this game? With my friend group, we usually enjoy 45 minutes to an hour and a half long games. Also, another issue with many games is the loser. Within the first few turns, it is often clear that someone is definently NOT going to win. With my game, I added specific victory conditions so that if someone is crushing the competition, it is over quickly. I hate how in Risk there can be a player who is slowly choked out over the course of an hour and just has to play a losing game. Been loving these videos, keep it up man!
@@dubart5918 I appreciate it! The game takes ~1.5 hours, which is definitely an improvement from the 7 hours it use to take haha. As for victory conditions, I totally agree with you, nothing is worse than the slow death like risk lol. I am still figuring out a fun victory condition but as of now, once you conquer 3/4ths of the board you win. I appreciate the feedback and wish you luck with your own game!
I’d love to try the initial card combat rules with a technically simple game like Diplomacy! The player whose turn it is plays the defending country’s player. Repeat for every piece involved until one side has non, or someone/offender-only/defender-only retreats (if possible). Poor decisions in the combat could impact allies participation in future turns. Might need a second card set for naval-only combat.
I think i wouldve implemented a different version of this by applying standard rules to certain terrain. For example, infantry can pass wheat fields without using their 1 tile move hence gaining movement speed. Horses have only 1 movement in mountains. Canons cannot be slain in mountains, but also cant fire from them. This would indirectly enact sun tzus principles, but take out the luck element
Great system! Elegant, yet exciting and strategic. I would probably make maneuvers more common, so that every player is guaranteed to have access to them throughout the game or, as others have suggested, make maneuvers always available, and you just need to spend a card of the proper type to use them.
I think the reason this combat system, while good, didn’t work for your game is that each element in a game needs to be tangentially influenced by other elements in the game. Take the Fury of Dracula combat system as an excellent example of this. It has a similar sort of advanced Rock Paper Scissors element to it, with cards and counters, but the cards for one side have to be drawn using actions which could otherwise be spent towards furthering other aspects of the game. Thus there is strategy around whether to improve combat hand or to further the deductive or logistical aspects of the game. You’ll want something similar, where gaining an advantage in combat requires giving up an advantage elsewhere. Another example would be Sekigahara, where the cards spent to activate and force March troops are also used to activate those troops in battle, thus the two aspects of the game pull from the same resource, making hand management all the more tricky and interesting.
Hello, just found your channel and I love all the ideas for this game, it’s exactly what I’ve been looking for in a board game for a while! I think this system is of maneuver card is a bit lucked based but also great! It bring new thinking to attacking, like what if you want to use your wood to do an ambush but you don’t know when the next time you’ll get wood is and you need it to build something that your saving for. It seems like your not wanting a lot of dice to be rolled and for the battles to be played more from skill rather then luck of the dice so I maybe have an idea. Different units could come with their own stats, like attack and defense stats. So say the infantry had 1 attack and 1 defense, but maybe depending on the terrain they gain more defense like on a stone tile they get +1 to defense or in a woods tile. Maybe if a unit is within a colony that has walls gets a +2 defense. Attacking units would then have to spend some time to get around that unit, so a unit with one attack would need to attack twice to break destroy the unit on a stone tile. And how this can work with the maneuvers is where you can spend that maneuver/ resource card to add attack to the unit to help break defense, like the ambush adds +1. I think this system would require a lot of play testing to get unit stats right for stuff like cannons and cavalry, maybe cannons have some extra range into other tiles but can’t get a defense buff unless in a colony, making them more vulnerable to cavalry who move farther then other units in a turn and can reach that cannons. It feels like it needs a lot of testing to get it to work and there are most definitely problems with this type of system but I just though to add my own 2 cents, your doing an amazing job and I can’t wait to see the finished product!
Really like how you broke down the process of decision making, which mechanics fit the game! Also think the results are very promising and leave room for expansion/ tweaking ;)
Bit sad to see the "pure bluffing" got replaced by somewhat random cards, but at least it's more thematic and intricate than dice combat is claimed to be
What about a combined arms advantage? Where you get a bonus for attacking with multiple different unit types at the same time, but each unit type has a terrain restriction of some sort.
I think your maneuver system is such a good idea! All the other suggestions before seemed a bit to complicated. I'm assuming you need to be on our around a matching tile to use one of the cards. With that being said, I'd probably make the maneuvers function something more like this. Ambush: Do not allow your opponent to make a counter move after this attack. (essentially getting a back to back activation while being aggressive). Retreat: Instead of losing your unit, move it to an open square and do not take a reactionary move. (You could let the player who's turn it isn't make a reaction but that might be to powerful). I'd probably also make it so canons get stuck in the spot they attacked. Encirclement: Any maneuver your opponent plays loses it's affect and gets discarded. (You could exclude fortify if you want since it'll help not make walls/hills as useless. It might be boring if people just used encirclements to guarantee wins against settlements). Outflank: If next to a mountain, after the combat, the player may move their piece to any tile touching a mountain that's adjacent to the unit. (Good maneuverability and it could either get a unit out of a dangerous forward position or put a unit into a new aggressive position). Fortify: Either negate the combat and return all units to their starting position, or possible guarantee a win unless the other player plays a retreat (resulting in no lost units), or an encirclement. This could give you a reason to play retreat on the offence and would be a great way to bait out a fortify and could recreate the tactic of fainting a retreat only to have your opponent over extend. Really want to play your game, I'm about to 3d print my own version lol. Please let us know when we can pay money for a version. You might want to make some rule that forces both players to pretend to play a card (maybe giving the resource back to the players if they're blank), or perhaps force one player or the other to play a card face down first. Maybe the attacker has to decide if they want to play a card face down first or who ever has the turn must play first. I think your greatest strength as a game dev is being able to say no to bad ideas an can them.
Actually the thing that interested me in your games id that combat is simple but logic and pure. Like chess, i really like the chess mechanic of just killing the ennemy piece, it seams to be more strategic than basing the combat on manneuvers. Chess is more tactic and strategic because you need to protect every pieces you have and see what ennemy pieced arent. The basic abilities of the 3 unites seems really interisting
@@julianrosso2562 the original combat system would remain in place, this is meant to be small "surprises" or "bonuses" on top of it. I understand if you still don't like it, but I think players could also chose if they want to use it when they play or not, depending on house rules.
0:32 I think any Sabaton fan probably freaked out like I did (I am referencing the song Price of a Mile) Also, I really like the commitment to tactics and strategy here, it makes it feel more like a real war simulator, because you have to keep up with cities and towns as well.
Right, I just listened to it the first time. Great song! I appreciate the feedback. I'm definitely trying to make it as realistic as possible, while maintaining simplicity.
@@julianbirke Easy to learn, hard to master... The best kind of game. I can't even put into words how much I've wanted a game like the very one you're making here, I've always wanted to invade other colonies in Catan and plunder their--I mean-- Expand my empire!
If you want to represent health, you could turn pieces onto their side to show that they are at half health, unfortunately, I don't think you can simulate any other health percentage using this idea.
Very elegant solution! What do you think of the bias in favor of attacking though? Intuition suggests defending should be easier than attacking, but it's not easy to balance if you are going for a more dynamic gameplay
@@pierpiero thank you! I'll have to see how it all works while play testing but part of the idea is that the defense could play a counter of their own in response. It might be to in favor of the offense though.
there is a great book called The 33 Strategies of War Work by Robert Greene which may help in SunTzu strategies using examples in history and explaining them more indepth. The 33 Strategies of War Work by Robert Greene
@@julianbirke google with pdf and you can get a copy with archive, it is great website to join, for references like a library can get books out one hour or 14 days, some can download pdf free
@@julianbirke pdf download from archive when you google. Recomend Archive a online non profit organisation, has book lend 1 hr or 14 days and some have pdf, or other files free
I been doing research on epic full on strategy game based on my favourite period Napoleonics, it is a massive project to undertake alone, but l tinker at it
Why dodn't you make it so that each tile has it's own effect on the combat? Like you cannot attack someone on a mountain tile without adjesent friendly units or smth. That's what immediately jumped into my head (i'm not saying you should, just wondering what led to this decision)
@@VihniPuh-kolinkrivi it's a fair point. This is basically the same effect I think, except you won't know if your opponent has the bonus card or not. I think it'll add some excitement building up maneuver cards and positioning your units into tiles that give you the advantage. Also, naval units will be able to use them; since all the water tiles are the same, you couldn't add bonuses into the them otherwise.
@@julianbirke yeah, it is basically. Why I thought about just an effect is it will always be a challange that players will have to consider. Cards are nice, and they solve military rush strategy nicely (i think, didn't test it). But it feels like a gimmick that will not add anything most of the time, exept once, when the stars align. I'm not sure if it is. Again, i never tested it. So that's why I'm wondering what thougths led you to make this decision.
@@julianbirke For the naval combat issue you could make the maneuver dependent on what coast tiles, if any, are adjacent. For what it's worth, I would prefer the terrain to always allow corresponding maneuvers, no card required. Have you considered adding "dead" tiles like Ocean or Desert?
@@julianbirke Yes exactly I had a silly idea of "fog of war" where the tiles are all flipped over and only the immediate tiles next to your "Soliders" placed on the field.
@@johnp5250gotcha haha. I really am not sure how it's going to work yet. I like the idea of flipping them over as you "explore" the map but I think it'd be physically difficult to do, without shifting tiles and knocking pieces over.
I believe the low ranking units like Muskets and Cavalry should have things that makes them viable, for example Muskets could use a volley in there attack (costing 1 iron ore because it feels iron is the closest to lead) that causes all units around the area where the Musket attacked to loose the ability to attack because they are to shocked to put up a fight and for defence Muskets could use stakes for Cavalry or barricades for Cannons causing you to think what your enemy will do (costing 1 lumber) that defends them from 1 attack. Cavalry could have the attack ability momentum (costing 1 wheat or fish and 1 mustang) that allows, after an attack, to either retreat 1 tile back or kill another unit and for defence Cavalry could have the ability deflect (costing 3 wheat of fish) that allows the Cavalry to survive the turn at the cost of it not being able to attack next turn and if the attacker doesn't have a friendly unit next to it, it will die. These ability could make players want to buy Muskets and Cavalry in certain situations to try to turn the game around, avoiding the cannon and frigate spam.
Why do only some of the cards have a manoeuvre? Would it not be simpler for all cards to be double use? assuming resources are at least somewhat valuable and scarce... it remains a very interesting strategic decision.
@@maxbladel i think if they were to all have them, the game would become almost as predictable as if there weren't any of them. I haven't really playtested them much yet, so that could change. I just wanted a little flare on top of the existing combat system.
@@julianbirke I suppose it depends on how frequent combat is, and how scarce resources are. It might mean that you can attempt to drain a player of x resource by attacking in associated terrain type. Again I don't have the full picture to accurately speculate. I'm intrigued though. Would love to play test once you have version your willing to share!
@@Gattninja that's a great question! I've been wondering that myself. Perhaps facedown. If faced up, there should probably be a rule that you can only trade in resource cards on your turn.
I think facedown is a more elegant solution. If the cards are facedown there would need to be some kind of indicator on the back of the card showing its resource. I actually think that would add to the tension. You have some general idea of what cards your opponent is holding but you can't be sure which maneuvers your opponent has access to. You can also predict what infrastructure or units your opponent is close to building and plan for that.
Personally, this seems to me like a needless complication of a rather elegant combat design. That said, I do think it is worth investigating. On a published version of the game, I think this would make an excellent optional rule for 'advanced' players or some such.
@@GabrielGABFonseca that's fair. I really think my game was missing some excitement though, and I'm hoping these add that. I haven't play tested them too much yet, so we'll have to see. The good news is that players could decide if they want to use them or not though.
Hello, i have a question, at the start of creating the game you said artillery can attack and retreat just after, but is this different than just shooting and Killing from distance the other units ? It seems more logic for an artillery division to not move when shootting otherwise it would means infantry are actually slower than artillery because arrillery moves "2 tiles" whereas infantry moves 1 tile
The idea behind it is that they could essentially attack without moving, making them good for defense. I felt being able to attack 2 tiles away and not moving is a bit overpowered. The main reason behind moving and then retreating, is just the fact that I like moving pieces on the board lol
Hello I am a freelancer board game designer. The art and rules so far look great. If you need help with your project. I would be more than happy to help you
@@Obamama4211 I've look into that some. My goal is to make the cost as cheap as possible, I want everyone to be able to enjoy it. It is pretty expensive for me to self publish and will depend on the quantity of pieces I buy in bulk. All of that to say, I'd like for it to be around $35-$45.
@@Valadox_ I can! Basically all the units (musketmen, cavalry, cannon and frigates) have different move/attack ranges and the combat functions similar to chess; one unit/tile and moving into an enemy tiles kills them. Maneuver cards (still in development) will add abilities on top of the basic moves/attacks, based upon what resource your unit is on. So say you're being attacked while occupying a "hill" tile. You would have the option to play a "hill" resource card (if it has the emblem, fortify) and deflect the attack. Each of the 6 resources will have different maneuvers, still settling on what they will actually be, but this is basically how they'll function. Hope this helped and Wasn't too confusing!
@@julianbirke Thanks! I am a little confused on encirclement, because you said it prevents counter maneuver cards. but if you attack a stone area, stone area doesnt have anything like retreat or fortify, so negating something like ambush doesnt do anything. I am also confused on how outflank works.
Still 3, yes. You did make some good points and I do like the idea of the cannon having to "reload". I'm hesitant to add more units because I want the game to be quick and simple for anyone to learn and the more units/rules added can confuse people. I think there could be a place for adding more units, such as the pikeman like you suggested but that might be more of an expansion pack idea.
The more I think on this, you may have a point. It would give it a more "chess" like gameplay to have more units. Maybe all the units are different? Some being more powerful than others and having to decide where to place them and protect certain ones.
Yes. It realy depends on what youre game is amimg for. You can keep it simple. If it works out then with time and people's reaction to the "Base game" or "core game" you can add expansions and even maby, have some kind of second edition that can be diferent. Experiment.
