search

nymanjens / Alliances

WWI-themed board game
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2038974445
3 stars 0 forks source link

Battle chances #191

Closed Tantali closed 6 years ago

Tantali commented 7 years ago

Already 2 test-plays had players noting that the win-chances in battle are difficult to predict. I'd agree with this. This is not necessarily a bad thing, except if the play revolves around you knowing the exact chances. Which is currently the case I'd say.

I see 2 game-play scenarios:

  1. winning battles by slowly whittling down your enemy: knowing the actual chances for winning a full battle is less critical, because knowing the incremental gains is enough to make good plays.
  2. winning battles in one attack: knowing the actual chances is required to beat your enemy. If you calculated wrong, it was a bad play.

The game is currently centered around 2. Meaning the person knowing the full chance table by heart or by calculation is at a major advantage.

I'm not a fan of adding a chance-table, but maybe a general heuristic comment like '1 unit advantage wins the battle' is enough? Or would we revise the mechanic to either make it more intuitive to estimate the end result, or switch to a more whittling down type of game-play?

317070 commented 7 years ago

Already 2 test-plays had players noting that the win-chances in battle are difficult to predict.

I saw this as a good thing. It makes the game better for play with engineers mixed with non-engineers. I would say this is not a bug, it's a feature.

This is as long as the chances are according to heuristics. And that is pretty true right now.

nymanjens commented 7 years ago

I can see how this can be annoying to some players. It has to be said that I've never heard this complaint in other test games though.

nymanjens commented 6 years ago

Closing this since there doesn't seem to be a huge support for changing this now.

Let's re-open this if we here these types of complaints more.