I think there should be an option of cyclical, increasing cards.  For example, 3,4,5,4,5,6,5,6,7,6,7,8... or 2,4,6,4,6,8,6,8,10... or 2,4,8,16,4,8,16,32,8,16,32,64... etc.  You could even put a second cycle... 1,2,3,4,2,3,4,5,3,4,5,6,4,5,6,7,5,6,7,8,6,7,8,9,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,2,3,4.... etc.  What do you think?

I think (though I have no real basis for this assertion) that it would be very difficult to code. However, it's an interesting idea and has a lot of merit.

What I would also like to see is an option to plateau the card scale, e.g. 4,6,8,10,15,20,25,30,30,30,30...

second the plateau

It is not so terrible to code. In C/Java/etc, % is mod or "remainder division", while / is "integer" or "round down" division. I assume PHP has an equivalent.

Let's say "counter" is a variable keeping track of which card set we are on (initialized at counter = 0) and "Armies" is dispensed armies.

3,4,5,4,5,6,5,6,7,6,7,8,... is given by Armies = 3 + (counter % 3) + (counter / 3)

2,4,6,4,6,8,6,8,10,... is given by Armies = 2 + 2*(counter % 3) + 2*(counter / 3)

generically, if we start at S, increment by I, and cycle every C (as specified by designer), we'd have:

Armies = S + I*(counter % C) + I*(counter / C)

The maddening exponential escalating cycle is just 1,2,3,4,2,3,4,5,3,4,5,6 placed into the exponent of 2, so it is something like:

Temp = 1 + (counter % 4) + (counter / 4)
Armies = 2^Temp

Plateau should be an easy if/then based on a max parameter. All look like interesting options to me (provided the plateau's don't lead to an increase in stalematey maps). -H

Edward Nygma wrote:

I think there should be an option of cyclical, increasing cards.  For example, 3,4,5,4,5,6,5,6,7,6,7,8... or 2,4,6,4,6,8,6,8,10... or 2,4,8,16,4,8,16,32,8,16,32,64... etc.  You could even put a second cycle... 1,2,3,4,2,3,4,5,3,4,5,6,4,5,6,7,5,6,7,8,6,7,8,9,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,2,3,4.... etc.  What do you think?

Krock suggested something similar in the "Adjustable Card Scale" thread awhile back.  I've been trying to imagine how this feature would be beneficial to a game, but am drawing a blank.  They make card cycles more complicated, which is a bad thing, so what do they add that would make this extra complexity worthwhile?  Can anyone suggest something they would let you do that couldn't be done nearly as well with a purely repeating cycle?

It seems to me that the reason you would want a long repeating cycle would be to alternate between periods of low value cards (when continents dominate the game) and high value cards (when card sets dominate the game).  If you are slowly ramping up the minimum in the cycle, you will be gradually losing out on the benefits of the low value part of the card cycle.

I'm with the Flying Ace on this one.

Red Baron wrote:

Krock suggested something similar in the "Adjustable Card Scale" thread awhile back.  I've been trying to imagine how this feature would be beneficial to a game, but am drawing a blank.  They make card cycles more complicated, which is a bad thing, so what do they add that would make this extra complexity worthwhile?  Can anyone suggest something they would let you do that couldn't be done nearly as well with a purely repeating cycle?

this will be a help for when you allow players to hold 6+ cards before trading in, that way if you do want a increasing scale but dont want it to increase to dramaticly in a short amount of time, espesialy when players trade in 2 sets at a time.

 It will also help with the larger games 8-16 players where the first player trades for 3 men then the 12th player would trade for 15 men (34567 scale) and both are trading their first set. if you had 345674567856789 then that keeps the large games alot closer. first player trades for 3, 12th player trades for 6 and allowing the increase keep pace with the game and not have the cards become useless in the late stages of the game by having a straite repeating cycle. thats why i suggested this....

I also agree to some extent with asm and 'Baron in the "why do we need this?" idea, but I also am a fan of the "Give designers as powerful of tools as possible" idea.

I already built a Flash tool a while back that can make those sorts of card scales.  I gave Tom a copy of the Flash file I wrote it with, but he hasn't put it in the tools for some reason or another.

http://toasterrules.freehostia.com/Card_Engine.html

The thing that can be created with my engine that I would love to be able to implement is the repeating that doesn't just drop straight back down.  So a scale like: 4, 6, 8, 10, 8, 6, 4, 6, 8...

I hate the huge drop from 10 to 4, it makes for some crappy situations; especially in a game with a decent number of players in it.

Sorry Toaster just time constraints!

Totally understand.

You are but one man; only so much can be done at once and the "big stuff" needs you most.

Toaster wrote:

http://toasterrules.freehostia.com/Card_Engine.html

 The thing that can be created with my engine that I would love to be able to implement is the repeating that doesn't just drop straight back down.  So a scale like: 4, 6, 8, 10, 8, 6, 4, 6, 8...

i played around with it for a bit and really like it! nice work Toaster!

Red Baron wrote:

It seems to me that the reason you would want a long repeating cycle would be to alternate between periods of low value cards (when continents dominate the game) and high value cards (when card sets dominate the game).  If you are slowly ramping up the minimum in the cycle, you will be gradually losing out on the benefits of the low value part of the card cycle.

Exactly!  There's someone who understands some of the more in-depth balance/strategy issues of the game.  I don't think Baron is contradicting the idea of adding the feature just the idea of introducing broken increment cycles.  I'm all about adding choice when it comes to designing so I'm behind this idea.

Toaster wrote:

I already built a Flash tool a while back that can make those sorts of card scales.  I gave Tom a copy of the Flash file I wrote it with, but he hasn't put it in the tools for some reason or another.

http://toasterrules.freehostia.com/Card_Engine.html

Now that's a handy tool.  You're missing a feature I consider important, though, which is automatic scaling by number of players in the game so that card scales can be chosen that will work well with any number of players.  This was what I proposed awhile back (feel free to add it to your tool!):

int value(int n, int y0, int s0, int x1, int s1, int x2, int s2, int R, int N) {
    // Let's count from zero to keep things simple
    float x = n - 1;
    x1 = x1 - 1;
    x2 = x2 - 1;
    
    // Scale cards by the number of players (N=0 for no scaling)
    if (N > 0) x = (4*x)/N;
    
    // Cycle values after R card sets (R=0 for no cycling)
    if (R > 0) x = fmod(x, R);
    
    // Select one of three slopes depending on x1 and x2 values
    if ((x1 == 0) || (x <= x1)) {
        // First slope
        return (int)(y0 + x * s0);
    }
    else if ((x2 == 0) || (x <= x2)) {
        // Second slope
        return (int)(y0 + x1 * s0 + (x - x1) * s1);
    }
    else {
        // Third slope
        return (int)(y0 + x1 * s0 + (x2 - x1) * s1 + (x - x2) * s2);
    }
}

where

n = card set being cashed (n=1 for first card set)
y0 = value of initial card set (when n=1)
s0 = initial slope (increment) value
x1 = value of n at which to end first slope (x1=0 if no second slope)
s1 = slope value after x1
x2 = value of n at which to end second slope (x2=0 if no third slope)
s2 = slope value after x2
R = value of n at which to start the cycle over (R=0 for no cycling)
N = number of players in the game (N=0 if scaling by players not used)

This allows up to three different slopes, allows cycling at a constant repeat period, and permits the option of scaling cards to the number of players in the game.  When using this last option, the other variables should be selected for a 4 player game, and the algorithm will modify the scale to suit an N player game such that the Nth player will see card values similar to those the 4th player would see in a 4 player game.

Problem is that when I put together the card scale tool the only purpose in mind was to generate an array of numbers for the cards to follow. I had never intended for it to dynamically generate a new set on a game to game basis. You need cool back-end knowledge/access for such things. My aim was just to provide an easy way for designers to create more unique scales for their boards.

I'm not sure if having the slopes is even really needed though. What sort of card scales do you envision that you would like to have dependent on the number of players?

Increasing cyclical card sets DO provide merit and would be used. The idea is that increasing cards increase too quickly, while cyclical cards don't increase with the bonuses. With increasing cards without a plateau, eventually the cards are worth more than the bonuses on the board. With cyclical cards, eventually the bonuses on the board are worth more than the card sets. In both of these scenarios, one is rendered obsolete. Increasing cycles provide a cycle which increases as total player bonuses increase, not too quickly or slowly.

Toaster wrote:
I'm not sure if having the slopes is even really needed though. What sort of card scales do you envision that you would like to have dependent on the number of players?

The idea is to make the card scale act similarly regardless of whether there are 2 players or 16 players in a game.  Right now, if you choose an escalating scale that is perfect for a small number of players, you get way too much escalation for a large number of players, and if you choose an escalating scale that is comfortably fast for a large number of players, you get snail's pace escalation for a small number of players.

This problem was explained more fully in the thread:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/240/Enhancement_Suggestion:_Scale_Cards_by_Number_of_Players

One way to increase card sets but not dramatically and without a 4 player game having one player always receiving reinforcements of 10 and another receiving reinforcements of 4 because of the card order would be to define card trade-ins on a per-player basis.

ie. Player A>2,3,4,5,6
Player B>2,3,4,5,6
Player C>2,3,4,5,6

Another possibly application of this would be to create a scenario based on differing trade-in values.
ie. Player A>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Player B>2,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,4,4

Or every few rounds a player receives a boost in reinforcements but starts out with some sort of disadvantage.

Player A>2,2,2,2,2,2
Player B>2,2,8,2,2,8

Or have
Player A>10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-3...
Player B>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14...

I'm sure a few of our designers would have some interesting ways to create scenarios with this.

Of course if you really want to simply equalize trade-ins with players you can have your own card set increase linearly without affecting other people's trade-in values as in the original example.

Per player scaling would work better than say in an 8 player game having the first 8 trade-ins worth 2 and the 2nd set of 8 trade ins worth 5, is that this trade-in system will become skewed if either
A)Someone chooses not to get any cards and simply pile units in one spot.
B)Someone is eliminated.

The value of cards has always been, in my mind, to promote aggression vs. stagnation of the board, so I like the idea of balancing increasing sets so that people are forced/encouraged to get a card, but I dislike when card sets matter more than the continents and your own positioning.

I still like the idea of increasing cycles.

Edward Nygma wrote: I still like the idea of increasing cycles.

Me too.