Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    29
  • comments
    35
  • views
    18606

Blocking...maybe confusing?

Sign in to follow this  
Pluvious

471 views

In a typical collectible card game you (like magic the gathering) you block one creature card with another creature card. Its a 1 vs 1 blocking type of thing. If you don't have as many creatures out as the other player then they are going to be able to damage you (the player).

In Immortal Kingdoms there are a couple different types of blocking. And I'm hoping its not "too" confusing for the average player.

First off, a little explanation of battlefield positioning. Here is a picture of the battlefield again.

Battlefield

The five vertical positions near the middle of the battlefield are the "Front Line Attackers". This is important because these five defend the back seven.

If you have ANY creature in one of these five locations then that one creature can prevent MELEE attacks to any creature in the back 7 (the back 7 allies also cannot attack in melee but may do so with magic and ranged attacks).

So, the main thing here is that one creature can defend all back line creatures. I will go more into the strategy of this later and why I implemented capturing the fountain as a counter to only using one creature up front all the time.

Anyway, that should be pretty simple. The next form of blocking is less so. Just like most CCG's you can't simply just attack the other player. Like I said before in Magic the Gathering you have to block 1 vs 1 or the player gets attacked. In Immortal Kingdoms attacking the other player is different.

Even though range units and magic users can attack back line enemy units at enemy point they cannot simply attack the other player at any point. Instead, they must be "UnBlocked".

Take a look at the battlefield image above. Notice the small "Blocked" text boxes in the top right and left hand corners. These tell the player if that player can be attacked or not. This text box is just a place holder graphic however, as it will be a larger image later represented by a Opened/UnOpened Castle Gate when it is finished.

You are "blocked" from any type of attack (melee, ranged, spell) by the other army if you have 2 or less creatures/immortals than that army. With the exception if they have 0 creatures/immortals on the battlefield (you can always attack another player if they have no army on the field).

For example, if you are attacking and have 2 creatures and the enemy has 1 then you are Blocked (only 1 more creature).

If you are attacking with 3 compared to 1 you are Blocked (only 2 more creatures).

If you are attacking with 4 to 1 you are un-blocked (3 more).

The reason for this ratio is complicated strategy/game play wise. I want to allow for the use of powerful/interesting creatures but at the same time make it still very possible to use a smaller army/rush strategy viable.

And because the strategy aspect of the game is still up in the air in terms of balance and how everything plays out I can't be sure what strategies will prevail just yet.

So, my main question is "Is blocking too complicated for the average player" as it is now? Keep in mind it being blocked will be visually represented so you will always know if you are blocked or not but if people don't read the rules it they may not immediately know WHY.
Sign in to follow this  


4 Comments


Recommended Comments

So if the attack is blocked, no damage is done, but if the attack is unblocked the player gets full damage? I think Magic's simple rule is more fair, blocking is done creature-by-creature so any attacking creatures in excess of the defender's do damage...

Share this comment


Link to comment
Quote:
Original post by Jotaf
So if the attack is blocked, no damage is done, but if the attack is unblocked the player gets full damage? I think Magic's simple rule is more fair, blocking is done creature-by-creature so any attacking creatures in excess of the defender's do damage...



Yeah, Magic the Gathering is more simple in this respect. But this is more like armies fighting than a card game. And can't say your input really gives me much help in terms of how I can improve the game...as there is no way I can do a creature-by-creature blocking system with the current battlefield layout. :)

If the attack is "blocked" then you cannot attack the opponent directly. The "Castle Gate Close Image" means you simply cannot attack the other player...you need more creatures on the field. So you have to kill more of the opponent or put more creatures out.

So its similar to Magic the GAthering except it is not 1 vs 1 directly and that you basically need 3 more of your army than the opponent. With 3 or more creatures out than the opponent then you can attack the other player if you wish. Or you can focus all your attacks on the creatures.

It can't be like Magic the Gathering because of the idea of "Front Line" and "Back Line" and various other smaller strategy ideas.


In Immortal Kingdoms you can either attack other creatures and try to kill them ( I was going to go into how to win and how to attack later). Trying to kill creatures isn't always easy. It can take rounds, depending on the strength of the creatures involved. This is also different than MTG where creatures are often killed in direct 1 vs 1 battles with a single attack.

Not only this but you can attack a creature multiple times in Immortal Kingdoms. You can have all your creatures a single creature if you want.

Because of this difference the strategy is different...as is blocking. A main strategy will be if you wish to put out a couple of big guys and try to waste all the little guys while they in turn try to stay alive while attacking the opponent directly (similar to MTG in this way).

But because the little guys can't be killed with one quick blow the defenders need a bit more of an advantage. This is why you need more than a 1 to 1 ratio of attackers/blockers because this ratio would too greatly give an edge to the small creatures.

Yeah, I know I'm long winded. :) But if I'm not I forget stuff.

Share this comment


Link to comment
A game that used a similar mechanic to this was "Ogre Battle - March of the Black Queen" on SNES. Although this was on a smaller scale (only 5 units involved in a battle at a time), it had the same idea of "if there's units in the front row, the back row can't be attacked in melee. Of course, there was no "player" that could be attached in that game, but you might want to look into how that game worked. The units would all take their turns, doing damage/casting spells etc. Generally the front-row guys would take the brunt of the first attacks as they were the only targets "reachable". Exceptions would be units with magic/abilities allowing them to attack whatever target or even the entire group of enemies. Once a front-line unit was killed, enemy units that are adjacent to that space could either attack the front-line enemy next to them, or attack whatever unit(s) that were exposed in the back line.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Quote:
Original post by LachlanL
A game that used a similar mechanic to this was "Ogre Battle - March of the Black Queen" on SNES. Although this was on a smaller scale (only 5 units involved in a battle at a time), it had the same idea of "if there's units in the front row, the back row can't be attacked in melee. Of course, there was no "player" that could be attached in that game, but you might want to look into how that game worked. The units would all take their turns, doing damage/casting spells etc. Generally the front-row guys would take the brunt of the first attacks as they were the only targets "reachable". Exceptions would be units with magic/abilities allowing them to attack whatever target or even the entire group of enemies. Once a front-line unit was killed, enemy units that are adjacent to that space could either attack the front-line enemy next to them, or attack whatever unit(s) that were exposed in the back line.


I played Ogre Battle on the playstation. I didn't really like it for some reason. Ogre Tactics was much more my thing...although Ogre Battle seemed to have a lot of potential to be really good.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now