Specific question regarding my game (Unit Cohesion)

[Malagar]

hey guys,
I would like to ask you a reather specific question about my game and its system. I know this is the place where designers (not just players) come together to discuss. So, if one or two of you have an idea - i would love to hear them.

1. my CCG is actually more of a wargame - one game represents one battle, just keep that in mind
2. there are heroes and minions. heroes lead minions. together they form a unit (for example one dwarf runecaster hero can lead one axeman and one spearman, for a total unit of 3 cards).
3. heroes issue orders and initiate special actions. without a hero, a unit cannot act!
4. everyone starts with a hero in play and there are many more in each deck
5. there is no direct damage in the game, and heroes are always destroyed last.
6. a hero must always lead a unit, you cannot play minion cards if there is no hero to lead them.

as it seems, this hero thing is very limiting altogether. if you dont have a hero in your hand, or cannot pay it, you cannot build a new unit. call it "hero mulligan"

but, as far as we have tested the whole thing, its working quite well. thats because you always start with a hero, never have too many units on the table the same time (1-3 max) and you have additional heroes in your deck to replace/add to units.

so we have reached the following point: its makes no sence having the restriction, but it also makes no sense removing it. right now its just a sub-mechanism that exists more for flavor and realism.

now to my question:

what do you think? remove the restriction at all and let players have units without heroes also. then heroes would just be better version of cards. or empower the restriction even more making heroes the true centerpiece of the whole game?

thank you so much for any comments!

[mathman1550]

If you want some sort of realism to it, your basic peasant with a weapon is not going to run into battle without someone forcing him, but if he were attacked I'm sure he would defend himself as best he could at all costs. So maybe just restrict the hero rule to something like: Your other cards will not attack unless a hero is in play. (But they may defend).

My point may also change based on the victory conditions of your game, which I did not see in the description.

[Malagar]

hi mathman and thanks for the quick reply!

yes, actually followers can defend themselves even without a hero. but they cannot move, may not attack or shoot. if they are panicked (this is called broken), you will need a hero to recover them ...and so on...

victory: its about terrain control. you have to move onto terrain cards. you need a certain amount of troop ranks on a card to conquer it. each conquered card gains you 1 victory point. 6 victory points and you win the game.

and yes, its much about realism and playing realistic battles with cards in a fantasy setting.

[Typherion]

I don't know how helpful my comments will be since I'm not very familiar with your game but I'll have a go.

From my experience, designing gets much harder after the basics are finished when you start thinking of all the stuff you could change or do differently. It sounds like you need to get back in touch with your design goals for the game. What is the game meant to be about? What kind of experience are players supposed to have?

If you're clear about your design goals then it's probably just a matter of testing both alternatives to find out which one plays better.

Personally, I would probably prefer to be able to play minions without needing a hero. But you could still make 1x unit + 1x hero a more powerful combination than say 2x unit or 2x hero.

[Dragoon]

I would prefer to be able to have minions attack/defend without a hero present. This is because your first hero is destroyed and you can't get new ones, you are devoid of winning.

[Malagar]

thanks to both of you - your input is most valueable. yes its difficult because you dont know the game, but that way it get completely different points of view.

so, i decided to soften the hero rules and let the followers act on their own. heroes stay of course, as they are more powerful and so on. its just this "artificial unit system" that im getting rid off.

soon, the final rules will be available for free download - i would be very happy if one or two of you could check them out for any logical loopholes we might have missed!

[Malagar]

ok, now we tweaked the rules more and removed the "unit cohesion" altogether.

minions act like personalities: they all can move and attack, defend and act on their own. there is no reason for a personality to lead a unit of cards.

two effects arise:

1. gameplay is faster, pressure is higher, its also more fair - mulligan is gone.
2. we got rid of a few "tacked on" rules. plus no need for fixed starter cards anymore

now the only thing thats left is: there is no single reason anymore to categorize simple followers into "minions" and powerful personalities into "heroes". they are all the same. the only exception is that heroes can attach equipment and spells.

I wonder why they seperated followers and personalities in legend of the five rings into these two groups. are there any other reasons besides flavor?

final tought: maybe there is a way to make the heroes a bit better. not enforcing them to lead units but to boost the unit they are in. but please no simple +1 to all stats. hmm, in my game you require resources to attack and maneuver, maybe this is not necessary when a unit is lead by a hero. on the otherhand this could become too powerful.

any clever idea from an "outsider" who does not know the rules yet? Just something that springs on your mind?