|
| Thread: 1 player or Single player scenarios? | |
|
Destroy89
Tavern Dweller
|
posted March 16, 2006 07:47 PM |
|
|
1 player or Single player scenarios?
Anyone have any ideas on a way to play this single player? Anyone created a set of rules or scenarios for the imaginary second or more players to follow?
It's not to hard for battles, but for exploration, defense, offense and any purchase choices it could be tough.
-Destroy
|
|
TheFoeHammer
Known Hero
|
posted March 16, 2006 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyone have any ideas on a way to play this single player? Anyone created a set of rules or scenarios for the imaginary second or more players to follow?
It's not to hard for battles, but for exploration, defense, offense and any purchase choices it could be tough.
-Destroy
It might be easier to approach solitaire as a totally random game for encounters and locations instead of a 2nd or 3rd player that you have to move.
Make a creature deck with 20 creatures from each faction, 10 level 1s, 5 level 2s, 3 Level 3s and 2 Level 4s.
Then make a deck of locations with 4 of each of the common mines and maybe 2 each of any other location.
The object of the game could be to conquer the whole map. Each time you encounter a location you randomly flip from the location deck to see what it is and then flip from the creature stack for guards. For guards you should flip 8 cards and keep as guards the cards that you have the most of the same alignment.
When you encounter a town flip for guards the same way and whatever alignment is determined pull out a town card and two heroes that match (one magic hero and one warrior). Give each hero Advanced Levels of the skills they have on their card. You can also have a spell deck containing Level 3 and lower spells for the M-Us to randomly determine what spells they know. Flip 8 cards and keep any that match their alignment.
Your deck obviously would be a little different. You would not have locations or towns in your deck. But you would still need creatures and skills/spells.
This is just a thought, I have never played this, but I might give it a try.
|
|
Destroy89
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted March 17, 2006 03:41 PM |
|
|
That sounds awesome, though rules still need to be made for battles to determine what the non player controlled monsters would attack.
Also, it may get too easy towards the end of the game, or be too easy in general. Perhaps if there was a limit to the number of turns you allow yourself. Or maybe, that's how you judge yourself. The less turns it takes you, the better your score. Or if there was some rule that put the non-player monsters on offense and you on deffense in your town. For instance, if you roll two 0s with the die, then you'd have to defend one of your towns in 3 turns from a heroe/monster attack. I'm definitely going to try this.
-Destroy
Quote:
It might be easier to approach solitaire as a totally random game for encounters and locations instead of a 2nd or 3rd player that you have to move.
Make a creature deck with 20 creatures from each faction, 10 level 1s, 5 level 2s, 3 Level 3s and 2 Level 4s.
Then make a deck of locations with 4 of each of the common mines and maybe 2 each of any other location.
The object of the game could be to conquer the whole map. Each time you encounter a location you randomly flip from the location deck to see what it is and then flip from the creature stack for guards. For guards you should flip 8 cards and keep as guards the cards that you have the most of the same alignment.
When you encounter a town flip for guards the same way and whatever alignment is determined pull out a town card and two heroes that match (one magic hero and one warrior). Give each hero Advanced Levels of the skills they have on their card. You can also have a spell deck containing Level 3 and lower spells for the M-Us to randomly determine what spells they know. Flip 8 cards and keep any that match their alignment.
Your deck obviously would be a little different. You would not have locations or towns in your deck. But you would still need creatures and skills/spells.
This is just a thought, I have never played this, but I might give it a try.
|
|
TheFoeHammer
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2006 04:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That sounds awesome, though rules still need to be made for battles to determine what the non player controlled monsters would attack.
Also, it may get too easy towards the end of the game, or be too easy in general. Perhaps if there was a limit to the number of turns you allow yourself. Or maybe, that's how you judge yourself. The less turns it takes you, the better your score. Or if there was some rule that put the non-player monsters on offense and you on deffense in your town. For instance, if you roll two 0s with the die, then you'd have to defend one of your towns in 3 turns from a heroe/monster attack. I'm definitely going to try this.
-Destroy
For Battles you could do a weighted randomization. The first rule should be that if a stack has an attack at your hero, it will take that first no matter what. The next rule would be to have the stack attack the next attacking opponent. If there is more than one possibility for any of these roll a die to determine.
I have noticed that most of my experiences with both the Heroes III and Heroes IV computer games is that they can get pretty easy near the end too. Coming up with a correct time limit would be hard without a few trials. But I like the idea of using a # of turns as a score though.
You could also institute an "attacking guards" rule like they had in Heroes IV. If you are in movement range of a guard stack it comes and attacks you on a roll of 4 or less.
|
|
Destroy89
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted March 17, 2006 05:18 PM |
|
|
That sounds cool. It should also have some way to sacrifice for support and some of the other non standard attacks. Perhaps if an attack is impossible then it should sac for support and other rules like that. I think the computer ai always attacks your strongest stack (based on stats and such). So that rule works well. Though, when stacks are the same level and number, it should randomize like you said. Also, preference can be made on range vs melee as targets, when available.
Quote:
For Battles you could do a weighted randomization. The first rule should be that if a stack has an attack at your hero, it will take that first no matter what. The next rule would be to have the stack attack the next attacking opponent. If there is more than one possibility for any of these roll a die to determine.
I have noticed that most of my experiences with both the Heroes III and Heroes IV computer games is that they can get pretty easy near the end too. Coming up with a correct time limit would be hard without a few trials. But I like the idea of using a # of turns as a score though.
You could also institute an "attacking guards" rule like they had in Heroes IV. If you are in movement range of a guard stack it comes and attacks you on a roll of 4 or less.
|
| |
|
|
