[Suggestion] Expanding on the underutilized Victory Point system

People ask "Is there anything to do in a battle besides kill everyone? Any other win conditions?" And we answer "Yes": there are special squares to hold that earn you Victory Points, there are enemies that vary in VP value, and sometimes there are even enemies worth zero points. That means variety in win conditions.

But usually the mechanism is a redundant "kill count." "I killed you! I got 1 star! This means nothing." Thus, not only is it an underutilized avenue for gameplay (and fun), but players don't even understand what's going on until they play the Ruby Demon Portal battle with Victory Squares. We had a poster who thought the little stars were XP gain, if you recall, so their integration into gameplay is unclear.

Now, lack-of-understanding is easily solved: add tutorial text. But what would the tutorial say if these points were just a redundant "kill count" for adventure after adventure? Thus, I'd argue Blue Manchu should expand on the underutilized system.

There are lots of options, even without adding new code. There already are "get to the other side" battles (Riddle of the Gnome Lords, etc.) and "hold this side" battles (The Defense of Woodhome, etc.) implemented via Victory Squares: why AREN'T such maps commonplace throughout the campaign?

And as to new code, something like "grabbing important items before the enemy does" might not be too terrible. This would be very similar to a Victory Square: but instead of rewarding the team that holds it, rewarding only the first team that lands on it.

And I'm far from the first person to post this stuff, so there are plenty of suggestions out there.

Seriously, if there are more ways to "fully explore" this game mechanic, then the game could only be improved.

 

I like that. The item can start the battle sitting on a tile, and the first char to end their turn on that tile picks it up (shown like an attached card). But if that char dies, then the item is dropped where they were standing and someone else can pick it up.

I also have some ideas for non-violent modules (mining and blacksmithing), but I'll make my own post for them.

 

I have to agree with the sentiment of this thread. I've been playing Fire Emblem: Awakening recently, and thinking about the FE games (as well as the Advance Wars and Starcraft 2 campaigns) have left me feeling that the Card Hunter campaign would be vastly improved with more variety in mission types and win conditions, with mechanics that supported them.

For starters, I think I'd like to see scenarios with NPC allies (Either in addition to the 3 you bring, or have the adventure limit you to 2). The scenario editor has shown that this it's already possible to have player-controlled monsters, and I feel like this would allow for several new types of missions:

Escort missions where you have to keep an NPC alive/get to a specific location.
Missions where you have to have to defend several locations. For instance, you control 3 mines that draw a trait card each turn that scores you a VP when played.
Missions where you face an overwhelming number of enemies, and have to strategically use characters on the map (for instance, siege weapons) in conjunction with your party to be victorious.

In addition, I think it would be beneficial to have neutral units that don't belong to either player (but could be friendly or hostile to one or both). This would be a better fit for structures, like the door in the "Against the Cockroaches" adventure (Perhaps make it so that these start with a "structure" trait that never expires that prevents them from being moved). The current system for this is mechanically just fine, but it feels a bit clunky and hacked in to have an enemy that group that just plays the same trait each turn.

This could include things like a structure that's friendly to you and hostile to your opponent that's worth VPs if destroyed (and vice versa), neutral structures (potentially destroyable) that automatically play a card at the start of each round (such as putting buff or DoT attachments on nearby characters), doors that your characters can move through but your opponent's can't without destroying them (and vice versa). Also, these neutral units/structures wouldn't have the "adjacent units must stop" mechanic that characters currently have.

There could even be locations you could take control of (somehow) that would grant benefits (perhaps a character on a certain tile would draw a specific card at the start of each round).

These mechanics would enable all sorts of things that would allow for much more varied and interesting scenarios. You could have a scenario where you have to defend a key structure from enemies, one where there's structures that will poison nearby characters (which perhaps you need to use against the enemy to beat), or even one where one of your dead characters are revived each round (or every other/3rd/etc) by a friendly NPC playing a card similar to Resurrection.

I don't think it's necessarily a problem that none of this stuff is in the adventures currently available (as the added complexity might make the learning curve too harsh), but I think that it would help alleviate the burnout and samey-ness that you start to feel towards the end. I feel that at least some of this stuff is going to be necessary to keep the campaign entertaining if it's going to be expanded past the current 17 levels (which I'm pretty sure the devs have said it most definitely will be), and it would probably be a good idea if some of this stuff was worked into earlier adventures, just to add variety.

 

Found this after trying to search if there is a way to override VP values for certain monsters to make more interesting scenarios. In this specific case to make 0 VP enemies to not allow victory by just killing any cannon fodder henchmen.
Completely agree that minor tweaks to VP system would bring a lot of possibilities for scenario creation. Any news of plans regarding this?

 

I agree from a pure gameplay experience standpoint... but!

A lot of this game is designed around parodying early D&D. What could you do in early D&D? Kill monsters. What's a common criticism of poorly-put-together tabletop campaigns to this day? "All we do is fight monsters." I kind of see the current endless bloodbath of Card Hunter as a clever play on that. You set up your party and you go into dungeons to kill monsters, because that is all you can do.

By which I mean, I'm totally down for more interesting and more varied gameplay, but I also dig the way things are now.

 

This is the same exact problem I am facing on a daily basis when doing custom scenarios. For example I'd like to do a scenario where the opponent would win after reaching a specific square. That doesn't work because if I set the needed VP's to 1, they can just ignore the square and kill one goblin.

One simple fix would be to able to assign values (like 1-10) to victory squares so that you don't always get 1 VP, you get VP's based on the value of that victory square. This way we could have a 10 VP victory square that would give you an instant victory (assuming you need 10 or less to win), but killing some cannon fodder would not make a difference.

 

My next map is an evasion scenario, and I have to use Giant Cockroaches because they're one of the few monsters that aren't worth VPs (the others are Human Servants, Human Servants Dog Boy, and Reinforced Door).

That's an interesting idea, but I think adjusting monster VP values would be easier for the players to understand.

 

There we go. A mini-scenario: Let's Make A Deal with three doors. Pick the right one and win!