First of all, many thanks to both of you for your replies. This is exactly the kind of feedback that I was seeking.
@LHoffman:
I would say that you have a pretty good format down for the cards. The design is pretty good considering the tools you had to work with, though I think they could use some refining with proper photo-editing software. I forget what YoungGrasshopper used for his. I do not have Photoshop or anything like it, so my resources are somewhat limited also.
This is one of my biggest concerns because it will dictate the extent to which I can do the work myself.
Is there anyone out there who can render an informed opinion on whether Photoshop is a must-have for this kind of work? PowerPoint 2013 has a lot of improved functionality over earlier versions, but because it isn’t made for photo editing, a lot of clumsy work-arounds are required to produce layered images.
One big question I have is how to deal with card backings. I know the old trick of printing out the two sides separately and gluing them together, but I’d prefer to print a single sheet, front and back.
Surely there must be a template out there, used to create cards for other games, that can help me size the cards properly?
@LHoffman:
I do not know how many card ‘types’ or categories you have, but those are always nice for organizational purposes. Not that these correspond exactly to what you have, but something like Special Ability/Tactics, Reinforcement, Redeployment or Supply/Monetary Bonus… those are just off the top of my head for possible different categories of cards. Either silhouettes or card colors could designate what kind of card it is. Ex: a commander image for tactics/ability, infantry image for reinforcement, truck image for supply… Whatever works best in the style that you like.
The idea is to have three sets of cards. One set is a general deck of cards that will be used in common by all the players. The second set is divided into multiple, smaller, national decks, one for each player-country in the game. Players will draw a hand of 5 cards, two from the general deck, and three from their respective national deck, at the start of the game. (If one player is representing multiple countries, they will draw full hands for each individual country, respectively.) Cards will indicate when they may be played. The third set of cards is the Event deck. One Event is drawn and played immediately prior to the start of each nation’s turn.
Beginning in the second round, players will draw one new card from both decks (two cards in total) at the start of each turn, first from the national deck, and then from the general deck. Players stop drawing when they a full hand of 7 cards and may not draw again until they have played one or more of those cards, reducing the size of their hand to 6 cards or fewer.
I do not know how many card ‘types’ or categories you have, but those are always nice for organizational purposes. Not that these correspond exactly to what you have, but something like Special Ability/Tactics, Reinforcement, Redeployment or Supply/Monetary Bonus… those are just off the top of my head for possible different categories of cards. Either silhouettes or card colors could designate what kind of card it is. Ex: a commander image for tactics/ability, infantry image for reinforcement, truck image for supply… Whatever works best in the style that you like.
In terms of categories, I think we can confirm:
-
Units - Cards that allow a player to place special land, sea, or air units on the board during his or her Placement phase. Special units may be represented by special markers (e.g., slips of paper, coins placed beneath an OOB game piece) or by after-market pieces. Units are represented at the army corps, naval squadron, and air wing level.
-
National Advantages - Cards that attempt to approximate conditions specific to each nation, including industrial capabilities, technological leads, doctrinal preferences, the actions or contributions of “minor” allies (e.g., Finland, Siam, etc.), and special military capabilities (e.g., access to colonial troops).
-
Leaders - Cards representing various personalities with a decisive impact on each nation’s war effort, especially political and military leaders.
-
Strategy & Tactics - Cards representing various doctrinal and logistical innovations that provide the player with advantages in combat and production.
-
Events - Cards that deal with political events that could have changed the outcome of the war. For example: an aggressive naval building program by the Dutch, resulting in deployment of large cruisers to the NEI; the Rasputitsa in Western Russia; or the opening of a neutral port to Axis commerce raiders and submarines.
@LHoffman:
I think this aspect is actually more critical than it seems, in terms of implying both quality, uniqueness or standardization throughout your deck. YG used different text styles, roughly corresponding to the nation of focus, for the ‘title’ text on cards. I think these look pretty darn good.
I’d like to do the same. I’ll shoot YoungGrasshopper a PM and see if he will offer suggestions on where to find suitable fonts.
The flavor text – a little “factoid” providing background on each card – is a sticking point only because I think that every card already needs to include all the rules necessary to use it. This, combined with the need to include a decent-sized picture and all the other relevant information, leaves very little space for even a sentence or two of interesting information at the bottom. One option is to ditch the roundels in favor of identifying faction association on the backings of each card. Another is to use the stripes in the upper left-hand corners, or else just the colored borders of each card, to communicate information that would otherwise be presented as a silhouette elsewhere on the card itself.
Figuring out exactly how large these cards should be – that is, how much space I have to work with – will be critical.
@LHoffman:
I sort of touched on this above: I like the idea of giving individual flavor to each nation as much as possible. This may present tactical inequalities between powers, but that is something which will have to be mitigated through lots of playtesting or much contemplation. Probably both. I always say that I really liked the National Advantages found in the back of the rulebook of A&A Revised. These were purely nation-specific abilities based on generalized historical association. Many people disliked them because they were not scientific… meaning some countries would have clear, unearned and uncounterable advantages. Not everyone was on the same footing. I agree this can be a problem. So the challenge is to balance them as best as possible to give everyone an equal chance at victory.
I agree that the initial focus should be building something fun. We can then move progressively to balance it based on user feedback.
@LHoffman:
I like your list. Honestly, I have never considered the ‘cost’ aspect. Such that some cards may require IPCs to use the ability/unit. That could be important as a mitigating factor, such that not every ability is simply free.
Exactly. Limiting factors are hand size and cost-to-play. I have tried to keep the costs relatively low in order to encourage, say, use of the unit cards over the purchase of corresponding units already in the game. That is, cards are one way to get more “bang” from each IPC spent. Still, players will need to balance their priorities and bide their time.
In a first round, I plan to make full decks for the US, UK, FEC/ANZAC, China, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, and Japan. Each national deck will also cover contributions of “minor” allies. Thus, the Japanese deck will include cards relevant to Manchukuo and Siam. Some cards may need to be discarded during play. For example, the Japanese may be required to discard an unplayed card allowing it to place troops in Siam if an Event has already been played that causes Siam to remain “true” neutral or enter the Allied camp.
In a second round, I may make additional decks based on the Global 1914 map, with the intent of doing a play-through into the WW2 period. Thus, I’d need to add decks for the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Portuguese, and Spanish Empires. I’d love to see a custom map adding a Confederate States of America and the possibility of playing all of the ABC nations in South America, but I won’t hold my breath.
Cards are drawn face-down and viewed in secret by each player. Team members may display their cards to one another, but each player must play their own cards.
There is no limit to how many cards may be played in one turn. However, many cards will have a cost-to-play, and all will need to be played at specific times. With the exception of cards relating to defensive combat involving their own troops, players will be unable to play their own cards during someone else’s turn.
@CWO:
My guess is that the multiple letter colours are intended to reflect the colours of each nation’s flag, since the letter-colour schemes very from country to country. I agree that it’s distracting and makes the cards hard to read. Simple black lettering would be better. Having roundels on the cards is more than enough for national identification purposes.
That is correct, and I will change the text back to a more agreeable color. Thanks much for the constructive criticism!
Next Steps
I will try to brainstorm a list of potential cards tonight and post for comment.
