#Fort unit type. (Experimental idea, feel free to provide feedback.)

152 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

empty totem
#

Forts are a unit type that only has defense as it's stat. (This makes them untargetable by cards that require attack like raiding brigade or amphibious assault.)

They cannot move, and they cannot be converted, suppressed, or pinned. They may have keywords, and they can store a unit underneath them. The unit inside can still operate as normal unless otherwise specified. Forts can only store infantry unless otherwise specified.

Infantry inside cannot be targeted, though some effects may carry through. Suppression, pin, and retreat carry through when they would be applied to a bunker and affect the infantry inside. However convert, any damage, and direct destruction do not and will either do nothing or only affect the bunker. (Specifically convert does nothing. Direct destruction or trying to remove it from the battlefield do not work. 40. Panzergrenadier for example could do nothing against a bunker or the unit inside it. Units directly fighting via order or deployment deal their damage to the bunker first still. Excess damage dealt to the bunker is dealt to the unit inside instead.)

Keywords of units inside the bunker still apply. However, the bunker itself may have keywords that will override the unit. A unit inside a bunker with shock will be able to attack as if it has shock. The same applies to ambush or guard.

Keywords and abilities of bunkers only trigger if they have a unit inside of them. They cannot hold the frontline and will be captured if the enemy moves into it while they are empty.

Most fortifications will be neutral although they can be nation specific. They are obtained through orders, deployment effects, and maybe adding them in when you design your deck if they are nation-specific.

Units can be deployed directly into forts in your support line.

You can now move units around in your lines (like between two forts) as long as you pay the operation cost. Forts can only contain/store/have within up to one unit.

#

Thanks to @idle hearth for making the cards and helping flesh out the concept.

idle hearth
empty totem
#

For anyone looking at this, this is what a unit will look like while inside a fort. Hovering over will display information of both cards just like in the normal game.

idle hearth
#

basically working like a document/file overlapping

#

do note, forts can only "store" up to 1 unit.

empty totem
#

Oh yea I forgot to mention that one.

idle hearth
#

(I bet anyone looking at this will just point out at fanmade-cards)

#

(which will be unfortunate, as its such a good concept for the base game)

empty totem
#

This is a serious suggestion to change the game.

hollow ether
#

So if fort gets captured - it becomes an enemy card

#

?

empty totem
#

This can only happen if it is in the frontline.

#

Forts without units in them do functionally nothing.

hollow ether
idle hearth
#

and as far as I understood, only if you made the unit inside Retreat (either orders or deployment effects)

empty totem
idle hearth
#

as the fort itself can be destroyed (did I get that right)

empty totem
#

You can retreat the unit inside, all you can do to the fort is destroy it somehow.

hollow ether
#

If unit attacks from inside of fort - will it get damaged or only unit gets damaged(stupid question but duh)

empty totem
#

If you feel the need to destroy it, go ahead, otherwise I've been very specific in what kind of removal works against units in forts. Retreats, pins, and suppresses can all affect the unit inside the fort, things that may be considered hard removal such as conversion, remove from battlefield, directly destroying, etc.

idle hearth
#

here is a silly example as to how the fort mechaic works (for anyone that played PvZ and gets it obviously)

hollow ether
empty totem
empty totem
#

They are mostly going to be relegated to the support line.

hollow ether
#

Thats what I am saying

empty totem
#

Anything that does get added to the frontline is going to be expensive or rare.

hollow ether
#

Just put fort on support line, german paratrooper inside and jagro is dead

empty totem
idle hearth
#

well, thats the main idea, to kill jaggro!

#

its a fortification after all, to fend off pests

hollow ether
#

Jpn getting flamethrowers🙏

empty totem
#

And it will die eventually. The trench starts at low defense, and the pillbox does not have infinite defense.

empty totem
#

This would be a meta change for sure.

idle hearth
#

it would be fueled with bamboo (with enough luck lol)

empty totem
#

Japan had flamethrowers? They just didn't have a lot of oil. It would probably be something like:

0-2 2k infantry.
Shock. Has +4 attack while it has shock.
Deal damage directly to units inside bunkers.

idle hearth
#

I would pretty much prefer it if had +3 attack against infantry and 1/2 instead

empty totem
#

Even if it doesn't kill jaggro for being annoying, it will still create a massive shift and refresh the game again. There are many interesting concepts that could be implemented.

idle hearth
#

as it is basically the same slop as 58th INFANTRY REGIMENT but better

empty totem
idle hearth
#

oh, well... yeah it would be fine, I suppose

empty totem
#

I'm going to copy over some of the concepts you didn't make into cards so people can see them.

idle hearth
#

sure, go ahead

empty totem
#

Legacy of Vauban: Order, 2k, France.
Develop a Fortification. Add Maginot line to hand.

Maginot line, 8 defense, France.
Give adjacent forts and HQs +2 defense each turn.

British infantry: 3k. (2-2)
Fury.
Deployment: Build a trench over this unit.

Factory: Fort. Neutral. 4 defense.
Add a production to hand at the start of your turn.

Jungle hut; Japan 2k; 1 defense.
When an unit inside leaves it gets: Destruction: Deal 2 damage to a random enemy.

Unknown: Fort, 3 defense. Soviet.
Guard.
At the start of your turn, deal 1 damage to your HQ and gain +2 defense.

keen bay
#

This is a pretty cool idea

empty totem
keen bay
#

We'd need stuff like: playing a fort while you hold the Frontline places it in the Frontline, whereas playing it while you don't hold it places it in your support line

empty totem
keen bay
empty totem
keen bay
#

Alas, I think we should have a fort that increases the attack range of a ground unit

empty totem
#

That would just make artillery even more useless.

keen bay
#

Like, you store an infantry at a fort and now it can operate as an artillery

keen bay
#

Same with bombers

empty totem
keen bay
#

Welp

#

Pair it with a systemic buff to artillery systems

empty totem
#

There is a specific fort concept that I forgot to put in which makes artillery in it cheaper to operate.

keen bay
#

Point is: you want forts to interact with ground units so that they may choose to leave it at times

empty totem
keen bay
# empty totem

I read it, I'm just trying to think what abilities we can give to forts as to increase the strategic depth in this dimension

#

For instance:

Castle Itter
2k 4def can store a tank. Tanks stored can attack targets in the Frontline for free

idle hearth
keen bay
#

So maybe you don't want to rush taking the Frontline while you have a tank in there, or will prioritize taking it with an infantry instead

empty totem
keen bay
idle hearth
#

(chuckles in German mid-range)

empty totem
#

It also doesn't have to be complex:

Fort drum, USA, 8k. 10 defense.
Heavy armor 3. Exile: Japan.
Can't be directly destroyed by orders.

idle hearth
empty totem
#

Or here is one:
Coastal battery, 4 defense. Neutral.
Can store artillery. Cannot be targeted or damaged by naval cards.

#

15CM SK C/28
Germany, 5k, artillery. (6-2 3op.)
Pin this unit after attacking. Cannot move.
Deployment: Build a Coastal Battery over this.

idle hearth
empty totem
empty totem
green heart
#

have seen this in good old ww2 tcg from frozenshard. BUT.... here? let fortress cards buff your HQ. but not a new type of unit. so you have a fortress and a hq? no.

empty totem
empty totem
# green heart have seen this in good old ww2 tcg from frozenshard. BUT.... here? let fortress ...

Oh now I think I get it. I have no idea what else you are referencing, but you seem to think that HQs are fortresses? Fort was actually a simplification of the word fortification because I got tired of typing it out over and over, and it has been further loosened to include other concepts such as a supply shipment or aircraft carrier, or a hut.

But saying the concept is bad because you think that a unit type made specifically to deal with the game's current issues with too much removal and to increase the variety of potential units because you think that most of the ingame HQs are fortresses (Which they are not, they are strategic objectives.) just doesn't make sense.

green heart
#

sorry for my german YODA grammar. ah no I dont think forts and HQ is the same....I mean, there should be not both of them in the game. fortifications could be orders, which buff the HQ <- in the game. a new unit type, I dont think so.

#

my reference, use google pic search. ww2 tcg from frozenshard.

#

nice game mechanic, but bad p2w

#

here is a link

#

right side, the board. your hand left side, 6 cards, which were taken from your30 cards deck. all cards, used or destroyed get back to deck. my last battle was 45 minutes. with 50 turns

#

you can see on the hand is a building, top line, middle

#

building could not move. thats all. and not attack I can remember. but gave a lot of bonus

#

ps. I dont think there is too much removal. it is fine as it is. as you need removal cards to suppress OP units.

empty totem
# green heart sorry for my german YODA grammar. ah no I dont think forts and HQ is the same......

I did misunderstand what you mean, but I think you misunderstand the suggestion.

First of all, the only reason they are a new unit type is so that they don't mess with targeting. Many cards in game have to specify that they target units so that they don't murder the HQ. I originally had fortifications as not a unit, but I changed that for the targeting.

Second of all, they are not meant to be a kind of order to buff the HQ. What you are suggesting is completely different from the concept. The closest approximation to what they functionally are is special slots you put units in for special effects. They may be counted as units, but they interact in very specific ways.

As for removal, the game used to be a lot slower where you could expect a unit to last for a few turns, but in the current game, the average survival time is just over a turn, if that. It disincentivizes using bigger unit cards, especially if they don't give either immediate benefit or are removal resistant for whatever reason. Aggro decks are very dominant because there are more cheap ways to overcome defenses than there are defenses to last for an extra turn, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does kill deck variety and some players don't like the faster gameplay.

The main purpose of the forts is to be resilient to specific methods of removal and to add an extra dynamic to revitalize gameplay from being aggro-spam and nothing lasting very long without special abilities, to taking the speed down a notch by adding a direct counter.

And of course balancing plays a factor. Forts need units to man them to be useful and it is expected that it will be very difficult to put one in the frontline.

green heart
#

I have understand it fine. I am not sure if this fits to KARDS. sure, your idea is nice. so I made a "counter suggestion" to use for example a mannerheim card to buff the hq or all units and so on. I fear this/your idea will be not realized in the game

empty totem
# green heart I have understand it fine. I am not sure if this fits to KARDS. sure, your idea ...

Honestly even if it was the greatest idea in the history of Kards, it probably has less than a 1% chance of being added to the game. I did limit certain things by feasibility, but I also made it for fun. It would require more effort on the part of the developers and many of its benefits come specifically from it being a bit of a departure from the current game, it's a new mechanic made to do fancy new things. Just adding more orders and naming them after places and things belongs in the realm of fanmade cards, which was made almost entirely so that the devs had a more serious excuse to ignore any and all cards suggestions that were piling up since they intended to add none of them.

I had fun making this suggestion, and part of the fun in making it was being serious about it. I am under no illusions that it is unlikely to be added.

green heart
#

Yes. but then you have another game, partially. and 2nd, the Devs think in others spheres 😉 . and 3rd, sure suggestions are always fine

empty totem
#

Just just randomly had an idea for a fort that better fits the Maginot.

Maginot Fort: Fort, 1k. (3 defense) (Special.)
Guard
When drawn, play automatically.

river shard
#

This could make art useful vs this idea

#

But what about airfields?

#

I would prefer this over fucking covert to be honest

#

Because if covert tier 1 deck it would be hell to fight it

empty totem
# river shard But what about airfields?

Why don't you come up with one? This is still a theoretical idea. Just keep in mind that you have to specify that it can store air units.

And yea covert has always been weird. It plays by different rules that can make it almost unbeatable if you aren't using something like Sissi or are sufficiently aggressive, but its too slow to typically win. I'd like if it it saw some sort of rework. At the very least it is okay right now with covert units ocassionally being sprinked into games where one or two in the right place can have a big impact.

river shard
empty totem
# river shard Covert could be reworked into this

Oh no it couldn't. It is similar, but the underlying mechanics are a bit too different. You are effectively stacking cards on top of each other here, with specific conditions as to what can and can't effect, and this isn't like all other units in that it completely lacks the attack state. On top of the fact that you would destroy the covert type altogether with this replacement concept. While covert might be the closest thing they have to a starting point, I don't think it would actually work to have.

river shard
#

Fair

empty totem
river shard
#

Maybe like a line going left to right maybe?

#

With some bums

empty totem
#

?

#

Are you talking about the card art?

river shard
#

No no the icon for the airfield

empty totem
#

Oh the airfield would be a type of fort.

#

So it would just use the same icon.

river shard
#

It could be misleading

empty totem
river shard
#

"Why the fuck I can't put my unit in this fort." with a diff icon I say

empty totem
river shard
#

Yea

empty totem
#

I think it is a reasonable explanation that players will learn. Even if some take a bit.

river shard
#

Fair

#

Bombers/art deal more damage to forts, airfields

empty totem
river shard
empty totem
#

While the fighter keeps it safe from bombers.

river shard
#

Yea

#

Because forts take more damage from bombers and art which make sense

#

and same with airfields

#

So art and bombers are higher targets to deal with

#

And including one fighter to

#

That fighter would deal double damage and can't be stop by fighters

#

!5k bomber elite

proper lightBOT
#

Cards found: 2

river shard
#

second one

#

Because it's a fighter/bomber

empty totem
# river shard Because forts take more damage from bombers and art which make sense

Not necessarily. I recently was reading over an account of the US attacking the old maginot fortifications on their way liberating France. When they eventually came across a fortress named (And I'm not kidding here) Ensamble De Bichte, (I think I'm spelling that right) they actually couldn't deal with it effectively using just bombers or artillery. They had something like 47 P-47s and artillery fire from dozens of heavy artillery guns and they still had to move in with the infantry and engineers using more than 5000 pounds of specific explosives and direct fire from artillery guns intended to use indirect fire to actually destroy it.

river shard
#

Wow

empty totem
#

Say what you will about the Maginot not being effective, a fort can still be a defensive amplifier if it is big enough. As long as you can force the enemy to attack it that is.

river shard
#

Yea

#

What happends if ROYAL ULSTER RIFLES is in a fort and they attack your HQ?

empty totem
#

!royal ulster

proper lightBOT
#

Cards found: 1

empty totem
#

Huh.

#

So and enemy royal ulster attacks your HQ from a fort?

#

Or you have a Royal ulster in a fort and they get to your HQ?

#

I don't think forts would stop damage units deal to themselves.

empty totem
# river shard this one

Yea a fort might take damage from outside but I can't see it stopping a unit from hurting itself. And that would be how Royal ulster works.

river shard
#

Fair

empty totem
#

Oh I just had an idea for a generalist to go with your forts.