The War for the West [Releasing Nov 14]

Hosted Games Works In Progress
,
273

Folks, I really need helping testing one feature: It is a simple card game that has already been mentioned a few times during playthrough, but I’m trying to make it playable here.

The rules:

  • Two players, one versus one.
  • There are 9 cards in the deck, each player receives two cards.
  • Each card is worth a value from 1 to 9.
  • Each player shows the other one of its cards at the same time.
  • The players bet or fold.
  • Then they show their final cards and sum the values of them to see who wins.

The cards are(alongside their values):
Peasant(1)
Bard(2)
Dame(3)
Acolyte(4)
Knight(5)
Chalice(6)
Noble(7)
King(8)
Lie(9)

But there are three special rules:
1 - Two Dames negate the value of a male card.

2 - A Bard negates the value of a Lie.

3 - A Chalice negates the value of a male card.

Now, that is a bit tricky to code because of the number of variables and the retroactivity associated with checking your second card against the opponents first and second ones(and vice versa), and there is also the point of having more than one male card at play and deciding which one should be nullified if you have a Chalice or Two Dames, but I want to test it as it currently is.

So, to play it just create a new character and select the option “Play Cardeed” at your court, should be the first option. Any kind of feedback is appreciated; balance, bugs, opinions, etc.

I don’t want to make it more complex than it needs to be, and I need to make sure things are working as they should.

3 Likes
274

You show a Lie.

Your opponent shows a Bard.

You have 9 points.

Enemy has 0 points.

He is losing.

Shouldn’t I have zero points, since the Bars negates the Lie?

1 Like
275

Yep, it was inverted. Thank you, I swear I’m going crazy coding and testing this. :grimacing:

4 Likes
277

Just for clarification, which cards are treated as male?

Also, it would be nice if you could see what cards you drew again if you decided to check the rules.

1 Like
278

Peasant, Bard, Knight, Noble and King are treated as male.

And you’re right, they should appear again. I’ll fix that.

1 Like
279 
You stand with a Noble and a Chalice. Your opponent has a King, and then shows a Bard. 

Enemy Points: 0 My Points: 13 

You win ₳200. 

3 - A Chalice negates the value of a male card.

Does it negate one male card or both? If both, it seems pretty overpowered to me.

1 Like
280

It SHOULD be just one, but this is exactly the kind of bug I’m looking for. Thank you, I’ll try to fix it.

1 Like
281

By the way, do you remember which card you showed first in specific case you mentioned? It might help fixing.

282

For the chalice bit? I showed the Noble first.

1 Like
283

Okay so I played around with it a few more times,

You stand with a Lie and a Chalice. Your opponent has a Knight, and then shows a Acolyte. 

Enemy Points: 4 My Points: 15 

You win ₳200.

I showed the Chalice first this time.

It may be coincidence, but I never received duplicate cards while my opponent does receive duplicate cards.

1 Like
284

How many cards does one deck have? 52 or less? Just asking so that I can calculate probabilities :laughing:

1 Like
285

Based on the rules, my guess is 18 cards. Is that correct?

1 Like
286

I noticed there’s no option to fold after showing the first card. Will you be placing one later on?

1 Like
287

I actually have no idea. :rofl:

There are four consecutive and independent randoms from 1 to 9. Since the chances don’t increase or decrease, I think it’s almost as if for each card dealt they were using a different “deck” of nine cards.

I think there’s no need for it right now because you already put some money on the table and currently the NPC won’t raise or bet by himself, but if I manage to get things working as they should I’ll probably add a few more actions for the NPC that would let you fold rather than pay his bet.

288

That makes calculating the probability difficult. :laughing: But you might want to code it in a way that if the MC gets two cards of the same kind, the NPC would no longer be able to get those cards (assuming there’s 18 on deck, so there’d be two for each kind). Kinda like how you did with the events in the hold court option, so that card appearances don’t repeat.

I know this is really tricky to code but I think this makes the game flow easier.

1 Like
289

Looking forward to reading more of this! The concept sounds awesome as I like the idea of a nation builder type of IntFic.

1 Like
290

Just tried this out, seems nice. Maybe a bit too many features, but I don’t mind. :wink:

Some thoughts from me:
The royal letter. It would be nice with an option to withhold (all or half of the) the money but send all the troops, or vice versa and send all the money but withhold (all or half) of the troops.

Error with the gambling: “cardeed line 932: bad label yourcourt”, I got that when I tried to leave the table after winning 150… money-things.

3 Likes
291

the only issue i had was i could only read the letter once.

1 Like
292

the thing is that the story needs to be more diverse in some areas like family and also management of the lands and army just like ck2 i still play it if ur interested i can give u some ideas

4 Likes
293

That’s something I never considered. There are quite a few important letters in the game, so it might be a good idea for me to “store” them for later viewing.

While CK2 is one of my favourite games and it certainly is a source of inspiration, I am neither capable nor have the intention of creating something entirely based on it, or even a “lite” version of the game.

Let me try to explain my “contradictory reasoning”:

I value story over system, but I also value player choices and inputs over presenting them with a fixed story. Overall, I try to find a balance between such things within what is possible for me to do, both within CS and my limited capabilities. I can’t say that I’m always managing to do so, but that’s what I aim forward.

There are plenty of games that manage to simulate the logistics of managing a medieval domain, many of them with overly complex systems. I understand that a lot of people like that, but that was never my cup of tea. I’m more interested in the relation between the characters and the plot than in making dozens of bland possibilities or turning everything into a number.

I wanted this game to feel more like a “story” than a “system”. My intent was to prove that you can have both without making a series of compromises that undermine either the narrative value or the playability factor.

An example, taken from the game doc:

"It isn’t about the request to build a bridge somewhere in your domain. It is about the reasons as to why it was never there in the first place. It is about the Boatmen Syndicate who controls the trade flow across the river, and does not want a bridge there. It is about the merchant who pleaded for its construction being murdered at their orders. It is about seeking justice, allocating resources, uncovering plots, understanding motivations. And yes, in the end, you might even build a bridge.

But the character who crosses it might not be the same anymore."

That being said, please feel free to make any suggestions and comments. There is plenty of stuff that can be improved, it is just that I’m trying to focus more on creating a customized narrative withing a certain timeframe than to simulate in depth the entirety of a medieval domain. (And I really don’t want things to be repeating themselves)

8 Likes