Am I overthinking my tabletop turn-based strategy unit design?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I really do want to somehow publish a turn-based strategy game for tabletop, but I concluded what I was working on is close to what I need, but slightly too complicated. i've concluded I should have no more than 3 to 6 types of combat units, no spell casters now, and one aerial transport unit too, along with the workers. Earlier, I was doing something that's too complicated to calculate by hand and still have fun, so I'm just going to have one type of infantry, which attacks both air and ground, probably two types of vehicles, and at most two types of aerial combat units, maybe just one.

Spell caster is out because too much math is involved in making it fair.

That leaves, at most, the following combat units:

Auto-turret: Good at defending early Commando aggression.

Commando: basic infantry unit.

Tank: Good at destroying auto-turrets and small numbers of Commandos.

Mech (Maybe): good at defending against Air Units.

Jet Fighter: Good at worker harass and killing choppers.

Chopper: Best worker harass and best at killing lone Commandos.

This is already about twice as complex as Axis and Allies, so I figure it shouldn't be any more advanced than it already happens to be.

[Veronika_p]

I don't think you're overthinking it; you're probably thinking about the right problem. 😄 In a turn-based strategy game, balance can get complicated very quickly, especially with spellcasters because range, damage, cooldowns, area effects, resistances, and resource costs can all interact.

That said, I wouldn't remove an entire unit type just because balancing it involves math. Start with a simple version, give it one clear strength and one clear weakness, then playtest it. If the unit is fun and understandable before it's perfectly balanced, you can adjust the numbers later.

Sometimes simple mechanics with good counterplay are easier to balance than complicated mechanics that look balanced on paper...