[MISC] My own insanity, questions on making a new wargame.
Chip Bell
I've played just about every game Games Workshop makes, in one form or
another, and I follow the newsgroup relatively closely, and over time, a
question formed in my head.
"Can one guy with too much free time make a better game?"
So, I'm trying. It's mostly just an exercise, I don't have any specific
plans to market my game, although I reserve the right to if it turns out
well. I have quite a lot so far, but I think I'm nearing what I can
accomplish on my own.
In any case, here are some principles and notes on what I've done
so far.
1) A d6 is too small. On a d6 scale, every point is a big deal,
up to the point where it stops mattering. For instance, BS 4 is a LOT
better than 3, but BS 7 is rarely better than BS 6. A d20 like most new
games use is much better for statistics, but in a game where you want to
roll 10 dice or so at a time, that's annoying. I settled on a d10 system,
as a middle ground, because if you don't have 20 or so d10s around, you can
just beat up a Vampire player and take his.
2)The scale of models, tabletop, and weapon ranges should all be
the same. While this leads to small engagement areas, it makes weapon
ranges believable.
3)While it is impossible, or at least impractical, to perfectly
represent simultaneous movement, some concession to its existence should
be made. Soldiers do NOT stand still and wait for their turn! In my
system, units operate based on tactics ratings, with the least tactical
units going first, and more tactical units being able to react to and
interrupt their actions.
4)Leaders exist to lead units, not to slay the enemy in droves.
In my game, a leader is rarely much better than a standard trooper, but
instead provide a valuable tactical edge.
5)Morale is important. An army that is losing is more likely to shake
up and start to flee. More battles are won by demoralizing and scattering
the enemy than by exterminating them.
6)Realism is rarely fun, but neither is total unbelievability.
Although I am not making any efforts for precise realism, I hope to make
the system work so that when all is said and down, you can think, 'yeah,
that could have happened'.
What I would like is suggestions for what should be in a fun wargame. At
this point, the rules are generic, although the only unit profiles and
point costs I have are for fantasy because that's easier. Also, if a few
people are willing to take a set of rules that aren't even close to
completion, look them over, and fiddle with them a bit to find holes,
imbalances, and suggestions for things like point values, that would be
appreciated.
If enough interest is shown, I'll either make preliminary rules available
on a webpage, or else email by request.
In any case, thanks for your time.
-Chip.
Kahunapete
> What I would like is suggestions for what should be in a fun wargame. At
> this point, the rules are generic, although the only unit profiles and
> point costs I have are for fantasy because that's easier. Also, if a few
> people are willing to take a set of rules that aren't even close to
> completion, look them over, and fiddle with them a bit to find holes,
> imbalances, and suggestions for things like point values, that would be
> appreciated.
A successful game usually has good gameplay or fair gameplay with many
options for units. What you have briefly described (sounds good) will
need a good variety of armies to get good end user support and hopefully
balance out the power/cheese tactics that might crop up (i.e. emulate
GW's variety but not its narrow-sightedness). The most important thing
you can do for this game is playtest the hell out of it.
Good luck
One of the Lloyds
>
>I've played just about every game Games Workshop makes, in one form or
>another, and I follow the newsgroup relatively closely, and over time, a
>question formed in my head.
> "Can one guy with too much free time make a better game?"
Yes, easily. I mak them all the time. All it requires is imagination, an
understanding of basic reality and clear aims and objectives. I often
create my own stuff, be it games, army lists and so on.
>So, I'm trying. It's mostly just an exercise, I don't have any specific
>plans to market my game, although I reserve the right to if it turns out
>well. I have quite a lot so far, but I think I'm nearing what I can
>accomplish on my own.
>
> In any case, here are some principles and notes on what I've done
>so far.
>
> 1) A d6 is too small. On a d6 scale, every point is a big deal,
>up to the point where it stops mattering. For instance, BS 4 is a LOT
>better than 3, but BS 7 is rarely better than BS 6. A d20 like most new
>games use is much better for statistics, but in a game where you want to
>roll 10 dice or so at a time, that's annoying. I settled on a d10 system,
>as a middle ground, because if you don't have 20 or so d10s around, you can
>just beat up a Vampire player and take his.
>
Yes, larger dice are around. Tactical Strike (enigmas game which I am
helping to design) uses D20's and puts all the rolls into one, with
D10's I recommend multipul rolls and just use the dice for greater
flexibility.
> 2)The scale of models, tabletop, and weapon ranges should all be
>the same. While this leads to small engagement areas, it makes weapon
>ranges believable.
>
> 3)While it is impossible, or at least impractical, to perfectly
>represent simultaneous movement, some concession to its existence should
>be made. Soldiers do NOT stand still and wait for their turn! In my
>system, units operate based on tactics ratings, with the least tactical
>units going first, and more tactical units being able to react to and
>interrupt their actions.
>
Tactical Strike had something like this in its very beginnings. We
dropped it because it would be hard to keep track of the ratings of all
the units, and it would give some armies to great an advantage and
because it brought up troubles with inflexibility and tactical
annoyingness. In the end we went to a petty standard alternating turn.
i.e. one player moves and fights, then the next and so on.
>
> 5)Morale is important. An army that is losing is more likely to shake
>up and start to flee. More battles are won by demoralizing and scattering
>the enemy than by exterminating them.
>
I agree with this, it is realistic and adds new tactical dimensions.
> 6)Realism is rarely fun, but neither is total unbelievability.
>Although I am not making any efforts for precise realism, I hope to make
>the system work so that when all is said and down, you can think, 'yeah,
>that could have happened'.
>
Fun should be the primary consideration of any successful games system
:-)
>
>What I would like is suggestions for what should be in a fun wargame. At
>this point, the rules are generic, although the only unit profiles and
>point costs I have are for fantasy because that's easier. Also, if a few
>people are willing to take a set of rules that aren't even close to
>completion, look them over, and fiddle with them a bit to find holes,
>imbalances, and suggestions for things like point values, that would be
>appreciated.
>
Sure, I'll ceck them over. I have experiance with designing wargames and
playtesting them, as well as a lot of wargaming time behind me.
A few things:
1) A lot of your aims sound very close to that of Enigma's design team.
Have you consdiered playing tactical strike? Its free, see my sig for
details.
2) You need to have aims clear in your mind. For the most part you sound
fine. But have you considered scale? 28mm I gather, but do you want
large scale, medium or small. This will effect the ammount of detail in
the game. For example, in a small scale game with only 10-30 or so
models per side average, detail should be high with rolls to hit, damage
etc., different wounds and so on. 40-150 Your looking at warhammer/TS
detail whcih simulates flow but doesn't go into detail (like what sort
of wound Jim picked up). 150+ models a side and you are looking for
something that flows really fast. A signle dice throw per model to kill
an enemy, and so on.
see ya,
Ranger
PLAYTEST A FREE WARGAME!!
Enigma's Table Top Sci-Fi skirmish wargame is now available,
FREE, at http://www.zoomnet.net/~alice/
We always like to here your comments, so afterwards, why not
E-mail <al...@zoomnet.net> with questions and suggestions.
I recommend playing a small game with a squad on each side, then
try a bigger one but miss out the psychics and vehicles.
Chip Bell
This is what I decided on. The attacker rolls to hit, and the defender
rolls to save. I did this partly because it gives the defender a sense of
accomplishment when he 'saves' the lives of his models.
>> 3)While it is impossible, or at least impractical, to perfectly
>>represent simultaneous movement, some concession to its existence should
>>be made. Soldiers do NOT stand still and wait for their turn! In my
>>system, units operate based on tactics ratings, with the least tactical
>>units going first, and more tactical units being able to react to and
>>interrupt their actions.
>>
>Tactical Strike had something like this in its very beginnings. We
>dropped it because it would be hard to keep track of the ratings of all
>the units, and it would give some armies to great an advantage and
>because it brought up troubles with inflexibility and tactical
>annoyingness. In the end we went to a petty standard alternating turn.
>i.e. one player moves and fights, then the next and so on.
Well, so far it's worked okay, especially since turn order is modified by
a random die roll. Of course, this is in a whopping 1 playtest session.
The biggest advantage that I've found is that there isn't really a time
where one player is just sitting and watching the other play, because he
also has to decide when to use his more tactical units.
>>
>> 5)Morale is important. An army that is losing is more likely to shake
>>up and start to flee. More battles are won by demoralizing and scattering
>>the enemy than by exterminating them.
>>
>I agree with this, it is realistic and adds new tactical dimensions.
>> 6)Realism is rarely fun, but neither is total unbelievability.
>>Although I am not making any efforts for precise realism, I hope to make
>>the system work so that when all is said and down, you can think, 'yeah,
>>that could have happened'.
>>
>Fun should be the primary consideration of any successful games system
>:-)
>>
>>What I would like is suggestions for what should be in a fun wargame. At
>>this point, the rules are generic, although the only unit profiles and
>>point costs I have are for fantasy because that's easier. Also, if a few
>>people are willing to take a set of rules that aren't even close to
>>completion, look them over, and fiddle with them a bit to find holes,
>>imbalances, and suggestions for things like point values, that would be
>>appreciated.
>>
>Sure, I'll ceck them over. I have experiance with designing wargames and
>playtesting them, as well as a lot of wargaming time behind me.
>A few things:
>1) A lot of your aims sound very close to that of Enigma's design team.
>Have you consdiered playing tactical strike? Its free, see my sig for
>details.
I've read it over, in an older version. In fact, it was tricky to avoid
the temptation to steal some of its game mechanics.:)
>2) You need to have aims clear in your mind. For the most part you sound
>fine. But have you considered scale? 28mm I gather, but do you want
>large scale, medium or small. This will effect the ammount of detail in
>the game. For example, in a small scale game with only 10-30 or so
>models per side average, detail should be high with rolls to hit, damage
>etc., different wounds and so on. 40-150 Your looking at warhammer/TS
>detail whcih simulates flow but doesn't go into detail (like what sort
>of wound Jim picked up). 150+ models a side and you are looking for
>something that flows really fast. A signle dice throw per model to kill
>an enemy, and so on.
At the moment, it's in the middle ground. Large scale combat won't be
soon, especially since the average gaming table represents an area about
100 yds. across, and extra bookkeeping would be required, but in theory I
think a large scale game under my rules shouldn't break down into cheese,
although the players would have to be willing to put a lot of work in.
At this point, I've almost completed a chart for point values of infantry
units, although it is of course only a starting place, rather than the
final system.
MarvinGod
Quick sugestion. Check out GURPS roleplaying systen and Starwars rp. GURPS
for its total encompassing rules, and SW for its innovative engagement rules.