Lets talk about making a new game

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Quintinus**

Hey guys! After a lot of work, I've uploaded a new draft of Crimson Galaxy. It's more like Crimson Galaxy 2.0, this time it's "Pirates of a Crimson Galaxy" which was the original name I had for the game. I've changed a lot and hopefully made close combat a bit easier to understand. Close combat has been the hardest thing to work out and it's still gonna need a lot of editing.

Here's a link to the game itself: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57594130/Pirates-of-the-Crimson-Galaxy
Here's a link to the thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/375455.page#2925917

**Dahl Corp.**

Lanrak I've tried and failed at making a homebrew rule set. I guess the main variable was that I did it on 4chan...

**kenshin620**

Hmm I'll give a look over on those new rules

Dahl Corp. wrote:Lanrak I've tried and failed at making a homebrew rule set. I guess the main variable was that I did it on 4chan...

/tg/ I hope, they can sorta do stuff

But it all depends on their mood which is either GW Fanboy mode or GW Hate mode or "wheres the newest quest thread"

**warpcrafter**

I've got an entire rules set including over a dozen army lists. What is the best way to post it, as I am not very computer literate.

**RavagedWorlds**

See some talk about saves, and save modifiers i.e. armor value - strength of weapon = save.

How about losing saves all together? Warmachine/Hordes style? If you get hit and suffer a wound, you lose that much HP? Or simply die? Brutal yes - but forces some serious decisions when making and playing the game.

Been working for months am looking forward to reading crimson galaxy and all other people's rules alike. I'll be posting mine as well.

**DaemonJellybaby**

@Vladsimpaler, nice fluff for the PotCG,

**Lanrak**

I belive this thread is far more positive place to put forward ideas on a new game.

However , 'developing a game by comittee' only realy works when you have a well defined end target you are all working towards...

Do you want a 'current 40k rules with a few alterations' , a '2nd ed re-vamp' , 'a RT reshuffle','other system X with a few tweeks'.

Or a complete re-write from the ground up?

If its a complete re-write we have to be VERY precise on what we are working towards.
The scope and size of game should be similar to the current 40k game IMO.
Eg battle game focusing in unit interaction.

Abstract games need simple precise rules to work.(Pass the Pigs through to chess all have simple precise rules.)

Simulation allow more complex gameplay due to the players knowledge of the RL analoge.
If the game play follows generaly know expectations, it is intuitive and simple for the players to learn and play the game .
(Rather than having to learn and play the rules, independant of any RL analoge.)

If its a simulation , what are we trying to simulate?
Ancient warfare , Napoleionic type warfare, WWI, or modern warfare ?

Alot of alternative rules written by ex 40k players tend to keep the over complicated way GW present rules.

I prefer to start in the simplest way possible to cover ALL the interaction in the game, by writeing rules in an inclusive way.

@ Warpcrafter.
I am a 'techno-dunce' according to my wife and kids.

If your rules set and army lists are in PDF format or word doc.Simply click the attachments button unerneath the text box where you write your posts.Then browse though your PC untill you find the documents you want to upload then upload them.(Click on the document then the upload button.)(My son told me how to do this...)

If you upload the basic rules first then we can see where you are coming from...

@RavagedWorlds.
It is possible to use lots of different mechanics in games.
Most games use some or all of the following to cover unit interaction as reguards to damage resolution.

Roll to see, roll to hit,roll damage, roll to save.

If you have a game where ALL elements that have multiple hit points , and the weapons simply reduce the hit points.And the reduction of hit points reduces the element performance.
Then this is great for games with lower numers of elements , and higher resolution in the interaction.(Skirmish games.)

In a game similar in size and scope to 40k , you would this level of detailed recording a bit clumbersome perhaps?

If the game is based on unit interaction , some factors can be fixed , some can be compared, and some can be variable that are 'rolled' for.

'Rollling for everything' using dice deterministic methods , reduces the game play to flatter result forms (everthing becomes averaged out.), and places more emphasis on strategic loading .(Current 40k.)

Comparing everything directly to determine chances of sucess reduces the randomness to a point of predetermined out come that places more emphasis on strategic loading.

As I belive we want a more tacticaly focused game , we should sort of go for the middle ground .
(Plus lots of gamers like roling big handfulls of dice now and again...

)

There are loads of ways to reach any particular end game play.
An multiple options tend to mean mulltiple opinions on which is best.
So to get these opinions to be objective, we do need a clearly defined design goal, and development breif.
Ths is for game mechanics and game paly obviously..

The fluff can be what ever you want that ties into the gameplay.
(Vladsimpaler I also like you background for the PotCG.)

**DaemonJellybaby**

Any thoughts on reactions to a failed morale test people?
I have suppressed,when a unit immediately moves back into cover.
But I would like more, 2 pence for your thoughts Dakka?

Am looking for some more interesting weapons too,

Also, I am looking for an editor/critic who can hunt down my errors and suggest improvements for the wording and weaker points of my game, balance out units/weapons etc

**Lanrak**

Here is my suggestions...

Suppression(shaken).
The unit may retire(move away from enemy units,) to cover , or move to intervening( within movement distance and nearer than all enemy) cover .
In both cases the unit takes a single move action in the secondary action phase.

A unit that is in cover when it becomes suppressed will not move, but may take an attack action,in the secondary action phase .

A vehicle unit may turn to put its (highest) front AR facing to wards the attacking unit that suppressed it instead of moving to cover.
If all enemy units are within the vehicles units front AR facing, the vehicles unit may count as in cover.(Take an attack action in the secondary action phase.)

Neutralised (stunned).
The unit will not take any actions until rallied. Unless it is attacked with close combat weapons , at which point it will fight back normally.
When rallied a neutralised unit moves to suppressed.

Routing .
When a vehicle type unit looses all of its weapons , it must make a Moral test at the start of every game turn.
When an infantry type unit loses 75% or more of its starting DP, it must make a Moral test at the start of every game turn.

If these moral tests are failed the unit routes from the battle field, place a (R) counter next to the unit.

A routing unit must attempt to exit the playing area, as quickly as possible by the shortest available route. (Takes a compulsory move action in both action phases.)

**loki old fart**

TQSplinter wrote:*takes out intellectual property textbook*

Being a UK law student this is a 101 in UK Intellectual Property law, and there are lots and LOTS of case law and other things that complicate the matter. (Tbh i cant remember most of it but this still serves my purpose.) And being in the UK, a lot of stuff is relatively standardised between the US and Europe as a means of "protecting people better".

I wouldnt say copyright is the biggest worry, copyright protects expressions of ideas, NOT the ideas themselves.

3. Literary, dramatic and musical works.
3A. Databases
4. Artistic works.
5A. Sound recordings.
5B. Films.
5. Sound recordings and films.
6. Broadcasts.
6A. Safeguards in case of certain satellite broadcasts.
7. Cable programmes.
8. Published editions.

So basically out of those you need to be concerned with Literary works, and artistic works.

Literary being pretty much anything that you could identify word wise with the original game, for example "scatter dice", "Whirlwind Tank" etc..., as well as any published works like unique names of characters, unique weapon names, but need to be careful that even common place words with enough attachment to a unique idea could also be protected.
Artistic works could include all forms of the models, buildings etc, but this could also apply to the design of blast templates and such, which could give REAL difficulties when you're trying to find a way to make a new way of determining the radius of a set size explosion... Also could cover things like the designs of dice, including the special scatter dice etc.

Patents don't count here for the most part because the process of making them rests with the moulders, and they probably hold the patents for their moulding process, so custom designs shouldn't be a problem.

Design protection also could be problematic because one could argue that many different things including everything down the specific designs on individual dice, ruler designs and other things can be protected.

(I haven't mentioned trademarks because I think we all know using the GW trademark symbol is a rather bad idea for starters.)

Long story short, the actual methods of playing a game cannot be protected (roll a dice, move or shoot a model etc), but the designs, models and unique features of it are. best bet is to design everything from new and stay the hell away from GW designs, names and the like. (Unique names being a bit easier to deal with.)

Ideas for things such as the idea of "scatter dice" are fine to copy, but you cannot call them scatter dice or use dice that look like them. If you designed your own new dice faces and called them "danger close rolls", you'd probably be a lot safer. Or you could design a new method for assigning where shots land instead of using the GW method. (For example a circle of a predetermined size with a grid inside it, when you want to see how shots spread, then you roll several D6 and add the total up and count along the grid that number, for however many shots in a row. Or simply a "twister" style spinner which you spin simply to give the direction the shot moves and roll a dice for distance.)

Things like movement orders, line of fire shooting and the like are generally acceptable to copy because its commonplace stuff that exists in lots of different games. I would suggest that if you want to take other ideas for inspiration, look to other games, such as WW2 armies, fantasy, RPGs and as many different sources. If there are ideas that are common to all or most of them its a safe bet if you copy it with a different name and maybe a different method (definately with different designs) you should be ok.

Just to stay with a template idea, if you were to use big circular templates with a hole in the middle called "blast templates", GW would probably take a whack. If, however, you were to come up with a circular template, different size to GW, maybe put a carry handle on it instead of a hole, make it non see-through instead of clear and call it an "explosive damage radius portrait", you are far more likely to be left alone.

Finally, all of these protections have a lifespan, some a LOT more than others. (Copyright in the UK is 70 years plus life of author. Design protection at most 15 years.) Seeing as GW has been trading for 30 years there WILL be things that were protected and are now not.

Disclaimer: I am NOT qualified to give legal advice so all this advice i'm giving now is purely in a personal capacity as a law student and does not purport to be professional legal advice and as such I recommend that if you want accurate legal advice on your situation then you need to seek independent legal advice from a qualified legal practicioner.

If anybody finds me wrong on any points please say, and if anyone can contribute to this please do. I do hope that this is useful info for people

TQ.

(PS this is not me GW bashing, I support them fully and this is simply letting people know how not to attract the attention of solicitors letters also I hope to god I havent just gotten everything i've posted wrong haha)

The large template you could suggest a cd, or something of approx size (large blast radius).
The smaller one would be those small cd's. The hard one is the flamer template, but that can be made by drawing on a piece of card.
Of course this is what you could suggest (knowing people will use the gw ones anyway).

I would suggest to keep it simple, that everybody has the same ballistic skills. And to increase it you buy upgrades, in the form of equipment. the same with armour.
If you want to field intergalactic armoured marines instead of normal soldiers with better weapons skills they cost more, so you get less of them.

**Lanrak**

As far as I am aware , the ONLY restriction on devloping a new game is NOT using other companies specific terms.
And game mechanics and commonsense is NOT copywritable or protectable under Trade Mark.
ONLY specific terms and words.

Therfore 'Teardrop' shaped,(Diameter at the end and lenth specified,) 3" diameter , 5" diameter template to denote area of effect is fine.

I WANT to keep it simple.NOT using ANY resolution methods found in the current 40k game should help this.

I dont want to use seperate BS combined used in conjunction with weapon stats to finaly arrive at a weapon effect.
Just use the effective range to represent how good the unit is a shooting.
(Better shots hits things further away

)

How do you feel about NOT using conventional points values.But something less granular and fiddely?

EG
Light infantry /vehicle /monster unit = 1 UNIT.
Meduim infantry unit /vehicle /monster unit= 2 UNITS
Heavy infantry unit/vehicle /monster unit =3 UNITS

And army composition something like this...

HQ Unit.
Allows 2 to 6 Common units to be taken.
Allows 0 to 2 support units to be taken.

2 common units taken allows 0 to 2 Specialist unit to be taken.

2 Specialist units taken allows 0 to 2 Restricted unit to be taken.

This allows us to select unit types and sizes that are roughly equal in game terms.
And use the level of 'rarity' to iron out synergistic imbalances.

(Eg if more than 2 'Monster X' become too powerful in playtesting , Make Monster X a 'Restricted unit' chioce.)

This way we can develop unit types in the relevant 'Bands' that are reasonably ballanced across all armies.

Eg All light infantry/vehicle /monster units are 'equaly' likley to beat any other light unit chioces in a straight up fight unit on unit..

The number of models in the unit , along with ALL the unit characteristics can be adjusted to get the level of balance we are all happy with.

This would effectily 'fix ' the unit sizes available.But as this just speed up the army composition and improves the chance of balancing everything with a greater level of sucess.
(As we would be balancing at the level of interaction , EG the unit level. Not like GW does at the individual model level then revise it at army level

.)

This is a very simple way to achive diverse lists that have STRONG themes, that are ballanced through a narrative focus, and tons of playtesting.

EG a 12 UNIT conflict , between an Armoured Company and a Airbourne Infantry list might look like this.

HQ LAV (1)
Support , 2 1 Light Artilery .(2)

Common 4 MAV. (8)

Specialised , LAV scout.(1)

HQ ,Elite L.Infantry Unit.(1)
Support , 2 light Air CAP.(2)

Common 4 light infantry units (4)

Special 4 HWP equiped Light infantry teams.(4)

Resricted 1 LAV scout

I propose ALL armies will have units in all catagories.

And all armies will have composition lists for 3 out of 4 army themes.
Infantry- Armoured-Airbourne -Mechanised.

Just some ideas for discussion.

**DaemonJellybaby**

So you can have a teardrop template, just call it a flame-thrower template, and have different blast radii for blast weapons.

I was thinking of having a points and unlocks system,
so a command unit allows
2-6 grunt units,
0-1 support unit
and
0-1 elite unit

For every 3 grunt units bought, you can take a specialist unit. Then a second command section would allow three extra slots in each category.

Points allow units to be customised, so an ordnance unit could take a:
• Mortar
• Light cannon,
• Medium cannon
• Heavy cannon
• Multi-mortar
• Heavy mortar
• Field gun
• Howitzer
• Siege gun
• Multiple Missile System
All have pros and cons, but some are going to be better than others, so points would balance this out.

**Lanrak**

DJB.
I agree with the 'unlock system.'

However ,IF we are to use a PV system it would HAVE to be provable.

EG ' gamer why deos a mortar team in army X cost 7 point more in army Y?'

'Becasue we thought army X needed a points break on this unit because of thier crap assault value'

Oh so very craptastic ....

I much prefer ... '...here is the system we use to allocate PV, we have developed it over 8 years and its proven to be as accurate as humanly possible...'

Where as NOT using them and JUST using playtesting to achive rough balance across 'unit bands', and composition restrictions to remove synergistic problems.Is so much easier.
(With narrative missions , PV becomes irrelevant in game).

If a heavy weapon team has the chioce of Mortar -HMG- Laser cannon , Missile launcher.
(Eg indirect fire capability, BEST anti infantry weappon -BEST anti tank weapon , AVERAGE anti infantry -anti tank comprimise weapon. )
The the player has the option to just PICK what THEY want to use to suit thier style of play.

A support unit could be off table 'reserve units'or 'air strike' or 'artillery barrage.'

An artilery support units could be

Light Multi mortar/heavy mortar.
Medulm .Feild gun /howitzer
Heavy. Siege gun/Multiple missile system.

Players get to pick units from 'bands' and then pick the weapon effects they like best...

If done well points values add to the game system.BUT if done badly they totaly detract from the game play and game diversity.

I am personaly not confident to do the level of calculation to prove all pv to the level some players would like...may be someone else is?

**Perkustin**

warpcrafter wrote:I've got an entire rules set including over a dozen army lists.

Pics or it didnt happen!

As long as it exists as a word document or indeed openoffice (

) putting it as attachment to a post is perfectly doable.

Any more ideas on psychology?

**DaemonJellybaby**

I was going to begin by having a generic army list with doctrines to make the armies customisable, then work from there, seeing what works/does not work, any OP doctrines etc
Need to write in some doctrines, but here is my initial army list and weapons list.
Obviously this is just indev, so please don't worry about seriously OP units, weapons or rules, they will be dealt with in time

Constructive CnC is welcome, just make sure you have an alternative idea

**Lanrak**

Hi DJB.
The basic outlines for infantry and weapons seem ok.(A good starting point.

)

However would it be better to simply include the weapon effect in the unit characteristic profile?
(If the game is about unit interaction, it would speed up resolution and improve variance across units.)

EG.
Mobility (Distance moves per move action and mobility type.)

Defencive value(How hard the unit is to damage.)

Hit points (How much damage the unit can take , wounds or structure points.)

Stealth value(How hard the unit is to see.)

Morale value (How wiling the unit is to fight on.)

Command value (Bonuses for the units leader abilities.)

Weapons .
Type.... /name/Eff Rng/Damage/effect /special.
Assault...combat knife/ 0-2"/ 5/1/-

Small arms/Las Rifle /2-24"/5/1/-

Support/F thrower/0-8"/5/TT/ignore cover.

Fire Suport/HMG/4-36"/7/3/ d3 supression.

This way we could alter the weapon profiles AND the characteristics, to adjust the combat effectivness of the unit in increments.(Which is better than bunging on loads of special rules instead...

)

This information could be presented on a reference card (playing card sized.)

And the 'army composition' could be noted on the other side , so you pick your army , then flip the cards over when you play!

Instead of doctrines...

How would you feel about having several themed lists for each army.
EG -Infantry - mechanised - heavy armoured- cavalry(fast ground assault) -Airbourne

This means ALL armies can have lots of variety and themes without using loads of 'special rules '
(Alot of the time its just altering the rarety of the units within a list, eg a Med Tank is specialised in an infantry/mechanised list, common in a armoured list and restricted in a cavalry list and NOT in the airbourne list! )
So we use the same pool of units but organiose them in different ways to get the varied themes.Which is basicaly what 'doctrines' do at the micro level.

When you look at the 40k rule set.Use it as a guide of WHAT NOT TO DO!
So if you have absentmindedly used something from 40k rule set, double check it to see it it could be done better.(The answer is ALWAYS yes.

)
As we are NOT '...in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to kiddies...' but developing a well defined intuitive and elegant rule set for modern warfare simulation...

Ps in game where the combat is mainly coprised on weapons swung-strung by the combatants , a strenght value is a good name for the power of the weapon hit.As it is directly proportionat to the wielder.

But when dealing with high velocity projectiles, chemicals ,superheated plasma and over powered lazer light.Perhaps 'power' or 'damage' might be more apropriate.

**DaemonJellybaby**

I like the idea of themes, but I am going to build these into the army doctrines,
you will HAVE to take three doctrines in a similar way to the Call of Duty perks lists, so there will be a category that does a similar thing to the airborne, mechanised, cavalry etc
other doctrines will be minor profile modifications, re-rolls and deployment bonuses rather than granting silly rules like FNP

I will put the weapon profile in with the unit profile to speed things up, they are just all in one section to make weapons easy to compare when writing up.
Units might have hit-points, but I would rather hit points were represented by models, as having a multi-hit-pointed unit would mean that premium AT weapons would still only cause one loss of a single hit point, when we know something like a missile is going to blow infantry into pieces. 40k has this right with the Instant Death rule as noting is going to stop a high powered laser from killing you outright.
This could be dealt with, but it means making more complex rules, and adding more statistics.

On the topic of Strength characteristics, I was going to put all weapons into one big list including CC weapons. So having weapon and wielder strength being standard means that the wordings don't need to be changed or new tables drawn.

Wikipedia wrote:In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted.
Physical strength is the ability of a person or animal to exert force on physical objects using muscles.
Damage can occur suddenly, as in the case of breakage due to mechanical stress, or gradual, in which case it is sometimes called wear and tear.

I think Strength defines the properties of muscles and weapons evenly.

Doctrines will be posted soon

**Lanrak**

Hi DJB.
As long as the 'doctrines' just determine what units are available to get a themed list , then is no different to having seperate comp lists.
So we can just use which ever is easier to write and understand.

Your list of 'weapon profiles' is purley for reference purpouses?Thats fair enough.

I was simply saying that 'Power', or 'Armour Piercing ' , are generic terms and apply to all weapon damage .
Strenght is PARTICULAR to weapon that have thier power suplied totaly by thier wielder.(Eg low tech weapons.)

**DaemonJellybaby**

Doctrines will allow armies to be tailored to your playstyle

you can have almost any army style you like from a single set of interchangeable perks...
Am also considering doing away with points and having a similar system to Lanrak's choices

**Lanrak**

Hi DJB.
This sort of thing is great to set the framework we use when creating a set of army lists for a game

.

But why make the players have to do all the calculations and adjustments?And leave the developers to playtest every possible combination to look for any imballance that might arise...

If we apply the frame work to build the army lists.We can playtest them to find the most balanced options, and simply put those in a army list where the palyers can pick freely from available chioces.

It no good providing thousands of possible options if the players only use 2 or 3 due to poor balancing,is it?

I have attached a sample WWII army 'Armoured' list I wrote for the WWII version of S.T.A.C.S.(Based on historical data so is a bit more restrictive than the one we would use in a new game.)

Just so you can see how simple the propsed lists are to use/write/amend.
I cant find the army data sheet with the unit info on...(It gave the in game data, and the UNIT costs.)

**DaemonJellybaby**

I wanted to have doctrines so players can have fluffy lists, but it seems easier to separate them from doctrines into several differently organised army lists, with each having strengths and weaknesses, and none being OP as far as we, the game writers, can see.
The job of the developers and the play testers is to find where the writer went wrong with balance and help to fix the problem.
I tried to give many possible doctrine options (150 in total) almost all being viable, granted some would be better than others.
Good army list Lanrak, it gave me an idea on how to structure the resulting armies.

I have split down my current rules into different sections so they are easier to manage.
What I need now is an editor to read thru them, hunt down the problems and help smooth them out rather than adding more to the game,
More ideas will be appreciated when I have the basic stuff working smooth-ish-ly.

**Lanrak**

Hi DJB.
The sample list was just to show how straight forward lists can be structured with fixed unit sizes , and make picking an army a straight forward enjoyable exercise.
(I hate individualy priced elements that have to be calcualted into unit costing , its so time consuming and analy retentive ,IMO.)

Well post/attatch the sperate sections one at a time , and we can have a look see whats what.

If somthing can be swapped out to arrive at the end result in a more elegant and efficient way , do you want to concider that after the total review, or as we go along?

**The Zoat**

It does not seem to be openable.

**Lanrak**

@The Zoat.
What can't you open?

**The Zoat**

All the files, I use Word 2003, would that affect it?

**Lanrak**

The Zoat.
My docs are PDFs ,so as long as you have 'Adobe Reader' , you should be OK.
I am not sure what format DJB uses, but Open Office 3 ,(free to download,) opens tham up just fine...

**DaemonJellybaby**

I use Word10 but can put the docs into PDF or word 97 compatible formats

Lanrak, my army list was pointed for single models like tanks, and 10 man squads like grunt infantry.
Changing things around after the full evaluation, then we can see what will affect the whole game.

**The Zoat**

I think it says something like "file conversion".

**Lanrak**

DJB.
If tanks are used singularly in individual units, and troops are used in groups of 10 to form a unit.
Then costing at he UNIT level is best anyway.IMO.

Can you post-attach the first section of your rules , i am eagerto see what you have got so far.

**DaemonJellybaby**

Lanrak, I clearly posted the cost as 'x for 10 men' in the units page (unless I am confusing my most recent roster with the posted one)

anyway, the introduction, and the game turn...
Notes in italics are my (very diluted) thoughts and opinions on what I have written