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.

Hi all.
Knowing that the current 40k rule set is not ideal for all 40k gamers play styles.(40k is developed for co-operative narrative play.)
I thought I would have a go at trying to write a simple rule set ,that is more focused on tactical interaction.
And hopefully with more intuitive proportional results, the resulting game should be easier to ballance.

Working title is ,Straightforward Tactical Action Combat Simulation.(S.T.A.C.S. for short.)
Its my attempt to cover platoon to company level games using modern or scifi units.

If you want to ,have a look at the attached PDF, and let me know what you think.
Remeber this is just a rough draft word document , (I have no DTP skills ), that took me a few days to develop and write.
(So it might have some spelling gramatical and formating errors.Just like GW books )

I just put some mechanics and resolution methods together to see if the framework for a game came out the other side.
Values and names used are just to help illistrate how it works .

Feed back is welcome , and so is any help with development and DTP.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

I think it would help things if you set out some design goals, what you're trying to accomplish game-wise, from the practical perspective of people playing with each other rather than from a nitty-gritty representational perspective.

Incidentally have you read/played Battlefield Evolution? This seems very similar.

Hi Nurglitch.
I have played and read read through several rule sets .
(I have been gaming for over 25 years , and all the rules sets blurr in to each other ...its my age you know .))

I suppose the amount of posts on game development forums that want to make 40k rule set/game play ,'more realistic' ,'more interactive', etc.
Made me belive that alot of gamers think they are 'stuck' playing 40k because that all they can do!

And even the best additional rules and house rulings , just dont deliver the tactical interaction they may want.(Any you have developed some of the best of these BTW. )

And as writeing a brand new rule set seems FAR less effort than trying to fix the current 40k rules.

I wanted to see if I could cover ,(and maybe exceed) the current game play of 40k with alternative game mechanics and simpler resolution methods.

Alot of games cover a few things very well , and base the game play around these primary goals.Command decisions, moral ,inflicting damage,etc.
And as such deliver great gaming experiance .But as they load one element of game play so heavily, they can not be expanded or adapted that easily.

So I suppose my design goals would be .
To deliver a basic system that covered all the main elements of tactical interation ,in a straight forward way.
(This allows the game to be learned quickly, and adapted to cover a wider scope of interest.)

To arrive at a straight forward core system that could be adapted and expanded upon easily.
(This allows the gamer to take ownership of the core sytem and develop it to fit thier own ideals.)

I chose the modern-sci-fi ,platoon to company level game , as thier are not that many rules set for this type of game.(Tons of great 'skirmish' and 'command' rule sets out there.)

If sucessfull the core system would be available to help fill one of the biggest gaps in the current wargames market .

I have spent all my working life assesing and developing/refining solutions to mechanical systems.(Being a conformance engineer.)
And having alot of experiance with real world battle field interactions (12 years working on advanced weapon systems.).

Unfortunatley I seem to ONLY be able to work from the ground up.
Here is how things actualy work.
Here is a reasonanble simple simulation that could be used in a game ...
I then put the simple simulations together to get a simple simulation type game ...

As you are able to 'start at the top', as it were.Would you be able to help me?

Is there anything drasticaly wrong with the basic ideas?
Would any of the game mechanics cause you concern?

Thanks in advance .
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

What I think is drastically wrong with your basic idea is that you're supposing everyone can agree on your design goals, like "tactical interaction, in a straight forward way".

Rather than thinking about game mechanics, I think you should take a step back and think about what the players are going to do when they're playing with each and what they might want to achieve.

So working from the ground up is nice, but you need an over-arching goal in mind so that the mechanics you design do something rather than simply add another process or procedure that the players need to implement.

As of page 7 we moved from stream lined and easy to play\learn to get out the compass and protractor. Actions that happen often like shooting should always be simple, this is why infantry in WH40K do not have firing arcs. What is the point of designating a spotter? Is this so that I can hide all but one of my units in a hole so that he is the only one exposed to enemy fire but I can still shoot with everyone in my squad?


I like some of the ideas, but your effort to make actions occur at the same time seems contradictory to what you have written here with the resolution phase. The entire 'Dice Off' mechanic is broken, remember the overwatch order in 40K? This is broken for simular reasons. Example I lose the first dice off and go second but I win the next one and go first, that is two turns of me firing at your squads with zero retaliation from you.

I must say I like your system of seperating cover and concealment, this could be built on and applied to 40K if we drop the stealth attrib stuff for simplicity.

Honestly you're getting to the point where I think you're better off writting a video game with this system not a tabletop. There are just too many factors to keep in mind for a player to enjoy the game.

Hi Guys.
Thanks for the feed back.
I understand now Nurglitch.
I wanted a simpler way to cover 40k gameplay.(Reduce the amount of abstractions and contradictory special rules.)

But as Computergeek points out, I got too complex in several places.

Its just the way I work , total simulation, then I need players to let me know where it needs streamlining -detailing or changing.

If you list your areas of concern , I can develop the rules futher.

You comments are welcome.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

Part of the problem that I found with making a better Warhammer was that the complexity and ad-hoc nature of Warhammer lends itself well to diversity: maintaining all the units and their relative (and characteristic) differences outside of Warhammer becomes pretty hard.

Something I suggest to you would be a play a game where there are no rules to begin with, and you take turns with your opponent proposing rules and ways of codifying the game that you want to see happen.

Hi Nurglitch.
I have a clear idea of the game play I wanted to end up with.I just struggle to explain it that well.

My ideals are to try to write rules inclusivley NOT exclusivley.

WHFB and 40k are written exclusivley ,to exagerate every slight difference in each model, to inspire people to buy the latest minature releases.
(According to GW corperate 'cool rules' sell more models than 'solid game play'. )

Ill take away the feed back so far, and have a re-think and play through some simple alternatives to find a better mix ...

TTFN
lanrak.

Lanrak:

Okay, so don't worry about explaining it well. Just try explaining it and people's questions and queries will help you sharpen and explain what you're trying to get across.

I think part of the problem that you're facing is that of having variety in your rules. The problem with having a small set of general rules that everything follows is that those rules need to be complicated enough to account for everything.

GW went the other way in the 3rd and 4th edition of 40k, reinventing the wheel every time they needed to differentiate something.

However, in the 5th edition they've managed to find something of an equilibrium point where they've (re)learned to differentiate stuff by combinations of rules, so that instead of a new rules, they just attach two Universal Special rules with a characterful label.

Something to think about is that the goals of diversity and elegance (what we try to achieve by trying to write rules that unify rather than diversify the number of rules in a given system) are not mutually exclusive, and that there's an equilibrium point at which maximal variety can be achieved with the minimum number of rules.

Something I strongly recommend as an exercise is to write a board-game, something that have very specific boundaries that you can use to explore how you explore ideas. In other words, it's worth taking a step back and examining your approach if just to become more self-conscious of it and to give you more room to work with when designing complex or unbounded games.

Hi Nurglitch.
I suppose I have always been interested in the gaps , when pondering what sort of game I would like to develop.
As there are an abundance of exellent skirmish games , you can find one praticaly ideal for any gamers preference.
And from batallion and up, there are a huge amount of exellent games.

I have always been drawn to the gap in between.(I am just strange I guess.. )

I Generaly take regimental and higher levels games , adding more detail and playing them at the platoon to company level.
(Mostly historical WWII,to modern.I am a bit of a treadhead. )

And after a few of these conversion for my games club went down quite well...I got over confidant, probabaly ...

want the tactical conciderations of modern land warfare, transposed to a game roughly the same size as current 40k.
As the current game size of 40k, allows for reasonable representation of combined arms.

IF the units in game capabilities are more based upon tactical conciderations , rather than strategic.Then the slight differences between each model DO NOT impact as much on the game play. (As strategic heavy game play CAN make stats and equipment differences, the center of the gameplay.)

If the game play follows a set of 'one sided actions' with 'causing casualties' as the main method of guaging sucess.Then the units ability to deal and sustain damage is very important to the gameplay.

But alternative game types load elements differently
Eg
In 'Crossfire' the tactical command decisions makes the game play.(The individual unit stats are not as important, as what you do with your units.)

In Stargrunt II the 'moral element ' , makes the results of actions 'realistic-believable'.(Therfore stats and equipment are not as important as a game soley dependant on causing casualties.)

My game concept.
If you imagine you are a company commander (Captain or Major,) controling a re-enforced infantry company , (with attached transport and armoured assets.)
And allowed restricted acess to some artillery or air assets.

You are given a mission , (strategic goal.)
You have to use the forces at you command to achive your mission the best you can.(While your oponent does the same.)

I was aiming for a 'element nuetral approach.'Where a units ability to kill, and survive is as important ,as thier willingness to fight ,and how well you can control them.

Most of the games I 'adjusted down' were simulationist rule sets.(Cambria to Cieni, Firefly, Challenger II,etc)And I found adding detials was quite easy.
(To be fair these are not newb friendly games....)

Elements of intended game play.
1)Tactical planning , in the form of order counters.

2)Having to concider units movement abilities and how they cross terrain.

3)Using the right weapon type on the right type of target.
(Differentiating 'anti tank' weapons that put large amount of enrgy in one place to damage 'hard targets', from 'anti personell' weapons that mainly supress soft targets due to low density area fire.I am working on simpler representation )

4) Making moral damage equaly important to physical damage. Having to manage unit moral to preserve a coherant fighting force.

5) Representing the 'fog of war' in a reasonable way.

6)Leaders that can actualy improve units performance all round, not just in combat.

Is this any clearer to what I was aiming for?

I appreciate the help .

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

I think the disconnect here is that you're thinking about what you want to represent with a game, which is a noble goal, and I'm asking what you want the players to do, to encourage you to think about the decisions that the players will make, and the procedures they'll have to carry out to move the game forward.

I mean, what sort of decisions are the players making? Okay, so they're making strategic decisions (for example), what sort of strategic decisions? How many options do they have? Out of those options, how many of them are 'live' and how many of them are stupid. Do these decisions have to be gamed against the opposing player's decision (like rock-scissors-paper), or do they depend on the position of game elements on the board?

Suppose for an instance that you're not making a game to represent anything, but a purely abstract game: what do you want players to do to play this game? How are two or more people supposed to interact in order to reach the conclusion of the game?

Hi Nurglitch,
At what point do I concider the players to be engaged with the game, and at what point are they dis-engaged?(When do they take responcibility of thier actions, and when are they controlled by the rules?)

Games with no player input, other than taking turns moving a playing pieces and rolling dice to see what happens, (Snakes and ladders,) are controled ENTIRLEY by the rules .

Chess simply instructs players how to move the pieces and remove opposing pieces, and what constitutes Check and Check mate.
The player control is much higher than snakes and ladders.

Any game, just defines a set framwork of interactions the players may choose over a course of a game.I understand this.

How do you catagorise interactions in the abstract?

Players attempt to out/manouver/think/ play each other to win?

How do you determine 'win' abstractly?

How do you catorgarise 'actions' and 'gaining/ loosing control?'

How does 'control' manifest itself in the abstract?

I can not explain in a abstract way as I dont know what terms of reference to use.

If the methods of interaction are defined, then the players decide how they interact based on these definitions.

I find it difficult working with abstract theories.
I spend all my time working on applied solutions.So writing definitions based on a known real world interaction makes it easier for me to conceptualise.

ALL the games I like , seem to simulate real world interactions.They all give expected results.
They may use abstract methods , but they only abstract to improve playability , not confuse definitions.

You may want something incredibly simple, but unless I know the 'language to use' I am at a loss what to say.

''Is the IPC for the AS90 , RFC?''
''No the IT SV went FUBAR on transfer to HC!But a RC of the QT, ASAP will PITB.
('Acronyms are us', commonly know as British Aerospace! )

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

I'm not talking about the abstract: I'm talking about each instance of a player making a decision (such as using weapon A rather than weapon B) rather than mere elements of process (x dice for to wound, y dice to save, etc).

Take the Warhammer 40k shooting phase. Players not only need to decide what weapons they'll use (if they have that choice), but what targets they want to shoot at, and in what order. It's a simply matter of accounting: consider players engaged with the game by counting each instance where a player has a choice, consider players disengaged or simply weighed down by process for every step of a procedure that they perform without having a choice.

So back to the Shooting phase. If a player has 6 squads of Imperial Guardsmen vs the other player's 6 squads of Imperial Guardsmen, with no units moving, and all units have line of sight to other units, then each player faces three choices with seven steps involved in making each choice.

A better game might be a game that involves making seven choices with each choice involving three steps, all else equal, because it means that the player has 49 different outcomes (total) to consider rather than 9, for the same amount of work (21 steps or the number of decisions multiplied by the number of steps involved in executing each decision).

What would actually make the game better would be making sure than the number of live options, the actual choices facing players as opposed to dead options or "no-brainers", is greater for the game involving seven choices rather than three, because if a player has seven choices but only two are live, then that's actually a loss because the other five "choices" become equivalent to procedural steps and hence instead of reducing the number of steps you actually increase it!

Of course, it isn't the case that fewer procedural steps are better, because it depends on what the steps accomplish. Take the hit/wound/save process involved in Warhammer 40k shooting: it seems superfluous until you calculate the amount that it can represent. The more salient differences you can represent, then the greater diversity of options there can be in force creation (though that's not fully exploited in Warhammer 40k).

That's why the wound allocation of 5th edition is an innovation over the wound allocation of 4th edition, because previously there was a process and now the player exercises some agency or control over which casualties are removed.

So my suggestion to play a game and to document player interactions (opposed decisions), player choices (non-opposed decisions), and procedural steps is intended to do away with abstract rule creation and to get you applying your experience in applying solutions to guide you in what sort of solutions you want to implement to recreate the gaming experience that you want to promote.

Hi Nurglitch.
So you are sugesting a 'process map' of function and interaction levels across the system, rather than the details of function within the system?

Ill have a bash and see If I am on the right track...just a breif over view ,( I dont want to go into too much detail if I am barking up the wrong tree.)

Strategic.
(Chioces.)
Composition of playing elements from specified lists.
Deployment of elements on playing area.
When to call on elements held in reserve.
(Influences.)
Personal preferences , and strategic objectives.(I prefer random allocation of objectives from a fixed set.)

Tactical.
(Choices.)
What action (sets) to give to which elements.
Whether to challenge opposing elements or withdraw from opposing elements.

(Interactions,)
To determine if elements engage.(Opposed rolls.)
Resolve engagments.(Beat target scores.)
(Influences.)
Players prefered playstyle, element definitions.

Is this along the right lines?

Perhaps I am subconciously performing the assesment of procedural steps to the efficiency of resolution, and just jumping to best known solution?
Rather than adjusting best known solution to fit more precisley,you are sugesting looking for best solution that may be unknown?

I appreciate you taking the time to help me.

Lanrak:

Looks good so far, and I suppose you could say that I'm suggesting a process mapping of your game. It's labour-intensive but it should pay off when you can see how your game works and how the parts interact. It might be easier to do it in flow-chart form though.

However, I'd suggest approaching it as a accounting for all the steps between starting and ending the game. So rather than going for abstract properties like strategy or tactics, start with something like:

Example wrote:
Choices/Player: 2
1. Option A
2. Option B

Options: 4
1. See Diagram (AA)
2. See Diagram (AB)
3. See Diagram (BA)
4. See Diagram (BB)

Procedural Steps: 5
1. Player A and B write down their choice
2. Player A and B compare their choices
3. Index of choices determines option agreed upon
4. Terrain on the table is set up to match the diagram for the chosen option
5. Players note the option down for the purposes of determining victory conditions during endgame.
5.

The example is a step in an overall procedure. You keep breaking down steps in the procedure, noting the choices facing players and the number of options that result from having those choices available. The options will send you down a branch of the game's decision tree, with the length of each branch being equal to the number of steps required to get from one choice to another.

Hi Nurglitch.
I have got it now.
Mapping process using a 'flow chart ', to determine redundancy,duplicity and process lengths comparitivley.
(Similar to basic production control assesment methods.)

Its just all my favorite games are simulations , so I automaticaly map in game function to actual events.
This sorts out the simulation bit.

But this method you sugested will allow me to get better control of the gameplay.


Thanks for explaining it untill I understood.

Ill wander off and do some more work...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Hey Lanrak,

How's the mapping going?

I'm afraid I stopped reading after the third page because it's got a frustratingly bad grammar and spelling standard and it's already confusing. There are too many pointless - or less than simple - terms and values.

If you want to see a simple wargames engine, play the Lord of the Rings tabletop game. It's what 40K could be if it wanted...

Hi Miricalfish.
Yes it is just a rough draught ,listing some alternitve resolution methods.
It is not written particualurly well,And I know it needs more work.
(Am am not a proffesional author , nor have I spent years developing the rule set.It was just an exercise in creating a simulation from existing game mechanics from multiple sources, put together over a few days.)

I have played lots of different games , not just GW games.
And was simply trying to put some alternatives together to make a simulation of modern combat.LOTR and WOTR work very well with ancient -fantasy settings.(WH rules dont work that well with modern type units ,I dont think LoTR would be a much better fit...)

Nurglitch.
I am working slowly through the player options.It is very helpful in finding the redundancies in a system.

Ill re -post a revised draught after more work.

Probably best if we close this thread and I open a new one later on when I have revised/developed my ideas more...If the Mods would oblige?

TTFN
Lanrak.

I've been lurking in this thread for a while. I find the principles of game design very interesting, and it's great to see them applied. If you please could post a line here with a link when your next version is posted, it would be much appreciated by me.