Switch Theme:

Thinking Aloud - Smoke Grenades in a Skirmish Game  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

I wanted to do a bit of thinking "aloud" on the topic of smoke grenades, and the Dakka Game Design sub-forum is pretty active and rarely less than interesting, so I hope you don't mind if I drop it in here.

I've played a lot of games down the years in various scales and settings, and one thing I've never been very happy with are the solutions I've seen for smoke grenades. Too often, this is a simple template that last for X turns (usually one) and then vanishes. I'm keen to come up with something a bit more interesting. So first up, has anyone come across a smoke grenade/shell mechanic they thought was elegant and intuitive.

Second, this is a very early draft of what I'm thinking of myself and I'd welcome your thoughts.

Placement of smoke
For a smoke grenade, you will need seven 25mm diameter circular counters, marked 1 to 7.

When the final target of a smoke grenade has been established, place smoke marker 1, then place markers 2 to 4 in contact with marker 1. The following steps occur at the start of each subsequent friendly activation before the actions are declared, starting with step 1 after the next friendly activation, step 2 after the next one etc.

1. Place markers 5 and 6, each of which must be in contact with a previously-placed marker.
2. Place marker 7, which must be in contact with a previously-placed marker.
3. Remove marker 1.
4. Remove markers 2 and 3.
5. Remove all remaining markers.

The effects of wind
If the mission takes place in an exterior location, consult the mission conditions to indicate the direction and strength of any wind.

If wind is weak, follow the instructions above.

If wind is medium, counters 2-7 must be placed on the side of counter 1 in the direction of the wind.

If wind is strong, counters 2-7 must always be placed in contact with the last counter placed, in the direction of the wind.

If wind is very strong, smoke has no effect.

***

This probably needs some diagrammatic illustration and better description, but my brain's only half-on today.

R.

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

Seeing as I already have a set of numbered 25mm counters (well, only six, but finding a stand-in for seven was easy enough), I've just messed around with the idea a bit.

Following the exact instructions (that #2-4 all have to contact #1, rather than any marker of lesser value, and for step one, #6 has to be deployed touching one of #1-4, because #5 is not previously deployed as far as the instruction is concerned), it feels like it doesn't really make it significantly harder to deploy smoke, as it's easy to place new markers to block the same lines of sight as imminently disappearing markers and with the restrictions about where the new markers are placed, it's difficult to have it drift to somewhere new and useful unless the wind rules are overriding those restrictions. (Which does add some challenge).

As such, it does feel like it's adding effort without really adding much to the gameplay.

You may be averse to using a different size of marker, but for that specific mechanic, my thoughts would be to use fewer but larger markers. Say, five 40mm markers, deployed as 1 -> 2 & 3 -> 4 -> 5 and removed as 1, 2 (and maybe 3), then all remaining markers.
This means each new step changes the position and radius of the smoke cloud more, but also reduces the number of markers the player has to keep organised.

Another possibility, although again it may not suit your rules, would be to use a random mechanic. Just messing around with a GW scatter die and the premise that new markers are deployed in the rolled direction from the last placed marker (with a hit allowing the player to put the new marker anywhere in contact with any marker in the chain) seems to force players (or at least me) to deploy smoke more conservatively, as they can't rely on being able to get it exactly where needed.
Again, I feel this would need bigger markers, although probably not fewer, in order that the bigger area of effect made up for the less precise nature of the smoke.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

Quite an interesting solution , I like it.

Perhaps you could also consider the actual type of smoke it is, eg whether it was 'chemical' smoke or phosphorous. If phosphorus then the area would also provide a fire hazard to troops in the template area or moving through it.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Thanks, MarcoSkoll, for taking it for a test-drive. You make a good point about the size of the markers, which would definitely have a much greater effect at 40mm than at 25mm.

The object is to give the player(s) more decisions to make about the precise placement of the markers, so I can see that 25mm actually doesn't give them all that much for the effort they're putting in. The risk, of course, is that placement becomes one of those irritating, pie-slicing moments, so I'll give some thought to how that might be improved.

Big H - Thanks. One thing I've not included here are the actual effects of smoke, as those are incidental to the placement rules. But you make a good point that I could add more than just the capacity to block LOS. I rather like the idea of rules for tear gas and similar...

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

OK, that's awfully complicated, so what benefit does it give over placing a smoke template on the board?

If I were to implement smoke in KOG light:
1. Place a 3" diameter smoke template on the board adjacent to the firing model.
2. At the end of each game round, roll a Scatter Die. On a HIT, remove the smoke; otherwise, move the template 1d3" in the indicated direction.
3. Smoke partially blocks Line of Sight.
4. ALL Indirect Fire weapons have full LOS to Smoke.

As KOG light is a pure LOS game with all-or-nothing cover, models would get the full benefit of cover from popping smoke (along with giving IF an easy reference point to zero in on...).

KOG light also wants to keep things moving and fun at a pretty high level. I prefer to abstract smoke to the point that one may assume units are popping tactical smoke where appropriate, and that smoke is included by default as part of the various things that result in a "miss". It's the same reason I don't call out suppressive fire as an overt action. Or distinguish between flavors of kills.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 precinctomega wrote:
The object is to give the player(s) more decisions to make about the precise placement of the markers.
The question is should it? I mean grenades themselves are never a precise placement, even in reality. Sure someone can get skilled to a degree in throwing them and hitting their marks, but under combat situations there are multiple variables that effect that. Smoke is pretty much the same concept which takes a thing and abstracts it. It does so to allow simple use without complications. They are effected by weather and there is a skill in using them, knowing where to place to get the max effect.

Person throwing grenades:



Tank launching smoke grenades



I get they aren't an exact circle nor do they just completely block line of sight, they really just interfere with it. However there isn't a real way to make them more effective in a game. In fact I'd say some of the games make them too effective. It would seem to be more realistic to make the radius smaller or maybe simply X, Y, Z sizes. From the initial point place one, then the 'drift' direction determines where the plume tail goes which would be the Y and Z sizes.

Place X size circle which is smaller than standard smoke grenade templates, for example we'll say 4". Roll for hit, success means that is where it lands, otherwise roll for direction of scatter. Move it there. Then place Y size circle center, 3" radius example, on the edge in the direction of drift on the circle edge of X. Then place Z size circle center, 2" radius example, on the edge in the direction of drift on the circle edge of Y. In terms of gameplay, not much has changed it is still streamlined and doesn't slow down the process of popping smoke. In terms of functionality it still functions similarly in an abstract method, but in a more realistic abstract method. The size of the circles can vary, so instead of a larger cloud it is more of a trail.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Eh. Start with a 3" Blast template, then replace with a Flamer template. Done.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

That does actually works out better, providing the sizes are what you want for everything. Same basic principle but in a cleaner method.

I would also think it would be great to have other interactions with smoke. Enemy throws a grenade into the smoke which causes it to disperse. Maybe psionic abilities causing the plume to change directions (if using the flame template).

It wouldn't really be useful for UGO-IGO style games but interesting for alternate activation, randomized or initiative activation order, etc.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Yeah, I just think this is another of those threads where designers get carried away generating a lot of mechanics to simulate a very small part of the game. Unless, of course, your game really is about popping a LOT of smoke as your dudes run around.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "not useful for Igo-Ugo". Both of my proposals should work just fine for KOG light, which is explicitly and deliberately an Igo-Ugo game. Can you clarify?

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "not useful for Igo-Ugo". Both of my proposals should work just fine for KOG light, which is explicitly and deliberately an Igo-Ugo game. Can you clarify?
It wasn't referring to the proposal for smoke use, those were fine and are fine for IGO-UGO. I was talking about having the opposing player be able to have interactions with the smoke to counter to change it, like dispersal or psionic. It can still work, but usually that point they've popped smoke, utilized it to the advantage so it as ran its course.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

OK, yeah, if you can instantly disperse smoke, then no, it's not particularly useful. Same if everybody has integral radar, IR, NV and ranging that automatically compensates for visibility.

Within a typical game context, if smoke lasts for one or more full bounds, that's good enough.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, that's awfully complicated, so what benefit does it give over placing a smoke template on the board?


Well, as MarcoSkoll has already discovered, it's not that hard. Like many wargames rules, tricky to write, but easy to do. However, I realize that it's more complex than just placing a circular template. So what benefit?

Well, it's partly an intellectual exercise. Yes, game designer navel-gazing, I accept. But in a more practical sense, it speaks to what I'm trying to do with Zero Dark (and tried to do with Horizon Wars) which is to be true to real-life military experience whilst still delivering a compelling gaming experience.

As a result, I'm always on the look out for things that seem to be game-design tropes that are starkly at odds with reality. Squad coherency, for example. And blast templates with fixed hit/not hit edges. And LOS-blocking terrain that is immune to all penetration.

I'm not saying these things are bad things. They were often originally adopted in order to streamline and simplify something that would otherwise be extremely complicated to manage. But that doesn't mean that I accept at face value that there is no alternative.

I spend all day at work challenging the "because that's how we've always done it" argument and it becomes a habit. Even when the "how we've always done it" solution is the best, it's always worthwhile articulating why it's the best - if only to save people like me from having to come along and challenge it all over again. And the best way to work out why the most popular solution is right is to explore the phase space of alternative solutions and eliminate them until you're left with the original, or you've found something better.

I like JohnHwangDD's dual-template solution. Definitely an improvement. But one of my design axioms is to avoid templates if humanly possible. Yes, I realize that a 25mm (or 40mm, as Dave suggests) marker is basically just another word for a template and I'm still looking at ways to eliminate them to something more counter-y (I tolerate counters slightly more than templates.

I've been able to eliminate templates from blast weapons, and made them slightly more true to life in the process (don't shoot a blast weapon at close range in Zero Dark!). Still trying to get them out of smoke...

I like Dark Severance's idea for manipulable smoke. In an SF setting, where smoke could represent various forms of nanotechnology, that could be a really cool option - and it was part of my idea for why players can have more control over smoke's deployment in still conditions. Nanotech is a thing in the setting, but it's not yet at grey goo levels of capability.

Anyway, I like this thinking aloud from the forum. Keep it coming, guys.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 precinctomega wrote:
But one of my design axioms is to avoid templates if humanly possible. Yes, I realize that a 25mm (or 40mm, as Dave suggests) marker is basically just another word for a template and I'm still looking at ways to eliminate them to something more counter-y (I tolerate counters slightly more than templates.

I've been able to eliminate templates from blast weapons, and made them slightly more true to life in the process (don't shoot a blast weapon at close range in Zero Dark!). Still trying to get them out of smoke...
Why don't you like templates? It is interesting that you like tokens more than templates because I'm the reverse. I think tokens clutter the table when done incorrectly, so reducing them is a good thing in my opinion. Templates however are simply measuring devices that don't clutter a table so curious on why you don't like them.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

@OP - "hard" isn't the issue. The real question you should have started with is:

WHY?

As in, why are you even bothering? Is your multi-paragraph smoke really worth including if it adds a half-page to the rules? for a single -1 over a single bound? or a -2 over a double bound? Hell, is it even worth creating a smoke action in the scale of the game?

In the case of KOG light? No. Or rather, FETH NO! It's not even close to being worth the space it would add to my minimalist ruleset, and it's not like KOG light has the sort of that that one can cut to make room for detailed smoke.

Your hangup with "tropes" should really start with questioning whether the mechanic being simulated should even be included. Then, if it passes that hurdle (and it should be a far, far higher hurdle than it is for most designers), the question should be how best to implement it, where "best" should err on the side of brevity, rather than requiring someone to watch a YouTube video. The fact that gamers have been slogging through leaden, bloated gak for decades is no excuse to add or retain unnecessary bloat in the first place.


Finally, Dark Severance is completely on point WRT templates vs counters, given that templates are just pre-defined rulers. If you find a ruler to be appropriate, then a template is not inappropriate. Removing templates simply for the sake of removing templates is probably a poor idea, as it suggests the removal isn't done for gameplay reasons, but rather an arbitrary bias.

That said, KOG light doesn't use templates per se. It affects all models (toe-in) within a particular diameter. That those diameters happen to be 3" or 5", corresponding to the standard GW blast templates is no accident. KOG light was designed to allow players to use circular templates to speed up the resolution process.

   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Eh. Start with a 3" Blast template, then replace with a Flamer template. Done.


Depending on the type i dont think most smoke grenades really explode. if anything it should ether be a circle template, or a flamer template if out doors and windy. (origin being the thin end)

in most game though you cant really use smokes to do the thing that it normally is used for like concealing movement since we have a gods eye view. so i dont really know the use of it out side of some obscuring effect.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/03 20:07:39


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Desubot wrote:
Depending on the type i dont think most smoke grenades really explode. if anything it should ether be a circle template, or a flamer template if out doors and windy. (origin being the thin end)
I don't believe we are using the blast template because of explosion, just simply using an existing round circle template. Usually the scatter/blast template is used to determine if that is where the smoke pops based on hit/scatter. The scatter direction then determines where and how to place the flamer template.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

@Desubot - I was simply defining the shape via the templates:
- initially 3" circle, then X" teardrop

   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Ah sorry for misunderstanding both of yas.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

It's OK, I was just visualizing what it might look like to get the effect with wind / dispersion.

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@OP - "hard" isn't the issue. The real question you should have started with is: WHY?

Given that the draft files I have from PrecinctOmega's Inquisitor 2.0 project literally start the introduction by saying that the first question to ask whenever writing or changing a ruleset is "Do we need to?"... I'm fairly sure he did.

That said, my answer to the question is "why not?".

This is the design process, not the final product. This is exactly when the designers should be thinking of and trying new ways to do things. Yes, some of those ideas might turn out to be bad, but bad ideas are only a problem if they make it to the finished rules. It's entirely acceptable to experiment with and test a mechanic before you decide whether or not to include it.

There are things in my Inquisitor Revised Edition rules drafts (picking up where the aforementioned Inquisitor 2.0 project left off, although with a slightly different design goal) that I don't necessarily intend to keep, but where I want to see what they actually play like as an idea before I discarding them.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I'm doubting that very much in this particular case, given that the OP says:
Too often, this is a simple template that last for X turns (usually one) and then vanishes. I'm keen to come up with something a bit more interesting.

I read that as making simple things complicated - the very essence of bad design.

With that as context, then my answer is "because it's a poor use of game time."

I see the design process as working through various options, and weighing the pros and cons before selecting the best candidates. But to weigh things, there needs to be a criteria and a context, and none of that was given by the OP. Aside from making simple things complicated, or doing something different purely for the sake of being different (also bad design).

That's why, all of my responses tend to be in a KOG light context - that game was developed with very clear goals and constraints, so it's relatively easy for me to assess suitability and fit.

Without context or goals, it's almost impossible to assess whether a high detail mechanic such as proposed is good.

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I read that as making simple things complicated - the very essence of bad design.
Simple is not automatically a good thing.

Yes, "simple" can mean "uncomplicated" or "easy", but it can also mean "unsophisticated" or "rudimentary". Describing a form to fill out as "simple" would be normally be a good thing, but when living accommodation is described as simple - not so much.

But to weigh things, there needs to be a criteria and a context, and none of that was given by the OP. <snip> That's why, all of my responses tend to be in a KOG light context
Call me presumptive, but I went for the conclusion that Robey intended for the mechanic to be used in the Zero Dark rules he's currently developing, not your KOG Light rules.

But even if you're not familiar with Robey's current work, a mechanic such as this is fairly clearly not intended for a "can I fit the rules onto four pages?" ruleset; Assessing it in such a context isn't productive for anyone.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

I think tokens clutter the table when done incorrectly, so reducing them is a good thing in my opinion.


I totally agree. I don't *like* counters. I more accept them as a necessary evil where they seem to be the most effective solution.

Templates however are simply measuring devices that don't clutter a table so curious on why you don't like them.


Perhaps it should be said that it's not templates I dislike so much as how they are used. By way of example, I recently played a game of Infinity in which one model was hiding behind a civilian (you can't shoot civilians). An enemy was able to hit the model by using a template weapon, perfectly placed so it just failed to graze the civvie and just grazed the target.

This is illustrative of the binary nature of templates - you're either under (or touched by) the template or you're not. If you are, you're affected. If you're not, you aren't. It's simple, but it leads to decisions that owe more to a perfect grasp of the game mechanics than it does to good tactics. My aspiration is to reward good tactics.

Horizon Wars does this pretty well, if my play-testing experience is anything to go by, as I often lose games to people who've never played it before, despite a near-perfect knowledge of the rules.

Another reason for disliking smoke templates (because that's the topic of this thread) is that they are often rather larger than the table space they're supposed to be filling. This means awkwardly placing templates, moving terrain or having to fudge the result somehow (with FAQs that have to make it clear that smoke doesn't travel through walls - srsly?).

I'm now looking at counters again, as originally described, but with varying effect areas. So stuff within 1" of a counter is affected in X way, whilst stuff within 2" is affected in Y way. This overcomes the binary nature of templates in that there's a more severe effect the closer one comes to the core of the smoke cover. Smaller counters also allow smoke to fill irregular spaces in a more natural fashion.

Are these rules complex compared to John's preferred solution? Yep. Sure are. But this is supposed to be a crunchy skirmish game.

To give John the context he seems to desire, my aspiration is to give players the tools that will allow them to "do the cool stuff they see in their head". So if you want to play and all-out kill-fest, you can. If you want to be a sneaky, stab-em-in-the-back, you can. If you want to parkour across the urban sprawl whilst gun-fu'ing your opponents in a blend of Assassin's Creed and Equilibrium, you can.

So there are rules for synthetics, AIs, programmable robots, drones, remotes, booby traps, hacking, healing, scaring, pinning, sneaking, distracting, running out of ammo, embedding journalists and, basically, all the cool stuff I can think of and a few things I didn't think of but for which people have asked. So not including rules for smoke would seem like a major oversight. And rules for lots of different types of smoke are likely to follow, once I'm happy with the basics.

Given all that, and taking as read that I have rejected "use a template" as a solution, does anyone have any experience of or suggestions for other mechanical solutions that would be both simpler and more effective?

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 precinctomega wrote:
Perhaps it should be said that it's not templates I dislike so much as how they are used. By way of example, I recently played a game of Infinity in which one model was hiding behind a civilian (you can't shoot civilians). An enemy was able to hit the model by using a template weapon, perfectly placed so it just failed to graze the civvie and just grazed the target.

This is illustrative of the binary nature of templates - you're either under (or touched by) the template or you're not. If you are, you're affected. If you're not, you aren't. It's simple, but it leads to decisions that owe more to a perfect grasp of the game mechanics than it does to good tactics. My aspiration is to reward good tactics.
But you are talking about min/maxing which will never change and can only be minimized to a degree. That essentially is the barrier that newer or casual players have to covercome when playing against more competitive players. Honestly as a player if you are doing something to the best of your ability, then you are doing yourself a dis-service which does mean learning curve to discover what works and why.

I'll use the flamethrower template as an example, since it is the most widely known. When you utilize a weapon enough the person becomes fluent enough to eyeball it to use it to max effeciency. They don't practice just to practice. This even applies to a shotgun, when using the flamethrower template. When I shoot in person with something that sprays, I'm fairly sure I know the capacity of my cone to maximize damage. We are playing troops who purpose is to maximize damage.

Although I would say in your example, that the player didn't hide properly behind the civie. It wasn't necessarily that the template was perfectly placed, it was the other player didn't properly gauage the safety zone.

 precinctomega wrote:
Horizon Wars does this pretty well, if my play-testing experience is anything to go by, as I often lose games to people who've never played it before, despite a near-perfect knowledge of the rules.
Knowledge of rules doesn't directly translate into better skill or better play, it just means you know the rules. It also has to deal with a persons character. I often lose not because I try to lose but because I focus on the gameplay experience being enjoyable, than on simply winning. That is what I do when you demo games. Now that doesn't mean I can't be competetive, but I don't play competively against casual players (which are new players). One doesn't directly translate to another, correlation does not imply causation.

 precinctomega wrote:
Another reason for disliking smoke templates (because that's the topic of this thread) is that they are often rather larger than the table space they're supposed to be filling. This means awkwardly placing templates, moving terrain or having to fudge the result somehow (with FAQs that have to make it clear that smoke doesn't travel through walls - srsly?).
I've never experienced that personally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However I've seen different templates use. In almost every game I play though they don't use smoke templates, the templates is only used to determine placement, what it effects. At that point a marker is put there, often something like the below image. The template isn't needed for anything else. For those that want to place a template, there are also hallow flame rings which is a just a hallow ring. We have ours on a telescopic piece with magnets that floats above so need to move terrain.



 precinctomega wrote:
I'm now looking at counters again, as originally described, but with varying effect areas. So stuff within 1" of a counter is affected in X way, whilst stuff within 2" is affected in Y way. This overcomes the binary nature of templates in that there's a more severe effect the closer one comes to the core of the smoke cover. Smaller counters also allow smoke to fill irregular spaces in a more natural fashion.
That however isn't going to solve your initial example with the flame template that missed the civilian. All it does is create a new meta, where they learn to properly place the more "adverse" counter in the best position, which effects the game in a greater method.

Honestly the more crunchy you make a game, the more it creates it initial meta where competitive players will always be able to "Do X because they did something just right, hurting Y but not effecting the civilian". Meanwhile casual players because there are too many options, get lost because there are decisions, lots of decisions which includes lots of bad decisions (not because the mechanic is bad, but in the situation it is a bad choice). Casual players don't know how to deal with that. Usually you want there to be options, but you always want all the options to be viable and clear cut choices to do that during a time. That is one of the core issues with Infinity currently. It has gotten to the point, where there are literally lots of options that it becomes overwhelming, despite 70% of them being situational and the core 20% is what is always done.. with a 10% dependent on troop type.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 MarcoSkoll wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I read that as making simple things complicated - the very essence of bad design.
Simple is not automatically a good thing.

Yes, "simple" can mean "uncomplicated" or "easy", but it can also mean "unsophisticated" or "rudimentary". Describing a form to fill out as "simple" would be normally be a good thing, but when living accommodation is described as simple - not so much.

But to weigh things, there needs to be a criteria and a context, and none of that was given by the OP. <snip> That's why, all of my responses tend to be in a KOG light context
Call me presumptive, but I went for the conclusion that Robey intended for the mechanic to be used in the Zero Dark rules he's currently developing, not your KOG Light rules.

But even if you're not familiar with Robey's current work, a mechanic such as this is fairly clearly not intended for a "can I fit the rules onto four pages?" ruleset; Assessing it in such a context isn't productive for anyone.


No, simple isn't automatically a good thing... But if it's already working and it's simple, then that combination by itself sets a VERY high bar to be "improved" upon, something that most designers will NOT achieve. And there's nothing wrong "unsophisticated" or "rudimentary". In fact, most games are better without the excess of ornamentation that most "designers" take upon themselves to add. I have yet to play an overcomplicated game and think "YES! All of this glitz and chrome makes the game better!" OTOH, I've played a number of exceedingly simple games, and enjoy how the game is the focus, rather than the fanciness of the rules.

Oh, I'm aware that he's not designing for KOG light - if he were, he's going about it all wrong!

If he intended it to be Zero Dark, then he should have said so, and shared the overriding goals right here. I just note that KOG light is where I'll be coming from, given a lack of other guidance.

   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

Yeah, the Infinity example sounds like not liking a gamey rule (can't shoot civilians, can't shoot past civilians, etc.) rather than a valid critique of templates (here the player used it to avoid the gamey rule).

If you have a rule that says X happens to every model within 1 inch of a target point, that is exactly the same as a 2 inch diameter circular template.

I agree that I am not a huge fan of funky shaped templates. The teardrop for example, would be cleaner as simply using a line and every model in X is affected. But it reflects a cone adequately, and is essentially combining a line with a circular area. Essentially, all templates are just measuring tools, after all.

-James
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

If you have a rule that says X happens to every model within 1 inch of a target point, that is exactly the same as a 2 inch diameter circular template.


Yes, I realize that. That's why there's different AOEs depending upon the range from the marker (AOE 1 = 3 hits, AOE 2 =2 hits AOE 3 = 1 hit, for example; not the actual proposed rules!). Plus, using ranged AOEs rather than templated ones allows you to vary the AOE depend on other effects (for example a shell landing in water or soft ground can have a different AOE to one landing on hand standing).

Now, if you're looking for a totally stripped-down rules-set, that's not going to suit you. A template certainly can make things simpler, but they are still easier to use in an open-field style battle than in someone more dense, where you may struggle to fit a template down a narrow alley and be trying to guesstimate its effect from holding it several inches up, above the terrain. But then, fitting a tape measure into the same space might be even more awkward or, at least, time consuming.

I'm not here trying to say "counters is where it's at". I'm trying to get some thinking aloud going on: rather than assume that templates are the optimal solution, is there a better one that's not been thought of because everyone always uses templates.

Well, it seems that the majority opinion is "no, templates are the easiest, best solution". That's fine. The council has made it's decision.

R.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

If you can't fit a 3" diameter template, how are you fitting the 7x 1" counters that require the same area as a 3" diameter template?

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you can't fit a 3" diameter template, how are you fitting the 7x 1" counters that require the same area as a 3" diameter template?
Because the counters don't have to be deployed in a circle, just touching another. You wouldn't choose to deploy any of those counters in places they can't go.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: