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.

Since the beginning of the month, my mind has been swirling a lot lately. I have seen these ideas culminate in a few different wargame designs or partial wargame designs and I wanted to chat a bit about what was on my mind, but also find out what has been filling your head/game designs lately....

1. Action Economy- Basically each model has a different level of skill. That skill dictates how many actions they get in a turn. Therefore, Heroes can do more than veterans or rookies.

2. Detection mechanics- How does an enemy "see" another enemy to engage them? How can they move with stealth? How can they be discovered?

3. Hero vs Minion- Ways to simply and easily differentiate the stars from the extras in your games (see also Action economy)

4. LOS as a Resource- How to use access to light/sensors/detection or other items to make LOS a game resource (see also Detection)

Genres that I keep revisiting are: Ancients, Urban Fantasy, Naval, Aerial combat.

So, what has been swirling in your brain lately?

Main one for me is akin to your #2, detection mechanics. I've been contemplating the best way to incorporate invisible units in such a way that one player knows where it is, the other doesn't, and there's no scope for cheating. Shy of the boring old "write it down" option, I'm drawing something of a blank.

I am also trying to work out AI for co-op games, with minimal tables involved, which is really quite difficult.

Genre-wise, I keep bouncing between horror, space, exploration and post-apocalyptic.

Invisible units are a bit of a pain, truly. One could turn to boardgames like Scotland Yard's fugitive on the run or War of the Ring's ringbearer for inspiration, but even there it's mostly "be honest about where you're going and reveal the current position every few moves".

I've been procrastinating on two larger projects, one large scale hex'n'counter hell representing the Siege of Vraks (millions of men, artillery and lots of logistics in the mud) and one smaller Space Hulk redux to answer my frustrations with the dungeon delving board game genre in general.

The Vraks project is stuck with finding suitable mechanics to both move huge numbers of distinct units and materiel about without giving all players full information while forcing them to choose between bad choices as orders from above dictate without turning the game into a boring slog that takes ages to merely maintain. Might incorporate varying scales for different rounds, like having a "grand turn" of strategical logistics and then a several tactical rounds of operations at the front to pace the game.

The X-Hulk ChaosQuest II: Electric Boogaloo (working title ) in turn is a smaller rpg-lite, where the main draw will be to have the players in a situation more similar to Chaos Gate than your usual dungeon delver in that they have X units of time, men and equipment to push through a short campaign and how they allocate those is up to them. You might have a space hulk that needs to be rerouted and getting that done might require, say, 5-10 missions where in each instance they get a choice of 2-3 operations. Fog of war is heavy, you know your objectives and general layout of the place, but all sorts of details and curveballs will be flying in your face as they start going in. Conserving your men and weapons or even retreating from some missions instead of always throwing lives to win this particular skirmish within strict time limits, that sort of thing.

 Easy E wrote:
Since the beginning of the month, my mind has been swirling a lot lately. I have seen these ideas culminate in a few different wargame designs or partial wargame designs and I wanted to chat a bit about what was on my mind, but also find out what has been filling your head/game designs lately....

4. LOS as a Resource- How to use access to light/sensors/detection or other items to make LOS a game resource (see also Detection)

That's a thought. LOS is commonly an either/or function, but describing it as a resource that you must 'earn' and can 'spend' is an interesting angle. In the age of missiles, this could be characterised as 'Lock On' (which requires a certain kind of LOS, depending on the weapon), but as a general quality, it has some interesting applications.

Maybe it could be used to do away with hidden movement. Purely as an example in a setting, I visualise a soldier trying to draw a bead down his rifle on an enemy soldier who is advancing across broken terrain. If the soldier is also advancing, darting through cover, he cannot earn LOS, even if (switch to tabletop mode here, with us looking down on miniatures of the combatants), the enemy is in LOS from figure to figure. But, if he stops, he earns LOS, and can see the enemy. Declaring he is aiming might earn more LOS. Finally, he can spend his LOS, and take his shot, even if the enemy is still ducking and diving through cover. The soldier has earned his shot, because he is waiting for the right moment, sacrificing his movement and safety for the chance to cash in his LOS.

There's no need to record hidden movement because the emphasis is on the ability of the attacker to detect their target, not on the target's ability to hide. (And certainly not on the player's ability to place their miniature behind a convenient model tree, etc.)

@Easy and @Macrossmartin, that is a really interesting idea. I could also see that method reducing some of the ambiguity arguments that are really prevalent in "True LOS" type systems (which I dislike) without the need for lots of rules for things like model volume, size classes, etc. Could either just be a modifier on either how LOS tokens are earned, or on a "LOS Check" roll or similar.

Hm. Something to think about for yet another game in the backlog.

Managing LOS could be a better way to handle "invisible units" as well?

 Easy E wrote:
Managing LOS could be a better way to handle "invisible units" as well?

Quite possibly.

So, my head space has been taken up by a few different things recently:

1. Making Space Combat less "Naval WWII in Space!!!!!!"

- Here the thought process was using "unlimited" straight line movement by ship/squadron. This would represent "Jumping" through space. If a ship/squadron wished to turn, move through terrain, or entered a detection bubble they would have to make an ability test (possibly Opposed). If successful the action may continue. If failed, the next player gains activation.

2. Creating a Mass Battle Fantasy Nappie game with strong Command and Control elements....

- Units would provide "Command Points" as a limited resource, and then these Points would be given back to the units as Orders/Actions.

However, the Player would choose the "Strategy" for the turn, which would then limit the types and number of orders that could be given each turn by increasing the cost of the Order type to execute.

For example, the army may generate 8 command points. The Command wishes to use the "Attack in Depth" Strategy.

Move and fire = 1 Point by unit
Move= 1 point by unit
Opportunity Fire= 3 Points
Stand Firm= 3 Points
Go to ground= 5 Points
Etc.

This would shape the orders/actions a commander could give. The most cost effective orders would be the most beneficial, but not completely limit their ability to react.

What has been in your headspace lately?

Well, since you said "making space combat less like naval WWII in space" It's gotten latched onto that problem, so thanks for that

Otherwise it's been working out how to integrate some seemingly incompatible ideas into a single game, which sounds awesome in my head but I just can't work out how to get them to mesh together.

Also keep having ponderations on my zombie game, but now wonder whether it would be a cooler idea to integrate it into my skirmish game, as that would be more interesting for the game, and mean that one set of models & rules can be used to do multiple things, which makes it much better value!