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.

I had a thought for a wargame where instead of starting with your full army, units must be summoned, or "hired" so you start with a small force and grow it over the course of the game.

Still early in the brain storm process, but some thoughts for the idea:
-Fantasy genre
-Wizards battling each other, either summoning creatures or calling upon hired mercenaries. The wizard is like a commander / HQ unit.
-2 resources: 1) Mana - used for casting spells and bringing in summonable creatures. 2)Coin - used to bring in hired mercenaries.
-Objective based scenarios

There could still be normal army list building as in other wargames, points or what have you. This would make the overall Pool of units to draw from.
On the table would start with a Wizard and 1-2 units of body guards. Any other units are brought in as the game progresses. As a comparison to 40k think if you started the game with 1 HQ and 2 Troops on the board, the rest of your army in reserve but instead of rolling to see who comes in, you spend resources and choose.

The units that can be selected in army building are all summonable with mana.
The mercenary type units are in either a generic list/chart - or specific list/chart to the scenario that either player can "hire" into their army.

Mana would be gained automatically every turn and extra could be gained through objectives, terrain effects, etc...
Coin could only be gained through completing objectives, terrain effects, etc...

The reason I am thinking of two separate resources is to give some variety in decisions and for some fluff reasons.
The fluff reasons, I think of summoning as elementals, golems, undead, etc... Things like Orcs, human soldiers, giants, etc... I think of mercenaries.

The difference in use would be that Mana is also used for the Wizard's abilities (casting spells) so there is a decision of "should I use this ability, or bring in more bodies?"
Coin would only be used for the mercenary type units.

Problems so far:

I'm not sure if the two resource thing would be more complicated, and it should be a single resource that could be worked into the fluff as both a source of magic and a currency (magic crystals or something)

I also don't want every game to be "Kill the Wizard!" as I find a variety of end game objectives make for more fun. I have thought about a way to scale the game size up, having option for multiple Wizards, and i've also thought about the player being the "Wizard" and not an actual miniature - or have the "Wizards" on the board be apprentices working for the "Wizard" which is the player.

I have also been trying to find a wargame that has a resource build up similar to the idea, and haven't been able to. I know no ideas are fully original, so if anyone knows of one out there, please let me know - I would like to check it out.

So... Hearthstone, but on the tabletop?
(half joking)

I haven't played hearthstone - is that the premise?

EDIT: So at a glance, hearthstone is a deck building game. So yes, comparable in style to deck building, but with miniatures.

I would see something like this would as a MOBA style game or tower defense, where you would be pushing certain lanes. It would be more of a board game than miniatures game I would think.

Interesting concept. Sounds a lot like Magic: the Miniaturing. Which isn't a bad thing. Would wizards have a fixed pool? Acquire mana every turn? Do creatures do anything besides fight each other and enemy wizards? For example, can creatures capture board sections/resource points/etc. to generate more mana/raise the cap etc?

What are victory conditions? Enemy wizard slain? Certain mana target?

What scale is this? Does the board represent a region? Nation? Continent?

I picture a board divided into territories with various features. Wizards place a tower in one territory and then summon and hire out forces to secure additional territories. Territories may be defended by neutral forces (native tribes, monsters, etc.) who may be attacked/bribed/recruited/etc. depending on strategy. Taking rival wizard territory would be done similarly, but a wizard can post some of his summoned or hired forces there to increase resistance. Of course the more forces you garrison, the fewer you have to take territories. Losing your tower would result in loss. Additionally a wizard who secures a certain number of territories for a set number of turns is also declared the winner.

Originally I was thinking skirmish type game, but the idea of territory control is interesting.

The thought was wizards would have a starting pool and gain 1 automatic per turn with no max. The cost to summon a unit, or cast a spell would be based on the strength of the unit / spell.

Victory conditions would be different dependent on scenario - kill the wizard, capture points, find an artifact, attack/defend, etc..
Creatures could complete objectives

I do like the idea of a large scale territory capture though.

So..... Frostgrave?

How do you keep the rich from getting richer and unbalancing the game?

 Dark Severance wrote:
I would see something like this would as a MOBA style game or tower defense, where you would be pushing certain lanes. It would be more of a board game than miniatures game I would think.

Do you think a versus tower defense has merit.

 Easy E wrote:
So..... Frostgrave?

How do you keep the rich from getting richer and unbalancing the game?

I was under the impression Frostgrave you have your army you are fighting with on the table from the start of the battle and not build it up as part of game play - it seems more like Mordheim with a focus on campaign play.

The balance there is a bit of a conundrum. The "richer" though would be a reward for completing objectives. Does one not try and balance against that as it creates a sense of momentum? The more successful one is in controlling the battle, the more options late game?

If balance is needed, perhaps a sort of "underdog" or "desperation" bonus available to the side that is not doing so well at a certain threshold be it unit #, resource amount, objective completion, etc....

If the point is resource management, theoretically the larger/more powerful force will also be more expensive. If battle rewards scale to the smallest force, it may prove a boondoggle to send overkill as you may assure victory, but not be able to recoup expenses. Alternately, perhaps scenarios allow asymmetric victory conditions. Perhaps the smaller force just has to scout one of several targets whereas the larger force is tasked with defending all of them. A very simple solution is to limit forces deployed to the smallest/weakest player's force size (though the larger force will have more choices in selecting which of their units they use).

Good decisions producing advantage is not poor design. However, insurmountable advantages resulting from randomness usually is.

Ah, I see the difference now. It is a campaign game ON the table and not post-battle. Sorry, I was being a bit dense.

Take a look at the old Avalon Hill boardgame Titan.

In this game you start with a powerful Titan and recruit more units (monsters) by moving into different terrain areas on a hexagonal map. The type of unit recruited depends on the type of terrain and the type of units you already have in your army.

When your stack meets an enemy stack, the action moves to a detailed tactical map where you manoeuvre the units individually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(game)
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103/titan

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Do you think a versus tower defense has merit.

To a degree that is what Magic is. Players have resources to summon creatures, each creature in itself is a tower in which the opposing player is trying to push through to defeat their opponent. In simple terms Sol Forge is more along those lines. But lane pushes and resolution really just depends on if there is a creature in the lane.

For a board game it wouldn't be as freeform. Resources could be used to summon a creature, power a spell/ability or do something else. Melee creatures just move forward along their path attacking things in its row. Ranged can engage from a distance or shoot over obstacles other creatures. Casters could change the battlefield, possibly swap lanes or move creatures. You could have 4 lanes, with a center point that covers either or lane. So players have to semi-predict where their opponent will summon creatures and how they will move and plan accordingly. It is a bit rough but sort of reminds me of Orcs Must Die visually (at least in my head that is how I'd see one example of it). I know Orcs Must Die has a board game, but I don't know if their mechanics are similar or completely different.