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.

The "General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures" thread in discussions has produced some interesting discussions, one particular comment from Lovejoy from Oathsworn miniatures

 Lovejoy wrote:

In terms of the bigger discussion, I think the reason there are smaller numbers of women in wargaming is less due to the style of the miniatures, and more down to the head-to-head competitive nature of it. Two player games with a definite winner/loser suit the male psyche. Women tend to prefer team games, co-operative games, and more social games generally. The male to female ratios in boardgaming and RPGs are far more evenly split than for tabletop wargaming and two-players CCGs. Naturally this is a gross generalization, and we all know exceptions to it. But I personally think it is broadly correct.

cheers,
Michael

made me quite intrigued.

Could a Co-op wargame be possible while fitting into the modern standards of wargames? fast limited space, not many models, uncluttered design ectr? I am more interested in the actual game design discussion, how can such an idea be commercialized, how can it be sold and how it can generate profit, also how it can differentiate itself from a coop dungeon-crawler for example and as always I am thinking about a complete product?

I have a few ideas I would like to pass around for peer scrutiny and evaluation.

In background all player selectable factions should be combinable in order to facilitate random pick up games.

Each player makes their own list, that list also generates the AI enemy units, for example buying unit A automatically creates unit B for the opposition, this could be used to sell the units boxed with their counterparts as a single product, I am not sure if giving the players a choice between variants or different enemy units is good though, but I am thinking that swapping units from a different enemy AI faction units could be an option.

Units do not have customization variation and are fixed in order to balance the game especially in AI behavior.

Gameplay is scenario driven, scenario dictating not only the win conditions but also the AI deployment.

AI should work for each unit in a really basic level in steps for example if no enemy in sight try to achieve los with melee unit then ranged, if in los and not in cover go to cover ectr.

My main concerns is making the AI streamlined enouph to not clutter the game, making the AI turn fast but also exciting for the players, how much players can game the system, or in another mindset how punishing the system should be because players will (and should) game the system.

What do you think about it? have you attempted something similar? have you seen something similar? what were your experiences? what do you think we could bring from the boardgame co-op systems to a wargame environment? do you think the player unit/ enemy unit box is a viable option from a commercial point of view? do you think there would be interest in such a concept?

It depends on what you mean by cooperative. With today's games being more objective based orientated vs annihilation, one could create a cooperative game which either ends up being 2vs2, 2vs1, 3vs1, 4vs2, etc. It would probably end up being a skirmish based game with low model count, 2-4 factions but within those factions multiple choices for units. Then each player essentially is a lieutenant commanding their fireteam(s), each with either combined or different objectives.

If you mean cooperative where 2, 3 or 4 players vs a single AI... it can be done, but it is a bit tricky. It would probably make better sense to make it a 2-4 vs 1 controller who controls the enemies in a SDE or Conan sense. I can see there being more enjoyment from creating a proper AI, that way one player doesn't get stuck being the "bad guy". It also helps remove that there is a clear winner and loser, just that your side accomplishes its missions/goals.

I think women might enjoy the committee type of game where the idea is to explore the decision making process behind an unfolding campaign or event, rather than to game it out in tactical detail.

I think men might enjoy that type of game too.

Interestingly enough, I actually prefer cooperative games as does my wife and daughter. I don;t see the current set-up of war games to be inherently competitive, only the people who play them. However, this will lead us down the tourney vs casual path that no one wants to see for the millionth time.

Interesting that you are trying to think of it as an end-to-end product line. I don't tend to think of my projects as that so much as an end-to-end rules set. I.e. it can cover pick-up games, campaign games, scenario games, stand-alones, etc.

Now, to your direct questions. I think it can be done, and the easiest way is to have the player be the "good" faction and the AI the evil faction. The AI component would be tricky, but perhaps that could tie into your questions about APP assisted games?

The closest we have to Cooperative wargaming would be solo-wargames. Things like Two-Hours Wargames and their ilk.

I really can't speak to the viability of a champion vs. Challenger style model box. There are too many variables.

Well, any manner of Role-Playing Game could fit this context. I'm thinking from Hero Quest to Dungeons and Dragons to "Modern d20". All have a game-master type person that fills the role of the NPC's.

Also.... Zombies!... I think, would be a similar situation of a group of good guys vs hordes of the undead that move in a semi-AI kind of way.

I don't know if a Wargame would fit, outside of each player taking on a "unit / group" and then fighting... what? Tyranids with instinctive behaviours? I think that it would be tough to create an AI that could create the kind of meaningful challenge that Wargamers are [personally] looking for. Otherwise you're in a situation of 4 vs 1, even if the 1 isn't trying their damndest to kill the 4.

I mean, the definition of War kind of limits cooperation to a widd'us or aggin'us sort of cooperation.

I am thinking about players (2,3,4) versus AI, not another player specifically to eliminate the human opposition.

Nice catch on the AGRO mechanism I forgot that and could work great.

To create a good cooperative wargame where all playerse vs an AI, then it is really about building a proper AI. It is easier to create one for a board game that has defined tiles, zones, squares because it is easier to control movement. You can apply line of sight, pre-designated patrol routes and other things to a semi static board. Even hexes work well because you can accurately define directions.

It is harder to do for an open terrain table unless you do a space style movement. A base has 6-10 directions that correspond with directions and they move that way X inches based on their movement stat. That can be a pre-determined route or random until someone triggers them as hostile.

I can't remember the game, but there was one game where the player to the right essentially controlled the monster. Any decision not handled through the AI was handled by the player, they did the all the dice rolling for the enemy, etc. If the AI said move towards the closest person in LoS, two players were tied, that controller would make the decision which person it moved towards. That leaves it open to be gamed, but it had a few other things to help limit the playing of the system. Board games tend to have other factors be tie breaker, two people same distance, which one generated more aggro, which one is wounded, etc.

You could do something where it is played on a DUST board, broken up into large square zones. Each of those zones has an objective placed in different locations on each of the tiles. Each player would place them at different places, they could be in buildings, on top or out in the open. Players control their forces going to those objectives, they have X amount of turns to accomplish their mission, which means splitting up. When they get to an objective they can roll for an encounter/event or draw a card from a randomized deck. That determines what they are facing. It can be single units, monsters, or maybe it is a trap or might require a certain specialist class to unlock (puzzle). If enemy units/monsters they spawn utilizing a scatter dice, which makes their placement random (someone on that large tile) but nearby within range.

The idea of the random encounter and different directions means you don't simply want the objectives placed out in the open. Otherwise when you activate it, you're out in the open while the enemy is some direction, maybe behind cover. If it was in a building, at least you have cover. Maybe you don't want them all in the buildings either, there might be puzzles that needs to get someone there faster but fast travel works on open terrain. I'm just making this up as I go along so it is really rough, but you get the idea.

Yes, these are issues I am worrying about, except the gamed part, I thing that can be even done as a feature.

It is easily done in basic concept; for example, a Vietnam jungle patrol scenario in which each player controls a squad, vehicle or aircraft on the US side, while the NVA are controlled by some mechanism or an umpire.

Solo games are a good basis for working out a co-operative game, since the 'AI' for the enemy has already been worked out for you.

Any good Solo games to suggest? I strongly dislike two hour wargames game design.

I can only suggest ones I've played, of course. These games use a variety of methods for generating the opponent decisions; dice tables, card draws and chit pulls.

B17: Queen of the Skies
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1032/b-17-queen-skies

RAF (by West End Games)
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3202/raf

Space Infantry
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/66781/space-infantry

Space Hulk: Death Angel
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/71721/space-hulk-death-angel-card-game

Silent War
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17484/silent-war

Thanks.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think women might enjoy the committee type of game where the idea is to explore the decision making process behind an unfolding campaign or event, rather than to game it out in tactical detail.

I think men might enjoy that type of game too.

Robinson Crusoe, perhaps? RC is a rotating dictator game whereby the group notionally agrees upon the plan, with the dealer having final say.

There are some who love it. I played RC once, and will never play it again. At least, not until it becomes an iPad game. As a multi-player game, it's awful. However, if you think Settlers of Catan had too much wargaming and Ameritrash componentry, then RC is for you!


Also, compare with Zombicide, which is very popular.

Star Wars X-Wing has a cooperative campaign designed (by gamers) for it, and it works pretty well (Heroes of the Aturi Cluster).


The big challenge is creating sufficiently "smart" AI. I've seen many games where the AI is just *bad* or becomes too predictable and is easily thwarted. If you can get past that hurdle, I think the market for co-op games is quite large; I enjoy co-op faaaaar more than I enjoy vs. games.

Would you consider the predictability of the AI of a really hard system a feature or still a bad design?

"it depends".



If the AI is like KD:M, where it turns into an infinite loop murder machine, it's probably a feature.

I was thinking more in line of game system been hard enouph that learning the AI behavior is the way to beat the system.

I am not sure were I stand on KDM AI deck.

Well, that's basically how Monster Hunter works. You learn the pattern and timing of the predictable AI, in order to find openings to defeat it. Until then, you're dog food.

True, I wonder how that could work in wargame/ boardgame environment.

Well, that's basically the concept behind KD:M.

Backed when I worked at GW as a black shirt, we worked out a couple of cooperative scenarios where 2--4 players would play against a scenario with scripted encounters and randomized elements. It was very successful

I don't have those docs anymore, but here is generally how it works.

Each player was allowed to bring a preset number of points... usually around 400 or so. We used the Allied Detachment with no Warlord for the force org.

Each scenario had a map with predetermined terrain placement and objective markers. Think along the lines of an Imperial Assault Mission map. On the map, you'd have predetermined objective markers, enemy deployment markers (numbered 1-6) and various event markers.

Each mission would deploy a certain number of enemy models in set locations. So, one mission might have some Sniper scouts in cover at the start of the mission as an example. Whenever a unit got close to an objective or an event marker, they'd roll on a table. Results might be things like another set enemy unit appearing at a spawn point or an explosion occurring (blast centered over the closest model to the marker). There were a bunch of different things that could happen.

Each enemy unit had a predetermined "default action" to take during their turn for each phase. Shooty units would stay put and then shoot if a target was within range. Melee unit would move towards the closest enemy and then shoot/charge as appropriate. Good players could "kite" enemy units and set them up for charges from other players. It was a ton of fun.

Each mission had a success objective. Some were things like
"Destroy 10 enemy units". Others were things like embark at least 10 players models into the Teleportarium in the center of the board (a terrain feature we made up where you could "embark" a unit, removing the models from the game, but progressing the victory condition). Players would have to make decisions like... do I teleport out or do I stay back and provide cover for other players. That mission had tons of shooty enemies deployed in cover.

I might try to rewrite these rules. It was a blast and everyone left happy because they either won together or lost together, but everyone had fun.

Short of, it lacks the crucial feedback monster hunter provides.

Of course monster hunter provides that with animation, something not really possible from a boardgame.

Sure, although, if one were to create a Monster Hunter boardgame, I think it'd be essentially similar in most respects, no?

Probably, I am thinking now, how about colour code the back of the AI deck.

In that case the players know what the next card will broadly be.

It would be easy enough to play with the top card face up.

Then the players can plan their turn knowing exactly what the monster will attempt to do.

That could work too, anybody tried it with KDM?

I found this with a little dig about, anyone give it a go?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/393086.page

There’s a whole host of problems with trying to write AI. Very complex computer game scripts struggle with this, putting it in a wargame will likely mean things will get way too complex, or be boring and buggy to play against.

I think you get rid of those problems once you get rid of the assumption of symmetric forces – don’t think about co-operative wargames as the human player controlling soldier up against the AI controlling soldiers. Instead think about players using their forces co-operatively against an AI force that operates with wholly different rules, with wholly different abilities.

Zombiecide is an example – the zombies are more numerous and constantly spawning, and have unique abilities that work with their activation rules. The zombies aren't supposed to act as if they were human players, they're supposed to act as zombies, and be an enjoyable opponent because their inherent stupidity is balanced against their greater numbers, re-spawning and unique special abilities.

And Zombiecide probably doesn’t take the concept as far as it can go. Consider Red November, a co-operative game where the players are up against random breakdowns and squid attacks against their submarine. There isn’t even an AI antagonist there.

Taking those ideas out of boardgames and in to wargames is potentially very interesting, I think. I’m thinking of a co-operative miniatures game where players point select small teams of specialists with unique abilities, then team up with other players own teams to take on natural disasters or other forces of nature.

It might be best to boardgame-ify the miniature game somewhat for the sake of cooperative play. Just make sure to let players use their entire miniature collection in this version.

Other than that, an app to control the other side, but with its actions given as more general commands.

As a stopgap way might be to explore more asymmetrical play, where one player plays a larger force, and the players all play a smaller forces.

Indeed, beyond cooperative play, miniature wargaming of this kind has been glacially slow at exploring more scenarios of this kind.

It's a bit of a holdover from a 40k only mindset, where the big concern was multiple players would get more of their power units at a discount, along with the usual story reasons for factions to not work together.

I would think something like Deadzone would be the easiest to achieve this with. Not necessarily the game itself but its setup and how it plays. It is a small miniature count, over a small to medium area of terrain that is broken up into squares (zones). Instead of moving by inches, it is basically zone based which gives you ability to customize AI to function within that environment. If you wanted something a bit more complex you could go as far as labeling X/Y access so if something would move to B4, that references a particular zone.