Skip to Content

Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

18 replies [Last post]
DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

Sorry for the late post, a kid has to go to school ya' know. Anyways, I have what I think is a good design in the works. The game may sound a bit noticable because I have posted before about it.

Here is the link to the rules:
http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/DSfan/Tempest.pdf

Some tile pictures:
http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/DSfan/Storm%20Front%20Tiles.jpg

And finally the prototype units:
http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/DSfan/Storm%20Front%20Units.jpg

(Small square = Cyborg, Polygon = Goliath MK II (Mech), Triangle is the Transport and the rectangle is the harvester)

Please note the comments I made on the last part. There is a post on the board about the currency mechanic I am currently looking into.

Fire away! :)

-Justin

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

A little more info:

The game is intended to be a lite strategic warfare game that is easy enough for kids but challenging enough for adults. I want it to be a game where you can't just go right into war, you should have to make some decisons first.

One thing I am also thinking about is some kind of A.I "player". Maybe Aliens are also fighting for Earth. It would bring a competive/co-op aspect to the game, where you can't just go for the other player, you also have to think about your self.

Ideas/Comments/Suggestions?

-Justin

P.S. Hopefully this experience will be great for me as it has been for all of you.

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

I read in your document that players find the game too simple, and that it could use some extra strategic depth. You suggest adding new types of units and resources to achieve this. I think that is the wrong way to approach it. You don't add strategic depth by making a game more complex, you add strategic depth by making the choices more difficult, which is actually not the same thing at all!

Turn structure

This is a good example of a game with the "big turn" approach. Play goes around the table and during their turn players perform a lot of different actions. This approach almost invariably fails. The game will be chaotic and there will be a lot of downtime. The game will also be very tactical and there will be a lot of min/maxing during a player's turn. A better approach would be to chop up the turn into smaller bits. For example, instead of letting a player possibly perform all five actions per turn, restrict them to only two or even just one action per turn. This makes it more important to plan ahead and reduces downtime considerably.

I think you also somehow want to restrict how many units a player can move during his turn. This would make it easier to track which units have already moved and it would, I think, add an interesting choice. Perhaps a player has to play a card to move units. The number on the card would dictate how many units he could move, and perhaps the suit or the color of the card would dictate which kind of units he could move. Using cards for both moving and fighting would add an interesting choice. Do you save a good card for a battle, or do you use it for movement?

Interaction

Where's the player interaction in this game? Sure, players could build cyborgs, or what have you, and attack eachother, but why would they? There's no real incentive to go out and attack eachother. Perhaps there's some competition over resources, but otherwise I think this game would be a logistical optimizing exercise. I don't think that is what you want, is it?

Scoring

The scoring seems very contrived. Why do I score points for having a harvester on a metal tile at game end? Why do I get points for having 6 Cyborgs on the same tile at game end? How does that make sense, thematically? Scoring motivates players to make certain choices in a game. In this game the scoring seems to award things that seem out of touch with the rest of the game.

Some suggestions for more sensible scoring:
- Add a building that does nothing except score points at the game end.
- Divide the board into several sections (say 5 or 6, or so) and award points to the player who controls the most cyborgs in that section. This promotes building cyborgs and promotes interaction between players.
- Award a point whenever a player destroys an opponent's unit. This promotes interaction and attacking.

You might also consider additional scoring rounds, for example whenever the deck is exhausted there is a scoring round for majority of cyborg in sections, while the buildings only score at game end. If you balance this properly there will be an interesting choice between choosing to build cyborgs early and quickly occupying some sections, and the long term approach of harvesting and building up towards the big building bonuses at the game end.

Other stuff

Right now, all units need both toxic waste and metal. I think it would be nice to change the cost of some units to needing only toxic waste and others to only needing metal, while others need a combination of both. This forces players to make a strategic choice for which kind of units they want to go. A side effect would be that a player isn't totally screwed when he can't get a resources of a certain kind, because there's still something he can build.

I understand why you want the storms in there, from a thematic point of view, but they don't really seem to add much to the game. My advice would be to leave them out, at least for the time being, and see if you can make the game working without them. You can add them later if you feel the game would be more interesting with them, but make sure they actually serve a purpose then and that they are not just a randomly added element.

Good luck!

Nando
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

From the rules:

Quote:
If the tile that was attacked (the tile the defender occupied) was a land tile, flip the flip the tile over revealing Toxic Waste.

I like this idea. I was thinking of doing similarly with terrain tiles and an earthquake spell: randomly double-sided terrain that gets flipped to reveal the terrain change associated with an earthquake.

Anyway, it seems that you could end up with an inordinate quantity of Toxic Waste tiles. Right? Seems that at the extreme (for two players) you could have the following:
8 Water
8 Metal
18 Toxic Waste (all remaining tiles except Bases, and more than half the total number)

Hmm...I see now that a rain storm will clean some of this up, but only switches the tile to Water. Might result in a similar problem? I saw elsewhere mentions of a terraform unit; perhaps it's worth a second look, especially if you go with zaiga's area control and scoring ideas and you thought you might not want to control a seemingly worthless area of Water and Toxic Waste.

I like what zaiga said (and the way he said it, coincidentally). I would like to put my emphasis on two things from his post:

Quote:
Sure, players could build cyborgs, or what have you, and attack each other, but why would they? ...... Scoring motivates players to make certain choices in a game.

I think, at this point, the answer to the question may be: Because it's a wargame, and that's how you win the war. Nobody starts a war just so they can say they won it -- it's too painful. So why are we fighting? Your backstory doesn't really convey to me that motivation.

I realize backstory seems like an issue to address in a later stage, but I'm convinced that most non-historical wargames NEED this earlier. (Historical wargames have built-in, and probably well-known, context that may not need to be addressed in-depth). Dismissing backstory/motivation (not that you've dismissed it, but for me you haven't nailed it either) and essentially claiming, "It's a game about war and so if you want to win the game you will fight" just comes across to me as "gamey".

So I told you that to tell you this: I think that once you have a sufficient motivation for the fighting, scoring will be obvious.

In the WIP-Notes, you mention Highlands and Lowlands. Highlands I like, but I can't imagine a situation (at least where gravity works like you'd expect, among other reasons) where a Lowlands position would be one of superiority. I'm no warrior, mind you, but there you go.

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

Zaiga wrote:
This is a good example of a game with the "big turn" approach. Play goes around the table and during their turn players perform a lot of different actions. This approach almost invariably fails. The game will be chaotic and there will be a lot of downtime. The game will also be very tactical and there will be a lot of min/maxing during a player's turn. A better approach would be to chop up the turn into smaller bits. For example, instead of letting a player possibly perform all five actions per turn, restrict them to only two or even just one action per turn. This makes it more important to plan ahead and reduces downtime considerably

Turn structure wasn't a huge problem but it was one of them. Players hated the amount of downtime that people had while waiting. It increased a bunch in a 4 player game. Like you pointed out, having players choose between actions they want to take would add some depth.

Quote:
Using cards for both moving and fighting would add an interesting choice. Do you save a good card for a battle, or do you use it for movement?

Cards for movement. I like it. I have been trying to make cards do something else. Which would add some more stragetic elements.

Quote:
Where's the player interaction in this game? Sure, players could build cyborgs, or what have you, and attack eachother, but why would they? There's no real incentive to go out and attack eachother. Perhaps there's some competition over resources, but otherwise I think this game would be a logistical optimizing exercise. I don't think that is what you want, is it?

No it is not.

Quote:
The scoring seems very contrived. Why do I score points for having a harvester on a metal tile at game end? Why do I get points for having 6 Cyborgs on the same tile at game end? How does that make sense, thematically? Scoring motivates players to make certain choices in a game. In this game the scoring seems to award things that seem out of touch with the rest of the game.

Some suggestions for more sensible scoring:
- Add a building that does nothing except score points at the game end.
- Divide the board into several sections (say 5 or 6, or so) and award points to the player who controls the most cyborgs in that section. This promotes building cyborgs and promotes interaction between players.
- Award a point whenever a player destroys an opponent's unit. This promotes interaction and attacking.

You might also consider additional scoring rounds, for example whenever the deck is exhausted there is a scoring round for majority of cyborg in sections, while the buildings only score at game end. If you balance this properly there will be an interesting choice between choosing to build cyborgs early and quickly occupying some sections, and the long term approach of harvesting and building up towards the big building bonuses at the game end.

For awhile I have been trying to come up with a different tile layout. One that would have "terratories" (another thing that others liked). I thought about something like the layout of Bryk's Battle for Bluntrock tiles. But they wouldn't work because of the Toxic Waste flipping. Any ideas?

Quote:
I understand why you want the storms in there, from a thematic point of view, but they don't really seem to add much to the game. My advice would be to leave them out, at least for the time being, and see if you can make the game working without them. You can add them later if you feel the game would be more interesting with them, but make sure they actually serve a purpose then and that they are not just a randomly added element.

Thats for the advice Zaiga.
[Edit: I would also like to thank Nando]

-Justin

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Quote:
Anyway, it seems that you could end up with an inordinate quantity of Toxic Waste tiles. Right? Seems that at the extreme (for two players) you could have the following: 8 Water, 8 Metal, 18 Toxic Waste (all remaining tiles except Bases, and more than half the total number)

I also see this creating a problem. As Cyborgs cannot cross Toxic Waste, so they couldn't cross most of the board!

As I was playing Command & Conquer: Tiberum Sun (A Futuristic computer warfare game) I came up with an idea which would make Toxic Waste also a penalty.

If there are 4 Toxic Waste tiles touching (adjacent) to eachother than every 2 rounds a creature called "Shiners" would appear in each of those spots. These creatures would be "Board controlled" (A.I) and they would move about the board creating hassles for others playing the game.

Maybe there would also be more concrete goal to the game. I mentioned this idea in Seth's 3 Kingdoms before.

There would be tiles on the board that would represent some kind of cities (or something) and players would try to protect these which give them more points. The Shiners would go after these cities and try to destory them. You could either protect them, attack the Shiners going for the cites, or attack other "real" players going or protecting a city themselves. Each would give you a different amount of VP's.

Now that I read it over it sounds like a different game. Hmm... Might have to dull ideas down a bit so they won't take over. Comments on this?

-Justin

Rick-Holzgrafe
Rick-Holzgrafe's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

DSfan wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, it seems that you could end up with an inordinate quantity of Toxic Waste tiles. Right? Seems that at the extreme (for two players) you could have the following: 8 Water, 8 Metal, 18 Toxic Waste (all remaining tiles except Bases, and more than half the total number)

Maybe there would also be more concrete goal to the game. I mentioned this idea in Seth's 3 Kingdoms before.

There would be tiles on the board that would represent some kind of cities (or something) and players would try to protect these which give them more points. The Shiners would go after these cities and try to destory them. You could either protect them, attack the Shiners going for the cites, or attack other "real" players going or protecting a city themselves. Each would give you a different amount of VP's.

Earth is a toxic mess, right? What's the point of battling for a toxic mess? How about something like this instead: Your goal is to restore as much greenery to Earth as you can. Opposing you in this effort are Bad Guys. (These might be NPC units like your "Shiners," or you might let some of your players be the Bad Guys, whose goal is to make a bigger mess of Earth because they're aliens who prefer it that way.)

Now you have a theme-driven goal: create Land tiles, getting VPs every time you succeed, and perhaps more VPs at end of game for each Land tile you created and kept that way. Bad Guys (if they are players) get the same deal, except that their goal is to create Toxic Waste instead of Land.

Other benefits: the conflict will prevent too much of the board from becoming uncrossable Toxic Waste, so the board will remain viable to the end of the game. And Good Guy players will have to choose between converting Toxic Waste to Land to get VPs, or leaving it in place as a resource supply.

I do see one problem: if players play Bad Guys, you need an even number of players to balance Good against Bad, or else some clever idea to balance a three-player game.

On another topic, I agree with others that you need to reduce the length of a turn. Give players fewer things that they can do in each turn, and force them to make difficult choices. Another possibility is to let each player build units, then let each player move units, and so on. This breaks up the big, multi-part turns into small single-part turns. Shorter downtime, and players can respond more readily to the actions of their opponents.

I've been working on a light wargame of my own with interesting similarities to yours. In mine, the planet's terraformed ecology and weather systems are breaking down, and the colonists are warring to control the remaining arable lands and to seize control of the government in order to be in charge of the reclamation. My game (Brimstone) is all about the war, but playtesters have suggested to me that reclaiming the badlands (my board has a lot of swamp and desert tiles) would be cool and enhance the theme. I'm not going to do it, but I see no reason why you shouldn't. :-)

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

zaiga wrote:
Where's the player interaction in this game? Sure, players could build cyborgs, or what have you, and attack eachother, but why would they? There's no real incentive to go out and attack eachother. Perhaps there's some competition over resources, but otherwise I think this game would be a logistical optimizing exercise. I don't think that is what you want, is it?

What would be some ways to increase player interaction? I have a few ideas but they involve a major overhall. Any ideas guys?

Also I am wondering if you mean PvP (Player vs. Player) interaction?, People have more interaction with the landscape or other things?, or both.

zaiga wrote:
Divide the board into several sections (say 5 or 6, or so) and award points to the player who controls the most cyborgs in that section. This promotes building cyborgs and promotes interaction between players.

How would dividing the board work? In a chat about a month ago Jpfed said that scoring also sucked and that strength (amount of units) in a area should decide how many VP's you get.

It seems like it's going back to that chat, which I like because it shows that people would think it would help the game, and make it more fun.

-Justin

Nando
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

DSfan wrote:
zaiga wrote:
Where's the player interaction in this game?
What would be some ways to increase player interaction? I have a few ideas but they involve a major overhall.
zaiga wrote:
Divide the board into several sections (say 5 or 6, or so) and award points to the player who controls the most cyborgs in that section.
How would dividing the board work?

I'm hardly qualified to make TWO comments (I've been farting around for two years on a mediocre idea in a dead-horse genre [fantasy]) so it may not be in your best interest to take my comments too seriously. Despite that, our coincidental emphasis of items from zaiga's post indicates to me that we're on the same page, but I perhaps have not been clear enough or persuasive enough. Or perhaps I'm just wrong. Either way, I hope I'm not belaboring points you're willfully disregarding for whatever reason. So I'll say this stuff again and then shut-up about it.

These two items you've isolated touch on the same two points I tried to emphasize in my earlier post:
1) Interaction: Your game seems to want to define interaction as fighting. People don't interact that way because they're distracted with collecting resources, building units, and controlling storms.
2) Scoring: Your game, as I understand it, has defined everything it needs in terms of game-end and winner: the game ends when one side is exterminated, and you win if it wasn't your side. Rewarding someone for having a lot of units encourages building units but discourages using (and possibly losing) them in combat. I think people don't like the scoring because it has nothing to do with winning as the game wants to define it.

Your idea of an overhaul is probably the direction I would go -- not with mechanisms or gameplay, but with storyline and purpose. Even in chess, the purpose is to check the king. What is the purpose of your game? To me, the evidence suggests that you've created a total elimination game. Nothing wrong with that, except that I don't think that's what you want. I don't think there are any quick fixes to these problems without first more clearly defining the purpose of the game.

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Quote:
Your idea of an overhaul is probably the direction I would go -- not with mechanisms or gameplay, but with storyline and purpose. Even in chess, the purpose is to check the king. What is the purpose of your game? To me, the evidence suggests that you've created a total elimination game. Nothing wrong with that, except that I don't think that's what you want. I don't think there are any quick fixes to these problems without first more clearly defining the purpose of the game.

Thanks for the reply Nando. Quick Idea though:

What if the game was somewhat the same. By this I mean the board would be modular, but there would be Cities, Paths, Forests (replacing metal) and something that would replace Toxic Waste. (Those are samples/ideas)

Players would play co-op/against eachother trying to gain Citys. Player interaction could be with trading.

I guess this is a quick idea. But I like it a bit as it isn't straying to far away from Tempest but changes it around and adds interaction.

Comments?

Nando
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

It is seriously out of order for me to be making any more comments. I just don't have that much of a clue about this stuff...

DSfan wrote:
Players would play co-op/against eachother trying to gain Citys.

I think this would be fine. I don't think you need a complete re-theme with paths and forests and whatever. I think you need a purpose. I think controlling cities is as acceptable as any other purpose; many games use the area control idea. My point is, if there isn't something for armies to fight over, then a wargame is simply me-against-you and the extermination and domination elements are what remain. And those are also fine. And I think that's where the game is right now. (I mentioned earlier that extermination is really what your game wants, but domination is also relevent for Tempest because players may not have time to exterminate all opponents due to the forced endgame rule.) And I just get the impression it's not what you're intending to do.

Your game has a lot of conditions for awarding VPs (all trying to gauge the relative success of a player's ending situation), but none of the conditions adequately convey what success means. If Tempest's victory conditions embraced its current design, I think it would only need two victory conditions: A) exterminate all opponents before the game ends, or B) award 1 VP for every opponent destroyed -- highest VP count wins. Do you want people to buy fighting units and put them to good use? Try that.

Quote:
Player interaction could be with trading.

Trading does not seem like the best match as a complementary mechanism to combat. A yet to be introduced co-op element in Tempest would remedy that, I guess.

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

DSfan wrote:
What would be some ways to increase player interaction? I have a few ideas but they involve a major overhall. Any ideas guys?

Also I am wondering if you mean PvP (Player vs. Player) interaction?, People have more interaction with the landscape or other things?, or both.

I mean player interaction. Player interaction doesn't always have to be very direct like fighting or trading, it can be something more subtle like a drafting mechanic, a bidding mechanic, a majority scoring mechanic, etc.

Quote:
How would dividing the board work? In a chat about a month ago Jpfed said that scoring also sucked and that strength (amount of units) in a area should decide how many VP's you get.

Suppose the board wouldn't be made out of single tiles, but out of 5 large interlocking cardboard sections (See Duel of Ages and Attika for ideas on this). This gives you some modularity, but you can still easily identify different sections.

Anyway, when I get involved in a GDW session I can't help but thinking about completely restructuring a game. Here's how I would redo the game.

Make up the board out of different interlocking cardboard sections. Each cardboard section is further divided in several hex spaces (19 per section?). The number of cardboard sections used depends on the number of players, let's say 2 sections per player (or 2 per player minus 1, to create a bit more tension?). Each player puts his base on a different section.

I would make a deck of customized cards consisting of 4 different colors and the numbers 1-5 appearing 3 times in each color, for a total of 60 cards. Each player receives a number of randomly drawn cards, say 5 or so, as his starting hand. Three cards are put face up next to the remaining pile of cards, this is the isplay from which players pick their cards.

Someone starts the game and from then on play continues clockwise around the table. During your turn you may perform one action, and you can choose from the following three options:

1) Draw a card from the face up display and add it to your hand. A new card from the card pile is then placed face up in the display. If the deck is exhausted there is an intermediate scoring round. The game ends after 3 scoring rounds (could be more or less, testing will show).

2) Play a card to move units. The number on the card determines how many units you may move, the color of the card determines which type of unit you can move. Perhaps you can move Harvesters with any color, while Cyborgs may only be moved by playing yellow cards. I think this allows for some creative tuning of the relative power of units. You could make a certain unit very powerful, but restrict its power by allowing it to be moved by only one color.

3) Build units. I would reduce the number of resources a Harvester can carry to only one, which allows you to effectively halve the costs of each unit as well. This just makes bookkeeping a bit easier. Also, OI would change the cosy of some units to needing only need metal, others would only need toxic waste, and a few units would need a combination of both.

I would also try to make all the units the same, with respect to strength, defense and movement. Say, all have a strength and defense of 0 (I will explain this further in the combat section) and a movement of 2.

Of course, making all the units the same would be boring. Therefore you want to introduce a few exceptions to these numbers, but make sure those exceptions are really emphasized. For example, make a unit with strength 5. That's a clear signal that you want to build this unit if you want something to attack with. Make another unit that has a movement of 6, a clear signal that this is something you want to build when you need something that can move fast, etc.

I would also introduce another building type. Let's call them "palaces". Perhaps it would be nice if they are build by Goliaths. These palaces score a lot of points at the end of the game. They would cost quite a bit of toxic waste and/or metal. As an additional cost you have to turn in a "set" of cards. A set of cards would be four cards of the same number of different colors. This would give an extra dimension to the card drafting mechanic, and would give a bit of extra value to lower numbered cards.

Scoring round. Scoring occurs when the last card of the deck is drawn. For each section you award points to the player who has the most military (cyborgs) units there.

Combat. I would simplify combat a bit. At the end of a movement action, there would be combat between enemy units occupying the same hex. Both attacker and defender play a card face down, then turn it face up. Attacker adds up his card's number and the total strength of his attacking units. The defender adds up his card's number and the total defense of his defending units. Higher number wins; in case of a tie defender wins. The loser loses all of his units on that hex, but may returns his defense card to his hand. The winner gets a number of VP's equal to the number of units destroyed, but discards his attack card.

To prevent players lumping all their units on the same hex, I would allow no more than 3 units (from the same player) on the same hex.

These are just some ideas. I hope you find some of them useful.

Again, good luck!

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

DSfan wrote:
I have a few ideas but they involve a major overhall.

When working out what a game "is supposed to be", having a few "major" overhauls is okay ... at least they're not as bad as "complete" overhauls!! ;)

From our previous handful of direct chats on this design, and from what I've read on your prep for this GDW session, I have the following thoughts ...

1> Tweak your backstory a bit. If you want the major earth changes to happen in the near-future, make the date 2012 -- this seems to be a year pointed-to by cataclysmists, since that's when the ancient Mayan calendar runs out. Also, borrowing on what some of the other folks have been writing here, you might want the cause of the nuclear exchange to be a previously-unknown alien race who manipulate the people of earth into it. This would provide something that alien race would greatly benefit from -- perhaps, they require a high level of radiation in order to have enjoyable living conditions? This would also give you some "sides" for the players to take -- alien versus human. (Yup, it's been done before, but can be done again, if you do it well.) The humans ran away to Mars or the moon or simply remote regions on the earth or wherever and are now mounting expeditions back to reclaim the lost planet. The aliens, obviously, want to hold on to this new paradise they've just created.

2> Based upon your backstory, you should setup needed units and resources for each side, a way for them to get/make them, and the costs involved. Each side could also have differing special powers. The important decisions should be where to pay the costs now in order to setup resources and/or units for future turns. Also, based upon your backstory, you should be able to have objectives for each side -- these can possibly be different ... such as the humans having to push the aliens off of areas of the map and then bio-cleanse those areas. The aliens would probably want to retain control and/or grow their areas held and destroy the inbound humans. You could even provide different scenarios with different objectives.

3> Combat should be simplified and tied-in to the resources/units/costs balance. Do you have units that are cheap and easy to build? Bingo -- you now have weak cannon fodder that you can send in hordes against the enemy. Do you have powerful but expensive units? Hmmmm ... might be the best thing to send into battle, but what if it's lost?

I know you like the combat mechanic from "Bluntrock", but it might not really fit here -- unless the cards uses in combat are also used to pay for other things, such as raising resources, building units, or moving things around -- which has already been suggested. (I actually have to work on balancing that mechanic within "Bluntrock" before I prep that for P&P release.)

4> Storms ... I think they're cool, but you probably will want to get the underlying mechanics working together first. Then the storms can be the big, magical "game changer" mechanic that will add the gravy over the game's meat & potatoes. Obviously, with a name like "tempest", having a storm creation/control mechanic would be a requirement, imo -- just the concept by itself is really powerful. But you'll need the "rest of the game" to hold together first.

Okay ... I think that's all of the top-of-my-head thoughts that I've had. I think you have a strong concept here, but may need to take a couple of runs at it before you find the best heading. Don't be afraid to backoff from a path in order to take a new look at it from a completely different direction. Figure out what the core nugget of the game you want to have is, then keep whittling away. ;)

-Bryk

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Quote:
I would simplify combat a bit. At the end of a movement action, there would be combat between enemy units occupying the same hex. Both attacker and defender play a card face down, then turn it face up. Attacker adds up his card's number and the total strength of his attacking units. The defender adds up his card's number and the total defense of his defending units. Higher number wins; in case of a tie defender wins. The loser loses all of his units on that hex, but may returns his defense card to his hand. The winner gets a number of VP's equal to the number of units destroyed, but discards his attack card

While I like your combat idea. I am confused...

In Tempest there are 2 stats Strength and Defense. If I were to use your combat solution those would no longer be needed. Am I reading it wrong?

-Justin

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

DSfan wrote:

While I like your combat idea. I am confused...

In Tempest there are 2 stats Strength and Defense. If I were to use your combat solution those would no longer be needed. Am I reading it wrong?

I was thinking Strength is for attacking, Defense for defending. Perhaps you could do away with one stat and just have one stat for both attacking and defending, further simplifying the combat system, but I like the idea of a unit having different stats for attacking and defending.

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Time is coming to a close for Tempest. Thanks to all who helped me with this work-in-progress. You have really done a lot to help with the progression of this game.

Thank's again,
-Justin

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Hello again,

For anybody who is still interested in the progress of Tempest (Which is actually unnamed for now) or you just want to see what the hub-bub is about then check out the newest version of the rulebook:

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/DSfan/Temp.doc

The rulebook went over some revisons that now make it much easier to understand. Thanks to Nando for this.

And tiles are not just squares anymore. Land, is now Grasslands. Grasslands are a large (3in") square with 8 small circles around 1 large one. While Brillum (The Resource) is a 1.5in" square with 1 spot on it. Thanks to Brykovian for the layout of the tiles.

Please feel free to comment, suggest, and/or critize.

Thanks for your support,
-Justin

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

Last night I had a short playtest of this game. It was short because people got board of it much to quickly, and I didn't want them to play poorly and let someone win because of there boredom.

The main reason people said it was boring was that it was much too simple. This comment of overdone simplicity has been mentioned by many other people on the boards, but even after adding things it was still too simple.

I would like to come and ask you guys what I can do to make this game a little bit more complex without having complex charts, graphs, and other things.

Thanks
-Justin

DSfan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #67 - Tempest by Justin [Updated 4/2/06]

For your viewing pleasure, I've posted a link for the latest version of Tempest (working title):

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/DSfan/greenbung.doc

The whole game has, essentially, been re-done. Instead of the larger game that it was, I've now reduced it to a light, beer-and-pretzels war game with a estimated playing time of 45 to 60 min. For the most part, I took zaigas advice, that he posted a ways back.

The only thing missing are the storm's costs and abilties, which are still being worked out. I should have that done in a couple of days and I'll post it here then.

Comments, suggestions, or just plain chit-chat is always helpful.

Thanks,
Justin

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut