Skip to Content

game idea i would like feedback on!

9 replies [Last post]
Joined: 11/12/2009

hello i'm very new to the whol game design proccess, as in this is my first, but i have been working on it for almost 6 months. The game is WW2 based, it startes in june 1940 after the fall of france. the map is a square that consist from the norther tip of GB to the mouth of the Gironde river in France. the western coast of ireland in the west to berlin in the east. the players are GB, germany, and america (to a lesser extent) the plot of the game is of economic destruction of your enemy throu the use of military might, ships and planes. the map is to include types of factories and different types of resorces. i was planning on using punch outs for units and it was to be a territory map kninda like A&A. so here is my question(s)
1. is this a subject that has been over done?
2. do you think that using punch out counters is a good option AKA still in favour by the industry?
3. what do you think of the overall game? does it sound to hard? is it intresting? any other thoughts?

i think i was a little vague with my discription of the game so i will go into more detail.
the game plot revolves around the battle of Britain and the Air war in Europe and the battle of the Atlantic (time period).
the game will have the ability for the players to not only decide battles but also how they are conducted. example missions at night or day, high or low level bombing , carpet bombing or fire bombing. the players can also choose between diff targets military(warships, Grouunded fighters and bombers, navals and air bases) strategic targets(rail lines, convoy rousts, radar stations) industrial(factories, resource and mining locations)or civilain ( large cities EI. dresden). i was thinking of using many different resources to represent the complexity of war for example steal, oil, gas, coal, magnesium, so-on.... i was planing on using a chart of some sort to determin the amount of recources left in an empire to determin how much planes and warships that country can produce that turn. there will also be different types of planes with different plusses and minuses( hurricane, me109 ect..) currently there are over 60 indentivied cities on the map i think in the end it will be about 200 or so i was planining on putting the types of factories and recorces on the map to reduce set up time. i think that covers it let me know if this is enogh info for you guys thanks in advance for the reviews. same questions still aply.

Arvin's picture
Joined: 05/29/2009
My answers...

1. is this a subject that has been over done?

-Well I have never played A&A before but I think there are too many games out there about WW2 conflict...
Your game should have some special thing in it...

2. do you think that using punch out counters is a good option AKA still in favour by the industry?

-I have no Idea...

3. what do you think of the overall game? does it sound to hard? is it intresting? any other thoughts?

-WW2 theme is everywhere, but If you can make it special it's all good...
-It may be a bit hard, I tried to do that too but It needs thorough Info gathering to make your game realistic,
-For me it's interesting, I'm also creating a strategic game.
-If you got some interesting mechanics please share it...

truekid games
truekid games's picture
Joined: 10/29/2008
ww2 has been done a lot, but

ww2 has been done a lot, but that's not really relevant to the wargamer crowd, which is who this would target. I would say that you should do some poking and see if there's a particular time period or couple of battles that your game could encompass.

yes, cardboard punchouts are still the norm for any wargame that's not mass market (meaning, anything not in a toys'r'us or wal-mart).

as far as level of interest, your description was a bit vague as far as mechanics go, so i don't have much to go on.

SiddGames's picture
Joined: 08/02/2008
Know Your Audience

The "interesting" and "too hard" questions really boil down to your target audience. Who is supposed to play this game? People who like Axis & Allies, Eurogamers, hardcore wargamers, etc. Wargamers don't mind complexity and bookkeeping while casual gamers probably do not. Once you know who you are designing for you can then make consistent design choices with that audience and game type in mind.

I wouldn't worry about component type for now. As mentioned, unless you're going for a casual gamer for whom little plastic figures is appealing, you can get away with any kind of component if the game is good.

twotofour's picture
Joined: 11/13/2009

I agree, sometimes less is more.
I tend to think that the more complex or broad the subject matter is, the more simple and refined your approach should be.
This can also work in reverse too. Quite fun to develop layers of complexity from a very simple starting point.
Anyway, if you can understand your user you can react accordingly!

Nix_'s picture
Joined: 09/23/2009
If you can really fit all of

If you can really fit all of those concepts of war into a board game it would be amazing. It just seems like your players might spend more time figuring out how and what to play then actually playing it, but keep going on your design it's always fun to see how things turn out.

Joined: 11/23/2009
hi! Ok, this is my game idea.


Ok, this is my game idea. It is a stratagy/rpg game.
Introduction: You start as a regular citizen in a small poor city with absoulutly nothing except for 1 goal. To make you village rise so people know of it, have citizens come, etc. Since the city is so poor, it has no empire or ruler. You dicide to make a campiegn for empire. You will automaticly get position as an empire, but the better your campiegn, the ...

[url=] instyler [/url]

Joined: 12/03/2009
I think

I think so
tuyen dung | tim viec | viec lam

Momerath's picture
Joined: 01/16/2009
Keep it Simple!

It does seem like you are making this harder than it needs to be. World War II was complicated, which is why some historians have devoted their entire careers to understanding it. War games tend to be more complicated than other types - but even the most realistic war game is still a gross oversimplification of its subject matter. They must be, in order to be playable and fun.

Your instinct to limit this game to a fraction of the entire theater of war (and specifically an air war) is a good one. Now, do you really need 200 cities? Maybe 20 is enough. And while there's nothing wrong with fighting over resources (coal, magnesium, etc), it's best to focus on a few key types that are most relevant to the theme (again, air war in Europe). The simpler your game concept, the less work you will have to do to make it playable! Getting that first prototype made is not the end, it is only the beginning, so make the hard choices now about what to keep and what to throw away and you will save yourself so much time.

Simple systems are easier to understand, to design, and usually to play than complex ones. I would suggest you start with not enough of a game and end up with too much rather than the other way around. Knowing what to add is often much easier than knowing what to subtract.

red hare
red hare's picture
Joined: 11/09/2009
sounds interesting

Speaking as a person who likes to play war games that only last 2 to 3 hours and are not super complex, I agree with the others who have suggested limiting the number of cities and resources that are in play. It's a turn off to have to deal with so many pieces and turns that last 40 minutes each to play. Again, I'm only speaking for myself.

Victory conditions can be a fun aspect to your game. Does Germany need to incapacitate England's resources and/ or factories to win? Or eliminate all of their air defenses? Since America's infrastructure isn't on the map, can they be defeated or eliminated some how? Perhaps by a naval blockade of England?

Punch outs are not as fun as plastic/ wooden pieces.

Just some thoughts... let us know what you decide to do and how things work out

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut