I've been working for some time on a game called Centauri Rift and have begun to approach publishers with it. So far no luck, though a couple have told me that as players it looks good to them. As publishers they think the market is too small. I don't imagine the market is huge for such a game, but I am curious about what you have to say.
Centauri Rift is a game where players control one or more space ships (choosing from 3 models) in tactical combat, either individual or in teams. Each ship model has its own weapons, speed, and energy production traits. Games can be played with either an elimination or a point win condition. I estimate that games last about 15 min/ship.
Each turn involves filling up the main reactor energy track, effectively the energy available for that turn. The player may take as many actions in any order as the energy allows. In crucial turns more energy can be drawn from the auxiliary power track, while in other turns power can be saved for later in the auxiliary by reducing the main reactor track.
The strategy of the game involves managing the energy of the ship as well as tactical positioning. Weapons and shield systems are separated into front, back, left, and right, so orientation on the map is an important consideration. I have not employed dice or any other luck mechanics since the game is conceived as a battle to the death and/or war of attrition. Attacks within line of sight are sure hits. The key is making sure you don't leave yourself open to counterattack on your opponent's turn.
It is true that the game could be open to analysis paralysis, but in general I play with a 2 min time limit to simulate the pressure of space combat, to speed up the game, and to let players know from the start that the fun of the game is not making the best possible move, but rather trying the coolest thing they can come up with in a minute or two.
From my point of view the game is strong in that it gives players freedom (within a strong framework) to be creative with strategy, something I found lacking in many strategy games growing up.
Being highly competitive I normally find it difficult to enjoy a game that I don't win, especially if the game is 2+ hours long. By contrast, I have fun with Centauri Rift even when I lose because of the things I get to try out and because, even though it is all strategy, games go more quickly than Risk or other classic combat strategy games.
I welcome your feedback. Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks andymakespasta, X3M, and Midnight_Carnival for responding. I appreciate your thoughts.
What I've realized is that Centauri Rift is in some ways similar to the skirmish modes of some RTS computer games (and no surprise since that has always been my favourite part). Players set the map up, pick their ship, pick the teams (or go solo), pick the win condition, and start fighting. My preferred scenario is one where there are two teams using all the ship models on both sides so that the contest is about both teamwork and making best use of the equipment. However, others will like the individual play where diplomacy, or perhaps rather player relationships, is more important.
In my opinion it is a chess like game in that it allows good players to think ahead. I have consciously designed the game to be a game of skill. The big difference between Centauri Rift and chess is that my game makes the strategy more concrete and less abstract. The mechanics have been built to serve the theme.
The question raised about randomness and its relationship to luck is a good one. I am intrigued about the possibility of randomly generated maps or even other scenarios. It is true that some random elements do not necessarily introduce luck, but rather present a fresh challenge. I admit I had not considered it before and so far there is nothing truly random about the game. The players get to make all the decisions. To increase replayability I've made the map modular and customizable. It is easy to add some planets, asteroids, and nebulae at the beginning of the game to set a new challenge for all players.
As far as repetitiveness, my humble opinion is that the game is rich with possibilities to explore. There are a few features of the ships which are designed to be available all the time, but only a good option in certain scenarios. We've had a lot of fun developing strategies for those options. The next step for players would be creating the scenarios (by thinking ahead as the game develops) in which those features would be maximally beneficial.
It is probably fair to say that the game is on the technical side, Midnight_Carnival. However, I've found that experienced board game players catch on quickly and find much of the game intuitive. That is perhaps especially true for players who are also sci-fi fans. Without trying to make the game hyper realistic, I have included a few features of realistic space physics. For example, speed is conserved between turns since there is no friction in space. Rather, acceleration and deceleration both cost energy.
Again, thanks for your thoughts and your time. I am glad to see that some people are still interested in a skill based game.