Skip to Content

-

9 replies [Last post]
Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011

-

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
One of the many challenges in

One of the many challenges in this design is to have the city raise resistance in zones that the attackers no longer occupy. In the yellow zones the re-appearance of resistance is also an important way of showing that the defenders have managed to achieve victory. So far all I could come up with is placing markers in the unoccupied city zones. This resistance represents partisan/militia actions against the invaders. As a mechanism it is intended to force the attackers to try and occupy as much of the city as possible and also to help the defenders who would otherwise be quickly overwhelmed in this 3 vs 2 player game. But the primary function of this mechanic is to prevent the attackers from deploying straight into the city governor's palace red zone, mostly ignoring the yellow and orange zones.

For now the idea is that these resistance units should strike the moment enemy units are deployed into or stops in their zone by rolling D6 and then be removed from the board, only to re-apear on all un-occupied zones at end of turn, but never on green and blue zones. On yellow they give the defender 4xD6, orange 6xD6 and the one red 8xD6. I've decided to standardise the dice for all situations throughout the game to work as follows: you only score hits if you roll a 5 or 6, everything else is a miss. And if you roll a 6 you inflict a double hit. On a 5 the player taking the hit decides what unit was hit. But on a 6 the player scoring the hit can choose one of the 2 losses. This should discourage the players from building forces that are bulked with cannon fodder and a small number of uber units. It is worth mentioning though that I've ensured that dice never dominate the game. I firmly believe dice should never determine who wins a battle.

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
Board design

Since I haven't yet received any kind of feedback I'm going to start guessing what questions people might have about the design.
For this first exercise I'll assume a question about the fact that the board is grid based. I'm sure anyone with a wargame background would wonder why the board doesn't use a hexagon grid like most wargames of the past 50 odd years?
The main reason for avoiding hexagons is that with them you give players 6 directions to interact with, while on a square grid you can limit players to 4 directions if you don't allow oblique movement. In the previous incarnation of this game the 3 players had a map with a total of 16 zones and this have proven to be a very well balanced size during tests. Now on the 5 player map I have 30 zones and this might prove to be too many.
It is also easier to read the map if it is square. I didn't want to make it difficult to read where you want to deploy.

Cogentesque
Cogentesque's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Heya Aquillius! First of all,

Heya Aquillius!

First of all, I haven't seen you post here before (right?) so welcome! If that is the case ^^

I have seen your thread about 4 times now, and scanned through it every time.

I figured I should say something this time.

Right, first of all man, I am not a bastard. But I am going to assume the "be a bastard" roll right now as I think it is the best way you will learn about your boardgame.

Ok so, now we've got that out the way here we go: 2 vs 3, I think is actually a wonderful idea. Asynetric play is something I think should be explored a little more. You are limiting yourself however to groups of 5 (but saying that: game theory would state, how many other games work well/best with 5 players? Wheras there are hundereds that work with 2,3,4,6 - you might be on to a winner)

The risk style mechanism is cool I suppose, I was never one for risk, but reading your writing I still dont quite get the game, but I don't think it is too "risky" (teeheehee!) I think it could shape up to be quite good.

Your board is awful. I am sorry man. I hate to be the bearer of bad news and I am sure you put loads of effort into it. If your board is basically that little picture on the bottom right of your first post. It is really really bad. I am sorry.

I think if you created the thing in photoshop or something similar - the fill effect you have given the "city" and "city walls" is really manky. The topographical (is that a word?) kind of generic top-down map style is quite nice, refreshing that I havent really seen it donw before, the sectors having colour overlay is also cool. But I have no idea abou the rest of it, the digi-clock-font numbering is very confusing, all those lines in the city - are they anything important? Are too much, and the look of the city itself is very overpowering.

So yeah, that. :(

BUT what question are you asking?

Are you saying "comment on my game board" - in which case, read above
or perhaps "Comment on my mechanics and if you like the gam" - in which case, you will have tio explain it again, I didn't quite follow I am afraid
or if it is "Help me out with my development" - then I would need to be explained the rules again before commenting, but I think you are on the right tracks here.

Honestly I am trying to help man, and I think this will help a lot :)

Let us know!

sam

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
-

-

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
Balance

Cogentesque wrote:
...but I think you are on the right tracks here.

Now that I’ve revealed the core mechanics of the game, do you still think I’m on the right track?

I’m starting to think I’ll need to change the player order slightly because the 2 defenders are presently a bit overpowered and should easily defeat the 3 attackers. Maybe I should change it so: player 1 and 2 as attackers, player 3 and 4 as defenders and then player 5 also as attacker. The problem with the original arrangement is that both defenders will get the chance to push back the attackers from all high points zones without too much trouble. Remember that the way battles work gives players the chance to choose which battles they will win and this makes player order very important. The player who plays last can tip the balance in any battle he/she chooses. One other point to remember is that the defenders has an automated ally, a virtual 3rd defender. This tips the odds strongly to the defenders since they will be prone to hold in the battles they lose and be somewhat immune to a wipe-out of their victorious forces if the enemy decides to hold. This effect of holding happened a few times in the old game: you win a battle and your opponent decides to hold, and so doing land enough hits against you to destroy all your forces. Giving the last attacker a chance to occupy areas that only the virtual player defends should help keep the attackers on the map.

OK, I’ll patiently wait another week before I post here again, or else I might be accused of spamming.

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
27 VIEWS, ONE RESPONSE.

-

Cogentesque
Cogentesque's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Aquilius, I don't know what

Aquilius, I don't know what you mean by changing all of your posts to "-"'s and, honestly you do not need to wait a week for starting a thread or replying or whatever.

There are quite a few threads going around at the moment regaurding keeping your question interesting and focussed in order to get decent replies.

Remember people don't read all opf the site, they read one thread and comment on one thread. You need to put everything you want people to know in this thread alone. I found out a while back that "sayuing something like the rules are on a few pages on my website and there is another thread about this, what should I do with my latest game design problem?" really doesnt work.

If you want people to reply, dont simply rename a thread "27 views and 1 reply?!?!" because people will just see you as impatient and no fun. Remember we are game designers because we like creating fun games!

So if you want people to reply and give input make your question
1. easy to understand
2. straight forward
3. fun

and I can guarntee you will get more replies man :) - to reiterate another point, from my first reply, I still don't get your game? Try and start up another thread and ask again :) - dont worry I can promise you that you wont be judged as spamming, we are pretty leniant on this forrum!

Hope ive helped man

sam

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
Done

Thanks Sam, no worries! The playtesters have given me the final thumbs up, they assured me they are all hooked, and I'm happy to now focus on getting the game into a better print and play state. I had hoped to get some feedback from this site, but I guess I'm better at explaining how the game works to my group of playtesters than online like this. The balancing is still a bit in favour of the 2 player team, with the 3 player team often having to make a mad suicidal dash for the goverment zone to win.
I couldn't figure out how to delete this thread and that is why I renamed it to "-". Is there a way to delete it?

Cogentesque
Cogentesque's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Ahh I see! I dont think there

Ahh I see!

I dont think there is a delete thread option yet (unless I am corrected) - but easy enough to let the thread just cycle out of the side bar :)

Glad to see that your playtesters are getting on well with it man! Very cool! :)

Make sure you let us know how it goes yeah?

sam

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut