I've just been bouncing a new game idea in my head lately. It would be a wargame set in a fantasy setting, with different players (Resembling various tribes, families, cities, etc. haven't completely decided yet) as they fight to rule the nation. There are a few twists, mainly with the way players interact, as well players will be able to destroy or attempt to get different tribes on the map to join them. This is just a general overview, but I have a few questions that I need opinions on:
1. Hexagonal or Territorial Map?
I know there are benefits of both, and right now I'm looking at a hexagonal map that can change for each play session, but a territorial map would definitely give the game a more cinematic feel, at the cost of flexibility.
2. Individual Unit Types or Entire Armies?
I started out my ideas with players being able to purchase a few types of units (Footmen, Mounted, Archers, Siege) that they would group together as they fought across the battlefield, but now I am leaning more towards having individual armies for each tribes, each with a few different stats (some being better at attack, some better at defending, some offering other various abilities), as well players can buy more generic armies to bolster their forces. Having individual units seems a bit cluttered and complicated, but it has a lot of cool options for flexibility.
3. For my last point, I think having some sort of turning point in the game where it goes from many players (4-6) battling to players forming (probably) more permanent teams. Player's would be encouraged to form alliances throughout the game, and would also be able to trade in various circumstances. Then, at some point in the game, a player will choose to compete for the final prize - control of the nation. Different players can join him or compete against him, and this will give players who are doing quite poorly to still have a chance at winning a minor victory by supporting a more powerful character.
Tell me your opinions or any ideas that you have on these ideas! I'm open to any criticism.
I Have been designing a similar style of game involving some of the aspects you are referring to.
1. I have found that a map does create a story feel, players have opinions or where to start or places to conquer. But I also found that many games had the same feel, the same areas fought over in the same way. So I went back to my design and used a Hex system, I found this worked better as every game was different, although there was not the same story-type feelings towards the game.
I have since created rules within the hex placement to have set spaces locked for set places, giving a set amount consistency between games
2. I also had singular types of troops due to the options and flexibility that they gave players, although it made the rules more complicated and add time to the game. I am at the moment trying to create general armies, but am trying not to have race/fraction specific as I am attempting to reduce game play time.
3. I really like the idea of alliances, although I am worried about how it would work. I find that some players like to fence sit, this may encourage this, and in my eyes is the worst playing style. I think you need to be carefully about how alliances and made and if they can be broken. I do really like the idea, the only thing I can think to add that might help you is some form of card or “secret objective” that will influence a players choice. Its difficult without knowing anything else about your game but maybe have different levels of winning. A major win (you win) a minor win (if you side with the winning player) and a moderate win (if you side with a set race determined by your secret objective card and that race wins, and so beating any minor wins)
I really like the play style you have for this game please let me know how you get on with it in the future, and if you ever need play testers my friends and I would enjoy this one.