Alright BGDF, it's midnight and I got no clue what I'm doing.
I'm gonna list all the things I want WARGAME to be able to do, and check off what I've equipped it with so far.
I'll organize them by personal importance until I find a better way.
1.) That the game is fun. If this isn't the top priority, then there is nothing I can do to make the game better. More fun = better game, there is no possible other way to measure this in my opinion.
How have I done so far? Well, I've garnered interest, at least, on a few places around the ol' net. It's at least as fun as 40K. I haven't transferred enough factions and diversity to really get into it yet. Designing it is fun! xD
2.) The next most important thing to me is that rules conflicts are simple to resolve when you take the time to read exactly how they're written. The issue I'm always seeing in WH, FoW, WM/H, D&D, etc., is that because of the way the rules were written, they require new errata every time something new comes out - and that errata is not always provided!
M:tG does this REALLY well with its Oracle Text and Comp. Ruling interpretations directly on their website, which features every card and a great search engine. Their Comp. Rules are also exceedingly meticulous and well-kept. This is what I would like to emulate when creating rules; a powerful engine in the background, with the kogs and gears hidden behind Actions and Unit Profiles.
How have I done so far? Well, I have the Actions and Unit Profiles fairly honed. I'm in the middle of starting from scratch, with the comp. rules first, however, to see what changes.
3.) Versatility. WARGAME is meant to provide the Players with the ability to build an army they find thematically, tactically, or even aesthetically pleasing, and then to be able to plan a strategy for that Army once they see the competition. Armies should have their options balanced between effectiveness and cost, meaning that each Player brings a force that's differentiated from the other Players' forces by capabilities and playstyle, not overall raw power.
That isn't to say that Players who are better at finding synergies when they build army lists, and who then build powerful tactics around these synergies, and then use them better than other Players should have an equal chance of winning as Random Sam #3 who built his army of dwarves because he likes their beards - I mean to say that the Dwarven Faction should have as many viable and interesting strategic and tactical depths to plumb as the Space Bugs or the Magic-Monks from the Hyper-Monestary.
How have I done so far? I'm toying with a modification of the QJM as a "points" system. I fear that it's going to balance things one way, while players taking advantage of the QJM's shortcomings when applied to crude simulations will tip the balance in another.
I'm toying with the idea of QJM AND points, but this might restrict players looking for a 'fair game' too much, as fighting players with (a lower QJM score but more points) or (a lower points but higher QJM score) will make them feel cheated.
4.) Easy to get into. I'd like the basic rules and "Playing a Game!" section to be straightforward and descriptive, preferring to inform the player of where they can learn more rather than trying to describe everything all at once.
This also applies to how it's played. Ideally, I'd like to be able to model Papercraft, or even Lego instructions. If it gets really popular, I have a vague dream of Kickstarting my own resin printer / modeling startup. I'm not into this for profits, but something self-sustaining would be nice; if it made enough to purchase the materials to meet future demands I'd continue it, and if it didn't, I would slow to a point where my income would sustain the occasional favour. Not very capitalistic here.
How am I doing so far? Mostly playing on Vassal with the Vassal40K Module. It works really well for my needs. I might have to move away from the Imperial measurements however; Metric calls to me.
5.) Modifiable. I'd like to include a list of tables and charts that would allow players to take most mechanical aspects and adapt them to their needs - from diceless, to D20's. From ignoring range, to including wind factors and humidity. From all-close-combat and dedicated medieval army resolution, to single-model units that fight with a representation of hit-points. From single-character Rogue-like roleplaying, to WH40k space opera skirmish fights.
How am I doing so far? I have a diceless variables chart planned for "eventually", for those who feel that any dice touching their wargame is too many dice. I also have an eventually-planned showcase fight between Space Marines and the Inferno faction, from Heroes of Might and Magic 3.
6.) Supports Multiplayer and teams at all levels of gameplay. There's nothing worse than being a 3rd wheel at the game table for me; No one should have to wait for a game.
There are, of course, the meta concerns of ganging up, backstabbing, and intentional game sabotage (i.e. griefing or trolling). I hope to have a weak mechanic included in the game to deal with these, involving Morale affecting armies working with 'enemies', but mostly I feel it's up to the Player to organize a game where the circumstances are fair, and where the players understand that playing in an unsporting manner ruins the fun for everyone.
How am I doing so far? Wub wub wub... I always have problems with monopoly and risk because of backstabbing. It's something I'm aware of, and that I want to avoid, and that there will be a subtle deterrent for, but I don't want to punish players for playing the game and having fun - sometimes you just gotta give into someone's taunts or smugness, and lay on the punishment!