Hello, had a bit of trouble naming this thread, not sure what to call this.
So everyone knows games like Risk and Axis & Allies, large scale wargames that represent wars from a general since.
Aside from that, there are of course games like Combat Commander and the Commands & Colors line (including Memoir '44, Battlelore, etc.) that focus on smaller scale battles.
Some of my big problems with large scale wargames are that individual battles don't feel very satisfying, and especially with Risk, the results are usually quite random.
One of my big problems with C & C scale games is that they have unsatisfying endings. Like, I win by getting enough medals. Hooray. There just isn't any real reward for success, as the battle is isolated from a campaign and treated as its own thing. The battles themselves, and the games themselves, are quite fun, but battles often end abruptly, leaving me unfulfilled.
Now, this concept has been floating in my head for a while. It involves combining both game types in an incredibly ambitious and time-consuming way. Imagine that every time you trigger a battle, you take all of your attacking units, expand them into groups of figures, and set up a terrain map to execute the battle like a game of C & C. Once the battle is resolved, units are placed back on the board based on the outcome.
It would probably take a huge amount of work to set up, but the result might just be something amazing.
As the unoriginal person I am, I will pretend battles are using the Commands and Colors system.
1. I have a number of ideas for how the terrain in battles would be generated:
a) Each territory on the map has a corresponding card with a map on it. Assuming the map looks and is built similarly to C & C, one side of the map would be designated as the attacking side, and the other the defending side.
b) Each territory is identified by its environment. i.e. forest, grassland, desert, etc. There are decks of, say, 10 cards for each of these terrain types, each representing half of the map, as well as decks for small, medium, and large cities. When a battle map is set up, the attacker draws the top card of the deck that corresponds with the territory they're attacking from, and the defender does the same for their territory. Both players set up their side of the board based on what is on their card. Next, the defender draws the top card of the corresponding city deck based on the size of the territory they're defending. They add the terrain on this card as another "layer" to their side, overriding any other terrain placed there.
c) The same as b), except each territory has an attacking and a defending card that always corresponds to them.
2. For the conversion from units on a board to units on a battle map, there are a couple ways this could be done.
a) Each single unit on the board corresponds to a single unit in a battle. If this were C & C, a single unit would become a 3-4 figure unit on the battle map.
b) Each unit represents a group of units on the board. i.e. an Infantry unit might represent a squad of 3 Infantry units during a battle, a Mobile Infantry unit might represent a squad of 2 Infantry units (but be a faster unit on the big board), a Tank unit might represent a squad of 2 Tank units, etc.
3. During a battle, either side would have the opportunity to end the battle in some way, shape or form. The Defender would have the choice of either continuing to defend, pulling out, or surrendering. The Attacker would have the choice of either pressing the attack, or retreating. As I have not fully decided on what the battlefield I'll be using will look like, I'll continue to act as if I were using the C & C design.
In C & C, units are represented with groups of figures. Once a battle is finished, I will restore units to their original states based on the outcome. "Rounding down" in this case means that if a unit has taken any damage, it is eliminated. "Rounding up" means that the unit is restored to full health, even if it was damaged. I know the terms are technically inaccurate, but they suit my needs, and I can't think of a simpler way to explain it.
Once the battlefield is set up, the Defender may place all of their units anywhere they desire on their side of the board. Once that's done, the Attacker may then place all of their units against the baseline on their side. The battle then commences.
As I said, the Defender gets several options to interrupt the flow of battle:
a) Surrender: The Defender announces their surrender. Their own and the Attacker's casualties are rounded up to restore the original units. All Attacker and Defender units are placed back on the big board, in the space where the battle took place, and Defender units are placed on their side to indicate that they are in a Captured state. Captured units can be rescued by reclaiming the territory they occupy.
b) Pull out: The Defender announces that they are pulling out. From this point on, all of their units can leave the map through their back baseline. The casualties of any units that escape are rounded down. Defender units still on the map may continue to battle as normal, but once there are no more Defending units on the board, the Attacker wins, the territory becomes theirs, and all of their casualties are rounded up.
The Attacker has one option to affect the flow of the battle:
a) Retreat: The Attacker announces a retreat. Retreats work the same as Pulling Out, except reversed. The Attacker's escaping units' casualties are rounded down, and defender casualties are rounded up.
In case you're wondering, the rounding is based off whether a side might have the opportunity to "sweep the battlefield" to find and heal injured soldiers or broken vehicles. Yes, the rounding can be a bit harsh, but I think it might really improve the gameplay and strategy.
I have not thought about how sea and air battles would function.
4. There are some opportunities for technological advancement here. With the obvious inclusions such as production improvement and unit stat improvements, there are also other unit upgrades that might make the game interesting:
a) Squad equipment. A squad placed on the battlefield could have the ability to start out with special equipment. i.e. "camouflage", "AT Guns", "Grenades", etc.
b) Squad movement. A squad could be given the ability to cross difficult terrain faster. i.e. "inflatable boats", "steel-toed boots", etc.
c) Squad size/strength. Better food storage and ammunition allows for more men to occupy one squad. This increases unit figure counts with no change to mobility.
5. There are obviously a ton of other ideas that could be implemented here, but as the brain dumptruck that I am, I just plopped all my ideas here. As a last note, let me go over some of the problems I can see with this game idea:
a) Time. Sigh. Unless I find a better way to work my mechanics, battles would typically take 2-5 minutes to set up, and anywhere from 5-25 minutes to play.
b) Complexity. A new player would need to keep the mechanics straight in essentially two different games. Someone like myself might not find that difficult, but others may find trouble.
c) Time Period. This isn't as much a problem as it is something that I just haven't thought about. Different time periods have different battle strategies and lengths of battles. Ancient warfare was slow and took place on open planes. Medieval battles were sometimes lengthy sieges, with no quick conclusion. World War I combat was driven by trenches and artillery bombards. Modern warfare, while often quick-paced, would probably require more complicated mechanics. Futuristic warfare is more about missiles and AA guns then ground combat. I need to choose a good time period for the pace I want. As much as I would love to make a massive beast of a game spanning from the beginning of mankind to the creation of the internet, some people's brains can only take so much information, and production costs are surprisingly limiting. It was also some guy's dumb idea to make the standard box size less than a meter.
So... this is a big game. It's almost a theoretical thing then a real game idea. Is this kind of game realistically possible in a way that would work well? I think so.
Also, has this been done before? It's not exactly the easiest thing to google.
Thank you! I would love feedback and new ideas.
@pelle - Duplicate? In what regard?
@X3M - So the maps were made up of squares, shaped like squares themselves, and were parts of a larger map made of squares? That is interesting, but I am a firm believer in the superiority of hexes. Anyway, the battles themselves don't seem very fleshed out.
I'm also impressed by that dedication. I could never play a game over as long a time period as that, unless I'm really dedicated to or passionate about the game.
The codes sound interesting. Do you mean you had a minimap with codes printed on it, with the codes corresponding to larger maps? That could be plausible to use.
@let-off studios - I think it would be incredibly satisfying! As an attacker or defender, you get full control over how you attack and how you set up your units during a battle. Battles can range from small skirmishes or tests of strength to massive sieges and sprawling armies. The satisfaction that would come from something like that is one of my main motivations for making this game.
Age of Wonder looks interesting, though the wikipedia article you sent me seems to be a little disjointed and doesn't go into the overall gameplay or detail of how terrain is generated. I went to the pages for the other games in the series, however, and was able to get a slightly better understanding. It does seem interesting, although I don't know how much I can take from the gameplay mechanics. Unfortunately, I can't find an easy way to randomly generate terrain, then always associate that terrain with the territory. The only way I currently know of to accomplish this is to just have a large deck of random terrain assortments, and assign each one to its own territory at the beginning of the game.
I am now considering a different design of board, taking a bit of inspiration from Elfenland and other games which I can't think of on the fly. Instead of having a map of territories, I could instead have a map of roads connecting different cities/towns. This would make it look more like a battle campaign then just a general map, and would allow me to limit the number of angles that a location can be attacked from in a more controlled way. As well, I could have spaces halfway through each road that units land on to represent their period of travel. There could even be the opportunity to meet armies on the road or even plot ambushes.
There is even an opportunity for hidden movement here, but that's another mechanic that I'm not too concerned with at the moment.
Units could be easily represented on the board. However, if I ended up having a copious amount of units, I could instead switch to an "army" system where there are a number of number-coded army tokens on the board, each corresponding to a tile in front of the player. On each Army tile is stored the units moving as part of the army.
This is kind of giving me Battlefront II galactic conquest vibes.
The armies each represent a division led by a general. The cost for forming a new army would be quite expensive. Armies could also function as limits to the number of units stored in one location. By putting a cap on units within an army, and only allowing one army per space, numbers are effectively limited, which could come in handy for keeping the number of figures included down.
I could go even farther: each tile has a grid on it. Each square can hold one unit. Filling it up from the top, there are several levels indicated on the grid that correspond to movement and upkeep (i.e. once three rows are filled up, upkeep is raised by 1 and the army is slower moving on the board). I could go even farther with this: supplies (food) must be carried with an army as well, taking up spaces on the grid.
I could go ridiculously farther if I so desired: in an army, units are ranked in 3 levels: recruit, veteran, elite. Every time a unit wins a battle, it increases its rank to the next level, improving damage, movement, etc.
When in a city, units can be recruited from the populace, starting at the weakest rank.
Before I get too ahead of myself, I think I need to lay down some basic mechanics, and think through the larger scale gameplay. Unfortunately, between school and work, it's really difficult to find time to do much more than brainstorm ideas like I've been doing here.
I think I'll take some time to figure out what exactly I want from the battle system and from combat, and where the focus of the complexity should be.
Many of these ideas are things I've come up with before, but haven't done anything with. None of them have been properly playtested, so maybe I'll wait until I can actually do that before anything else.
Thank you for your input! I really appreciate it.