im looking to make a game with war strategy.
start with a base and in the board and are more bases. you can build melee/structs/upgrades and this requests take turns. every turn you ll get more resources to do more requests.
Someone knows a game like that?
thanks in advance guys
Sounds like an area control (resource centers) wargame with some upgrade capability and maybe a tech tree involved.
Extremely common concept.
I used most of it in my Fleet Admiral - Singularity game.
Risk does not use upgrades but does use the rest.
almost every Civ style game ever made.....................
Not to discourage, but it is kind of a "has anyone ever tried mixing flour and salt and yeast and putting it in an oven" sort of question.
hi. just because its been done before doesnt mean you cant do it better. DnD isnt the only RPG after all. the previous poster was right, it is an area control game but when i first read your post i thought of tower defence style games. which is not that common for boardgames. making a 2 player version would be an interesting challenge, i would presume by having 1 player as the attackers and 1 as the defenders.
actually im not interested (at least not right now and i know that is very important. but, as gxnpt suggest is a very worked field) in the strategy and combat. Im looking for make some mechanics to:
-build things
-move things (some structures can move)
-attack things
{Things:
-structures
-army
}
{Make:
-collect mineral
-move
-attack
}
i want to buy a base and get some initial cash, you can minning some mineral to get more cash (as a economy game we can play with this trade price later) and you can buy thing to make things.
I think if the game goes for build an army, and move it. the confrontation is innevitable.
There is very few games 1vs1, im looking for something more casual (vs warhammer) and very simple (like catan)
when you get a structure you put (all actions take turns) it in the board and get a table. you can store units in structures and if you do that the unit goes to the table.
every turn get and income (based in your # of miners) of mineral and you can store it of change for cash. if your destroy a structure with mineral inside you can get some miners to collect it.
Thanks so much for your time and answer. n____n
Sounds like a turn-based strategy game (or even RTS, like Command and Conquer?), in board game form?
kinda, the computer automatize everything, so iam looking for something more simpler. For the board im thinking in a building board dinamics (Carcassonne/ZombieDice).
Im always listen that AoE & Starcraft are games like chess. I wanna make a boardgame like chess but with eco.
Designing a war game that resembles RTS is very hard.
For starters. Do you really want a "Real Time" aspect?
You mentioned to rather have a chess like aspect, which is better to do for a first attempt.
Balance is always a bottleneck in these games. And to achieve practical balance, the best method is applying RPS. Not having RPS makes it very hard to balance the game.
Keep the number of different types as small as possible. The first sign of RPS is that of having 3 different units. Yet wargames do better when you have 4. Example: infantry and tanks with either anti infantry weapons or anti tank weapons. A 2x2 format which you always can build upon.
Eco?
The simplest method is having only 1 resource. But if you have infantry and tanks, you could do 2 resources where for example food is applied to train infantry and ore is applied to produce tanks. I do not recommend multiple resources unless they each serve a purpose by reason.
RTS know a big variety for Eco. I recommend having a simple resource node that costs money to build. Each additional resource node costs the same, but the resources added per turn, decrease with each addition. AoW3 uses this method effectively.
Something like 1 node adds 5. 2 nodes adds 9. 3 nodes adds 12. 4 nodes adds 14. 5 nodes or more adds 15.
Have fun designing.
thanks so much RPS is a very important concept, im learning so much.
im thinkings about dominion (the action is a resource) and we can buy structures or units that puts in the table (like in risk) and attack (like in risk).
sounds really crazy?
thanks again
Maybe you can get some idea's from A&A. There you don't have RPS.
I don't know if an Risk like attack works with RPS. I guess, right target; use 3 dice. Wrong target; only 1 die? Same for the defender. And the highest rolls are compared.
We think that we can get more RPS as long we have more troops, make sense. I thinking about the idea of bases(nodes) to get more RPS, sounds very clean to me.
Same think maybe we can have three troops (melee defeats air, mech defeat melee and air defeat mech, for example) can use more or less dice.
Never play axies & allies i guess i hace homework.
Thank again
As far as Axis and Allies. It has morphed into many sub games. I recommend for your homework you use the Original 1942 Global Version https://avalonhill.wizards.com/games/axis-and-allies The Anniversary edition is deluxe but otherwise same.
my current design is based around this idea -- converting RTS style to board games / card games. You could also check out sirlin's take on it, codex.
I focused on a few things important to me about RTS / competitive RTS and distilled them down.
I'd also keep in mind things inherent to RTS that aren't fun or easy to do in board games -- tracking components, upgrades taking time or rounds can be pretty boring, movement can be tedious, calculations for complex combat can be taxing, and without the time stress, it's really easy to get in to "information overload" and have turns take forever.
Traditional economy based rts like starcraft generally builds to an economic advantage and then a winner, but in board games, economic advantage = card advantage = longer turns and more processing, which is generally pretty slow and anti-real-time.
You have to decide early if you want to focus on creating a "twitch" style strategy game, or a slower, tactical style of game.
edit: and not to be a contrarian, but when designing, I wouldn't worry about balance. Make it fun to play first, then mess with the balance, especially if you are going for asymmetry.
Yeah I love that kind of stuff and find it really fun. Record keeping never bothered me. I enjoy that kind of depth and never found it tedious at all. I find the newer stuff to light and simplistic to hold my interest. To each, their own.
It is interesting that many try to replicate or emulate a Video game on board, but cant see how it could be done without hitting that time complexity thing. I think the best you can do is capture the elements and personality of the tech and charters from real time and put them into what today is considered "playable." Most want a game to last less time then a TV show. I prefer to sit down and play for a whole afternoon.
Good Luck.
Welcome! We're glad you're here.
It also sounds like you want to design a war game, but haven't played very many. I highly recommend that you try out a number of different games to get a feel for what works and what doesn't. This will give you a frame of reference for you when designing your own. War games aren't my forté, so others will have to bulk up the list I present here, but here are some suggestions in the middle-to-heavyweight category:
Axis & Allies (already stated, but easy to find people who play it)
Memoir '44 (takes a different sort of approach for controlling troops and handling how many you can move at once)
Diplomacy (simultaneous turns, anyone?)
Twilight Struggle (The quintessential card-based wargame)
Your mention of economic strategy leads me to think worker Placement as a mechanic to incorporate. All good RTS computer games heavily rely on the initial non- combat worker. You could include buildings as cards to place workers upon, or even to upgrade your workers to combat units
 | Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (11) by larienna |
 | Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
| Toy play: Creating a log while playing (15) by questccg |
| New Contest at The Game Crafter - "That Cool Stock Part Challenge" (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Will....this die roll work? (11) by X3M |
i know that is a very common subjet (thanks so much for your answer), there is some changes to risk (i want 1vs1 game and more oriented in economy that war strategy) with more win conditions more that destroy the army.
in my mind im using starcraft theme (only two resources) for make the things simpler.
I check concordia and get in love with the tables and dinamics