Game Design #108: RTS Wisdom (Balance not Boredom, "UI" Rules/Mechanics)

While I enjoyed old skool titles like CoH, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander - I rarely play RTS anymore. Most RTS, the first 1/3 of the game is building up forces, 1/3 is actually fun, fighting, and the last 1/3 is mopping up when once side has obviously won. As a busy dad, a game that's only fun 1/3 of the time isn't really optimal use of my gaming time. My main strategy game is Steel Division (which is more about semi-realistic tactics and eschews base building) and the Total War series (Shogun II = best, fight me).

But as a dad it is my duty to educate my son (9) in gaming genres. So I chose Zero-K - a (free) mash-up of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. My initial impressions is it's a pretty well thought out game - kinda the opposite of the latest Ubi or EA shovelware. Check it out on Steam.

But as I browsed about the game, I came across a few expressions the devs use which caught my imagination. Obviously this won't apply to every genre (especially historical - it's about a sci fi RTS after all!), but their dev blogs have some interesting applications for tabletop gaming.

 

#1. "Buff Strengths, Nerf Weaknesses"

Units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be identical to each other.  That's boring. So rather than nerf good stats until every unit is a carbon copy, they lean into the differences even more.

So if a unit is too strong, instead of nerfing it's strength (say high burst damage) they first look at weaknesses (perhaps it is low defence - can the 'weakness' be made even weaker to even more emphasize the unit's nature as a glasscannon). The unit has been nerfed, but it is even more different than its peers.

Traditional nerfing strength and buffing weaknesses (in areas such as mobility, attack and defence) tends to move units towards a single bland entity. Buffing strengths and nerfing weaknesses instead stretches and emphasizes the differences in those areas. (And, I suspect, may encourage unit variety through more distinct 'counters.')

But what is strength and what is weakness? It's relative. A tank might be fast compared to infantry, but wouldn't we be comparing it to other tanks or units of similar role?

For example in my "Delta Mars" rules I create a baseline human soldier and weapon (rifle) as "average" so I can work around that. A squad machine gunner might be slower, and only fire when stationary but have 3x the firepower dice. It may be then worth 2 normal soldiers.

Another interesting point made was the difference in roles between designer and balancer. The designer looks at the big picture, how units should 'feel' and interact - what tactics should they use? A balancer is about  finer detail - manipulating numbers to make units behave the way they ought.

An interesting distinction when most wargame designers wear both hats.

Finally, sometimes balance fails. Sometimes the core design of a unit is flawed.  The unit needs to be completely reworked and redesigned, not 'balanced.'

 

#2. Fight Your Opponent not the UI (or Rules!)

This seemed timely given my musings on rules like Killwager - in the case of Zero-K they are talking about things like the on-screen information, the game controls, how you interact with the units. The Zero-K controls were the first thing I noticed; simply selecting a clump of units, then dragging your mouse allowed you to "draw" formation - my son and I both said "cool" as we noticed it; so much simple than the usual dozen or so clicks to select and rearrange individual units.

In wargames, it is the physical interface which includes not just the rulebook - unit basing, measuring, dice, terrain etc - even the models themselves. Does anyone remember the old metal Warmachine warjacks which weighed a kilo each?

A player is "fighting the UI" when they have a clear idea of what to do, but the controls (or rules) make it hard for the player to do it.

Aim: A player's ideas should be simple to implement and execute. Remove as much clutter between the player's ideas and the game. Obviously, we can't telepathically move minis, but we shouldn't be paging through the rulebook every 5 seconds, checking a table or a list of a hundred modifiers, or making too many dice rolls to resolve a simple action  - that's a sign of fighting against the rules.  

For example: If you have to roll four separate dice (each with their own modifiers) to resolve a hit, then it's 1/4th the efficiency of a single roll which does the same job. I've also largely moved away from reaction mechanics (Infinity, Tomorrow's War used to be favourites) as I often feel like I am fighting the rules - the reactions are creating too many rules exceptions/confusion and bogging the game down).

Paraphrasing the PC-gamer phrases into wargaming speak:

Game world = units, their stats, status, position and terrain
Ability = actions a unit can take (can be basic like move or shoot, or include spells, jumping, 'special abilities')

UI (Rules/Mechanics) = how a player acts with units, interacts with game world.

In a PC game, the player relies on the UI as he cannot physically interact with the virtual game world or units. It's how he interacts with the game. In wargames, the rules are part of the UI, also defining how a player can physically interact with the units.

So I'd also include the physical models and table as part of the UI - perhaps how you base your models (2" coherency, individual skirmish, in a WFB block of troops) and even the terrain (can you fit that 60mm base model on that 1" wide Necromunda hive ledge).

Go (the boardgame) has an incredibly simple UI/rules. The pieces are easy to use (satisfying too - love that 'click' noise) and manipulate, the squares are distinct, and the rules are simple (there's only 3-4!). The pieces, board and rules fade into the background. In Go you are never fighting the 'UI' - you are fighting your opponent.

Here's some thoughts I've been having as I assemble my 33rd IKEA flat pack...

Are there some wargames where you feel units/factions are needlessly bland and samey? How do you feel about 'buff strength nerf weakness' as a design motto? Will that lead to overly paper-scissors rock gameplay and is that a bad thing? Are there units in wargames which are just broken beyond balancing and need to be completely redesigned? Do wargame designers wear both design and balance hats successfully? Or do they just spend all their time on design?

Are there times you feel like you are fighting the rules? What are indicators of this or particularly common/egregious issues? How can these be mitigated?

Game Design #107: Weird Concepts = Simple Wording

I recently read my daughter The Vagrant. It's pretty weird sci fi for an 11-year-old, where demons have broken through a rift and are kinda possessing/interacting with the human populace, whose empire is led by mysterious angelic beings. 

However. It had short, punchy sentences. Which made it easy to interpret. Kinda like a noir detective novel. Or a comic. Or Lee Childs. 

The short, simple sentences (often quite cleverly chosen) made a difficult book digestible.

So the (perhaps obvious) message here is: The more complex your topic/rules (or unique your mechanics) the simpler your wording and the more illustrations/examples you need.

Here's the rulebook example that made me also think of the topic and prompted this post - I discovered it in my recent exploration of my pdf rules folder:

Killwager. Blomkapfesque sci fi. I loved the idea of it - the rules gave me a feeling that guys who had played Infinity wanted to simplify things, trim out the bloat and make the gameplay flow, with less IGOUGO and more integrated actions. To focus more on gameplay and choices than stats and special rules. My kind of thing. The models are also very cool, if rather pricey for 3D prints.

But it kinda suffered from unclear rules, not helped by renaming common wargaming terms so you had to translate them in your head. Take these passages, which is the very start of the rules:

For a miniature to influence the battlefield it must perform. When a Model performs it may declare Measures and have Measures declared against it. The results of these declarations are called a “performance.” A performing Model may only declare one Measure, or two Measures chained together per performance unless noted.

Each Model may have a maximum of 4 Flow at any time. Flow is a resource. Models spend Flow by declaring Measures. You know how much Flow each opponent’s Model’s have spent. Different Measures spend different amounts of Flow.

First you need to figure out performance = activation, measure = action (not distance), flow = action points....  ^Extra translation stage

....Then grasp how the measures (aka actions) are resolved in a particular order: Automatic -> Direct -> Trained -> Technical. (There's also reactive measures!). Each class of measure (action) has its own sub rules. While there isn't many stats or special rules, there's ~25 actions (measures, I mean!). It certainly needed a lot more illustrations and examples than it contained. Rather like a Steven Eriksen Malazan book, there seemed a kinda assumed familiarity.

The ideas behind Killwager are great. It's certainly different. It's the sort of game where if you are willing to spend time on Discord or watching how-to-play videos, or have an enthusiastic friend to teach you, it's probably great. But the rules should not be reliant on outside sources. As an early adopter, it is very offputting.* Also, paying $35+ AUD for a pdf (which doesn't actually do its job fully) then being asked to pony up for army lists seemed a bit GWesque to me...

*I'm using this as an example, not attacking the author/s - I'd recommend a gander at their latest (free!) rules, BLKOUT (sounds like a musician? like Weeknd!) which has a very tidy layout with rules labelled old-school style like 1.2, 1.3 etc and uses conventionally named Actions, Activations, Initiative etc. It's 100x easier to read and understand - so they obviously have fine tuned things a lot! I wouldn't be surprised if these new rules replaced Killwager altogether.

TL:DR

The post title seems kinda self evident, but the folk who visit this blog seem to be dabblers or even creators of esoteric indie rules and mechanics so I thought it worth highlighting - for example Killwager has great concepts but may not 'stick the landing' or get the widespread play its cool concepts deserve....

Also as a side rant, renaming commonly understood wargaming terms and stats is not creative or innovative, it's f****g annoying.

....Whereas a boring 40K clone like Bolt Action or (surprisingly dense rules) Flames of War needs little explanation/can get away with sub-par examples as I can extrapolate from previous knowledge.

Perhaps as a somewhat isolated gamer in a small town, this is something I notice more than others (as the rulebook is often my first exposure to the game). On the other hand I am an avid PC gamer and tend to also avoid games where you need to spend hours on Youtube to grasp the basic gameplay. (X4: Foundations is an amazing game but the fact is has 120+ keybinds kinda speaks for itself!)

Have you ever come across interesting rules whose rulebook (and layout/explanations/lack thereof) actually was the barrier to playing?

Wargaming Fear + Upcoming Projects

Stress, Fear and Terror

Another topic that interests me is morale, stress and fear.  Most wargames are all about 'kill em all' - morale rules added as an afterthought. Real combat, morale plays a bigger role. And that's fine - we don't want realism if it's boring. If every fight ended after only a few casualties our wargames would hardly be worth setting up!

However I have an ongoing interest in morale rules as I am interested in sci fi horror a la Alien meets the demon possession of the Denzel Washington movie Fallen - where morale plays a strong role. 

I've been experimenting trying to codify 'fear' and stress levels. Here's one attempt:

1 Stress - You have Decent Control

This includes suppressive fire - bullets whistling nearby. A mini is stressed but still has a fair bit of agency. Training is still working.  Perhaps a Willpower roll if you intend to push up into enemy fire/out of cover, but it is possible. Mild -1 debuffs generally, but maybe a mild boost to awareness? The bushes are shaking - do we push on into the raptor enclosure?  

Roll to be allowed to choose what action to do.

2 Fear/Panic - You have Limited Control

This is fear of death, injury - isolation from seeing friends go down. Similar debuffs as 'stressed.' Nearby explosions, flamethrowers can trigger this - and friends being injured or panicking nearby. Maybe pass a Willpower roll to avoid falling back; also triggers some panic responses i.e. fire is spray-n-pray rather than carefully aimed. The T-rex has appeared - do you hold your ground waving the flare or chuck it away and leg it?  

Roll to avoid a forced action?

3 Terror - Fight /Flee/ Freeze / Flop - You have No Control

This is where pure terror sets in. The T-rex has just bitten your friend in half - only yards away.  The zombies have broken through the door and are munching on your room mate. This triggers an automatic response - perhaps randomized - where your mini will freeze in place, flee heedlessly, attack crazily or flop unconscious .   

Roll randomly to get an automatic negative choice.

For horror games, I'm considering a final level - Insanity - triggered by sustained terror - maybe permanent for the rest of the game and could result in catatonic state or even being controlled by enemy players; attacking erstwhile friends in a paranoid frenzy. Their mind is broken.

Gaining/losing fear levels - a mini can jump straight to a higher level instantly; while losing levels is more gradual as it 'calms down.' 

For example, a fear-inducing monster may trigger a Willpower test; a pass means the mini is merely stressed (degrading the impact to the level below) but a fail means the mini is fearful (the fear/panic level).

If next turn the mini is still confronted with the monster, he must roll again. However if the mini manages to retreat, he may attempt to remove a single level if he is not confronted with a stress/fear causing action or opponent his next activation. 

Anyway, the above 3 levels is an example I've used to 'game-ify' some battlefield reactions. I'm not too knowledgable out the topic, apart from skimming some google articles like "The Worm Revisited" and "The Normal Battlefield Reaction" so I'd welcome cool game ideas (or even better articles to reference). Maybe some horror RPGs may prove useful for systems/inspiration?

Led by powerful and malign warlord sorcerers, city-state forces duel for precious Martian resources...*

In the Pipeline

I've got my 15mm out for a "Desert Sci Fi with Mages" - which I originally created as an example last post, but my son is interested in the idea so I'm going to flesh it out into proper rules. He liked the idea of "there are no good guys, everyone is led by a powerful Sith who can face down a mecha 1 on 1."

So naturally he has been pawing through my 15mm boxes making 'setups'...

*Yes, the rubbery brown thing in the back is a fake poop. Maybe it is a sandworm casting full of rare minerals or spice?  9 year olds and their toilet humour...

But what is this in my prep box? Is this 3D printed Battlefleet Gothic cruisers and escorts I see?

Don't expect to see them finished in a hurry - I'm always paralysed by magnetizing - I tend to procrastinate, then not have the right magnets, then double-guess myself with how to best mount them... Currently I'm thinking 'drill all the way through, put a magnet in the middle, and use a staple on the inside of the weapons pods.' But I'll need to stare at them a while first to gee myself up...

In other news I've been doing that DIY classic - building a homebrew generic sci fi skirmish (how original!) that I can use for my kids' Necrounda minis AND incorporate my own disused Infinity models. The interesting bit for me is how much you can simpify/strip it back while retaining a similar 'feel' (actually not hard with Infinity - which has sometimes literally a dozen minor variations on the same special rule!).

The RPG Library

I never play RPGs. There's too much talking and not enough cool toys and pew-pewing swooping cool minis about.  That said, yesterday when looking through my sci fi rules I realise I've got a few:
Scum & Villainy, Blue Planet, Alien, Coriolis, Eclipse Phase, Mindjammer, Traveller, Mothership, Numenera, Rifts, StarswithoutNumber, Those Dark Places, Tales from the Loop. And those are just the ones downloaded on my new computer - quite a few did not come across (I'm pretty sure you can redownload from DriveThruRPG though).

I'm currently skimming through them for inspiration, especially for fear/morale and tech. So far the freebie Eclipse Phase has the most interesting ideas (mostly in the vein of Altered Carbon resleeving/cortical stacks). I don't think any wargame has leant into this very much. Heck, even hacking, drones and e-warfare isn't much of a thing. 

Hmm, maybe a future project.

Game Design #106: Borrowing Vibes

Lately, I've been thinking about game atmosphere, game feel, and background. The things that "set the scene" and make you want to play the game, paint minis and make terrain; as opposed to the game mechanics themselves (which seldom make you want to play a game, but can make you want to quit playing).

There has been a rise of "vibe" games (thanks, Eric Farrington for the term in last post's comments - I'm going to appropriate it!) which are heavy on the atmosphere and light on the actual gameplay. His examples - Turnip 28 - epic kitbashed mutant turnip-headed Napoleonics-meets-100-Years-war has amazing atmosphere and makes me want to reach for the greenstuff and my bitz box. The mechanics are simple, bog standard and mostly are remarkable for cutesily renaming common wargame terms. Another - The Doomed - has groups of sci-fi monster hunters which play scenarios against horrors and rival gangs culminating in a 'boss fight' - epic cool factor; but it's barely a game, mechanically. These vibe games function more as a reason to be creative than a weekly game night staple.

Even though I'd wish more from them mechanically/gameplay-wise (why I'm not playing either) I'm not here to attack these rules (I wish them all the best success); I am interested on how we can easily recreate similar vibes. Or rather, borrow ideas from more creative folk.

Sorcerers are supported by mechs in the world of Delta Mars...
 

Old Ideas, New Games

I mean, GW's juggernaut has done this for years - they have incorporated every piece of pop culture - Space Marines (70s novels), Necrons (Terminator), Tau (Gundam), Tyannids (Alien), Judge Dredd, and space elves, orks and dwarves (Squats I never knew ye) - fused with WW2-meets-fantasy tech. The wargaming juggernaut of the 40K universe is a glorious fusion of blatantly unoriginal ideas. 

You don't need raw creativity and originality, just research skills. Smoosh some ideas and concepts together and make a new "vibe." Shakespeare didn't write anything original.

"The Theme" vs "The Thing"

As distinct from theme, I'd also like to introduce the "the thing" - a gameplay hook or mechanic to differentiate your atmospheric game from the other games. For example, in Necropolis:

The "theme" - undead warbands fighting in the afterlife/a dead world - is strong with lots of modelling and creative opportunities. 

The "thing": Destroyed minis leave 'mana' or spirit essence behind, which can be collected and used to power spells and even bid to control NPC monsters!

It's not just set of rebadged/renamed generic mechanics - it has it's own unique gameplay hook "thing" that fits the theme. It's more than "just vibes" that you can create with just some cool mini pics or art. There's not just style, there's some substance as well.

In practice...

OK, let's put these ideas together. I'm going to "borrow" ideas from elsewhere. I want a strong theme, and a "thing." I don't play RPGs at all, but I do have a pretty good library of pdfs. Bonus points if you can spot my inspiration.

My son loves my 15mm sci fi, but I'm bored of the "Vietnam in space" rules. I'm going science fantasy. So powerful and plentiful magic and psykers. In addition, I have lots of desert terrain in 15mm and a sand table which is cool but never gets enough use. OK, here we go:

The Theme - Creative Appropriation

Amid the barren wastes of Mars, city states are ruled by sorcerers and their dark magics. The vast, barren wastes and deserts are deadly; monsters, feral tribesmen, nomads, powerful psychics, jackalfolk, prawns and salamander aliens dwell in scattered villages and killer robot replicants mine the cave systems below. Water is scarce, oasis rare - rivers nonexistent. The searing wastes are harsh and deadly. Everyone is fighting for survival - either against enemy sorcerers or tribesman who need your water canteen.

OK, we have a distinct theme. Harsh desert world. Sci fi Afghanistan+splash D&D, not Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars.

Lead by a pysker, the troops of the city-state fan out around a remote shack.

The Thing - Unique Gameplay Hook

While psykers are common, they draw from within their own limited focus and energy. Templars (elite stormtroopers) of the sorcerers have limited necomancy or combat spells granted by their dark patrons.

Sorcerers, however, wield almost limitless power, drawn from the life energies of the environment - living things. Apprentice sorcerers ("defilers"), either rogues or apprentices under the guidance of their sorcerer lords, are often seen on the battlefield where they wield terrifying magics.

A sorcerer 'defiles' an AoE area around or adjacent to him; the longer he takes the larger the AoE affected and the more powerful the spell. This defiled ground makes future casting very difficult, and harms both friendly and enemy troops inside the radius at time of casting. 

The thing is the strong, universal use of magic, namely the AoE of malign vampiric magic which harms friends and foes.

What the Gameplay Looks Like (Game Design Criteria) aka "Delta Mars" Rules

The tech is still gritty 1970s Vietnam/Afghanistan-in-space - not much impact of actual tech, but with plentiful D&D-style magic. Sorcerers lead platoons and psykers are attached to fire teams or squads. Sorcerers are like fire support artillery or AFVs in terms of impact capable of almost single-handedly wiping out squads and turning the tide of battle; psykers or templars are more squad level in effect - like a single mortar or MMG which provide an 'edge' to fire teams.

In this harsh world, shooting and melee will be lethal. So high 'to hit' and 'to damage' percentages? However in the wastes there may be little cover; if range are unlimited maybe make a significant penalty beyond 'effective range' to avoid factions trading fire from their baselines?

Basic mechanics need to be quick and simple if we've got lots of magic complicating things; so no complex reaction mechanics beloved of hard sci fi.  Few modifiers. Fire teams use similar weapon types so you can usually do a single 'handful of dice' roll. Game is platoon level/a la 40K; divide into 3-5 man fire teams for activation purposes.

There are frequent terrifying monsters (mostly made from K-Mart dinosaurs and repurposed Tyrannids?) roaming the tabletop; which attack any nearby forces (friend or foe) but can be redirected by wizards. 

The AoE created by mages defiling will be as key gameplay feature; both as 'terrain' to avoid, and decisions (do you draw life from your own troops to boost your magic? Do you risk your sorcerer by moving close to enemies to draw their life force? Do you move your mage from cover to a more fertile area to boost his effectiveness?

TL:DR

A strong theme may not carry a game on its own; does the gameplay support it with a hook, like Necropolis with its collecting mana from fallen fighters to power magic?

You don't have to be original. Shakespeare isn't. 40K certainly isn't. Themes/backgrounds can be borrowed or repurposed - my example theme, for example, rebadged ideas from a 90s D&D supplement - I could have distanced myself further from it if I wasn't trying to make the link obvious. As my old uni professor said - borrow from several sources to show masterful research!

Finally, check your game design actually matches the theme. A game of heroic swordfighting where guns are very lethal will quickly lead to players hiding in corners rather than engaging in valiant duels.

Game Atmosphere, LoTR Rescues and 3D Prints

Whilst we moved in months ago, a barrage of furniture (36 IKEA flat packs!) has dulled my enthusiasm for assembling minis. That said, I did make some progress with some low-hanging fruit; I grabbed some bright green glowy secondhand warriors of the deads off eBay. 

I just did a bit of a darker wash and a white drybrush to make them a bit more subdued and less 'neon.'

This was a quick hour or two of work and +24 brings my 2024 LoTR painted count up to 92. Whilst I already have some 3D printed Black Numenoreans they were kinda weedy so I  replaced them with yet more 3D printed ones.

They were dead easy to paint and as you can see line up OK with the oversized, beefy Victrix vikings aka Dunlendings:....

Given GW doesn't even MAKE Black Numenoreans any more (and they're a pretty core unit!) 3D prints are a no brainer. The beauty of 3D printing is it's also so cheap I can experiment - at a fraction of the price of GW even when you could buy the official sculpts.  I had 6 mounted aka Morgul Knights and 6 foot Numenoreans resin printed professionally for the price of a single box of 4. Anyway, another +12 to bring my LoTR paint count to 104. 

 

Hunt: Showdown. If its atmosphere was any thicker you could cut it with a knife.

Atmosphere in Games

I've been thinking about this a bit of late. Firstly, I've been  a lot of Mechwarrior Online (PC) with my 9 year old. I'd recommend it as good 'old gamer dad' game, as it's pretty slow paced, and customizing (aka min-maxing) your mech is fun for tinkerers. It's a pretty basic kill-em-all arena shooter, but there's a surprising amount of nerds/lore in the chat, and it has inspired a lot of interest in mechs in our house!  However - the Battletech rules are obtuse, antiquated and gluggy and the Alpha Strike rules are unfit for purpose. There are free generic mech wargames around - but we kinda want the 'feel' of Battletech - heat sinks, jumpjets, and the 'official' weaponry - PPCs, gauss, lasers, SRMs. We want to 'feel' Battletech mechs, not use LEGO gundam rules.

It's atmosphere. Lore. World building. It's why I am thinking about printing off Mordhiem rules again, even though it's gameplay is kinda dated. It's the gothic ruins and ratmen, the strong sense of identity and mood. (The PC game Vermintide does this pretty well too, but a tad too violent for my kid!). Mordhiem's strong sense of identity inspires scratch building, customisation and narrative - decades after it was discontinued.

Or why am I considering resurrecting Battlefleet Gothic with 3D prints despite having perfectly serviceable Dropfleet rules and minis? Kilometres-long flying cathederals jumping through demon-haunted hyperspace just makes the latter game seem sterile and generic with it's paint-by-the-numbers factions and world-building.

I am even trying/learning the PC game Hunt:Showdown - in genre I broadly dislike - an extraction based PvP shooter: kinda PubG with extra steps and permadeath/loot loss, so hackers can ruin your day even more - but it drips with atmosphere and has me digging out Wild Weird West miniatures. It's lore and atmosphere makes me want to play and be part of the universe, even if I am not that keen on the 'rules' so to speak.

Generic Mechanics, No Lore....

About ~10-15 years back the indie wargame scene had heaps on "generic/universal wargame rules" - basically a set of mechanics that claimed to allow you to "use any miniatures" to fight anything from Roman Legionaires to Star Wars. Basically, they hung their hat on having cleaner/better mechanics than 40K (admittedly not a difficult bar) and the ability to use 'any miniatures in your collection.'

I can't think of any that stayed around. There was nothing wrong with them - there was just no reason to play them. By catering to everything, and having no set background, lore or atmosphere - they appealed to no one. 

The only game system that did well from this era I reckon was the Song of Blades series. Probably because it had spin-offs that specifically catered to different eras - Napoleonics, fantasy, Arthurian, furry animals a la Redwall, post-apoc, swashbuckling - while the underlying mechanics were similar, each rulebook was actually quite specific and actually did have a distinct atmosphere. The rules themselves were OK but not amazing - interesting activation, swingy combat, use of 101 special rules to actually differentiate models in attempt to 'simplify.' I think I spent more time creating warbands than playing the rules. Rather than being a staple of a gaming session, it enabled my creativity. Which leads me to what I see a fair bit of now...

....Strong Lore, Minimal Mechanics

I think Frostgrave is a good example of this. The rules themselves are pretty meh: packaged as a standalone generic set (like in the earlier era) no one would give them a second glance. However they are packaged with lots of lore and background, successfully bottling some of the Mordhiem lightening (warbands searching for magical artifacts in a ruined city *cough*). The lore and atmosphere carries the rules - they give you a reason to play. Most of the old generic rulesets are probably better rules than Frostgrave - mechanics-wise - but is anyone playing them?

Having a strong background; yet freedom to customise - this attracts the tinkerers, scratchbuilders - those who just want a framework to create. Who don't mind the odd house rule, swingy mechanics or lack of clarity. And there's a fair overlap between those folk and people who buy indie wargames. Those serious about competition and regular games will probably opt for something more popular and commercial.

I wonder if there is a risk in being too specific. I thought Zone Raiders did a great job of making a sci fi skirmish game for those wanting lighter fare than Infinity. It had a strong lore and background - mega cities like from Blame! - but the weapons and gear tended to only come from that setting. A list of generic standard sci-fi weapons would make the rules more adaptable. Because the weapons and gear kinda specifically focussed the game on a niche setting, it may have minimised it's audience? I know it's actually dissuaded me from playing until I get more terrain to match the mega city vibe and paint suitable models.

I've always enjoyed LoTR:SBG. It has very strong lore and background, and not only (a) decent rules simple but some tactics and  (b) rules that match the lore - or at least the heroic action in the movies. Terrain is pretty easy - generic medieval. You can easily adapt non-official minis. 

I wonder if there is another category - overly complex/detailed rules, strong lore - which would include many RPGs along with games like Infinity (which always felt like it was made by a RPGer).

Anyhow, I guess my question I am exploring/googling for the moment is: 

What are wargame rules with strong settings, excellent 'atmosphere'? (Obviously not including the obvious ones like 40K, Battletech, etc)

Maybe there are RPG backgrounds (an area obviously strong on lore) that could be adapted to a wargame?

Delta "Forza"? Homebrew Car Racing Wargaming

My kids (including daughter!) have had a sudden craze for cars this last week, probably due to me introducing them to the PC game Forza Horizon 4. I can't walk down our hall, without tripping over Hot Wheels which are being tested off a ramp for speed and distance (they have elaborate championships with knockout heats).

I loved the idea of Gaslands but found it kinda gluggy and slow to play. Although my homebrew rules LOOK a bit like it, they probably owe more to my fuzzy recollections of a GW(?) game called Dark Future, where you moved along rectangles of highway in a set direction. I kinda adapted them into templates cos I'm too lazy to rule up/grid miles of highway gameboard. And we just had pizza and I need to get rid of the boxes...

 

My templates are based on 4x8cm rectangles and 45/90d turns.

My son (who had set up a medieval battle nearby; where he uses no dice and merely the coolest guy wins - a literal 'rule of cool') wanted to know what was up; so I made up some rules on the spot and he raced some cars around the track.  He had some ideas to improve it; he also wants damage and a way to tune your car (level up its stats) between races as well as improve your driver's stats and skills, which sounds kinda fun actually. But this is what we played, typed up:

Order of Play

Each player rolls; in order of highest dice to lowest, players chooses who goes first – either themselves OR they can select another player after them in the order.

Ties are broken by (a) best driver then (b) fastest gear then (c) fastest car

Basically, you can 'game the system' to create more rams, chaos etc for others

What you need

A set of templates

A d6 to be the turn 'clock'

A gear d6 for each car

Damage tokens for each car (wheel/handling, engine, crew)

Two different coloured d6 (crew + stat)

 

I based all my templates on a 4x8cm grid - the idea was from Dark Future....

DICE RESOLUTION: TWO STAT SYSTEM – It’s the driver AND the car; the man not just the machine…. Each situation rolls two different coloured dice. You must roll equal or above the relevant stat to succeed. A ‘1’ always fails and a ‘6’ always succeeds. Basically, roll both d6 and compare each to its relevant stat: “Success” Two successes – you do it well/get a bonus! “Partial” One success/one fail – you do it OK “Fail” Two fails – you fail DRIVER DICE ROLL – this is 3+ (expert/elite), 4+ (professional) and 5+ (amateur/rookie) Plus….. any one of these stats CAR DICE ROLL. The stat used depends on what you are doing. SPEED – this is top speed. It is used when driving in a straight line (and if speed 5+) to get a ‘boost’ move. It also determines the top gear. It is written as top gear + dice roll; i.e. 5/3+ ACCEL – this is used to increase the “gear” or “speed level” at the start of the activation; or a boost after a turn HANDLING – this is used to perform risky turns and rams BRAKE – this is used to reduce the gear/speed level or make a short “brake move”

STAT levels are broad: 2+ supercar (Lamborghini, McLaren); 3+ sports car (Corvette, M3); 4+ standard sedan (Ford Caprice, etc); 5+ poor (van, truck) Speed cap is basically  6 = Supercar (300kph+); 5 = Sports Car (250kph); 4 = V6 Sedans (200kph); 3 = van, truck, small V4 sedan (150kph) Examples: Car Top Gear/ Speed Roll Accel Handling Brake Special Toyota 86/ BRZ 4/4+ 4+ 2+ 3+ Drift Dodge Hellcat 5/3+ 2+ 4+ 4+ Hefty Koenigsigg/Zonda/etc 6/2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ BMW M3 5/3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ I’m tempted to switch to d10 actually so I can have a broader spread of car stats, say 4-5-6-7-8-9...

 

I ended up with a very simple set of templates. The small triangle is for 90d skids or 45d drifts and the "brake/boost" short rectangle is used for short moves or as a bonus move on the end of the turn if you roll well....

STEP 1: ACCELERATE/BRAKE You can always change your speed (up/down) by 1 for free. Car speed/gear is denoted by a d6 placed beside the car; roughly corresponding to 40-50kph per pip. ACCELERATE However if you want to accelerate more, you roll a Accel Test. Basically this is rolling vs acceleration stat and driver stat. Two success = you can increase gear by 3 One success = you can increase gear by 2 No success = you cannot increase gear at all. BRAKE The braking is just like acceleration in reverse; a Brake Test (roll vs brake and driver stats) Two success = you can decrease gear by 3 One success = you can decrease gear by 2 No success = you cannot decrease gear at all.

My son wanted to know about the extra move templates he spotted, and wanted to use them... I said he hadn't bought the expansion DLC.....

STEP 2: MOVING THE CAR A turn is broken into 6 sub-phases. Cars only move if their speed corresponds to the phase. All cars move on phase 1; but only a speed 6 car would still move in sub-phase 6. If your car can activate, determine the order of play (see above) each sub-phase, then.... (a) Choose a template (b) Check your gear (c) Roll dice There are three speed levels to be aware of that impact movement; low (1-2); medium (3-4) and high (5+). Below are the templates and how they work.  BRAKE (8cm) Use Brake Stat to test. 2 Success = May also choose Drift 45 or 90d in a direction of your choice “Brake Turn” 1 Success = Just move straight 8cm Fail = Spin or Skid randomly STRAIGHT (16cm) Does not need to test but may opt to Boost. Use Speed Stat to test. 2 Success = May Boost a bonus 8cm 1 Success = Move forward normally Fail = Move forward only 8cm (Brake) instead of the usual 16cm “Clutch slipped” GENTLE TURN (16cm + 45d) Must test if 5+ Gear. Use Handling to test. 2 Success = May Drift 45d in direction of turn OR opt to roll a single Accel dice* to see if boost 1 Success = Usual turn Fail = Spin or Skid randomly SWERVE (16cm; two 45d turns) Must Test if 3+ Gear. Use Handling to test 2 success = May Drift 45d in direction of last turn OR opt to roll a single Accel dice* to see if boost 1 Success = Usual swerve Fail = Spin or Skid randomly SHARP TURN (16cm + 90d) Must test if in 3+ Gear. Use Handling to test. 2 Success = May Drift 45d in direction of turn OR opt to roll a single Accel dice* to see if boost 1 Success = Usual turn Fail = Spin or Skid randomly Extra Information: *If top gear is 5+ may use Speed stat instead, if it is better. If current speed exceeds the 'must test' speed of a template; -1 to the roll each level... A 45d DRIFT causes a player to drop -1 level of speed. A 90d SKID causes a player to drop -2 level of speed. My son wanted to compare current speed to handling stat i.e. if your handling is 4, roll for any maneuvers at speed 5 or more… So the better your handling, the faster you go before needing to check. This makes sense, but requires me to rework my mechanics. =New Mechanics: Probably roll low = best i.e. roll equal or below a stat? i.e. Speed 4 = roll 4 or below to succeed….

The Shelby roars over the finish line as the Lambo spins out. We had a few rams, spin outs, and drifts and cars 'swerved' in front and got shunted along. To keep things simple, both cars were basic sports cars with professional drivers (see M3 profile above).

3. RAMMING, SKIDS & SPINS If a movement template intersects with an enemy car, the enemy car is either (a) moved aside or (b) shunted forward. If moved aside it is placed 45d from the template at an angle corresponding to the contact point. The ramming player finishes its move. RAMMING RESULTS Both players roll a Handling Check and compare successes. -The loser tests to Skid/Spin Out (see below) -If there is a tie, the rammer (moving car) merely shunts defender car sideways 45d like a drift (making it lose -1) 90d SKID/SPIN OUT If a car loses control, roll another Handling Check. Two passes = the car skids 90d One pass = consult spin table; reduce speed -3 Fail = car spins and reduce speed to 0   Using the Spin Table There are 8 faces, 1 each 45d. N=0, NE=45, E=90, SE=135, S=180, etc. Roll a d6. Begin counting at 45. So a 1 = 45, 2 = 90, 3 = 135, 4 = 180

It worked quite reasonably and seemed faster than Gaslands. Obviously, there was no combat/damage (yet) but the templates were simpler, and there was no 'recording' carrying over besides the speed dice next to the car. 

My son would like the mechanics to link speed and handling more, besides additions of damage - he'd like to increase the violence a bit more. I'd consider 'roll low on d10' as a universal mechanic that would allow car stats to be more granular. I tend to be pretty casual about mechanics and don't mind completely swapping d6 roll high for d10 roll low... it's more about the % they create and consistency/simplicity...

I probably also need to revisit spins/flips and negative effects. (Bear in mind I invented this 'on the fly' so it probably has a lot of 'assumed' knowledge and is not well explained...)

The lad also would like a 'campaign' where you can tune cars between races (i.e. i.e. add a turbo to increase speed stat +1 etc, add race tyres and strip weight for +1 handling etc); with drivers gaining skills - e.g. say "drift" makes the driver better at bonus drift moves etc.... Which would be fun to design but I need to make the game work consistently first...

Anyway, time for bed....

Delta Vector 2024 - Spaceship Game Design Manifesto - and some LEGO, LoTR

 This is mostly a post about spaceship rules. But my 8 y/o son painted some miniatures, so here they are:

He also has some rather cool not-LEGO. The army guys in particular may prompt some simplified LEGO wargame rules. 

OK, back to spaceships.

Spaceship rules are something I revisit every year, I create/play a few test games, then put them away, distracted by some new shiny. It's tradition. In fact, whinging about how spaceship games are boring wet-navy-in-space was one of my first forays into making games (besides the "make 40K better" most wargamers have tried). Hello, 2012. I then pumped out 30+ posts in April 2012 outlining my game. I just had a quick skim - it was obvious the games I liked and played at the time!

Making near future sci fi (so it's not just Vietnam in space) and jet fighter games (this is super difficult as the nature of jet combat seems naturally opposed to wargaming) as well as "better Mordhiem" "better aeronef" and "supercavitating fighter subs" and more recently "tank commander RPG" also get annual dust-offs. 

As I get older I am less interested in pet mechanics. The game mechanics must merely be simple, easy and serve the purpose. I like them to be consistent if possible. (Although I've always found this hard in space games). It's like a car. I don't care what is under the hood as long as it goes fast and is easy to maintain.

Ok, LoTR pics + space discussion is a bit confusing but I like to track my painting in the blog and I don't like empty posts. These Victrix are serving as Wildman of Dunland - a cheap horde option.

DELTA VECTOR the GAME: 2024 MANIFESTO

I do one of these periodically, to remind me of my core focus. How do I want the game to play?

Influences were EvE Online (game), The Lost Fleet (book) and The Expanse (book/tv). It was not designed to play Star Wars or Star Trek. It is more like a combined arms game (or party RPG) not a mass fleet battle game. It should give a unique "feel" of space not just WW2 navies/age of sail-with-spaceships.

There should be minimal record keeping and no needless recording. Anything that is recorded should provide a meaningful choice/tactics. There's no "empty hitboxes" where you tick off 10 hits and nothing happens. Recording for a single ship should not be more extensive than a General Quarters SDS or a Warmachine warjack. The game should handle 2-6 ships per side; task forces comprise of a couple of big ships and a handful of escorts.

All Ships Have a Role

The game is more like a modern task force (2-6 ships) than giant fleets. Small escorts are not just cannon fodder but are vital in supporting the fleet and can even take down battleships if correctly employed. Inspired by EvE Online, small ships can tackle (stop ships warping off); paint targets, jam and defend against missiles as well as launch attacks from difficult to defend directions.

Movement - Space, not Sea

This has a sense of momentum. Ship trajectories can be predicted. Ships can drift one way and face the other - to brake quickly, bring weapons to bear or show undamaged shields. I have used some good systems but they have been messy. Small ships have high thrust and are unpredictable, while lumbering battleships positions can be calculated a turn in advance.  This allows small ships to dictate fights.

The inclusion of reaction mechanics allow you to engage a series of ships in your path, with ranges being measured from the enemy bases to the closest point on your path past them.

Missiles, Terrain, AoE = Tactics

To avoid space feeling empty and encouraging a scrum in the middle; missiles make an AoE "attack zone" - a radius (almost like dangerous terrain) to be avoided. Battles always occur near something of importance, never in empty space. Gravity can affect ship trajectories. Asteroids block fire.

Facing - Shields and Spinal Mounts = Tactics

Ship facing matters.  Firepower is weaker through rear arcs. Shields cover forward and aft hemispheres; one side can be up and the other undefended. Mighty spinal weapons fire forwards in narrow arcs; laser batteries cover broadsides. This is another way for a thoughtful player in a small ship to outplay a larger ship. Shields are probably just up or down; i.e. attacks are resolved vs shields and if breached then excess (or future) damage is resolved vs the ship.

Lightspeed, Relative Trajectories = Tactics

How the ships approach each other matters. (This is vectors/direction of movement, not facing)

Example: (a) Both ship head on = combine velocities = add; (b) One ship approaches other side on = use highest velocity; (c) Chase (one approaching from rear) = difference in velocities = subtract.

Yes, math - but we're talking about the sort you can do on your fingers. Why does this matter? Because lightspeed hard caps movement and firing. As you get closer to lightspeed; you are harder to hit. Again, small high-thrust ships can control modifiers.

Signature Range, Target Numbers and Reactions = Tactics

Ships have a signature - their size + how "noisy" or "bright" they are. There's no magic cloaking. No ships are invisible (unless behind an asteroid etc) - it's just about acquiring a predictable target solution. A distant target may have moved since the light reflected from them arrives at your sensors. A ship with a large, hot signature is easy to react to and predict and thus has a wider "reaction" radius. I.e. a sig 3 small ship might trigger reactions from enemies within 6" and a sig 7 ship trigger reactions within 14". The ship sig also determines how easy it is to hit - the sig 7 ship might be 70% and the sig 3 only 30%, for example. This makes small ships surprisingly survivable, not disposable glass cannons or extra hitpoints for capital ships - they're hard to engage and hard to hit.

Capacitors (mana) = Resource Management/Tactics

A bit like shields - you either have spare energy or you don't; there's no complex recording. Capacitor power is like mana or stamina - you use it to power extra abilities like extra (or overloading) energy bursts; restoring shields, jamming enemies or charging warp drives.

Capacitor boosters or batteries allows you to maximize your "support" tech or simply fire and defend more often/powerfully. It's an X-factor that allows more player decisions. 

I found some unpainted Rohan during my shed clean. My total +29 = 68 LoTR for the month.

Simple but Distinct Weapons = Tactics

Weapons should be limited in selection but act differently; not just a +1/-1 modifier.  Range bands are simple: effective range and falloff range. Many weapons can change ammo types mid-game which adds player agency. You choose the right tool for the job.

Kinetic weapons are grouped into railguns (which fire AP shells or shotgun AA flak rounds) and PDCs (rapid fire small calibre miniguns). They are inaccurate at long range especially against fast movers but lose no damage (and even gain damage if closing velocities are high enough).

Energy weapons are grouped into cutting beams and pulse (pew pew) lasers; the latter mode is weaker but rapid fire with faster tracking; more for engaging fast targets with short bursts. Lasers are accurate but weaken at long range. Weaker against shields.

Missiles are divided into giant slow short-range anti ship torpedoes, long ranged guided missiles, and short ranged rapid fire/seeker swarm micro-missiles. They retain momentum from the firing ship which impacts range/AoE. Missiles are a great leveller; torpedoes can allow even a small escort to down a battleship, while agile escorts can avoid them (and their heavy PDC armament can shoot them down). 

Missile bays can also deploy unguided AoE EMP bombs - fired along a ship's vector to break locks and nova bombs - which do very slight damage to ships but are deadly to missiles and drones. Likewise similar AoE interdictor bombs prevent warping. They work on friend or foe.

Many weapons can swap between modes/ammo types from turn to turn (which is a decision). Weapons are classed as small, medium and large. Spinal weapons are very powerful but have a limited firing arc.

Drones not Starfighters = More AoE

There are no expendable one-man snub fighters. Drones are tethered to the mothership (another AoE to maneuver/consider). They are similar to missiles but have unlimited endurance and usually their own subsystems and weapons. Sentry drones orbit and protect their own ship.

Drones can perform support duties like webbing and various E-war; as well as self/ally repair (like a AoE healer).

Support Tools, E-War = Combined Arms Tactics

There are a few key tools/roles that debuff enemies or buff allies. Small ships are useful as a fast, cheap way to provide these roles - mostly borrowed from EvE Online. These support tools take up "bays" in the ship, and can kinda align ships to "classes" like a RPG.

E-War/Sensors: Can include target designators = increase enemy sig size + buff own/ally weapons; disruptors = decreases accuracy of specific enemy ships/weapons/reduce ally sigs; jammers = disable weapons (if use energy; emp bursts (AOE) jam. A tracking computer increases the ships' own weapon accuracy. Drone links increase drone range and buff drone rolls.

Energy/Repair = booster batteries (less chance to drain energy) and rechargers. Hull Repair Nanobots = heal self.

Tackle:Tractor Beams/Stasis Webs = slow/tow enemy ships/move self and others vector; warp interdictor beams = stop enemy ship warping.

Propulsion: Microwarps = straight-line tactical warp jump from A to B to avoids reactions (drains energy); afterburners (double sig, double thrust) = uses lots energy

Shield: overboosters or rechargers (increase size of shield or restore)

Limited But Flexible Build System

Ships have "mounts" that can fit certain weapon types or sizes.They have set turret mounts and sizes i.e. a cruiser may have weapon bays, subdivided into "3 medium turrets" and "no drone bays" and "2 missile bays" as well as general bays, subdivided into "1 sensor slot" and "2 support slots". A ship can have a maximum of one turret designated as a spinal mount (supersized weapon).

Particular ship types may have innate "perks" - +1 or so to energy recharge, or drone attacks, etc - which combined with hardpoints/layours encourage a particular style of play. So you can min-max; but within a pretty structured framework - something I enjoy from Mechwarrior: Online. Aim is to allow creativity but not 'anything goes.' Just like the whole game is not attempting to be a 'sandbox' for every spaceship movie ever.

Ok visitors arriving so I'll post this up. If anyone is interested I may put up some of my experimenting with the rules...