Home Forums General Game Design What Game Would You Like To Play That May Not Exist?

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20518
    Mr. Average
    Participant

    Given other threads about games that we like, or that didn’t work for us, and so forth, I thought it might be interesting to think about what kind of game your really like to play, but which doesn’t (yet) exist. I’m speaking from a design standpoint, here, in terms of the “feel” or experience of the game that you’d like to have rather than specifics of how they’d work mechanically, since I’m hardly smart enough to get into such things. And, a I realize also that I might be alone in thinking of games this way – I draw comics, and tend to think of everything in a narrative or experience-driven way.

    So, imagine someone is describing a game you’ve never played – what would it be if it were to immediately capture your imagination and interest?

    So, that said, I’ll start off by saying that a game I would really like to play would be a science fiction skirmish game at the very lowest level, in which each player controls a single squad of units. This is an idea I have actually played around with in a limited way. I’m a big fan of Yokoyama’s “SF3D” milieu, and five-on-five-or-thereabouts power armor squad combat, with customizable weapons, soldier traits, etc., is something I’d definitely like to play, but I don’t really think it exists. I’d particularly like it with a campaign game in mind, developing your troops over time, with a kind of RPG sensibility.

    Maybe I’ve just described the game XCOM, but with a more tactile framework. Either way, it’s a description of a probably-nonexistent game that would seriously capture my attention.

    Anyone else care to do some concept design of their own? I’d be very interested to see what the free-wheeling intellects here find interesting in that department.

    #20524
    Mike
    Keymaster

    I would like to play a game where you are the crew of a vehicle that captures the danger and excitement, with a campaign element to allow crew to level up.
    A bit like Adeptus Titanicus maybe, but a tank or something.

    #20525
    James Ewins
    Participant

    Much much less free wheeling…. But I would still like to work out how to model the aztec method of fighting for captives onto a dbx/hordes basic system. One day I might even sit down and think about it.

    /
    Chief Sarcaster at http://www.exmouthwargames.org.uk/
    Assistant Dogsbody at http://legionaryshow.co.uk/
    /

    #20532
    James Ewins
    Participant

    Incidently Mr Average have you tried the Nordic Weasel games? Might be clise to what you want.

    /
    Chief Sarcaster at http://www.exmouthwargames.org.uk/
    Assistant Dogsbody at http://legionaryshow.co.uk/
    /

    #20600
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    I might have you covered there Mr Average 😉

    For me, I’ll answer with “the game I always wanted to write” :

    “New Rogue Trader”.

    That is all.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20601
    McLaddie
    Participant

    I have always expected, but never seen a wargaming app for  a computer or ipad that acts as an IA which produces subordinate decisions, perhaps superior commander influences and even chance events, something that could be used with any number of rules.  For games with two players, I’d like to see that.

    #20631
    Thaddeus Blanchette
    Participant

    A system-level fleet combat game that mirrors the battles in CJ Cherryh’s “Downbelow Station”.

    We already have miniatures for it:

    http://www.shapeways.com/product/Y3DG7LBN2/lcs-carrier?li=shop-results&optionId=3061943

    But what I want is a system-wide battle that can be played to completion in an hour or so, as part of an on-going campaign. Maybe 15 ships to a side.

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #20642
    Sparker
    Participant

    Pacific War Carrier Air Battles, the whole 9 yards, with each fleet on separate tables, but played with rules that deliver the essence of Midway or whathaveyou, but without the angst and book-keeping…Well this is a fantasy question isn’t it?

    I have dropped a hint or three to Sam Mustafa, but he’s kinda busy!

     

    http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
    'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
    Matthew 5:9

    #20790
    Sam Mustafa
    Participant

    Pacific War Carrier Air Battles…  I have dropped a hint or three to Sam Mustafa, but he’s kinda busy!

     

    It’s one of my very favorite topics, and one that I actually know a fair bit about.  I designed that game about 8 years ago, actually.  We played it to death at our club, and I ultimately decided not to publish it. I couldn’t see a way to make it a good business move.

    #20792
    Thaddeus Blanchette
    Participant

    Oh, c’mon, Sam! At least web publish it!

    Now I want to play it. 🙁

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #20793
    kyoteblue
    Participant

    I would like a Pacific Carrier air war game as well.

    #20795
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Sam – Have you considered kickstarting it?
    Alternatively, you could put what is already done out there in a “Pay what you want, take it as it is” format.

    Of course, there’s good reasons not to use either format and if you’ve already considered and dismissed them, I am confident it was for good reasons 🙂

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20796
    John D Salt
    Participant

    I’d like to see a WW2 air combat game that lets me command multiple squadrons, with resolution to individual aircraft, and which does a reasonable job of modelling the difficulties of fighter control, the effects of AA weapons, and the difference berween schwarme and vic tactics (as discussed in Dizzy Allen’s “Who Won the Battle of Britain?”).

    I’d also like a “road trip” game of WW2 convoy escort tactics, which I have a substantial amount of information about, but have yet to work out how to beat into a smooth and enjoyable game.

    Oh, and an infantry section and platoon tactics game with the same simplicity as DBA, but showing how a junior commander needs to achieve his aim with a simple plan and personal example before he runs out of blokes, energy, morale or ammo.

    And a BG command game where the players assemble a plan from control measures, and the game rules then make the progress of the battle automatic until a player gets a chance to intervene based on a decision point in his plan.

    All the best,

    John.

    #20805
    John McBride
    Participant

    Fencing. Not just individual bouts but also competing in a tournament with opportunities to watch competitors whom you have not faced yet.

    #20807
    McLaddie
    Participant

    Oh, and an infantry section and platoon tactics game with the same simplicity as DBA, but showing how a junior commander needs to achieve his aim with a simple plan and personal example before he runs out of blokes, energy, morale or ammo.

    John:

    While not exactly what you are detailing, I am assuming you know about Phil Sabin’s WWII-Present Platoon-level board games?   It would be simple to move them to a game table.

     

    #20829
    John D Salt
    Participant

    John:
    While not exactly what you are detailing, I am assuming you know about Phil Sabin’s WWII-Present Platoon-level board games? It would be simple to move them to a game table.

    Yes, I have made up my own set of counters for “Block Busting”, and I had the pleasure of playing Martin Rapier’s Gucci version of “Fire and Movement” with miniatures and Kallistra hexes at COW a couple of years ago. I vastly admire Phil Sabin’s masterly ability to simplify systems to their quintessence, and if ever he is murdered so that his simplification glands can be rendered into powerful medicine for the game designer, I am bound to be a prime suspect. However these games are section-a-counter games, and the specific game I was yearning for was a game where the player is cast as a section or platoon commander, and the counters/miniatures/icons are individual soldiers.

    I have lost count of the number of rules and games I have tried that address this level of command, and there are many more that I still have not tried. Some are excellent. In the boardgame field I very much like SPI’s “Patrol”, VG’s “Ambush” series and AH’s “Platoon”, and Omega Games’ ‘Ranger’. On the tabletop the old WRG Infantry Action rules and Buck Surdu’s BAPS stand out head and shoulders above the usual run of skirmish rules. But all of these are quite complicated, generally lack any representation of the intertwingled fatigue, load carrying and ammunition conservation problem, and — a standing grump of mine — do not really represent (exempt ‘Ranger’) the preliminary business of battle preparation, ‘R’ group and ‘O’ group, which are bread and butter to the infanteer, but appear nowhere in wargames.

    What I have in mind would probably be too much of a planning game to appeal to the toys-on-the-table-roll-the-dice-and-bugger-the-simulation-this-is-supposed-to-be-FUN type of wargamer, but in my opinion, at this level, once the first shots are fired the result had often been pre-determined by who did the better recce, who had the better plan, and which side did a better job of getting ready for the fight.

    All the best,

    John.

    #20857
    Dan Kennedy
    Participant

    Operational level science fiction. I played the heck out of an old boardgame – Air and Armor – back in the day (still pull it out if I can), and it’s a fantastic treatment of operational level NATO vs Pact.

    I really want a sci fi equivalent. I’ve played the old Baccus Command Horizon (great fun, especially the Skycraft rules), and    Strike Legion: Planetary Ops (good rules, bit too crunchy for me), but I’d love something like Air and Armor that let me command up to a Corps sized force, dealing with engineering, fog of war, recce, air and naval assets, logistics, even environmental factors.

    Grand sweeping manoeuvres, hoarding of reserves, deep air operations, logistical dilemmas, all that stuff. Of course I’m trying to home brew it, but I’d like it if there was other stuff out there at this level.

     

    Oh yes, and another vote for Sam’s carrier rules!

    #20862
    Mr. Average
    Participant

    Oh, man, I second the operational-level sci fi, especially if there’s some module that would allow individual battles to play out at tabletop scale.  NO idea how to make that work, but it’d be very cool.

    #20867
    McLaddie
    Participant

    However these games are section-a-counter games, and the specific game I was yearning for was a game where the player is cast as a section or platoon commander, and the counters/miniatures/icons are individual soldiers.

    John:

    So, a Chain-of-Command or Bolt Action miniatures game is at the right scale/command level.  I know very little about WWII and after, but I am impressed with and have been enjoying the CoC system. If you haven’t seen it, you might want to take a look as the player is cast as a platoon and/or section leader.  The scale is 40 yards to 12 inches, so 15mm figures are ‘to scale’.  Richard Clarke has detailed the connections between real combat and his CoC rules with a wonderful series of blogs on the subject.

    but in my opinion, at this level, once the first shots are fired the result had often been pre-determined by who did the better recce, who had the better plan, and which side did a better job of getting ready for the fight.

    This is one reason that I suggest CoC, as those components fairly simple, but nicely done.

    Phil is a teacher with a lot of experience in his approach to wargames.  Also, in the classroom, his games come with a ‘in-house’ designer, whether he or his students, who can describe everything that has gone into the game and more importantly, what the game is representing in specifics.  Over time, that can create skills involving ‘tight’ games. And as they are teaching instruments, the focus can be–has to be much tighter is some respects, certainly in terms of components, time and educational results.

    Best Regards,

    Bill

     

    • This reply was modified 6 years ago by McLaddie.
    #20872
    Dan Kennedy
    Participant

     

    Mr Average (sorry, not figured out quote formatting posting from my phone yet!)

    Interesting you should say that; my home-brew, constantly-in-development rules for this scale have that in mind as a major part of it – after all, it’s fun to decide that instead of a quick dice roll we can play it out tableside.

    After some trial and error I decided that the simplest way was to have detailed TO+E for all forces, thus allowing players to gain a reasonable idea of what to deploy in a lower level game. The scale dictates that each model represents one battalion, but what’s giving me a headache is representing cross attachment at this level.

    Anyway, the point is that if players know exactly what’s in any given force, then setting up a different battle is straightforward.

    Although it occurs to me maybe you meant one set of rules that would allow battles at two different levels. Yes, that’s difficult, but not impossible. The old FASA game Renegade Legion did just that with Legionarre (RPG), Centurion (armoured tactical), Interceptor (spaceship tactical), Leviathan (spaceship fleet, though unplayable) and Prefect (armoured strategic). There’s also a fan made armoured operational game on the web called Legatus. It’s not bad.

    Given the choice I think I’d still opt for an exhaustive TO+E, solid rule sets at whatever level we wanted to play and common sense to move between them. I reckon it gives the best chance of games actually happening, and in the end that’s a result for everyone.

    #20877
    Dan Kennedy
    Participant

    The other idea I’m playing with is some kind of more detailed version of the ‘battle board’ used in Axis and Allies.

    I’d like to be able to have players exercise some level of control over a fight if they wanted. But I’ve got no idea how to make it work.

    #20879
    McLaddie
    Participant

    Oh, man, I second the operational-level sci fi, especially if there’s some module that would allow individual battles to play out at tabletop scale.  NO idea how to make that work, but it’d be very cool.

     

    Dan and Mr. A:

    Wow. Having never played a Sci-Fi game other than MB’s Buck Rogers boardgame ages ago,  I can imagine how fun that would be to create such a game.  No limits.  Considering how much combat has changed just in the last Century, what would a ‘corps’-sized operation be like one or two hunred years in the future?

     

     

    #20880
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    Didn’t the Strike Legion guys do something like that?

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20883
    Dan Kennedy
    Participant

    The challenge initially is working out the technogy base. I feel (YMMV) that the better rule sets are the more tightly focused ones – one thing that the operational level Strike Legion rules irked me with was (and it’s just for me, they’re overall a good set of rules) too many different tech levels and styles able to be mixed in.

    For example, Battletech is big stompy robots, Renegade Legion is grav armour, Star Wars is, well, Star Wars, even 40k is pretty well focused. As you say, what would Corps level battle look like in the distant future? By trying to imagine too many possibities the game becomes cumbersome; but by defining the background first all the rest can flow from it. I’m using the Renegade Legion background, because I’m intrigued by the idea of grav armour that moves at 200mph rendering traditional front lines obsolete, amongst other things. But I don’t want to pull in too much other stuff that ‘might’ happen, because that dilutes it.

    #20884
    Ivan Sorensen
    Participant

    That’s probably an issue with “generic” scifi though. You either try to cover too much stuff or you narrow it down and then you’ve basically written a setting anyways 🙂

    Though you could always start with hte miniatures we actually have on the market and go from there, which tells me:
    Grav tanks, Walkers and Power Armour.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/5701/Nordic-Weasel-Games?src=browse5701

    #20913
    Dan Kennedy
    Participant

    I started out playing board games, only moving over to miniatures when Rogue Trader came out and I got hooked on sci fi. Most boardgames differ from miniature games in that they try to recreate a very narrow perspective, whereas miniatures are more open.

    For example, Fireteam is squad level combat between US and Soviet troops in West Germany. Nothing else. No rules needed for anything else. It works really well. There’s loads of miniature rules which do the same thing, but are adaptable for, say desert warfare, or using Australian militia (picking some random example out of the ether). But by adding those same rules to Fireteam. that game would start becoming unusable in it’s intended purpose. The miniature games also work really well, but are designed to be adaptable.

    I’m not saying one system is better than the other, merely pointing out how a tightly focused boardgame can give a good experience because it doesn’t move beyond it’s brief. And I played a lot of them so they influenced me, I know that and accept it. I like it because it gets me towards the design goal I’ve set myself, in this case a working set of operational sci fi rules that represent the challenges facing the commander of more than one division of troops in a futuristic environment.

    So grav armour it is for me. And I’ve chosen to stick with that partly because I’ve got loads of the mini’s and I love 6mm sci fi, but also because (and here the narrow focus starts to affect the design) I don’t think grav armour with force fields and guass cannon (which Renegade Legion has) would mix well with other types of sic fi. As Ivan says, that’s an issue with ‘generic’ sic fi – there’s so many possible backgrounds that they can’t all work together – just look at the arguments over who would win if Star Wars fought Star Trek!

    But I feel once you accept that you have to cut out huge swathes of possible futures, it starts to come together.

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.