|
|
Post by Whiterook on Nov 16, 2023 8:27:51 GMT -5
Can’t see them coming… that’s a very cool point!!! I love the varied nature from game to game, in mechanics and feel, and this is a great example of that! Thanks for pointing that out, because I’d not thought of that in that way!!!
I’m very happy to hear that finances are on the rise…that’s an accomplishment in today’s world of high prices for just about everything and trying to pay the bills, and supporting a family. I’m glad your gaming experiences and interests are growing and pushing the envelope.
You raise an excellent point in the advantages that come from playing other designers’ games and scenarios; it’s the latter where I find the most inspiration, because they’re like textbook snippets on what’s possible in designing your own, right down to taking note of using certain tactics or objectives that you’d not previously considered or understood fully how to execute. I can’t even guess at how many times I’ve read or seen a scenario being played, where I’ve thought, “Hmmmmm, that would be cool played with *this*, with *these components*!”
|
|
|
|
Post by josta59 on Nov 18, 2023 14:54:37 GMT -5
You raise an excellent point in the advantages that come from playing other designers’ games and scenarios; it’s the latter where I find the most inspiration, because they’re like textbook snippets on what’s possible in designing your own, right down to taking note of using certain tactics or objectives that you’d not previously considered or understood fully how to execute. I can’t even guess at how many times I’ve read or seen a scenario being played, where I’ve thought, “Hmmmmm, that would be cool played with *this*, with *these components*!” That's very true. Even just writing that previous post of mine inspired me to think about how I might design recon rules on a hex map where no enemies are visible, to help make them visible. I didn't get any good ideas, but it was worth thinking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Whiterook on Nov 20, 2023 8:59:26 GMT -5
You raise an excellent point in the advantages that come from playing other designers’ games and scenarios; it’s the latter where I find the most inspiration, because they’re like textbook snippets on what’s possible in designing your own, right down to taking note of using certain tactics or objectives that you’d not previously considered or understood fully how to execute. I can’t even guess at how many times I’ve read or seen a scenario being played, where I’ve thought, “Hmmmmm, that would be cool played with *this*, with *these components*!” That's very true. Even just writing that previous post of mine inspired me to think about how I might design recon rules on a hex map where no enemies are visible, to help make them visible. I didn't get any good ideas, but it was worth thinking about. Very cool! Hey, and to anyone reading this, please note that the General Game Design Theory zone on the site was built just for those kind of explorations! Members who create threads on just such game design considerations and problems not only have a place to catalogue these, but can also get input from other members, draw in new members that run across it in searches, and the whole process pays forward education to all aspiring game designers! |
|
|
|
Post by josta59 on Jun 11, 2024 17:54:18 GMT -5
Just started a playthrough of my homebrewed solo board game. I activated my two Abrams first to flank the enemy base and see what's happening. They ran into a team with a 9M133 anti-tank weapon. It didn't spot my tanks at first (failed opportunity fire), but when it did, it scored a kill on me! That was quick.  Probably wouldn't happen in your average two-player game unless you have a system for hiding units. |
|
|
|
Post by Whiterook on Jun 11, 2024 18:33:13 GMT -5
Hmmm… looks like the Abrams in hex C16 (top one) was not in LOS to the 9M133 in hex D21 due to the building hex of D19… unless you track LOD by silhouette rather than whole hex? At this graphics level, I wonder if you should try playtesting the whole-hex mechanic for cover? The Abrams in B16 looked like the lOS just clipped the D19 hex so you probably had a clear shot there. You know, LOS rules are widely varied amongst games… the one I’m playing now (West End Games’, “Tank Leader” series), you have to Spot an enemy unit before you can fire on it. It has an elaborate method where your spotting doe roll equals a formula of: number of hexes from the Target hex to the hex adjacent the Spotting unit; and add modifiers… which in your case, could be a -1drm for being in a clear hex, versus +1 for being behind a road that has vegetation, _1 for on a hill, +2 for being in a periphery woods hex, etc. What I’m saying is, it wouldn’t necessarily be a sure hit… spotting die rolls take into consideration the small stuff, like “do I really see something in that muck?” Another consideration might be, do you have smoke rules? If those Abrams popped smoke, they could have advanced into it and though their seeing might be impaired, the enemy firing into it could have a modifier favorable to the friendlies (the Americans). Just thoughts  |
|
|
|
Post by josta59 on Jun 12, 2024 9:29:32 GMT -5
Hmmm… looks like the Abrams in hex C16 (top one) was not in LOS to the 9M133 in hex D21 due to the building hex of D19… unless you track LOD by silhouette rather than whole hex? At this graphics level, I wonder if you should try playtesting the whole-hex mechanic for cover? The Abrams in B16 looked like the lOS just clipped the D19 hex so you probably had a clear shot there. You're right! They only had LoS to one of my tanks...I was just keeping it concise for the post. My rule for buildings on a hex map is that the entire building hex blocks LoS. You know, LOS rules are widely varied amongst games… the one I’m playing now (West End Games’, “Tank Leader” series), you have to Spot an enemy unit before you can fire on it. It has an elaborate method where your spotting doe roll equals a formula of: number of hexes from the Target hex to the hex adjacent the Spotting unit; and add modifiers… which in your case, could be a -1drm for being in a clear hex, versus +1 for being behind a road that has vegetation, _1 for on a hill, +2 for being in a periphery woods hex, etc. What I’m saying is, it wouldn’t necessarily be a sure hit… spotting die rolls take into consideration the small stuff, like “do I really see something in that muck?” As I do like to keep things simple, I've been using a simple opportunity fire rule for a few years that has been working great for me. If my unit moves into LoS of the enemy unit, I roll 1d6. On a result of 4-6, the enemy unit spots and fires (one roll includes both of these). On a result of 1-3, they simply don't notice it right away. Elite units roll twice and take the higher result. Another consideration might be, do you have smoke rules? If those Abrams popped smoke, they could have advanced into it and though their seeing might be impaired, the enemy firing into it could have a modifier favorable to the friendlies (the Americans). I assume actions like popping smoke are just part of what a unit does defensively, and I don't account for every detail. If a unit fires and misses due to a low combat roll, I assume it's because of something like that. In this case, maybe a gust of wind made smoke ineffective. I like to play the "big picture" and leave the rest to my imagination, especially in a larger-scale game like this. The combat roll in my rules (just 1d6!) takes into account: - Available leadership
- Movement while firing
- Distance (roughly)
- Target's cover
- Woods between firer and target
- Quality of target (elite or not)
- Friction sustained by firing unit
After all, if I was accounting for every detail, I might as well play Lock 'n Load! LOL Just thoughts Much appreciated, as always! |
|
|
|
Post by Whiterook on Jun 12, 2024 14:13:36 GMT -5
Fantastic reasoning, on all counts! Love this game!!! |
|
|
|
Post by josta59 on Aug 5, 2024 18:57:10 GMT -5
Hey, y'all, just got back from a UK trip with the family, and when we returned I had a new game waiting for me with a whopper of a title: Men of War: Nicaragua 1979-1990 – CONTRAS. It was designed by Joe Fernandez for Art of Wargames and is Module 3, the latest in his Men of War series of solitaire tactical book wargames. This was irresistible for me: a solo hex-and-counter wargame in a modern setting with an AI system that controls enemy forces, and it has contras!  Setup for the first scenario in the book: "Hunters." My guys are in the upper left, and we have to infiltrate the Sandinista border post in the center and then exfil. My contras have a U.S. advisor with them.
If this system turns out to be better than my home-brewed rules, I'll probably be using it a lot and might use the big maps I recently bought, since they are the same scale. I can redesign the counters I recently made for myself using the stats used in Joe's games. The only thing Joe's games are missing is vehicles, though this module does have air strikes. If I start using this system a lot, I'll probably think about simple ways to include vehicles and then make those counters myself. |
|
