How do people feel about resolving combat on a side board, similiar to say zooming down to the battlefield?
Combat on a side board
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 03:49
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 04:58
#1
Combat on a side board
It has its pros and cons. What do you think?
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 09:55
#3
Combat on a side board
But, using a side board, you can do wonderfull things.
For example, assuming that you've got an area movement system of some sort, you could say that one turn on the main board is equivalent to ten turns on the battle boards. So each battle goes on for ten turns then you get to move reinforcements around. That way you could try to stall an enemy while rushing troops to the battle...
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 10:59
#4
Combat on a side board
filwi wrote:
But, using a side board, you can do wonderfull things.
For example, assuming that you've got an area movement system of some sort, you could say that one turn on the main board is equivalent to ten turns on the battle boards. So each battle goes on for ten turns then you get to move reinforcements around. That way you could try to stall an enemy while rushing troops to the battle...
Wow is that asking for rules headaches, though.
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 14:47
#5
Combat on a side board
Lots of wargames already do this - they use a large overhead campaign map for strategical moves then play tactical sized games on a different board.
Its not really a rules headache - just massively time consuming as every "side-board" battle is a entire game in its own right.
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 16:50
#6
Combat on a side board
I have been thinking of using a sub-map for battles in a fantasy game I am designing and I have not found a solution that I like yet. Having a strategic board for world movement and a tactical board for location specific movement and combat seems like the best of both worlds, but the drawbacks can be difficult to overcome. Some of the problems may only be evident in certain types of games. The wargames that chowdah mentions are probably designed to minimize the number of problems, but apparently have not eliminated all of them as they are still "massively time consuming." I'm guessing this is due to having to effectively set up a whole separate game as chowdah seemed to imply.
These are some of the issues I have been struggling with. filwi suggested that "you could say that one turn on the main board is equivalent to ten turns on the battle boards". This is indeed wonderful, but there is a difficulty that arises when you have players that are not involved in that battle. Do they wait ten turns until they get to take their ONE turn? Another issue is space. If your game can have multiple battles happening at the same time, how much space do you need for the main map plus two or even three sub-maps? That may not be as much of an issue in a two player direct conflict game, but for a game that has more than two players I can see this becoming a problem. And one other problem I have found is a parts problem that also depends on implementation, is the expense of making the extra pieces needed for the sub-map worth it?
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 17:46
#8
Combat on a side board
chowdah wrote:
Lots of wargames already do this - they use a large overhead campaign map for strategical moves then play tactical sized games on a different board.
Its not really a rules headache - just massively time consuming as every "side-board" battle is a entire game in its own right.
It's the 10-to-1 turn ratio that can be a rules headache. How do new forces come in? What if units flee the battleboard? What if a battle isn't resolved and the "big" turn ends and one side is eligible for replacements there? Etc...
It's not hard from a rules standpoint to separately conduct each battle on a mini-board if the battle will conclude before other pieces move around (my favorite game Titan is like that). But I think that unless the tactical aspect of the game is very important, it's not worth the extra time the game will take.
Fri, 03/03/2006 - 18:06
#9
Combat on a side board
erael wrote:
But I think that unless the tactical aspect of the game is very important, it's not worth the extra time the game will take.
To add to that, see "The American Civil War" or "Napolean in Europe" (by Eagle Games) - both employ a tactical battle to resolve engagements. The added time it takes to resolves battles was manageable because there was a real purpose to it...and it was elegant.
Sun, 03/05/2006 - 10:42
#10
Combat on a side board
evilupine wrote:
filwi suggested that "you could say that one turn on the main board is equivalent to ten turns on the battle boards". This is indeed wonderful, but there is a difficulty that arises when you have players that are not involved in that battle. Do they wait ten turns until they get to take their ONE turn?
If one would chuck the illusion of unified time in the game (that is, that it models the real world and that time has the same properties in the game as in the real world) it would be possible to use a budgeted action point system split amongst the big board and the smaller boards. Say that you get to make one move on the big board OR x number of moves on one of the sideboards. That way players not fighting in battles would get more move/produce/recruit actions and partake in the game continously.
The drawback is that this would lead to a game balancing nightmare...
Sun, 03/05/2006 - 20:02
#11
Combat on a side board
Having a game with two maps reminds me the old koei games like R3K. I also tought of making a space ship game where the battle or encounter would had been fought aside, but I tought that it would slow down the game to much, so I am sesolving a whole encounter with a few dice rolls.
If you make a game with two map, either the battle must be short or it must be done asynchonously ( other players can continue playing while other fight ). Now if the battle are short, is there really a need to make an external map?
The best solution would be to add more depth or detail ( or zoom ) to the main map. It will allow you to perform better strategic battle from an high level point of view.
Mon, 03/06/2006 - 03:52
#12
Combat on a side board
filwi wrote:
If one would chuck the illusion of unified time in the game (that is, that it models the real world and that time has the same properties in the game as in the real world)
Good point. The 10 moves to 1 move issue is really a sequencing problem, and not sub-map problem.
Tue, 03/07/2006 - 12:41
#13
Combat on a side board
Quote:
Now if the battle are short, is there really a need to make an external map?
How about a comprimise? Since you are playing the tactical game with cards, dispense with the idea of a battle board. Allow players to play cards into 'center', 'left flank', 'right flank', and possibly 'reserve' and 'scouting'. positions right on the table.
You could have 'terrain cards' which are selected at the beginning of the tactical battle, with say the defending side or the best general (or some combination) getting to define most of the terrain. How these would play I'm not quite sure though.
Keep the tactical phase short and sweet by making combat resolution really quick and highly dependant on;
- the initial force mix in the two armies
- the relative deployment in the battlefield zones and any terrain played.
(i.e. no real maneouvering is allowed)
Also, I have seen miniatures based campagin rules for automatically resolving battles with very small numbers of forces, or hugely mismtached forces, with the toy soldiers only getting brought out when the battle is strategially crucial and the opponents well matched. Resolution tables based on army points values are used to quickly resolve the rest of the battles.
--Dan
Wed, 03/08/2006 - 08:39
#14
Combat on a side board
Hi all, first post here. I'm a professional games designer... of video games. But my presence here should tell you what sort of games I really want to be designing :)
Key to keeping the game moving while using a sub-board may be to keep the combat that takes place there as straightforward as possible. With games like Axis & Allies the combat is so straightforward that, as TheReluctant General touches on above, you only need to actually resolve it with miniatures / pieces on the sub-board for complex battles - for most straightforward battles it won't be a problem just using the side board for reference.
Of course, if there's more to the sideboard than simply slots for cards to fit into (i.e. some kind of movement takes place on this board) then there's no real choice than to move all the pieces over. To my mind, if thats going to slow the gameplay too much then it's probably too elaborate a combat system in the first place.
Wed, 03/08/2006 - 23:03
#15
Combat on a side board
Funny that you post this, my newest idea is something like this where divisional-sized units move on the campaign map and then company sized units for the attacks on a side board. While time consuming, you could limit the number of turns in the side-battle, and further more could give an option to the attacker to 'simulate' the battle by skipping the side-attack all together and making some dice rolls to determine outcome. This way, you could just sim the measly battles and actually fight the important ones, like when you are making a spearhead offensive at a strongpoint of the enemy's.
Mon, 03/13/2006 - 10:26
#16
Combat on a side board
Axis and Allies has a "battle board" but I didn't really use it- it's just too fiddly to pick up al the little planes etc.
Also it depends on how complex the fighting is. If its going to be very time consuming with terrain setup, unit deployment etc. then don't be surprised when my 2000 point force runs into your 150 point scout force, and I ask "What do you mean you don't want to play?"
P
I am toying with the idea of using cards layed out on a "battle board" to resolve battles off of the main board on which movement is conducted.
I like that some level of strategy can be achieved, and you get some feel for the battle.
I don't like that the battle will take some time to set up.