Skip to Content
 

About the (un-)Necessity of a big board

6 replies [Last post]
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 08:42
Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
boardsizes

Hey all,
This thread is both: The result of our developments and playtest i want to share with you and another call for your feedback.

Our project is basically a wargame, but it uses mechanics from trading card games instead. It also makes use of a gameboard, where components are moved around (think Magic:The Gathering with zones). As we gradually tested and developed the game, we came to the conclusion that a big, square board with lots of tiles on it is absolutely dispensable.

why? because like in CCGs the tactics come from the components (cards) and their rules/interactions and NOT from the ultimate position of the pieces on the board. We can say its 85% the cards and only 15% their position on the board that have impact on gameplay. Still, we would like to use a simplified board as it allows us some rules you only find on tiled boards (distance, being adjacent, being on the same square etc.).

So, we decided to gradually dwindle down the size of the board until it looses its effect completely. And this is also my question to you - what do you think is the minimum size of a game board - in a game where the board is almost not neccessary at all? (comparing it to magic the gathering again, magic would use a board with just 1 space on it)

Take a look at the attached image, we already sorted out the 30+ size boards. Now we are pending between using a 9/7/5 or even a 3 tile board. Last test took place on sunday with a 9 tile board - and still we think its too much (stacking components is much more important then moving them around).

remember: Think 85/15 and Magic with Zones

Top
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:30
#1
Cogentesque
Cogentesque's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Hiya again Fitz, Good

Hiya again Fitz,

Good question I think this one!

Well, two examples spring ot mind: The Resistance and King of Tokyo.

Both of these games are really great (I posted about King of Tokyo having the "best production values of any game I have ever seen ever" in bgg, and am interviewing Travis, owner of indy boards and cards who produced the resistance soon for purplepawn.com)

The resistance has a physically small game board. It is used entirely without spaces, it is used only as a player aid and to "count up to three " (either blue or red depending on game outcome) - you could very effectively do these two things without a board and as such the minimum board space is 0. But the board serves as a focal game point and is a very effective means of increasing production values and as such, increases the estimation of worth by players (See: "Ohh it comes with a fancy board!")

King of Tokyo on the other hand is a bit bigger (by which I mean about 6inches square) than resistance but it has, wait for it, TWO spaces!

The game mechanics are such as to allow 3 positions for your characters:
1) Off the board
2) Board position 1
3) Board position 2

It is an AMAZINGLY high quality board (I mean paper and stock wise) but its only function is it has two circles and each of those may be used by one player at a time! I thought hte idea was laughable all be it a great one!

Also, love your little board vs playtesting graph fitz, very cool :) I much prefer the new one btw!

sam

Top
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:49
#2
zipplockbag
zipplockbag's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/12/2012
I agree with Cogent. The

I agree with Cogent. The board can be shrunk, but I think it has value as a beautiful centerpiece for the game and adds to the overall aesthetics. Also, people will look at it and think to themselves, oh, this is cool, and it's not just another card only game.

I guess my advice is don't skimp on the art for it. Make it so that if someone lost it they would order a replacement instead of just drawing some squares on a sheet of paper. :)

Top
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:53
#3
Catelf
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2009
85/15 is a good estimation, but ...

85/15 is a good estimation, but to me it doesn't say very much, because a board can be big, and still mean less than 15 %, or just have 3 spaces, or even 2, and still mean more than 15% to the game.

I also haven't played Magic with Zones, but i'm certain i know what you mean.
I have some questions:
* How "wide" should the "Homebase" be?
* How important/unimportant practically (not in percent) should Movement and Distance be? When do you want to use it? When do you not want to use it?
* How wide/narrow should the "no man's land" be?
Also:
How accessible/assaultable should each "zone" be?
If low: use square grid, and don't allow diagonal Movement.
If mid: use hexagonal grid
If high: use square grid, allow diagonal movement.

And another thing: experiment with the grids more:
Example: 2 homezones each and 1 "no man's land" makes 5 Hexagonal Zones.

Top
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:00
#4
Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
Its a question of mobility.

In my current game project I'm focusing 3 aspects of combat: initial deployment plan 50%, mobility 30% and fire power 20%. The board I made for my first play test seems too small. I had tried to keep the board small because that seemed to work well for the previous version of my game. As always it is the little changes you make that end up having a major change in how the game works and how much space you need. The small change I've made is to make all units have the same cost since I hate having to reference charts with various unit stats and I've made the units equal in value but with a unique special ability each. I'd have to guess that your game works different, but in my game the zones you control is integral to the reinforcements you get and game objectives, as is the usual situation in almost all wargames. I don't know Magic so I don't really understand the system. But I recently relaxed my dislike of card games enough to play some Dominion. So it is easy for me to believe that you could design a card game to have some elements of an actual wargame: objectives of various values, combined arms tactics, zones of control and the ability to fortify positions ect. But the problem with not having a map of some sort is that you lose the ability to let players use superior mobility to win against superior fire power, always great fun. Superior fire power means nothing if it arrives late.

Top
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:45
#5
Orangebeard
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2011
The Dragon Dice Method

I always liked the approach used by the Dragon Dice game where each player had cards representing their various armies and you simply pushed the cards together to indicate where the battle was happening. The battlefields or "zones" were well defined, easy to move and it did not matter if you only had a few feet of play space or a whole table. Later a game mat was released that indicated the zone, but the cards were just fine.

Good Luck with your design!

Top
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 13:03
#6
Fhizban
Fhizban's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/11/2009
thank you for the replies -

thank you for the replies - you really helped me to clear things up.

As it looks right now - our test with 9 "zones" was already quite good, but i think we could reduce the board to 7 zones. 5 or less seems to be no option as you loose a lot of tactical possibilities. with 7 zones (take a look at the picture in my last post) you keep the center square and can even simulate shooting/distance/movement (even if at a very simple level of detail).

@Cogentesque
I just checked out both games on BGG, especially King of Tokyo seems to be a source of inspiration - thank you for that!

@zipplockbag
Yep, there will be artwork - we want it to look like a real cool medieval/fantasy map no matter how many zones it finally shows

@catelf
yeah, the 85/15 was only a very foggy thing i threw into the thread. but you got it already. especially that you mentioned "homebase" and "no mans land" got me thinking.

@Aquilius
well, we are not using cards actually, i just mentioned it because everyone is familiar with cards. i like your idea of making all units cost equal. but it wont work for our project - and we will have to use reference cards (at least some sort of), because otherwise it will be impossible to keep track of all abilities and such.

@Orangebeard
Funny thing: Dragon Dice is the role model for our game. But ours is only similiar on first sight. Still i have to agree, i also like the "zone" system of Dragon Dice.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut