Freedom for players

Ok, the question in short:

Are there board games out there that allow players to design/put together their own war units?

Soooo.....

There is almost notching on this?
No(t much) examples.
No(t much) experience by other designers?
This is like... new terrain that I am touching?
For like, every one?

I always found it weird that there where like only 2 pc games that allowed such thing.
Of course there are editors around, but they prepare things on before hand. No designing during the game.
Nothing of that at all.

Levelling can be custom, but indeed it is often for 1 or 2 units that you control. Not creating an entire army of them.

Is it worth a discussion?..
Or is this something, no one is interested in?....
At all?...... (Well, we have you Soulfinger :) )

Some one?..........
Any body?..............

O well, putting this close to the bin then :D

Sure, that would be a start.

Also, I would like to know if any one has thought of this.

What would be the best way to approach this kind of game play?
Simply putting down rules in how to design your own units?

Or would it really be to hard?

I can imagine putting together a soldier or tank, with a gun or cannon on it. And players would understand this. Something like [Body] + [Weapon] = [Unit].
But going deeper into the complexity would probably kill of the game play. Right?

When explaining to a player in how to calculate something. It is bound to fail that the player would understand. Mistakes would happen and the game would be ruined. Unless someone knows of a way in how to do this to some extend without troubling the player with math.

First of all, thank you for replying. I have seen some valid points. It made me think this through.

I could answer it all with TLDR though. But I try to refrain from that. (Deleted 50% afterwards)

***

@ Soulfinger

I hope your daughter is alright, the flue is a mean thing to kids. I had to learn the drill for this patrol just recently too. What do you do about the smell?

Battletech and Interceptor. I will look into these games.

The key reason that you mention. Let's see. Well, I got 7 different factors (A,H,S,M,D,R and @). It is still "balanced" in a decent way. And I got some special rules too. All grained through testing. But perfect balance doesn't exist, no matter who claims it. However, I do believe it is possible to make your RPS sharpened enough to counter the differences in end results. Meaning, the outcome of a battle is what you want as outcome and not offset when units are different.... Which is something that I think have achieved thus far.

If one still has that unfair feeling, than it would be a player that doesn't plan well enough in designing. I think I can place this in the "skill" department? There will be an extra chapter in the learning curve.

Some players would love to be able to design so freely (all 7 factors and even the specialism).
But.... that requires math a lot. I just got an idea on tackling that. But maybe I am going way to deep with it.

Setting up a table for reference on the combinations that a player can make?
Ugh, going into detail would require a lot of TLDR.

Now looking at the options that I have left in designing the game. It is painfully clear to me that no new player understands this. Unless it is done for the player in a very simplistic way.

The weigh of rules, well, are already (very) heavy as it is. However, the learning curve is a long road. Learning new things doesn't make the game slower in chapter 3 to 10. Only harder in possibilities.

Yeah, some have completed the first 3 chapters, others are at 7. And only the ones who request chapter 11 and beyond, have completed 10 of course.

***

@ Kos

I think you seek the game Warzone2100.
It is free, legal, and balanced Blizzard style.
Feel free to look it up.
The cheapest units can still be very useful in that game, these days that is.

Never getting past the concept stage. Hmmmm, perhaps the game should be complete and balanced with a set of units first? Then create a research tree afterwards? At least that is what is being tried out for my game right now.

Regarding 3 cards. Hmmm, I think I will keep it on 2 or 4 for my game.
Body + Weapon.
OR
Body + Body Specialism + Weapon + Weapon Specialism.
Where with the specialism, you add a type of propulsion or a type of special weaponry.
But then again, each combination card is a combination on itself. I need to make really a lot if I want more options available.
In other words, no, with my game, too much options/combinations.

***

@questccg

After reading your post, I realised that you are using simple numbers. Yet a smart way in keeping weaknesses and unit design.

***

After careful consideration. How about this?

I simply allow the players that want a custom army to make a list of wishes.
They provide me the pictures. And I edit it into usable unit cards. No combo's.

The research rules remain. And the symbol pieces for the board keep their use. These players simply have their own theme for their army. (And I can create some more myself :) )

Thus keeping things easy, simple and fun for every one.

I know battletech. I have played that game too, some years ago. Only forgot that it is called battletech. What I remember. There is good stuff and bad stuff in that game. The designing of your mech is done in a decent way. The maps are awesome! Scrap the bad stuff, I simply didn't like the absence of slopes back then. But know better these days, it is a bit hard to use a piece on a sloped part of the map.

Interceptor is truly new for me. But it looks double worthwhile the price. The board seems only to be an overview. (Almost) No tactics with the board?
Going to get one any way.