Skip to Content
 

Medieval War Game

14 replies [Last post]
s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014

So I have an idea floating around in my head of this game I'd like to develop. Here of some of the elements I'm thinking about:

Theme: Medieval warfare. Knights, bowmen, castles, the whole deal.

Board:
A large hex grid of individual tiles (like Heroscape or Settlers of Catan) that can be rearranged every game or use pre-balanced map layouts. Fairly small (maybe 1-1.5") tiles, but a lot of them. A couple types of tiles: grassland, hills, mountains, and water. Tiles you control are worth money each turn (maybe some are worth more?), mountains are impassible, and land units can embark onto ships to move across water.

Buildings:
A castle for each player that goes into their "corner" of the board (depending on the shape the map takes). Castles occupy several tiles and a give a defensive bonus to surrounding armies. Forts occupy a hex and can be built anywhere adjacent to unit (for $) and give a smaller bonus (maybe attack and defense). Players can also buy Walls (length of 1 side of a hex tile) and place them adjacent to of their units. I think structures should be destructible over time and players can attack them directly as if they were an enemy unit. If a player's Castle is destroyed they lose. The Castle and Forts generate more $ per turn than normal tiles.

Units:
Types I'm considering: Longbowmen, Crossbowmen, Knights, Pikemen, Siege Engines (Trebuchets and/or Catapults), Longswordsmen, Galleys (Transport ships), and Caravels. Units can move from hex to hex each turn (some more than others). Galleys are used to ferry land units at sea. Units claim territory by moving over it and placing markers (flags?) on the hexes. The more territory you own, the more money you make. You use money to purchase new units or buildings.

Combat:
I'm thinking dice rolls (attacker and defender) for this. The last game I made directly used the "Combat Board" system from Axis and Allies, but I'd like to simplify it a bit. The complicated part is some units will have bonuses against other specific types (Pikemen get a bonus against Knights, Siege Engines vs. Walls, etc).

Winning:
The main objective is to destroy the other player's Castles. However, I can see this leading to a long "Risk-esqe" battle of attrition, so maybe there should be another way to win, for example reaching a certain income/turn.

I'm open to all suggestions, criticisms, and ideas!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Question?

I have a question about the income you mentioned that varied according to the territory owned. How do you plan to establish this?

Is it simply a wooden coloured token you will place on each hex - or something else?

I am just thinking that TGC (The Game Crafter) new dual-sided hexes could be of interest. Instead of simple income, why not produce several game "resources". Each tile could dictate how much of a "resource" is produced.

Take for example this part - WHEAT (from TGC):

It could produce FOOD for your armies. The amount of food control the number of units you can have... After all an army needs food to survive.

And then this part - WOOD (again from TGC)

It could be used to determine the number of Forts and Boats a player could build.

I think it you were going for a military game, it might be cooler with "resources"...

Just my 2 cents.

Note: Oh yeah I forgot to mention this... You said you were worried about the end-condition of the game... Well "resources" can help in making this MORE realistic. Why? Cut off your supply to FOOD and a player's armies start to DWINDLE... What this does is makes the odds much more plausible to capture the opponent's castle! A side-effect benefit of resources!

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
Interesting

I like this idea. Actually in between the time I posted that and your reply, I had a conversation with a friend who suggested something similar. He suggested wood being needed for siege units and ships, and mines/quarries you need to build walls or forts.

I think this is a good idea, there are two ways I could go with it:
1) Limited supply - as you suggested, # of resources directly determines # of things you can build. This means resources are more common (to encourage larger armies).
2) Binary system - You either have a resource, or you don't. If you do, you can build the things that require it. This would mean resources need to be more limited.

For the income I was just thinking cash (gold, coins, dollars, whatever) that you use directly to buy things. For example, say a Plains tile is worth 1 gold per turn and a Knight costs 10 gold. So if you control 10 tiles, you can buy a Knight each turn if you want. Income is tracked on a side board with markers for each player on a grid of numbers.

I think both cash and resources can be used side by side if I am careful not to make it too complicated.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, yes some kind of token (flag?) would be placed on tiles indicating ownership. You take a tile by moving over it. You own all tiles you have units/buildings on, and any with your flags on them. An enemy can take an unoccupied tile and replace your flag with theirs.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I agree

I agree... The nice thing about "resources" is that as the players battle each other naturally, one player gains an advantage in territory such that they get close enough to DESTROY your castle... That will happen naturally with resources (because the player won't be able to produce sufficient units to counter-attack).

So you pretty much *guarantee* that your victory condition WILL occur...

I think that perhaps what would happen is one player would concede victory to his opponent... I don't think you will have players that wait for their castle to be destroyed before quitting early.

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
Concede? What are we, reasonable people?

I know some really stubborn people who would never concede defeat and would make the other players take their castles as they slowly struggle to hang on, but also others who might ragequit when things look bad.

I agree though, I think having the snowball effect of losing resources will help speed up the endgame. I will have to see if an alternative victory condition is needed (like the income per turn rule) or not.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Conceding and multiple game plays

Here's another *interesting* concept: multiple game plays.

What I mean by this is players could play several games *back-to-back*. The victor gives the opponent a chance to start the game with more resources than himself such that he has a disadvantage and the loser has an advantage in the next game.

What this does is makes your game MORE playable. People will WANT to play again if you ADD such a rule to your game. Maybe like make three (3) different levels such that players can play four (4) consecutive games, each one HARDER and harder for the winner to win.

So a seasoned player can say: "I'm a pro, so we'll start you off on Level 2."

Something like that... I hope you understand my idea. It adds great replay value because BOTH players can challenge themselves! :)

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
That could be neat

I was thinking of something less structured than that, but that may work. My thought was that there are various maps that have been pre-balanced (or purposely off-balance) that players can choose from, or they can make one up as they set up the game. Better players could begin on the bad side of off-balance maps, or whatever balance suits that group of players.

RGaffney
RGaffney's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
I love challenging the

I love challenging the preconception that games should be balanced. As if players can be expected to be balanced.

Games are about promoting interesting ane meaningful decisions which means each player should be uniquely challenged according to their own ability, not equally challenged in order to promote some abstract concept of a contest that is clearly not the point.

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
Sometimes unfair is fair

I agree, a game doesn't *need* to be fair in order to be fun. Usually they are, but if your gaming circles are like mine there's always a couple people that seem to have a slight edge in certain games every time you play. Not a lot, but you can usually say "1 of these 3 people will probably win" at the start if you've all played together enough. I want to take that edge off and make it so everyone has a chance, just because everyone will have more fun if there's that element of the unknown in the game. If everyone leaves at 2 am and can say, "damn that was epic!" I've done my job.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Binary system is better...

s24shane wrote:
...If everyone leaves at 2 am and can say, "damn that was epic!" I've done my job.

Your binary system may be better method than having resources on a "per-tile basis". What I can picture is that you have various locations on the board (hex tiles) that are like "Woodcutter's Hut", "Gold Mine", "Farm" and each one produces 1 to 3 of each resource.

So let's say you have a "Large Farm" (it has a value of 3 underneath), you can place 3 wheat tokens on that tile to indicate how much food it produces. 3 wheat tokens could feed an army of 9 troops (3 each for example).

A "Small Gold Mine" (it has a value of 1 underneath) produces only 1 gold per turn.

You could have a finite amount of these "premium locations" players each get like 5 farms, 3 woodcutter's huts, and 2 gold mines. Players would use their troops to "defend" their resources and have them deep into their own territory. The opponent must risk his troops to try to invade one of these locations to reduce the resources of the opponent...

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
Agreed

I think the binary system simplifies things a bit, and with all these game mechanics going on I need to keep each one pretty simple I think. I was actually thinking even simpler than your last post - as in if you own a Forest you have unlimited access to wood, or if you own a Mine you have access to stone. If you lose that tile you don't have that resource at all (unless you have more than one of that type of tile of course). Your last paragraph is exactly in line with what I'd like to go for though. Also gives the choice of "spreading out for more resources" vs. "well-fortified small territory."

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
Fog of War

Does anyone have ideas for implementing a hidden tile system where you "discover" what terrain/resources tiles are without knowing ahead of time? (similar to the "fog of war" in the Civilization video games). I think it would be a cool mechanic, but the limitations are that you, a) randomly place/flip new tiles, or b) somebody knows what/where they are ahead of time. A) adds randomness but could also ruin a game if tiles are really unfair, while B) gives someone a huge advantage. Thoughts?

Jarec
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2013
Something something

About that fog of war you're thinking: random tile placement can be toned down with some rules, like proximity and additional dice rolls. For example no resource tile can be randomly placed adjacent to another, or within 2-4 hexes to another unless the player rolls a 6.

Some some things to consider: a bunch of tiny hexes that players can also take control over might bog the game down awfully lot. It's a huge deal to keep book about which player has which hex in his control (or a silly amounts of tokens everywhere).

I'm all about that Risk style game where the game just continues through midnight, but more than that I like options. A simple multiplayer thing to do when a game needs to be shortened is to put objective in the middle. That'll eliminate turtling and makes a short alternative game mode.

s24shane
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2014
Good Points

Fog of war:
That seems to be a good way of keeping it somewhat predictable, but still holding an element of randomness. I'll have to look into it more.

Tiles:
With a resource system implemented, it would be very easy to keep track of only the resource tiles (a couple tiles per person vs. dozens per person if you are tracking all tiles). The part I'm stuck on is we are only tracking those few tiles, how is funding allocated to players? Making the resource tiles each worth a certain amount per turn (in addition to supplying resources) is one option, another would be that resources can be turned in for money or something.
Or maybe eliminate cash altogether and have units be purchased by stockpiling and turning in resource cards (similar to Settlers of Catan, but with armies instead of roads and cities). I'm not really sure yet.

Central Objective:
I think this is a good opportunity for map variety to come into play. For example, some predetermined maps could have a resource-heavy center, forcing players into the middle if they want to have a chance at winning. Those maps would probably play faster than ones where resources are closer to players' fortresses.

Jerry
Jerry's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2010
Neat Idea

I like your description of this game. This is exactly the type of game I enjoy designing too. You've got two of my favourite elements, Medieval theme, and random tile placement.

The only concern I have with conquest type games is the game reaching a point where one person is so far ahead with money and resources, that there's no point for other players to keep playing. Kind of like chess, where you can see the loss 5-10 turns down the road and there's nothing you can do about it.

To rectify this, you could just impose other winning conditions that come into play earlier. When you playtest, you can determine after roughly how much time the game reaches this tipping point, how many points/money/resources players have and then come up with your conditions based on this info.

I agree with an above poster that things don't always have to be equal, But I do believe it is something to consider, as in my experience not many people want to continue going if things are hopeless for them.

Aside from this, I think your idea is great and something I'd really enjoy playing!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut