Game inspired by videogame-shooters

Simultaneous Resolution:
If all actions resolve simultaneously, it feels more like real-time ("Counter Strike") instead of like, "you go, I go." That helps get rid of the, "you attack, I attack," feeling that you don't like.

Rock-Scissors-Paper:
If all actions are capable of winning, losing, and tying, then every action is an attack or a defense, depending on context. One of the things that made (and makes) Starcraft so enduring is that every single unit, from lowly zerglings to Protoss Archons, has its strengths and weaknesses. It contributes a lot to making the game strategic; attacking or reacting with the correct unit(s) is key to victory.

If you can design an action system where every action is useful in some contexts and weak in other contexts; especially in combination with your opponent's action, then you've created a system where players aren't mindlessly rolling dice to attack over and over again, instead players have to think about what's best for their situation and try to guess what their opponent will do. Once you have that, players can feint and bluff each other and the game becomes a lot more engaging.

Application – A simple example:
We're playing rock-scissors-paper. Each time one of us wins, that player gets a point. The first player to reach 10 points wins.

There's a deck of four cards:
• +1 if you win with rock
• +1 if you win with scissors
• +1 if you win with paper
• +1 if you tie

We each get one of these cards, face down, at the start of the game. You know what your card is (+1 rock), but I don't, and vice-versa (I have +1 scissors).

We throw the first round. Being students of the R-S-P Academy, we both lead with paper. We tie, and nothing happens. The score stays 0-0. Neither of us revealed our card, so we know that neither of us gain a point on a tie.

Second round: We decide to try our specials. You throw rock and I throw scissors. You win and gain a point, and you reveal your card so you can gain a second point. I choose not to reveal my card because it would not benefit me. The score is 2-0, your lead.

Third round: I know that you get two points if you win with rock, so I'm reluctant to throw scissors. You know I know this, so you know I'm inclined to throw paper to cover your rock, which means that you have a good reason to throw scissors to cut my paper. Here's where the "magic" of the system comes in. We both have knowledge that unbalances the desirability/reward of each option, but each option still has the same, "combat value." The game has changed from a mostly-random setup to a web of second-guessing and bluffing.

...One more thing... Imagine what it would be like if there were seven cards in the deck instead of four. Two copies of each rock, scissors, and paper, and one for the tie.

Summary:
• Simultaneous resolution makes every action an attack or a defense and helps break players out of the, "swapping attacks" routine.
• Making each action act as an attack or a defense, depending on the situation also helps break players out of the, "swapping attacks" routine.
• Adding a simple reward system and a little extra knowledge to a simple, tried-and-true system can yield interesting results.

I hope this helps. I wish you the best of luck!

What do you feel makes Counter Strike interesting to you? Can those elements be recreated in a game with a turn based structure, or does it require real time play? Are you looking for a tactical, move and roll game, like Axis & Allies, Advanced Squad Leader or Memoir44 where you are the commander? Or do you want to play a specific character moving around the board like in Betrayal at House on Haunted Hill, Zombies or DungeonQuest? Or, would you prefer where movement and conflict is abstract like Call of Chthulhu CCG, Battlestar Galactica Board Game or even Munchkin?

In addition to simultaneous conflict, you can even add co-occupancy of spaces as a way to move away from traditional move and attack games. European style gaming often involves a lot of co-occupancy of resources (with varying different rules for how each of the occupants benefits), but most war games tend to assume zones of exclusive control. It would certainly alter the typical American style of a war game if exclusivity was much more amorphous.

Some random thoughts:

I've tried to make RSP work in a game without much luck. To me this is not a great mechanic for a "shooter" sim. Ultimately RSP is pretty skill-less and emotionally unsatisfying.

The criticism of most shooters is that they are "aiming games". Well the best players of shooters are good aimers of course but they excel because they use tactics and mastery of the map to their greatest advantage. I would think that positioning and use of the terrain would work best for what you are trying to recreate.

I remember a very good mac game that would be about 20 years old now in which you programmed 2-8 combat robots and then they performed their turn simultaneously against an opponent squad. I always thought that was a great basis for a game: Give your units orders and then everything is resolved simultaneously.

I agree with earlier comments that you should identify what you like best about shooters and then think about what mechanic in a board game best recreates that emotional experience.

I have a friend who has tried to do a boardgame version of a real time strategy game and its a daunting task. Things that are real time are certainly a challenge to convert into board game mechanics: hence the idea of orders and resolution. Creating a turn based game from a shooter or RTS seems to miss the point.

Good luck!

Ok.. this is one I've been sitting on for years now... I suggest it as a way of encouraging units moving as a squad. You see I've got some mechanics kicking around for a quad level military themed game that shares some inspiration with your concept.

So here's how my movement idea works:
-First of all, a soldier may only move once in a turn, keep track of who has moved either through movement tokens or simply by memory. (not so bad if players each command 4 or 5 soldiers)
-Basically each soldier can only move one space at a time.
-However, a soldier may also move to any space adjacent to a friendly soldier as long as there is a contiguous connection between where the moving soldier is starting and the ending space. Sorry if this isn't clear.. I've had a heck of a time trying to put this into words over he years.. here's a crude "diagram"
AOOOO
"A" is the moving soldier, "O"s are friendlies.. "A" can thus move 5 spaces to the right and end up here:
OOOOA

Also, a soldier is not forced to move to a space adjacent to a friendly, this allows you to break squads up into smaller fire teams too.

I think team-based FPS like Wolfenstein Enemy Territory or Battlefield could work, if you go up one level and manage the entire team on one player. The soldiers in the game would spawn at specific intervals on some captured spawn point, and then you try to move to capture more spawn points and other objectives. Killed soldiers just go to an off-map box awaiting the next spawn time. When a soldier is waiting to spawn you might be allowed to change its class/type (like you can when in limbo in ET) .

I even have a prototype map and rules for a game like that somewhere. I used area-based movement and some very simple combat mechanic. Most units could only attack within their area and some (eg snipers) could also attack adjacent areas. But I never tested it so I don't know how much work it would be to turn it into something playable (if possible at all). I was thinking something mission-based and totally rip off all sorts of ideas from existing computer games (having barriers you need to bring an engineer to blow up, vehicles that can be driven, ... totally mindless ameritrash yes).