RTS board game

I get that most people seem to not like the idea of using timers and actually having the game unfold in real time with no turn structure imposed on it, but if you are genuinely trying to capture the feel of StarCraft, as the originator of this thread first proposed, I think it's absolutely worth testing.

Would it create a certain degree of mayhem? Yes. But the pressure on awareness of all the different things unfolding simultaneously as was so succinctly pointed out, would be transferred. RTS games are inherently stressful because of that and I think it would certainly be worth trying out a direct port of the mechanic before we dismiss it and try to use Average Dice Rolling, Card draw and play mechanics, etc. to try to simulate the real-time aspect through a degree of time balance, which while also interesting, does not really capture the simultaneity of a true RTS like StarCraft.

Phases also detract from that concept, since while I am busy building or upgrading units, I could have a Zerg force walk into my base and ruin my day. I'm in build phase, but my opponent is not. I kind of like that total freedom to do what you want, when you want, applied to the table top.

I agree with some of the skepticism too, it might not work. But it's a very intriguing idea. I'd certainly be happy to play it, even if the game devolved into a chaotic mess. Porting an RTS into analog would be extremely challenging, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work. It's definitely worth a try.

BTW, I'm not too familiar with star craft, but I played a lot of Supreme Commander, so that's what I'm envisioning.

Construction of buildings could be done the same way as building units...

I know it's still rudimentary but kinda feels like I'm on to something - at least got the wheels turning in my head! Going to start thinking about a layout...

Even with card turning or counter moving still require set of events that should happen at the same time or it will end up as dexterity game which seems weird for strategy game.

How about all player makes decision at the same time (yes you could even add the clock timer in this phase) then the big resolve phase comes in and all player works on the result together.

Each big turn has 10 time slots that resolve in linear order. Every player secretly assign action plan to all the given time slot or skip. I'll not mention the resources or command points or building queue limitation here but they would be inevitably needed for the playable game.

Let's assume that player will gain resources at each time slot.

For example, the number in parenthesis is how many time slot needed to finish that action.

Terran
1. Build Barrack(2) from ConYard

2. no action

3. [Barrack complete]
Build Turret #1 (2) from ConYard / Build Marine #1 (2) from Barrack

4. no action

5. [Turret #1 / Marine #1 complete]
Build Turret #2 (2) from ConYard / Build Marine #2 (2) from Barrack

and so on...

Zerg
1. Build Larva #1 (1) from Hatchery

2. [Larva #1 complete]
Build Larva #2 (1) from Hatchery / Evolve Larva #1 to Zergling #1

3. [Larva #2 / Zergling #1 complete]
Build Larva #3 (1) from Hatchery / Evolve Larva #2 to Zergling #2

4. [Larva #3 / Zergling #2 complete]
Build Larva #4 (1) from Hatchery / Evolve Larva #3 to Zergling #3

5. [Larva #4 / Zergling #3 complete]
Build Larva #5 (1) from Hatchery / Evolve Larva #4 to Zergling #4 / Send Zergling #1-#3 to attack Terran

and, yeah, i just show you the Zerg Rush.

On the resolve phase, all player will see what's going on together and if there is a combat happen resolve it via some combat rules.

Ok, this is my 2 cents.

Those are valid and important points.

In the matter of dexterity, while it is an element of the RTS, do we really want that in a large scale, expensive strategy game? Because every new player is guaranteed to lose against an opponent who has played before. On a computer, you can practice the interface in a tutorial, and practice dexterity in single player campaigns, but unless you design a single player variant of a board game RTS, new players will have no chance- they're going to be behind on everything.

I don't think this concept can be approached as an exact replication of a computerized RTS game because there will always be one thing missing - the computer. The question then is, do we want to have a game that simulates the AI of a computer? In other words, mechanics that allow us to start a process such as building, upgrading, moving, etc, and that can keep track of that progress over time automatically while we focus our attention elsewhere.

I like the idea of focusing on the "feel" of an RTS, whether it has these automated mechanics, or mechanics that keep Time moving along, or whatever. So as I've been thinking about this lately, a real TIME strategy makes you really focus on the TIMING of your choices and actions.

Did you start upgrading something too soon, using up resources you needed more to build a defense turret? Are your faster, weaker battle units getting too far ahead of the rest of your attack force and getting wiped out? Did you wait too long to build a radar tower?

These are the timing decisions I find myself making for all aspects of the game - strategically with combat as well as with resource management. To me, it's my process of keeping track of my decisions and making sure I don't forget important backup plans or decisions that makes a game feel like RTS, and not so much the dexterity.

So for a board game version, I think we need to consider what elements from the digital side we DON'T need to emulate in order to have the "feel" that we want to capture.