I can easily determine what are the criteria I should look for to make a video game the fastest way possible. I can predict the amount of code, assets and data required by a game and evaluate it's design complexity.
Can we do the same with board games?
Here, I mean the entire design process, not just the production process. A way to determine this could be the size of a game, but from my experience, the smallest/simplest games are not necessarily the easiest to design because you are more constrained.
Easiest to design could sacrifice other aspects like production cost, length, strategic depth, replay-ability, etc. The issue at stake is really the time required to design the game. If other aspects are present, it's a bonus.
Here is a list of criteria I came up with, feel free to comment or suggest some criteria of your own:
Limited amount of components: If you have less pieces, you have less interactions to consider, less rules attached to it, etc. It should be easier to design. For example, design a chesslike game on a 5x5 board to use a limited amount of pieces.
No text abilities: Text abilities are hard to balance, there can have a lot of subtleties, conflicting rules, etc. They also require hard coding if you want digital playtesting. So any components should use strictly numbers or booleans. The "text" abilities are the rules, so there is no exception.
Small rule book: Having a double sided letter page for the rules (without images) should be a rule of thumb to determine if a game is too complex. Only the core rules should fit in this page. Reference material, scenarios, etc, are not part of those rules.
Limited amount of data: Any data from unit stats to card values should be in limited quantity and variety. It does impact the replay value, but it makes the predictability of the game easier, avoids outliers. For example, in a war game, use little unit variety and as few stats as required.
Limit the number of mechanics: There should be only be 1-3 core mechanics. The size of the rule book indirectly restrain this. Few mechanics makes it easier to learn and limit the amount of interactions.
Nb of players: Certain number of player could be optimal. Solitaire games are out since they require a lot of complexity and variety to be enjoyable. 2 Players seems good, but it could be harder to balance. 3+ players could be the best as player could balance the game themselves.
Reuse known system: Using mechanics or a system from a game that already exists could make the design process easier.
I have a few ideas of my own so far that could fit those criteria, but they sometimes ended up pretty complex. Like my stock market game, without digital simulation, that would have been a mess to design.
Sorry if I repeat myself, but the abstractedness of a game seems to impact design. Many war games, and a few other type of games, are more concrete type of games with little abstract mechanism.
For example, a deck builder is an abstract mechanism. In rune age, the deck building abstract how you collect resources, how you muster your units, and how you use those resources to achieve your goal.
With a similar theme, a war game could do the same by make you collect money, spend it, spawn units and complete objectives without the need to put it on cards and into a deck.
For example, 1846, the train game, is very concrete. You manage shares, build routes and handle money. Everything makes sense and is just a simplified model of reality, with little abstract mechanism. I think trains rusting is the only abstract mechanism I can find.
So abstracted mechanism could be another criteria to make games easier to design. The closer to reality your game is, the easier it is to design.
The challenge would be to think in a way that removes those abstract mechanism. They are generally very tempting, because they are neat. Not sure how we could really filter out those abstract mechanism since a they have various levels of abstractedness.