Game Design Forum

In typical wargames there is no player input outside of the movement phase and no chance within the movement phase - you move your pieces a predetermined amount and the positioning of those pieces then dictates the probability of success in resulting combat. I believe I've mentioned this earlier, but I'll say it again: that's not a bad thing! In fact, it matches very closely to the commander's point of view of battles throughout history - they have maps in front of them, send out orders to units to hold, maneuver, or attack, try to understand the disposition and intent of the enemy forces, and wait for updates about units in combat. But I don't like it for a skirmish game, or any game that isn't attempting to be a military simulation really. I want player involvement throughout the game, a game caulk full of meaningful decisions that players can agonize over. In Blast of War players have a choice with each movement action - allow units to walk at a set pace,...

One of my design goals for Blast of War is to avoid allowing total victory, the total elimination of your opponent, to be the most common method of victory. Assuming all goes well the "will" mechanic I am using will provide a manipulable upper bound to game length that will encourage players to attempt to achieve objective that provide victory points at the end of the game. My current problem is how to create those objectives in a way that rewards intelligent play, can create an organic narrative to the battles - even pick-up games, and makes total victory a risky strategy. As this blog is more a design notebook for me and less intended for general viewing (which is good, as I'd be very disappointed with the number of visitors otherwise) I'm going to discuss the types of victory conditions I've seen in tabletop games then roll over to rambling about ideas that might help meet my design goals for BoW. Narrative Scenarios I am a huge fan of narrative scenarios...