Aliens Predator CCG: Card Design Part 1

Aliens Predator Card Designs

A problem with all the cards is the font used in the name. It has readability issues and could be improved. Second, the Resources and Restrictions listed along the left side of the cards are printed vertically. That's hard to read without turning the cards or craning your head, and this text is often required to tell if you can play a card or not.

Locations form the 'map' where the game takes place. Characters move between adjacent locations, and can search them for equipment and supporting characters. I like the graphic card frame and the prominence of the image. 

Main Characters are under the direct control of the players. They move, attack, and search for supporting characters and items. These frames look interesting, but the flavor text overlaps some of the graphic elements making it harder to read.

Supporting Characters are found by main characters and are used by the different factions to win the game. The contrast on the card is nice - they look really plain, and wildly different than the other character cards for easy distinction.

Events are played for temporary buffs or penalties. I like the design but the texture under the effect text makes it harder to read than necessary.

Items are used by the Humans and the Predators. The Human Item frame is very solid. I like the graphics and the texture doesn't interfere with the Effect Text and the Flavor Text. The Predator frame has wasted Effect Text space, and the texture underlays the Name and Flavor Text entirely.

These cards were redesigned with the release of the Resurrection expansion, and to match the Terminator CCG which used the same rule system.

Dune CCG: New Card Faces

The Dune cards hold a ton of information - There are symbols, number attributes, type and timing information, all kinds of stuff. There are about 17 variables contained in each card which makes them tough to design, all that information needs to be organized in a readable and clear manner.

My goal when making these templates was to prioritize learning the game above all else - with complex rules and detailed cards, making the information clear to new players is vital to keep them playing.

The first step was to simply remove the image field. I don't have the resources to create art at this point, so diverting that space to rules text was a given. From there I identified each part of the card that had information important to the player and to give each piece a place on the card.

As an example, some effects refer to one of the five broad card types: Holdings, Plans, Resources, and, Personas, and Events. But the cards in the original game don't list that information - they use a different card frame to indicate card type. I don't think that's enough of an indicator, so I made the card type explicit under the card's Name.

I also added labels for Allegiance, Talent Requirements, Cost, Command and Resources to make those markers more clear. In the base game they are

Personas are the main 'actors' in a game of Dune. They can make battle, begin intrigues, duel other personas, and arbitrate over contracts. They can be improved with Resources like liaisons, vehicles, and weapons.

Plans are temporary special powers that you can play to alter the game. Each Plan's subtype shows where, under which conditions, and what phase it can be played during.

Resources are attached to Personas and Holdings to amplify their abilities. A card's Command is the limit of Resource cards that can be assigned to them.

Holdings are the other key card in Dune. They represent locations or large scale government operations. They often generate resources, and can be upgraded with Resource cards.

Events are special, far-reaching one-time effects that have a larger effect the more turns a player 'charges' them up by playing them face down on the field. When revealed, they trigger their special effects.j

After playing through with a set of these cards, I'm considering how to make room for the art with a redesign. The first alternative I'm thinking is to replace the 'skill box' with Magic: The Gathering Keyword-style text, like Battle 3. Other alternatives include breaking the skill box into 3 separate modules, or to have a full stat line like Warlord CCG.

CCG Regeneration: Card Back Designs

I've finished transcribing all the Dune CCG cards and developed templates for new printings:

Image of a card with a blue background, a light blue geometric pattern, with a gold geometric pattern in the foreground. The card is labelled 'House'.

Image of a card with a purple background, a light blue geometric pattern, with a gold geometric pattern in the foreground. The card is labelled 'imperial'.

I wanted the card backs to be very distinct in color, but have a matching design to reinforce the relationship between the House Deck, which represent an individual House's resources, and the Imperial Deck, which represents unique assistance from other forces within the galaxy at large.

I used purple for the Imperial background color to reference the Imperial Deck's higher status, and I used blue to indicate that the House Deck is still of 'nobility' but to a lesser degree.
Both card backs use patterns to add texture to the background color. I chose different patterns to further subtly differentiate the cards from each other.
Both cards use a

"Purple was the color worn by Roman magistrates; it became the imperial color worn by the rulers of the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, and later by Roman Catholic bishops. Similarly in Japan, the color is traditionally associated with the emperor and aristocracy.^{[7]" - Wikipedia}

"Blue has been an important colour in art and decoration since ancient times. The semi-precious stone lapis lazuli was used in ancient Egypt for jewellery and ornament and later, in the Renaissance, to make the pigment ultramarine, the most expensive of all pigments. In the eighth century Chinese artists used cobalt blue to colour fine blue and white porcelain. In the Middle Ages, European artists used it in the windows of cathedrals. Europeans wore clothing coloured with the vegetable dye woad until it was replaced by the finer indigo from America. In the 19th century, synthetic blue dyes and pigments gradually replaced mineral pigments and synthetic dyes. Dark blue became a common colour for military uniforms and later, in the late 20th century, for business suits. Because blue has commonly been associated with harmony, it was chosen as the colour of the flags of the United Nations and the European Union.^{[2]" - Wikipedia}

CCG Regeneration 2: Road Map

These are the steps I will follow when investigating old Customizable Card Games for conversion into boxed card games.

Acquire the Game
First step first. Acquiring the game includes finding potential abandoned candidates, collecting rules errata, and obtaining what card information is available in case additional sets are required. Then I order some starter decks or find a Tabletop Simulator module so I can try the game.

Learn the Rules
I read through the rules a couple of times to familiarize myself with the new game. Lots of these games were abandoned because of how complex they are relative to Magic: The Gathering, so I need to be diligent to make sure I understand how it works before bringing it to the table.

Play the Game
I get out the cards and play a few dummy rounds against myself. Even though I have perfect information, this is a very important step in figuring out how the game flows at the table. Any places I run into friction indicate a place in the rules I need to clarify.
This preparation helps me

Record the Cards
I use online scans (or a rare physical collection) to fill a spreadsheet with the card information. Ideally I can get a complete record. Lots of time is spent researching in this stage. I make small changes like incorporating errata and rulings on early cards to reduce the later workload.

Determine if the Game is suitable for conversion
With playtesting, I hope to find if the core game functions without the collectible aspect. I'll work to adapt the game if it is still fun without the excitement and risk of buying randomized packs, the engagement of active support and competitive scene, and the prospect of new sets being released regularly.

Change Rules
With an understanding of the game I can change the rules and cards to better fit the single-box model. Trash tier cards with low utility are re-worked or eliminated, deck construction rules are streamlined, and different formats like Draft and Constructed are formalized. The conversion's structure will take form here - how many different sets of cards, whether expansions in the original game will have to be separated from the 1st edition cards, and so on.

Play Game with new Rules
New rules, new playtests! This step will take the longest. The synergies and interactions in CCGs are very complex and most can't be anticipated outside of playtesting.

Repeat until satisfied, or the game is deemed unsuitable.
And then we're done!

New Project: CCG Regeneration, or reviving out-of-print CCGs by converting them into Single Box, non collectible Card / Board games

Short Shrift:


While researching the Dune 4x game concept, I came across information about a discontinued Dune card game. I dug deeper, remembering an advertisement in the InQuest magazine I used to read. It featured Paul Atreides, in an ornithopter cockpit:

On the surface, the game appeared to be a clone the popular card game Magic: The Gathering, which had popularized the selling of randomized packs of cards to be used on a competitive game. But the details distinguished Dune from it's antecedent.

The rules of Dune are much more specific and layered than in Magic - as an example, each card tells you the exact phase and conditions where you can play it, even down to the step of the turn and how long the card's effect will last. 

The game is built to support more than 2 players, and has a two-tiered win condition of gathering enough spice and enough political favor - conquest and destruction are a means to an end, but not an end of themselves.

This started me on a journey of discovery and seeded the idea of converting old, out of print Customisable Card Games (CCG) into single box, complete card games. 

Buried Games:
Dune CCG
Aliens Predator CCG
Terminator CCG
Star Trek 1st / 2nd Edition CCG

New Game! 'Dune' 4x Game, Part 1

After replaying Dune II at Epic Port, I realized how much I enjoyed the resource management and base building aspects of the game. The combat is fine but I found myself wondering how much more fun a game like that could be if it took the wider elements of the Dune setting into account when developing mechanics.

Dune II has detailed mechanics for base building, power management, space management, spice harvesting and storage, radar and cartography, worms & wormsign, manufacturing, and terrain types.

What I find problematic is that combat is the only way to win the game. I think that only includes the smallest sliver of the Dune setting, and that you could create a hugely entertaining game by creating mechanics to support the other parts of the setting.

Let's start with additional ways to win. Currently military dominance is the only path to victory. In 4x games, there are usually 4 ways to win: diplomacy / politics, economics, science, and military.

A 4x game is a complex strategic game with multiple avenues to victory.

Let's take a look at what the Dune setting offers for each of those victory methods.

Diplomacy / Politics:
The player garners enough influence to earn their ascension to the Landsraad / Imperial Throne. Influence would be gained through relationships developed with other factions. Influence includes both positive and negative reputation. Actions that alter influence would be worker treatment, people's rights, trading, assassination, assistance, charity, and law enforcement.

Economics:
The player corners the market on spice export from Arrakis, forcing the other factions to surrender. Economic supremacy would be gained through harvesting, researching more efficient technologies and structures, sabotaging opponent's infrastructure, theft, control of all spaceports on Arrakis, and volume of spice.

Science:
The player discovers the secret relationship between the Worms and the Spice, and uses this information to either smuggle a worm off-planet to another ecosystem, or taking the planet hostage by threatening to kill the worms, or terraforming the surface to change the ecosystem.

Military:
The player seizes control of Arrakis by defeating the other martial forces on the planet. Researching military technologies, conquering territories, garrisons and infiltration all help a military victory.

Deck Building Adventure Game, Part 3: First steps

So now that I've got my goals ready (Challenge, Fellowship, and Expression) it's time to build what the game is.

Italic is a game mechanic term
Bold is a thematic term


Who:
The game is built for Player(s). The target group is teens through adults because of the complexity of the interactions. The themes of the game would suit players that enjoy cooperative games with strong thematics, a moderate amount of chance, and many options. The game is not designed for those who desire strictly low chance, a competitive atmosphere, or an abstract setting.

What: (The big one)
I want a game where the player acts to [ overcome challenges using the resources available to them ]. That's the core gameplay loop - most of the play in the game will be this.

A supporting loop is that [ overcoming challenges provides additional resources ] and that [ failing to overcome challenges provides penalties ].

[ Failing too many or key challenges will result in a Lose condition ].

The challenges for a match are selected from a large pool.
Challenges are divided into Sets that share a Theme or Setting.

Where:
Physical copies of the game are built to be played on a table with ample space. Digital copies would be suitable for Windows, Android, and iOS.

When:
1-2 years of hobby time to generate the game, test it, and make prototypes

Why:
To have a cooperative game that combines the play of deck builders with the progression and persistence of adventure games

Deck Building Adventure Game, Part 2: Goals and Research

Goals

By defining the goal of the game first, I can measure every mechanic against that goal to determine if it furthers the objective or interferes with it. Using Marc LeBlanc's Eight Kinds of Fun, I've listed the types of fun the game should provide in order of importance:

• Challenge <- Primary

The core concept of this game is to generate challenge. The game presents a problem and various tools; the players must then find a way to solve the problem with the tools at hand. 

• Fellowship 

A secondary consideration is the feeling you get from cooperating to accomplish a goal. Mechanics should reinforce cooperation and interaction.

• Discovery 

The feeling of experimentation with card combinations and seeing new interactions created by different game systems interacting.

• Expression 

Playing a deck styled after tactics you prefer and find satisfying

• Narrative <- Secondary

Framing the context and theme of the game in a way where players can construct a narrative out of the sequential events.

• Fantasy

Imagining yourself in the situation implied by the cards

• Sensation <- Tertiary

The tactile feel of the cards, the duende of the art

• Submission

Using the game to pass time

When designing mechanics and dynamics, they should refer to each of these priorities. With all this in mind, here is the basic template for my deck building adventure game:

A Cooperative (Felloswhip) deck-builder (expression) where the players work together to defeat obstacles provided by the Game deck (challenge).

New Project! Deck Building Adventure Game, Part 1

This post is about another project I'm starting. The goal is to combine the play mechanics of a deck building game with the character progression and exploration mechanics from an adventure or dungeon crawler game, with a narrative generating bent.

I've enjoyed deck building games since I first tried Dominion a few years ago. I like that deck builders combine the tactics of playing Collectible Card Games (Magic the Gathering, YuGiOh, Shadowverse) and the strategy of assembling a deck beforehand.

I also enjoyed the stories that are generated by playing through strongly themed deck building games like Legendary Encounters: Alien, and other games like Imperial Assault and Hand of Fate.

I want to fuse the two in order to create a hybrid experience.

Tabletop Spaceship Wargame Design Part 10, Researching Firestorm Armada v2

Firestorm Armada is a fleet system that is as complex as Battlefleet Gothic but using different mechanics to accomplish dynamics.

Weapons roll pools of six sided dice to determine how effective the shots are at damaging the target.

Weapons have a profile that describes how many dice they roll at each range. These dice are rolled and compared to
Dice that turn up as a 6 'explode' and add another die to the pool.  Instead of each success dealing a point of damage, the total number of successes are compared to the target's armor. If successes >= Armor, the ship takes a hit.

After testing out the game I found the exploding dice to be untenable. It resulted in lots of unfun situations, either impossible comebacks or annihilating any chance of a comeback.
The armor system also generates situations where a ship's turn results in nothing if they don't score enough hits. For me that doesn't fly. My target is a few ships, so each activation should be impactful. With the armor system, perfect tactics can be denied an effect due heavily to dice rolls.

Tabletop Spaceship Wargame Part 10, Researching A Call To Arms

Analysis of the Call to Arms system

Core Gameplay
Call to Arms uses a base movement system, attack system, and special actions ships can use to alter their performance.

Players roll for initiative every round.
Loser activates one of their ships first, then players take turns activating ships until every unit has been moved.

In Babylon 5, units must move half their Move rating forward every activation. After that they may make their first turn according to their turn rating. If they have multiple turns, they must move 2" after the previous turn before turning again.

In Star Trek all units can move up to 12", they may stay stationary or go in reverse. A ship's Movement Rating is how many inches forward the ship must travel before turning. Therefore, a ship with a turn rating of 6 can turn twice if it moves 12" - the first turn at 6", and the second at 12".

After moving, the activated ship chooses which special action to make and performs the necessary test. Special Actions alter how ships operate or provide additional abilities. Each advantage comes with a trade off or restriction and some have a chance of failure. If a special action requires a test and is failed, the ship acts as normal and it's special action has been wasted.

Once all capital ships have been moved, auxiliary craft are moved.

========================================================================

Attack Phase
Players may measure distance at any time.

The player that won initiative picks a capital ship unit and activates it. They then choose which weapons will attack which targets, and then resolve these weapon attacks one at a time. Weapons have a maximum range, a fire arc they can shoot out of, the number of dice they roll to attack, and special properties that alter the weapon's effect on the base mechanic.

The attack dice are rolled and successes score damage against the target.

In Babylon 5, the target has a hull rating that determines what rolls hurt the target.
In Star Trek, all targets are hit on a 4+ by default. Range, ship and weapon traits can alter these results.

The number of hits that surpass the defenses then roll again to determine their effect. 1 deals no damage, 2-5 deals 1 damage, and 6 deals 1 damage and causes a critical effect. Weapon traits can alter these results.

Each critical result rolls a die on the critical chart to determine the system hit.

In Babylon 5, any crit could generate any severity of result.
In Star Trek, each crit to a location inflicts an increasingly severe effect.

Damage is recorded. Below a certain threshold, ships become Crippled. This severely weakens the ship and limits it's capabilities.

After a ship resolves all of it's attacks, the other player activates a capital ship and play repeats until all capital ships have fired.

Once all capital ships have attacked, auxiliary craft have their chance to attack. In Babylon 5, If they are contacting other auxiliary craft, they attack using Dogfight rules.

========================================================================

The rules play well after the initial learning curve. The use of dice pools to resolve weapon attacks allows reliable estimation of a weapon's expected performance. Ships are capable and have statistics that make fleet construction interesting. Their interactions fit the theme of each fiction they seek to model and resolve rapidly.

The exception based ruleset is difficult to learn at first due to the variability of conditions and sequencing. The lack of reference components makes checking the rules taxing. The high amount of ship hit points is a chore to track without component assistance. Critical Hits take a lot of rolls to determine and referencing the chart and effects takes time. Tracking the effects of Critical hits across a battle is difficult without component assistance. The rules are written in an unclear manner.

The game has had balance issues since publication for Babylon 5 more than four editions ago. Lots of testing will be required to ensure as much fairness as possible when using these mechanics.

Tabletop Spaceship Wargame Part 9, Researching Star Wars Armada

Before I continue with developing my game I'm going to examine several other entries in the genre. I'll summarize the game system and then interpret my findings for my game.\


This entry will concern Star Wars: Armada (SWA) by Fantasy Flight Games.

SWA is a science fiction miniature wargame set in the Star Wars universe. Players build fleets and selects upgrade and configuration cards to an agreed point value. Once your fleet is constructed you select 3 objectives from a set of 12 that will suit your fleet. The player with the least points in their fleet chooses who is first player. First player looks at the objectives of the Second Player and picks one. That determines the special conditions of the scenario.

The map is 6' x 3' with non-grid movement.
Ships that leave the map are destroyed.
Each game lasts 6 rounds.

Ships have attacks in each of four firing arcs. Different ships have different sized arcs; these differences are shown on each ship's base. Each arc shows it's attack rating which determines how many dice of each type that arc uses when attacking.

There are three types of dice in SWA that determine the range band they can be used at and the relative distribution of results on them. Red dice are long range, blue dice are medium range and have no blank faces, and black dice are short ranged and have more Critical ratings. Squadrons can only fire any dice up to Distance 1. Exception rules can allow dice to be fired outside of their normal range set.

Ships can make 2 attacks per turn as long as they are out of two different arcs. Attacks are resolved by selecting an attacker, selecting a target, checking fire arc and range, check for obstruction, then rolling dice. You total the damage and record any critical results, the opponent decides whether to use any Defense tokens they have to reduce the impact of the attack and then damage is resolved on the target.

When damage pierces the shields and a critical result is available a damage card is flipped over and inflicts a negative effect on the target.

Movement is handled through several components interacting. A ship has a speed value that determines how often and how quickly it can turn. Each ship card has a diagram showing how many turns at which distance the ship can make. To move the ship, you grab the movement tool component and click it into a shape that matches the legal moves shown on the ship card. You lock the ruler into the base and then move the ship to the distance segment that matches the ship's speed.

Ships perform special actions by selecting from four choices ahead of their turn. Larger ships need to pick these actions in advance. These special actions are how ships change their speed, control fighters, repair, and concentrate fire.

Squadrons can either move or fire after all capital ships have moved and fired. With a capital ship special action and proximity they can move and attack, before the other ships. Squadrons have hit points and attack ratings against capital ships and fighters. They have no facing and no heading restrictions. When capital ships attack fighters, they roll dice against each squadron within a firing arc with their anti-squadron value.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had a hard time playing this game. The rules are written in an incoherent style and out of order so I ran the game incorrectly several times. From my experience the game is functional but far from what I want, and it doesn't feel like Star Wars.

Let's go into each element.

Components
This game relies heavily on proprietary components to be playable. From the range and distance ruler, to the maneuver tool, to the damage deck, to the custom 8 sided dice used to attack, to the upgrade cards, to the ship cards, to the base plates, and so on and so on. From a utility perspective the reliance on such components makes the game less accessible. If a component breaks or becomes lost, replacing it is more difficult and costly than general implements.

There is also the issue of how effective the components are:


Damage Deck: The use of this to generate critical hits is flawed. Each card removed from the deck takes some number of different critical results out of the potential pool, altering the probability of receiving any given critical result. For this to operate damage cards need to be stacked near the stricken ship's card which can cause organizational problems with the higher hull point ships. Either the cards are stacked and it's difficult to tell how damaged the ship is, or they are spread out and take up a large amount of table space to communicate a small amount of information.

Solutions:
Critical results should be determined by a random result whose probabilities don't change based on how much damage has been dealt in the game. Rolling dice and comparing the result to a chart is an example. Having a marker for each critical in the shape of a card is acceptable but the method to generate those results is not.


Range Ruler
This component performs approximately as expected. A tape measure is better for maneuvering Squadrons since the length of the ruler can get in the way and move ships accidentally. The cardboard can bend as well as peel, so quality is an issue.

Solution:
Distances measured in inches / cm so that any measuring tool can be used.


Movement Tool
This component does not achieve it's basic function of precision movement within the rules. The plastic it is made of is so flexible that a player can shift the position of their end point. The use of the tool also requires three separate components to function properly - the speed dial, the ship card's maneuver chart, and the slotted base to lock the tool into. The length of the tool, like the Range Ruler, is awkward and can accidentally shift ships.

Solution:
Have a standard movement measure in inches / cm. Have each ship card show the amount it must move forward before it can turn. Speed determines the full distance the ship must move.


Squadron Bases
Squadrons are mounted on round bases and have an activation toggle and rotating HP dial. The stiffness of the components makes it difficult to adjust Squadron HP without shifting their base. The initiative toggles slide out the side of the base which makes placing the fighters close together impossible.

Solution:
Represent squadron HP with a die. Represent squadron activation with a colored token.


Mechanics
========================================================================
The Command dials system is interesting and I like the hidden simultaneous orders. However I find it doesn't add much to play. It allows mistakes to be punished easily for slower ships and has minimal penalty and maximum benefit for small ships. The timing and use of tokens complicates play while adding small or very conditional benefit. The structure of the rules makes the Maneuver command vital, while concentrate fire adds a small bonus. Squadron Command is one of the only ways to use Squadrons effectively and it still has too many restrictions to be fully effective.

Solution:
Replace Commands with system akin to Special Actions that are a tradeoff with a chance of failure or penalty. The raw capability of ships should not be inhibited to make room for this system.


Squadrons
Squadrons are not effective enough. Overall they rarely get used outside of lists built to support them completely, or with special edge cases like 8 A-Wings. They cost points to field and if you lose all of your capital ships you lose the scenario, so each fighter is taking away from that threshold. They tend to have single die attacks against capital ships and most cannot deal critical effects. Some of these factors are mitigated with the Squadron command and others with hero squadrons, but squadrons should be an effective auxiliary to the fleet without intense handicap, specialization, or extreme edge cases.

Solution:
Each capital ship comes with a set amount of Squadrons included in it's point cost.
- or -
completely rework squadrons to be either less of a factor, or more of a factor in gameplay.

Upgrades
Upgrades in this game come in several types. One squadron of each type can be upgraded to a unique 'hero' squadron with an ability and modified statistics.
Capital Ships can be upgraded with upgrades and unique titles. Unique titles are upgrades that alter statistics or provide abilities to a ship of a specific type. Each Unique Title can only be used once in a fleet, and can only be applied to the Title's key ship.
Each capital ship has a list of upgrade 'slots'. Each slot lets that ship equip a single upgrade of that type for the point cost listed on the card.

The problem: An upgrade costs the same regardless of what ship takes it. That does not take into account the difference between all of the ships that can equip an upgrade. It undermines the whole point of a point based fleet purchasing system. The unique upgrades do not scale with fleet size.
Ships are incapable without upgrades - they are designed to only be fielded with equipment to be effective.

Solution:
Each ship pays a price for a given upgrade based on it's effectiveness on *that ship*. Cards can be used to record the upgrade powers.

Conclusion:
There isn't much I can take from this game due to how ineffective the mechanics are in terms of accessibility and balance complexity.

Tabletop Spaceship Wargame Part 8, Meta systems!

Previously I established the core tenets of the movement system. I'm attacking broader questions at this point and I need to take a stance on several issues I've encountered across different games.

Scale-ability
Some games work really well on a small scale, and then fall completely apart at a larger scale. This cannot be completely mitigated. The impact of scale on the game can be reduced through the use of mechanics that are less intensive at larger scales.

For example, if players set each piece's movement pattern simultaneously then there is less down time as players are resolving a step of the game at the same time rather than taking turns. This mechanic would also keep team games quick.

A less optimal but simpler mechanic would be for players to alternate moving pieces. This allows players to react to each other's moves as the turn progresses and makes the choice of which pieces to move important for obtaining an advantage. This breaks down in games with more than 4 players as the time between moves becomes substantial.

The method I'm least fond of is on your turn, you move every unit you control. This is boring for the opposing player because it is a passive experience - they cannot act with the current information until the entirety of their opponent's forces have moved.

For now movement will alternate as each player selects a piece, completes it's movement, and then the other player follows suit.

========================================================================

Another piece of this puzzle is whether or not a unit destroyed before it's turn gets to fire. There are games that allow this, and there are games that do not. The difference is in the amount of punishment the target player should receive. Given that whether a piece can be attacked or not is under some control of the player, a destroyed ship is at least partially a result of their choices. This also alters how less durable ships affect the game. If they can fire the turn they are destroyed then 'glass cannon' ships would be more viable and powerful. If not they represent a higher risk.

In order to keep the game accessible, the rules allow a ship to fire on the turn it is destroyed. This helps negate the disadvantage of first turn in a manner compatible with the abstraction present in other areas of the game.

========================================================================

Initiative
Moving first in this game is a disadvantage. Going second lets you react to the other player's moves, and you have the distance advantage when measuring range to fire weapons. Due to the nature of the game alternating turns are the only practical method to resolve game mechanics in an orderly fashion.

Initiative will be determined by a coin toss for now. As the game develops it may be useful to have slower reacting factions have a penalty to Initiative.

The player that wins Initiative deploys his ship, moves, and fires after the player that lost initiative.

Tabletop Spaceship Wargame Part 7, Adding movement!

So this is where we left off with rules.

Turns:

• Players alternate turns. 
• A player can [only] act on their turn.
• On their turn, a player [Moves] and then [Attacks] 
• Flip a coin. The winner of the toss gets the first turn.

Movement:

• Your ship can move [anywhere] on the play space.
• The play space is [infinite] size.
• Your ship may move at [any] time

Attacking

• Your ship can shoot [Once] per Turn
• Your ship deals [1] damage per shot
• Your ship hits [on a D6 roll of 4, 5, or 6]
• Your ship damages targets [automatically]
• Your ship can take [1] damage before being destroyed

The game is starting to take shape but there aren't enough systems in the game to create meaningful choice. Because all of the movement variables are equal and infinite, there is no difference between them - they do not impact play at all. 

So this post will be about bringing in a basic movement system, what choices will be made to construct that system, and what each decision means for the other systems in the game.

In a previous post, I laid out the advantages and disadvantages of a freeform movement system versus a grid based movement system. I've judged that a grid movement system better suits the accessibility goal of the game.

So what is a movement system? Let's take a look at a couple of different games that involve movement and see what elements they share.

The examples of movement that I will use are Quake 3 Arena, Chess, and Warhammer: 40,000. Each of these games are very different but have the same goal of competition against another opponent.

In Quake 3 a single character is controlled by the player and can move in two dimensions to a great extent by 'running' and vertically to a limited extent by 'jumping'. The 'level' or environment may provide additional movement options keyed to a discrete location.

The goal of the Deathmatch game mode is to be the first to a set number of 'frags' - achieved by killing other player characters. This is accomplished by using a variety of weapons with different statistics - damage, arc, time to target, area of effect, ammunition supply - to harm other players by hitting them with projectiles. Hitting with these projectiles is hampered by both the attacker and the target's movement and relative position. 

A slow projectile fired at long range will take more time to reach the target, giving it more time to avoid the attack. A pinpoint attack with slow fire rate will be difficult to use if the target is close. Having a discrete movement system allows the weapon interactions to have more options and choices. These choices expand further with the restrictions that terrain provides.  

Chess has a set of pieces controlled by each player and the objective is to trap the enemy's King piece. Each type piece has a set of rules that governs their movement - knights, pawns, rooks, bishops, queen, king. 

Unlike Quake, all pieces attack in the same manner - they must have a valid target based on their movement rules, and when they move onto a space occupied by an enemy piece according to those rules, they capture the other piece. This highlights how player options are provided by each piece with it's movement. The ideal move captures an enemy piece and prevents the enemy from capturing your piece. 

In Warhammer 40,000 each player controls a set of pieces that represent different infantry, vehicles, and artillery units. Each of these units has different attacks, defenses, and movement types. The goal is to either capture ground or destroy the opposing army.

Different units move at different rates and interact with difficult terrain in their own way. Infantry can be slowed, vehicles may be immobilized or destroyed, flying units ignore it unless they stop inside the terrain in which case they may suffer casualties. Since Line of Sight and weapon range are vital to attacking targets, moving relative to other units and terrain becomes the core of the game. All weapon and unit functions are built out of how a unit can bring that weapon to bear.

The common elements in these games is that movement is fundamentally tied into achieving goals. In quake, movement helps protect characters as well as provide avenues to attack. In Chess, positioning is how you attack and how you protect your pieces. In Warhammer 40,000 movement is used to protect your forces, achieve mission goals, and to attack the enemy.

========================================================================

The Movement system needs to provide a way to bring attacks to bear, and to avoid enemy attacks. This means that weapons need to have limitations to make movement meaningful. I'm following the majority of games in the field by including range, line of sight, and firing arcs as rules for attacks.

Movement can now make a difference when weapons have a limited range and field of fire. Now for the basic rules of moving ships around on a map grid. I've decided the grid type will be hexagons.

Turns:

• Players alternate turns.
• A player can [only] act on their turn.
• On their turn, a player [Moves] and then [Attacks] 
• Flip a coin. The winner of the toss places their ship anywhere within [3] Hexes of their board edge. Then the other player places their ship.
• Ships take up 1 Hex and must face one of the edges of the Hex.
• The player that deployed second gets the first Turn.

Movement:

• The play space is [20 x 40 hexes] in size.
• Your ship may move at [the start of your turn]
• Your ship may rotate once, turning to face a Hex edge adjacent to it's current facing
• It may move 4 hexes towards the edge it's facing.

Attacking

• Your ship can shoot [Once] per Turn [After you finish movement]
• Your ship can shoot [At targets within it's forward 60* arc] that are within [10] Hexes
• Your ship deals [1] damage per shot
• Your ship hits [on a D6 roll of 4, 5, or 6]
• Your ship damages targets [automatically]
• Your ship can take [1] damage before being destroyed

Hmm. Lots of refinement left. But baby steps!

Tabletop Spaceship Wargame Part 6, Questions with multiple answers

The game it starting to take a shape with these early builds. The next large step is to decide core foundation mechanics.

As an example, I'm going to jump ahead in the game's development to consider what kind of map and movement system will make up the game. There are may solutions to this problem, and each of them has objective quality - but only one overall system can be incorporated into my game.

This is where the core concepts of the game outlined in Part 3:

Emotion: Triumph

Goal 1: Accessible

Goal 2: Fast 

Goal 3: A wide variety of tactical options

Comparing a given mechanic to the list of game goals will guide this subjective business.

Movement

Freeform or Grid based

Freeform movement:

Requires a measuring component

Requires some method to measure turning radius

Rules must be coded for infinite vectors and subjective tests for relative positioning and terrain

Allows full freedom of movement within the constraints of a piece's characteristics

Imprecise

Grid based movement:
Requires a grid map to play on
Rules can be coded for a limited number of vectors and objective tests for relative positioning and terrain

Restricts movement and options to the grid
Precise and objective

Comparing these options leaves me with a single conclusion: in order to maintain the accessibility of the game and the rules, it will use a grid map to govern movement, firing arcs, line of sight, terrain features, and range measuring.

This places the burden of all those tasks onto the map component. This reduces the strain on the player by reducing the number or elements in flux at a given time and adds predictability for how the map and ships will behave.

This is going to be my method for making these kinds of choices in the future.

Tabletop Spaceship Game Part 5, Iterations!

Now that a ship's displacement of theory has been spun, let's get to the base model of the game. In order to test systems in a productive manner, I need a functional core set of mechanics. I've seen that starting with anything more than a base set of mechanics causes confusion and misleads priorities.

With that in mind, and what we've covered before, what does a wargame need?
1. Victory Conditions
2. Movement
3. Attacking

Solid. Let's expand these, to minimum functionality. Each of these iterations is going to be painfully basic, but this process is important to actually 'figure' the game out.

0.01:
Victory Conditions:

• you win when the other player's ship is destroyed.

Movement:

• Your ship can move anywhere on the play space.
• The play space is infinite size.
• Your ship may move at any time

Shooting

• Your ship can shoot any number of times
• Your ship deals 1 damage per shot
• Your ship hits automatically
• Your ship damages targets automatically
• Your ship can take 1 hit before being destroyed

This version is unplayable. Why it's unplayable is important for putting barriers in place. This ruleset results in both players ships exploding instantly since ships can shoot infinite times at any point in the game, automatically hits, and automatically damages the target. There is no meaningful choice, and no reasonable way for the game to provide satisfactory play.

The first step I'm taking is to introduce a 'turn' mechanic. 

------------------------------------------

Turns:

• Players alternate turns. 
• A player can [only] act on their turn. 
• Flip a coin. The winner of the toss gets the first turn.

Good. Where earlier both sides would blast each other simultaneously, Turns ensure that only one player will be able to act at a time. But there is still the problem of movement and Attacking happening at any time in the turn - let's regiment that a bit. Also Attacking should happen only once per turn. And let's restrict it to a single target while we are at it. Let's see what we've got here:

[brackets] fence in variables that may change later. This helps keep eyes on the prize

Capital letters highlight important game concepts, such as Victory Conditions.

Each player controls [1] Ship

Turns:

• Players alternate turns. 
• A player can [only] act on their turn.
• On their turn, a player [Moves] and then [Attacks] 
• Flip a coin. The winner of the toss gets the first turn.

Movement:

• Your ship can move [anywhere] on the play space.
• The play space is [infinite] size.
• Your ship may move at [any] time

Attacking

• Your ship can shoot [Once] per Turn
• Your ship deals [1] damage per shot
• Your ship hits [automatically]
• Your ship damages targets [automatically]
• Your ship can take [1] damage before being destroyed

This is better. But still inadequate. The first player will win every match guaranteed. The restrictions added previously help lay the foundation for future rule systems required to make this game more interesting.

So what's next. The current problem is that the first player wins, guaranteed. This is not fun, it's not a game at this point. So there needs to be some additional factors to add complexity, depth, and choice to this prototype.

The most direct way to make sure the first player doesn't always win is to introduce chance. 

Attacking

• Your ship can shoot [Once] per Turn
• Your ship deals [1] damage per shot
• Your ship hits [on a D6 roll of 4, 5, or 6]
• Your ship damages targets [automatically]
• Your ship can take [1] damage before being destroyed

Ok. With this setup, any player has a 50% chance of missing. This allows the second player to win, while also allowing the possibility for the first player to win. However, this introduces a new problem specific to this mechanic: The game could last infinite turns if players keep rolling below 4 on their Attack Die.
Time to solve that with a turn limit! Each player gets 6 turns. If a ship isn't destroyed by Round 6, the game is a Draw.

Alright. This is quite crude,  but it's a start. Further posts will detail further revisions and development.

Tabletop Spaceship Game Part 4, '8 Kinds of Fun'

The contents of this piece are brought to you by the lectures of Mark LeBlanc, whom I've had the fortune of seeing in person lecturing at the Game Developer's Conference. I will be referencing the ideas in this paper:

MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research

The last article discussed the common elements found across all games, and I described what I had in each of those categories at this early stage. The Mechanics / Dynamics / Aesthetics approach is what I will use to guide my choices as I continue development.

"The MDA framework formalizes the consumption of games by breaking them into their distinct components:
Rules -> System -> 'Fun'
...and establishing their design counterparts:
Mechanics -> Dynamics -> Aesthetics"

"Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms.
Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others outputs over time.
Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game system."

"What makes a game 'fun'?...Talking about games and play is hard because the vocabulary we use is relatively limited. In describing the aesthetics of a game, we want to move away from words like 'fun' and 'gameplay' towards a more directed vocabulary. This includes but is not limited to the taxonomy listed here:

1. Sensation: Game as sense-pleasure
2. Fantasy: Game as make-believe
3. Narrative:  Game as drama
4. Challenge:  Game as obstacle course
5. Fellowship:  Game as social framework
6. Discovery: Game as uncharted territory
7. Expression: Game as self-discovery
8. Submission:  Game as pastime"

By concentrating on the types of fun a given game is built for, mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics can all be interpreted in terms of those fixed goals.

As a tactical tabletop wargame, these are the Kinds of Fun I will concentrate on:
1. Challenge.
The game is built to support one player versus another player with a shared set of initial resources. The core of the game is pitting yourself against your opponent and seeing who comes out on top.

2. Fantasy
The context of the game is science fiction and represents a world far different from our own.

3. Fellowship
The game is built to support at least two in person players. This makes the social component important for the overall experience.

These three are the primary focus of the game. While there are other types of fun contained within the game, mechanics will be tested against the above fun first and foremost.

 The emphasis on each element changes based on the mode of play. A campaign mode would highlight Narrative fun in seeing what happens to the players across multiple matches given a relative context. Tournament play highly emphasizes the Challenge element, while minimizing the rest in order to preserve balance. A Team mode would emphasize Fellowship as you work with your teammates to overcome the enemy. Having unassembled, unpainted miniatures would increase the Pastime emphasis of the game and adding a hobby element.

So the game should be challenging, should take advantage of the fictional elements in the setting, and should be responsive to the social aspect of tabletop wargaming.

With those tenets set, I'm going to lay out the base emotion the game should strive to create. At the core of the game, there is a specific feeling that the game can provide. For this game, it's going to be triumph - when you take a risk and it pays off, when you execute your plan perfectly or recover from a serious setback.
When I develop a mechanic, I will interpret the mechanic in terms of creating the sense of triumph. Mechanics that create absolute certainty, or that deny meaningful choice, will be discarded since they neutralize triumph.

These four pieces will be kept in mind going forward:
1. Triumph is the core emotion.
2. Challenge is the primary source of fun
3. Fantasy is the second
4. Fellowship is the third

Tabletop Spaceship Game Part 3, Foundation

The Atomic approach

Utilizing a reductive method to start from the smallest elements of a game, and after identifying and understanding each, combining them into stable molecules and compounds to support the original intent.

Designing Board Wargames by George Phillies

This lecture series on Youtube proved a good place to start for me to understand wargames from a longer and wider perspective than my own. I'm incorporating pieces of these lectures in addition to Mark LeBlanc's work to create a solid foundation that I can reference when creating mechanics further in the design process.

I will utilize material covered in this video:

Introduction, Features of All Games

Representation

What you see in front of you when you look at the game.

The game is represented by the various miniatures or tokens arrayed on a [gridded/open ] play map with reference cards for each faction set to the side. Several colors of dice will be available and a track marking victory progress for each player. Templates and measuring aids will be available as well, with a rules reference sheet and full rulebook out of the play area.

Mechanics

Mechanics are things you assemble to get a game - mechanisms that execute to make the game function.

Mechanisms slated in the game at this point are to remain mostly undefined to fit my atomic approach.

Confirmed mechanics:

Player Turns

Dice Rolling

Modular Board

Variable Player Powers

Capture / Eliminate

Movement

Resource Management

Risk & Reward

Game Modes

Piece Elimination

Victory Points

Loss Avoidance

Possible mechanics:

Reference Cards

Force Construction

Factions|Open Purchase

Catch Up

Secret Unit Deployment

Time Track

Action Point system (Star Fleet Battles, Federation Commander)

Rock Paper Scissors

2+ players

Team play

Player Elimination

Cooperative Scenarios

Wagering resources / Press your Luck

Campaign Play

Route Building

Card Driven Battle / Campaign

Deck / Pool Building

Point to Point movement

Simultaneous Action Selection

Action Programming / Pencil and Paper, recording orders

Variable Unit Command / 'Chit-pull system'

Grid Movement

Memory

Area Control / Influence

Pick up and Deliver

Style

emphasis of a specific mechanic, what mechanic the game relies on.

This will have to be rather light at this point, because so little of the game is established picking mechanics to emphasize is premature.

Theme

What is the game about

The game is about fleets of spaceships fighting.

Components

What falls out of the box when overturned

Play Surface

Dice

Tokens

Chit Counters

Reference Cards, Sheets, Rules

Rulebook

Miniatures

Templates

Ruler

Terrain tiles

'Shape'

Term from Japanese game Go, Thin and elegant or Thick and clumsy

How much space the game uses in a player's life

The target for this game is to have a very thin presence for play and setup, and ideally a thick space in overall time playing.

Voice

I / We / First Person

You / You / Second Person

*He/She / They / 3rd Person*

The player's actions reflect the decisions and participation of hundreds or even thousands of imaginary officers and crew.

Content

Subject of the game

What are the resources?

This overlaps quite a bit with Theme, and so far isn't well defined with the current rules (or lack thereof) at this time. Content is what distinguishes this game from others like it.

As the game goes through iterative design, I'm going to revisit these elements and fill them in.

Tabletop Starship Game Part 2, Approach

I began designing this game by attaching systems and components from other games that I liked. While trying to break those compound mechanics into molecules small enough to balance, a friend told me to start from the absolute basics and work my way up. He was right, and I had given that same advice to another friend who was forging his own system.

I found that assembling the game without starting at the foundation left a lot of assumptions unquestioned. It was difficult to understand the components I liked, because they were not designed to be used in a modular way. Even if I was successful in patching these pieces together, it would be a nightmare to interpret balance across the sum of six or seven games.

By starting at the marrow of the game and building outwards, the systems will be consistent and work together far better.

I call breaking things down to this elemental level the 'atomic' approach.