If YOU were in a Game Designing Team....

If you were in a Game Designing Team, designing a new game for mainstream publication, what would you like to see incorporated into the game that tends to be missed out or not used in typical standard strategy games, especially the areas that really bug you?

I think my main demand for inclusion would be if the map uses hexes, then the pieces should be hex shaped, not square. Another one would be to make the hexes on the map a little bigger, even though this would make the map bigger, but it sure as hell would help trying to pick up your counters a lot easier without destroying or moving other counters and stacks.

Views: 73


You need to be a member of ConsimWorld to add comments!

Join ConsimWorld

Comment by Chris Gammon on December 2, 2009 at 11:27pm
Here you go gentlemen! I knew I'd seen this many years ago. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/135568
Comment by John Kantor on December 2, 2009 at 4:54pm
I don't see any advantage to hex-shaped counters and a lot of disadvantages. The only problem with square counters is when the hexes are too small.
Comment by Roger Morley on December 2, 2009 at 3:52am
Probably no more than what square counters would, but if the hexes where made slightly bigger, that would not be an issue.
Comment by Michael Dorosh on December 1, 2009 at 8:59am
Wouldn't hex shaped counters simply block out all view of what was underneath?
Comment by Roger Morley on November 30, 2009 at 6:10pm
You are right john, realistic supply constraints are important, and like you say, you can combine that task with HQ counters.
Comment by John Kantor on November 30, 2009 at 4:51pm
A lot of these are production issues - not design or development. In terms of design, the primary thing missing from operational games is realistic supply constraints - that's why I can't bring myself to play anything other than OCS now. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to move supply points around on the map. You can combine that function with better command rules for HQs.
Comment by Roger Morley on November 30, 2009 at 3:39pm
I can understand that if you had to cut out your own counters, hex counters would be really difficult and fiddley to do, and would be a none starter. However, I was really thinking of a proper production manufacturer doing the punching for the imaginary main stream Wargame company ( like SPI or AH), as the tooling costs would be a little more than if it were squares, but it is a one off cost to the job.
I guess what would really help when playing with square counters is to slightly enlarge the size of the hexes, just to give a wee bit more room.

I like Dans idea about HQ's. They are quite under valued and under used in a lot of games, where as they could become one of the most important counters on the board, with the ability to activate and control certain units. They could prove vital in a units ability in moral, combat and even movement.
Comment by Joel Toppen on November 30, 2009 at 2:45pm
Hex-shaped pieces for me are a real pain to punch out. I tend to use a hobby knife to cut pieces off the sprues--results in nicely squared corners. Can't really do this with hex-shaped pieces.
Comment by Dan Stueber on November 29, 2009 at 10:41pm
First off, I would like all wargames to have a planning map included. Just a small map of the battlefield so copies could be made and strategy thought out.

I would also like a game that highlighted the headquarters aspect a little more. I don't mind games where you can move your units around the map anyway you want but don't believe it is very realistic. I would like to have to make some tough decisions on which units I can activate because the game would limit how many units I can activate, within an historical framework.

I think about the game Barbarossa by TSR where army group HQ's are activated by the OKW. Then the army group HQ's have to move and activate the various corps in their command. This was done by points. So many points from OKW were used to activate the army group HQ and then the army HQ had to use so many of its points to activate the various corps in its command. Initially the Germans could activate everything but after several turns they were running out of points to activate the army HQ's, which in turn slowed down operations. I'm not saying this was a perfect system, and most people hate the actual game itself, but it did work. This forced you to start planning operations in various locations of the east front without being too cumbersome.

I also think HQ's should be more valuable than just a odds shift or something similar. HQ's were very important in real warfare and their loss could cause entire sections of the front to be disorganized and ripe for the pickings.

Just my two cents.
Comment by Eric Walters on November 29, 2009 at 10:27am
I would like to see more games that highlight the interplay between unit planning, leadership, and reconnaissance/intelligence. One of the best games that did that was GDW's ASSAULT series--NATO units tended to be better led at the company level, so operations did not demand a lot of centralized planning to get the flexibility they needed. Soviet formations couldn't do decentralized ops below the battalion level and generally needed their regimental TOC to plan if nothing else to ensure the artillery support was where it needed to be. And since there were variable OOBs and victory conditions and inverted counters (with dummies), reconnaissance was a big part of the game!

There were a few other games that took stabs at this, West End's AIR AND ARMOR comes to mind. NATO DIVISION COMMANDER (not quite as well, but good enough). The Gamer's CIVIL WAR BRIGADE SERIES, NAPOLEONIC BRIGADE SERIES, and TACTICAL COMBAT SERIES do a good job at portraying competing OODA loops in a particularly compelling way through its treatment of planning. Of course, the Zucker operational Napoleonic games do this a lot more abstractly but effectively.

I also like what Vance von Borries did in the ROADS TO LENINGRAD game--the German is forced to choose between getting far better concentrated combat power through slowing down tempo or gaining tempo/speed at the cost of combat power through decentralized command and control.

I'd like to see something like this philosophy applied to block games, since the intelligence issues are built in pretty effectively. As one example, I imagine the TCS Game GROSSDEUTSCHLAND '40 (the battle of Stonne) redone as a block game in fine Columbia fashion, but with a streamlined planning and C2 sequence that highlights how the Germans were able to pull off an expensive but impressive victory there.

Help Center

Latest Activity

Scott Martin left a comment for Eric Walters
"I have been recently replenishing my collection of AH and SPI games.  AK or Stalingrad (or The…"
Scott Martin left a comment for Eric Walters
"Well it was current about 15 years ago, give or take... I've been in the SF Bay Area for the…"
Eric Walters commented on Eric Walters's group Marine Maneuver Warfare Wargamers
"New game out on small unit infantry combat in the Central Highlands of Vietnam--yes, it's all…"
Eric Walters left a comment for Scott Martin
"Sometime I should get into VASSAL--I just never have time for it these days with school,…"
Eric Walters left a comment for Scott Martin
"The current T-shirt looks terrific!  I like the "roll well and live" design on it!"
Chuang Shyue Chou replied to Chuang Shyue Chou's discussion What are you reading?
"I have just started on the two volumes on French tanks by Steven Zaloga. This was sparked by…"
Joseph replied to Chuang Shyue Chou's discussion What are you reading?
"Read: "Black Mountain: An Isaiah Coleridge Novel" by Laird Barron. Isaiah is a ex-hitman…"
Scott Martin left a comment for Eric Walters
"We should set up a Vassal game sometime of a SPI or AH game."



CSW Related Links

Please be sure to check-out these CSW services.

© 2019   Created by John Kranz.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service