This question is similar to a blog post I've been contemplating. It may help me organize my thoughts.
Single figs or bases
-I'm still 50/50 on this question, but lately have been leaning towards bases.
Importance of infantry vs. armor vs. air support
-Infantry should be the "core" of the game. Armor should be there to support the infantry, not to dominate the battlefield. Air and artillery support should be VERY limited at this scale – I much prefer to see combined arms in 6mm.
Ranges
-Keep them simple and consistent. Premeasuring is fine.
Line of sight
-True LOS wherever feasible.
Dice
-All D6 preferred, all D10 acceptable after playing Forge of War. Do NOT bring other polyhedrals into a wargame – those belong in the pen-and-paper RPG world (in my opinion).
Morale
-Should integrate into command and activations, not dictate the rules altogether. Epic 40,000 in 1997 used a very complex morale system as a substitute for victory conditions and scenario objectives – this aspect ruined what was otherwise a brilliant wargame.
Close combat
-I played GW games for too many years, so I never want to see it eliminated. But for the most part, this should be restricted to bugs or Aliens-style creatures. Humans (or aliens remotely similar to humans) should only enter close combat as an absolute last resort, and it should be resolved very quickly. Prolonged close combat should be in fantasy gaming, not sci-fi.
Shooting/damage resolution system
-Should account for the damage of the weapon and the accuracy of the firer as simply as possible. In my opinion you should only have to look at two things when shooting – ONE chart and the firing unit stats. Modifiers should reflect the stat, not be applied to the roll (a subtle difference that greatly improves game speed). Any system that requires you to multiply, divide, or reference more than one chart, or make too many separate dice rolls will take the fun out of the game.
Complexity
-After three battles, you should be able to play with just a quick-reference sheet. This quick reference sheet should only be one page (two sided is okay). If the playsheet exceeds this, the game has too many charts. If the rulebook is constantly needed, the rules are too ambiguous.
Movement
-Shouldn't be a stat or a math problem. Ideally, universal movement rates should apply for broad categories like Infantry, Bike, Wheeled, Tracked, Grav.
Command points
Command ranges
-This type of wargame represents a battle. That battle, in "reality," may last anywhere from ten to thirty minutes. The "issuing orders" concept becomes fairly moot, as individual squads and units already have their orders. I'm fine with units having command tests to continue mission, but they shouldn't be dependent on their commander.
Weapon system detail
-Range, rate of fire, and damage. Nothing more.
Battle size
-An enhanced platoon to an enhanced company.
Game duration
-A one-hour pickup game should be feasible. Larger, more complex games should be resolved within two hours.
Things you've seen that you don't like (big one)
-Too much math
-Too many charts
-Too much close combat
-Not enough "sci-fi" in the sci-fi rules. FWC is a good example of this… it's a great game to play, but it really feels like sci-fi models playing a modern wargame.
-Not enough premade units. Having the ability to create and customize your own forces are great, but you should be able to play a game right out of the rulebook.
-Too expensive. There are numerous rulesets ranging from free to $20… If you're charging more than that, good luck competing in this hobby.
Things I've seen and liked:
-A complete product with pre-made units, scenarios, and campaign structures. FAD4 sets the bar pretty high in this category.
-Open and collaborative playtesting, either by forum or Yahoo group. Forge of War was a good mechanic. The Yahoo group's efforts made v2 into one of the best games available.
-CK-
