"A board game - what challenges would you expect" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
gamer1 | 12 Nov 2019 12:36 p.m. PST |
Well………after a few years off I have decided to break out my home made board game covering the whole ACW. I played it a few times and with minor changes it works pretty well, folks seem to enjoy it and have fun. For scale, each turn is 3 months, large battles are resolved in 5-10 min, you decide what to build (with in limits), individual generals are represented. Basically like other games of its type. So……….my question is, just to see if may be I might have missed something I wanted to ask. What are the main challenges/decisions you would expect a game like this to force players to make/deal with. Also, what are the different challenges players should face based on what side they play??? Obviously I have my own answers to these questions but no need to list them because the point of me asking is for feed back to see if there is a factor I considered "minor" that in fact should be treated as a "major" factor. Thanks in advance for any feed back, look forward to the insight full input from the folks here as always, happy gaming all:) |
Dynaman8789 | 12 Nov 2019 12:59 p.m. PST |
Deciding how to remove bad generals is a major factor. For the North threading the needle between ending slavery and restoring the union. For the South not many games make them "learn" that Europe is not going to come to their aid. For both sides managing the will to continue the war. |
Ed Mohrmann | 12 Nov 2019 1:16 p.m. PST |
For the South, inducing the States of the Confederacy to allow their troops to fight in states other than their own – not to do a 'Joe Brown' and keep the men, supplies and arms as close to home as possible. Yes, 'threading the needle' for the North, but from a diplomatic perspective – being aware of but not too cantankerous about various other nations supplying arms and so on to the Confederacy and intercepting CS diplomats while travelling in non-belligerent shipping (more than Mason and Slidell were captured). |
GildasFacit | 12 Nov 2019 2:21 p.m. PST |
|
aegiscg47 | 12 Nov 2019 2:30 p.m. PST |
I think the bigger question is what sets your game apart from the two games that for all intensive purposes are the most played ACW strategic board games which are GDW/Phalanx A House Divided and GMT's The U.S. Civil War. Is there something unusual about your game, faster playing, better simulation, can be used for miniatures campaigns, etc.? |
robert piepenbrink | 12 Nov 2019 2:33 p.m. PST |
How about figuring out who the bad generals are? Or the good ones? One of the things I always find irritating is that the respective CinCs know everyone's rating. In practice Lincoln and Davis spent years trying to figure out who should and should not be promoted. Yeah, you'd need an umpire or a computer, and you couldn't use historical names. But finding the right generals is an important problem strategy games tend to ignore. |
wpilon | 12 Nov 2019 4:02 p.m. PST |
Gildas has the right of it, logistics was really the primary factor driving all operations and actions. |
coopman | 12 Nov 2019 4:09 p.m. PST |
The Confederates need to win early on, before the North gets organized and gets their supply net functioning efficiently. |
Quaama | 12 Nov 2019 4:26 p.m. PST |
Wow, an ambitious project. Here are some thoughts for what seems like a large strategic game: Victory Conditions (e.g. Control of key objectives, survival for CSA); Logistics (supply, how many reinforcements and when/where, is logistics affected by control of territory/key objectives); Weather; Naval aspects (e.g. blockades, river control); Terrain (including railroads, major roads, rivers); Status and involvement of states/areas such as Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia and Indian Territory; Combat resolution (how resolved, calculating losses etc); and Unit size, quality and stacking limits. Also, I'm wondering whether individual generals should be represented given that you say major battles are resolved within ten minutes. Perhaps this could be 'abstracted' in a unit rating. I personally like generals represented with their abilities (or lack thereof) having an effect on the units they're commanding but then you have to decide what rank of general is being included and having to rate each one (or are you just looking at Army Commanders?). Additionally, do you consider other strategic issues such as: Hypotheticals such as which side Kentucky joins and when and how; Emancipation, when and how and does this affect logistics, troop numbers; USA will to continue the war if USA states are controlled by CSA; or CSA will to continue the war if their states are decimated by USA troops marching through and destroying cities et al in their path (logistical effects of same). |
Lucius | 12 Nov 2019 8:38 p.m. PST |
Ask yourself what exactly your players seemed to enjoy about your game, and put more of THAT in. Whatever it is. Anyone can design a game that accurately simulates a period, but making it fun? That's a lot harder. |
gamer1 | 13 Nov 2019 6:51 a.m. PST |
Wow, thanks for all the great, awesome feed back. Actually most things mentioned I have covered. Just for conversation sake a couple things mentioned I might take a second look at is the diplomacy side concerning Europe. Also I like the suggestion that you won't find out which generals are good and bad until they fight a battle but, as you said, that would require a lot of extra "random" charts and chits for the board. I have included individual stats AND characteristics for each major general based on historical info, FYI. I know the rating is no surprise but I find players think the characteristics are also very "cool" and include ones such as warrior, cautious, campaigner, logistics, cav commander, naval, etc. They enjoy figuring out which one is better for each area. Question for Dynaman8789, I do have the "historical" condition the Union can only "free the slaves" after 61 and after a major win. Also I have set it up so Europe will never actually inter the war BUT will give extra aid if the CSA appears to be winning. I also have a random events deck for each side and a couple for the CSA include diplomatic "incidents" that cost them money. Does that sound like it covers it to you? I didn't think about blockading ports affecting this. Some of the other finer, issues are also included in either the event decks or as optional rules since some players like more detail/micro management than others. As just an FYI to aegiscg47 from what I can tell, what I did is not so much anything new and undone before in a board game, just a new combination of things/mechanics I have seen and liked from a large range of other board games, as you would expect since it is my own home made project. I do have a system for the large battles in which each side choose one of five strats for the battle as a "rock, paper scissors" kind of thing and players seem to like trying to guess what the other will choose so they can counter it:) Like wise they decide if they want a strat to minimize casualties or are willing to take heavy losses for the chance to do the same to the other side, sound familiar?? This obviously gives the table each side roles on for both "damage" and Combat Cohesion loss, until one side breaks and runs. Obviously the commanders also affect this along with terrain, etc. Players also seem to enjoy they have a choice on how they will use their arty for the battle, either bombardment OR close support:) Players also seem to enjoy the fact that with in the limits of their "money" and resources they can try different non-historical strats such as what if the Union forgets a blockade and just throws as much into the Army as possible from the start? Does the south not worry about forts/fortresses and throw more into the army or navy? Etc, etc. Players also seem to like that in addition to a all out win by cities taken victory condition I have the 1864 election in which the north must take a certain number of major cities or they lose. Players seem to like this because the south can be losing the war but still have a chance to win…….late game. To Quaama, yes, believe it or not I have all that covered:) FYI, to add flavor I have individual brigades and put into division that are part of corps that are randomly bought to add flavor, not just the famous ones but regular and bad ones also. Players seem to like the fact that when they purchase troops they don't know how good or bad they are until they show up. On that, to stay historical, in mid 1863 the south starts getting more weak units as the north starts getting more stronger units to keep with history. Also each turn has a random number of move/attack phases so each side has to deal with the "historical" challenge of not knowing for sure just how many times the enemy will attack or how far they will try to advance in a single turn. Anyway enough, this response got way to long, but thanks again for all the awesome input!!! I have gotten some things to think on. Happy gaming all, further thoughts are always welcome:) Travis |
donlowry | 13 Nov 2019 9:32 a.m. PST |
What Gildas and wpilon said: Logistics, logistics, logistics. For instance, how do you sustain an army in East Tennessee? or even reach it? |
Quaama | 13 Nov 2019 11:55 a.m. PST |
Sounds like you have a great game on your hands. It appears to be something that could rival the long out of print boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2081/civil-war which I recently purchased (but have yet to play). If you get it published I'd be looking at buying it. |
gamer1 | 13 Nov 2019 12:22 p.m. PST |
@Quaama, Hey thanks for the thumbs up! Hadn't gotten that far:) At this point its still a labor of love. I actually have that other game and have used some of the info from it as a reference. Like I mentioned I put in there the stuff I have seen/played and liked over the years, like any other game designer does. Since I brake it down to the brigade level I suppose it could be used as a scenario generator for miniature games but that would take some additional house rules:) Anyway, happy gaming! Travis |
|