Make a game with me

[Kaptin Keen]

I'm haunted by ideas - and it so happens, I cannot write a line of code if my life depended on it.

So I have a game idea, and I guess I mostly just want to get it out of my head, but if you happen to like it, and unlike me you can write a line of code, even if your life doesn't depend on it, then I'd like nothing better than to see it become reality.

So, you know Battleships. This isn't Battleships, but Battleships is an immortal classic. It may never rule the world, but it will also never die. And it is based on similar basics to what I imagine.

Now, take a map. Any map will do, could be global, could be a nation, region, city, a particular street, a house. It truly doesn't matter.

Apply to this map a grid, and for each square on the grid an Intel score. Not a random score, obviously, but a score based on line of sight, sattelite coverage, radar, spies, rumor, anything you like really. And the score can obviously change during the game.

Now place your units. Each unit will have a Signature rating - how much noise it makes, how large it is, it's radar profile. Each time a unit moves into any square, it's Signature is measured against Intel, and it either remains hidden or is spotted. And obviously, firing a weapon also has a Signature rating.

That's ... the basics of the idea. It's simple, and I'm convinced a great game can be built on it.

Oh, and I'm not saying this is unique and original and nothing like it exists. I'm sure something does, somewhere. But that's not the point.

[KillianHawkeye]

Ideas are great.

However, you need more than an idea. You need to turn your idea into a fleshed out game design before getting a programmer involved. Unless you're asking for a game designer, too?



Start making some decisions. Is it a building or a city or a planet or a galaxy? What kinds of terrain features will exist to block movement or line of sight? Don't say "it doesn't matter", because eventually it will matter.

What kinds of units will there be, and how do they compare on stats like detection signature, weapons signature, firepower, movement, intel/sight range, health or structure? Do any of them have special abilities, like scouting or spotting, or perhaps inflitration? If so, how do those abilities work? Is the signature rating for firing a weapon measured separately from the unit firing it, or do they add together?

Will there be a resource economy to govern how many units you can control or whether you can create more as the game goes on? Will it be up to the player(s) to choose a balance between many cheap units or fewer expensive ones? How will map-wide intel from radar (or equivalent) work? How much does it cost and how can it be distributed?



These are just some questions that I could think of in ten or fifteen minutes of considering your idea. You're going to want to answer a lot of them before moving forward. Don't expect a programmer to also be the game designer. It's not impossible that somebody could do both, but they're very different roles and you'll probably just want a programmer to focus on the programming part.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Don't expect a programmer to also be the game designer. It's not impossible that somebody could do both, but they're very different roles and you'll probably just want a programmer to focus on the programming part.

Also: if they're designing the game, and they're making the game, what do they need you for?

This sounds like a concept that's relatively close to a board game. This means you can try things out in a paper prototype. Start simple. A plain grid, some tokens for scores of squares and for the units. You won't be playing with actual hidden information, but the rest is pretty close. Find out which mechanics are fun, and choose a theme based on that. The game is fun with a square grid and straight walls? Urban combat. The game is fun with a more open map and few limitations on range? Maybe some sort of nuclear sub setting...

[Kaptin Keen]

Ideas are great.

However, you need more than an idea. You need to turn your idea into a fleshed out game design before getting a programmer involved. Unless you're asking for a game designer, too?

Start making some decisions. Is it a building or a city or a planet or a galaxy? What kinds of terrain features will exist to block movement or line of sight? Don't say "it doesn't matter", because eventually it will matter.

What kinds of units will there be, and how do they compare on stats like detection signature, weapons signature, firepower, movement, intel/sight range, health or structure? Do any of them have special abilities, like scouting or spotting, or perhaps inflitration? If so, how do those abilities work? Is the signature rating for firing a weapon measured separately from the unit firing it, or do they add together?

Will there be a resource economy to govern how many units you can control or whether you can create more as the game goes on? Will it be up to the player(s) to choose a balance between many cheap units or fewer expensive ones? How will map-wide intel from radar (or equivalent) work? How much does it cost and how can it be distributed?

These are just some questions that I could think of in ten or fifteen minutes of considering your idea. You're going to want to answer a lot of them before moving forward. Don't expect a programmer to also be the game designer. It's not impossible that somebody could do both, but they're very different roles and you'll probably just want a programmer to focus on the programming part.

The point is I can answer them even quicker. I think. 21:55.

Say it's a Shadowrun-inspired stealth tactical game involving individual specialists, units of mercs, drones (combat and surveillance), as well as armored vehicles and tanks.

The maps are a variety of city and urban battlegrounds: Contested cities, secret labs, corporate enclaves - maybe a spaceport, orbital installation or Mars facility.

Terrain should be reasonably obvious. There should be 'deployable terrain' - like smoke or chaff grenades, tank traps, and so on. Also, since this is a game that's won not only by units, but by stealth ratings vs sensor ratings, there should be various ways to affect both, from camo uniforms over lead lined walls to ecm and eccm installations.

Ressource economy is one way of doing it. I'd rather have requisition points. Completing missions gives prestige, prestige is exchanged for units. If you lose units, the prestige invested is also gone. That ... will snowball, though.

22:01.

The main point here is that I've never seen anything like it. As I said before, it's like Battlehips, only not. You get to sneak up on your enemy, use your scouts (or armor, maybe) to spot his weak points, try and take out his big guns before he can fire back, and so on.

Still not saying there isn't anything like it - only I haven't seen it.

Also: if they're designing the game, and they're making the game, what do they need you for?

This sounds like a concept that's relatively close to a board game. This means you can try things out in a paper prototype. Start simple. A plain grid, some tokens for scores of squares and for the units. You won't be playing with actual hidden information, but the rest is pretty close. Find out which mechanics are fun, and choose a theme based on that. The game is fun with a square grid and straight walls? Urban combat. The game is fun with a more open map and few limitations on range? Maybe some sort of nuclear sub setting...

What do they need me for? Frankly, they don't. That's always the case - I only have the idea, I can visualize what I want. But I have a couple of working prototypes (of physical products) that I convinced more capable people to help me build.

I'm trying to do the same with someone who can write code. Sadly, I'm just a sales guy, I don't know anything really useful =)

[KillianHawkeye]

Say it's a Shadowrun-inspired stealth tactical game involving individual specialists, units of mercs, drones (combat and surveillance), as well as armored vehicles and tanks.

The maps are a variety of city and urban battlegrounds: Contested cities, secret labs, corporate enclaves - maybe a spaceport, orbital installation or Mars facility.

Terrain should be reasonably obvious. There should be 'deployable terrain' - like smoke or chaff grenades, tank traps, and so on. Also, since this is a game that's won not only by units, but by stealth ratings vs sensor ratings, there should be various ways to affect both, from camo uniforms over lead lined walls to ecm and eccm installations.

Ressource economy is one way of doing it. I'd rather have requisition points. Completing missions gives prestige, prestige is exchanged for units. If you lose units, the prestige invested is also gone. That ... will snowball, though.

Great, let's run with that idea. Now you can start working on the game design aspects. How many points do units cost? How do they move and act within the game grid? How much can the player do on each turn?

You're going to need to start putting numbers to things. How much does a camo uniform improve a unit's stealth? Over what range do the ECM and ECCM systems operate, and exactly how do they function within the context of the intel grid system? How much damage can a tank take? How much does it deal? How detectable is it? What are its weaknesses, and how do other units take advantage of them? How is a tank trap deployed, and what exactly does it do to a tank? Put all that into numbers. Presumably a unit of mercs will be more faster and more stealthy than a tank and able to go places a tank can't, but will also be weaker and more vulnerable. Put that into numbers. How much protection is granted by a wall or a smoke cloud? How much do they add to stealth? Put that into numbers.

How much complexity are you willing to design into the game? I can tell you that a lot of games these days don't go into this much detail. For example, video games that are based on a pen and paper RPG usually cut out and streamline a ton of what those games make possible (and those tabletop games which are so complex generally come in a large volume of books). Simplicity and abstraction have their merits, one of which is being much easier to program.

My advice is to start small. Make one extremely basic map. Stat out one offensive unit and one scout unit and just hammer out the numbers of how the stealth/intel system actually works and how those two unit types interact with it and with each other. If you can at least do that, you'll have something to show a potential programmer.



I'm just saying, you seem to think that making a game starts with code, but there's a lot that goes into before a programmer has anything to do.

[Kaptin Keen]

I'm just saying, you seem to think that making a game starts with code, but there's a lot that goes into before a programmer has anything to do.

.. I disagree.

Oh, I agree that all those things need doing. But to make the machinery, you just need the outline. Grid, a .. call it a Cover Value for whatever is in the grid square you're in, opposed by a Detection Value for whatever (if any) gear or eyeballs you have pointed at that square. For a unit in a square, add Signature to Cover, subtract detection, and assign a chance based on that.

Then you can start fiddling with the numbers. If Heavy Brush is CV5, is a Two Story Building CV8? If your Ranger Scout Unit is Signature Rating 2, is an Abrams tank SR20?

You feed in the numbers, you run the machine, see what it does ... adjust as needed.

It would be another thing if I was really keen with numbers, but I'm a complete incompetent with any sort of numbers wrangling. I have computers do that for me. I'm good with people.

Didn't I say I'm a sales guy? I'm essentially dead weight, unless I can talk to someone =)

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, good luck!

[Kaptin Keen]

Well, good luck!

Thanks! =)

It's not that I particularly think this idea is going to go anywhere. I have .. so many of them, this is just the latest. And if I really wanted to look for a programmer to fall in love with the idea, I'm fairly sure this forum isn't the one.

But I wanted to hear someone else's reaction to it. So thanks for playing along =)

[plungerhorse]

Start making some decisions. Is it a building or a city or a planet or a galaxy? What kinds of terrain features will exist to block movement or line of sight? Don't say "it doesn't matter", because eventually it will matter.

Having worked on an indie project for the past year or so, this is so true. My team and I are admittedly pretty inexperienced. We took a simple idea and just kept pushing it forward. The game design ended up changing drastically from what was originally envisioned because when an idea is envisioned so, even if its clear in your mind, its never as comprehensive as it needs to be. I'm a little out of my element in speaking about the game design because that's not what I was working on, but having been apart of the discussions from the beginning I can tell you, even when we thought we had all of the details accounted for, next meeting we'd realize there were a whole bunch of other things we had not accounted for and had to figure out how to deal with them. Even when we thought we had the game design, finalized, we would still find things that need to be implemented, tweaked, changed, taken out, etc. The idea for our game was a relatively simple one, but it took the better part of three years to transition from an idea to a real thing. Because we were perpetually behind the unrealistic schedule we had given ourselves at the outset, there was this tendency to just keep pushing ahead with the attitude that we'll take care of it when it becomes an issue. This is NOT an efficient way to work and in fact caused us to lose a lot of time when we had to double back to fix something. I knew making games was complicated/difficult but before this experience I would never have dreamed of how much work and attention to detail is required at ABSOLUTE MINIMUM just to create a passable game.

I've had people in my life who don't really understand all of the legwork that has to be put into designing a game be like "Oh hey I had this hilarious idea for a game, you guys should make it as your next one!" I can't even describe the feeling these sorts of statements give me. Its not pleasant, I can tell you that much.

Having taken part in some communities around amateur game development, I can tell you right now there is no demand for "idea guys." Everyone has ideas. Everyone. The people who are successful in the industry and in any walk of life are those who have an idea, know how to execute it, have the resources to execute it, and the time and passion to do so.

You mention you're a sales guy. Start there. In this day and age sales and marketing is more important than game design.

[Kaptin Keen]

I can tell you right now there is no demand for "idea guys."

I know.

And if I thought like you, I wouldn't have two working prototypes lying around. You're entirely correct, everyone has their own idea, and it works like this: The vast majority of ideas are bad, and the vast majority of ideas never get worked on, at all. Of those that get started, the vast majority never get finished. And still, then you look at the vast majority of games (the kind of ideas in question here) that manage to get published somehow - they're still utter crap.

High to low, from AAA houses to tiny indie developers, most games are crap. Gems like FTL require you to shovel through piles of crap to even find.

But it's not about filling a demand. That's not where entrepeneurship starts, though most people think so.

It's about vision.

Let me try and explain that. If you follow what you perceive as a current or emerging demand, you get right into competition with everyone else who had the same idea. You compete against established players with production, marketing and distribution capabilities you have no hope of matching.

Vision ... is same, yet different. Because all those things about production, marketing and distribution are the same, but your vision is unique, and if you can sell that, you can circumvent the system.

The idea I described above isn't ... great. It's just an idea. But the vision I have for what it could become? That is great. I can't make it great, but possibly I can explain how it would be great.

Maybe?

It's like quantum states. Shröedingers combat. Something like that.

If you understand what I've said so far, you will have a map with competing values of stealth and detection, lines of sight and hard cover and so on.

You will move your forces forward, and the closer you get, the more likely you are to be detected. It's a simple tension builder.

But the moment you are detected - if the enemy fires, they are also detected. That dynamic. That's what it's all about. Suddenly escalading firefights, as detection spreads like wildfire every time a unit fires, is spotted itself, and is fired upon.

And that has the potential to become truly, truly awesome. I can't make it. But maybe I can make you see what it might become.

[Aotrs Commander]

The idea I described above isn't ... great. It's just an idea. But the vision I have for what it could become? That is great. I can't make it great, but possibly I can explain how it would be great.

Maybe?

It's like quantum states. Shröedingers combat. Something like that.

If you understand what I've said so far, you will have a map with competing values of stealth and detection, lines of sight and hard cover and so on.

You will move your forces forward, and the closer you get, the more likely you are to be detected. It's a simple tension builder.

But the moment you are detected - if the enemy fires, they are also detected. That dynamic. That's what it's all about. Suddenly escalading firefights, as detection spreads like wildfire every time a unit fires, is spotted itself, and is fired upon.

And that has the potential to become truly, truly awesome. I can't make it. But maybe I can make you see what it might become.

Sounds a bit like how Maneouvr Group plays, to be honest, though that's just tanks and infantry (and is tabletop), but really, all you need to generate that kind of action are spotting rules and proper terrain. Distance doesn't matter, it's all about terrain and position.

But a series of fire from hull-down units (which are not an automatic spot until they fire) and hidden units will tend to generate that sort of sudden burst of firing after a lot of movement (into position). Though it is not about tension, it's all about rally hard tactical decisions, as MG is basically the tabletop equivilent of playing ironman games at max difficulty, it's not something everyone enjoys.



On a related note, I should point out it took me the better part of fifteen years to write my own set of tabletop rules. (MG took about six, I think, they started at the same time as me but there re two of them, and ten years on, they're in te middle of a revision.

[Kaptin Keen]

Sounds a bit like how Maneouvr Group plays, to be honest, though that's just tanks and infantry (and is tabletop), but really, all you need to generate that kind of action are spotting rules and proper terrain. Distance doesn't matter, it's all about terrain and position.

But a series of fire from hull-down units (which are not an automatic spot until they fire) and hidden units will tend to generate that sort of sudden burst of firing after a lot of movement (into position). Though it is not about tension, it's all about rally hard tactical decisions, as MG is basically the tabletop equivilent of playing ironman games at max difficulty, it's not something everyone enjoys.

On a related note, I should point out it took me the better part of fifteen years to write my own set of tabletop rules. (MG took about six, I think, they started at the same time as me but there re two of them, and ten years on, they're in te middle of a revision.

The idea for the game comes - originally - from how artillery works. When you fire, you have to move because answering fire will be coming. Unless you're fighting someone so low tech they don't have access to whatever those return-fire-radars are called in english.

And ... you're right, everything I've said so far is essentially spotting rules and terrain, and how they interact. Distance should certainly matter, though - weapon have different ranges, and aren't equally effective all the ranges they will reach.

Tension is important, though. It may be about tactical decisions - but if there's no tension, it's not a game, you might as well be having a discussion.

[danzibr]

Ready for some unsolicited game development advice?

I've only made a few games. A platformer (using a tutorial), an action/adventure game (which I worked on for quite a while, but abandoned it due to my own janky coding), and an RPG (which has quite a decent start, but I abandoned it due to... I dunno, it sounded better in my head than when I sat down to make it).

For my actual advice, I'd say that you too can code! I had 0 coding experience before I started. Really, if you want to make your own little game, the best thing to do is do EVERYTHING by yourself. Make your own art (or commission if you're rolling in dough), use free music (or shoot, make your own if you can), make/use sound effects, and of course do your own coding.

Then when you actually get to coding, you probably want to mess around and make a couple small games before diving into your big project. You know, just learn some coding tricks, best (or at least better) way to do things.

Then... when you actually do make your big game, plan everything out. Everything. Especially the mechanics. Write it down, maybe use a simulator. That was my downfall. I had the beginning planned out, off to a great start, everything else was nebulous, did a bunch of work, ended up not being pleased.

[Kaptin Keen]

For my actual advice, I'd say that you too can code!

It's just that I can't.

Don't get me wrong, programming is easy. No, seriously: It's a language of logic, and I'm really good at that. In principle, I could be more than decent at it.

However, there's the other side of it: Writing any serious program is a large body of very tidy, precise work. Any small glitch, and .. it's not a program, it's a pile of code that doesn't do anything.

And I don't have the head for that. I've tried. I could write Basic on my C64, I wrote Fortran and Cobol on school computers. It's easy, up to a point, but then it grows to complex, too ... just too damn big for me to keep track of stuff. And that's something I cannot fix. I cannot remember all the details. This is a genuine handicap, not just something I'm making up. Whenever there's an IQ test or personality profile, I come up as clever as a squrrel, but disorganised and prone to making mistakes and losing overview.

But I've tried doing kinda what you propose: I've handed all the bits to a guy and just told him how to stitch them together. Would have worked too, but his english wasn't sufficient.

Also, buying all the bits in the Unity Store isn't ... ideal. It's not that I'm too proud to build a game from pregenerated stuff, but ... you know. Not ideal =)

[danzibr]

It's just that I can't.

Don't get me wrong, programming is easy. No, seriously: It's a language of logic, and I'm really good at that. In principle, I could be more than decent at it.

However, there's the other side of it: Writing any serious program is a large body of very tidy, precise work. Any small glitch, and .. it's not a program, it's a pile of code that doesn't do anything.

And I don't have the head for that. I've tried. I could write Basic on my C64, I wrote Fortran and Cobol on school computers. It's easy, up to a point, but then it grows to complex, too ... just too damn big for me to keep track of stuff. And that's something I cannot fix. I cannot remember all the details. This is a genuine handicap, not just something I'm making up. Whenever there's an IQ test or personality profile, I come up as clever as a squrrel, but disorganised and prone to making mistakes and losing overview.

But I've tried doing kinda what you propose: I've handed all the bits to a guy and just told him how to stitch them together. Would have worked too, but his english wasn't sufficient.

Also, buying all the bits in the Unity Store isn't ... ideal. It's not that I'm too proud to build a game from pregenerated stuff, but ... you know. Not ideal =)

Man, I'm not so sure. How much have you tried? (Not trying to be critical, asking out of curiosity.)

From what I know, with tutelage and good practice, it seems unreasonable to me that a logical person wouldn't be able to code a game. Especially with good practices, like writing your code in bite-size pieces.

(btw, I had essentially *zero* coding experience before I started doing tutorials, and before long I could do basic stuff like getting a block to move, adding acceleration, animations, making hitboxes, etc.)

[Kaptin Keen]

Man, I'm not so sure. How much have you tried? (Not trying to be critical, asking out of curiosity.)

It's not just programming.

I have a pretty good picture at my strengths and weaknesses. I'm 48 by all but a sliver, I've had some time to work out the kinks in my abilities. Good with words, good with people, lots of drive. Average with numbers, partly due to lack of any real desire.

Awful at handling large amounts of data. It has an upside - I'm excellent at destilling large amounts of data to simple conclusions. I cannot work the other way, however, I simply lose track.

I can't remember. Here's a funny thing (well - very slightly funny). Whenever someone with a normal memory meets someone with a really bad memory - they'll say get a calendar. Calendars only work if your memory does. That's they most basic function: If you remember to write in them, remember to bring them, and remember to read them ........ then and only then do they help you remember. They're useless to anyone with any real trouble remembering =)

Total sidetrack: I'm fairly sure I'm right that I'm not better off writing my own code =)

[danzibr]

Understandable, understandable. You certainly know you the best.

Perhaps you will indeed find someone willing to code for you, make your game exactly how you envisioned (hence the thread title). Good luck!

If at some point you wish to try out some free game making tutorials, I can get you pointed in a direction which served me well.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm haunted by ideas - and it so happens, I cannot write a line of code if my life depended on it.

So I have a game idea, and I guess I mostly just want to get it out of my head, but if you happen to like it, and unlike me you can write a line of code, even if your life doesn't depend on it, then I'd like nothing better than to see it become reality.

So, you know Battleships. This isn't Battleships, but Battleships is an immortal classic. It may never rule the world, but it will also never die. And it is based on similar basics to what I imagine.

Now, take a map. Any map will do, could be global, could be a nation, region, city, a particular street, a house. It truly doesn't matter.

Apply to this map a grid, and for each square on the grid an Intel score. Not a random score, obviously, but a score based on line of sight, sattelite coverage, radar, spies, rumor, anything you like really. And the score can obviously change during the game.

Now place your units. Each unit will have a Signature rating - how much noise it makes, how large it is, it's radar profile. Each time a unit moves into any square, it's Signature is measured against Intel, and it either remains hidden or is spotted. And obviously, firing a weapon also has a Signature rating.

That's ... the basics of the idea. It's simple, and I'm convinced a great game can be built on it.

Oh, and I'm not saying this is unique and original and nothing like it exists. I'm sure something does, somewhere. But that's not the point.

Sounds like a cool idea that could easily be implemented on paper, something to try for sure.

The thing I notice immediately is that it doesn't have to have a lot of units, you could easily do it as a spy vs spy scenario (see The Smiths) where two people try to kill each other in a house. The shape of the house is the only thing that is solid, everything else is made of face down cards.

When you enter into a square you flip the cards. There would be furniture (your cover), obstacle (the Signature level of the square) weapon, Vantage (Intel level).

So entering a square it could turn out to be a kitchen, with an island to hide behind, a mouse trap you step on, a kitchen knife you can throw, and a hanging pot that lets you see into the next square.

Your character starts with a couple null cards they can cancel the obstacle or the opponents attack if they do get spotted, and each person is trying to get a briefcase placed in the middle of the house.

[Kaptin Keen]

Sounds like a cool idea that could easily be implemented on paper, something to try for sure.

The thing I notice immediately is that it doesn't have to have a lot of units, you could easily do it as a spy vs spy scenario (see The Smiths) where two people try to kill each other in a house. The shape of the house is the only thing that is solid, everything else is made of face down cards.

When you enter into a square you flip the cards. There would be furniture (your cover), obstacle (the Signature level of the square) weapon, Vantage (Intel level).

So entering a square it could turn out to be a kitchen, with an island to hide behind, a mouse trap you step on, a kitchen knife you can throw, and a hanging pot that lets you see into the next square.

Your character starts with a couple null cards they can cancel the obstacle or the opponents attack if they do get spotted, and each person is trying to get a briefcase placed in the middle of the house.

Ha! That's actually brilliant. Not the game I had in mind, but a very cool spin on it, and something that could definitely be included. Would need to be claustrophobic, it get's boring real quick if you cannot find the other guy.

I played the ancient Spy vs. Spy computer game, laying traps everywhere and so on. I guess I feel it was pretty poorly implemented, but a great idea none the less.

[RagingKrikkit]

I like your concept, but as was pointed out before, it's not so much a game as it is a fog of war system. The challenge now is to form a theme and concept that compliments it. For instance, a grand strategy game would probably not be the best fit (with the possible exception of if you were to focus on naval combat), as the answer to the question "where is the enemy?" is typically "in front of you". Similarly, a small-scale room-clearing game would also be a poor implementation, probably generating frustration similar to if your GM made you roll a spot check every time you walked into a room. Instead, the happy medium seems to be where the number of people (and playing pieces) and ranges involved are large enough to require abstraction, but not so vast that finding the enemy ceases to be a major concern. In fact, I think that an asymmetric game would work best for this system, with Player 1 attempting to find and destroy Player 2/the AI, who is in turn trying to avoid detection long enough to strike against Player 1. To that end, I am going to proceed with a theme that I am at least somewhat familiar with: terrorist hunting in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Before I dive fully into that, however, allow me to make three disclaimers. 1: There is already a game with this exact premise, though different mechanics. 2: This is "recent history", not "politics". And 3: much of this could also be applied to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, if that is your preference. That said, let's place Player 1 in the role of a US Infantry brigade (typically Colonel rank), consisting of 4-5 battalions of 4-5 companies, plus support elements such as logistics, medical, motor pool, armor, air and artillery support, etc, and charged with maintaining control of a designated area (the map). If each company is an individual playing piece, that gives us 16-25 pieces to play with, plus any for the support units mentioned. Based off of the number of pieces involved, I would then go on to suggest a 20x20 grid for maximum application of your fog of war system (perhaps someone more learned in high-level operations could suggest a scale? I doubt we have many flag officers hanging around here, though.) Player 2/the AI, on the other hand, takes the form of an insurgent leader, will be charged with avoiding detection while maneuvering their playing pieces into position to ambush Player 1's troops, mine roadways, possibly recruit reinforcements from population centers located on the map and generally be a pain. In a straight-up fight, Player 1 will hold the distinct advantage, while if Player 2 is allowed to run amok unchecked, they will slowly whittle down Player 1's fighting potential to the point of complete inability to pursue their mission. From there, I surmise that a health system is important, at least for Player 1's forces (perhaps Player 2's pieces are removed after any loss, representing the small size and fragility of insurgent units in traditional battle). While a system of Healthy/Wounded/Dead would work fine, I have a soft spot for the US Military's Green (all is well)/Amber (casualties taken)/Red (combat ineffective)/Black (he's dead, Jim) system.

While the mobility of a unit will have to be influenced by the map and time scales chosen, I think we can make some judgements about the fog of war. US forces provide a significant Intel boost in adjacent squares (or possibly 2), while aerial recon can provide a small boost over a large area and satellites can provide a large bonus to a small area. Perhaps population centers can be influenced one way or the other, providing Intel to the side they are sympathetic to, and US units can establish outposts from which to provide an Intel bonus over a larger area. The Insurgent player, on the other hand, can choose to go to ground, sacrificing a unit's move in return for being harder to detect, or perhaps even building tunnel networks through mountains, providing immunity to detection while inside them (and perhaps opening up the option for the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast to come into play). As for detecting the US player, I would suggest that any established positions such as outposts be automatically detected, while detecting troops on the move can be done by deploying spies to a similar effect as the US player's satellites.

I think I'm gonna call it there for now, let me know if you want me to run with this idea.

[Kaptin Keen]

I like your concept, but as was pointed out before, it's not so much a game as it is a fog of war system. The challenge now is to form a theme and concept that compliments it. For instance, a grand strategy game would probably not be the best fit (with the possible exception of if you were to focus on naval combat), as the answer to the question "where is the enemy?" is typically "in front of you". Similarly, a small-scale room-clearing game would also be a poor implementation, probably generating frustration similar to if your GM made you roll a spot check every time you walked into a room. Instead, the happy medium seems to be where the number of people (and playing pieces) and ranges involved are large enough to require abstraction, but not so vast that finding the enemy ceases to be a major concern. In fact, I think that an asymmetric game would work best for this system, with Player 1 attempting to find and destroy Player 2/the AI, who is in turn trying to avoid detection long enough to strike against Player 1. To that end, I am going to proceed with a theme that I am at least somewhat familiar with: terrorist hunting in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Before I dive fully into that, however, allow me to make three disclaimers. 1: There is already a game with this exact premise, though different mechanics. 2: This is "recent history", not "politics". And 3: much of this could also be applied to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, if that is your preference. That said, let's place Player 1 in the role of a US Infantry brigade (typically Colonel rank), consisting of 4-5 battalions of 4-5 companies, plus support elements such as logistics, medical, motor pool, armor, air and artillery support, etc, and charged with maintaining control of a designated area (the map). If each company is an individual playing piece, that gives us 16-25 pieces to play with, plus any for the support units mentioned. Based off of the number of pieces involved, I would then go on to suggest a 20x20 grid for maximum application of your fog of war system (perhaps someone more learned in high-level operations could suggest a scale? I doubt we have many flag officers hanging around here, though.) Player 2/the AI, on the other hand, takes the form of an insurgent leader, will be charged with avoiding detection while maneuvering their playing pieces into position to ambush Player 1's troops, mine roadways, possibly recruit reinforcements from population centers located on the map and generally be a pain. In a straight-up fight, Player 1 will hold the distinct advantage, while if Player 2 is allowed to run amok unchecked, they will slowly whittle down Player 1's fighting potential to the point of complete inability to pursue their mission. From there, I surmise that a health system is important, at least for Player 1's forces (perhaps Player 2's pieces are removed after any loss, representing the small size and fragility of insurgent units in traditional battle). While a system of Healthy/Wounded/Dead would work fine, I have a soft spot for the US Military's Green (all is well)/Amber (casualties taken)/Red (combat ineffective)/Black (he's dead, Jim) system.

While the mobility of a unit will have to be influenced by the map and time scales chosen, I think we can make some judgements about the fog of war. US forces provide a significant Intel boost in adjacent squares (or possibly 2), while aerial recon can provide a small boost over a large area and satellites can provide a large bonus to a small area. Perhaps population centers can be influenced one way or the other, providing Intel to the side they are sympathetic to, and US units can establish outposts from which to provide an Intel bonus over a larger area. The Insurgent player, on the other hand, can choose to go to ground, sacrificing a unit's move in return for being harder to detect, or perhaps even building tunnel networks through mountains, providing immunity to detection while inside them (and perhaps opening up the option for the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast to come into play). As for detecting the US player, I would suggest that any established positions such as outposts be automatically detected, while detecting troops on the move can be done by deploying spies to a similar effect as the US player's satellites.

I think I'm gonna call it there for now, let me know if you want me to run with this idea.

I wanted to answer this more quickly, and I started on a reply, but then my computer decided it was time for a restart, and I lost it. I blame Microsoft.

I want to say that the ideas you mention are intriguing. The idea of assymetrical combat is an interesting one, and one I quite agree with.

I don't want to shoot down your idea - but it's not the idea I had originally. The game I have in mind owes a lot to rogue likes, and has a lot of inspiration from FTL and Frozen Synapse. It has a fixed map (as in it matches the screen size, so no scrolling) and very simple graphics. Actually, making it in ASCII and calling it a roguelike strategy game would thrill me =)

But I'm not sure it would be ideal. I mean, I'm pretty sure ASCII never is.

Your idea sounds to me - if I'm understanding you correctly - like taking a fairly standard Red Alert style RTS game, and applying my particular idea for Fog of War to it. Which, quite honestly, sounds completely awesome. But it's not the same game I have in mind.

Not that I'm set in stone at all - I'm just trying to communicate where we differ. Both games could take place in .. let's say the deserts outside Kabul. But where your's would have a minimap, and scrolling, and possibly an armored bridage on one side against horses and technicals on the other. Mine would be more focussed on infantry - think, perhaps, of WH40k, with squads of different capabilities, individual specialists (like snipers), and maybe the odd mortar, APC or tank.

But for now, let me know if I have understood your idea correctly =)

[Man_Over_Game]

Conceptually, this would end up playing a lot more like Stratego using the Advanced Ruleset than Battleships with Radar.

If you aren't familiar, Stratego has your entire board filled with units (similar to Chess), with a backside facing your opponent. Each of your units has a power level and a unique ability, and you move your pieces around to efficiently destroy your enemy's army. If one of your units attacks or is attacked, or if it uses its unique power, it's revealed.

Sometimes, it's efficient to use your Scouts (troops that can move insane amount of distance as their special) to tackle into something to reveal it. Sometimes, you want to lure your enemy into a Trap (which kills anything that attacks it except certain special units). Sometimes, you just want to go ham and send out your Dragon on a rampage in the middle of the enemy base.

But at the core rules, it's really just mobile Battleships. Take a look, give it a shot, see if that sparks any insight as to what you might be looking for.

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

As for the game design aspect, I can say firsthand that it's important to have the "fun" part down flat. Don't build a game and expect it to be fun, make it fun first and build an interactive game around it. Because the fact is, you might not enjoy the concept. I've made games that I didn't realize were complete trash until they were almost finished, because I didn't think about what was actually "fun".

You can always make things really complicated with maths and variables and whatever else you want, but start with something simple first and try to play the game.

For example, have 2 identical maps that you've drawn out. Come up with some kind of concept you want to try. Maybe the battleship units can move once per turn, can attack within 3 squares of them, and you have 3 Decoys, which become visible when they're within 3 squares of one of your attacking units or if an enemy scouts it out. Try a couple of rounds. Now determine what needs to be done to make more "game", more decision making, more complexity on the existing simple formula.

The game needs to be simply fun. Once you've got that down flat, adding complexity is easy.

[Kaptin Keen]

Conceptually, this would end up playing a lot more like Stratego using the Advanced Ruleset than Battleships with Radar.

If you aren't familiar, Stratego has your entire board filled with units (similar to Chess), with a backside facing your opponent. Each of your units has a power level and a unique ability, and you move your pieces around to efficiently destroy your enemy's army. If one of your units attacks or is attacked, or if it uses its unique power, it's revealed.

Sometimes, it's efficient to use your Scouts (troops that can move insane amount of distance as their special) to tackle into something to reveal it. Sometimes, you want to lure your enemy into a Trap (which kills anything that attacks it except certain special units). Sometimes, you just want to go ham and send out your Dragon on a rampage in the middle of the enemy base.

But at the core rules, it's really just mobile Battleships. Take a look, give it a shot, see if that sparks any insight as to what you might be looking for.

I know Stratego. It .. has no common ground with what I have in mind. EDIT: Oh wait, I see where you're going with it. Yes, but no. I mean, at the start of the game, you most likely know the location of zero enemy units. You will be working with an empty - or nearly empty - map (in terms of enemy units), for a large part of the game.

Stratego is ... Minefield (the Win3.12 game), just played 1v1.

The game I have in mind is about information. At any given point of time, you cannot know whether you've been spotted - unless the enemies choses to fire upon you. Conversely, you may have spotted several, or no, enemy units, and be preparing to strike.

At the moment you chose to engage, any units firing will be revealed (well, depending), and any units returning fire will also. Information will - presumably - spike. Maybe you've predicted enemy positions, and placed your units accordingly, you may be able to counter your opponents placement.

Point is, as the battle accelerates, information - and resulting fire - will flare. To my mind, that will be ... an interesting mechanic. It will combine tension - build-up, sneaking around the map, the simple fact of not knowing - with hectic combat, once the fighting starts.

As for the game design aspect, I can say firsthand that it's important to have the "fun" part down flat. Don't build a game and expect it to be fun, make it fun first and build an interactive game around it. Because the fact is, you might not enjoy the concept. I've made games that I didn't realize were complete trash until they were almost finished, because I didn't think about what was actually "fun".

You can always make things really complicated with maths and variables and whatever else you want, but start with something simple first and try to play the game.

For example, have 2 identical maps that you've drawn out. Come up with some kind of concept you want to try. Maybe the battleship units can move once per turn, can attack within 3 squares of them, and you have 3 Decoys, which become visible when they're within 3 squares of one of your attacking units or if an enemy scouts it out. Try a couple of rounds. Now determine what needs to be done to make more "game", more decision making, more complexity on the existing simple formula.

The game needs to be simply fun. Once you've got that down flat, adding complexity is easy.

Fun is the be all, and all of games. No one plays if you can't keep them interested. But I'm not particularly about complexity. I like FTL, and Into The Breach, and Frozen Synapse, and .. I'm sure there's more. This is the kind of thing I want to create. Only I'm sure those games are made by people who can do math - a strange and arcane thing foreign to me.

I can do something else. I can imagine how a thing will work in practice. Can work, is better.

[RagingKrikkit]

I wanted to answer this more quickly, and I started on a reply, but then my computer decided it was time for a restart, and I lost it. I blame Microsoft.

I know that feel all too well.

I want to say that the ideas you mention are intriguing. The idea of assymetrical combat is an interesting one, and one I quite agree with.

I don't want to shoot down your idea - but it's not the idea I had originally.

Not at all, I spitball a lot of ideas around without expectation of them catching on.

The game I have in mind owes a lot to rogue likes, and has a lot of inspiration from FTL and Frozen Synapse. It has a fixed map (as in it matches the screen size, so no scrolling) and very simple graphics. Actually, making it in ASCII and calling it a roguelike strategy game would thrill me =)

But I'm not sure it would be ideal. I mean, I'm pretty sure ASCII never is.

Your idea sounds to me - if I'm understanding you correctly - like taking a fairly standard Red Alert style RTS game, and applying my particular idea for Fog of War to it. Which, quite honestly, sounds completely awesome. But it's not the same game I have in mind.

Not that I'm set in stone at all - I'm just trying to communicate where we differ. Both games could take place in .. let's say the deserts outside Kabul. But where your's would have a minimap, and scrolling, and possibly an armored bridage on one side against horses and technicals on the other. Mine would be more focussed on infantry - think, perhaps, of WH40k, with squads of different capabilities, individual specialists (like snipers), and maybe the odd mortar, APC or tank.

Okay, individual scale tactical turn-based. The reason that I moved up from there to larger formations is that games of that scale tend to operate at close ranges where visibility is more reliant on line of sight than concealment, so I suspect that trying to implement such a fog of war system into such a game would either make the entire system irrelevant (with line of sight providing max intel on spaces) or incredibly frustrating ("what do you mean I couldn't see the guy on the other side of the room?!")

But for now, let me know if I have understood your idea correctly =)[/QUOTE]

I know Stratego. It .. has no common ground with what I have in mind. EDIT: Oh wait, I see where you're going with it. Yes, but no. I mean, at the start of the game, you most likely know the location of zero enemy units. You will be working with an empty - or nearly empty - map (in terms of enemy units), for a large part of the game.

Stratego is ... Minefield (the Win3.12 game), just played 1v1.

The game I have in mind is about information. At any given point of time, you cannot know whether you've been spotted - unless the enemies choses to fire upon you. Conversely, you may have spotted several, or no, enemy units, and be preparing to strike.

At the moment you chose to engage, any units firing will be revealed (well, depending), and any units returning fire will also. Information will - presumably - spike. Maybe you've predicted enemy positions, and placed your units accordingly, you may be able to counter your opponents placement.

Point is, as the battle accelerates, information - and resulting fire - will flare. To my mind, that will be ... an interesting mechanic. It will combine tension - build-up, sneaking around the map, the simple fact of not knowing - with hectic combat, once the fighting starts.

I see where you're going with this, but the catch is the human eye. While the eye can see an effectively infinite distance, the point where a man-shaped figure in line of sight is not readily apparent occurs at a distance of hundreds if not thousands of meters, and at such ranges the individual combatant is less important than the coordinated actions of his fireteam, squad, or platoon. I don't see any giant red flag of imminent design issues with your concept, but the theme of the game needs to be able to explain, preferably self-evidently, why you can't just see the enemy. I have five propositions.

1: Fog. Obscure the battlefield to the point where soldiers have a hard time seeing the end of their own weapons, thus justifying the difficulty in finding the enemy at such close ranges.

2: Increase scale. Instead of individuals, have your pieces be fireteams or squads, fighting at ranges of hundreds of meters, where keeping an eye on the enemy's exact position can be a challenge.

3: Sniper duel. Extreme range combat, measured in kilometers, but still operating on the individual scale, where camouflage and the limited field of view of scopes and binoculars aid the fog of war system.

4: Get wild. Perhaps the combatants are blind, perhaps everyone is wearing active camouflage, perhaps we keep the asymmetric dream alive and one side operates the security systems of a sci-fi facility, including robots, sentry guns and the like while the other side operates humans that are outgunned but work with a line-of-sight system, allowing them to outmaneuver the security systems and whittle them down.

5: Offer no justification. No theme, no reason, just pure abstract strategy.

[Kaptin Keen]

Okay, individual scale tactical turn-based. The reason that I moved up from there to larger formations is that games of that scale tend to operate at close ranges where visibility is more reliant on line of sight than concealment, so I suspect that trying to implement such a fog of war system into such a game would either make the entire system irrelevant (with line of sight providing max intel on spaces) or incredibly frustrating ("what do you mean I couldn't see the guy on the other side of the room?!")

But for now, let me know if I have understood your idea correctly =)

Ideally, I want the rules for line of sight to be entirely transparent - possibly with a live indicator each time your units take an action. So you know that for a highly stealthy unit, say scout infantry, their stealthiness is reduced when they move, more if they run than if they belly crawl, and yet more so when they open fire.

But yes, you're right, there is a high risk of frustration if it isn't transparent. And yes, units outside cover in clear visual range of each other should pretty much always be visible to each other.

Also, yes, individual scale - but I'd like for the option of fielding some units of heavier ordnance, like a tank or fast attack vehicle of some sort. On top of that, just because I had individual scale in mind, doesn't mean the system couldn't be interesting for say, a panzer battle simulator =)

I see where you're going with this, but the catch is the human eye. While the eye can see an effectively infinite distance, the point where a man-shaped figure in line of sight is not readily apparent occurs at a distance of hundreds if not thousands of meters, and at such ranges the individual combatant is less important than the coordinated actions of his fireteam, squad, or platoon. I don't see any giant red flag of imminent design issues with your concept, but the theme of the game needs to be able to explain, preferably self-evidently, why you can't just see the enemy. I have five propositions.

1: Fog. Obscure the battlefield to the point where soldiers have a hard time seeing the end of their own weapons, thus justifying the difficulty in finding the enemy at such close ranges.

2: Increase scale. Instead of individuals, have your pieces be fireteams or squads, fighting at ranges of hundreds of meters, where keeping an eye on the enemy's exact position can be a challenge.

3: Sniper duel. Extreme range combat, measured in kilometers, but still operating on the individual scale, where camouflage and the limited field of view of scopes and binoculars aid the fog of war system.

4: Get wild. Perhaps the combatants are blind, perhaps everyone is wearing active camouflage, perhaps we keep the asymmetric dream alive and one side operates the security systems of a sci-fi facility, including robots, sentry guns and the like while the other side operates humans that are outgunned but work with a line-of-sight system, allowing them to outmaneuver the security systems and whittle them down.

5: Offer no justification. No theme, no reason, just pure abstract strategy.

Terrain needs to be a major factor. But I also see the story of the game being set in the near future, with improvements in both individual camoflage and detection systems - say motion sensors, audio/visual gizmos, drones, sattellites (yes, those aren't sci-fi), and so on. Ideally, I'd want specialized detection options for specific units; maybe body heat is hard to mask, so a heat sensor is good for infantry, while tank treads are detectable by some sort of tremor sensor?

Ideally, the game is mostly about intel. And once you feel you have an idea of what the enemy is doing, and how to counter it - that's when you open fire, and find out if you're right. Maybe.

[RagingKrikkit]

I was about to reiterate my concern that having an LOS that can autodetect enemies would make the intel system redundant, when it hit me: Rainbow Six Siege. Two teams, in a building, armed with an array of gadgets to gain information for themselves and deny or falsify it to the enemy, with the penalty for failure being a fusillade of bullets tearing through walls towards your face.

Let's try this: Traditional "I-go-you-go" turn format, each character can perform one action: move, shoot, use gadget, or go on overwatch, but all actions are executed simultaneously. This then gives your opponent the opportunity to act, so even after detecting an enemy with presicion, the player still has to guess what their opponent did. Gadgets that can be placed and then provide detection after utilize the intel system, and report back to their owner at the start of their turn, allowing for more rapid follow-up, albeit less reliably. Perhaps add change the intel system so that a "partial detection" provides an area that the target could be in, rather than odds of detection, the size of the area correlating to intel level of the gadget that detected them, modified by whatever is appropriate (walls, opposing gadgets, character abilities, etc.)

[Kaptin Keen]

I've mentioned Frozen Synapse a few times already. It's not necessarily ideal, but I like it's clarity. It has 'simultaneous turn based' action, in which units react automatically to any situation - firing at any enemy they encounter, unless specifically ordered not to. It's one way of doing things: Make a series of stone/scissor/paper resolutions for various types of weapon vs weapon, unit vs unit, modified by cover and overwatch and so on.

The game does become a lot like Frozen Synapse if you just copy/paste their core mechanic - obviously.

Partial detection might cover ... say, motion detected to the south west, source unknown - or, unidentified heat signature at this location *ping*. Something like that, yea =)

A gadget that's specialised at spotting infantry might have specific limitations in regards to other unit types, providing less certain intel. Or some such.

[Gandariel]

Your attitude of "I have incredible ideas, if only they were realized" is very faulty.

Ideas that sound good in your head are extremely common, and worth nothing.

The process of making it real involves working and making decisions to remove one by one all the abstractions. This progressively gives value to the idea until you actually have a finished product that people would pay money for.

It's certainly a large project and if you're not a programmer you certainly need someone else to do the coding part, but there's still so much of the work left.

So if you want to see this be made alive, start on something.

As many commenters have suggested, make a mock of the game in paper.
It doesn't take significant time, effort, or skill, and truly takes you to the point where you can A)hire a programmer, B) turn it into a board game (and hire professionals in that field), or C) realize it wasn't that good of an idea.

[Kaptin Keen]

"I have incredible ideas, if only they were realized"

That is not my attitude. Sorry if you feel that way. I'm saying precisely two things:

Thing 1: I have this idea that I like - and I do like it, and I do feel it can become pretty damn good
Thing 2: I have never seen this particular idea - and I've played computer games since 1985.

Now, as it happens I disagree with you on key points: I do not think this idea is workable on paper - and I do not think the basic idea requires very much coding at all.

Now, if you want to ask what I'm thinking - rather than tell me what you think I'm thinking - feel free to ask. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

[DavidSh]

Maybe this would fit into something at the scale of Squad Leader? Although you'd have to simplify the rules a bit in order to fit in the new visibility rules without making the game too complicated. There exists an open-source Virtual Advanced Squad Leader game that you might want to look at.