$35.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
3 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Design Theory

Subject: DUNE WARS - NEW GAME - SUGGESTIONS rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
kel kel
msg tools
hello all,

im new here, first post...

currently , i have design and crafted a print and play board game,
based of the novel dune 1984 game.

in my game, i took some key elements from risk, dune, rune wars and even catan.

i would like to hear some thoughts about my rule set and my mechanism:

game description:

the game is about combat and resource gathering - spice and water.
42 territories in a hex system.
win the game by - completing a mission or score (need advice).

i have a few ideas about combat , resources and winning conditions.

hers the combat system:

based of dune 1982 game - when theres a battle, each player will secretly choose the number of soldiers that will determine its combat power, these soldiers, will die after the combat no matter the result.
you can have up to 20 army units per tile.

secondly in the battle - there are two options of combat resolve im thinking of:
1.
each player pulls 3 cards, consists of a rock paper scissors system,
each card will face the card of the second player, hidden.
now - the player with the higher combat can acquire a forth card, to be used as a backup card to one of hes 3 combat cards picked before.
this will give some advantage to a player.
each card thats beats the opposite players card - gives a +2 combat power to the total soldiers sacrificed to combat power before.

2. each player have 7 cards, that has 3 values to them:
power - added to the total soldiers sacrificed.
attack - compared to the opposite card from the enemy,
if its higher - the winner, will "revive" a number of
soldiers, numbered in the "defense" value (the 3rd one on
the card)

now what do you think? which is better?


another idea i had, on the map, a player have army units,
each army unit, is 1 army.
each player have in hes position, combat points tokens,
whenever a battle of 2 or more army units occur, each player can sacrifice up to 20 points.
this system can be combined with the cards above.
whats nice a bot this system is that a player can decide in game how to allocate the combat units to each one of hes army unit when theres a battle, thus each time theres a battle, each player, will most of the time will have o guess how much soldiers a player will sacrifice from the 20 hes allowed to the army unit.
i think it keeps the element of surprise.

resources -
there are 2 tile types, sand and mesa.
resources can only appear on sand.
at the beginning of the game, players randomly position resource token on these sand tiles, this token will represent the amount of resource a player can extract on each turn.

a player will only be able to extract resource , if he locate a harvester unit on the tile. harvester are given 1 at game start, and can be bought up to 6 for each player. a player may move harvesters around in hes turn for a proper price.

winning -
ive made up missions like in risk, conquer this and that territory, kill that enemy, and such.
each player at the begining of the game gets a palace and places it, a palace provides 2 free army units per turn. a player can buy up to 3 palaces per game.
so most of the missions require to own at least 3 palaces of your own, and some ask for 3 of yours and 1 from each player - controlling a tile with an palace.


movement - depending on which combat system i go with :

each player can move units from hes home world to any tile on the map except several.
each player can move units across the map for the cost of 1 water unit.

im thinking of adding a 3rd resource, steel of some sort that will allow to buy transports, which allow moving an army on the map and home world, 2 moves per transport . a player will be able to buy transports.


player buy stuff by a cost of water or spice or both.

heres how the board will look like.
i have all of the game parts ready as doc or pdf, with all the art and everything ready, but im holding print cause i wanna here some of your opinions if there are any.

i would be happy to upload it all if some1 will ask.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Brettell
Australia
South Turramurra
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
keldath wrote:

im new here, first post...


Hi! Welcome to BGG!

keldath wrote:

win the game by - completing a mission or score (need advice).


For replayability's sake, if its mission-based, then there needs to be a few different missions. Score (or VP) can be good in that regard - have few different missions that each give VP, with each game having different combinations of missions.

keldath wrote:
based of dune 1982 game - when theres a battle, each player will secretly choose the number of soldiers that will determine its combat power, these soldiers, will die after the combat no matter the result.
you can have up to 20 army units per tile.


All soldiers dying is at least something different, which is always good. However, might it lead to turtling? Since you're guaranteed to lose them, will that make players involved in combat susceptible to counter-attack from other players? Or it could lead to a bluff-attack - I'll attack you, and you'll be scared to sacrifice too many soldiers, so I'll only have to put in a couple to win. Could be interesting.

keldath wrote:

secondly in the battle - there are two options of combat resolve im thinking of:
1.
each player pulls 3 cards, consists of a rock paper scissors system,
each card will face the card of the second player, hidden.
now - the player with the higher combat can acquire a forth card, to be used as a backup card to one of hes 3 combat cards picked before.
this will give some advantage to a player.
each card thats beats the opposite players card - gives a +2 combat power to the total soldiers sacrificed to combat power before.

Look at Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game for an example rock-paper-scissors combat.

keldath wrote:

2. each player have 7 cards, that has 3 values to them:
power - added to the total soldiers sacrificed.
attack - compared to the opposite card from the enemy,
if its higher - the winner, will "revive" a number of
soldiers, numbered in the "defense" value (the 3rd one on
the card)

now what do you think? which is better?
Hard to say. Rock-paper-scissors combat has been done a fair bit. But your 2nd option would need a fair amount of testing to see how interesting and balanced it is.

keldath wrote:

another idea i had, on the map, a player have army units,
each army unit, is 1 army.
each player have in hes position, combat points tokens,
whenever a battle of 2 or more army units occur, each player can sacrifice up to 20 points.
this system can be combined with the cards above.
whats nice a bot this system is that a player can decide in game how to allocate the combat units to each one of hes army unit when theres a battle, thus each time theres a battle, each player, will most of the time will have o guess how much soldiers a player will sacrifice from the 20 hes allowed to the army unit.
i think it keeps the element of surprise.

That's what I thought you were talking about it, when you said above each player decides how many soldiers to put into the battle. That definitely sounds more interesting (though possibly less thematic) than having 20 soldiers already in a hex, and you decide of those how many to put into the combat.

keldath wrote:

resources -
there are 2 tile types, sand and mesa.
resources can only appear on sand.
at the beginning of the game, players randomly position resource token on these sand tiles, this token will represent the amount of resource a player can extract on each turn.

a player will only be able to extract resource , if he locate a harvester unit on the tile. harvester are given 1 at game start, and can be bought up to 6 for each player. a player may move harvesters around in hes turn for a proper price.

winning -
ive made up missions like in risk, conquer this and that territory, kill that enemy, and such.
each player at the begining of the game gets a palace and places it, a palace provides 2 free army units per turn. a player can buy up to 3 palaces per game.
so most of the missions require to own at least 3 palaces of your own, and some ask for 3 of yours and 1 from each player - controlling a tile with an palace.


All sounds fine - testing will prove the missions and whether building palaces adds to the game or not.

keldath wrote:

movement - depending on which combat system i go with :

each player can move units from hes home world to any tile on the map except several.
each player can move units across the map for the cost of 1 water unit.

im thinking of adding a 3rd resource, steel of some sort that will allow to buy transports, which allow moving an army on the map and home world, 2 moves per transport . a player will be able to buy transports.

Moving across the board sounds more interesting than going to any hex you want.

keldath wrote:

player buy stuff by a cost of water or spice or both.

heres how the board will look like.
i have all of the game parts ready as doc or pdf, with all the art and everything ready, but im holding print cause i wanna here some of your opinions if there are any.

i would be happy to upload it all if some1 will ask.



Basically you need to print everything, and test the hell out of it - firstly by yourself, then with friends, then whomever you can rope in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
kel kel
msg tools
hi! how nice! thank you for the time and answering

Quote:

For replayability's sake, if its mission-based, then there needs to be a few different missions. Score (or VP) can be good in that regard - have few different missions that each give VP, with each game having different combinations of missions.


wow thats, something, i have not thought about, what ive done is adding cards, that gives either bonuses = such as plus X to battle, resources, players interactions and more. to those, i added in objectives that are mini missions, conquer this, conquer that.
but changing the whole missions in game to give vp, and he who wins have the most vp, is a whole new take! nice!

---

yup, from civ i took the combat system, and altered it a bit as i stated.

--
Quote:
That's what I thought you were talking about it, when you said above each player decides how many soldiers to put into the battle. That definitely sounds more interesting (though possibly less thematic) than having 20 soldiers already in a hex, and you decide of those how many to put into the combat.


glad you liked this variation, although, with this one, ill have a bit of hard time to balance the soldiers amount for each player. with the soldiers on the map, each turn you get more , or buy some and places them onto the map.
but when i give a player to keep up to like say 60 combat points on hes part out side the board, i may loose control and the point of re arming the players, since a player might find him self with quite a lot of points - this will require some thought on how many army units on the map can a player put.


movement -

theres two parts to the movement phase:

1. commit 1 soldiers move from your home world to the map, to hexes that are not in control, dont have any enemy building and such.
2. board movement - regular tile to tile
all movement costs 1 resource (water).
but instead of water i thought to make another card, of a transport, that you can move on the map the number of transport cards you own, which changes the movements of players on the board, and a player who balances hes purchases , on card, units, buildings, movement and transport , will have to consider what to do and where to spend.


i might upload the whole game to here, maybe ill find someone that will wanna try it or add change ideas once someone can visualize what im talking about.

anymore replies and ideas are greatly welcomed and appreciated.

thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.