Poland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With group friends, we are working at tactical wargame about urban warfare. XX century battle in Warsaw.

Boardgame (based on old cityplan) is meant to be divided into 30+ areas.
Units represented by wodden blocks. Traditional.

There were quite a lot of arguments with co-workers about how to divide map into playing areas. We want areas on boardgame depicting important places, small historical and distinctive quarters. Main problem is, of course, where to draw borders. We need to takeinto considerations severalissues, amongst other:

A. In the course of battle opponents usually were trying to capture and hold important objects,like official (esp military buidilings), railroad stations, bridges etc.

B. Usually they were trying to capture and hold important squares. Build a barricade, create fire point into all directions, the like.

C. Also, usually opponents were holding opposite sides of main streets, so main streets became frotnlines and killzones.

D. Sometimes they were trying to hold at least bridgeheads (in form of narrow line of houses at the opposite side of mian streets) to protect imoprtant roads (so they can be used as rocade's).

E. It seems logic ,that less accesible areas (more dense architecture) need to be presented as an transport obstacle, so as smaller area. Smaller areas = more moves to do.


Point is, as You probably know, it is difficult to balance all those issues on common boardgame.

Since it is first tactical wargame we are working at, I have two question for You, old pros and experts :

1. Do You know any good wargames depicting tactical urban warfare?

2. Which ofthose boardmaps You like more?


Without squares?


Or with squares?



3. Of course, none of those boardmaps solve issue D. To represent power of rocade's (enemy-free mainstreets used as avenues for relatively fast transport of units) we would like to allow units moving from area adjacent to mainstreets to another area adjacent to the same mainstreet to move one extra area farther, if no opponent unit is in any area adjacent to such mainstreet (it is difficult to verbalize, fortunetely in Polish this rule is less wordy). Just to make it clear, if You control all areas adjacent to exact mainstreet (from both sides) you may move faster (or farther, the same). What do You think? Where could I find more subtle solution,as it seems unsexy?


Thanks for any advice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nigel Buckle
United Kingdom
Thornton Heath
Croydon
flag msg tools
designer
NSKN are publishing my next game :)
badge
Omega Centauri Published in 2014
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You don't need to use extra areas to represent difficulty moving, traditionally wargames simulate that with terrain costs.

So a rubble hex costs more movement points, if you move along a road you get a movement bonus etc.

Another way is to put a cost to exit an area (ie. on the border) rather than terrain within it.


-- edit, added:

One thought about your desire for historical accuracy - in an urban setting certain areas are going to be important for tactical reasons (field of fire, etc), if you design your game so that there is a reason to want those areas then they will be desirable for the players without having to introduce rules to encourage it on a case by case basis.

-- 2nd edit:

On your question about holding areas to improve movement - again traditional wargames respresent that with Zones of Control (ZOC), a combat unit exerts a ZOC into an area which limits your movement through it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
You don't need to use extra areas to represent difficulty moving, traditionally wargames simulate that with terrain costs.

So a rubble hex costs more movement points, if you move along a road you get a movement bonus etc.

Another way is to put a cost to exit an area (ie. on the border) rather than terrain within it.


I was not enough precise, beg Your pardon. As a great fan of hex grognard wargames I know it.

We have problems with implementing movement cost into area boardgame. Esp. if roads are de facto bodering most areas - not connecting hexes.

The fact that squares are connected by roads, while areas are divided by roads make matter worse.



Edit:

Quote:
One thought about your desire for historical accuracy - in an urban setting certain areas are going to be important for tactical reasons (field of fire, etc), if you design your game so that there is a reason to want those areas then they will be desirable for the players without having to introduce rules to encourage it on a case by case basis.

We,ve done that. Controlling railroad stations lets You deploy off-map units faster, controlling govermental buildings gives You more cards, telephone central gives extra APs, Citadel gives you bonuses to combat etc.

Quote:
On your question about holding areas to improve movement - again traditional wargames respresent that with Zones of Control (ZOC), a combat unit exerts a ZOC into an area which limits your movement through it.

We want to avoid ZOC. ZOC rules are very important, but difficult to understand/obey/memorize by most eurogame-like players. Area-control, not hex wargame.


Thanks for comments.

P.S. I like Your Ascendancy a lot. Seems great. Will buy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Irving
United States
Salinas
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Check out are area-impulse games like Storm over Arnhem and Thunder at Cassino. MP are based not on terrain costs, but whether you moved to area adjacent or into an enemy occupied area:
1 MP for moving into area not adjacent or occupied by enemy.
2 MP for moving into area adjacent, but occupied by enemy
3/4 MP for into enemy occupied area (Night vs. day)

The key is the maps for A-I have to carefully designed account for lines of sight, strongpoints, etc.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Check out are area-impulse games like Storm Over Arnhem and Thunder at Cassino. MP are based not on terrain costs, but whether you moved to area adjacent or into an enemy occupied area:
1 MP for moving into area not adjacent or occupied by enemy.
2 MP for moving into area adjacent, but occupied by enemy
3/4 MP for into enemy occupied area (Night vs. day)

The key is the maps for A-I have to carefully designed account for lines of sight, strongpoints, etc.


Seems great, thats what I wanted, very thanks.

Map for Storm Over Arnhem is made without squares. Indeed sexy solution.

In Thunder at Cassino, MPs through red borders/arrows are doubled?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaiah Tanenbaum
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not urban or WWII-themed but Napoleon's Triumph (and its predecessor Bonaparte at Marengo) has an irregular map with terrain-based movement and combat costs built in to the areas themselves. It's brilliant and I strongly recommend you check it out. It also has diceless combat, instead using hidden information to give tension, but you can take or leave that idea.

Basically, roads give a straight +1 bonus to movement, or +2 for the main road, no matter the terrain through which they travel.All-cavalry units can move a bit faster on roads only. No movement points, no complicated tables, nice and simple.

In terms of combat, each area has a "front" which shows penalties for attacks into it, based on the individual front. So a hill might be surrounded on all sides by a penalty for infantry, while a ridge will have attack penalties on the front but not the sides, etc. Some fronts are obstructed, which makes it impossible for cavalry to attack or defend through them, etc.

If you build in the natural conditions of the terrain to your board, then players will want to hold them for tactical/strategic reasons anyway; you don't need to tell them to do so. For instance, roads going through the central square mean it's a chokepoint for effective deployment, and worth keeping out of enemy hands. Holding a bridge (or destroying it!) will naturally force the enemy to find another way into town.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaiah Tanenbaum
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looking again at your map, I would encourage you to consider much smaller zones. Urban fighting is almost house-to-house and you have groups of blocks in one zone. You may find that simply adjusting the scale solves a lot of your problems -- the squares then become important ways to connect to lots of other zones.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played Bonaparte at Marengo, acquitance of mine had even printed this beautiful map found somewhere here.

Point is, roads in all those forementioned games are connecting areas. Not dividing.

Is there any game in which areas are divided by roads? As in my second sketch?


Quote:
Looking again at your map, I would encourage you to consider much smaller zones. Urban fighting is almost house-to-house and you have groups of blocks in one zone. You may find that simply adjusting the scale solves a lot of your problems -- the squares then become important ways to connect to lots of other zones.


That is a good advice. We'll think it over.

Thanks for comments.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nigel Buckle
United Kingdom
Thornton Heath
Croydon
flag msg tools
designer
NSKN are publishing my next game :)
badge
Omega Centauri Published in 2014
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Size of the areas is going to depend on the scale of your game - are individual soldiers represented, or squads or even higher?

You need to match the size/scale of the map to the units you are representing on it. Also need to consider if LOS is a factor or not - you can abstract that away by saying you can only attack into an adjacent area and making zones with a long LOS be long too (so they have many adjacent areas you can fire into).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magister Ludi
Australia
Fremantle
Western Australia
flag msg tools
Roll low!
badge
You are a paradox to me, a contradiction You're a predicament for me, and a prediction
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cityfight: Modern Combat in the Urban Environment

Checkout this old classic for a great articl on urban combat and a killer fog of war system...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Roberts

Unspecified
msg tools
Avatar
rri1 wrote:
Check out are area-impulse games like Storm over Arnhem and Thunder at Cassino. MP are based not on terrain costs, but whether you moved to area adjacent or into an enemy occupied area:
1 MP for moving into area not adjacent or occupied by enemy.
2 MP for moving into area adjacent, but occupied by enemy
3/4 MP for into enemy occupied area (Night vs. day)

The key is the maps for A-I have to carefully designed account for lines of sight, strongpoints, etc.


Might also want to look at Storm Over Stalingrad and Turning Point: Stalingrad
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Steadman
United States
Evans
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Streets of Stalingrad and Fortress Berlin
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Kluessendorf
United States
Waukesha
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
... that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -Benjamin Franklin-
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I second the recommendation to check out Storm Over Stalingrad by MMP. It is an elegant wargame, with only 8 pages of rules! It is an area control game that also uses tactical cards. It uses a simplified version of the Storm Over Arnhem system. It is the type of game that you can teach a friend and play in 4 or 5 hours (less time once you both have played and understand the rules). It costs more movement points to move through enemy occupied/controlled areas than it does through areas you control. The map depicts important areas - like the gun factory, the tractor factory, etc.

By the way, I liked your map without squares better than the other one. Good luck with your games - hopefully we will see it some day here on BGG!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Deagan
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I like Raid on St. Nazaire, which uses point to point movement in a city to address most of your points.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Roberts

Unspecified
msg tools
Avatar
revtim wrote:
I like Raid on St. Nazaire, which uses point to point movement in a city to address most of your points.


Ah, had forgotten about that one. Also worth a look.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Size of the areas is going to depend on the scale of your game - are individual soldiers represented, or squads or even higher?

You need to match the size/scale of the map to the units you are representing on it.

Ahh, didnt mentioned it. My fault.

Unit = block = batallion, at start 400 soldiers.

Time frame: rounds covering 4 hours.

Area: important objects, squares and su-quarters. Diameter 100m-300m.

Quote:
Also need to consider if LOS is a factor or not - you can abstract that away by saying you can only attack into an adjacent area and making zones with a long LOS be long too (so they have many adjacent areas you can fire into).

You may fire only into adjacent zones, usually without great effect (exception:squares and open places make units sensible to such fire).

Quote:
Cityfight: Modern Combat in the Urban Environment

Checkout this old classic for a great articl on urban combat and a killer fog of war system...


Never met with that systems, seems great,
Unfortunately it is on much lower scale. Single houses. Too detailed, not to say its hexagonal, not aerial.




Quote:
Might also want to look at Storm Over Stalingrad and Turning Point: Stalingrad


Storm Over Stalingrad seems ver interesting, however it is to low detailed, just few areas for such a big city. Not to say, we have already stolen some ideas from this game (f.ex. Mamai Kurgan=1 extra Card).

I have never met with Turning Point: Stalingrad - I am very grateful for pointing me this game. In this game areas are connected by roads.

I have never saw Fortress Berlin nor Streets of Stalingrad, and again I am very grateful for pointing me those game. They;re hexagonal (nothing bad,really, even if it may deter euro-gamers) however all hexes are connected by roads.

Quote:
I like Raid on St. Nazaire, which uses point to point movement in a city to address most of your points.

Wow, that IS innovative, at least for me. Low lewel point to point. I really like how it represents moving commandos in a hurry in potentially opposing territory - I suppose that's why they cannot move thourogh some houses. However in our game time scale is longer, soldiers know city, and in history every house could be infiltrated. So there wasnt "neutral walls". Not to say, it may be difficult to amass more blocks in tiny "point".Areas are bigger and easier to handle, as I feel from my limited experience with better known point-to-point strategical games.

Quote:
By the way, I liked your map without squares better than the other one.


Arggh, thats a stab into my heart! cry Rest of us think alike, preferring first boardmap. My historical accuracy obssesion disallow me for it - I am strongly supporter of second solution.
In fact I have I started this thread to gain votes for my option ("Seee,on BGG they like it!"), as well as some advices how to upgrade it. Subconsciously I was afraid of real outcome so didnt started a poll.devil

Quote:
Good luck with your games - hopefully we will see it some day here on BGG!

Thanks! I suppose it will be PnP game, topic may be quite hermetic, though. Surely will put it on BGG. Most of cards are finished, only this map....shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just wondering about Your reaction.

What if we change a bit scale, resize a bit whole map and concentrate on real activity.

This map is with separate areas for squares. Bigger quarters would be divided to sub-quarters, sonumber of areas would rise to compensate for cutting of suburbians.
It solves most forementioned issues, however rocade movement needs extra rule...


Nothing new here, just zooming in for comparison.

***

And here's something new: mainstreets would be separate areas:



Mainstreets would be areas with negative protective/defense factor, so defense on those streets would be sucidal. Since they're long areas,they would be faster to transverse. Moving through building quarters would be, of course, much slower. But also safer (which is not so historical...shake ).

I am afraid mostly, that sometimes it would be more logic to keep frontline on exposed road, just because long mainstreet hold by single unit allows for keeping frontline continously together - to delay opponent advance.Even if unit would be safer defending quarter behind, such single unit could be then easily outmaneuvered/encircled.
Drawing such borders on boardmap may support ahistorical and gamey tactics. I hope big negative defense factor on mainstreets would be enough prohibiting to contain such gamey tactics.

What do You think?
1 
 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.