Battle Mechanica Update (8/8/09)

This is just a progress update for Battle Mechanica. Please bear in mind that this is a Work In Progress (WIP), which means that the game is incomplete and is subject to change at any time by the designer.

After months of hiatus, I've finally managed to playtest an early draft of Battle Mechanica with a couple of friends, one of them the great rob-jr himself. This version had minimal rules and was played with only two factions, each with a small number of units. We used Mage Knight minis to represent the units and a map from a D&D campaign. Of course, the size of the bases of the minis were too big for D&D battlemaps, so we had to improvise a bit on that one. It went pretty well though, and the playtest allowed me to spot the flaws in the game.

First, and most importantly, was the target roll. In layman's term, a target roll is the number that the player must get (or exceed) when rolling a dice in order to claim a success. The target roll was originally 6, but after last nights playtest, I found that the magic number is 5.

Second, the grid's square should be bigger so that it could accomodate more that one figure. I noticed that if the figure's base (such as that of a mounted unit with a base of 1" by 2") is bigger than the size of the square, it's difficult to position that figure to attack an enemy that is situated diagonally. This is not really a big issue, but this is just some of the problem that comes with using a square grid map.

Third, the number of figures per unit. I had initially set each unit to 10 men (with the exception of certain units, such as the solitary Commander and a 6-men cavalry squadron). I'm still trying to figure out the proper size for a unit, and I'm also wondering whether I should try an unconventional approach to unit composition (like that of a mix-matched band à la D&D adventuring party).

Fourth, line-of-sight. Should I allow figures to shoot through members of the same unit (like in Warhammer: 40K) or should I strictly follow rules of line-of-sight (no obstacles from shooter to target)? I find that it's much more fun with former, and works well if I opt to go for the "unconventional approach to unit composition").

Fifth, the wargame's direction itself. Should I make this boardgame lean more towards conventional wargame, or should I make it totally outrageous? There a tons of war boardgames out there, and most of them took the traditional route for war boardgames (most of them simulated historical battles), but I think that if I really wanna make this game stand out, I should turn 180° and create something totally out of the norm. I think I'll do that.

That's all for now. Time to make a revision of this game and playtest it again next month. You can read about a review of the playtest here or, if you haven't, check out rob-jr's latest creation, The Nasi Lemak Stand.



Battle Mechanicum by Daniel Marcus is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Battle Mechanica Update (2/17/09)

This is just a progress update for Battle Mechanica. Please bear in mind that this is a Work In Progress (WIP), which means that the game is incomplete and is subject to change at any time by the designer.

I've pondered long and hard on this issue and I've finally decided which grid system Battle Mechanica will use: square grid. Despite the flexibility of the hex grid, I found that the square grid was far simpler to incorporate into the game. Simplicity of design won over simulation of realism.

So why Square Grid? Well, the reason why I chose to use hex grid in the first place was because it models diagonal movements nicely. But I found that hex grid doesn't work well on rectangular boards, since it's difficult to make all the hexes on the edges equidistant with their opposite counterparts. That was the only real issue for me.

Square grid solves this problem, and a whole lot more than I care to admit. It may not model diagonal movements well but it is simpler to implement and easier explain to would-be players.




Battle Mechanicum by Daniel Marcus is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Greetings from another member of Experimental Playground!

Hi. I'm Daniel. I'm a gamer and have a passion of creating new ideas, and one of them is coming up with new game design. Most of the time, these flash of inspirations will either end up in as a material for an RPG campaign or it gets forgotten (which tend to happen because I rarely keep track on them). So it was a godsend when Rob decided to start this blog. Finally, there's a place for me to pour my ideas into and share it with everyone, especially those that have the same passion as me.

My Homebrew Games

Let's get to the meat of things - homebrew games. This blog is about having fun with the boardgames that we create, and that's what I intend to do. I have three games currently in early development. They are:

1. Battle Mechanica - A diceless tabletop wargame set in a steampunk world.
   
2. Dancing Shadows: St. Hallow - A diceless boardgame with elements of mystery and horror.
   
3. Tales of Medda-Loren - A story-driven RPG boardgame that aims to be light on mechanics and heavy on storytelling.
   

I'm currently working on Battle Mechanica, and I will explain briefly the workings of the game in my next post. Stay tuned!