« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 29, 2005
ProtoChess
Chess has some interesting abstractions: the pawns represent the relatively weak infantry who can only advance but are able to attack in a diagonal, quasi-phalanx style; the hooked move of the knight represents cavalry's ability to flank and get behind the enemy; and I imagine the rook's long-range motion represents the long attack of archers in the towers.
But all the other aspects of the game do not represent reality, and I'm guessing were adjustments made to improve gameplay. It would make more sense to give the king the movement ability that the queen has, but as it also makes the most sense as the ultimate target, I understand the reason to separate the 'royal family' into two units, one with power and one as target. The rook probably started as a static piece with only defensive ability, but making it mobile gives more options for strategy. The bishop is an odd one, though.
I've been trying to come up with different rules for a chess-like game that has more similarities to actual pre-gunpowder, or even pre-iron age, battle. Many aspects of chess exist because it is a non-computer game. In board games it is too difficult to include features such as individual 'hit points' for each piece, so in chess it is a binary attribute - either you're dead or alive. But as a computer game we can have the hardware do all that work for us.
I like the pace of turn-based games. Even though the trend is to have real-time play, turn-based emphasizes the strategy and de-emphasizes the finger-dexterity aspect.
Board:
The 8x8 board is quite good for lots of strategy games, but I would want to try something larger, say 10x10, and possibly include obstacles of water or mountain or forest, similar to the Stratego board. These obstacles could slow movement (fording a river takes longer than crossing a field) or could stop all but a few pieces (infantry could clamber up a steep rockface while cavalry have to go around).
The hex board seems to give more realism in terms of movement, so this board is hexagonal.
The board contains a castle for each player, and takes up 7 hexes. Imagined behind each castle is a foundry that produces weapons and the fields and homes of the population from where horses and soldiers are drawn. Each player begins with 30 men and 10 horses off the board and cannot produce soldiers or horses after these are exhausted. Unlike most RTS games, the details of researching, producing weapons, and training are highly abstracted and are not part of the game.
Pieces:
I like the rock-paper-scissors quality of infantry-cavalry-archers; pikemen can take down horses, knights can run down bowmen, and they in turn inflict damage from afar on infantry. In reality, any unit can injure any other, and I don't see the need to weight the attack abilities of different pieces other than giving them their respective qualities: infantry have numbers, archers have missile attack, and cavalry have increased movement, and possibly increased attack (horse hooves can crush)
So the types of weapon are the sword and the bow. Initially anyway I don't want more than 2; having more would add too much complexity.
The types of defense should be shield and armor. Armor slows you down, and a shield requires using a hand.
Each man then, can use bow and arrow (takes two hands) or two swords or sword and shield, and is either armored or not and is either riding or not.
Unlike other games, units should be able to pick up and use equipment that they find, and should be to mount or dismount horses as they see fit. This game assumes that all soldiers have training to use all types of weapon, and that all armor fits any man.
Another type of piece is the castle, and the destruction of this is what ends the game, not killing the king. However, once the king is dead, a player can no longer create pieces (explained below).
One last type of weapon is the catapault, which requires two men to operate, and again any soldier can do so (though men on horseback must take a turn to dismount first) - and two horses are required to pull the thing into position. All horses from either side (and all weaponry and armor) can be commandered by either player.
Turns:
The game starts with just the castles in position. An optional first turn is to have the players place their castles.
Production:
Each turn a player can pull two units from his farms, either two men or a man and a horse; and can produce four pieces of weaponry or one catapault. For example, a player could make one (infantry) man with sword and shield and one (archer) man with bow and quiver with 10 arrows (bow and full quiver are considered separate pieces); or could make one (knight) man on horseback with armor, sword, and shield, and save one 'weapon credit' to use on a later turn.
A unit can hold one item in each hand: sword, shield, or bow. If a unit is on horseback, it needs one hand free to hold the reins while moving. If the horse is still, the unit can hold a shield or weapon. An archer needs one hand to carry a bow, but two hands to use it, so cannot attack with a sword or shield in hand. Although the Mongols were able, the units in this game cannot fire arrows while riding.
Additionally, each unit can carry up to two additional items (an extra quiver of arrows, shield, etc.) But it takes one turn to switch items.
Each new unit is placed on the hex immediately in front of the castle. A hex can contain up to 12 men, and a horse is the size of two men, so it could alternately contain up to 6 men on horseback, or one horseman and 10 foot soldiers, or three unmounted horses and 6 foot soldiers. A catapault is the size of 3 horses or 6 men, so a catapault operated by two men and pulled by two horses completely fills a hex.
Each man on the board can do one thing on a turn: move or attack.
All men are considered to be perpetually defending themselves and types of defense (eg. parrying sword, raising shield) are not considered moves.
At the end of each turn, each unit can also pick up/change weapons, or mount/dismount a horse.
Movement:
Men on foot can move to an adjacent hex, men on horseback can move twice. Men in armor cannot move on foot.
If a hex is full, no one can enter until there is room. If a full hex contains an unmounted horse, a man may enter the hex and displace the horse to an adjacent hex. For example, once the catapault is in position to siege the opponent's castle, a player could move in up to four archers, displacing the two horses (used to pull the catapault).
Attack:
Units attack with sword only enemy units in the same hex. Units can attack with arrows enemy units only in adjacent hexes. Catapaults attack hexes that are exactly 4 hexes away. 'Friendly fire' does not exist in this game.
In attack mode, a unit can select to attack any unit in the target area and always hits. (The game is meant to be pure strategy and I don't want any random variables).
Each man has 10 'hit points' and each hit takes off 3 points. Shield and armor each reduce the attack by 1 point, so a man using a shield will sustain only two points, and a man in armor carrying a shield in each hand cannot be injured (although he cannot move or attack either).
If a unit sustains 10 points of damage, he is dead, and his weapons, armor, and horse remain in the hex until another unit (of either side) picks them up.
Catapaults cannot be injured by arrows, but a unit does not need a sword to attack it either. A bowman can enter the hex (provided that it is not full) and attack from there (untying ropes, etc.)
Catapaults have the same damage as any other weapon.
Picking up Weapons:
A player can hold one item in each hand and can carry up to two items on his back. A unit can take a turn to switch items in use (held in hands) with those carried on his back or to pick up or swap items found on the ground. For example, a man with a sword and shield in his hands and a bow on his back enters a hex where there had been a battle and there are weapons on the ground. On the next turn he drops the sword, picks up a quiver and puts it on his back, puts the bow in his hand, and puts the shield on his back.
Armor is considered a carried item, so a man in armor can have only one item on his back.
A quiver holds 10 arrows, and each shot of an arrow reduces the number by one. A unit must pick up arrows from the ground before using them again. Arrows (and all other weaponry) are assumed to never break, unless explicitly.
During the end-of-turn phase, units can break weapons if the player chooses, so as to not leave any arrows or shields behind.
Units can pick up arrows to give to other units later, but can only hold one arrow at a time unless carrying a quiver, which can hold no more than 10.
Mounting/dismounting:
Similarly, a player can take a turn to get off a horse or get on a horse that has no rider. Horses of either player can be riden by units of either player.
Winning:
The castle is made up of 7 hexes, and any one plus the center hex must be destroyed to achieve victory. A castle hex has 10 hit points, but can only be damaged by catapault.
A castle hex can contain up to 5 men (but not horses or catapaults) which could be used for defensive archers. If a player produces arrows (or any weapon) on a turn, these can be given to men within a castle hex.
Tweaking:
The game is considerably more complicated than chess, and is similar to some role-playing games, but the emphasis on equipment here is much less than in RPGs. But because of the complexity, having more than about 7 units per player on the board at any one time would mean most time spent swapping weapons as opposed to thinking about strategy, so some variables may need to be changed to avoid this potential problem.
A key issue is finding the balance between realism and gameplay. Many aspects of a true simulation would burden the players with details that would the game seem more like work than a game. However, abstracting details too much could remove the richness that also makes a game enjoyable. One issue to be determined is whether the player perspective is 'god-like' (as in chess, where the entire board is visible to all players at all times) where in effect the issue of gathering intelligence in the field is assumed to be good enough that players know whats going on everywhere, or limited so that the board starts out dark and must be scouted (as in most RTS games, where opposing players are only visible from nearby areas).
Again, board games are by necessity more abstracted than computer games because it is too difficult to simulate hidden information without aid of a computer (although Stratego manages to conceal the identity of units, this results in a test of memory more than I care for).
Many RTSs allow units to be healed, which in this game could provide some negative feedback, in that a player in a weak position could revive his troops, however, only a player in a stronger position could afford to bring injured units back from the front. Even if this option were added, I wouldn't add the feature of wizards or whatever that are able to heal by waving their arms.
If chess is considered a simulation of war, the time frame that a single game encompasses is probably between a day and a week, with each turn representing an hour or so. I envision this proposed game to be finer-grained than that, with each turn representing 15 minutes or so, and so healing is not a realistic option, as an invalid may take weeks to recouperate.
Strategy:
Because of the size of the board and the vulnerability of the units, I envision the game proceeding in a fashion similar to the way it did in the time period that the rules emulate; that is, with large groups of units moving and attacking together
Archers are quite vulnerable and should be placed behind other units to attack remotely.
Catapaults must be attacked by first removing the men sharing its hex via archers, then moving men in. Accordingly, catapaults should be defended by surrounding them as much as possible. As such, these units are likely to not be brought out until late in the game.
Posted by mslaybau at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)
October 05, 2005
Experimental Gameplay Project 2.0
Experimental Gameplay Project 2.0
Now in it's second semester, our goal is to once again generate over 50 games in one semester. Our fresh new team will pop out 4 new games every Wednesday.
Brand new this semester, we invite you to submit your own games! Every week on Wednesday night we will post the current theme of the week. Try to make a game based around this theme, you might surprise yourself! Remember, this project was founded on the idea that "complexity is not necessary for fun".
This week's theme for Wednesday, 10.5.2005:
"Temperature"
Posted by mslaybau at 04:42 PM | Comments (0)