Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Tabletop Wargame Design  (Read 8975 times)

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Tabletop Wargame Design
« on: September 19, 2012, 12:27:17 am »

I've seen a few threads in this forum about RPG design, but nothing about this topic yet.  I've been working on a tabletop wargaming system not unlike Warhammer Fantasy Battles or Warhammer 40,000, and I'm still pretty early in the overall design phase such that I can throw away large parts of it without much sadness.

One part I'm currently stuck on, however, is how to model leadership in a satisfying and gaming friendly matter.  This is something that has always been a sore spot for me in Warhammer 40K.  I understand the game is supposed to be over the top with heroes leading from the front, but I'd like to model something a bit more tame where leaders only advance as far as they are needed, and focus more on actually leading their army than eviscerating the enemy themselves.

I won't go into details on how Warhammer and 40K handle this, but in general I want something more realistic.  I think this is actually a few problems instead of just one, but I'm a bit lost on how to model it.  Leaders need to be valuable to the army somehow, and in a way other than killing potential.  I've wrestled with this idea a bit, and one of the embryonic concepts I came up with was to use abstract command points.

Command points would be generated by a unit (say a squad of infantry men generate 1 point), and actions require command points to execute.  Leaders generate extra command points.  So, if your squad has a sergeant, then it can perhaps do two things since they get 2 command points (1 for the unit, 1 for the sergeant as long as he's alive).  That sort of adds some tactical edge to the game, but quickly leads into nonsensical situations when I tried to add in a command chain concept.  A quick patch to allow that was for commanding units to have subordinate squads they could give spare command points to.  This would encourage you to keep squads close to their leaders (or in contact anyway), and to keep your leaders alive.  But it's utter nonsense when you try to use command points as an action point type system.  Imagine your squad can suddenly do a third thing because the lieutenant is standing nearby...  A possible patch to that was to only allow command points to allow you to do certain things (like split fire between two target units), but that's getting complicated.

So I'm thinking I'm going to throw that out and do something completely different.  I've considered just using a leadership system similar to 40K but with patches.  So your unit has a leadership value they have to roll against to avoid fear and the like, and commanders just give them a boost to that if conditions are met (such as being in range).  But then I don't know how to integrate higher levels of command in a useful manner...

So, I'm pretty sure my problem stems from the fact that I'm only really familiar with these two systems.  Does anyone have any suggestions on another way to model these aspects of leading an army?  There's the commissioned officers in the command chain giving out orders and passing them down (presumably as you, maybe lower units don't get your orders if the leaders are dead?), and NCOs in squads keep the squad together and moving toward the objective (i.e. passing leadership tests).  Is there an existing game system that handles any of this well?
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Sirus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident trucker/goddess/ex-president.
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2012, 12:36:52 am »

Have you, by any chance, looked at the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex? They have something of a similar system, with Platoon and Company Commanders being able to give special orders to Guard units in range and rolling Leadership to see if the order goes through. If I remember correctly, having vox equipment in the squads would either increase the range at which orders can be given or give bonuses to the Leadership roll.

Other than that, I'm afraid I can't help much with tabletop design :P
Logged
Quote from: Max White
And lo! Sirus did drive his mighty party truck unto Vegas, and it was good.

Star Wars: Age of Rebellion OOC Thread

Shadow of the Demon Lord - OOC Thread - IC Thread

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 09:33:39 am »

I unfortunately only have the 4th edition codex, but perhaps next time I'm in a hobby store I'll try to take a peek through the latest codex.  That does sound like a step in the right direction.

I wanted a system that's as inclusive as possible, so possibly extended to all orders and not just special orders.  I fear such a system would be unplayable or not fun however.  For example, if I made it include all orders, are units that are out of contact with their commanders unable to do anything?  That's probably a bit extreme.

Some middle ground might be a good solution however.  Perhaps units can only perform some basic actions, but having a commander opens up more complicated actions.  I'll think about it.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Sensei

  • Bay Watcher
  • Haven't tried coffee crisps.
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 12:08:10 pm »

The most obvious thing would be to have leaders provide an increase to your chance for troops to succeed courage tests, and rally troops that have already failed, if your system is big on that.

You say you want chain of command? Maybe have people take one army leader, who grants some kind of buff or special ability, but that only applies to troops in range/under the command of a lesser leader. That way killing squad leaders or separating them from their troops would affect those troops, and killing the army leader would affect the whole army.
Logged
Let's Play: Automation! Bay 12 Motor Company Buy the 1950 Urist Wagon for just $4500! Safety features optional.
The Bay 12 & Mates Discord Join now! Voice/text chat and play games with other Bay12'ers!
Add me on Steam: [DFC] Sensei

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2012, 06:07:23 pm »

I have considered something like that, but the fact I'm hearing it from someone else makes me think it might be a decent idea.  :)

Part of the problem I'm having is that since I have no military experience, I actually have no idea what happens when a squad is cut off from high levels of command.  My instinct is that the NCO leading the squad would attempt to continue with whatever orders the squad last had, if it was practical.  Modeling "practical" in this case is pretty much impossible though, and I'm not sure it would be realistic or fun to say force a unit to continue with whatever orders it had last turn if your commanders get killed.  In practice I guess someone would take up the commander's position if he or she is killed, so it should only be a temporary thing though.

As far as having commanders who give bonuses to morale, that seems reasonable.  I guess having the major yelling at you through the radio would give a squad a bit more incentive to do what they're told.

Other special abilities are a bit fuzzier, and was a point I had some trouble fleshing out in the past.  Commanders probably can't realistically give a subordinate squad a bonus to shoot, for example, although some defensive bonuses might make sense ("Watch it, there's a mortar lining up on your position!").
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

stabbymcstabstab

  • Bay Watcher
  • OW SNAP!
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2012, 07:09:16 am »

Can you post any and all rules you have? it would be a lot easier if we could see everything and see what fits in with the other rules.
Logged
Long Live Arst- United Forenia!
"Wanna be a better liberal? Go get shot in the fuckin' face."
Contemplate why we have a sociopathic necrophiliac RAPIST sadomasochist bipolar monster in our ranks, also find some cheese.

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2012, 08:22:12 am »

I'll see about getting what I have reformatted to post here.  Part of the problem is that it's early enough in development that I'm considering throwing a lot of it away and starting over.  I can probably keep enough to be relevant to this discussion though.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

AlStar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2012, 12:15:18 pm »

One thing that would be useful for us to help you - what time period are you designing for?

Are we talking American Civil War or earlier? (Messengers with horses, no radios)
World War I? (Big, heavy radios, mostly stationary, messengers travel from radios to troops)
World War II? (smaller, man-portable radios)
Today/Future? (every unit has a radio, and can (theoretically) get micromanaged by a four-star general (if he so chooses) who has real-time battlefield information coming in, possibly from half-way across the world.)

If you don't want your leaders swinging swords, you may want to consider how messages are getting from high command (the player, in this case) to their units.

Now, how practical this is in a board gaming sense, I'm not sure. Is it feasible to have to (for instance) send a messenger with the message "stop moving that way, turn 90 degrees and fire at enemy hostiles" each time you want to update a unit's orders? How much autonomy do you give each unit? How do you deal with (Our orders are to move forwards, but we've hit a wall) or (we're getting shot at! But we've been ordered to walk in formation along this road!)

Anyway, just some thoughts off the top of my head.

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2012, 03:26:16 pm »

I've been intentionally vague on the period because I want ideas to cover all of the cases.  It probably would have been useful to state this up front, but one of the goals of this system is to be generic, not unlike a number of RPG systems like GURPS or the new D6 system.  So it would potentially be used to simulate old era fighting up to futuristic.

I'm concerned that may be a doomed prospect from the start, considering how differently combat is handled in the different eras, but I'm hoping to eke out something playable and fun.

So, the idea is that it's supposed to be generic and you build unit entries by picking stat lines and abilities, and something like you mention would be part of the abilities, perhaps.  So, combining it with the ideas offered earlier, a commander in a low tech army might have a very limited radius for his abilities to work, where a modern commander's abilities would affect the army and not require line of site, with an appropriate increase in unit value.

I'm not so worried about the balance right now as getting a coherent rules system.  Leadership is one of the things that I'm currently most bogged down with, but resolving unit combats with such vastly varying power levels is its own challenge.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

stabbymcstabstab

  • Bay Watcher
  • OW SNAP!
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2012, 04:10:08 pm »

Well, you could have units divided by rank that got CPs by being closer to higher ranking unit and the higher the rank the more the Points ( IE a group of privates would do more with a colonel near by then a sergeant.) and then having them take the points from the highest ranking officer till he runs out then just go down the list.
Logged
Long Live Arst- United Forenia!
"Wanna be a better liberal? Go get shot in the fuckin' face."
Contemplate why we have a sociopathic necrophiliac RAPIST sadomasochist bipolar monster in our ranks, also find some cheese.

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2012, 05:46:52 pm »

The system of division and utilisation of Command Points that I could envisage being fairly useful/realistic does unfortunately seem to need a lot of micromanagement of results and tallying in the head (perhaps more suited for some computer-mediated system, such as a Turn Based computer game with partial automation/inertia of units), but I'll briefly outline what I thought.

A unit on its own as the "one thing" it can naturally do... No, actually half a thing it can do[1].  Until it builds up a full point, it cannot change.  Interference by an enemy (in a "no plan survives contact with the enemy" manner) zeros the tally, so if the enemy has an upper-hand and keeps harassing a unit continuously, they have no option to do anything other than hold/run/react in whatever way the general tide of battle forces them.  When left alone for a turn (perhaps), there's a chance to gather their wits and execute an actual planned break-out, counter-attack, stop fleeing or whatever.

(Some things may have to come before others, e.g. stopping running away before actually counter-attacking, thus needing more time to gather their wits.  Evacuating an emplacement might require transitioning from keeping under cover to actually creating covering fire in preparation to bailing out in an orderly manner, although "just running" (at the expense of any practical defensive measures, taking a non-random route away from their location, or just keeping themselves ordered enough in order to quickly dig in at a fall-back position) might be an immediate action, indeed perhaps an outcome of losing whatever 'morale'-type test is applied to them.)

A ranking commander, of some kind, adds to this if directly present.  Different levels add different amounts, but not exponentially so.  Just having a five-star general and a handful of grunts, and they having superhuman capabilities and reaction-times is very much (as I'm sure you'd agree) very 40Kish.  OTOH, unless there's other adjustments (if they were a 'killing general', e.g. some sort of Lord Kitchener character who might hold little sway with trench-weary and cynical troops, say) there'll be inspiration and practical experience behind the commands.  "You, you and you, get that heavy weapon operational, you two, watch the flank approaches, the rest of you check your weapons and reload as necessary, they're going to be coming this way as soon as the smoke clears and I want us ready for that.  Medic, get yourself a cubby-hole for triage, and you know what to do if they break through our lines."


That's local control sorted, but there's always some form of remote communication available, as already said (although I'd have said WW1 was more a matter of field telephones (backed up with runners and riders of various kinds) rather than so much the heavy radio set, and there's always been some variant on semaphore), and a unit has not just its own initiative/command points/whatever, but should be receptive towards commands from others.

There'll be two forms of command involved.  Battlefield-wide ones and fine-control.  When taking the overall commander's points, conveyed from the back lines, it should be a simple matter of his points, spread equally and undivided to all and sundry under his command.  It may go through one or more communication links, but ultimately reaches the front-line troops at full force all across the field, so at the local level you get something like: "The General says get ready to charge on his command...   Charge!  Over the top lads!  Keep pressing forwards!  Take the battle to enemy!".  All assuming that the troops at the end of the command aren't under a current penalty (suppressing fire, bad morale, whatever), but the Orders From Above press the need and create an elevated level of rallying to the action.

But it's not all about the blunt instrument.  You want some troops held back, perhaps.  Or the general/equivalent already has everyone holding the line but needs to move a particular unit or two around to create a flanking manoeuvre.  Here, the general's points are split.  If it's a command to just one unit to do one thing, with no complications, he can probably apply the full force of his authority to the end unit (via intermediaries, perhaps, but see below about that).  "We've been given a mission by the Commander, guys.  Those enemy guns need taking out and we're the best people to do that!"  If ordering units on both sides to execute the appropriate movements to perform a pince-movement, though, then you can imagine he'd need to divide his attention somewhat to coordinate such a movement, and so there'd be greater difficulty.  (Could include counter-commands so that while particular units charge, others are explicitly ordered to hold their position, and not join in on the rush.)


Of course, there are subordinates to the overall commander, and intermediates.  A lot of the point of having people like that is that you have people you can entrust to do the proper organisation and dissemination (c.f. the "all units forward" command, at each stage being relayed with no dilution of power).  Theoretically, there could be disruptions in this web of communication, so that part of the front-line does not go over the top (the way-station for the orders has been disabled or suppressed by long-range fire or enemy incursions, or perhaps a clash of personalities or the incompetence of corporal in charge), but I don't know if that's worth modelling.  But degrading the 'broadcast command' through trouble-spots could be possible.  If there's an ability to radio/semaphore/send-a-runner-to front-line troops, directly from battalion HQ (or equivalent), to by-pass the problem, then this would be dealt with under the split-commands rule.  However, where command decisions are conveyed through sub-commanders, their own commanding points get added into the equation.

And, of course, the details of engaging the enemy at the front line is rarely the concern of the guy in charge as long as it gets done.  The simpler commands to "make it so" are passed from the (not necessarily fully informed) HQ unit at the back (or in the middle of their own private skirmish, if things aren't going quite as they should) and the competence and awareness and actual capability of the middle-ranking officers is a definite factor.  The equivalent of the fine motor control needed to safely move a heavy, but still fragile, vase from a table.  The undiluted (other factors excepted) 'General order' is fine-tuned by the intermediate commands who make the appropriate splits/generalities to the way they trickle down what they need to the units, and the unit commanders shape the way the front-line interprets these.  Here the 'inherited' command benefit is not combined with the local guy's full command-load down each and every leg of his own areas of responsibility, but takes the command "Send the assault troops forward, with appropriate covering fire" and 'expends' his command on both the guys going 'over the top' (or equivalent) and the mortars/whatever that'll be staying put.  The trickle-down benefits from the general order, while being penalised by the split specifics.

Which is probably where it 'gets' complicated. ;)

Hence why I'm not sure it's a useful thing for TTRPGing.  But maybe it can be simplified in some way.  Whichever way, it would force one to balance the command structure.  One 'big guy' sending overarching orders out through a wide-but-shallow tree of command would be able to put a lot of force behind "blunt force" orders, but have problems when trying to make finer control.  A deep structure of command and control could give a lot of precision to the tactics employed, but potentially weakens the authority sometimes needed to encouraged actions to go ahead that way.





One thing I might add, from my extensive TTRPGing experience[2], though more to do with the overall design rather than the specific questions raised in the OP: don't make a high dice-roll good in some circumstances and a low dice-roll good in others[3].  Perhaps it's excusable that in one given system the morale needs you to roll under a value (thus the higher test value gives you better chance to succeed) but damage likes you to roll over (check against an armour value), but I've played systems where chance to hit is above, then the ability to damage is below, then criticality of damage is above, then...  Well, YGTI...  It's generally all qualified, but (though I can't quote you chapter and verse at the moment) it all seemed like it had been set up and then qualified afterwards.

(Actually, there's one thing I can highlight.  While I admit there are grudging reasons behind the mechanism, the AP (armour penetration) of 40K, or at least the variant that I get asked to play, always seems to me to be counter-intuitive.  AP1 being good, AP5 being bad.  But then when you have to roll a weapon with varying AP level, you'd like to roll low, right next to wanting to roll high when adding to the power of the shot to overcome the armour-level of the thing you're hitting.  But I might not be playing the latest codex stuff (the other guy's in charge of the 'system'), so please feel free to ignore me if I've misinterpreted something.)





[1] Was going to say "two points needed to change objective", but I've changed my mind.  Simpler (though equivalent) that a single point does that job, and reducing the background 'capability' to half.  Other fractions are available, no doubt, if fine-tuning indicates they'd be useful.

[2] Mostly losing.  It's experience, not expertise! ;)

[3] Saving for "Having undershot your artillery, let's see how much damage you did... Awww, very little.  Looks like your guys emerged almost unscathed from that little accident, after all."  And there's always times when you'd actually prefer your Warhound's damaged reactors to go critical and take out the enemies currently surrounding it, rather than just die on its feet.
Logged

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2012, 09:06:47 pm »

That's all very helpful Starver, thanks!  It's vague enough that I think I can probably work together something reasonable compatible with my current ideas.  I think a three tier system would be appropriate, sort of like how you laid it out.  Top level commanders who give the big orders, mid level commanders to execute them, and squad level (sergeants) who coordinate the smallest unit.  The specifics, as you say will probably be complicated, but this does give me some food for thought.  In particular, I'm liking the idea that units can only maintain their current or reactive orders without a commander or enough time to stop and consider their situation, that sounds very good to me.

And I agree with what you were saying about the rolling mechanics.  Right now everything in the system is roll under, and higher numbers are always better.  I suspect that may end up changing in some way, but so far it works.  The way that damage works right now is kind of broken though (it's not random at all), so that may end up being an exception.  After I figure out a better general structure for the leadership that will give me a chance to go back and fix that...
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Akhier the Dragon hearted

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm a Dragon, Roar
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2012, 01:10:21 pm »

   Hmm, just browsing but thought I would put some ideas into the pot. Leaders are important but the right level of command for the right situation is an important thing to think about. A 4 star general can command a lot of people but a ranker who just leads his own squad would have a hard time taking charge of 2 squads but with his one squad he can micromanage them better then the general can his forces. Having the affect that your commanders provide to the units be connected to how many they command would allow you to have powerful boosts be possible along side weaker and more passive boosts. A good general would be able to provide a small overall morale boost because the people trust him to lead the battle while a good squad leader can at some point rally his squad with rousing words and such. On a squad leader the small boost is nearly worth it as for instance a 1% higher chance of succeeding would not be worth the points but on the general the 1% boost to your entire army could be critical to keeping it together. Of course the other side of it you have the rally ability which on a squad leader as say a limited use ability is quite useful but on a general even if only single use could be considered overpowered depending on how important morale is.
   One last thing I want to point out. Tyranids have an interesting system of "leadership" that you can look at. Its basically a radius around the more powerful units in which the weaker ones are able to be commanded by the whatever its called. If some termagants leaves that radius they start acting on animal instinct. With some fluff change that is basically what happens when humans suddenly lose contact with their leader. Some panic and freeze, some will follow the last order they received, and some will start doing their own thing. Radius of command would be one way to represent leadership, a general would have quite a range and may even cover more then the entire battlefield if its small while a squad leader would have a small one that only fits his squad. If you like my first suggestion then one way to make it work would be to have all leader types have a set pool of points which can go to any of the things but one of the options is radius of command. This way a squad leader could get the rally ability at the cost of not being able to command anything beyond a small radius while the general traded the ability to have a large numerical effect in exchange for the ability to affect a large number of units with a small effect.
Logged
Quote
Join us. The crazy is at a perfect temperature today.
So it seems I accidentally put my canteen in my wheelbarrow and didn't notice... and then I got really thirsty... so right before going to sleep I go to take a swig from my canteen and... end up snorting a line of low-grade meth.

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2012, 10:08:06 am »

The way that tyranids work was actually the inspiration for my original idea on having points that were distributed to lower level squads from their leaders.  I was hoping to generalize it a bit and reuse the concept on a higher level, such as commanders being the entire source of army actions, but I quickly ran into sensibility and scale problems.  I think something vaguely like the synapse rule is what I am looking for though, possibly combined with Starver's ideas.

I'm thinking some system where units may only act reactively unless under direct command from a higher up is the way to go.  Perhaps something a little less brutal than the way synapse works, but at the same time it should be pretty significant.  Adding a command structure is still a bit complicated and perhaps not worth it though, I think maybe focusing on mid level commanders like captains and lieutenants as the sole source of true "command" is the way to go.

Some sort of cascading system where the lowest level units only act reactively unless they get orders from the higher ups.  The details I'm going to have to cogitate on...
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Akhier the Dragon hearted

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm a Dragon, Roar
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube Channel
Re: Tabletop Wargame Design
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2012, 10:28:22 am »

   Hmm, that sounds interesting. With that setup you could probably make a good solid system though you will have to work out what exactly you want them to do when not under command. The word reactive can cover a number of things or very few things. Maybe setup a set of very basic commands that they can still do like move half speed and similar things where the unit can do things but not as well as they could with a command and make it so they can't initiate combat or use special abilities.
Logged
Quote
Join us. The crazy is at a perfect temperature today.
So it seems I accidentally put my canteen in my wheelbarrow and didn't notice... and then I got really thirsty... so right before going to sleep I go to take a swig from my canteen and... end up snorting a line of low-grade meth.
Pages: [1] 2