I don't think i like the 4d6s to decide how many actions, too random. I like it's simplicity though.
I think just with a couple of changes and clarifications it can improve greatly, keep up the good work!
Play game
First to Fight's itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Design | #17 | 2.742 | 3.167 |
| Adherence to the Theme | #20 | 1.876 | 2.167 |
| Originality | #21 | 2.454 | 2.833 |
| Overall | #21 | 2.358 | 2.722 |
Ranked from 6 ratings. Score is adjusted from raw score by the median number of ratings per game in the jam.
Comments
I like that Weapon range isn't a guiding principle, but perhaps some limited use or limited range specialty weapons might help spur the attacking team forward. Maybe the classic Flame Thrower or even a unit of Shotguns that get a bonus attacking occupied terrain at short range?
Submitted
Orbit LinkI feel like this is a mostly functional set of rules, with a few holes. I do wish you had more for force composition; you've got almost a whole page for it!
- Where is the synergy? I suppose there's a little with the Infantry, but other than that everything functions on its own and independently.
- You mention "retreat" but there's no rules for it.
- Your "example force" seems to have additional rules, and isn't really an example of a force.
- Vehicles are just clearly better than everything else. With no reason to choose something other than Vehicles, why wouldn't you?
- Spotting is just not explained clearly at all. What are the limitations? How long is a thing "spotted" for?
- No roll to Hit? You just get damage on the thing?
- No restriction on activating a unit more than once.
I think the main issue is that there just isn't a lot of player agency. Roll to move, roll to damage, roll to activate. Everything is "roll to" and there aren't a lot of decisions, particularly when there's no range to any of the weapons. Terrain will help that but because you can't determine where you'll be able to reach before you get there, all it means is that you're locked into what you can target at the start of the game. Without ranges there's no meaningful reason to move. Just use your activations to shoot until something's dead, and move only if you absolutely have to (meaning there's nothing any of your units can shoot at). This is compounded by the fact that cover is the only way to mitigate an enemy's fire, and if you move you will probably be stuck out in the open, since you don't even control how far you go.
I think this is a serviceable game that needs some attention to really sparkle.
Submitted
The ConquestThankyou for the feedback!
Force composition - I didn't really intend for the game to be particularly balanced, just a fun game to be played with whatever miniatures you have. Maybe even research WW2 platoon organisations to better structure the game.
Synergy - Yeah there really isn't a lot of synergy, I kind of just wrote the game and then tried to add a bit of synergy afterwards.
Retreat - If your force retreats then that's it, you've lost.
Vehicles - I didn't really playtest this, so it's actually no surprise that vehicles are a bit too good. I think I tried to make anti-tank guns the counter to vehicles.
Spotting - Essentially a unit can spot indefinitely but cannot do anything else.
To Hit - Yeah, I wanted to keep things simple and remove the roll to hit, roll to wound, then roll to save and just have one roll decides everything.
Activations - I completely forgot to put in stuff about multiple activations, but I don't consider it too much of a problem, if you keep activating the same unit then the rest of the force is ignored.
I've never really liked weapon ranges in the wargames I play. They never fit the scale, like in WH40k a bolter is 24" and a tank cannon might be 36". Especially with how small the scale of the battle can be, it feels wrong that an elite super human soldier just has no chance of hitting a massive alien beast at 25".
I suppose removing weapon ranges without adding in an incentive to move was a mistake. Maybe some kind of objective system instead of just shooting at the enemy. In regards to all the "rolling to" I tried to recreate the uncertainty of war. Trying to move a group of soldiers might end up with them sprinting towards the enemy or just kind of trudging along hoping they don't get shot at.
Again thankyou for your feedback. You've given me a lot of stuff to think about and maybe one day I'll get around to writing an updated version.
"I've never really liked weapon ranges in the wargames I play. They never fit the scale, like in WH40k a bolter is 24" and a tank cannon might be 36". Especially with how small the scale of the battle can be, it feels wrong that an elite super human soldier just has no chance of hitting a massive alien beast at 25"."
I'm 100% with you, there. To be clear, I don't think the issue is that the ranges are infinite, only that there's no mitigation outside of cover, and no reason to move. I think the idea to remove ranges is an excellent design choice and could probably be pursued to a great effect.
Is the characteristics only used if a double is rolled and selected for the unit to activate?
So if I rolled two 3's, I could use that to activat a Tank, and get it's characteristic ability, however if I used say a single 5 to activate it I wouldn't get to use the characteristic ability?
Submitted
We're not meant to be here
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.