So, I'm not quite done with trying to define game, but I wanted to start on another side project of mine. This side project is a strategy game tentatively titled Frontline. I had started my notes on the game, and realized that if I wanted to share the design process, and my thoughts on the design, I might as well start by making my notes publicly available. It has been my experience in doing something similar before that I don't always explain my choices, and instead just make changes to the rules and structure, without showing my thought process.
So, to start, Frontline was originally conceived as a real-time strategy (RTS) game with a heavy focus on scouting and exploration as well as involving a player character who would be involved in the battles. It has since shifted to a turn-based strategy game, with a slow rate of information transfer, in addition to caring about the location of a player avatar.
Right now Frontline is intended to be a video game, as it currently has a complicated back-end. That is to say, a large amount of math and timing is involved, as well as hidden information. If it were a board game, a game master would be required, simply to deal with the hidden information. Even if it was simplified, the amount of hidden information would keep it from being particularly feasible.
The root of this idea comes from your standard medieval or fantasy real time strategy games. It has always struck me as odd that the commander has instantaneous knowledge of the surroundings of his scouts, without them needing to return and report. I can definitely understand why designers would choose to have the instantaneous relay of data, because otherwise the game could be very frustrating. I believe, however, that designing a slower game based around less reliable information could be both successful and interesting. The greatest strength of the game, I believe, would be the increase in value of strategy or macro, instead of fast, accurate actions or micro.
At some point, I would like to construct a campaign, with a variety of scenarios for the player to best, ranging from small unit skirmishes to sprawling kingdoms requiring the management of a king. However, to start, a simple versus mode is my goal. When starting a game, a player can choose to be on the offensive or the defensive. By being on the offensive, the player's initial position is unknown to their enemy, but they don't know any terrain beyond what they can currently see. Beginning from a defensive position, your location is known to the enemies, but you know more of the terrain. In a given game you could have one attacker and one defender, or two attackers or two defenders.
In smaller scenarios, a player will not have to manage the entirety of their nation, just the assigned military force. They can train units and choose how to run their camp. Discipline, rations and other factors will determine how happy the troops are and how well they will fight. However, the player won't have infinite resources, they would be limited by the supply trains that would come in from off the map. Of course, these supplies would be open to attack by the other player, causing unrest.
A major factor of how the game will play out is how information is passed. Units that leave the immediate vicinity of the player's character will not update the map. However, when they return, that information will be given to the player, and the unit will ask for further instructions. Information that is given will not be guaranteed. Units will report their best estimate as well as when the information was gathered. The player can choose to update the map with the information if they believe it is worthwhile. A unit's accuracy and reliability will be a hidden number that is based off their training, their happiness and potentially other factors.
Because of the slow rate of information transfer and the lack of guarantees of that data, spies will play an important role in the game. Sending a spy can provide false information so that the opponents actions are misplaced. To defend against spies, a player can have tighter security, but that might prevent a legitimate trader or refugee from entering the camp, denying resources or useful information. Additionally, when sending movement or attack commands to units, it will take time for the message to arrive and then the units have to assemble and move out, as ordered.
In a larger scale mission, when the player is ruling a nation, they also have to make economic, political, and social decisions. By directing the nation, they will receive resources with which they can assemble their army. Similar to the smaller scenario's, the player will have to be wary of spies and carefully regard commands sent from their base of operations, as messages will still take time to travel. However, when defending against spies, if they lock out everyone who was not initially a citizen, the player risks losing a lot more than if they were just in charge of a camp.
When a nation goes to war (or at any other time) a player can choose to move their avatar, the commander closer to where they believe the battle will take place. This will allow them to get information faster, and be more responsive in their decisions. However, this puts them farther away from their other considerations, which may punish the player in the long term.
The intent of Frontline is to explore the space of inaccurate information in an area where accuracy is vital. It will be an interesting challenge to make a game that works very hard to make it difficult for the player, but is also fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment