|
Post by TheDreadnought on Sept 12, 2010 9:20:31 GMT -5
So I've had the idea for a sci-fi ground combat game floating around in my head for a while. But I'm unsure as to which route to take it.
Option 1: Mech combat game w/ mech & tanks. Supplements to cover infantry and air support.
Option 2: Combined arms 15mm sci-fi combat game.
Under option 1, the armored unit would be the "basic" unit. Infantry would be consolidated by squads, and would take a back seat to the armor and eventually the air cover. A comprehensive mech/tank design system would be included. Think Battletech except faster playing and better handling of everything that was not a mech.
Under option 2, the infantry squad would be the basic unit, and the system would be built up from there. This version would emphasize squad building, with armored vehicles not being as customizable. Think 40k except more fun, and with good vehicle and air rules.
Which would people rather see.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Sept 12, 2010 11:58:06 GMT -5
"Under option 2, the infantry squad would be the basic unit" I have always liked this approach better. Infantry is the basic building block of armies, so unless everything is so high tech that man doesn't fight on the frontlines, there will be infantry. Even then there would be robots-right? This is my favorite of the new projects by the by.
|
|
|
Post by Wulf on Sept 18, 2010 7:38:39 GMT -5
Option 1, There are many rules out there at the moment, however they seem to be mostly a 1 to 1 scale. The group I am involved with moves the scale up to a stand equals to a platoon. Would you look at having a stand equad to a platoon or one mech?
Option two, I do like the idea of basing it around the platoon level with the squad bring the core element. On a 6X4 table this would give the space to give the feel of distance between units has They (I am assuming) in the near future, based on platoon actions today.
One thing I don't like is having too many toys on the table. I like having space on the table which seens to give a better feel to the game.
Another question for me is, would you use I go and you go system or a inter-active system similar to Dirt Side?
|
|
|
Post by kenh01 on Sept 18, 2010 9:29:56 GMT -5
I'd love to see a set of rules aimed at GZG's Germy's 2mm Sci-Fi minis.
Ken
|
|
|
Post by sharkbait on Sept 18, 2010 15:32:33 GMT -5
Both? ;D
Option 1 would be my preferred at the moment. I would like to have a Mech centric game (I used to play Battletech many moons ago), as long as tanks and infantry can play a role.
Option 2 would be fun, too.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Sept 18, 2010 18:37:52 GMT -5
It unlikely that I will ever design an I go you go game. Plenty of that out there already.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on May 11, 2011 10:03:56 GMT -5
I keep going back and forth on this idea. But I think I've finally settled on designing a mech game. There's a big Battletech market out there full of people who might be interested in a faster, cleaner, more "modern" system. I think I'm going to go after it. That said, I'll try to leave room to build in infantry, tanks, and planes later. . . people love supplements.
|
|
|
Post by admiralgrafspee on May 12, 2011 11:28:53 GMT -5
I picked up some Heavy Gear a while back but never really got into it. I did really like the idea of it being focused on mecha with tanks and infantry being add-ins.
It would be great if you had a system that handled all types of mechs - battletech types, anime and even weirder stuff like gear krieg.
Oh, and getting to design your own mechs, that's totally where its at!
-Tim
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on May 12, 2011 13:56:23 GMT -5
Yeah, mech design rules are one of the most important parts.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on May 12, 2011 14:15:01 GMT -5
I picked up some Heavy Gear a while back but never really got into it. I did really like the idea of it being focused on mecha with tanks and infantry being add-ins. I liked the fact that Heavy Gear was focused on smaller mecha than Battletech. Gear were more flexible than infantry or armor units, but weren't always the best option. In Battletech, you were pretty much "roped into" mech-centric forces... they were the lords of the battlefield. I like the idea of option 1... there are several good squad level systems out there already.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on May 12, 2011 18:44:56 GMT -5
I picked up some Heavy Gear a while back but never really got into it. I did really like the idea of it being focused on mecha with tanks and infantry being add-ins. I liked the fact that Heavy Gear was focused on smaller mecha than Battletech. Gear were more flexible than infantry or armor units, but weren't always the best option. In Battletech, you were pretty much "roped into" mech-centric forces... they were the lords of the battlefield. I like the idea of option 1... there are several good squad level systems out there already. There are good squard level games, but you just mentioned the two big names in Mech games. I think it is a tough market in either case.
|
|
|
Post by wilf12358 on May 13, 2011 7:27:22 GMT -5
Both options have a lot of competition in the marketplace. Option 2, on the horizon in particular is the forthcoming Osprey/Ambush Alley 'Tomorrow's War', using a similar game engine to 'Force on Force', itself seemingly drawing inspiration from Stargrunt.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on May 13, 2011 8:29:23 GMT -5
Well its not whether or not there is a lot of competition in the marketplace.
The question is whether or not there is a "hole" in the marketplace that current offerings are not filling.
In the case of mech combat, Battletech is undisputed king. Yes, there are other systems out there, but they are just 'also rans' at this point without a significant piece of market share. Just check out the GenCon event listings on any given year, with dozens and dozens of BT games, and only a handful in total of all other systems.
However, as any Battletch player knows, its the SFB of mech combat. Get more than about 4 mechs on the table, and the game grinds to a halt. So I feel that's what I'm going to go after to fix.
So here is a design question:
Do people like the ablative armor of Battletech. . . or would you be ok with an armor penetration system like CBF or NT?
(I'm actually thinking about a combination of both).
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on May 13, 2011 18:17:12 GMT -5
(I'm actually thinking about a combination of both).
I like that idea!
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on May 14, 2011 13:07:32 GMT -5
In most cases, I like the idea of armor penetration like NT... but reactive armor has a place as well. Especially against certain types of weapons.
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Sept 19, 2011 2:06:28 GMT -5
I play Epic: Armageddon and love it. I play Battletech and mostly love it, but it sure can drag at times. I am also in the process of delving into 15mm and would love a 40k alternative, but I'd actually rather have a large skirmish game at that level rather than a whole army (40K is silly in its scale, and I hate the rules, and 6mm handles the massive combined arms so well). In short, a Battletech-esque game is good, as is a medium sized 15mm game. Do em both!
|
|