181
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: *Interest Check* The Scandinavian Conflict of 1921 (Coop Strategy Forum Game)
« on: May 29, 2016, 01:16:52 pm »I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "suggestion squads". Are you saying they're people who can comment on the battle situation, sort of like fellow officers in the field discussing the current battle situation?
Naw. Just squads that are moved by "player suggestions", instead of, well, a single player. Would make the game appeal to more than just the ~6? officer players. Might just be my bias for suggestion games though.
Quote from: coleslaw36
You know, I never thought of foxholes or trenches. I was definitely going to include artillery, mortar teams, anti-tank guns, and other types of divisions. In terms of artillery though, I'm not quite sure whether it should be like an off-map entity that you can only call a certain number of arty strikes from or an on-map unit that someone could control.Huh. Trenches actually were the first thing that I thought of, considering 1921 to still have WWI war-tech. Then again, hoping that the enemy troops leave their trenches, as to assault our trenches, doesn't make for very interesting gameplay. Taking pot-shots at each other with sniper fire and artillery, isn't all that peachy either. Foxholes inside a forest, as to ambush or delay enemy troops, or storming a smaller set of trenches, sounds workable though.
About artillery, I guess the big shots would sit outside of the mission, with smaller cannons and mortars in possession of the squads themselves. Then again, artillery was key in smoking out trenches, which is not something very interesting in the long run. Having a limited number of shots, and or cooldown, sounds good though.
Quote from: coleslaw37
Cavalry? Interesting idea. Perhaps on a larger battlefield.Well, Napoleon made them relevant enough that they still were used as combat forces until, well, trenches became the "main" battlefield. Pretty much any other scenario than VS tanks, trenches, and artillery, and they were viable even throughout ww2, so there's that, I suppose. In the end, it really depends on what kind of missions we will be going on.
Or, rather, it also depends on how close to history you want to base this game, instead of your own thoughts on the matter, and gameplay reasons.
Quote from: coleslaw38
Perhaps we could have some variety in combat
How does everyone feel about adding other types of combat other than just land combat? Maybe we could have some dedicated air combat or naval combat? I dunno, it's a possibility.
Truth be told, sometimes less is more. If we are to include officers commanding naval or aerial forces, wouldn't our missions become restricted to all-out battles that include both? Or, we would give these officers forced time-outs, for as long as the newest mission goes on - easily a week or two. The only "other" way of dealing with this, afaik, would be to have multiple missions running at the same time. So yeah, it sounds great and interesting - but at a steep price.
To pitch my sales about the suggestions, having these forces guided by the players, instead of a single one, would rid us off the aforementioned problems. ;3
Quote from: coleslaw39
I was also considering hidden soldiers (ie sniper teams) and how to illustrate fog of far with hexographer.Honestly, the easiest way for doing this that I know, would be to work over the hexograper-map.jpg in gimp. Get a second layer above the map, get a "black hex", and get working. Get a "white hex" and "draw over" previously blacked hex-es, and then delete all white from that layer. This method would also allow you to add in custom units, structures and terrain, unlike the demo version of hex'.
(Unless of course, you have the non-demo hexographer. Not sure if they have second layers with that, or other means to solve this problem. [They really ought to, though. Seems like one of the key bonus features to me])

