Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 3-12-24 AI for Enemy Abilities & Powers

[Punktaku]

While it could be cool, it also prevents you from being “safe” by taking that guy out before he takes you out. I’d agree that it’s a good idea for melee as both of the models would be trying to take the other one out and they’re up close and personal.

 

[Ben_S]

We take turns resolving action for convenience, but realistically a lot of things are going on at once. No reason why the two guys can't shoot each other at the same time.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

My thoughts are that it would detract from risk balance. But it might work. It might embolden players to take more risks.

 

[Punktaku]

It is a cinematic moment when two characters shoot each other at the same time, or when two melee combatants strike simultaneously and they both fall. But the more common that is, the less cinematic it is. So there should be something that allows it to be possible, but it shouldn’t happen ever time.

 

[Galtarr]

I have another question for you guys regarding activations. If the game is strictly a solo/co-op skirmish game, where the opponent is always controlled by basic AI rules, does the importance of determining activation order change?

In our previous exchanges, it seemed that something like a deck of playing cards offered the best choice due to its randomness. People seemed to be less than eager to use a simple dice roll-off. Do attitudes towards all of that change when faced with an AI controlled opponent?

Yes for AI I like card based. This was a heavy part of Blackstone fortress, with mechanics to tweak the card order once dealt.

Or simply AI go second reacting after players. This is how we are doing Xwing HotAC (Heroes of the Atari Cluster a fan made AI coop campaign loosely based on X-wing).

I agree but it feels a bit strange when someone get shot, runs out of wounds, and then gets to shoot back one last time and take out the attacker as well lol. It was kinda cool but I was conflicted as to whether that would be ok with people.

For shooting I generally don't like the counterattack, on death, unless it's a shared initiative scenario. (Where activation order is based on Initiative stat or roll). There has to be a benefit to shooting first, gunslinger style. But some mechanism to get that mutual shot off, be it an initiative test, special skill etc seems ok.

For melee combat absolutely, it's always much more simultaneous, though again surprise backstab is a thing..

 

[Galtarr]

We take turns resolving action for convenience, but realistically a lot of things are going on at once. No reason why the two guys can't shoot each other at the same time.

Yes but it should be rare. So it's good if it's possible but better if you can also benefit from shooting first. For example, in systems where there is an initiative order, then often people on the same initiative (be that from a fixed stat or an initiative roll) then simultaneous shooting occurs. But not otherwise.

That said that mechanism doesn't work with alternating activation. So you have a choice of:
a) all attack/counterattack are simultaneous.
b) No attacks/counterattack are simultaneous.
c) some kind of reaction check to get a simultaneous counter attack.

I guess the question comes down to whether the added complication of c) is worth it for the benefit otherwise decide whether a) or b) suits the gameplay best.

 

[Mad Robot]

Cross-posting in a few threads so please forgive the redundancy.

Looking for a few brave individuals to playtest my solo-play, post apoc skirmish game. If you'd like to give it a go and are willing to provide me some feedback, please send me a PM and I'll give you some details.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

my weird brain read cos-playing

 

[Mad Robot]

A new question for the group, it concerns my rules directly but can apply to any situation.

This is a solo play skirmish game, I've written in a combat system that allows for counterattacks. So someone shoots at you, you have a chance to shoot back. The same mechanic is present in melee as well. I've also written in an activation system where playing cards are drawn for both sides and the higher card activates first, followed by the other side. Then cards are drawn again, this is done for every activation, every turn.

I am considering a "phases" system for each turn, where there is a Leader Phase, an Enemies Phase, a Warband Phase, and an Events Phase. The order of activations within each phase is completely up to the player, with enemy specifics being called out in the AI as necessary. Good example of this idea would be Rangers of Shadowdeep.

Question: Given that I have the counterattack mechanics in there, is the random activation thing as important? How do you guys feel about the "phases" approach, as opposed to the back and forth of the playing card system?

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I think you would need to make the leaders more significant for them to justify a separate phase. At the moment they feel like a slightly booster fighter.

 

[Punktaku]

So If I shoot someone in the back from a sniper nest, do they get to shoot back?

 

[Mad Robot]

I think you would need to make the leaders more significant for them to justify a separate phase. At the moment they feel like a slightly booster fighter.

That’s true but what is your feeling on the differences between the activation systems? I mean a card based system as opposed to a phase based system?

 

[Mad Robot]

So If I shoot someone in the back from a sniper nest, do they get to shoot back?

You’re making too many assumptions about the rules. First of all there are no facings in this game. Secondly the chances of you being camped out in a snipers nest are relatively low, it’s a fast paced solo game.

Any thoughts on my question about activation systems?

 

[Biggle_Bear]

Truth be told I prefer the phrase activating idea better, but at the same time I wanted to see how you develop the idea of the cards. I thought it was going to be the basis of adding scenario specific events, which might work well.

Since it is a solo game I thought it be better to draw from a single deck and certain suits determine who gets the activation. Then the numbers can link to events.

 

[Punktaku]

Then phases would remove the need for cards? Would it be alternating actions, with everything being considered simultaneous? Or would it be “you go I go” phases? For example, during the Leader phase would all leaders go and be simultaneous, or would player A go and then player B go?

 

[Mad Robot]

Truth be told I prefer the phrase activating idea better, but at the same time I wanted to see how you develop the idea of the cards. I thought it was going to be the basis of adding scenario specific events, which might work well.

Since it is a solo game I thought it be better to draw from a single deck and certain suits determine who gets the activation. Then the numbers can link to events.

The way you describe it is not exactly what I had pictured but it’s not a bad idea. I’m still too early into testing everything to implement random events and things like that. I’m still in the process of trying to get the combat system ironed out and part of that includes the activations and turn order.

If I do end up keeping the card system, what you describe in that second paragraph is probably what I’ll look into doing.

 

[Mad Robot]

Then phases would remove the need for cards? Would it be alternating actions, with everything being considered simultaneous? Or would it be “you go I go” phases? For example, during the Leader phase would all leaders go and be simultaneous, or would player A go and then player B go?

Yes phases would be in place of cards. Enemy phase would mean all enemy models move activate and the warband phase means all player models activate. There is no I go you go, that’s what happens with the card based approach.

 

[Punktaku]

So the Leader Phase is for the warband’s leader only, then all enemies, then the rest of the warband, then events (board events? Events like recovery rolls -if you have those- and stuff like that)?

 

[Mad Robot]

correct

 

[Mad Robot]

Fresh Topic - Campaign Systems!

Games like 5 Parsecs From Home use a LOT of tables and random events to determine what happens in between actually putting minis on the table. I think these add a lot of interest for the solo player and help them develop a real sense of adventuring. Do you guys feel like there is a point where things like this can go too far into the realm of role-playing games? Is there anything wrong with that? What do you think?