Game Design: Part 5; Shooting vs Melee

From my experience with gaming and from talking with other gamers, one of the hardest things to get right in a game is the balance between ranged and melee combat so this is going to be my thoughts on this crucial part of designing a game.  The problem in balancing them from my point of view is getting them both to have the right "feel" while keeping them at the same effectiveness on the battlefield.

When I say the right "feel", what I mean is that for shooting it should feel like you're troops are expending ammunition against the enemy while advancing/defending to both cause casualties and keep your opponent's heads down, while melee should feel fast, furious and frantic  with only one side emerging from the crush victorious while the opponent is wiped out or running for their live but from which neither side emerges unscathed.

This generally leads to shooting being a whittling down unless you bring heavy weapons to bear or focus fire where as melee is a bucket of dice affair where units can evaporate extremely quickly, which can lead to melee being judged as better than shooting.  I don't think this is the case as shooting is balanced to melee in a different was other than speed of destruction, when you shoot you have little to no risk of suffering harm in return whereas with melee combat there's always a high risk of being mauled in return or even being wiped out without causing damage if it goes wrong.

This for me allows for the balance between melee and shooting to be struck by limiting how quickly units can get into combat, how units react to taking casualties from shooting, how quickly units can get from combat to combat and how much damage can be done by a unit in one round of melee.  This balancing act can get skewed to give a preferential phase for example in a fantasy game the balance will be tipped towards melee while a sci-fi game will usually have a preference towards shooting.  The balance for a game like Warhammer 40k, which is a Science-Fantasy game, is the most likely to be equal with no preference as it fits the background well.

When writing game rules its important to work out how the balance of strength of ranged and melee combat is needed by the game to provide a "realistic" feeling to the game in relation to the background material and general type of setting of the game.

So these are my thoughts in balancing the strengths of the shooting and melee combat when designing a game.  If you've had thoughts on this I'd like to hear them or if you have topics that you'd like to hear about from me post them below.

Game Design: Part 4; Terrain and Movement

When it comes to movement, the basics are very simple to grasp either all units move the same distance or different units have different movement values to add some variety and add a little tactical depth to the game.  The main mechanics of movement come when you introduce terrain and its interactions with different unit types within the game, for example in Warhammer 40k there are 3 types of terrain (open, difficult and dangerous) which effect vehicles and non-vehicles differently.  In 40k open allows units to move full speed (usually 6"), difficult means most non-vehicles roll 2d6 and pic the highest as their maximum movement distance while dangerous adds the chance of damaging the unit with each model rolling a d6 and on a 1 taking a wound, whereas vehicles in both difficult and dangerous roll a d6 and on a 1 they become immobilized.  This system is quite simple but gives the right feel that terrain is slowing down the foot sloggers but vehicles crash through it until they get stuck in some way and I think this is well suited to the style of combat in 40k. 

A more complex system is used in Flames of War in which there are five different grades of terrain and each unit type interacts with each grade differently, for example infantry are basically unaffected by terrain and always move full distance where as a standard tank such as a Sherman or T-34 move 12" in open terrain but only 8" when moving through rough terrain.  The Flames system also includes a immobilization mechanic where vehicles and some gun teams moving through rough terrain roll a d6 and depending on the type of terrain need to roll a 2+ for example and if failed they become "bogged down" being unable to act any further that turn.

Both of these systems add extra tactical depth to their respective games as players have to think about the risk of moving through terrain rather than it just being to "dress" the table as well as allowing a city feel very different to a trenchline in is effect on the battle.

Game Design: Part 2; Setting Choice

In the last post I discussed the size and scale considerations when designing a game, in this post I am going to discuss choosing a setting and what it means for the game design.  The setting of a game should influence the types of mechanics and their execution in the game, as these should fit the flavour of the setting to improve immersion into the game.

There are three major setting types used in wargaming, which are historical, fantasy and science-fiction.  These three and combinations of them form the basis of most tabletop games I have come across.

Fantasy games involve magic, elves and dwarfs stereotypically and the level of technology is generally at a medieval/renaissance stage.  For this setting the different armies are often different races though they can get sub-racial divisions such as the high, dark and wood elves of Warhammer fantasy.  The focus of fantasy settings lies with the heroes, wizards and mythological monsters so the mechanics of the game need to give these elements as larger and distinctive part within the game.

Science-Fiction games often involve aliens and based on guns, lasers and tanks but often containing a melee combat element.  The mechanics here need to be able to balance the shooting and close combat elements of the game to allow fair competition between armies based on each one as well as reflect a more modern style of combat and leadership such as squads being unaffected by other falling back.

Historical games can have a wide range of mechanics as the setting covers from the before the Roman conquest of Gaul to WW2 and beyond.  This type of setting really benefits from flavourful mechanics to enhance the experience of the history in your game and can share mechanic themes with either the sci-fi games or fantasy ones depending the period they represent.

An example that I think is a good showcase of this idea of mechanic enhanced settings it Bolt Action by Warlord game,s specifically the "hand in the bag" mechanic for activation.  In Bolt Action players active each unit individually and give them one of 6 orders but the decision on who actives next is done by a blind draw of a dice or other token from a bag.  This to me helps to give the impression of officers trying to act and react quickly to the battlefield and never being sure whether you've been quicker than your enemy.

Additionally when picking a setting as well as thinking about how your mechanics can help with immersion, there is the choice to design your own "world" in the setting or to pick up an existing "world" and use this.  Both have advantages and disadvantages, for building your own world the biggest advantage is that you as the game designer get to put in exactly what you want in the game, so if you wanted dragons but not elves then its all your choice and going back to the mechanics you have a bit more free reign to bring flavour as you can always build around mechanics that you like.  The main disadvantages that I see is that by designing it yourself you are more than doubling your work-load as not only will you be designing a game but you will be writing the background to it all which can be a massive challenge, and with a new world players wouldn't have a instantly recognisable brand/units etc.  The opposite is basically true for taking a pre-made setting for your game in that the brand is already there and probably has a fan-base who maybe interested in your game for the setting plus someone else has done the work in defining the factions/units and their in-world interactions and uniqueness but this constrains you when making mechanics as they need to fit into a rigid world rather than be able to define it.

There are some ways you can combine the two such as alternative history games like Dust and Carnevale where they both take the real-world history up to a particular point, so for Dust this is when the alien technology is discovered and for Carnevale this is the "rent in the sky" moment, and then from this point they change the world to bring their game setting about.

When I looked at game setting originally I had the idea of doing a cool sci-fi game with a good basis in the science part (as a scientist myself) but realised that actually designing a whole universe was not what I wanted to do as my first steps into game design/  This lead me to pick WW2 as a setting, partially due to a recent visit to Normandy and the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, Cambridgeshire combined with the iconic tank, the Sherman.  This means that i need to build my game around this setting where the factions and units are pre-determined and breath life into the WW2 experience of  the game through characterful mechanics.

So now that I've talk about the size, scale and setting choices of game design and my choices for each, the next part in this series will look at "Dice and Activation".  If you are enjoying and/or interested this series of articles so far please subscribe/follow and post any comments or points for discussion below.