It always seems like the "good idea" bug bites when I'm walking my daughter to sleep at night, or driving in the car - two times that are not conducive to capturing the thoughts. This time, though, I'm trying to get them down quick...
Two key ideas that I'm trying to get through as I work out the bugs in this game/concept:
1. The idea that you have a plan, and everyone knows what the plan is, and if you want to change it, you have to expend some effort changing it, and it's not instantaneous. You can't suddenly turn 2 companies left to face a new threat you never knew was there, without some delay / confusion / significant effort.
And in a game, I want to do it
without written orders.
The way I'm trying to capture this is by having players lay out their sequence of orders/missions with a set of cards that specify what type of missions and when they shift from one to the next. To change from that mission costs some form of effort (command points, probably) and depends on what you're changing to/from. It keeps the game moving by not bogging down into written orders, while still committing players to a plan, and keeps the relevant modifiers in front of them at all times.
2. Leaders have varying traits/qualities. There are different ways these are put into place currently. ASL has morale modifiers. LnL has morale modifiers, and skill cards. PG allows for activations, but little else. The new leaders in the W@W series allow for some powerful modifiers of *any* stat, which to me seems a bit too wide-ranging, but I've yet to play it to know for sure.
I want leaders that have strengths and can be put in a position to play to them. Some are aggressive, others meticulous. Some are very demanding trainers, and others are very creative. I want them to have the ability to not just modify something within their units, but to have an effect on their execution of certain missions as well.
That's all I've got tonight. It's been a long day...
By: Brant