>be me >like wargames but most are too bloated and complicated >want something minimalist that still feels tactical >don’t want it so simple it ends up like tic tac toe where it’s solved instantly >come up with a wargame called Ceasefire >win by being the last guy with units left >if nobody kills anything for 2 rounds, it’s a draw >map is land and sea tiles, air units can go anywhere >each player adds a 6x6 grid, map gets bigger the more people join >on your turn either build (spend budget, place unit) or move (attack anything you pass) >combat is simple, attack reduces defense, zero = dead >units are stuff like infantry, tanks, artillery, subs, warships, helis, bombers, fighters >cheap stuff dies fast, expensive stuff is strong but limited >can play on paper with tokens or online with a shared grid >expansion ideas: drones, nukes, commanders is this worth developing further?
Everyone starts with a budget of 100 billion and builds units by paying their cost. Expensive units are stronger but eat into your budget quickly. Damage in combat is capped - even if you move through multiple enemies in one turn, a unit can only deal up to its attack value total that round.
>slop
Now you have everything you need to know about the game
Some rough tactical roles I’ve thought about for Ceasefire.Defence is about outlasting opponents while others fight each other. On land that’s tanks, at sea warships, and in the air fighters.Offence is about breaking stalemates. It’s costly and fragile if caught, but it hits hard. That’s artillery on land, submarines at sea, and bombers in the air.Swarm is about board control by surrounding enemy units. On land that’s infantry, and in the air that’s helicopters. Sea doesn’t really have a swarm unit right now since mines are “forbidden” under international rules.
>>96580677>be you>have the mind of a child>kill yourself to save humanity the burden of tolerating your retardationI'd say that path is definitely worth developing anon.
"Last man standing" games reward inaction and backstabbing. Theoretically the "2 turns and it's a draw" rule makes pale attack, in reality it puts pressure on the last player in the turn cycle (already a disadvantaged position) to act.>It is a good exercise to evaluate the effect of politics on games involving more than two sides. This can be quite a challenge, and people who meet it often come out with a different perspective on the games they play. The result for me was discovering that most political games were, underneath the veneer, the same game, and that I was tired of playing that game.-"Games and Politics," Richard Garfield, published in "The Duelist," June 1997
>>96580761>Theoretically the "2 turns and it's a draw" rule makes PLAYERS attackGomenasorry I just woke up and am phoneposting like a dumbass.
>>96580761>"Last man standing" games reward inaction and backstabbingAnd this is exacerbated by having the land and sea units that can't interact. There's also little differentiation of unit type.Have objective-based play to force movement and interaction. Consider a coastal zone where land and sea can interact (or give warships and artillery the ability to attack zones they don't pass through.Consider making aircraft much faster but require them to start and end on airfield/aircraft carrier units which you have to buy and which can be destroyed.Honestly, I think OP's idea would be better if he removed the specific military aspect and made it completely abstract.
Is the future of board games going to be endless nonsense created by chat gpt?
>>96580815They can interact at the coast tho, which is realistic
>>96580815There is literally land adjacent sea, so that's functionally a coast for game play
>>96581947What makes you think it was made by chatgpt?The promo art here yes, but the rules?
>>96580677>AI sloppa>Uninteractive mechanics>Zero concept of maneuvering>No minisNo, it's not, this has literally zero appeal.
>>96580815OP is creating a very shitty tabletop version of Advance Wars and would probably be better off leaning into that route and figuring out how to make combat actually fun.>>96583535The rules are so shit only a human could have made them.
>>96583535my brother "makes" stuff with chat gpt all the time. Honestly if someone makes it known they use ai product, you basically have to assume that anything creative they do is at least heavily driven by it. I know a few people who suddenly became avid writers overnight, coincidentally writing in the same voice.
>>96580677>be meHave you tried not to?
>>96583691>no minisMinis suck and you're retarded
>>96580697I like how you thought about the problem of "no-man's land" and realize that the game can become stalematey. But I think you might have your Offense and Defense unit roles mixed up, Offense should have a lot of health and Defense should have a lot of damage. It sounds odd but let me explain. In a game like this, defenders are at an advantage since attackers will always get hit before they can deal their damage. For example, say we have 3 squares in a line (1, 2, 3), you have Infantry on square 1 and I have Infantry on square 3. Whoever enters that empty square first will immediately be destroyed. Now, if you want to make an "attacker" unit that can break through this no-man's land and destroy the enemy, what would be better, to increase its Damage or its Health? Despite it being an "attacker" the answer is actually Health. If your Infantry has 2 Damage and 1 Health, the situation does not change. You move up, I hit it, you die. Even if you had 99 Damage it wouldn't change a bit. But even adding just 1 extra Health makes it able to survive and reach my unit on the following turn, destroying it. And, provided there are no other Infantry nearby, I can continue to move around wreaking havoc on your next turn. Defense is the opposite. If I want to kill a guy in an adjacent square before it reaches me, more Health does not help me in the slightest. As long as I have Damage greater than or equal to your Health, I'm completely safe even with just 1 Health. However, as soon as something with more Health shows up I'm fucked. That's why Damage is a more important stat for defense. So basically, you have your roles flipped. Tanks are better for punching through enemy lines since they can survive hits. And Artillery is better for defense since they can one-shot everything in the game (not to mention the extra movement). I'm also worried about Swarms being useless since you only control 1 unit per turn regardless of their strength.
>>96580677unironically garbage game, holy shit play more games you absolute nogamer. Learn some game design. Im usually not a hater but this sucks in so many ways as a concept alone.Also the name Ceasefire is really cool, but if your just going to make a basic ass war game and not something political where you are trying to establish a ceasefire or something like that then the entire name is wasted
