u/Psych0191

Hello everyone,

I have entered a game design contest with a game of mine (game page). After some blind playtesting, some of the feedback was that rulebook read more as reference guide rather than the rulebook.

So, I have started working on new rulebook and would like to get some feedback on it, if new players are actually capable of learning the game easier with new structure.

Here is the link to the old rukebook.

And here is the new one.

There is still a lot of work to be done on new rulebook.

I would be very gratefull for your feedback!

P.S. If you whish to try the game out, there are PnP files and link to screentop online version on the game page. It would help me s lot if you could try it and give feedback on it!

Hello everyone,

After few rounds of paper prototypes and changes, I wanted to see if anyone else would be interested in helping me with the game.

It is a 30-ish minute campaign wargame, meant to be consumed as a light snack for more experienced players, or a possible entry point for those that are turned off by either complexity or length of standard war games. (Here I mean wargame board games, not miniature wargames).

I am sharing with you the rules, and probably the ugliest digital prototype you will ever see. Link to the prototype is at the end of rulebook.

It would mean a lot to me if you can read the rulebook, or maybe even try out the game, and tell me what you think about it!

Here it is.

Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone,

After few rounds of paper prototypes and changes, I wanted to see if anyone else would be interested in helping me with the game.

It is a 30-ish minute campaign wargame, meant to be consumed as a light snack for more experienced players, or a possible entry point for those that are turned off by either complexity or length of standard war games. (Here I mean wargame board games, not miniature wargames).

I am sharing with you the rules, and probably the ugliest digital prototype you will ever see. Link to the prototype is at the end of rulebook.

It would mean a lot to me if you can read the rulebook, or maybe even try out the game, and tell me what you think about it!

Here it is.

Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share a funny situation that happened to me. Well, I think its funny at least.

I tried making a basketball board game, and wanted to make it simple, elegant and still true to the sport. Halfcourt was divided into multiple spaces, each capable of housing 1 attacking and 1 defending player. Spaces were interconnected with arrows clearly showing which ones were right, left, front and back compared to the reference space.

Players actions were simple: shoot, pass, block, dribble and intercept pass. And they were all mostly roll a die and adjust it based on attacking and defending players.

Movement, however was done by playing a card with a direction in which you want to move. I borrowed here from Command and Colors series where players had limited amount of cards, and once they play a card they would draw a new one.

So it became a battle of spacing, where players had to use what they have to position their players in such way to maximize shot chances.

But during playtesting funny thing happened. Since most of the focus is on spacing, players with higher basketball knowledge performed much better. Player with low familiarity of spacing and movement in basketball had hard time recognizing what could and should be done in order to create openings.

And I find it funny since I never expected such thing. When you are making a war game you dont expect veterans to dominated because their knowledge and experience or a banker to dominate the game of monopoly lol.

Hello everyone,

I have some time to kill, and was wandering if anyone here needs someone to brainstorm about their games and design?

I can offer my bias, limited design experience and my experience as a player.

Idk if this kind of post is allowed here, but if it isnt, mods will see to it.

Ok, no real balancing, thats why I wrote it like that. I dont expect you to help me with numbers, more with the hierarchy of production chain.

Ill try explaining the current state of the economy in my board game as simply as I can, then Ill explain issues that exists with it, and then Ill write what I think could work. Id like you to help me with finding the right solution, so feel free to pitch any ideas.

Right now base loop of the game is somewhat simple. You construct buildings in regions you own, you gain resources from them, you use those resources to develop regions more. Some buildings produce influence which is used to gain control of more regions allowing you to construct more buildings. After x rounds, player with most regions under their control wins. Nothing too complex, nothing too original.

There is also a dynamic market where players can buy missing or sell sufficient resources, with price adjusting according to supply and demand.

Right now production chain looks something like this:

1. You construct lumber camps to produce wood.
2. You use wood to construct quarries that produce stone
3. You use wood and stone to improve those buildings.
4. Higher level quarries also produce marble
5. Stone and marble are used to construct buildings that produce influence and are used to convert them into influence.

The main problem I have with this proved to be linearity of system. Each players first third of the game looks exactly the same, since every player has to go through same buildings in order to unlock buildings that output influence.

Here are some ideas I have on how it could be solved,and I would like to hear your opinion on them:

1. Resource based tiered buildings:
   Instead of needing one particular type of resource to construct and upgrade buildings, I can make influence production buildings require different type of resource per tier. For example, currently one of those buildings requires 2,4,6,8 stone per level in order to upgrade. Instead of that, I can make it so that it requires 4 wood for lvl1, 4 stone for lvl2, 4 marble for lvl3. That way, more powerfull upgrades are locked behind harder to obtain resources, but their simpler versions are available at the start.

2. Parallel upgrade paths:
   Lets take our 2/4/6/8 stone per level building from example above. What if I make some resources parallel to others in hierarchy. Like for example: stone≈brick. So upgrade would cost either 2/4/6/8 stone or 2/4/6/8 brick. This is where my dynamic market could come in handy. If players lacked sufficient resources to build something, they could opt for cheaper option on the market. They could also choose to specialize in one of the parallel resources in order to be able to dictate the price on the market. That way players wouldnt always build lumber camps->quarries, but they could also go lumber camps->clay pit route. And I could do the same for marble as well.

3. Combination of ideas above:
   Basically upgrade path could be 4 wood/ 4 stone or bricks/ 4 marble or whatever other prestigeuos building material there is. It could provide benefit of both, but could also raise complexity.

4. Whatever idea comes to your mind.

Hello everyone,

I have tried designing few games before and I have always fallen for the same trap. I love playing a bit more complex games and I had some big ideas of what games I could try and make. But every single time I tried cheating the design process by designing everything from the get go.

Needless to say that all those project followed same pattern: design a ton of mechanics, playtest, realize things are too complex and there are too many mechanics, reduce it, playtest, reduce, playtest, reduce,… realize I have stripped the game from most of the mechanics and now it isnt fun, abandon the project.

So this time, I tried doing things differently. This time, when I had an idea, I immediately started stripping it down in my mind before ever trying to create a prototype. I thought long and hard what would be the least amount of mechanics to enable the game to even work.

I made and playtested a prototype this weekend and it actually worked. The “base” game was fun and main loop was engaging. Ofcourse there were some problems that require tweaking, but I can safelly say that this was the first fun prototype of any game I tried making.

And while thinking about solutions for the problems from prototype, I realized that for the first time ever I need to add a mechanic instead of removing it. And it feels amazing…

I guess point of this post would be to give advice to any future designers that have similar struggles as I have to save their time with bunch of needless playtests and prototypes and start reducing their games immidiately.

Pozdrav svima,

Imam stan u zgradi iz 2000ih, i razmisljam o opciji kupovine stana pored mog sa ciljem prosirenja.

Videcu da nabavim projekat zgrade pre bilo kakvih odluka, da se vidi da li je zid izmedju njih noseci ili nije. U slucaju da nije noseci, verujem da mogu samo na “divljaka” da ga probusim i resim problem. Medjutim zanima me par stvari ako je noseci.

Stan bih kupovao na kredit, i stavljao po hipoteku. U slucaju da je zid noseci, koliko sam upoznat sa zakonom, morao bih da idem na resenje o odobrenju radova, i po zavrsetku radova na upotrebnu dozvolu.

Ono sto me zanima je:

1. Da li moze spajanje da se odradi u skladu sa zakonom o izgradnji, a da stanovi katastarski ostanu odvojeni?
2. Ukoliko je stan pod hipotekom, da li je moguce izvoditi ovakve radove?
3. Da li je moguce da hipoteka bude samo na jedan deo stana ako se stanovi moraju katastarski spojiti?
4. Da li je u ostalim institucijama poput poreske neophodno spajati stanove u jednu celinu il mogu ostati kao dve?

Hey everyone!

I’ve always loved both board games and PC strategy games, and for a long time I’ve had this feeling that there just isn’t a board game out there that really scratches the same itch as games like Total War, Europa Universalis,… I am aware of both EU and RTW board games, but I am looking for a bit more streamlined type of experience.

So I figured I’d try making one myself.

I’m calling it a 3X game, mostly because I’m leaving exploration out. I want to keep the rules a little cleaner and focus on the parts I enjoy most: building up an economy, fighting over territory, and using military power as one of several tools instead of making the whole game revolve around combat.

What I’m trying to achieve

Before I even started thinking about mechanics, I asked myself what actually makes those strategy games so satisfying. For me, it comes down to three things:

1. Area control — expanding your territory should matter.

2. Engine building and resource management — growing your economy should feel rewarding.

3. Combat — not nonstop war, but enough conflict to keep things tense and force hard choices.

That’s the basic direction I’ve been working toward.

Theme

The game is for 2–4 players and is set in late Medieval/early Renaissance Italy. Players take on the roles of Florence, Milan, Venice, and Rome, all fighting for dominance over Northern Italy.

The map

The map is split into regions, and each region has several towns connected by roads. Every region has one capital town, and each player starts with their own home region and capital city.

Roads connect towns both within and between regions, so armies can move across the map.

Towns and buildings

Each town can hold one building, although terrain limits what can be built there. For example, farms can’t go in the mountains, and mines can’t be built on fertile plains.

Buildings either produce resources or turn one resource into another. They can also be upgraded to boost production.

Buildings belong to the region, not to the player. If another player takes over that region, they immediately get access to all of its buildings. So when you grow your economy, you’re also creating something other people will want to take from you.

Regional capitals can build a few special buildings, while player capitals have extra building slots and can support bigger economic setups.

Economy

Resources are traded through a shared market with changing prices. At the end of each round, production increases supply, which pushes prices down before players get paid. The more of a resource gets produced, the less valuable it becomes.

When a player spends resources, demand goes up, which pushes the price up before they pay. So the more heavily you lean on a resource, the more expensive it gets.

The idea is that every player’s economy affects everyone else’s, even if nobody is fighting directly.

Influence

Regions are controlled through three different kinds of influence.

Cultural influence is permanent and doesn’t need upkeep, but it spreads slowly from your capital. You can’t have stronger cultural influence in faraway regions than in places closer to your homeland.

Diplomatic influence can be placed almost anywhere on the map, so it’s very flexible, but it costs gold to keep it going.

Military influence comes straight from your armies. Since armies are tied to generals, military influence moves with them as they travel around the map.
So the idea is that military influence is fast but temporary, cultural influence is slow but lasting, and diplomatic influence sits somewhere in the middle.

Combat

Combat would be fairly quick and card-driven, inspired by Hannibal & Hamilcar. Losing units wouldn’t just weaken your army — it would also reduce your military influence in that region, so you wouldn’t always need to wipe out an enemy army completely to take control.

Game flow

The game lasts a fixed number of rounds.
Each round, players take turns spending a limited number of actions to build structures, upgrade their economy, recruit and move armies, and invest in influence.

At the end of the round, resources generate income, diplomatic upkeep gets paid, and victory conditions are checked.

Winning

Right now I’m thinking about two possible victory conditions: 1) Player controlling more regions than all others combined at the end od round wins. 2) at the end of Xth round player controlling most regions wins.

I’d really appreciate any feedback.
Does the overall idea sound interesting?
Do you see any obvious design problems?
Are there any existing games that feel similar?
Is there anything you think I should pay special attention to before I build the first prototype?

Thanks!

Hello everyone,

I am a life long total war and paradox games fan (ever since RTW and CK1) and am experimenting with game development a bit myself.

Anyway, I had an idea of making a strategy game and wanted to i clude battles. My initial idea is that Id like to try and create something thats between how CA and Paradox handle battles.

If youve played some of their games, you know that TW battles are deep, complex and long. They are a pure paradise when you whish to be a general on the battlefield. But they are long and you have to be very included in them. On the other hand, paradox battles are fully automatized and represented to you as just numbers going up or down.

I envisioned something more passive compared to TW yet more active compared to Paradox. Something more in line with football manager approach to matches, where you give instructions and change tactics, and then look at how units react to it. You do not move any player yourself, you do not give direct instructions to players where to go, but give then a role and some simple behaviour rules, and watch how they react to those instructions and whats happening on field.

So Id like to hear your opinion on what would youd like to see in such system. And also what are most important parts of battles that you enjoy the most.

Pozdrav svima,

Zena i ja kod sebe imamo odredjenu svotu u ustedjevini (nista specijalno, nekoliko k evra), i razmisljamo o stednji.

Za sad su sve pare kod nas, ali pocinjemo malo ozbiljnije da razmisljamo o stednji. Verovatno bih deo ostavio u kesu (zlu ne trebalo), a ostatak bih stavio u banku. Mislio sam da deo koji ne ostavljam kod sebe stavim na orocenu stednju. E sad tu je moje pitanje da li u dinarima ili evrima. U dinarima je otprilike duplo veca kamatna stopa, i jasno mi je da to zavisi sve od stabilnosti dinara i evra. Ali komentar koji sam vidjao na objavam ovde je da ako se planira trosenje novca iz stednje u evrima, da je bolje i cuvati u evrima, moje pitanje je zasto?

Mimo toga planiram i da otvorim racun za stednju po vidjenju, pa svaki mesec ubacujem po par stotina evra, zavisi kad sam kolko u mogucnosti. I za to ima neka simbolicna kamata, gde je opet u dinarima osetno veca.

Neka ideja mi je da svaki mesec ubacujem na taj stedni racun, pa nakon godinu dana izvucem pare i prebacim na orocenu stednju.

Generalno me zanimaju vasi saveti i preporuke kako i sta tu raditi.

And when I say almost exactly, I do mean it. Same instruments, similar melody, intro is almost note for note…

Hello everyone,

I am developing my own tycoon game about game design and game development, and I wanted to ask you a question from the title.

In many games with similar theme or nature to my game, one of the main components is the studio builder. Like you are placing desks, walls, plants, shelves,… And usually, it boils down to two things: capacity increase and morale balance.

Like if you want more employee capacity, you would increase the number of desks, and morale balance is its own “mini-game” where people get upset unless they have radiators, trash bins, plants and other stuff.

And that would make a lot of sense in a game focused on office/enterior design. But usually it is done in games that have nothing to do with it outside of having employees and offices.

So my question would be, do you guys find such things fun? I personally dont, but I think it would be relatively easy thing to implement in my game, so I wanted to see if maybe I should include it in my game. Or if you dont find it fun, do you have any idea what could make it fun for you?

Hello everyone,

I started developing a hobby project game, where player takes on a role of a new province governor (right now it is in Roman republic period but it can easily change). Idea for the game is to be somewhere in between city builders and paradox grand strategies. So there are people, settlements/towns/cities, those people have jobs, jobs provide resources, people and buildings consume resources,… so your typical city building elements.

But my idea is for player to be more of a passive acter. So in this game you do not place buildings yourself and manage resources. Idea is for everything to be simulated while player is influencing the region through policies and similar things.

For example, if you are short on resources, you can subsidize jobs that produce it in order for more people to start working those jobs, or maybe lower taxes for those jobs. You get the idea.

Or you can invest in new buildings that produce resources, in order to directly create jobs yourself and pay salaries out of your pocket.

So I was thinking about making player handle judicial things as well. But idk how I should approach it.

One idea is for there to be events where player gets the info on who did what and just has to decide the punishment.

Another one is for player to be presented with crime, accusor and accused, whitnesses and evidence, and then they would decide if the accused is guilty and what should punishment be.

The main idea here isnt just for player to determine who is at fault, but to influence modifiers of people, houses and city. But the wronged person would get mad which could also have consequences.

For example, you can easily see that one person is wrong, but that person is freeman and accusor is patrician, and maybe giving the accused hard penalty would lead to riots. So you decide to let them go free of penalty in order to keep the peace in the region, while sacrificing peoples belief in law.

Or accused is patrician who is employing a lot of people, so handing them harsh penalty could lead to rise in uneployment in the region.

What do you think about these ideas and do you maybe have an idea of how I could implement it more elegantly?

Hello everyone,

I am toying a bit with the idea of politically focused rpg set in ancient Rome. You know, rise to power type of thing, where you as a player start as a nobody and have to “battle” your way up top.

I am looking into making it more of a sandbox type of thing where player would have lots of ways to gather supporters, through good connections, reputation, blackmail,… so your typicall real world “mechanics” for climbing the political mountain. Ancient Rome is a good setting, at least I think so, since most of the politics way focused in one city and it had very well fleshed out political system.

So, obviously, such game would have to rely a lot on NPCs and your interactions with them.

So I wanted to know what you guys consider good mechanics that make for fun social interaction system with NPCs.

Hello everyone,

I am working on my game as a solo dev, and am feeling a little burnt, so I wanted to make a little pause and maybe enjoy another little side project.

So I am looking for other people willing to try out some interesting project. I was thinking of maybe doing some small game for a month, simply to improve skills and have some fun.

I myself have some knowledge of Godot and GDScript and C#. Other than that I can help with some game design and brainstorming.

So if you are a coder, an artist, a writer or whatever you are and you are interested in having some fun while earning experience, feel free to comment or dm me!