Print and Play: Star Conflict

Star Conflict- Outmaneuver Your Opponent In High-Speed Combat.
Finally finished my print and play iteration of my strategy action-game Conflict. The above image is my illustration for the box art.
My game went through many prototypes and iterration, but by far the factor that was most often changed was the grid. I originally started with a hexagon grid with different shapes, then  I even experimented with 3D papercraft. But after complications with the ease of printing and game design flaws decided to move away from that into having absolutely no grid and units moved by disks flipping each other end to end. This was a popular idea with my playtesters as they felt it was a unique concept they had not often seen.  After every playtest i would ask the testers what they felt about the movement. Did it feel immersive? Did it feel fun? Did it feel Unique? I discovered that I could still maintain the flipping of units and shapes that affected their movement if  I used a triangular grid, something that I had previously not seen.
It was also interesting to notice the gameplay influences from the tabletop games played for class such as Get to the Chopper, Punch!, and Battleship had on my game.
Link to download components: here
Link to download rules and manual: here

tabletop game: Theme and Concept Statement

Name: Albireo

Theme: Sci-Fi space warfare

Concept Statement: "Outmaneuver your opponent and you will be victorious"

Players skirmish using Action Cards and Maneuver Cards. Player's want to destroy their opponent's capital ship while simultaneously defending their own capital ship from fighters. Players have to predict a response to their opponent's actions using Maneuver cards and respond by using Action Cards, these will resolve in a rock-paper-scissors style of combat. Each ship-type will have its strengths and weaknesses  Players will also have to react to unexpected astronomic anomalies.

The game is set in a futuristic science fiction universe where opposing factions clash with each other for dominance. One faction will be Terran-themed with sleek mechanical designs while the second faction will have more organic or abstract designs and insect-like characteristics.  Terrans focus on more precise weaponry such as lazers, missles, and explosives while the opposing faction swarms and overwhelms the opponent with weaker units that are produced faster and can react defensively by using their own ships to create a shield around their capital ship.  The game is named after the binary star Albireo.

Tabletop Game- Brainstorming

1. What if my game had a gridded board ?
2. Would it be hexagons or squares? What advantage do they have over the other? How would the game aesthetics support this decision?
3. What if movement involved flipping the tile over? Different pieces could be different sizes ? Do I want this to feel kinetic? (thinking of like a hexagon version of Warhammer:DiskWars, were flipping a character disc serves the function of measuring distance and movement of a miniature in traditional Warhammer. I find this to be a fantastic and cheap work-around miniatures.
4. Do I want a science-fiction setting or fantasy? How would this affect the movement of pieces?
5. What if my game functioned like a CCG, and had individual card decks? Would it provide more strategy or would it revolve around luck of the draw?
6. Would having cards represent a vendor and player inventory help keep the player and game information organized?
7. Do I want dice rolls in my game? What type of dice and why? 20-sided dice are usually most common in RPGs as the main form of dice. Why is this?Would it turn it into a game of chance? Would lower/failed rolls cancel the ability or provide for a weakened version of the ability while higher/succesful rolls modify the ability through either a variant effect or an amplified version( example Lightning Bolt>roll:1> spark, very minor damage. alt: Lightning Bolt>Roll:20>critical hit> chain lightning: damage  adjacent enemies)
8. How would NPC allies or enemies work without the player directly deciding their decisions?
9. How would my game escalate as it progresses? Do I want the decisions near the end of the game to be taken slower with careful strategy and planning against one powerful foe or do I want it to become hectic and against many foes?
10. What if my game required resources (HP, Mana, Gold, Stamina, etc.)
11. How would a narrative develop as a game progresses? Will this narrative be unique every playthrough or would it have a set narrative? What factors contribute to the former?
12. Will the players be  diagetic characters or would they be non-diagetic?
13. Top-Down or Bottom- Up design? (thinking specifically similar to how Wizards of the Coast designs their Magic: The Gathering sets). Does "flavor" guarantee balance?
14. What themes could a top-down designed game benefit from and how would it impact the mechanics and what type of feedback would it invoke to or from the players? Would a top-down designed game provide a more tactile feel to my game and how would this be reflected in mechanics? (example: vampires>bite> drain blood> drain hp> sticking a pin in Styrofoam to represent damage through a bite?)
15. How can the rules remain clear enough for players to understand the game's terminology? Would something along the lines of a glossary be beneficial?
16. Is it possible to have a  "real-time" tabletop game instead of turn based? could this be done through timers? Is it even possible to do this without the game becoming hectic/chaotic? Could the timer element be used to advance the game in a linear fashion even in a turn based game?
17.  If a multiplayer game (more than 2 players), how would "board politics" affect the game? Would this be encouraged? How can cards/creatures/abilities support this (example: attacking the player with the highest remaining HP results in bonus damage. Even though only one player can come out victorious, how would board politics work if it would lead to an inevitable back-stab from a party. Besides an opponent having a clearly superior board presence that forces co-operation to have a chance at winning (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), how could temporary co-operation be encouraged without it feeling forced or even being required.
18. Hypothetically, a 4v1 scenario. Lone player is the antagonist with a blatantly more powerful deck or army (Examples:  band of heroes vs a powerful necromancer final boss. Game examples: Heroes' Tale TCRPG and the Magic Archenemy variant) could there be an underlying alternate goal for a player? For example, one of the heroes secretly wants to usurp the role of the necromancer, so it tries to disguise the initiation of a series of events or manipuilate the events of the game to lead it to an alternate victory? What if another player was tasked with finding and stopping the traitor player before this happened. Thinking along the lines of Shadows Over Camelot game.
19. If a science-fiction flight/mech based game, how would the board replicate 3D movement through space? Could aerial maneuvers be represented through cards and resolved in a rock-paper-scissor style . (Thinking of like Punch! but more particularly the X-Wing tabletop game, but simplified)
20. Would players be able to interact with each other's actions during another player's turn? How could this be kept relatively simple? For example in Magic the Gathering counterspells and certain instant spells are meant to serve as a respond to actions but due to the game's increasing complexion over its 20+ year lifespan what is refered to as "the stack" has become the game's most complex mechanics as triggers and spells are initiated in order and depending on their complexity can take a long time to properly understand and resolve. Usually I try to break or abuse certain mechanics in magic to add a sense of chaos into the game or find mechanical flaws that lead to infinitely looping effects, and while I do enjoy this it is usually miserable for other players and something so mechanically broken and complicated I want to steer my  game far away from. Even though, I find it somewhat superior to the rock-paper-scissor approach since it is not reliant on blind luck.