A playtest and a major problem

Discuss the mechanics of Dark Potential here.
Forum rules
Please understand that by posting anything in this area of the forum that you are acknowledging that MiniWarGaming has permission to use your ideas without compensation.
Locked
Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

A playtest and a major problem

Post by Wiouds » Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:01 pm

Side 1
A - 5 man recruits
B - 5 man recruits
C - 1 man sniper
D - 1 man commando

Side 2
E - 5 man recruits
F - 5 man recruits
G - 1 man sniper
H - 1 man commando

Before cover was placed:
Image

after the players place their cover pieces down using rules for placing cover. If the object was not place do at this time then it does not give cover
Image

After all squads where placed
Image

turn one:
G miss C
C miss G

F attacks D

Current Offense is 16
Current Defense is 9
Rolled: 4
Hits count is: 3
Target number: 4
Wounds count is: 3
D Squad size is 0
D current HP is 3

D lost

E misses C

Image

Turn 2:
C misses G

G misses C

E misses C

A misses F

Image

Turn 3
C attacks E
Current Offense is 15
Current Defense is 8
Rolled: 2
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 5
Wounds count is: 1
E Squad size is 4
E current HP is 1

G attacks C
Current Offense is 15
Current Defense is 8
Rolled: 6
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 5
Wounds count is: 0

E misses G

Image

turn 4:
C attack E

Current Offense is 15
Current Defense is 8
Rolled: 6
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 5
Wounds count is: 1
E Squad size is 3
E current HP is 1

G miss C

E misses C

Image

turn 5:
B miss H

G miss C

E misses C

Image

turn 5:
H charge C

Current Offense is 14
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 7
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 5
Wounds count is: 1
C Squad size is 1
C current HP is 1

C tries to leave effective melee combat angle of H
Current Offense is 14
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 5
Hits count is: 3
Target number: 5
Wounds count is: 3
C Squad size is 0
C current HP is 1

C is dead by the double attack of H

A attacks E

E attacks A

Current Offense is 14
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 7
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 4
Wounds count is: 1
A Squad size is 4
A current HP is 1

B misses F

E attacks A
Current Offense is 14
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 4
Hits count is: 3
Target number: 4
Wounds count is: 3
A Squad size is 1
A current HP is 1

F attacks B
Current Offense is 16
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 6
Hits count is: 4
Target number: 4
Wounds count is: 3
B Squad size is 2
B current HP is 1

Image

turn 6:

G attack B
Current Offense is 15
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 8
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 5
Wounds count is: 1
B Squad size is 1
B current HP is 1

A attacks E
Current Offense is 12
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 6
Hits count is: 0
Target number: 3
Wounds count is: 0

B misses E

Image

Turn 7:

F attacks A
Current Offense is 16
Current Defense is 6
Rolled: 6
Hits count is: 4
Target number: 4
Wounds count is: 3
A Squad size is 0
A current HP is 1
A is dead

B misses E

E attack B
Current Offense is 14
Current Defense is 5
Rolled: 8
Hits count is: 1
Target number: 4
Wounds count is: 1
B Squad size is 0
B current HP is 1

B is lost.
Image

This was one of the better field set up that I played tested on but I could see some major problems with DP rules.

The infinite range does encourage a more trench warfare style of battle. This leads to the combat favoring the units with better range attacks. Side 2 mostly moved only 1 unit for the battle and won. What is worse is that Side 1 moved to get attacks and lost any cover in combat. A part of this did come from the fact that cover was not place well around the map.

In order to encourage units to move we commonly try to limit LoS by placing more walls and other objects. This leads to a second problem that close combat more powerful. With the limited LoS, the squads have a much easier time to cross the field to get into close combat. I have had play test where one side gave up on range attacks and completely whipped out the others using just close combat.

We made up some melee focus units and did a few play tests with them. With the rules just like the current rules, we found that the field set up is the most important factor in determining the result of the battle. With the field set up for short LoS, the melee units almost always won. If the field is set up with long LoS then the range side normally wins. The field set up should affect the game but I do not think it should be the key factor in winning or losing the game.

For field set up it comes down to a pick you poison. Is range better or is melee over powering.

I would suggest a few things:
• First make an absolute rule that no squad can get a second attack in a single round. It does not matter if the squad’s attack was chosen by the player or a reaction attack.
• There need to be some rules about limiting LoS. This would make close combat more useful and encourage more maneuvering.
• Next make leaving close combat with the enemy a bit less favoring to the squad that is not leaving close combat. As side the limit LoS will make crossing the board much easier so we can not make close combat over powering when it does happen.

User avatar
sonofkitrinos
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:18 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 5 Painting PledgesWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge EntryRED FLAG: Failed to complete a Challenge.Placed First with a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted an Entry for the first 'King of the Hill' challenge
Location: Niagara Falls
Contact:

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by sonofkitrinos » Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:39 pm

perhaps I am a radical thinker, but one thing I hate about current mainstream games like WMH and 40k is the run, gun and slice 'em up gameplay. In a world where gun warfare is rampant, who in their right mind wants to run at the enemy to beat the daylights out of them when, instead, they can nestle behind cover and engage from teh relative safety of cover?

DP does a great job at characterizing the real idea of warfare, in this regard. This game is also, as of now, being written with scenarios that are more driven to capturing the feel of the world as opposed to different angled approaches like 40k in the sense of simply changing a Deployment Zone.

This is a game where engaging the enemy from a distance seems to be encouraged while your close combat specialists make the break for the objectives on teh field. Matthew has stated that this game is meant to be more of a tactical thinking game. It is very clear that you will need to think two turns in advance, move about and engage in particular order...if you get caught in the open than...like the real world, we pray for you lol
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrHghowell?feature=mhee
Commissions : http://www.hghowel8.wix.com/amethysthobbies
Interested in commission work? Fire me a pm!

Roscoe
MiniWarGaming Veteran
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by Roscoe » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:15 pm

Yeah this doesn't seem like a major issue.

As Sonofkitrinos touched on scenarios are yet to be made available which could drastically alter gameplay. Don't forget we are still in alpha major changes could still and will most likely happen.

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by Wiouds » Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:39 pm

real != good game play. Saying something is realist is not a valid reason when talking about game play.

The problem is that we made up squad for a faction with the ideal of the beasts squad that was all about close combat base and that the problem we had.

Less tactical thinking is another problem comes with better line of sight. In the play test the winning side did no tactical thinking and won. I do not think doing staying here you were from the start of the game does not involves much tactical thinking.

User avatar
sonofkitrinos
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:18 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 5 Painting PledgesWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge EntryRED FLAG: Failed to complete a Challenge.Placed First with a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted an Entry for the first 'King of the Hill' challenge
Location: Niagara Falls
Contact:

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by sonofkitrinos » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:14 pm

I don't mean camping. Unit movements and such is a vital part of this game. That is where your thinking lies. You have to choose which unit to activate first to see your strategy play out properly. If you need to camp a unit behind cover for a turn to wait for reinforcements then that's tactical thinking.

Again I stress that from the looks of things the scenarios for the game are not going to be 40k or Warmahordes re-hashes of both sides running to a central objective to beat in each other with sticks and stones. DP looks to be lending itself to survivalist resource gathering for its scenarios which will force players to think more about firing lanes, unit Placement and even unit choice. You will not want a full on CC squad when the purpose of the game is to retrieve salvage tokens as much you can before the end of the game. Yes CC will happen. yes there are CC dedicated troops. But DP is not shakin to be another 40k clone with an emphasis on CC and fierce Melees
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrHghowell?feature=mhee
Commissions : http://www.hghowel8.wix.com/amethysthobbies
Interested in commission work? Fire me a pm!

User avatar
dragon1010
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:49 am
Location: RPI, probably doing homework

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by dragon1010 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:42 am

i have to agree on this point. dp is a thinking man's game. in 40k you can run 30 ard boyz up the center of the table with grotznik and gazghul and there is nothing in the world that can effectively stop it. this game was made so that you have to think about what move you make, and try and predict what the next 2 turns will be like. yes, the cc army may be powerful when the objective is slaughter your enemy, but what happens if you have to hold something in the middle of the map? your unit is stuck there and its shooting is ineffective because you chose to forgo shooting for a melee powrehouse.
armies i play: tyranids (14000 pts), marines (4000 pts) orks (1750 pts) eldar (4000 pts) ig (3000 pts) lizardmen (2500 pts) high elves (3000 pts) cryx (100 pts) blindwater congregation (50 pts) trollbloods (25 pts) Legion of Everblight (50 pts)

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:45 am

sonofkitrinos wrote:I don't mean camping. Unit movements and such is a vital part of this game. That is where your thinking lies. You have to choose which unit to activate first to see your strategy play out properly. If you need to camp a unit behind cover for a turn to wait for reinforcements then that's tactical thinking.

Again I stress that from the looks of things the scenarios for the game are not going to be 40k or Warmahordes re-hashes of both sides running to a central objective to beat in each other with sticks and stones. DP looks to be lending itself to survivalist resource gathering for its scenarios which will force players to think more about firing lanes, unit Placement and even unit choice. You will not want a full on CC squad when the purpose of the game is to retrieve salvage tokens as much you can before the end of the game. Yes CC will happen. yes there are CC dedicated troops. But DP is not shakin to be another 40k clone with an emphasis on CC and fierce Melees
Where are you getting this 40K stuff from? I try to avoid comparing DP to any other game system and did not one implied 40k once? In fact 40K is on of the game that a avoid so I do not know how it play.

We played with just the simple rules and that is the problem we found that thinking does not happen in DP. The side that stay still normally win. If this problem stay in the game then DP would not be worth putting money into.

User avatar
dragon1010
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:49 am
Location: RPI, probably doing homework

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by dragon1010 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:28 am

i would have to disagree. we should be comparing it to other games out there. see where they succeeded/failed and why that happened, then learn from their mistakes/successes. DP is the way it is now because of this. if we do not compare it to other games then how will we know what works? we may look and find that there is one game mechanic that we cannot find in another game that we like, so we have to think of a new way to do it that works. this game is compared to 40k because it is one of the most popular games in the world. but also, sitting back and camping is a tactic in itself. you chose to let the enemy make the first move and you reacted. you hold your position and try to make an impenetrable wall. this may be all well and good if the objective of the game is either annihilate the enemy, or defend that spot. but what if its like the last MWG playtest where you have to collect things from the center of the map? great for the other team. he will just hide by the objective collecting points while you huddle up on your side waiting for him to pop his head out. as of right now, DP is the most thinking game of this scale that i have ever played, much more than warhammer, warhammer 40k, and warmahordes.
armies i play: tyranids (14000 pts), marines (4000 pts) orks (1750 pts) eldar (4000 pts) ig (3000 pts) lizardmen (2500 pts) high elves (3000 pts) cryx (100 pts) blindwater congregation (50 pts) trollbloods (25 pts) Legion of Everblight (50 pts)

User avatar
sonofkitrinos
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:18 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 5 Painting PledgesWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge EntryRED FLAG: Failed to complete a Challenge.Placed First with a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted an Entry for the first 'King of the Hill' challenge
Location: Niagara Falls
Contact:

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by sonofkitrinos » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:23 am

Wiouds wrote:
sonofkitrinos wrote:I don't mean camping. Unit movements and such is a vital part of this game. That is where your thinking lies. You have to choose which unit to activate first to see your strategy play out properly. If you need to camp a unit behind cover for a turn to wait for reinforcements then that's tactical thinking.

Again I stress that from the looks of things the scenarios for the game are not going to be 40k or Warmahordes re-hashes of both sides running to a central objective to beat in each other with sticks and stones. DP looks to be lending itself to survivalist resource gathering for its scenarios which will force players to think more about firing lanes, unit Placement and even unit choice. You will not want a full on CC squad when the purpose of the game is to retrieve salvage tokens as much you can before the end of the game. Yes CC will happen. yes there are CC dedicated troops. But DP is not shakin to be another 40k clone with an emphasis on CC and fierce Melees
Where are you getting this 40K stuff from? I try to avoid comparing DP to any other game system and did not one implied 40k once? In fact 40K is on of the game that a avoid so I do not know how it play.

We played with just the simple rules and that is the problem we found that thinking does not happen in DP. The side that stay still normally win. If this problem stay in the game then DP would not be worth putting money into.
40k is a quick easy comparison because, typically, every member here is at least familiar with how that game is played - but the same can be said about warmachine and hordes, run, gun and dice up in CC.

Perhaps the biggest problem with tactics is that most people play with a turn order as a a set "I have to do this, than this, followed by this." Since turns are typically broken down as "move. shoot. engage in CC." I often wonder if this is the reason why even in objective games, most players still play with the turn sequence breakdown.

In DP and you sit and camp, that is a perfect strategy. In fact is a real life strategy of letting your enemy come to you. However, this tactic won't work for you if the scenarios for this game remain on the path they are on. Sitting at one end of the board will end up costing you as opposed to winning. Yes, you may be able to outshoot the enemy and keep him hard pressed, but while you sit there an camp, he will be busy gathering objectives, which will only hurt you in the end. Same can be said if you take a full on CC themed force. Yes you will own in melee, but what good will that do you if the scenario is a capture and hold situation?

The nice thing about DP, is that it is almost forcing the player to really think about unit selection. Yes you can go CC specialist, or shooting specialist, but I have a feeling players are going to find that a more balanced force of both factors will work to their benefit. This is something curious and exciting, because in other games you can typically (not always) build a force based off of visual appeal and not have to worry about it being blehg in game. DP's art looks fantastic, so visual appeal won't really be a loss, so that means unit choices will come down to what is available and best. This certainly seems like a game that will reward the thinking player.
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrHghowell?feature=mhee
Commissions : http://www.hghowel8.wix.com/amethysthobbies
Interested in commission work? Fire me a pm!

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by Wiouds » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:53 am

You should be able to blank you mind about other game system and be able to focus just on this game.

If you need scenarios to make the game work then there is something wrong with your game. Scenarios should enhance the rules not fix them. It is like needing a jump to start you car every time. It is a workaround but it does not fix the problem.

From the number of play test we did the player we found the player that think the least normally win the game and that DP punishes the player that does think. The winner in our battles is the one that use the good defense and shoot at closest enemy.

The problem is that the game is most decided before the game even start. It is like playing a game of 3x3 tic-tac-toe where the first move decided the game and the rest We are getting to the point that we have predicted who will most likely win just by how the field is set up. I see some just look at the field and the force the other side had and forfeit before playing.

The second problem is that when building the force I think the same about as any other game ,maybe a little less.

One of my friend like the ideal about the beast faction.

User avatar
sonofkitrinos
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:18 pm
Ribbons Earned: Has Completed 5 Painting PledgesWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge EntryRED FLAG: Failed to complete a Challenge.Placed First with a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted a 'Mini of the Month' EntryCompleted an Entry for the first 'King of the Hill' challenge
Location: Niagara Falls
Contact:

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by sonofkitrinos » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:10 am

As stated, we are not thinking about other games as we play this game to make DP a clone of them. In order to develop anything - not just table top games - you need to research and compare to what is already out there and use it as a starting point to differ yours.

The scenarios aren't what makes the "game work", but they enhance the game play in a way that is not like other games out there, which is forcing players to really think about strategy for objective grabbing and stuff.
From the number of play test we did the player we found the player that think the least normally win the game and that DP punishes the player that does think. The winner in our battles is the one that use the good defense and shoot at closest enemy.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself yes? If the winner used defence and took out priority targets which were closest to his line, then that would indicate a great level of strategical thinking "let the enemy come to you." Charging up a board is not necessarily "tactical thinking". If you are moving up a board, you need to be able to ensure your troops will get there by using cover, smoke grenades (if available) and covering fire. This is where the mindset of other games like 40k and Warmahordes fails - since in those games you can run up the table not really worrying too terribly much about shooting the way you do in this game. That tactical mindset can work in DP, but it requires more tactical approaches, like I just mentioned.

The game cannot be decided before it even starts. Yes, there maybe factors that will affect the outcome of the game before it starts - such as unit choice and terrain set-up - but this is still very much a game of chance. There is no way any table top game is won before it begins, since it all relies on dice rolls/card play. Yes you can control the rolls to a degree, but even then, you need to make sure the spending of the CP is worth it in that given scenario, especially since you only regen one a turn. If you want to use your commander's CP, you need to be able to make an advance with your troops within range. Even with CP, however, there is still a lot of chance that will come into play and affect the outcome of the game just as much as placement of your units and your approach.
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrHghowell?feature=mhee
Commissions : http://www.hghowel8.wix.com/amethysthobbies
Interested in commission work? Fire me a pm!

cymruvoodoo
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by cymruvoodoo » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:14 am

@ Wiouds - If we leave out scenario play from game design then we are leaving out one third of the overall experience. It would be like saying that "if you need another army to make the game work then there is something wrong with your game." It's entirely possible to have a gaming experience without scenarios or even multiple factions, but it's called "Risk" or "chess" or "Othello." For a wargame I think that it is critical to have a depth of experience such that each player has multiple layers of decisions to make. I think other gaming experiences allow a sort of laser focus on the issue of two minds meeting and they do that very well - wargames should challenge the player with a little bit more of that "no plan survives contact with the enemy" experience.

Furthermore, the fact that deployment is very important is, I think, a bonus, not a down-side. Assuming both players deploy well then it should be a good game. Now, I admit, games in which deployment is critical are not very new player friendly and I think that this is something important to keep in mind, but I think to say that the overall game system is flawed because deployment is very important is a mistake.

unxpekted22
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: A playtest and a major problem

Post by unxpekted22 » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:53 am

This did make me realize that I would like to see MWG film a game using the same army against each other, rather than always Corp. vs. X'lanthos.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest