Homebrew War Game?

[Malachi Lemont]

Do you all know of any role-playing war games that involve semi-realistic representations of army strength, battle tactics, and economics? If not, would you be willing to help homebrew one?

If we're going to make a homebrew war game, I'd prefer making it for a setting that we're already familiar with - either a famous setting from history like the Hundred Years War, the French and Indian War, or World War I - or something from fantasy. Do you think we should try to make a setting-specific rules set, or a more generic rules set that can be applied anywhere?

What I want to include:
--Accurate counts of numbers of soldiers based on historical data
--Realistic numbers of casualties given technology and tactics
--Dynamic military leaders with personalities
--A closer look at the lives of the everyday footsoldiers, not just the commanders
--The economic, social, and political motives for war
--The economic, social, and political consequences of war

I know that's a lot to ask, but this is just my overall vision of the ideal war game. We can leave out some of these factors to make it more play-able, but I'd like it to have a lot of depth to it. Do you think you could add some suggestions about how to make the rules fit this type of game? Are there any rule books I could refer to? Thanks.

[Dragonfire]

To clarify, are you talking about a Wargame or a more expansive Civilization esque game? Personally i'm big fan of World War II especially when it comes to wargames, though I think a well done "modern" era wargame would be awsome as well. That being said when it comes to making rules specifically for a setting or generic ones I think you would have to figure out the setting before you decide that.

Unfortunatly I don't really have anything concrete for your list of "must haves".

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Ok. So. We get RISK. Right? Then we add STRATEGO.

With me so far? Then throw in MONOPOLY, POKER, and possibly more DICE.

As a concept. I enjoy discussion of all things Warfare Related, but you may have to pin a very specific era down. Just for flavor's sake.

[Malachi Lemont]

Ok. So. We get RISK. Right? Then we add STRATEGO.

With me so far? Then throw in MONOPOLY, POKER, and possibly more DICE.

As a concept. I enjoy discussion of all things Warfare Related, but you may have to pin a very specific era down. Just for flavor's sake.

Hahaha. Yeah, I knew my idea was pretty vague and silly. I probably won't go very far with it. Besides, we were just starting to make progress on that civilization game we were working on.

But I've always been the type of kid to want to put risk pieces on a chessboard with monopoly money and call it "Mega-War!" or something crazy like that. My style is to add unnecessary complications. But let's face it, a game like that would take years just to get through the first turn. And nobody wants that.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Hahaha. Yeah, I knew my idea was pretty vague and silly. I probably won't go very far with it. Besides, we were just starting to make progress on that civilization game we were working on.

But I've always been the type of kid to want to put risk pieces on a chessboard with monopoly money and call it "Mega-War!" or something crazy like that. My style is to add unnecessary complications. But let's face it, a game like that would take years just to get through the first turn. And nobody wants that.

Maybe. But I was at least 70% serious. A game that combined Risk style wargaming with unit type breakdown (Stratego), and implimented some sort of resource pool to draw from (cards or money) would rock so hard.

[Malachi Lemont]

Ok. If you're interested in that sort of game, I'd absolutely be willing to work on it. And I suggest we make it setting-specific. So in that case we're in need of a setting. My suggestion is a near future global war in the mid-21st century. The advantages of that are:

1. It's Earth, so the map will already be familiar, but
2. It's fictional, so we won't have to do unwieldy amounts of research on historical battle data. And we will have no idea who wins until we play it out.

Possible teams could be:
China
India
Russian Federation
European Union
Arab League
Some sort of African Alliance
Some sort of Latin American Alliance
United States

Oh, yeah. And no nukes. Any suggestions?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Ok. If you're interested in that sort of game, I'd absolutely be willing to work on it. And I suggest we make it setting-specific. So in that case we're in need of a setting. My suggestion is a near future global war in the mid-21st century. The advantages of that are:

1. It's Earth, so the map will already be familiar, but
2. It's fictional, so we won't have to do unwieldy amounts of research on historical battle data. And we will have no idea who wins until we play it out.


Agreed on the setting, mostly. Although I would like to point out that smaller, mobile and more modular armies are currently the most likely way things will play out. Lots of mechanization (either through more advanced vehicles or their unmanned variants), plus a massive amount of information available than at any other time in history.

So the game would look a lot less like Risk than something like Full Spectrum Warrior, due to the scale. I would suggest at least one or two generations back (between WWI and Vietnam Era), so that large scale military engagements are more probable.

I would suggest in that case we use an Alt-Universe.


Possible teams could be:
China
India
Russian Federation
European Union
Arab League
Some sort of African Alliance
Some sort of Latin American Alliance
United States

Oh, yeah. And no nukes. Any suggestions?

Why no nukes? I'm not saying we should have them. I'm saying we need an explanation for why no one uses them (either there's a proven anti-nuke device of some sorts, or using a Nuclear attack sucks for everyone involved to the point where using one will end the game*).

*The only winning move is not to play

[Malachi Lemont]

Those are all good ideas. You're right that while we can at least try to re-create the data of past wars, we have no idea how future wars will be fought.

Actually, I'm not really sure about using a real world setting at all. I might do something from fantasy, perhaps an adaptation of a video game but more realistic.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Basically Not-Earth. No magic or anything else that doesn't exist for us, but different continents, ethnicities, cultures, etc?

[Malachi Lemont]

Basically Not-Earth. No magic or anything else that doesn't exist for us, but different continents, ethnicities, cultures, etc?

Sort of. Have you played Skyrim? Because I was actually interested in doing a war game in that setting. The problem is that they're so much magic flying around, it would be hard to even see the point of creating "believable" demographics. Still, I think it's worth a shot. Do you know of any other settings that could be adapted for a war game? I know Game of Thrones would be good, but I'm kind of getting tired of Game of Thrones adaptations. Or we could always do real-life Earth. Or we could make our own setting. Hmm. What do you think?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Sort of. Have you played Skyrim? Because I was actually interested in doing a war game in that setting. The problem is that they're so much magic flying around, it would be hard to even see the point of creating "believable" demographics. Still, I think it's worth a shot. Do you know of any other settings that could be adapted for a war game? I know Game of Thrones would be good, but I'm kind of getting tired of Game of Thrones adaptations. Or we could always do real-life Earth. Or we could make our own setting. Hmm. What do you think?

I like making settings, even if I'll be the only one to see them. And I'm pretty good at mapmaking, so I can slap a map together when we need one.

Elder Scrolls without the magic would probably look...very odd. Like Game of Thrones, I guess. But kind of empty? It's like trying to take Jedi out of Star Wars. You can do it, but the Jedi were the soul of the setting.

Again though, let's make a setting.

The way I see the basic game mechanics working is similar to Erfworld. Nations, or Sides, exist and are composed of one or more Cities/Regions. Each Side raises Units, representing an indeterminate amount of men/vehicles. Units have "Types" which resolve in combat like Rock-Paper-Scissors (bonus v penalty). Dice determine the combats, as do certain Cards (use standard playing card deck). Certain actions can be taken to improve defenses, build monies, or use Specialty units (spies, assassins, diplomats, businessmen, etc). Each side takes Turns, and they either have a certain amount of Action Points to distribute to their units, or each unit has Move points on their own.

Did I cover everything?

Edit: Generals. I forgot Generals. A single Unit that stacks with others and grants bonuses.

[Malachi Lemont]

This might be too much to ask, but I'd like a war game that recognizes the millions of people who aren't fighting, but are contributing to the war. During World War II, the United States had 6% of its population enlisted, but the other 94% was still working hard to get the job done. I'd like to take into account civilian morale, civilian economics, and civilian casualties, as well as military tactics. If possible.

And I'm still torn between a real-world setting and a fictional one. I can't decide if I want to spend my time doing research or world-building. What do you think?

[Malachi Lemont]

Well, if we decide to use a fictional setting, we might as well start with a map I've got lying around. I made it for a different game but ended up not using it, so here it is: The World of Otarus.

http://images.wikia.com/durona/images/b/b8/Duronasmall.png

You might not have had a territory-based map in mind, but to me it seems like the better alternative than a grid-based map. I've only named the continents so far. Hopefully the territories will receive names as we go.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

This might be too much to ask, but I'd like a war game that recognizes the millions of people who aren't fighting, but are contributing to the war. During World War II, the United States had 6% of its population enlisted, but the other 94% was still working hard to get the job done. I'd like to take into account civilian morale, civilian economics, and civilian casualties, as well as military tactics. If possible.

And I'm still torn between a real-world setting and a fictional one. I can't decide if I want to spend my time doing research or world-building. What do you think?

Hmmm...That may be a tall order to fill. It would definitely be more complicated. I'll think on it.

As to whether RL or Fiction...flip a coin. As the coin is in the air, you'll know which one you're hoping for.

[Malachi Lemont]

Hmmm...That may be a tall order to fill. It would definitely be more complicated. I'll think on it.

As to whether RL or Fiction...flip a coin. As the coin is in the air, you'll know which one you're hoping for.

I guess I've answered my own question. We're going with fiction.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I guess I've answered my own question. We're going with fiction.

Separate thread?

Also: Just had a thought about loyalty. General's Loyalty. Buying a General, you roll a dice/draw a card, or many of them, to determine stats. Pure random chance. One of these is the Loyalty Stat. Certain actions will lower/raise this stat, including Seizing a City, Losing Territory, defeating a faction, etc. If the General's loyalty drops too far, he may REBEL, and that entire Army will turn on you. He will proceed to attack and seize your territories randomly (dice roll?).

Ex: Julius Caesar has been in Upper Gaul for several turns, not doing anything. Due to a low Loyalty stat, he eventually becomes a rebel and marches on Rome. This would be an example of a Player being wiped by his own warlord. A hearty Lol is had by everyone!

[Malachi Lemont]

That sounds awesome. I like the Caesar example a lot. What do you think of the map? I guess I'll move it to a world-building thread. I was thinking of having most of the action set in Calea, the Northeast continent.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

That sounds awesome. I like the Caesar example a lot. What do you think of the map? I guess I'll move it to a world-building thread. I was thinking of having most of the action set in Calea, the Northeast continent.

Hm. I do like the map. If you're up to it, I might advise connecting Calea to Martora (preferably at M-1 to C-23, and from C-25 to M-10, leaving I-5 as a "coastal island"). I feel like that makes for a more Eurasian feel to the continents, allowing for larger/broader land-based military offenses.

But if you prefer it as is, it works.

[Malachi Lemont]

Sorry to keep changing my mind, but I'm still inclined to make an Elder Scrolls wargame. Magic would have to be a big part of it, but we could still use traditional wargame mechanics. For example, Soul Gems could be treated as another resource, and Mages could be a type of soldier that you can train. All of this would exist alongside the traditional resources like food and iron, and the traditional soldier types.

I just think that would be more fun than building a world entirely from scratch. What do you think?