Maps

[Panda Tar]

So it was to be battle map, adventure map and world map, right?

But after some thought you considered dropping the idea of a battle map, but then battles would happen on the adventure map (this approach seem much more interesting imho, given that your town, while getting bigger, might evolve and involve other buildings, and use terrain to help protect or production).

So, right now, Adventure Map is to be thought as a huge potential Battle Map?

[Groovy]

It's more a case of adding elements of the adventure map to the combat map to make it viable as a standalone game. There might still be an adventure map version, with emphasis on adventure and greatly simplified combat. No promises, though.

[Panda Tar]

Yes.

What I was thinking was making a battle map for sieges, exclusively, whilst battles can happen on the adventure map, which would be bigger.

But in the end, it all depends on how much battles are important to the game, rather than all other mechanics, potential quests and whatever else we can think of. Will the game be based on players playing against each other only?

[Groovy]

What I was thinking was making a battle map for sieges, exclusively, whilst battles can happen on the adventure map, which would be bigger.

A standalone siege battlefield is basically the current HoMM model that I'm trying to get away from. I'd rather make towns bigger on the main map, and have sieges take place there. Currently, they take up 7 tiles. I'll see if that's enough.

But in the end, it all depends on how much battles are important to the game, rather than all other mechanics, potential quests and whatever else we can think of.

The adventure map mechanics that I'm looking to include directly support combat, by training and recruiting new troops, for example. I think that quests are too far removed from combat to be included in the battlefield version of the game.

Will the game be based on players playing against each other only?

What else do you have in mind?

[Panda Tar]

A standalone siege battlefield is basically the current HoMM model that I'm trying to get away from. I'd rather make towns bigger on the main map, and have sieges take place there. Currently, they take up 7 tiles. I'll see if that's enough.

Hum, perhaps I explained wrong, but that was what I was trying to say in prior to that very first post hoho - your buildings, your town spread about the Adventure map; but given that a 3 layer-game, with integrated maps sounded, as you said once, too much complicated for a tabletop approach, a huge adventure map where you can battle and play would be what we need, at least in my opinion. The suggestion to make smaller maps for siege battles was in the case that towns wouldn't spread about the adventure map (only a single tile), for any particular reason.

What else do you have in mind?

Well, I did think the game was RPG oriented with a truly interesting and engaging battle system, calling for the best of strategy mechanics we could muster. And as far as I could tell, a Game Master would then create a match where players could play with each other (friendly and/or opposing, or even 2 players on the same town, each one a hero) to accomplish a certain objective. Not really something straightforward like: defeat your opponents. But with some quests and NPCs placed on the board so you can play the game, like a campaign. It could happen that the GM would create a situation in which 2 players, who had a friendly diplomatic relation, come to an impasse where they could then become enemies to achieve a certain goal. The game would have different goals based on Game Master's creativity, rather than an overall Goal, which would feel pretty much like a fancy Chess.

[Panda Tar]

I was also imagining playthroughs where players didn't have a town, so battles, if any, would mainly occur by finding strayed armies, units or by doing diplomatic quests, or battles which would simply involve heroes only.

Allowing several different ways to play the game, that is.

[Groovy]

Hum, perhaps I explained wrong, but that was what I was trying to say in prior to that very first post hoho - your buildings, your town spread about the Adventure map; but given that a 3 layer-game, with integrated maps sounded, as you said once, too much complicated for a tabletop approach, a huge adventure map where you can battle and play would be what we need, at least in my opinion. The suggestion to make smaller maps for siege battles was in the case that towns wouldn't spread about the adventure map (only a single tile), for any particular reason.

Got it. Sprawling towns is the way I'd like to go.

Well, I did think the game was RPG oriented with a truly interesting and engaging battle system, calling for the best of strategy mechanics we could muster. And as far as I could tell, a Game Master would then create a match where players could play with each other (friendly and/or opposing, or even 2 players on the same town, each one a hero) to accomplish a certain objective. Not really something straightforward like: defeat your opponents. But with some quests and NPCs placed on the board so you can play the game, like a campaign. It could happen that the GM would create a situation in which 2 players, who had a friendly diplomatic relation, come to an impasse where they could then become enemies to achieve a certain goal. The game would have different goals based on Game Master's creativity, rather than an overall Goal, which would feel pretty much like a fancy Chess.

My vision for Heroic is that of a strategy game with RPG elements rather than an RPG game. Like HoMM, really. I was relying on premade maps to establish the parameters of the game - the terrain, towns, the number of players, their starting locations, etc. I don't really see a need for a game master at this stage, though that might change with experimentation. I'd certainly be happier if we could pull off a decent design without having to involve a GM.

If you look at the description of the three layers of the PC game design here, specifically this part, the combat map has two uses - clashes between armies, and exploration by a hero with a small band of followers. The latter lends itself to some creative objectives, not necessarily combat-oriented, or even involving combat at all. Like the ones you mentioned.

The aspect that I'm currently trying to convert to the tabletop setting is the army clash one. I did spend some time pondering the exploration aspect as well, and I would like to create a tabletop version of it at some stage, but it's a potential future project rather than a current one.

[Panda Tar]

My vision for Heroic is that of a strategy game with RPG elements rather than an RPG game. Like HoMM, really. I was relying on premade maps to establish the parameters of the game - the terrain, towns, the number of players, their starting locations, etc. I don't really see a need for a game master at this stage, though that might change with experimentation. I'd certainly be happier if we could pull off a decent design without having to involve a GM.

I understand. There are, though, some situations I find odd without a GM, for example: when playing a map, players, then, will build the map following a certain pre-made template. So far, so good. Then there will be resources, artefacts, bonus elements in general, so...hum, all players are aware of the location of these bonuses, is that how it's supposed to work? Suppressing the GM may take away the element of surprise, I reckon. How would you present rewards, secrets and other things like that without a GM?

The aspect that I'm currently trying to convert to the tabletop setting is the army clash one. I did spend some time pondering the exploration aspect as well, and I would like to create a tabletop version of it at some stage, but it's a potential future project rather than a current one.

I see your point. Still, don't you believe that integrating both genres (exploration and battle) can save time, in the long course? I mean that I can assist you in this army-clash system while comparing its effects on the exploration level, then I can see the potential for integration of both kinds whenever possible. I'm just a bit apprehensive with the idea of the goal of playing a map which can resume only to win or defeat your opponents. You can have some other achievements in the between, but in the end, it's only to win, rather than to play. Still, this is the way I picture a the game, something that last a long while, although, as I can gather from what you say, it seems not supposed to last that long, most likely playing a Monopoly match.

[Groovy]

I understand. There are, though, some situations I find odd without a GM, for example: when playing a map, players, then, will build the map following a certain pre-made template. So far, so good. Then there will be resources, artefacts, bonus elements in general, so...hum, all players are aware of the location of these bonuses, is that how it's supposed to work? Suppressing the GM may take away the element of surprise, I reckon. How would you present rewards, secrets and other things like that without a GM?

What I would dearly love is for map exploration to take place separately for each player, so that other players can't see the terrain that they haven't themselves explored. I don't know how to implement this, however. I checked with a friend of mine who is an avid tabletop game player, and he wasn't aware of a game that did that. In all the map-exploration games that he had played, the explored terrain was visible to everyone.

All the players would be aware of the general location of important map items (a GM would only help here with new maps, unless he plays the role of a random map generator). The content of those locations would usually be somewhat variable. The map design might stipulate that it's a dwelling or artefact of a certain level rather than a particular dwelling or artefact. Again, it's fairly similar to HoMM.

I'm not familiar with rewards and secrets. Can you give me an example?

I see your point. Still, don't you believe that integrating both genres (exploration and battle) can save time, in the long course? I mean that I can assist you in this army-clash system while comparing its effects on the exploration level, then I can see the potential for integration of both kinds whenever possible.

It would save us time if exploration and combat could be effectively combined into a single tabletop game. I'm not confident that they can without the unifying role of the strategic world map, to which they both contribute. Having said that, I could have missed something important that makes this possible, so I don't want to discourage you from pursuing the idea further.

I'm just a bit apprehensive with the idea of the goal of playing a map which can resume only to win or defeat your opponents. You can have some other achievements in the between, but in the end, it's only to win, rather than to play. Still, this is the way I picture a the game, something that last a long while, although, as I can gather from what you say, it seems not supposed to last that long, most likely playing a Monopoly match.

Are you talking about open-ended play of games like The Elder Scrolls series? This is not my goal with the combat part of the PC game design at all, and only a secondary goal with the design as a whole.

A clash of armies is indeed not supposed to last all that long, perhaps a couple of hours or thereabout. I'm estimating this based on my experience with Ancient Empires II. It might take longer in the tabletop setting.

[Panda Tar]

What I would dearly love is for map exploration to take place separately for each player, so that other players can't see the terrain that they haven't themselves explored. I don't know how to implement this, however. I checked with a friend of mine who is an avid tabletop game player, and he wasn't aware of a game that did that. In all the map-exploration games that he had played, the explored terrain was visible to everyone.

The way this always pops up in my mind's eye is a huge modular map. For example, you have a LARGE map (to pick between SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE, GIANT). A Large map is for, say, 4-6 players. Given this information, there are 6 modules for starting players and 1 module with exploration terrain in between each of them (although we have them built over hexagonal tiles, then you could, in fact, move diagonally to another module if you wished). Map sizes and modulation woul look like THIS.

Each player plays individually on their own board. When they reach the borders, then they'll look into the Map template to check which module they'll be going to explore now. If it's another player's, then they'll join their modules and thus, both will be aware of their location. Diplomatic relations could be taken into account, although how to deal with it in a army-clash-defeat-all-them design is but useless to me. What's is left is that those two players are likely to be bound to battle soon.

As to suppress a GM's presence, I believe CARDS might have some use, and dice. You have decks of cards that represents the Adventure Map elements. Resources laying about the map would ALWAYS be related to the terrain they're standing on. But where on the map template there would be a tile showing Random Bonus (a card deck for resources, chests, treasures, artifacts), or Random Unit Building (dwelling, herds), or Random Adventure Building (other terrain bound building from a list of buildings, each containing a number, that would be chosen by throwing a dice), you would pick up a correspondingly card from these decks. Each player would be responsible into creating each own map-modules and the module they are first visiting (color gray).

I'm not familiar with rewards and secrets. Can you give me an example?

This is something more likely for Adventure and Exploration purposes that can be given by using the mechanics of cards and dice I explained above. By secrets I've meant things we are not supposed to know, such as the contents of a reward, or adventure quests. Rewards can be given by doing a small quest, defeating a certain foe, exploring a certain dangerous dungeon/building. How to control each reward given by these actions? Unless we have also a deck for possible Mini-quests with their corresponding rewards (same for foes).

Say that, once per week/month, your hero can visit the main building (like the town hall) and be given the chance to take 1 card from a deck of Kingdom Affair Deck (lol, here I am creating decks and decks, but hell, that can be fun too and help with minor to major features). There are 4 different cards in this deck:

• Quest: you'll get 1 quest card to see what's it all about and try doing it until the end of the week.
• Production Boost: terrain-bound feature will boost by + 1 (number doesn't mean much now, just an example) all your mines that produces resources located on tiles for the same terrain as your Town Hall is located.
• Production Plague: same as above, but decreases production.
• Bounty Hunt: you'll have one week to kill a certain unit. That unit might not even exist on the entire map. The bounty rewards can be listed on that unit's card itself, as it was an attribute. Bounty units give doubled experience.

What say you?

Are you talking about open-ended play of games like The Elder Scrolls series? This is not my goal with the combat part of the PC game design at all, and only a secondary goal with the design as a whole.

I just think that the option of having both styles could be given, even if it's not the main default goal.

[Groovy]

I like the idea of making the map modular. I was originally going to use this approach to simulate exploration – instead of tiles being covered individually, terrain would be hidden by placing tile modules upside down. As a player approaches a covered module, it is flipped over to reveal its terrain. Modules would be fairly small, so that not too much terrain is revealed at once.

This approach could be combined with your suggestion of keeping the modules that have been uncovered by different players separate from each other. I think this has an added advantage of not making it obvious how big the world is until the players encounter each other on the map. A further advantage is that it allows simultaneous turns. My only concern is the social aspect of the game – how much will it suffer from players initially playing in isolation?

I also like the idea of using cards to simulate random events. I think we should look to include it in the game once the core gameplay is working. Quests, I’ll leave to you. As I mentioned earlier, the combat map should cater for both genres, so you are welcome to work on them in tandem, if you like. I’ll focus on the combat aspect until it is done.

[Panda Tar]

I like the idea of making the map modular. I was originally going to use this approach to simulate exploration – instead of tiles being covered individually, terrain would be hidden by placing tile modules upside down. As a player approaches a covered module, it is flipped over to reveal its terrain. Modules would be fairly small, so that not too much terrain is revealed at once.

But the element of surprise doesn't exist if that same player was the one who placed all map tiles while making it. This would make sense or be useful if there was an impartial element, or a GM, so player wouldn't know which part of the map he's actually on or any terrain detail. Unless, they build as they explore, checking the template as they do so (but how to avoid looking over the rest of the layout? hoho). Withal it would be ok if there was someone else building the maps, then players might really be surprised (or ignorant) to what waited under the next small module.

On another related subject of map size, there could be a tiny map too, with only three big modules in line, each player on each side module, and the middle module where they would likely to start clashing troops. The design of this map template could consider the generation of buildings fit for battle effects on the mid-section module.

This approach could be combined with your suggestion of keeping the modules that have been uncovered by different players separate from each other. I think this has an added advantage of not making it obvious how big the world is until the players encounter each other on the map. A further advantage is that it allows simultaneous turns. My only concern is the social aspect of the game – how much will it suffer from players initially playing in isolation?

I actually can't see how they can play simultaneously, given that they must all obey a 'turn' rule, no? They should still wait for others before going ahead. I also think that they'll know a bit about the size of the world as long as there's not a GM to pick up the map. And regarding people playing isolated, it all depends on the map selected: the smaller, the faster they'll find each other. It's their decision, I'm not entirely sure that this is an issue. If people happen to want to play a Giant Map with only 2 players, perhaps they might spend a while trying to find each other; still, their decision.

I also like the idea of using cards to simulate random events. I think we should look to include it in the game once the core gameplay is working. Quests, I’ll leave to you. As I mentioned earlier, the combat map should cater for both genres, so you are welcome to work on them in tandem, if you like. I’ll focus on the combat aspect until it is done.

Squee! Another word learned: tandem.

Roger that. Yeah, cards are really useful and are likely to help us integrate some mechanics.

[Groovy]

Withal it would be ok if there was someone else building the maps, then players might really be surprised (or ignorant) to what waited under the next small module.

That was my expectation – that players would build maps and make them available to other players to use (like the HoMM mapmaking community).

I don’t think that unfamiliarity with the map is all that important, however. I have found Ancient Empires II maps to have higher replayability than HoMM ones, even though that game has no exploration element – the whole map is visible from the start. There is also no randomness in its features – the terrain and all the buildings are fixed. Replayability comes from the battle of wits in the strategic conquest of the map, something that HoMM – with its cat and mouse games on the adventure map and standalone combat map – is lacking. I’m hoping that Heroic will be more effective in this regard because it has the strategic focus of Ancient Empires II combined with (amplified) map feature randomness of HoMM.

On another related subject of map size, there could be a tiny map too, with only three big modules in line, each player on each side module, and the middle module where they would likely to start clashing troops. The design of this map template could consider the generation of buildings fit for battle effects on the mid-section module.

Are you saying that we should make buildings have different effects on different map layouts?

I actually can't see how they can play simultaneously, given that they must all obey a 'turn' rule, no? They should still wait for others before going ahead.

If the players are too far apart to affect each other on the map, then I don’t see a reason to require one player to wait for another to finish his turn before the first player starts his. What am I missing?

And regarding people playing isolated, it all depends on the map selected: the smaller, the faster they'll find each other. It's their decision, I'm not entirely sure that this is an issue. If people happen to want to play a Giant Map with only 2 players, perhaps they might spend a while trying to find each other; still, their decision.

I’m not sure if it’s an issue either. It might be useful to get some feedback on this point once we have something to showcase.

[Panda Tar]

Are you saying that we should make buildings have different effects on different map layouts?

Not actually. I'm saying that we'll have different buildings on the Adventure map. Some will affect battles directly. And in that layout I gave as an example (3 aligned modules), those buildings that affect battle could be anticipated on the template layout, rather than placing 'any building' on the mid-module, you see. The template would require 'battle buildings' instead, whereas on the two remaining modules, where players will start playing, there will be 'any building' slots on the template.

But what you asked there could be an interesting idea, limited to few buildings, I think, regarding exploration mainly, such as how a Watch Tower would work on tiny-small-medium-large-giant maps, for example.

If the players are too far apart to affect each other on the map, then I don’t see a reason to require one player to wait for another to finish his turn before the first player starts his. What am I missing?

Hmmm....say that there are 3 people playing. 2 have found each other and are battling. The other one is still far from them. If people play on their own, while the two are battling, which is something slower, the other one can simply move about freely, not integrating these events and timing? I mean, will he be able to explore 2 or 3 modules on his own while the other two only made few moves over battle? This is what I'm trying to understand. If people play like that, how would 'turns' work then if not to align timing amongst players?

I’m not sure if it’s an issue either. It might be useful to get some feedback on this point once we have something to showcase.

Agreed.

[Groovy]

I'm saying that we'll have different buildings on the Adventure map. Some will affect battles directly. And in that layout I gave as an example (3 aligned modules), those buildings that affect battle could be anticipated on the template layout, rather than placing 'any building' on the mid-module, you see. The template would require 'battle buildings' instead, whereas on the two remaining modules, where players will start playing, there will be 'any building' slots on the template.

In the interests of efficiency, I will combine battle buildings with other types into singular buildings that have all sorts of effects, including those on the battlefield.

Hmmm....say that there are 3 people playing. 2 have found each other and are battling. The other one is still far from them. If people play on their own, while the two are battling, which is something slower, the other one can simply move about freely, not integrating these events and timing? I mean, will he be able to explore 2 or 3 modules on his own while the other two only made few moves over battle? This is what I'm trying to understand. If people play like that, how would 'turns' work then if not to align timing amongst players?

What you have described sounds like a real-time implementation to me. By "simultaneous turns", I mean that players play the current turn simultaneously, then move on to the next turn together and play that one simultaneously too.

[Panda Tar]

In the interests of efficiency, I will combine battle buildings with other types into singular buildings that have all sorts of effects, including those on the battlefield.

Sounds good to me.

What you have described sounds like a real-time implementation to me. By "simultaneous turns", I mean that players play the current turn simultaneously, then move on to the next turn together and play that one simultaneously too.

Oh, ok. That was my misunderstanding.

[Groovy]

What would be the ideal map module size?

I have posted the last map I've made to help you decide. It features 4x4 modules. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well with exploration because the modules are not symmetrical, and so don't interlock with the adjacent modules once they are turned upside down.

I'm tempted to make them 3x3 instead.

[Panda Tar]

I didn't grasp the idea of 4x4 or 3x3 with hexagons. How do these modules look like?

[Groovy]

The above map is broken up into 25 modules, each one containing 16 tiles. The module boundaries are shown in grey.

Here is an example of a module (I actually call them map fragments in the game terminology). It is the bottom-left corner of the map (slightly out-of-synch).

[Panda Tar]

Hmm...that looks a bit tough to decide. 3x3 seems neat, but it would end in a high column rather than in a low (starts and ends in high columns). When adding another module on the side, it would have to be positioned...oh, I see, inverted? Then it would fit properly.