What do you think the world game such as dead zone and dust tactics which split the battlefield into 'zones' rather than mess around with true line of slight and measuring a distance? Thereby pre-empting any debates on line of fire.
To board gamey or not board gamey enough?
>>44346690
My biggest problem with Dust Tactics is that the mecha designs are really boring, because they just look exactly like WW2 tanks with legs.
If you're not gonna go all out and stylize your mechs, stick to regular tanks.
>>44346733
The theme is a diesel punk World War II ascetic that with mechas. They are just going to be vertical tanks. You can either take it or leave it.
Anyway what's your opinion on zoning in war games? A quick fun abstract of just defing the point of miniature war games?
>>44346690
I hate true line of sight, but that has nothing to do with measuring distance and zoning the battlefield or not, all you need to not have to deal with the shit that is TLOS is area terrain rules, done.
About splitting the game into squares etc, it's way too boardgamey, at that point you might as well just use brightly coloured tokens and have a flat printed board without features.
If I wanted to play chess with plastic army men and tanks I would, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot too much if you make a wargame too boardgamey. It's like you're making a game specifically for the people who never bother to paint their miniatures and have been using a towel over a pile of books as a hill for the last two years.
>>44347899
Well of course true oversights not the same thing but is example of abstract mechanics versus simulation.
True line of sight attempts to simulate too much in most people's opinion.while 'Zoning' probably goes to far to the abstract.
I don't think have any more codified rules about when units are considered cover and in the open hurt myself. As long as it's about removes ambiguity while preserving dynamics.
Just let you know though zones don't work the same way as move to the 'spaces' like in chess. At least in dead zone and dust tactics. Its of a combination of that and the usual wargames stuff. I think is just working out blast templates and cover values.
Not saying it works but I think it's an interesting choice.
>>44346690
It's shit
>>44346733
This guy gets it
>>44346841
>The theme is a diesel punk World War II ascetic that with mechas. They are just going to be vertical tanks. You can either take it or leave it.
Eh, it's a bit unimaginative. WW2 planes, for instance, sure didn't look like WW2 tanks with wings. Shit was built to do a given job as well as could be cost-effectively manufactured with the tools and techniques of the day. To make something really look like it belongs, you should start by studying the aesthetics of the manufacturing processes used, rather than just slapping together parts of things from the time period.
Todzilla "it jest werks" Howard's art team did a solid job of aping the 1940s/1950s style for their latest "masterpiece". Lots of castings, curved sheet metal stampings, and bolts.
>>44349624
Are you being sarcastic I can't tell
Anyway I don't want to discuss this diesel punk, I just want to go on about the idea of using the 3",3" grid battle maps.
>>44350752
>I just want to go on about the idea of using the 3",3" grid battle maps.
It is rather boardgamey. Think Stratego. There are solid reasons for their later release of Dust Warfare.
>>44346841
I've never played either, but I felt that the aesthetic wasn't over the top enough for me. On a similar note, I'm looking to do a Wolfenstein: The New Order / Killzone Helgast themed army and looking for suggestions
>>44349624
.... it's a goddamn reskinned Kurata.
>>44346841
>They are just going to be vertical tanks.
I prefer my walking tanks to be horizontal.
