Well, not exactly an RPG, but...

[Jabberwocky]

... this seemed as good a place as any for constructive criticism of my current project; A.I. - Armoured Intelligence.

This is basically a war-game, designed to simulate combat between a number of computer-controlled tanks in a sci-fi setting (tweakable, and not yet set).  

I've just posted the playtest rules to the site;
http://www.armouredintelligence.com

And would like any reports on typos, criticism, suggestions and the like.

Thanks

       Nick Irish[/url]

[Andrew Martin]

... this seemed as good a place as any for constructive criticism of my current project; A.I. - Armoured Intelligence.

This is basically a war-game, designed to simulate combat between a number of computer-controlled tanks in a sci-fi setting (tweakable, and not yet set).  

I've just posted the playtest rules to the site;
http://www.armouredintelligence.com

And would like any reports on typos, criticism, suggestions and the like.

Thanks

       Nick Irish[/url]

Your site causes my MS Internet explorer running on Windows XP to close!
Very impolite! I think you'll need to fix this problem real soon.

[Jabberwocky]

That's wierd... have been viewing it alright and I don't think I've done anything wierd with the code... will double check.

    Nick Irish

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Nick,

Well, my browser didn't have any problems with your site, nor do I see anything unusual in the HTML. It might be the visits-counter applet causing the problem Andrew encountered.

However, it was a bit of a puzzle finding the download on the site. The way the "stuff" link was described didn't make it sound like the place to go to find the playtest rules.

In the interest of good relations between RPG and war-game communities everywhere, I'm replying with my thoughts. But this site is generally very focused on role playing games, so please don't be offended if the moderators decide to curtail the discussion or move the thread to a different forum. (That they haven't made any comment to that effect yet, I'm interpreting as license to take up the discussion.)

I'm mostly only able to comment so far on the document itself, rather than on the game design (except to say that the design appears basically sound, except possibly for the LOS problem, see below). There are a few clarity issues for me.

- It's unclear when targets may be fired upon. The text says "when it has been seen" but there are rules for "indirect" targeting with "no LOS" that imply that the target does not have to be visible to be hit, at least with certain weapons. Given the Emission rules as written, it would appear to be possible to deduce the probable location of a unit. Could one then target that hex? What about "attacking terrain" if the terrain happens to have a unit in it?

- Since LOS is always mutual, don't all the rules for emissions and pseudo-location (which are generally rather cool) come to naught in the end? That is to say, being the one to get LOS first isn't much of an advantage when it also invites counterattack (unless the phasing is such that the first to move into LOS gets an immediate attack opportunity likely to severely reduce the opposing unit.) Perhaps it would be a more interesting scenario if it were possible to spot an enemy unit without being spotted, so that there is a strategic tradeoff between attacking and hiding?

- More important, since both players are moving markers that do not represent the actual position of a unit, and they don't know the exact location of opposing units, how does either player know when LOS exists?

- The basic game phasing rules for fire are not specified. While it might seem too obvious to mention, you have to actually state things like whether fire takes place at the end of each player's movement phases (or whatever).

- Rules for tier units shouldn't be mentioned (e.g. in the Action Phase section:  "For each additional Tier of AI Power past 1, add one action in each Phase. (AI Power goes from 1 to 4)." until later if they're not part of the basic play. The fact that you have to stop and remind the reader what AI Power is in the example quoted means that it's unnecessary and confusing to mention it here.

- All the tactics centered around LOS (e.g. attacking terrain that blocks it) seems rather quaint, given the futuristic weapon systems you're dealing with. With current technology just about every platform weapon has over-the-horizon capability, with ever-increasing options for targeting based on data feeds from remote sensors. It's likely that much of the initial "fire" in future battles will consist of projectile-delivered sensing systems attempting to locate the enemy; once located, taking an enemy unit out becomes a non-issue unless the enemy can evade, spoof, or destroy the sensors in time. Of course, I realize that there's war-game tradition involved in the AI design too.

When we discuss role playing game designs here at the Forge, we often ask game designers to state exactly what they want to achieve with their game before we can usefully evaluate whether or not their systems appear likely to meet their goals. While doing the same might not be absolutely necessary for evaluating a war game, it might still be interesting to consider. What do you want AI to do that other cyber-tank war games (going all the way back to Ogre, I guess) don't already do? What special feel or flavor do you want this particular battlefield to have?

- Walt

[Jabberwocky]

This is just what I wanted :-)  Thanks for pointing out the LOS thing... I have to admit I hadn't actually spotted that.  The Indirect targeting basically means that a unit may fire at the guessed location of a target.  I may scrap terrain attacks as well, at least for the time being.

As for the game itself, I'm trying to balance out the realism and gameplay a bit.  Yes, over-horizon targeting is possible, but remote sensors can be jammed, and some of the more powerful weapons are limited in range due to other factors.  

The feel of AI is a bit nebulous at the moment... I'm kind of aiming at a 'find the enemy before he finds you' stye of play, and I admit work needs to be done.  What I might do is replace the Emissions rules with a 'Threat Area' - an area in which a unit may be placed when position becomes important, but at other times its position may be taken as any hex in that area.

Just a couple of thoughts, will commence a bit of a re-write in a few days (moving accomodation etc. will delay this).

      Nick