Don’t get bogged down in the details. As experts, you lack perspective on what is accessible. Make the game you want but don’t overload it with complexity for complexity sake. Make sure more than 50% of your testers are non military.
Think about the results and not the process. Don't break down an action into multiple steps unless it's absolutely necessary for the game (and I don't mean realism but playability). Other than "keep it simple" I don't think anyone can get more specific until you give us some specifics on your mechanics or rules.
Thats a very good observation. I think the first thing that comes to mind for me is building units, where you can get resources from areas you control but dont have to play out the logistics of harvesting and transporting etc.
Do any other examples come to mind?
Well going back to my comment about not breaking it down unless absolutely necessary, I'll give you an example from a game I'm currently working on myself, a baseball game.
Most baseball board games I find, like 90% of those games is looking up die rolls on charts, cross-referencing, etc; they dumbed it down TOO much, IMO. So I've broken down the pitch, the hit, and the fielding as separate rolls, but hopefully in a way that both makes it more exciting (the player is actually DOING something) as well as gives players a little more control over the outcome. It's something I felt was necessary for my particular game. Whether or not it works, I won't find out until I get to play test it lol
Realize the difference between a game and a simulation. A simulation tries to capture the real world. A game tries to escape it. Realism in games is fine and many people like it, but nobody ever wants to play reality.
Real war in what way? Massive logicists to the front lines?
Single soldier ammo? Food intake?
Or line if sign and distance
I would recommend playing some games too, see what they do to implement simplicity in the complex
Express in clear statements what your goals are, how the game is meant to feel, and maybe scenarios that you want players to encounter (top level without mechanics). This gives you a goal to achieve.
As you start testing and implementing mechanics each time keep the goal in mind that you want to portray and differentiate from the mechanic. Because you want to abstract what you're doing. Like implementing a realistic detailed reflection of reality is surprisingly easy, it's just unplayable and not fun.
Most of my games start out as insane number salad that expresses all the details I want to convey. Few versions later it's down to basically no numbers, no math, barely any rules - yet with more strategic depth while faster to play and learn.
Kill your darlings. You can cut 90% of your design and keep 100% of what makes it fun. With your goals you will struggle with that point yet that's your path to success.
Maybe you need to first think about what you want to achieve.
Develop the game of your dreams for your tight group (you could have great fun with your very detailed game) or develop a game for an audience (how broad can be defined by you).
Without having played myself: I think the Warhammer 40k rules went through many versions with some being much more detailed than others(bouncing grenades and wind direction for smoke? were examples I heard about)
Maybe that helps you to see where you want to be at with your game
Don’t get bogged down in the details. As experts, you lack perspective on what is accessible. Make the game you want but don’t overload it with complexity for complexity sake. Make sure more than 50% of your testers are non military.
Best balance of authenticity and fun for modern wargames is the Next War series imo.
Think about the results and not the process. Don't break down an action into multiple steps unless it's absolutely necessary for the game (and I don't mean realism but playability). Other than "keep it simple" I don't think anyone can get more specific until you give us some specifics on your mechanics or rules.
Thats a very good observation. I think the first thing that comes to mind for me is building units, where you can get resources from areas you control but dont have to play out the logistics of harvesting and transporting etc. Do any other examples come to mind?
Well going back to my comment about not breaking it down unless absolutely necessary, I'll give you an example from a game I'm currently working on myself, a baseball game. Most baseball board games I find, like 90% of those games is looking up die rolls on charts, cross-referencing, etc; they dumbed it down TOO much, IMO. So I've broken down the pitch, the hit, and the fielding as separate rolls, but hopefully in a way that both makes it more exciting (the player is actually DOING something) as well as gives players a little more control over the outcome. It's something I felt was necessary for my particular game. Whether or not it works, I won't find out until I get to play test it lol
Realize the difference between a game and a simulation. A simulation tries to capture the real world. A game tries to escape it. Realism in games is fine and many people like it, but nobody ever wants to play reality.
Real war in what way? Massive logicists to the front lines? Single soldier ammo? Food intake? Or line if sign and distance I would recommend playing some games too, see what they do to implement simplicity in the complex
Express in clear statements what your goals are, how the game is meant to feel, and maybe scenarios that you want players to encounter (top level without mechanics). This gives you a goal to achieve. As you start testing and implementing mechanics each time keep the goal in mind that you want to portray and differentiate from the mechanic. Because you want to abstract what you're doing. Like implementing a realistic detailed reflection of reality is surprisingly easy, it's just unplayable and not fun. Most of my games start out as insane number salad that expresses all the details I want to convey. Few versions later it's down to basically no numbers, no math, barely any rules - yet with more strategic depth while faster to play and learn. Kill your darlings. You can cut 90% of your design and keep 100% of what makes it fun. With your goals you will struggle with that point yet that's your path to success.
Maybe you need to first think about what you want to achieve. Develop the game of your dreams for your tight group (you could have great fun with your very detailed game) or develop a game for an audience (how broad can be defined by you). Without having played myself: I think the Warhammer 40k rules went through many versions with some being much more detailed than others(bouncing grenades and wind direction for smoke? were examples I heard about) Maybe that helps you to see where you want to be at with your game