Perseus Patrol devlog #8

Stone, paper, scrissors. Chess. Most overused techniques.

Instead of the promised research focus, I had a different mood and creative energies lately turning me back to the new combat mechanics. I scaffolded a simple block-out in ThreeJS integrated into my demo to start visualizing this experience and it made me think more deeply.

With endless scope as any project can struggle with, my scope is about to balloon if I don't structure it. In the end, simple and elegant solutions play better, create more engagement and can bring an idea to wider audience.

We are all familiar with simple games and there is a good reason for the commonality among children. They are simple to learn, yet provide wide range of experiences. Can't use infinite, as they are all finite state machines, even chess with its astronomical numbers, there are still finite steps possible in the game.

Chess - the ever-lasting strategy game

Let's start with this old game, very much inspiring endless takes and genres. In sci-fi, almost always there is a variation put into three dimensions or more, both Star Trek and Andromeda series features games for storytelling or worldbuilding. Saw plenty of takes, even on latest Hungarian Game Dev expo a team pitched a new game for publishers entirely based on Chess, made real time.

Originally, I didn't wanted to do anything with Chess, it is so overused. But I have to agree, it has a framework hard to ignore for any good game:

• a set of pieces you control,
• a set of rules how those pieces move,
• clarity how the pieces interact,
• and a clear goal (take the opposite King).

And out of this few rules, born a game easy to learn, hard to master. So hard to master that there are people earning a life playing the game. Queen's gambit, anyone?

Putting Perseus Patrol's combat engagements into the same framework:

• have a set of pieces you control, be ground, air or space units,
• a set of rules how those pieces move, traverse layers,
• clear rules how the pieces interact with distance, direction, damage and other actions,
• and a clear goal for each mission, e.g. capture, hold, defend, exterminate.

Chess is turn based between two minds. Perseus Patrol will be real time, a major difference, yet what real time is really? Opposing minds still take turns acting and reacting, just they don't have a limit when they can move their pieces.

The key interaction seems to be the moving the pieces and let's dive a bit more into this. Chess has only movement, while space sim strategy games have a bit more options to do. A vessel can move close enough to another, but maybe not with the intent to attack. Maybe just boarding, or trading, sharing resources, to scan, etc. Yet all actions unlocked by the distance the pieces are from each other on the board.

Reminding ourselves from the 6th devlog, the layers are: subsurface, surface, aerial, atmospheric and orbital (with deep space acting as reserve layer).

We can imagine each layer as a chessboard with the subsurface and surface layers having natural and artificial obstacles, while the other layers having no obstacles, only active pieces.

Rock, paper, scrissors - simplicity rules

We all know this child's game. And we all know about its variations to more nerdy extensions a'la Big Bang Theory. Still fascinating for me that so many RTS games adapted it and made an otherwise dull game good. Just think of StarCraft and that you can't just build a single unit and win the game. You need to create a mix of units to be able to take on the enemy, or you risk being countered.

This is thanks to the simplicity of the rock-paper-scrissors. Where there are clear rules, if two units meet in one-to-one, one of them wins most of the time. An infantry that can close the distance fast will always beat a slowly hitting anti-armor tank. A fast moving bike will always destroy your infantry if you can't catch them with something armored. And so on.

Using this logic in a three dimensional space, a fast moving bomber could take on cruisers in a swarm and win if there is no fighter cover as they could outmanouver the slow and heavy ship and hit it from one direction.

Mapping unit classes

Chess has the pawn, rook, bishop, knight, queen and king, each with its own movement pattern and speed.

Rock, paper, scrissors define a win and counter logic.

Scope management is critical to success

As you can see if you follow my devlogs, the scope is just growing over any single developer can do in a reasonable amount of time. Best way to do this is to check each game mechanics and their parts against a single question:

• Is this core gameplay?

Obvious candidate to ask for, is subsurface a core gameplay element? I don't think so. It gives great options for a variety of planets and usage of terrain, however these are just widening the options a player can take. The core gameplay is about the management of multi-layer units and playing a real time chess against your opponent.

Cutting scope without damaging the core gameplay is essential for a successful project. Especially for a "pet" project. Even more so for a multi-million dollar AAA, where the leaks are even harder to stop when they already started.

In my management consulting years, almost all of the projects succeeded purely because we cut scope smartly. 2 months until deadline, decision between rebuilding a system part taking 3 months or integrating the old one that stands out from the experience, but takes two weeks. I fight for the integrate, most of the team already low on morale as that "won't be nice". But nice doesn't matter if the whole project is at risk of cancellation before it could reach the users. So we went with the integration. 1 step out of 15 was lower quality, older. Didn't matter for the users. The other 14 steps made up for it. Delivered barely on time, rolled out just after deadline and... the product is a resounding success in terms of investment.

Scope cutting is key. If you can't get people on board to cut, it will always bloat you to death. And a project that never turned revenue is a learning opportunity at best. An investment failure and a bad lesson for the organization. Career ending at worst.

What else can I cut from the game scope?

Most of the units are there for countering each other, but a rationalization can be done as a next step. Carrier can't be cut, it is the main story element 🙂

Summary

Simple game logics sell as people know them and they can learn quickly even if they are overused, can be used as inspiration.

Chess is often used for sci-fi settings, combat engagements can be thought of multi-layered chess boards.

Rock, paper, scrissors principles keep the combat fresh instead of the dullness of using a single God unit for everything.

Scope cutting is key for project success.

Next time, I try to focus on the research side of these. I may diverge into more details on the units and how they interact, especially the role of the layers. Let's see what the future brings!