Principles of Game Design

Game Design Analysis: Strike Force One

By Alan Emrich

Today, the hot game market is a first-person shooter on a video game platform. In the mid 1970s, when I was getting into games, the hot game market was board wargaming. This was a Golden Age of gaming, as game design principles were finally being discussed and shared with the gaming public and hence future generations of game designers. The ‘wisdom of the ancients’ dates back to designers of board wargames, and Strike Force One reveals many of their design principles in miniature. In this article, I will analyze several of its features as it relates to my course on Principles of Game Design.

Prologue

A few years after I became a dedicated game enthusiast, the big hobby publisher of the day, Simulations Publications, Incorporated (or SPI, as we knew it), released a free introductory war game called Strike Force One. This game was printed en masse and given away at every conceivable opportunity. It was designed to be a tool for introducing new players to the board wargaming hobby and replaced SPI’s venerable Napoleon at Waterloo that had hitherto served as their free introductory wargame. Strike Force One was faster to play, easier to learn, and cheaper to produce than Napoleon at Waterloo and so hobby enthusiasts accumulated dozens of copies of Strike Force One and gave them away to their friends.

But I went a step beyond that. At the time, I was a founder of the ORCCON game conventions, then held at Cal State Fullerton, and saw Strike Force One as a unique tournament game. By playing this, the smallest and easiest of all wargames out there, the winner would receive a copy of War in Europe, the nine map, 3,600 counter, four rules book maga-monster sized behemoth game of its day. Everyone wanted to win a free copy of War in Europe, so the entire convention would turn out for the Strike Force One tournament and the competition was always fierce.

The Hexagon Grid

You’ve probably seen games that use a hexagon grid to regulate the playing area before, but its invention was a very special solution to a particularly vexing problem. You see, prior to the hexagon grid, strategy games were always designed around a square grid, as you see on a chessboard. However, that western military schools that were adopting military simulation gaming to their curriculum (going back to the Prussian army of the 1860s) found a fatal flaw in the square grid system. That is, a unit moving one space diagonally along that grid moves 45% further than a unit moving one space horizontally or vertically along it. Thus, it was difficult to simulate realistic rates-of-movement using a square grid without putting bizarre restrictions on, or doing all kinds of mathematic calculations, to cover this anomaly of diagonal movement.

In the 1950s, the RAND Corporation, a Think Tank that helped solved these kinds of problems, found the solution to this square grid problem in the honeycomb of bees. The hex grid was developed to simulate a circle of options for every unit located on it. That is, the unit could move to any of six adjacent spaces and each would cover and equidistant amount; this was the end of the square grid diagonal movement dilemma. Suddenly, realism in game grids took on a hexagonal look that is still used to this day.

But the new grid came with its own problem, that of recording unit locations. It is important to uniquely identify each space to record unit positions and (later) to program them on computers. With the square grid, a lettered row and a numbered column identified each space on the map. Think of Battleship where you call out “H-7” to your opponent, who can easily find that space on the grid. But the grid for hexagons included a row or column that was offset by half a hexagon. Thus, a new way to identify each space was needed and eventually developed by SPI. When you look at the hexes on the Strike Force One map, you’ll see that each has a four-digit number. Quite simply, the first two digits indicate the column (and all hexes in that column share those same first two digits) and the last two digits represent the row (in other words, the specific hex down from the top in that column). Thus, the top-left hex on the map is hex 0101 and the hex below it is 0102 (same column, one hex further down). The bottom-right hex is 0908, indicating that it’s on the ninth row eight spaces down from the top. With this simple numbering system, the hexagonal grid evolved into the gaming institution that it is today.

Breaking Down the Strike Force One Game Design

Strike Force One definitely follows the first two rules of game design. It has kept it simple and used available techniques. Note the organization and structure of the rules. We’ll talk about the Case System later in class, but for now note the overall structure and use of examples in the rules. The Case System is logical evolving of game information organization, so learn this classroom lesson well.

Strike Force One is a game that is about a particular subject. Therefore, what is the game’s Subject, Scope, and Scale? What elements of Character, Story, and Plot does it have?

Strike Force One is a simulation game about a hypothetical Soviet invasion of the southern sector of what was then Western Germany (known as the “Fulda Gap”) during the Cold War (circa the 1970s) being delayed by US forces. The scale is not indicated, though one can guess that it is operational and each unit represents generic units of battalion to regiment size.

Note that, in a larger context beyond the scope of this battle, the US is trying to “buy time” in this battle so that it can perform Operation Reforger (flying US troops over to Europe to link up with all of their equipment that had been stockpiled there in advance; these reforged divisions would have to then be available to counter a Soviet invasion). The Soviets are in a hurry to overrun those stockpiles of US equipment so that those threatening forces cannot be reforged. Because of this situation, casualties don’t matter to either side – only results. Can the US stall the Soviets long enough by holding those two towns, or will the Soviets capture those positions and keep to their timetable of advancing quickly enough to prevent Operation Reforger and be free to overrun Europe?

What design features in the game ensure Dramatic Tension?

There are three key ingredients that ensure Dramatic Tension in Strike Force One. They are:

·   The combat die rolls that put the laws of probability to work (see below)

·   The time pressure of only four Game Turns which means the Soviet player can’t dawdle;

·   The Sequence of Play that gives the US player the last chance to move and fight; this means that recapture of a lost city is possible thus allowing the US can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat

·   That there is no chance for a draw; one player or the other will always win

What resources are used to play Strike Force One?

Each player has the following three resources in Strike Force One: units, space, and time. That is, they have a finite number of pieces (4 for the US and 6 for the Soviets), only so much ground to give and take (in particular, the three objective / town hexes), and only four turns in which to resolve the game (putting some time pressure on the Soviets).

Think like a game designer and design the unit values.

In a game designer’s mind, each unit has a strength of ‘1’ and a movement allowance of ‘4.’ They also have two other pieces of information actually printed on them. These are their nationality (either Soviet or US) and their individual identification letters. Therefore, each unit has four pieces of information: its ID, nationality, combat strength, and movement allowance.

The first rule of game design is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and one of the tools designers have to achieve this is to Design for Effect (that is, to get “straight to the  ‘boom’” by simplifying complex procedures). Where has Design for Effect gimmickry been put to good use in Strike Force One?

The combat system requires only a quick calculation and die roll to get to the end result of a complex tactical battle. That is, the players quickly to the ‘boom’ in combat. This keeps them focused on the Big Picture of winning the game (as opposed to narrowing their focus down to each individual battle in it by making each of them rich in detail; i.e., by employing a Design for Cause combat system).

Explain the Combat Results Table in terms of the Laws of Probability.

The Laws of Probability hold that, while a certain range of outcomes is possible [this of this as the columns on the Combat Results Table) in a conflict situation, the order in which they occur is subject to chance (represented by the rows on the Combat Results Table).

Thus, you can see that your chances improve with each additional unit brought into a battle (i.e., you can control what column you'll use in combat), but can’t guarantee which specific outcome will occur within the certain range that many units provide. This is subject to luck (simulated by a die roll, which determines the row used).

In the Fulcrums of Game Design, where is Strike Force One on the Luck vs. Skill scale?

This game is about in the middle on the Luck vs. Strategy scale. Players mass up their forces and set up favorable battles in key locations as the skill element, while the actual combat results vary in outcome based upon luck (the roll of a die on the Combat Results Table). It’s a roughly equal balance.

In the Fulcrums of Game Design, where is Strike Force One on the Realism vs. Playability scale?

The Realism vs. Playability scale is based upon the concept that a completely realistic game is unplayable and a completely playable game is unrealistic; therefore compromises must be made so that a game can be, so some degree, both realistic and playable. On this scale, Strike Force One clearly leans towards playability over realism (it is, after all, an introductory game, so playability is a paramount design goal). What little realism the game boasts is its historical theme, the Zone of Control movement restrictions (which simulate a unit’s ability to affect nearby areas), and the probabilities built into the Combat Results Table. One could also argue that the Soviet’s pass or fail victory conditions are also realistic given Cold War realities.

Under the subject of Zen and the Art of Play Balance, how does Strike Force One achieve play balance? What are each side’s advantages and disadvantages?

The Soviets have more pieces and make the initial move on the first Game Turn to set up optimal battles. In addition, the Soviets start with no ground that they need to defend, and thus are unfettered to maneuver their forces without worrying about “holding any ground.”

The US has better position on the map with some ground to give and gets the last Combat Phase on the final Game Turn, giving them the chance for a final counterattack. In addition, casualties are not computed into the game’s Victory Conditions. Thus, the US can lose one or even two units and still be able to squeeze out a win!

So, time, space, ignoring casualties, and getting the last opportunity to move and fight play to the US player’s advantage; numbers of units, unfettered commitment of resources to the battle, and the initial move to set up optimal opening attacks are the Soviet player’s strengths. Note that there is no chance for a "tie" outcome in this game.

In class, you’re taught to think first, and then design. One key concept here is to do a Vertigo Check on your game design ideas before you start building your Game Design Pyramid. That is, if you’re planning on building a pyramid that’s too tall, readjust your blueprint before you labor on a foundation of game design that will be too daunting to complete. Do a Vertigo Check on Strike Force One. How many quantifiable elements did the game’s designer (Jim Dunnigan) have to create?

   20; that is 10 units x 2 pieces of information on each (Nationality and ID)
+   2 unwritten values for all the units (Combat Strength and Movement Allowance)
+ 68 spaces on the board
+   3 different types of terrain on the board
+ 10 specific starting location hexes
+ 36 spaces to fill on the Combat Results Table (6 rows x 6 columns)
+   4 different types of results on the Combat Results Table
------
  143 quantifiable design "data points," not counting the rules and examples.

Computer Strike Force One

Computer Strike Force One recreates that game with all its optional rules and can be played either as a two-player game or against the computer. For a free download, click here.

System Requirements: IBM compatible PC. Must have Windows 95/98 or NT 3.51 and 256 color capability.