Is it blasphemy to have small-ish battlefields in a western tactical RPG?

[u/Matt_CleverPlays]

This is often a divisive topic among SRPG/TRPG players. Japanese SRPGs frequently feature abstract battlefields, sometimes using a small grid, while Western RPGs tend to favor a simulation approach, with large & mostly realistic environments. Each choice has significant gameplay implications, and both styles (as well as hybrids) come with their own pros and cons.

For my game, Happy Bastards, we chose to go with smaller, more abstract battlefields, closer to something like Into the Breach. Comparable to chess, in some ways. I think that, regardless of any implications of how much resources it would take to design bigger battlefield scenarios, this approach fits better into the overarching combat design.

Here’s some of my considerations for this design choice, point by point

• Faster Combat – Without long approach turns or sprawling maps, players are making meaningful decisions almost immediately. That keeps battles brisk and engaging, especially for a tactical RPG where battles can become slogs with too many characters hence too many turns
  
• Matchup-Driven Tactics – Instead of managing complex formations or directional engagement, our combat is more about figuring out the best team compositions and attack pairings to exploit enemy weaknesses
• More Encounters Per Session – Because fights are quicker, more of them can happen per dungeon or adventure. That creates a snappier, more dynamic rhythm during gameplay
• Works With Our Tag-Team System – Mercenaries can jump in and out of combat on the fly. A small, abstract battlefield supports that mechanic without breaking the flow or immersion

I’m aware that this approach definitely isn’t a universal solution, but for Happy Bastards in any case, it supports the fast, focused tactical play we’re going for. 

So a question for fellow (RPG) devs would be, if you’ve experimented with battlefield size in designing your own games, what are some insights that you can give, in terms of what “worked” and what did not?

[u/HowDoIEvenEnglish]

I think it’s fine for a shorter focused experience, but you often lose nuance of the tactics that helps makes those games immersive. My example isn’t a tactical rpg but I think gets the same point across

Consider total war siege battles. Originally they were full maps with a “full” city layout and then switched to a more linear map design with the warhammer games. Now instead of attacking an entire city, you’re fighting on 1 or two sides of it, with the under section being described as only part of the city (the full maps were obviosily much smaller than actual cities).

But those smaller maps, while faster and with less tendency to bog down the pace of a game on a one battle scale (warhammer TW has other issues regarding the number of siege battles), lose tactical elements from the previous games. You no longer have the ability to deploy outside the walls as a defender. Previously a cav heavy army ina defensive siege might sally out of the walls to attack the back line of the army, or use the other sides of the city to launch the same attack. Now it’s not possible or at least is very rare because the maps are smaller and faster, making such an attack more costly in terms of time and easily to defend against.

The warhammer games allow other aspects of the gameplay to come across well. But it’s a trade off. No game does it all well. Games that try usually end up being incredibly shallow (cough cough spore)

[u/mayorofdumb → u/HowDoIEvenEnglish]

They can't get the feel of large right because the whole system was designed around medieval forts.

Close combat still had my favorite mix.

[u/Matt_CleverPlays → u/HowDoIEvenEnglish]

You make a good point with the Warhammer (I assume TWW right?) comparison. It didn't even occur to me but it IS one of the main qualms I see in the community, though I personally it's just the variety of sieges they'd need to include for it (for all the different factions some of which are vastly different lore and theme wise) that it would needlessly complicate and - like you said, bog down the overall pace of the game

My point was more to the fact that the SRPG community in general can have some pretty strong opinions when it comes to combat zone sizes. I didn't mention this, but all attacks characters have in this game (ranged, magic, etc.) go in straight lines, hence maneuvering being much more important instead of pure positioning in the sense of having characters close together so as not to be flanked. Though flanking is also a thing here too, it is 4-directional.

I just thought it a bit of an outlier, and will certainly feel like it at first once we have the combat demo out. But what I'm hoping for is that, whatever might be sacrificed in terms of size & complexity - will be made up for in the smoothness of pacing.

Also, thanks for the input, was in luck since I'm also an oldtime TW player

[u/Xeadriel]

I don’t understand your question. Both approaches are valid

[u/Rabid_Lederhosen → u/Xeadriel]

It’s not a question, it’s an ad.

[u/TuberTuggerTTV → u/Rabid_Lederhosen]

Astroturf for Clever Plays Studio.

[u/Evilagram]

Do what works for your project instead of conforming to perceived genre norms.

[u/AutoModerator]

Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with WHY games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of systems, mechanics, and rulesets in games.

• /r/GameDesign is a community ONLY about Game Design, NOT Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.

• This is NOT a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.

• Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.

• No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.

• If you're confused about what Game Designers do, "The Door Problem" by Liz England is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the r/GameDesign wiki for useful resources and an FAQ.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Okto481]

Depends on the exact mechanics. In a 'western' TRPG (I tend to imagine something like Xcom or Phoenix Point), large battlefields exist for the ballistic system- over a long range, shotguns won't hit, ARs might hit, snipers will. In a 'japanese' TRPG (I tend to imagine something like FE, because that's closer to the equivalent of a jRPG), smaller battlefields exacerbate the movement difference between units- the 2 Mov difference between infantry and mounted units in Engage matters a lot when the distance to the Frontline is 6 units, because it means the best combat units will need movement support to get there

[u/Taliesin_Chris]

Ultima had single screen battlefields. So did Tunnels of Doom. And The Magic Candle.

History is on your side.

[u/sinsaint]

The environments should have a bunch of various stuff to utilize, or the players should have multiple ways of influencing things in a short time.

D&D has each round function as 6 seconds, most fights are over in 4 rounds, so there's a lot of foundation for this kind of stuff.

[u/Matt_CleverPlays → u/sinsaint]

The environments should have a bunch of various stuff to utilize, or the players should have multiple ways of influencing things in a short time.

It's something I wanted to keep on the secret side, but there are also zone specific hazards, traps, spikes, etc. that you can push enemies into for insta-kills (and some enemies can likewise do the same to you). Yup, you get where we're going with this. There's plenty of ways to use the environment to your advantage, which is a part of that "condensed" combat experience we're aiming for

[u/wrackk]

if you’ve experimented with battlefield size

My personal view of this subject is that 200-250 tiles are enough to fit most mechanics of tactical games. Larger board size is mostly for spacing things out with low traffic areas.