Im currently building a browser-based game, which basicly goes like: 2 Players place starships on a 2d plane, move them around and fire their guns at each other. The game is divided by turns, each one has 2 phases Phase 1 - Movement Phase 2 - Firing

Summarized, it is basicly a table-top game played in the browser.

Due to earlier experience i want to avoid the issue of Players talking movement in turns, i.e. Player A moves ship 1, B moves 2, A moves 3, B moves 4. It makes for some awkward experience and delays the actual firing Phase too Long.

So instead im aiming for something along the lines of "Both Players move all their ships in one step and see the actual Resolution of ALL ships movement afterwards - they then can issue weapons fire".

The Problem is: Manovering ships in this game is Kind of important, because weapons have different arcs of fire and ships different parts of structure. So ideally i want to make "smart" movement choices in order to bring as many weapons as possible to bear while also protecting damaged parts of my fleet / ships.

However, with parallel, "blind" movement, i cant really make smart choices.

What would be a way, from a game-design Point of view, to allow parallel, blind movement while also ensuring impactful choices ?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ As a data sample, Toribach is a turn-based puppet fighting game with simultaneous turns. It does work quite well. \$\endgroup\$
    – Quentin
    Sep 5, 2016 at 8:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ To offer concrete suggestions here, it would help to see some examples from your game. Say, a sample turn and what kind of movement orders a player would want to be able to issue in that scenario. Also take a look at games like Frozen Synapse which have mechanics allowing players to specify firing directions during a move, and let units react to other units entering the line of fire in the middle of the resolved movements. \$\endgroup\$
    – DMGregory
    Sep 5, 2016 at 11:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ So far this sounds pretty much like Fantasy Flight's X-Wing miniature game. The point of the game is that you must try to predict your opponents moves in a (space) dogfighting game. \$\endgroup\$
    – Felsir
    Sep 5, 2016 at 18:53

1 Answer 1


Don't fight it, embrace it.

It adds a new layer of psychology to the game. When a player anticipates their opponents next move, they can plan their move in a way which keeps the enemy in their firing arc while staying outside of theirs.

The hardest part to get this to work will be to figure out how much players can move during their turn. When you allow players to move too much in their move-phase, it will be impossible to guess moves. When they move too little, it will be too easy for players to keep each other in range.

Limiting movement actions per round to turning a certain amount of degree and moving forward a certain distance might make their movement more predictable.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is exactly my current train of thougth. Very good. Limit movement so i can still with some accuracy predict whats possible and countermove while still offering enough movement as to outsmart my opponents expections. If you have more ideas / suggestions / General thoughts, Keep em coming. Thanks. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 5, 2016 at 9:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user431806 Stackexchange is really not the appropriate platform for idea brainstorming. You might want to try a more informal community for that. The game design forum on gamedev.net or /r/gamedev, for example. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philipp
    Sep 5, 2016 at 11:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would recommend that you have a look at SteamBirds spryfox.com/our-games/steambirds-survival to see how Spry Fox successfully solved this very design issue. It might inspire you. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 7, 2016 at 15:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .