I just need some feedback whether it's good or bad id appreciate any and all feedback! This is a link to my landing page that has all the information you need! https://bftoc.carrd.co/

So far what I have in my head is to split them up into individual rooms split by a hallway and I flip a coin to decide who I explain the rules to first. I tell them that they have both been arrested for a bank robbery, and I am a dirty cop on the inside that can help them get their money back.

I tell them they have two options, cooperate, or betray. If both of them decide to cooperate, I give each one $1, if one cooperates and one betrays, the betrayer gets $3 and the other gets none, and if they both decide to betray they both get nothing. I plan on continuing this for numerous rounds so they can start raking in a little money, and then I also think it would be a good idea to add special rounds like where I give them an option to bribe the officer so I can tell them their brother's play for the next two rounds. Or I give them an option to parlé between rounds where I give them maybe 15 seconds to converse and either figure out a strategy or scheme against the other.

Does anyone have any cool thoughts or ideas on what I can add to this game to make it cooler or funner to play? They also have an older brother too that is 15 and hed kind of like to have a role in it as well, though I wont be giving him any of the money. Im thinking ill do $60-$80 in total that will be in play between the two of them. Would be interesting to hear maybe a cool idea for a finale when they get a chance to win a larger chunk.

What do you guys think?

Hello everyone ! I'm a solo dev working on a dark fantasy survivors-like where the main hook is sacrificing your own HP to become more powerful.

On paper, I love the idea. But in practice, I'm really struggling to make it work.

Player feedback suggests that the powers you gain don't feel strong enough to justify losing HP.

I keep adding features and mechanics trying to fix this, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm just overcomplicating a fundamentally flawed concept.

I've been reading Tynan Sylvester's Designing Games, and one takeaway is that when you're stuck on a design problem, it helps to seek outside perspectives. So here I am.

At what point do you stop trying to fix a core mechanic and consider moving on to another game? Any advice on how you'd approach this problem?

If anyone wants to try it and see how the mechanic feels in practice, there's a playable Steam Playtest available: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4985860/Dreadbleed/

Hello everybody :)

I am implementing item upgrading in my game and have a problem which i at first thought is pretty simple but now is giving me headache for days.

In my game the player has a very minimalistic Inventory and Equipment UI.
Then there is also the uprading overlay. In this the Item is already selected and the player has a few options on how to upgrade the selected item.

Now my problem is how to connect those 2 states with best UX in mind.
At the moment i have an upgrade button on my screen and when the player clicks it, it will prompt the player to select an item and will highlight all items on the screen. Everything else is faded out a bit. After the selection the overlay opens with the selected item and the player can upgrade the item with the different options.

But this does not feel good to use somehow.

In my game the upgrading is not connected to any "upgrading items" so its no option to just directly select the upgrading material and drag it onto an item (Like in Path of exile).

I also thought about a context menu: Go to item -> right click -> Select Upgrade. But this feels somehow a bit of an overkill as my game does not use such context menu anywhere else and it would feel wrong to implement it just to have only one option in the end.

Does anyone has some tips, tricks and insides? Any good examples or ideas how to solve this problem?

I'm developing Tactics to the devil dungeon, a party-based SRPG, and I'm weighing two progression decisions. I'd like to hear what players and other designers prefer.

1. What should happen after the ending?

Once you clear the Demon King's castle, the story ends and the credits roll. One option I'm considering is letting you return to the world map afterward. You could revisit the other maps, fight random monster encounters, and keep playing with the party you've built. The castle itself would remain off-limits.

Would you enjoy that even if it mainly reuses the existing maps, or would you rather the game finish at the ending? I can see the appeal of having somewhere to try different party builds, but I'm unsure whether random battles alone would give players a reason to stay. What would make that freedom worthwhile for you?

2. What level should companions join at?

During the campaign, you meet recruitable companions in different towns. I'm considering a few ways to set their starting levels:

• A fixed level based on the town or stage of the story.
• A level close to your active party when you recruit them.
• A lower starting level, with faster catch-up experience.

I want a new companion to be worth trying without making the time spent raising your existing party feel wasted. I also don't want delaying recruitment to become the best strategy just because recruits scale to your level. Which approach feels fairest, especially if you return to an earlier town much later?

Examples of SRPGs that handle either decision well would help. These are options I'm considering, not confirmed features.

For visual context, the Steam page has combat screenshots, and you can wishlist it there if you'd like to follow development.

You steer the cat with a laser pointer, and he only goes for the dot when it's in front of him and not hidden behind a wall or furniture. Neither player worked that out, and one of them kept calling the game clunky.

We'd rather the room teach it than a popup - what have you seen work for a rule the player can't see?

I am reading Unit Operations, so far it's quite thought provoking and I find some ideas that can be used in making video games. He seems more popular in general philosophy and academic area rather than video game industry tho. What are your thoughts on his works?

Hey everyone!

I'm working on a 2.5D survival game and trying to figure out the best approach for the tutorial, balancing dev effort vs. player experience.

I'm torn between three options:

A) Quest-driven: Step-by-step tasks. You get a tip/quest, and the next one won't show up until you complete it.

B) Contextual / Reactive: Tips pop up based on what you do. (e.g. you craft a furnace for the first time -> a tip shows how to place it).

C) Open Manual / Codex: A basic in-game guide always accessible in a menu or corner that you can check whenever.

My main worry with B (Contextual) is that if a player skips an item or action, they'll miss the tip entirely. On the flip side, A can feel too hand-holdy/linear for a survival game, and C might just get ignored by most players.

What system do you usually prefer to implement or play with in survival games?

Thanks!

I'm developing a text-based RPG and trying to design a hunting system, but I'm struggling to find the right balance between depth and pacing.

When I add more detail for realism examining tracks, checking the surroundings, and figuring out how to approach an animal the process starts feeling like a repetitive checklist. But when I simplify it, hunting becomes something you finish by clicking one or two options, without much thought.

I'd like the player to feel like they're actually tracking and hunting an animal, while keeping repeated hunts enjoyable.

What decisions would make hunting interesting in a text-based game? How would you make investigating clues worthwhile without making players feel they have to inspect everything on every hunt?

I'd also love to hear about games that handle this balance well.

I'm making an idle party RPG (auto-battle + loot) and I'm trying to get the first 10 minutes right.

When you try a new idle game, what makes you close the tab early?

1. How it looks: art and mood
2. Something new you haven't seen before
3. Getting a reward fast: loot, power-ups
4. Knowing what to do next

And the opposite — which game hooked you fast, and how?

I'm working on a single player card battle game where instead of creatures dealing damage its dice. One of the modes in the game is to explore a top down dungeon where you collect cards to improve your deck while battling roaming enemies. I'm happy with the way it works and with what I have so far but it feels like I'm missing something and I just can't put my finger on it. Here is a list of the mechanics I have:

• A boss room/battle to progress to the next floor
  • The boss is harder than the roaming enemies
  • The boss will spawn 2-5 treasure chests once defeated
• Roaming enemies that will chase the player if they get close enough
  • If they collide with the player it starts a battle
• A few different types of traps
  • A 1 time damage trap
  • 1 that damages the player each time they step on it
  • A teleport trap that sends the player to another teleport trap somewhere on the floor
  • Each trap can be active, inactive, or hidden
    • Hidden traps become revealed once triggered
• Treasure chests that can give the player cards, starter modifiers, or rings
  • Some chests are mimics that start a battle once opened
• Fountains to heal the player or give them some temporary barrier
• A shop to buy cards, upgrades, and healing
• There are doors through out the floor that can be unlocked, locked, or hidden
  • Locked need a key of the same color
  • Hidden look like a wall and don't prompt to open
• Keys to open the doors that carry over from floor to floor but go away once used
• Rings that provide buff/debuffs for the player and enemy in battle
  • A player can wear up to 10 rings and most rings can only be worn on a specific finger
• Each floor is themed to match the archetype of the boss
  • The art goes with the theme
  • The enemies are more likely to be the same archetype of the boss
• There is a fog of war around the player to limit their sight around corners and behind doors
• A spin dodge that lets the player avoid traps and enemies

I'm currently working on adding decorative items and tile variances to help with the looks, but I don't think that's going to be enough. Any ideas for what I could add to the dungeon that could make it more engaging?

Here is a link to my game so you can see what I currently have in action: https://anumbskull.itch.io/the-wyrd-roll

I'm developing Q-Gambit, a chess variant, and would like advice on evaluating a particular trade-off in its rules.

A piece starts with several possible identities. It can use a move allowed by a remaining identity; making that move eliminates identities that cannot make it. Both players can inspect the remaining candidates.

A concrete example from a CPU match: e2-f4 immediately leaves only Knight. The jump gets the piece out over the starting ranks, but it also gives up every non-knight move for the rest of its life. In contrast, a clear diagonal move can preserve Bishop and Queen as possibilities. Each side has exactly two original knight identities, so committing one also uses part of that shared quota.

The potential cost has two parts: reduced future mobility and information given to the opponent. I don't have human playtest data establishing that the knight jump is too weak. I'd like to distinguish players avoiding it because they misunderstand the commitment from players understanding it and finding it seldom worthwhile.

What would you look for in a small playtest to separate those explanations? Is there a useful comparison between positions or rule variants that isolates the commitment cost without changing several things at once? Examples of other games that spend future flexibility for an immediate move would also help.

Game context: https://q-gambit.com/ (guest tutorial and CPU practice; first guest entry has a terms/privacy confirmation). AI assists the coding and this post's English wording.

I've recently bought "Path of Titans" and considered "The Isle". The fantasy is so strong that the beginning of the game is a joy regardless of the gameplay. You discover how the ecosystem works, the sounds, the food chain,...

When you are small everything feels dangerous and fun. Decisions are very impactful. Now, as you grow big or as you get joined by friends, the threat disappears and the game feels empty.

I've played "Fish and grow: fish" and found that the "loop" is very similar. The game has a meta progression where you grind something to unlock new species. But the game itself lacks good decisions once you are a super predator.

If anyone else has the same kind of feeling or just have something to share I'd be happy to discuss/read your opinions on this genre of game.

Have you found one that is not falling flat once you are big? What should these game try to do?

I'm developing a browser game called Evergrowing Codex. You invent spells in your own words, record them in a personal spellbook, and use them to solve authored trials. I'm trying to make a loop where players want to discover useful magic, test it in different situations, and see themselves as part of a world other players are also exploring.

The basic loop

• Four elements can be combined: Fire changes heat, Air changes airflow and pressure, Earth shapes existing solid material, and Water changes liquid flow.
• An AI Judge evaluates a proposed mechanism and gives a successful spell a saved definition and limits. Later casts use those capabilities plus the player's intent. Players can also research variations of their spells.
• Each element has separate mastery, called a Circle. Scale, range, duration, and control affect what can be created. A small magical change can trigger a useful ordinary physical chain reaction.
• Trials have visible objectives and constraints, with one to three casts per attempt. Changes persist between casts, allowing one spell to prepare conditions for another.

For example, one trial asks you to keep a small flame alive in a draft without blocking ventilation. Redirecting the air or maintaining a suitable thermal effect can both work. Other scenes involve clearing passages, handling fragile mechanisms, or stopping creatures whose behaviour makes a direct attack insufficient.

Encouraging different trials and approaches

Recording distinct mechanisms advances elemental mastery, while clearing key Tower trials opens floors and raises the ceiling for further advancement. A “next goal” recommendation points toward an unfinished trial, prioritizing key trials. There is also a story goal of reaching the third floor and discovering what the Tower preserves.

Achievements and selectable titles recognize things like applying different mechanisms, useful spell combinations, mixed-element forms, and some authored alternative solutions. These give recognition rather than extra power. The intention is to encourage exploration; I haven't established whether these incentives actually produce more varied play.

The World Stone

The World Stone is a public chronicle, separate from each player's private spellbook. It has sections for spell discoveries, trial completions, and world history/events. First discoveries credit their discoverers, and public entries can lead to spell cards or player profiles. Other players can independently recreate a mechanism; authorship doesn't grant exclusive ownership. Public spell cards leave the creator's private construction notes hidden.

I want it to give players curiosity about what others have accomplished and ideas about what to try next. I'm unsure whether hiding the mechanism preserves discovery or leaves too little useful information.

The Spirit companion

A Spirit introduces the game and explains results. After repeated failed spell formations, it can offer a short contextual explanation and a guiding question about refining the player's own idea. It doesn't change the Judge's verdict or cast spells for the player. The current adaptive assistance avoids handing over a complete replacement spell.

AI adjudication can still be inconsistent, so a companion's explanation isn't enough by itself. Players need feedback that helps them distinguish a flawed idea, an effect beyond their abilities, and a questionable ruling.

Resources and possible monetization

A research resource buys up to five formation attempts, with one spell recorded per session. A separate resource pays for a trial attempt. Both replenish daily.

I'm considering monetization, but haven't settled on a model: cosmetic customization, paid collections of additional trials, or a supporter subscription with a research allowance are possibilities. More paid attempts could also mean more chances to claim first discoveries, even if spell power and judging rules stay the same.

I'd appreciate thoughts on any of these specific questions; there's no need to answer all of them:

1. Varied play: would you encourage trying different trials through milestone gates, rewards for applying different mechanisms, or recommendations tied to the player's spells? What would make this feel like exploration rather than a checklist?
2. The World Stone: what should a public discovery or completion reveal to inspire another experiment without giving away a solution? What would make you return to this chronicle?
3. The Spirit: when should it intervene, and how direct should its help be? Would you keep guiding questions, add optional explicit hints, or simplify its role?
4. Monetization: which of the options above fits this loop, and what would you change about public first-discovery recognition if paid research attempts existed?
5. Improvement or removal: which part of this loop would you strengthen, simplify, or cut first, and what player behaviour would tell you that the change worked?

You can discuss the mechanics without playing. For context, the prototype is Evergrowing Codex, where you can create spells and test them in trials.

Just generally curious since those enemies tend to make you easily take some dmg

Playing Blood of the Dawnwalker. Good game, abysmal loot system. Just finished a quest where you reforge a legendary sword, a three part quest that requires you to travel all over the map. By the end, the legendary silver sword is reforged, and drum roll... It deals ~14% more damage to supernatural enemies.

The only weakness of vampires in the game is silver and sunlight. This pure silver sword only deals 14% more damage to vampires compared to some dumb longsword from a merchant.

I see this pattern in so many games. Witcher 3 had a similar quest where you get a sword from this legendary blacksmith, only to find out it is worse than what you have equipped.

I understand a part of the reason is leveled loot, which is a whole different conversation. But I just don't understand why they can't slap on 100% additional damage to vampires to this supposedly legendary sword.

If it trivializes fights against vampires, so be it. This is not a game that is solely focused on combat. It's a role playing game, why deny the player the power fantasy?

If you really must balance it, you easily can. Just make strong bosses dodge or parry some of your attacks, or put a downside to the weapon, like it uses more stamina or slowly drains your health.

I just can't understand why so many big studios are so lazy with designing loot. They surely have the budget and people to design interesting loot. Are they trying to play it safe? Do they simply not care about loot and focus on story? Idk, interested in everyone's thoughts.

Hi everyone!
I barely post on reddit but I thought this would be a good place to post. For the past few years I’ve been working on a prototype for my walking sim. My goal fron the beginning was to create a gme where the point is to travel from one place to another on foot, but to make the walking the main mechanic that the player is engaging with. I wanted to create this because I loved the big open worlds of AAA games but felt like walking in them was not engaging enough in terms of interactivity, not just the graphics and art. So my game has a balance system, a body simulation system, and a cure system.
So my main inspirations were Gone Home, Metal Gear Solid (3 and 5) Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, Project Zomboid, Death Stranding, and Baby Steps.
Right now I have a prototype with the player system, IK with animations, body sim, balnce sim, procedural trip hazards, procedural terrain, various mini-games (water drinking, stair climb, bandage apply), a weather/time+day system, cinematic system, save/load.

My big thing with this project is that all the systems are in place, but my lack of level design experience makes it hard to create an environment where this system feels natural, and more importantly, fun. How can I create a more fun system while also sticking to the original goal of making walking engaging?

For example, if im jogging in the game for a while, then the player runs low on stamina, which causes the “heavy exhertion” body sim moodle. So of course I press a button to sit down and recover, and once I recover the stamina, I stand up and keep walking. It does NOT feel fun to do this, but I am getting stuck finding a solution for it. Can anyone share some expertise?

Hi! I've been doing research on the history of dodging in video games (not just moving out of the way, but as a separate mechanic). So far, I have tracked down:

• Punch-Out!!: The first game to include dodging in the flow of gameplay, where you look at your opponent's movements and act accordingly.
• 1942: The first game to have i-frames in a dodge.
• Cabal: The ancestor of the classic dodge roll.

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you have any objections to the games I tracked down?
2. Are there any games that you remember for good dodging mechanics, so I can look into them and see if they added new perspectives to the mechanic?

Hey, I find Mafia to be a really interesting party game, so I’ve come up with some new roles that I think would make the game more interesting. A lot of them already exist, though I’ve added some extra little details to try and balance it out as much as possible

I encourage questions, since an important thing I’m going for it to make sure my explanation is helpful and not confusing

The actual structure of the game isn’t much different from a normal game. Some things to note are that all players’ votes are public, not anonymous, and skip/abstain is always an option. Additionally, if two players or the skip option tie for most votes, nobody is eliminated. To be voted out, a plurality, not necessarily a majority, is required (so with 7 people voting, a 3-2-2 split would cause the person with 3 votes to die, despite 3/7 not being a majority)

Also, all players have their roles revealed upon their death

The game is divided into Rounds, with a single round consisting of a Night Phase and a Day Phase. During Night Phase, everyone closes their eyes and certain roles take turns waking and doing night actions. During the Day Phase, all alive players discuss who they think the Mafia are and vote

Order of night actions: Mafia (including Mafia abilities), Doctor(s), Vigilante

Civilian-aligned roles:

Regular Civilian:

Do not have a special ability, basically function as the default. However, even without any role, their ability lies in the fact that there are so many of them. Even removing special roles, Regular Civilians outnumber all other players, and that essentially acts as their ability

Doctor:

Wakes up after the Mafia and chooses someone to protect. If the Mafia target that person, they don’t die.

Doctors are allowed to protect themselves, but they’re not allowed to protect the same person two nights in a row

If there are 2 Doctors, they wake together and agree on one person to save, essentially acting as just one

Some additional caveats of the Doctor will be explained in the Vigilante, Regular Mafia, Jailer, and Detonator sections

Vigilante:

Wakes up after the Mafia and chooses someone to shoot who they believes is Mafia.

This shot is OPTIONAL, they do NOT have to shoot someone every night, but they do get a chance every night so long as they’re alive

If they shoot a Mafia, that Mafia dies and the Vigilante’s identity remains hidden

If they shoot a Civilian, both that Civilian and the Vigilante both die

If the Doctor saves the Vigilante, then they survive even if they chose wrong. If the Doctor saves the person the Vigilante shot, neither of them die

Additional caveats explained in the Regular Mafia and Jailer section

Judge:

The Judge does not wake at night, as their ability only functions during the day. The Judge has the ability to override the voting process and decide unilaterally who is executed. They must do this publicly, revealing their role to everyone. They must also do so before votes are cast

Unlike the Vigilante, the Judge is only allowed to do so once per game, but they are not punished for incorrectly executing a Civilian

Martyr:

The Martyr also doesn’t wake at night, only functioning during the day. During any discussion period, the Martyr must publicly reveal their role and choose one person to expose

The person the Martyr chooses then must truthfully state whether to are Civilian-aligned or Mafia-aligned (not their special role). However, regardless of the result, doing so comes at the cost of the Martyr’s life, so they essentially exchange guaranteed information for their life

Mafia-aligned roles:

Regular Mafia:

Wakes up at night, and chooses one person to kill. Unless saved by the Doctor, that person dies the next morning. They are not allowed to kill fellow Mafia

If they are unsuccessful with a kill (due to a Doctor save), they are NOT allowed to target that same person the following night

Note: all Mafia-aligned roles have these abilities as a baseline, subsequent roles simply have additional abilities

Jailer:

After choosing who to kill, the Jailer then has the ability to choose one person to jail. Unlike killing, jailing can’t be stopped by the Doctor

The jailed person is then, for the next Day Phase, not allowed to speak, vote, or (importantly) be voted for. This means they essentially skip a round

The Jailer is allowed to jail ANYONE, including fellow Mafia, including themself. But any person can only be jailed once per game. The Jailer’s ability ends either when all alive players have been jailed or only 6 people remain, whichever comes first

If the Jailer chooses to jail the Doctor or Vigilante, their ability is cancelled, though they won’t know this until the day, when the jailing is actually announced. If the Judge or Martyr is jailed, they’re not allowed to use their abilities that day

Detonator:

At the very start of the game, the Detonator chooses one person to plant a bomb on, this person then becomes the Bomb Target

If the Detonator is killed for any reason, the bomb explodes, and the Bomb Target, along with the two people sitting immediately to the left and right of them, all die. (Note: this only applies if those people are alive, if they’re already dead, no effect)

However, if the Doctor chooses to protect the Bomb Target at any point during the game, the bomb is permanently defused, and won’t explode upon the Detonator’s death. Nobody will know that the bomb was defused

If the Bomb Target dies for any reason before the Detonator, the bomb simply disappears with them

Converter:

The Converter is the only ability in the game that needs to be “unlocked”. At the start of the game, the Converter is essentially a Regular Mafia

However, if the Converter ends up being the last Mafia alive, AND there are at least 6 people alive, their ability unlocks

The Converter can choose one person to join them as a Mafia. That person will be notified of their change immediately and must forfeit their previous role. All players will be made aware of the conversion, though they obviously won’t know who was converted. This converted person then becomes a Regular Mafia (no special abilities)

Role distributions:

Note: these are not concrete

6-8 players: 1 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia), 5-7 Civilians (1 Doctor, 4-6 Regular Civilians)

9-12 players: 2 Mafia (2 Regular Mafia), 7-10 Civilians (1 Doctor, 6-9 Regular Civilians)

13-14 players: 2 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer), 11-12 Civilians (1 Doctor, 1 Judge, 9-10 Regular Civilians)

15-18 players: 3 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer, 1 Converter), 12-15 Civilians (2 Doctors, 1 Vigilante, 1 Judge, 8-11 Regular Civilians)

19-23 players: 4 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer, 1 Detonator, 1 Converter), 15-19 Civilians (2 Doctors, 1 Vigilante, 1 Judge, 1 Martyr, 10-14 Regular Civilians)

24+ players: 5 Mafia (2 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer, 1 Detonator, 1 Converter), 19+ Civilians (2 Doctors, 1 Vigilante, 1 Judge, 1 Martyr, 14+ Regular Civilians)

Additional rules:

If 3 rounds go by without anyone being killed for any reason, one person will be chosen to die completely at random

Lying about roles is a valid strategy, but the host must mechanically confirm that the Judge or Martyr is telling the truth about their role for them to use their abilities

Basically what the title says. I've been working on a game with some friends and we've gotten a basic movement build down so we can move the player around, strafe on walls/ramps, and mantle up blocks. We were thinking about exploring what makes movement levels fun to travel through. Would love people's thoughts about notable levels, why they were so satisfying, or what makes you come back to a particular game/level.

We've been action blocking some ideas, but I want to explore what else is out there based on games I might have never heard of or played before.

I'm currently making a tower defense game where you build up your armored train to fend off loads of enemies. When I released my prototype, the gameplay could be described as a train going in circles around your base, and every time you level up, you choose one out of three random options of gun carriages in order to build up your armored train.

I got some feedback on my prototype, and I had lots of people mention that the train in my game should do a lot more than just go in circles. Some say that it'd be cool if they could create their own rail network. My thought process was that the players wanted more autonomy and more freedom when it came to creating their defense and their build, so I decided that a good pivot was to have multiple bases and a pre-made rail network in which the player can use junctions to be able to move their train to defend certain bases depending on where the highest concentration of enemies are.

My question is if I'm correct in understanding that players want more freedom and autonomy in creating their own strategies? Is the idea of creating levels with more complex rail networks good? Or would it be better to just implement a rail creation system like the feedback said?

(I'm also getting rid of the choose one out of three mechanic and instead I'll have something similar to plants vs zombies where you are given a catalog of unlocked carriages, and you choose a few to bring with you depending on the level design. You incrementally gain money during a level and then you purchase carriages. This is another solution I think would help out with allowing the player to create more personalized builds and more depth with strategies.)

I haven't published any changes to the old prototype. You can check it out if you'd like more insight:

https://shoobox.itch.io/exo-rail

I'm making a grand strategy game set around the WW2 period(which I will expand to the whole 20th century if it is successful).

The main question in my head now is how abstract do I want the mechanics to be? I'm working with Hearts of Iron 4 being about the baseline of my complexity, but I'm unsure how much further to push it. Examples of things I definitely want to add:

A range stat for equipment to make artillery useful

More accurate distribution of resources and the processes to extract them

Expansion of research from just clicking some buttons into a proper mechanic (probably merging special projects and normal research together in the process)

Decreasing the importance of reinforce rate and combat width and thus reinforce meming as a thing

How much further should I take this? Should I model a whole economy or stick to mils and civs? Should I give the player total control of every unit like all other games do or make generals and field marshals their own AI? What do you think?

Any suggestions from people who play WW2 strategy games would be appreciated

I admit, I save anything I plan for my games in my head. Maybe I'd have things written down if it wasn't so clunky and bothersome.

I can only think of jotting things down in Microsoft word or some shit. But I'd like to have something where I have a story section, gameplay mechanics, items categorized, map with markers etc. where every term is linkable, like when I click on an item or boss on the map, it links to the info for that item etc.

If I had something like that, I think I'd enjoy writing everything down. Is there any sort of game design app? Cause I haven't found anything relevant.

If there isn't, does this sound useful to you? I could always make it myself.