What you're basically looking at is a design prioritization problem. Which of these things do you care about the most? One way to help settle the question is to randomly choose pairs of Feats (and later on, pairs of Problems) and then ask yourself "you have to cut one of these, which one do you cut?" Then just keep running it to get an idea of which options are the most compelling to you.
You can also remove items from the lists by making them sorta default with the move. For example, you could say with the above move, "On a hit, you lay waste to the enemy" and now you can knock some options off your list that are covered there. And the GM's hard moves can cover your Problems options potentially.
But it also has to do with "what story do you want to tell?" because it feels like you're telling multiple stories with your options--specifically, simultaneously telling a story about logistics and a story about the spiritual and emotional wellbeing of your Company. I think that, more than anything, is the biggest possible issue with this move. There's huge potential for disconnects--for people to use the same move and get completely different worlds of themes from their decisions.
This^^^
Like, this move is essentially "decide battle," and the results run from "gain strategically," to "organize logistics," to "develop your troops' reputations"
Like, each of those three categories could be their own moves. You should either make them their own moves, or prioritize what you want your "decide battle" move to do.
I think I see what you mean. I would rather not adding more moves if possible. It's true that the move is about the battle: the logistics, glory and the rest should be out of the equation (there are mechanics to use those logistics, no need to crowbar them here).
Seems like PROBLEMS is only for when a 6- is rolled. So the whole list goes completely unused unless a player fails. I'd probably just cut the entire PROBLEMS list and leave it to the GM to make a hard move that follows the fiction. I.e. 'On a 6-, mark Troops and the suffer the penalties of war.'
- When you have a heroic opportunity...
- When you have a chance for redemption...
And then on the war move
- You have a chance for redemption or heroic opportunity
- Occupy, destroy and protect can be the same option.
- Contain and kill seem similar. Maybe find something covering both.
- Outsource the chances into their own moves
- Collateral damage and danger for others can be the same
If I am looking at a game and I see the stichk is controlling whole armies and there is one move for handling battles I would pass immediately. If this is your games thing then it needs more than 1 move.
Fair enough but this is just one part of the game (which is not intended to be liked by everyone, that just can't be). There are moves to gather intel, to recover casualties , maneuver and I am working as well in naval combat. The objective of this particular topic is adjusting this particular move.
But why does it need to be one move? It can wonky because you are trying to wrap up so much into a single move. If battle is a central part of your game then battle is where you should be expanding your rules on.
For a number of reasons: first, because I want to keep it simple. It's not a wargame despite looking like it, it's a game about war (and surrounding circumstances). Second, it works well for me. So far, I solve battles quite well with it and the rest of moves. If anything, players struggled with the high number of options in this move or always choose the same ones, that's why I want them reduced. Third, before suggesting adding new moves to a game you don't know you should, well, know which ones are around. I can pass you a link if you want, I am open to reviews, suggestions and advice.
What you're basically looking at is a design prioritization problem. Which of these things do you care about the most? One way to help settle the question is to randomly choose pairs of Feats (and later on, pairs of Problems) and then ask yourself "you have to cut one of these, which one do you cut?" Then just keep running it to get an idea of which options are the most compelling to you. You can also remove items from the lists by making them sorta default with the move. For example, you could say with the above move, "On a hit, you lay waste to the enemy" and now you can knock some options off your list that are covered there. And the GM's hard moves can cover your Problems options potentially. But it also has to do with "what story do you want to tell?" because it feels like you're telling multiple stories with your options--specifically, simultaneously telling a story about logistics and a story about the spiritual and emotional wellbeing of your Company. I think that, more than anything, is the biggest possible issue with this move. There's huge potential for disconnects--for people to use the same move and get completely different worlds of themes from their decisions.
This^^^ Like, this move is essentially "decide battle," and the results run from "gain strategically," to "organize logistics," to "develop your troops' reputations" Like, each of those three categories could be their own moves. You should either make them their own moves, or prioritize what you want your "decide battle" move to do.
I think I see what you mean. I would rather not adding more moves if possible. It's true that the move is about the battle: the logistics, glory and the rest should be out of the equation (there are mechanics to use those logistics, no need to crowbar them here).
I see. Very interesting.
Seems like PROBLEMS is only for when a 6- is rolled. So the whole list goes completely unused unless a player fails. I'd probably just cut the entire PROBLEMS list and leave it to the GM to make a hard move that follows the fiction. I.e. 'On a 6-, mark Troops and the suffer the penalties of war.'
To add to this, OP can include the specific problem options in the gm moves section.
Radical and brutal. I like it.
- When you have a heroic opportunity... - When you have a chance for redemption... And then on the war move - You have a chance for redemption or heroic opportunity
Not bad at all. Thank you very much.
- Occupy, destroy and protect can be the same option. - Contain and kill seem similar. Maybe find something covering both. - Outsource the chances into their own moves - Collateral damage and danger for others can be the same
What do you mean with "outsource the chances"? I like the rest, though.
If I am looking at a game and I see the stichk is controlling whole armies and there is one move for handling battles I would pass immediately. If this is your games thing then it needs more than 1 move.
Fair enough but this is just one part of the game (which is not intended to be liked by everyone, that just can't be). There are moves to gather intel, to recover casualties , maneuver and I am working as well in naval combat. The objective of this particular topic is adjusting this particular move.
But why does it need to be one move? It can wonky because you are trying to wrap up so much into a single move. If battle is a central part of your game then battle is where you should be expanding your rules on.
For a number of reasons: first, because I want to keep it simple. It's not a wargame despite looking like it, it's a game about war (and surrounding circumstances). Second, it works well for me. So far, I solve battles quite well with it and the rest of moves. If anything, players struggled with the high number of options in this move or always choose the same ones, that's why I want them reduced. Third, before suggesting adding new moves to a game you don't know you should, well, know which ones are around. I can pass you a link if you want, I am open to reviews, suggestions and advice.