Imagine the perfect game for You

I totally think this would be worth an experiment.

So I would like to propose whoever wants to participate make something like a BGG entry for the perfect game for them. Include playtime, number of players, designer, artist, mechanisms, theme, category, weight, maybe even include a description or a “fake review”… what would players be doing in the game? If you can draw maybe a fake cover?

I have no inclination at all towards actual game design (something that keeps surprising me), but maybe it is fun to imagine what the perfect game would be like for everyone?

Example images of an entry for a perfect game or maybe just a reminder what a BGG entry looks like or choose whatever format or description you feel is the best presentation

PS: this is harder than I expected. still working on my own :wink:


Hmm. I don’t think there could ever be one game that would cause me to abandon all others. But here’s a game that I’d buy instantly if it became available…

Under 60 minutes playtime with experienced players, handles 1-6 players, utterly thematic (probably on a realistic space or SF theme), cooperative. It might be “work together to fix a problem in space” (yes, I was looking hard at Stationfall, but the competitive sneakiness and the complexity spoiled it for me). Mechanics would have to reflect learning more about the problem and coming up with creative solutions to multiple parts of it; I’d like some way to break down problems, to say “we can’t do A all in one step, but we can do A1 and A2 and A3 separately and that’ll have the same effect”. In a way that doesn’t reduce to “I need 3 red cards”.


The initial “off the top of my head” facets would include:

  • Space Cowboys (like Maurice)
  • Negotiation (best way to add decision-space noise)
  • Interesting action selection mechanism (my favorite mechanism, often)

I’ll have to brain on it a bit to formulate it into a coherent description.


Tall order that, I’d say the perfect game for me does not exist, but I could imagine a good dozen of games that are ideal for me.

Going with what I would like more to play, I can think of two games. Something like Twilight Imperium/Eclipse that can play on 2 hour max, and a sandbox game a la Xia, Firefly or Merchants & Marauders that involves more story like the system you have in Tales of Arabian Nights, and that can also play in roughly 2 hours.

I would need more time for an ideal worker placement game for me, I think I am very happy with options that are already on the market, as with coop games.

And finally, a dungeon crawler like Gloomhaven, but with a board like Hero Quest that does not take half as long as the game to set up. (I haven’t played GH:JOTL yet, but still, it is a book, not a board)

Maybe these games are invented already, but if they are, I haven’t heard of them.


Title: Void-Cadia: Race for the Singularity

Players: 1-5
Duration: 60-120min
Weight: 3.5
Designed by: Eric Reuss, Bruno Cathala & Cole Wehrle
Art by: Beth Sobel & Ian O’Toole

Theme: Science Fiction > Cyberpunk
Possible IPs: Neuromancer, Diamond Age, Snow Crash, Blade Runner, Altered Carbon, Ghost in the Shell, The Windup Girl, Accelerando, Nexus


  • Science Fiction
  • Exploration
  • Economic
  • Territory Building

Mechanics (sorted by importance)

  • Simultaneous Action Selection
  • Variable Player Powers
  • Cooperative (Possibly Semi-Coop)
  • Variable Setup
  • Hand Management
  • Modular Board
  • Area Majority / Influence
  • Tech Trees
  • Route/Network Building
  • Set Collection
  • Open Drafting (aka Card Market)
  • Hexagon Grid
  • Income
  • Programmable Movement

This is a thematic euro game about how we fucked up. The Earth’s eco-systems are about to collapse. This is the last chance for humanity. Teams of scientists, corporations and some ambitious loners are racing to be the first to create a superintelligent AI to save us.

In this game, players take on the role of a corporation, a team of scientists or a lone genius to try their best to create the AI that they think is best suited to solve the problems humanity faces. The question is HOW will the AI save us? Will it turn us all into the Matrix or will it eradicate us? Will it actually save the eco-system and allow us to live? This can all be influenced by research, policy and careful manipulation of the AI side of the map.

There’s a map. Of course there is a map! And it is made of hexagonal tiles that on one side represent the dying Earth that we can try to save, or we can sacrifice whole regions and use their resources towards computing our way out of this, turning the tiles over to their “network” side.

Something that somehow manages the “two games in one” feel of Beyond the Sun on a map that is also kind of a tech tree if you convert the map into resources for the AI.

I imagine a game where during the rounds of play a feasible goal emerges of either turning all resources towards the technological singularity or saving Earth through more conventional science. And there is always the possibility for someone to accumulate enough money to win as “Billionaire Fucks off to Mars”

Something something with all my favorite mechanics (see above)

Oh and the player pieces are all custom dice that are never rolled :slight_smile:


Wow, that’s impressive

I think the best I can do is light rule set, 2-6 players, 60 minutes, hidden movement, deck building with enough interaction to make you say, “oh, you git” when someone else does something


I’d buy that. I’m sold.



Okay, standard caveat: There’s no such thing as a “perfect” game for me because there are too many games styles I’d want, and almost always the “Does Everything Well” don’t replace the “Does one thing perfectly” games in my collection.

That stated, I introduce all of you to: Star Wars Rebellion Armada X-Wing Legion with Optional Imperial Assault Variant.

In SWRAXWLWOIAV, you and one opponent play a modified version of SW:Rebellion where the heroes are taken out of the game entirely and the “story events” are modified to just represent the political and economic elements of the game. The ship building is also considerably expanded to include all of the capital ships and fighter squadrons available throughout the Galactic Civil War and the Clone Wars eras.

Any time a fleet travels to a new world, the game is paused and then both players transition to an appropriate table where a game of SW: Armada is played to determine the outcome of the fleet battle. Which ever side is the aggressor will have to commit fighters and landing troops to the planetary assault element before the fight begins, and likewise the defender will commit troops to Interceptor rolls. Neither Invasion nor Interceptor ships are available for the battle. The battle is then run with the capital ships and any remaining fighter per side as per usual Armada rules, with heavily modified objective and deployments appropriate to the battle and the SW:Rebellion objectives being attempted. The success/failure state (Overwhelming Victory, Marginal Victory, Marginal Defeat, Overwhelming Defeat) will give bonuses or penalties to the next stage…

A game of SW:X-Wing where the Invasion and Interceptor wings of fighters engage to land or stop landing of troops (note that the Rebels can land saboteurs or whatever). Obviously there is significant carry-over from the game of Armada here: if one side is completely wiped off the map in the Armada game, that will have direct (and perhaps overwhelming consequences here).

Any landed troops are then given a multiplier and represent the forces available to the attacker in a game of SW:Legion, where once again specific objectives will be used corresponding to the overarching objectives of the Rebellion game. Critically, there may be specific buildings that one side needs to protect or destroy or investigate.

But what about the heroes? Dear reader, I have not forgotten. Heroes are removed from the Rebellion level of the game because they are incorporated into the Armada, X-Wing, and Legion levels of the game. Deciding how and where to commit your heroes is a sub-game in and of itself! Do you want Vader on an Imperial Star Destroyer? No problem, but then he isn’t available to pilot a TIE Advanced… but if you put him in the TIE Advanced, he can be in both the X-Wing AND Legion elements… assuming his ship survives the X-Wing engagement!

Of course, the optional SW:Imperial Assault elements use an adaptive app integration which controls one side or the other, allowing the entire game to be played fully-coop. This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but there are already fully co-op versions of X-Wing and I think they have something similar for Armada (and obviously Imperial Assault already has it).

And there you have it. The perfect game* for 2 players (up to 4 if you are playing fully coop). Game length will be 4-6 months, and it’s already (almost) available for a mere $2,500CAD.

*Some modifications may be required. Models are provided unassembled, except where assembled, and unpainted, except where painted. Terrain, objectives, playmats, cards, and sufficient dice sold separately. Offer of perfection not valid in the province of Quebec or the Territories.


I read this and I just knew immediately what you were going for. We’ve dreamed of this kind of game in computer games for a long time. We’ve imagined a Civilization / RTS / RPG mashup with an optional side of jump and runs where you can switch between detail levels of the game worlds… but nobody wants to make this for some reason.


I’m in! Although the game should come with full costumes for each player


Closest thing I can think of is Napoleon in Europe campaign game where you do forces building and political manoeuvring on a map of Europe with a bit of North Africa. Comes with a separate board where you fight out the battles on a little map with miniatures.


I used to have a similar dream - a tiered wargame, starting with e.g. Chernenko rolling the tanks across Europe in 1984, then going down to army-versus-army, vehicle-versus-vehicle, and ultimately all the way to one guy with a grenade hiding behind a wall while the enemy comes past. Similarly with space-war games.

Among the difficulties:

  • you need an awful lot of players dedicated to an extended game, or a very long game.
  • each higher-level wargame needs a way not only of generating engagements at the lower level and resolving the results into its own scale, but also of saying “yes, this is a conflict which you could game out, but it’s not interesting enough to get out the lower-level pieces for”.

The Renegade Legion game series offered something similar: you could fly your Interceptor fighters as close air support in Centurion, or send them against capital ships in Leviathan, and the Prefect game of invading a star system could in turn generate Leviathan and Centurion engagements. (But Centurion was a game that tracked individual vehicles, and there was never a higher-scale ground-pounding game.)

I believe modern BattleTech can in theory do this too, with the high-level Interstellar Operations, but I’ve not looked at it closely.


Keeping in mind that SWRAXWLWOIAV is obviously an absurd amount of work to design, play, and organize, to say nothing of the I suspect very optimistic 4-6 month playtime…

The singular big problem for me is keeping each tier interesting depending on the upper and lower tier results. You want to encourage players to both be aware of the ramifications of their decisions (putting Vader in a TIE Advanced, for example, allows him to be involved in the X-Wing and Legion tiers, as mentioned, but only if he survives the X-Wing engagement… but if you are overly conservative with him, why bother risking him in the X-Wing engagement at all?) and to still be involved if the last tier was a total blowout.

If your entire fleet is smashed, do you bother with the X-Wing-tier game? How do you avoid both rubberbanding and runaway victory problems? In video games you can solve this problem with tech (the AI opponents in games like the original Dune all the way through to games like WH40K’s “Dawn of War” continue getting stronger as their forces are concentrated in their fewer and fewer territories, but that precludes the AI having any chance of fighting back to a dominant position: as they lose territory, they never* get it back, and so you don’t have to worry about them becoming overwhelmingly powerful).

I honestly don’t know how to handle that specific issue. I know that Armada has a campaign or two (“War on the Rim”, I believe? And “The Corellian Conflict”?), but I suspect those will suffer from the same problem… once you start winning, it can be very difficult to stop winning in a way that makes continuing to play meaningful or interesting.

The lynchpin (in this hypothetical insanity I’m now designing in my head) is the Rebellion-tier. That has to be the place where the impacts of the decisions manifest in such a way that it is meaningful to both win and lose a fight… perhaps losing on the ground means an up-swell in galactic support, but only as defined by how much you lost by. Winning a fight might mean material and economic benefits (plus experience and additional resources), but crushing your enemies might be seen as politically unfavourable? I dunno, but gosh it would take a lot to balance a game like that in an interesting way.

I think it could theoretically be done. Should it be done, however, is a very different question…

*In some of the Dawn of War games, the AI could in fact reclaim territory from the player… gods, those games never ended…


I thought, over a decade ago, that eventually EA would take over enough studios and enough video game franchises that they would publish Game 2022 (or Game 2023, or Game 2024, etc) where each aspect such as auto racing or military combat operations, or simply Flight Simulator would all be intermeshed into a single environment.

But then I realized that EA is a soulless company and it would be easier to just keep making the same 100 different games, incrementing the number at the end by 1 each year, and milking that forever.

However, switching to boardgames:

You can use Talon for Space Empire 4X battles, yes?

That’s a start.


I was planning to address the positive feedback problem in the Tin Soldier rules I was working on a while ago (basically a lighter version of BattleTech, alpha draft here.) I never wrote the campaign rules, but the idea would be that the losing side, pushed back and losing its best troops, gets more but lower-quality troops in later games, in order to keep each game interesting but still give the winning side a sense of achievement.

I tend to play even one-off games as though I had to try to preserve my forces for the next battle; that’s the way I think about wargaming. I feel a strong distaste for the sort of game in which you throw your guys into a hopeless fight because they might get lucky and win, and all that matters is whether you won or lost, not how many were left alive.

@pillbox: I’ve heard good things about Talon’s own campaign system, for that matter.

I believe Starmada could be used as the space battle resolution system for Twilight Imperium… 2nd edition maybe?


Well, you can get around that by having rules for named NPCs that will always allow them a last moment escape via magic dust but they will be severely injured and not able to fully do their thing in the tier above the one they just escaped from.


I haven’t figured out the details but I know it’s gonna be a game of trains with shares, mixed with big-a** minis for troops-on-a-map gameplay


Does it have tentacles → 18CthuluWars then?
Or Pyramids → 18BS (for Kemet: B&S)