Portfolio About me Contact

Stealth Recon Xtreme

Completion date:
April 7, 2025

Development time:
Solo, 1 month part-time

Project type:
Study project, physical game

Description

Stealth Recon Xtreme is a tactical board game where two players, who can't see each other's pieces, compete to collect artefacts without getting eliminated by the other player. Certain actions give your position away, giving the opponent an opportunity to react.

Concept & prototypes

The first real game design assignment at HKU was to create a thematically strong and engaging turn-based tabletop game. I first experimented with singleplayer games, one where you play as an airplane attacking an airship, while dealing with a limited turn radius and low visibility, and one where you play as a SWAT team trying to find a bomb in a randomized building, generated by flipping random "room" cards. I playtested both using simple paper prototypes

These did not really work out because I was struggling to design emergent gameplay in a singleplayer setting. I decided to switch to multiplayer. This was huge, adding a human opponent creates unpredictability that is incredibly difficult to achieve in a pre-made singleplayer game. I ended up combining themes and mechanics from both of the other concepts and decided to go with tactical gameplay, low visibility, and an over-the-top "tacticool" setting.

Design

Overview of how the game is set up before the round starts. Players are not allowed to look at each other's board. The board design was a result of many map iterations through playtesting.

Designing Rules

Because thinking of an entire board game at once was daunting, I decided to think of rules one by one that each helped shape the core player experience. Obviously the design would have holes, but I would patch those after playtesting.
  1. Players take turns moving and/or attacking, and try to win by either reaching the two artefacts and standing on the center tile, or by eliminating both of the opponent's soldiers. (I want players to have at least two win conditions that their opponent needs to keep in mind, adding complexity.)
  2. Both soldiers must perform one action every turn, either moving to one of their four adjacent tiles, or attacking one. (I want players to act, instead of waiting or hiding. This keeps them thinking about their next move even when overwhelmed.)
  3. Two pieces can occupy the same tile simultaneously, but an attack can kill them both in one hit. (I want to encourage tactical positioning, and heighten the stakes when one soldier has to pass the other.)
  4. If a player chooses to attack, they call out the tile they are attacking to the opponent, who will check if their soldiers currently occupy it.
    (I want players to feel hesitant to attack, as it will reveal their position. Their opponent then faces the same dilemma.)
  5. If a soldier is hit, you must call it out. It will be eliminated for the remainder of the game. (I want the players to establish who has the upper hand, as this will shift the dynamic of the game.)
  6. If a soldier reaches an artefact (a.k.a. stands on it), you must call it out. This grants that soldier an extra move. (Extra move is a result of playtesting, explained below. It prevents camping.)
  7. If a player reaches both artefacts before standing on the center tile, they win the game. (Clear goals: I want players to be able to predict their opponent's objective, so they can plan their counterplay.)
  8. If a player eliminates both of the opponent's soldiers, they win the game.
    (Losing one of the two soldiers can be catastrophic. I want to make players think twice about their next move.)
I prototyped these rules using a chessboard, pieces of paper, and some checkers pieces. I often carry these items in case I want to test out gameplay ideas on the fly.
Level documentation in Excel.

Level design

Using a chessboard and printed grid paper, I was able to prototype different map layouts quickly.

Playtesting

Success criteria

  • Players should initially feel like they're shooting blindly, but try nonetheless
  • Players should gradually start to make tactically grounded choices
  • Players should react to each other's actions

Iteration 1

⇒ Players thought eliminating a piece felt pointless.

Why? Pieces respawned instead of being removed from the game. Depending on where the action was, the enemy could be back just a few turns later.

Solution: The solution was actually quite simple: removing the respawn mechanic entirely. It turned out to be a solution to a non-existent problem: I had expected losing a piece to make the game much harder, which wasn't the case at all. During the playtest I chose to adjust this rule on the fly, and while it solved the problem, it noticeably changed the game's dynamics.
The 3D printed game pieces.
One of the two mirrored game boards that I printed after thoroughly playtesting the map layout.

Iteration 2

⇒ Defense was clearly the safest and most effective strategy, boring both players.

Why? You wait at the artefact the opponent must reach and take no risk at all. Offensive players found this particularly frustrating. The core problem was that reaching an artefact immediately revealed your position to the opponent, who could eliminate you instantly.

Solution: The on-the-spot solution was that upon reaching an artefact, you could move or shoot once more. We tested this immediately and it worked excellently.

Iteration 3

⇒ Too strong focus on PVP over objective-based gameplay.

Why? The previous solution led to little motivation to reach artefacts versus eliminating the opponent from relative safety.

Solution: I solved this by shrinking the board and improving the map design, particularly wall placement. There is now far less of a clear distinction between defense and offense, and fewer positions from which you're almost untouchable. This encourages players to go on the offensive more.
The after-study borrels on thursdays were the perfect opportunity to test the game with lots of players.

Box Art

Front side. I used photobashing to create this image.
Back side

Post Mortem

Taking the time to thoroughly playtest the game, which was my first tabletop game, was an excellent learning experience and very worthwhile. It was unexpected how making slight adjustments to the gameplay on the fly worked so well, and it was great to see playtesters genuinely having fun with it and using their heads to get the leg up over their opponent.

I ended up 3D printing the soldier pieces, filming and composing music for the trailer video, designing and printing tabletop game boards and photobashing the box art.

If I would expand the project, I would add modifiers and items to each round, making rounds more diverse. The game works as it is, but subsequent replays can start to feel repetitive.