>>583 A good one has interactions even when the opponent is playing.
I've played Cluedo recently. Players are scraping for clues to find the place, murderer and his weapon. The cards with info are spread across the players. Three cards aren't spread, those are the target. Each turn players can guess place,murderer and weapon. If one of the players has one of the guesses he has to show the card to the guesser.
While only one player can take action per turn it is of interest for the complete party. One may not see the card, but if 1 card is shown it shows that at least one of the guesses was incorrect. If you want to win you have to infer in opponents turns.
The period where it's boring is short. The opponent may take 10 seconds to choose his guesses, which are useless for the other players. The other states of play are interesting.
In your game all the time until the oponent makes his move is useless. Opponents minds are idling.
You may say that chess is also like that and popular but it's more complex so you have to manage more state which means less idle time. Also it's kinda a meme. A big reason that people like chess is status. It's a proof that you're ``smart''. No wonder it's popular in countries built on dick measuring such as Russia. Also it has the advantage that it's already established with history behind it.
Traditional bomberman would not work as a board game. The game has the mechanical depth of tic tac toe but with more complexity which is never fun. There is no good way to simulate an explosion in real life, one would have to count fields every time. What makes bomberman interesting is the short decision time.
You can imagine shooters as a board game. Each turn you can move position and line of sight. With better position and better line of sight you kill the oponent. It would not be exciting.
Honestly I don't think your idea works but I wish you godspeed. If you have a prototype I'll test it with a friend and give feedback.
