I can't quite agree with Tom here because Candy Land doesn't seem to involve a lot of skill despite being a turn based game.

Although, many people would argue Risk involves a lot of skill. Risk has about a thousand software versions. The winner is decided by vendetta.

If the attack move in your hypothetical game is a bow attack then zoom out to a 2D view where the bow is drawn and begins aiming upwards. Determine the damage depending on the proximity to the perfect release time.

On 10/14/2019 at 5:01 PM, Pepsidog said:

I want to add a skill minigame in order to make the game more engaging for non-strategists.

Find the mechanics that make your game fun and stick with it.

Is your game about strategy, about skilled decision making? If so, stick with that.

Is your game about rapid twitch response or precise aiming? if so, stick with that.

A few years ago games tried to mix gameplay with some "skill and action", resulting in QTEs. Several games had QTE-or-die events that proved HUGELY unpopular. Instead of adding an element of skill, they forced players to memorize a series of button mashing that served no gameplay purpose at all. Several games that were accessible to players with limited mobility were otherwise wonderful, except the limited mobility players would always fail the QTE. Thankfully these days games have mostly abandoned them, as designers (as well as players and journalists) are returning to the fact that games should stick with their core mechanics.

Final Fantasy VI (basically a turn based combat game) had Sabin which was a fighter that you actually had to input his combos. The more complicated the key inputs the better the effect. If you messed up he would either do a very basic attack or stumble. Every character in that game had different mechanics, and even if Sabin demanded a little bit more I never found him cumbersome or annoying to play, quite the opposite.