Skip to Content
 

How to "conquer" cities without a Military???

14 replies [Last post]
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 20:01
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

I have an idea for a very "unique" CIVILIZATION game. However while streamlining the game, I have "removed" the whole MILITARISTIC side of the game... This makes the game MORE of a "Medium Eurogame". Yes you can mess with other player's plans and yes there is a large map to explore and build upon.

Victory is achieved computing three (3) categories: Economic, Scientific and Cultural.

However as I have explained, you do eXplore, eXpand and eXploit. But it's the "eXterminate" which I don't want as part of my game.

I'm still working on the design and while I believe that cities may be "conquered", I'm not 100% certain about how that aspect of the game will work.

What I don't want: is everything regarding Military Units, a tech tree for troops and things like that. My goal is to achieve a more "Euro" type of game (which I think would be very unique...)

Cities are represented by a "City Card" and the player who HAS the city's card in his HAND, is said to "control" that city. Cities are used to eXpand your borders and you use "Diplomats" to allow your different classes of "workers" to gather/collect resources.

So I WANT a way that a CITY can be "captured"... Without a "too heavy" amount of "Militarism"... It could have something to do with the "Diplomat" and some way of having a "revolt" or "rebellion"... Not sure TBH!

Anyone have any ideas how this could be achieved ("Conquering Cities" from an opponent...)???

Top
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 20:22
#1
Tim Edwards
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
My first thought was -

My first thought was - turmoil of reformation and esp Munster. So, think charismatic firebrands and demagogues. They could turn a population over to their way of thinking and 'conquer' a city.

That's a thematic thing, but perhaps you were asking for ideas for mechanisms?

Top
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 20:46
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More about "How to do it"...

Tim Edwards wrote:
...That's a thematic thing, but perhaps you were asking for ideas for mechanisms?

Indeed. Yes I guess the "Diplomat" may be used by moving around the map to incite all kinds of "chaos" (and would be one of the "sources" for messing with another player's civilization)...

Perhaps if EACH city had a "Loyalty value" from 1 to 10 for example... And you might need to ROLL a 1d12 with a HIGHER value... Otherwise your "revolt" fails and the "Diplomat" is send back HOME (To your Capitol).

Or maybe instead of "Loyalty value", maybe each city "Loyalty" is determined by the DISTANCE from the Capitol. So a city 12 spaces away is more liable to "defect" to another King than a city only 2 or 3 spaces away(!?)

But I need to avoid a "flip-flop" mechanic that goes from one (1) Player to another in a couple of turns. Like Player #1 "converts" a city that used to belong to Player #2. On Player #2 turn, "converts" it BACK to one of his own cities...

Something to think about there...

Top
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 21:07
#3
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe a combination of both

Each city has a "Loyalty Value" from 5 to 15 and the distance from the Capitol can a Proximity Bonus of +0 to +5. So a city that may be FAR AWAY can still be very loyal (15) but have no Proximity Bonus which means using 1d20, the Diplomat would have to roll a 16 or higher (25% chance of succeeding).

Maybe this could be a reasonable mechanic...!

Chance seems to be a real solution since the "probabilities" of success depend highly on the location (distance) and the city itself (loyalty).

Note: This would introduce some special kind of strategic dynamics. Why? Well if Player #2 decides to put a city FAR AWAY in the Player #1 territory which is "very loyal" (and he benefits from no proximity bonus), if Player #1 CONQUERS the city through "Rebellion", re-capturing (or freeing) that city becomes IMPOSSIBLE.

How does this happen, you ask? Well because when Player #1 conquers it, and it is far into HIS territory, the Loyalty is 15 + a Proximity Bonus of +3 to +5 depending how close it is to Player #1's Capitol! So it would require a 18 or higher roll required to convert back...

Hmm... This is interesting indeed!

Top
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 21:32
#4
Mosker
Mosker's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2014
The obligatory answer and more.

Facebook.

But you can model disinformation, propaganda into game stats. Beyond loyalty to the player, think of trust in local leadership. Could not a city simply decide to become independent and trust nobody--or at least wait for the two competing sides to decide who's in charge (there's a great scene of this in Shakespeare's King John).

Top
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 21:39
#5
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Not sure I should have a "Proximity Bonus"

I think with a board filled with "Hexes" would make computation of what I have called "Proximity" might be DIFFICULT. I've already explained in the previous comment a "flaw" of the system (using the "Proximity Bonus" and how it can adversely work to an opponent's favor making it near impossible to "re-capture" a city).

With some thought, I think it's SIMPLER and less dramatic to only have a city's "Loyalty Value".

That still brings up the question of LESS "Loyal" cities. Again, because these cities may be "converted" they are dangerous when in a player's own territory. You would want such cities pushing the borders of your frontier.

Another interesting conundrum...

Top
Thu, 12/20/2018 - 23:44
#6
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Influence is the other way to

Influence is the other way to conquer without military. This can be expressed as Politics, economy, culture, etc.

Also called "soft power" in the real world.

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 00:08
#7
Juzek
Juzek's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2017
questccg wrote: So I WANT a

questccg wrote:

So I WANT a way that a CITY can be "captured"... Without a "too heavy" amount of "Militarism"... It could have something to do with the "Diplomat" and some way of having a "revolt" or "rebellion"... Not sure TBH!

Anyone have any ideas how this could be achieved ("Conquering Cities" from an opponent...)???

For cultural take over, I'm imagining an area control mechanic with different colored markers representing a population having different loyalties that surround the city tokens. You could migrate and convert, and have it influence your rolls. (Kinda like D&D's advantage and disadvantage) or just have a coup or something

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 00:52
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Indeed logical

larienna wrote:
Influence is the other way to conquer without military. This can be expressed as Politics, economy, culture, etc.

Also called "soft power" in the real world.

My path to victory is: economics, scientific and cultural achievements.

And what this aims to do in a play session, is to borrow "heavily" on the "Eurogame" model.

What I mean is that on each turn a player must decide HOW he/she "uses" the "resources" at their disposal. Managing the Capitol City is crucial to expanding a civilization's "Influence" (As you have already identified). The Citizens of your Capitol City "change priorities" as you see fit to allow your "Diplomats" to "influence" a city on behalf of your King.

I'm still early on the design... But the idea is that by "shifting" priorities in the Capitol, you effective alter the way a "Diplomat" may be used.

And what is REALLY interesting is that this leads me some way of "interacting" with an opponent's cities.

So maybe your concept of "Influence" means that ALL THREE (3) "Tracks" need to sufficiently high enough to "convert" a city through some kind of "rebellion" or "Politicking" (as you have suggested).

I'll think about it some more but I like it so far!

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 11:18
#9
Git80
Offline
Joined: 12/18/2018
questccg wrote:So maybe your

questccg wrote:

So maybe your concept of "Influence" means that ALL THREE (3) "Tracks" need to sufficiently high enough to "convert" a city through some kind of "rebellion" or "Politicking" (as you have suggested).

I'll think about it some more but I like it so far!

The cities Could be associated with one of the three „tracks“. So you would need a specific rating in economics to overtake an economic center and so on. Perhaps each city could have an resiliance rating. Then your economic rating must be higher than your opponents rating + the resiliance of the city.

Edit: If you wanted a higher replayability, you could randomly draw tokens with a resiliance value and the track, which each city follows. You could also Use these tokens to create scenarios or even a campaign.

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 08:31
#10
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Politics?

What road does the city and its people want to take?
What can the player do for this city and its people?

If the player can go parallel to the city. The city will have more and more politicians in their city hall vowing for the player that wants to "conquer" the city.

If you have for example 3 players and 4 politicians per city.
The majority in the city hall indicates to which player the city belongs too.
It is possible this way for players to share a city too!

If a player wants to have more influence in a city. It has to try to turn a politician into one of its own. Simply replacing a token by colour I guess.

The reason for changing sides of a token? The player has an offer for the city that the city can't refuse. Or simpler said, it is an "improvement" for the city.

Which token it is, is up to the player I guess.

So, the city is yours if the majority in the city hall vows for your ways.

If you don't want players to share a city. The number of politicians are ONE per city.
OR
You can only switch multiple tokens at the same time to get the majority. If you can't take the majority, you can't make them switch sides at all.

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 09:15
#11
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Dark Minions

I recommend you have a look at Dark Minions, a game that allows players to allocate resources they've gained to conquer various locations. In this game the resource is troops, and the locations are towns.

My reason for suggesting this is that it really doesn't matter what the resources are. The allocation is the same, all the units are the same, and there is no "tech tree" to speak of. What's more, you can allocate resources in multiple locations at once, in different amounts. Whichever player has the most resources in a location once it's considered "conquered" wins the points for that location.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/97094/dark-minions

I used to own it, and it was fun (I personally dig tactical dice games, and this one is done quite well with more depth than usual). But beyond the artwork and thematic vocabulary, we all realized pretty quickly that this same system could be used for whatever resource we wanted it to represent. Maybe you can garner some ideas from it.

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 12:39
#12
Tim Edwards
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
Maybe you could say that

Maybe you could say that cities have a natural propensity to LOSE loyalty. There's a sort of civic individualism. Therefore, leaders need to keep loyalty topped up by sending out legates (or whatever we call them.) It takes longer to get legates to distant cities, hence they are harder to keep loyal. Distance, then, is a factor but it's achieved organically.

The longer a legate stays in town, the higher the loyalty grows. Once he moves out, it starts fading again.

I wish I could find where I read or heard this type of situation described in the context of the very late Roman empire (practically end of empire) when Emperors had to move around the empire trying to keep loyalty alive. The historian asked us to imagine each city was a lightbulb. The longer the emperor stayed, the brighter it got - as soon as it left, the light would start to dim. So emperors were frantically chasing around the empire trying to keep any of the lights from going out completely.)

It could be a fun way to do it. A bit like spinning plates - but with an opponent who's trying to spin them the other way!

(This might go some way to avoiding flip-flopping too much?)

Top
Fri, 12/21/2018 - 23:51
#13
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Maybe you could say

Quote:
Maybe you could say that cities have a natural propensity to LOSE loyalty

In civ, it's called corruption.

You idea makes me think about the Samurai board game by knizia, where you need to surround cities to control them. Not that I really like that game.

I think that also the new Civ game by FFG use a similar mechanics of placing hex on the board to expand your territory and surround cities.

I like the 3 path to balance. Maybe you need a majority in 2 of the 3 paths to capture a city.

Top
Sat, 12/22/2018 - 01:59
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Cool beans...

larienna wrote:
In civ, it's called corruption.

Indeed ... Forgot about how Citizens become "discontent"... I think I could do something about "Corruption" in the Capital Cities. It's something that could force Players to "better manage" their empires. And I was needing some kind of mechanic for this... And my idea is each Player has cities that BELONG to his/her Civilization. And when you "convert" one such city, it ADDS discontent Citizens to your Capital City.

larienna wrote:
I like the 3 path to balance. Maybe you need a majority in 2 of the 3 paths to capture a city.

Indeed that's a good idea too... And "Corruption" could make it more (or maybe impossible) to "convert" a city (or too many of them...) This could act like a "counter-balance" in that you can't command TOO MANY cities from other Civs because of the "unhappiness" in those cities which manifest themselves in your Capital City (As a form of corruption).

I need to think about this some more. But some good advice there!

Since the Capital City has three (3) types of Citizens:

  1. Merchants: They deal in trade and produce wealth.
  2. Scholars : They conduct research and produce science.
  3. Artists : They improve morale and produce culture.

If for example a city's "Corruption" level for research (and science) is at 5 for example. That means at MOST you can have "5 Levels" of Scholars making some research IMPOSSIBLE. And that's GREAT! Why because it can lead a King to "release" a city in order to LOWER the level of "Corruption" a bit.

And then it's sort of a City that is "independent" and not belonging to anyone that could for example be recaptured by the original civ's owner...

Very interesting... Loving that whole concept of corruption and how it can AFFECT the remainder of the game! Or at least other PARTS of the game...

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut