While we are still sorting out small contract details with the manufacturer, and I have nothing big to report, I thought I'd write a little about the design.
I'll start with an observation. The way I see it, your game you can have either:
a) minimal direct conflict. Examples include coperative games, and many Euros. Each player builds their own thing, and interaction comes in form of competition for resources, auctions etc. ; or, you can have
b) randomized conflicts. This usually involves throwing dice, or other way of random resolution. We all know this genre, its highs and lows :) Finally, if no random element is present, you have
c) chess-like conflict, when the game can be analyzed several turns into the future. This is great for 2-player games, and for chess lovers, but AP can kill all the fun pretty fast.
What I wanted for Galaxy's Edge is to have a Euro feel, with not as much random element, but at the same time to have some conflict and more player interaction, and no chess feel. In attempt to achive that, a new mechanic was introduced: bans.
What is a ban? The idea is simple. When I play in a certain area, a ban marker is immediately placed there. Now this area is banned, and it's out of limits for everyone. So my opponents can not make a countermove right away. Nor can I press my advantage there. We all have to shift our attention to some other area of the board that has no ban on it.
In a couple of turns, the ban is lifted. There is randomicity in how the bans move, and I do not know for sure when it will go. The expectation is that a ban moves in one to two turns, but sometimes it takes much longer. And when it happens, the situation on the board has changed. What seemed to be a good move a couple of turns ago may make little sense now.
Thus, the conflicts are resolved in a deterministic style; however, there is a random element in timing your moves and countermoves. A ban may prevent you from playing in certian area for several turns. This random element seems to have a very indirect impact on the game. But it prevents effective analysis and chess-like tactical play, and shifts the focus from tactical to strategic.
Comments
I love that Ban idea!
I think that's a neat new way to look at pre-programming moves. It sounds similar to pre-programming... you're committing to a move that won't payoff until later.
Sounds really interesting!
I think you are absolutely right
With pre-programmed moves, one commits to an action that gets executed later.
No one says, however, that the action has to be delayed in its entirety. Some part of it can be carried out immediately while other effect(s) can be delayed and only resolved in a couple of turns.
There is a whole spectrum of possibilities here, and I think they can be very interesting. I have to admit, I always found the idea of pre-programmed moves appealing, but I could never think of a way to implement it without too much complexity. Splitting actions in such way seems to provide the necessary means.
Well done!
I like the ban idea because it effectively takes care of the problems of players haveing too much advantage and also it's not too randome. It's a beautiful mechanic.
I like one of my mechanics for my labyrinth game similarly in this way. When a player moves through a vortex, the suit on the card that moved him through this, moves all the walls on that suit. This is a randome element that makes it so players can't necesarily plan their way through the complex maze. It creats conflict and uncertainty. The player may get a simple path or forced to take a complex path. And the outcome is different for each player.