Skip to Content
 

Determining Turn Order

4 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

I am a new game designer and working on my first game. It is a medieval strategy/wargame where turn order is very important. 6 Cards are revealed each turn that affect different territories. In order, players can take one card to keep and use later. Once a card is taken, no other player can take it, so if a player wants a card, he must be first in the turn order to ensure that he gets it. Often times, two or more players will really want a card, which makes the turn order vital.

Right now, players use an auction to determine turn order after the 6 cards are revealed. This works fine, except that some of the cards, when taken, trigger auctions between the players for them. The player taking the card, however, has a distinct advantage in the auction, so taking the card is very valuable.

Every turn begins with 6 cards being revealed and then an auction for turn order. The winner of the auction goes first, and then the remaining players go in clockwise order. Players can negotiate to combine bids to win the turn order (one player and the player to his left could bid together to get 1st and 2nd turn). One or more auctions can then immediately follow the auction for turn order, depending on the cards that are revealed and taken. Finally, players get to place and move armies to invade or defend their territories.

The currency in the game is Influence, which is represented by poker chips. Each player gets chips at the end of every turn based on the territories they control. So some players have more Influence than others. What I like about the current scheme is that if a player bids to get turn order, he will have less Influence to do other things. Likewise, if that player allows another player to go first, he will have more Influence to overcome possibly the advantage the other player gets in going first. I should also add that Influence is the currency players use to place and move armies to attack and defend territories. So a further consideration a player must make when bidding for turn order (and bidding on cards that trigger an auction) is whether he will have enough Influence left to perform all necessary military actions.

I guess the one thing I am concerned about is Analysis Paralysis. Is it just too difficult for a player to digest the possible outcomes of two auctions almost back to back? A player will have to decide how much he is willing to pay to go first, but this decision will be based on a supposition of how a second auction will play out. In addition, a player will also have to consider how much Influence he will need to perform all the military actions he wants to perform. This will also be based on suppositions of what the other players will do militarily.

I have only playtested this solitaire (which doesn't work so well in a bidding game, I might add), so I'm not sure how a group would work with this. But from your experience, does this seem to you like it could be a problem? And if so, what other nifty mechanics are there to determine turn order? Any mechanic would have to make a player opting to go first suffer some sort of consequence for doing so. Also, I am not married to the idea of players going clockwise from the first player, so variable turn order is an option.

Any and all help and comments are much appreciated!

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Determining Turn Order

Hello and welcome to the BGDF!

Analysis paralysis? From what I gather from your description it doesn't sound like this will be a huge problem, but it's always hard to tell without actually playtesting the game. Analysis paralysis often pops up when a player has to make a series of choices, and has to work through a large permutation of calculable and predictable options. That doesn't seem to be the case here, because there are too much unknown factors when making a bid.

There are several games you could look into concerning the bidding for turn order / drafting cards mechanic. The first one that comes to mind is "Boomtown". In this game players bid on various action cards. The highest bidder is the winner and may pick first, the player to his left takes second pick and so forth. The trick is that the bid is distributed among the other players, starting with the player on the right, who gets half of the winning bid (rounded up), the next player to the right gets half of the remaining amount, etc. This way the disadvantage of sitting right to the winner is mitigated somewhat.

Another game you might look into is "El Grande". It has a similar structure as your game - players bid for turn order with numbered cards, then pick cards in the descending order of the number on their cards. Here the twist is that you sometimes need to bid a low card to replenish your "court" (= supply of wooden blocks, which you need to score points).

Finally, you might consider a bidding structure along the bidding for provinces as in "Amun-Re". In this game a number of provinces, equal to the number of players, is up for sale. In turn, players make a bid on one of the provinces. If a player is overbid on a province he has to bid on another province. Eventually someone is forced to bid zero on the "worst" province, and all players then pay their bid to the bank and claim their province. It's a clever way of auctioning more then one item at the same time to multiple players. What Amun-Re has in common with your game is that players bid with money, and that money is also used for taking actions, and even another (blind) auction later in the turn, with players getting income at the end of the turn, making it important to plan ahead.

Jebbou
Jebbou's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Determining Turn Order

Hi,

You could use a "bid" modifier. For example, for each church or coliseum a user has, the value of his bid could be increased by one. Thus, some players would increase their bidding power through conquest, while other could increase their bidding power through culture.

Depending on the mechanics you use, you could also have sabotage or espionnage actions which can reduce the bid value of a player by one, in the next auction. (Thus the player who bids three, sees his bid reduced to two)

Jeb

lar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Determining Turn Order

This idea might take some playing around a bit to workout, but here is another thought for you. What if you had a hidden way of betting on all 6 cards at the same time and you are required to bet on the same number of cards as there are players. The rule is you must bet at least one chip, and no two bets can be for the same amount. Bets are resolved in order beginning at card 1. If you win the card, you get the card plus any remaining bets back that you made on cards 2-6. Play continues onto card 2. Since the player who won the first card pulled their bets back, they automatically won't be able to win another card. In the event of a tie bet between two players, there will need to be some kind of "showdown" - more on that later. After the cards are won, the order of play is determined by the last player to win a card goes first and the first player to win a card goes last. In this fashion, the first player to win a card gains the most money (influence) back but suffers as being the last player to play. The last player suffers by loosing the most money (influence), but they have the advantage of playing first.

This gives you various strategies to think about as a player. And because you resolve the bids in order, it's possible that you could accidentally win a card that you hadn't planned to win. Let's take the following example. Assume the cards 1 - 6 are valued by all players as having the following desire in rank:

Card 1: 5th
Card 2: 6th
Card 3: 1st
Card 4: 2nd
Card 5: 6th
Card 6: 3rd

In a 4 player game, each player must bid on 4 cards with a minimum bid of 1 chip and no two bids the same. The bids are as follows:

Player 1: Bids 0, 2, 12, 0, 1, 5
Player 2: Bids 1, 0, 18, 3, 0, 2
Player 3: Bids 0, 2, 14, 3, 0, 1
Player 4: Bids 0, 3, 20, 2, 0, 1

The bids are resolved in order of the cards.

Card 1 is given to player 2 because he had the highest bid of 1. His chips on the remaining cards (23) are returned to him. He will play 4th in order.

Card 2 is given to player 4 with a bid of 3. Players 1 & 3 loose their bid of 2. Player 4 is returned 23 chips and will play 3rd in order.

Card 3 is given to player 3 with a bid of 14 (remember, the bid of 20 was removed when player 4 won card 2). Player 1 looses 12 chips. Player 3 is returned 3 chips and will play 2nd in order.

Card 4 is not given out because there were no remaining bets on it.

Card 5 is given to player 1 with a winning bid of 1. 5 chips are returned to player 1 and player will start first.

Card 6 is not given out because there were no remaining bets on it.

What I like about this is that everyone is placing their bets at the same time, so the worry about some players sitting around while another player is trying to figure out what to do is reduced (could still happen because some players are going to be naturally slower at placing their bets, but overall it should be too horrible). Add in the risk of getting a card you don't want becomes a good possibility and it can change the tide of the battle. The other thing I like is that it solves the 2nd auction problem as well and the player to go first mostly likely paid the most, while the player going last most likely paid the least (of course this might not be totally true if a large bet was place on card 1).

Not knowing anything about the cards makes it hard to know if a system likes this would work, because the random feature could screw things up too much. Also, the question about how to resolve a tie bet must be determined. My feeling is that players should win some kind of "showdown points". These would be points that they could use to try and break a showdown. To prevent multiple showdowns, maybe the showdown cards could be given out as various numbers. For example, each player starts with 3 showdown cards and each card has a possible value of 1 through 30 (meaning of course, there are only 30 cards in the game and no two showdown cards repeat the same number). The players will have a chance to draw additional cards during the game. When it comes time for a showdown, the players select one card each and the player with the highest card wins. Remember though, it won't be a strategy of always playing your highest card. Showdowns can happen when two players were tied with a bet of one, so have the lowest card and not winning the showdown might be the preferred choice.

Never tried any of this, so hopefully it will work or maybe even spur a better idea for you.

Best of luck, Lar

Anonymous
Determining Turn Order

Wow! Thanks for all of the suggestions. Here are my thoughts:

I looked at the bidding system in Amun-Re and like it, except that it could be difficult to implement in my game. In Amun-Re, from what I gather, each card has ascending bids printed on the card. The problem with this in my game is that it is hard to know exactly what players will be willing to pay - in fact, I think it will change significantly as the game progresses. If fixed amounts are printed on each card, those amounts might work well in some rounds and be absolutely unreasonable in other rounds. With that said, it has spurred on some thinking about how I can set up a system that will auction multiple items at one time, which is what Amun-Re's system does.

As far as bid modifiers go, I believe that is an excellent point. What I think I will do with that is create some cards that will give players bid modifiers for future auctions. This way, a player can get one of these cards to use in a later turn, allowing a player in a future turn to win a card that might be really important to that player.

Finally, the auction where players bid on each card secretly is very intriguing to me. You're right that ties will need to be addressed, but the basic mechanic could make for some interesting decisions and strategy. Again, this mechanic accomplishes what the Amun-Re mechanic does: auctioning multiple items in one mechanic.

I think that is the direction I need to go in. Too many auctions might bog down gameplay. Having everything resolved in one auction will make for a faster game and also a more streamlined and elegant system of play.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut