Skip to Content
 

Local opponents vs Global opponents.

7 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008

No, I'm not talking about Face to Face vs Internet gaming here. I was just struck by an interesting thought and I thought I would share it and see what you guys think...

the thought process went like this:
I was thinking about the Campaign idea (see journal entry, based on the ideas spurred by jwarrend's Action card mechanic thread) and thought that winning influence in 50 states might take too long for a good game. In order to cut it down I thought perhaps the game could cover simply winning a Region. there could be a set of boards, one with each region of the county on it (I'm talking about USA here, as that's what I'm at least remotely familiar with).

Then I thought why not expand the idea a bit and use multiple Regions (or board pieces) for a longer game or with more players. If a single board piece or Region were enough for 3 or 4 players, then what happens if there are 2 players and 2 board segments? Would it be Multiplayer Solitaire? With 2 boards and 4 players, as far as any one player is concerned, would there pretty much just be 1 opponent to contend with (the other two being too far removed from their game to matter, except in final scoring)?

This got me thining of "Local opponents" (the ones on your board) and "Global opponents" (ones that don't have any direct effect on your game). Has this concept been utilized before? I can't think of any games offhand that purposely set up Local and Global opponents. It might be difficult to do without a large number of players- unless you get some kind of circular relationship going on where you canaffect the player to your left but not the one to your right.

Perhaps the closest thing I've seen to this is Multiplayer Magic: the Gathering where in some variations your cards affect your immediate neighbors (or 2 people out) but not the players further away than that.

Have any of you used the concept of Local vs Global opponents in your designs?

- Seth

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Local opponents vs Global opponents.

Very cool idea! The answer to your question is that, yes, this concept has been used before, in a game called FFF (acronym) by Friedmann Friese. I haven't played the game, but the idea is, I think, that there are 3 versions of the game, labeled "A", "B", and "C", and the idea is that you can go from board to board, trying to acquire the resources you need. I think that up to 15 can play.

I think the general feeling about the idea is that it is very unique and has plenty of legs for a different game, but it's hard to come up with a theme that demands the multiple boards, and pasting them in as a gimmick probably isn't worth the hassle.

I think your idea, of making multiple boards equal different "regions" is a perfect use of the idea, and you should go for it! The kicker is always going to be the implementation; how do the different boards "talk" to each other? And how do you synchronize events across the different boards? (ie, if the players "play" at different rates on the different boards, how does the overall game accomodate that?)

Plenty of issues to resolve, but I bet it will be a fun challenge. Good luck!

-Jeff

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Local opponents vs Global opponents.

jwarrend wrote:

The kicker is always going to be the implementation; how do the different boards "talk" to each other?

I imagine there'd be some stuff that only affects your region, and then there'd be some stuff that affects the whole country. So the distinction between local and global would be that stuff that affects you will more often come from the Local opponents and less often (or less severely) from the Global ones.

Quote:
And how do you synchronize events across the different boards? (ie, if the players "play" at different rates on the different boards, how does the overall game accomodate that?)

I had assumed a standard turn order, not that the seperate boards would be seperate little games- I'm thining more along the lines that the boards are all part of one big game (indeed, it could be a single board with different regions outlined, and effects are region specific...)

Maybe if the boards are seperate than there are seperate decks of event cards or whatever that are board-specific, so player A in the SW region never will draw a card that affects only New Orleans, but player C over in the South region will.

- Seth

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Local opponents vs Global opponents.

Oh, I think I latched too much onto the element of multiple boards and missed the thrust of "local opponents" vs "all players". Joe's "Scream Machine" (which I haven't played, but really, really want to) has an element of this, in which there are "national customers" for which all players are competing, and "regional customers", which only you and the player on one side of you compete for.

In the 4 player version of "Age of Mythology", you can only attack the player to your left or right in the circle. I also haven't played that one, but the danger there, I think, and the danger you'll have to consider, is that if there's a mechanic whereby you can directly interact with another player, but can't bring that to bear on certain other players due to rules that the game imposes on you, how do you beat that person if he's your closest competitor?

The other thing to make sure of is that the "multiple boards" are justifiable complexity, and not just reducible to a single board with several locations/areas/spaces on it. In every brainstorm I had when trying to think of a "multiple boards" game, they all basically amounted to the multiple boards simply being a gimmick that could be handled more comfortably by a regular game board. Not saying you're in this situation at all, just saying, make sure you convince yourself that you're not...

-Jeff

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Local opponents vs Global opponents.

jwarrend wrote:
Oh, I think I... missed the thrust of "local opponents" vs "all players". Joe's "Scream Machine" (which I haven't played, but really, really want to) has an element of this, in which there are "national customers" for which all players are competing, and "regional customers", which only you and the player on one side of you compete for.

That's true- I've even played Scream Machine before and I forgot about it. I don't know if that's exactly what I had in mind, but it really is just what I described. Good example.

Quote:
The other thing to make sure of is that the "multiple boards" are justifiable complexity, and not just reducible to a single board with several locations/areas/spaces on it.

At the moment I'm not convined the board couldn't just be seperated into outlined regions... and that's IF this region idea is even the way to go. However, if a full game is only to use 1 region, it'd probably be better to not have the other regions on the board.

- Seth

Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Local opponents vs Global opponents.

The Civilization games (not the table-top version) definitely had regional conflicts, especially early in the game where available actions couldn't geographically reach all opponents. Of course, that feeling went away in the late game when everyone was within a bombing run of at least one of your cities.

This feels like a more natural regional vs. global interaction. Players could move freely and could still attack anyone they wanted, but they were limited by feasibility. You could attack someone on the other side of the map, but you'd lose to your neighbor. Howeever, Civ. requires a geography of relatively high resolution (i.e., there are far more places to build a city in Civ than, say, territories to occupy in Risk). This creates more exploration, but unfortunately, it would slow a board game to a crawl.

Still has potential... I'd rather see a game that allowed players some strategic decisions in how the regional opponents squared off than a rule that forced regional interaction with a "you can only interact with the player on your left."

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Local opponents vs Global opponents.

Cool idea, Seth ... the closest I've seen to something like this (or at least like I think you're describing) takes place in the World of Kaomaris (link) war games that I play now and again.

10 players are spread around a 60- or 70-province map. Obviously, you can directly interact with your close neighbors (through armies :twisted: ) ... but the folks on the other side of the map allow some interaction as well, although a different kind. Primarily, it's through the ability to send a spy to anywhere on the map. It plays a role in how diplomacy is worked out -- having far-away players spy on your nearby neighbors keeps you technically innocent, since you haven't spied on them directly. Also, the threat of a 2-front war can come in handy now and then.

But I'm not sure how to work that kind of thing into a board game with fewer players and less tolerance for book-keeping. The interacting with just the player on your left/right might have interesting effects ... as would only allowing one type of interaction (direct/immediate trade) with players on the same board section and another type of interaction (limited/slower trade) with players on other board sections.

That's a nice piece to get the brain spinning ... ;)

-Bryk

Anonymous
not sure about other games but...

I think you were talking about an election type game? Gaining influence in regions could be done on city, state and federal levels then and give each player a party.

So that maybe in scoring 10 town level seats for your party it might be worth more then 1 state senate seat and 2 house of reps seats. In this way everyone would have to pay attention to each level (local and "global").

Or perhaps having a federal senator stump for local candidates it helps their election efforts in some way. So that a tightly contested local election could be influenced by allies that aren't necesarrily even it that race themselves (kinda like the current US situation where republicans are trying to get Nader on ballots to pull votes from Kerry)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut