Skip to Content
 

A War Game Without Elimination

11 replies [Last post]
cedrick
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I'm developing a sort of traditional wargame in a scenario where you have a bunch of Usurpers fighting to unseat a Regent. And in my original vision of the game, like most wargames, players could be eliminated, and the Regent would win by eliminating his competition. But when I consider that I hate being the first player knocked out of a game and then have to watch TV while my friends finish the game, I began to rethink my approach.

The two most plausible solutions to this problems seem to be either changing the Regent's goal or making the Regent a non-player character. If I take either route, players can be kept in the game until a victory condition is met. But there are problems with either solution.

If the Regent remains a player but can't eliminate his opponents, his job becomes much harder. And having up to 5 players harassing you at the same time seems quite hard to balance. It would also seem to discourage the Usurpers from attacking one another, which is something that I am trying quite hard to make a real focus of the game.

If the Regent is no longer a player, then how do I move his troops to not only defend his stronghold, but actively hunt down the weak players? Here, I have come up with two solutions: having the players jointly control the Regent's forces and having an algorithmic approach.

Joint control of the bad guy's troops is not only theme-problematic but funny enough, the math is the killer. I've designed my game for 2-6 players, but the only number of troops that would work out evenly for all numbers of players is 60 troops -- a number well outside of my design scope. 12 (a workable number in my system) troops works for 2, 3, 4 and 6 players, but if there are 5, there would be an uneven distribution of troops, giving 2 players an advantage in controlling more units than the others. This has the added problem of the Regent's troops obviously not engaging the player who controls them.

So I'm considering an algorithmic approach, but I am having a hard time with it. Hunting the players seems impossible, and it seems that unless I fill the Regent's land with troops, players will be able to anticipate and avoid the armies by knowing how they will move ahead of time.

I'd like some thoughts on the general issue. Maybe someone can give some examples of how other games have solved these problems elegantly?

Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

To encourage the non regent players you could change the victory conditions. If the regent is knocked out of the game then it is the nonregent player with the most victory points (or whatever). This means that the player's who are not in the top place will be encouraged to suport the regent. The regent is now no longer beset by all the players, just the top non regent player(s).

If a non regent player is knocked out of the game, you could have them take over a rol of a lacky for the regent (ie they surrender and swear alligence to the regent). Thus they are still in the game.

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
A War Game Without Elimination

I've recently been playing a web based pbem game called Epic of Northwood. (EoN)

Its a Fantasy Wargame, the basic scenario being that the once powerful custodians of the Realm, the High Elves, have been waning in power, and the other races are becoming more unsettled.

The game begins with all the players in favour with the High Elves who tax the other races, but who may also grant them boons etc, and who also dictates laws, helps settle disputes etc. As time goes by however, players may decide to rebel against the High Elves, freeing them from paying taxes, but wh may suffer the wrath of the High Elves, who may grant more benefits to those loyal to them, and who are willing to go to war with the 'Rebels'.

This provides quite a nice balance, as players don't really want to pay taxes, but enjoy gaining boons, but then are also tempted to break out on their own.

This game has its roots in a Diplomacy type combat system, and there is no hidden information, but there is player elimination.

Ok, maybe that doesn't help much, but anyway...

Maybe you want to include some other influences to the game. One thing may be to limit the number of turns to the game. If no player has eliminated the regent, or fulfilled their victory conditions, by the end of say 15 turns, then the Regent wins (i.e. they have been trying to hold out long enough for outside help to arrive).

You may also want to consider a variety of victory conditions, so the aim is not to just try and eliminate other players. You may also want to introduce some other alliance type aspects of the game. i.e. in the EoN game above, the High Elves only have one province, and may not move their armies. But their province is an island within a donut continent. The only way for a player to invade is to own four capitals and then cast a 'Breach' spell, which lets them transport units across to the High Elf Capital.

Thus players either try to work together to be able to invade the High Elves, or else they try and go it alone. Meanwhile the High Elves are using all their wiles to try and pit players against each other so no one player gets too strong.

You could implement similar things, to try and keep a balance in the game.

A lot depends on how 'Traditional' a wargame you want it to be. Maybe player keep getting regular reinforcements from off the map, so even if they lose all their forces, they still gain more.

Lots of rambling...

erael
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

I'd suggest one of two things. Either allow players to move the Regent units instead of their own on their turn (maybe only every other turn or something--the main thing is to be careful not to allow them to burn out the Regent's troops or be too gamey) or leave the Regent's troops off map in a holding box and make players either roll as they cross the Regent's territory to see if troops show up to fight them or roll for which of the Regent's troops show up to fight when certain strategic locations are attacked.

It depends on how you want to go about things, but I can certainly imagine a game where you want to control e.g. 6 castles to win and the Regent has a pool of troops and when one of his castles is attacked you roll a die and 1-3 choose one unit from his pool 4-5 2 units, 6 3 units and they defend the castle then go back to the pool or blah blah blah...Just some ideas which might be helpful to get you started thinking about things.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
A War Game Without Elimination

If you don't want to eliminate players, just make them incarnate a new role as they die.

For example, in a war game where I wanted people to play a slice of time. If the evil expantionist country would have been conquered. The old government surrender, but the new government can be played by the same player. Of course, the player will have to play differently his role. If there are more than one player that lose their country, they can simply be switched.

erael
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

If you want to keep the Regent as a player, I'd suggest that you do something like the following:

Make the regent stronger and/or centrally located. Give the other players a "safe harbor" area where the regent (only) can't attack them.

Allow any usurper to "crown" himself at the end of his turn in a particular location (or not). This gets rid of that usurper's "safe harbor". Then if that usurper lasts X turns holding onto the location (or survives with his king candidate, or at all, or whatever) the usurper wins. If no usurper survives, then the game ends after a predetermined time and the person with the most (cities, victory locations, what have you) wins OR play to a preset city/VP threshold (dangerous with so many players--risk of eternal games).

That way, a player is unlikely to be eliminated (you hope) during the normal course of events because the person beating up on him will in turn be beaten up, plus the regent (the strongest player) can't get at him. But if someone WANTS to put themselves out as a target, they can.

You can also steal a page from the Cosmic Encounter book and only allow attacks on certain other players on your turn, if your game is sufficiently abstract.

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

Some solutions:

1) On the Regen't turn, he could simply attack at random. Roll a die to determine who he attacks. Might not get the result you are looking for.

2) The Regent isn't offensive, only defensive. His troops outnumber the players, but he only engages those who attack him.

3) The Regent could be a king that is heavily taxing his lords (the players). A player is safe until he rebels. Once a player decides to attack, he is no longer taxed on his resources, but the King then attacks that player. On the Regent's turn, attacks are divided evenly among the rebelling players. To encourage other players to also rebel, the king further taxes his remaining "loyal" lords, to make up for lost revenue.

CardboardAddict
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

If you would have the Regent to be a real player, you
should also consider the option that when a player's
army is destroyed and the player should be eliminated,
see if you could have the eliminated player join the regent
as Undead. Thematic problems solved.
Also, the regent could win when the majority of peoples is
on his side. This is still the same in the game, so you don't
really have to come up with another goal.
The only thing you should do is think of a way to have an
Undead player still win the game...

Good luck

cedrick
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

Thank you all for your insightful comments.

I have all but given up on the idea of having the Regent being automated or jointly-controlled. The best solution I have seen is to have the Regent remain a player but to change how he wins.

erael, my original mechanics are much like you describe: the Regent is both the strongest player at the start of the game and he's centrally located. The goal is for the Usurpers to unseat him by conquering his capital. I'm unsure how the "crowning" mechanic you describe will solve the elimination problem, though it would encourage the Usurpers to attack one another. But the goal is to be the undisputed king, and that means in order to be crowned, you'd have to attack the Regent.

Infernal, I like your suggestion of limiting who is allowed to attack the regent to a Top Contender, since it has the dual benefit of keeping the Regent from being overwhelmed by many players at once and simultaneously encouraging the other Usurpers to pick on the Contender. Though isn't this just a rules-enforced version of what should happen anyway? Theoretically, it is in the Usurpers' best interests to weaken another Usurper if they think he will be able to challenge the Regent.

The lingering problem is how the Regent wins without eliminating the Usurpers. A victory point solution seems the easiest to balance, and in the case of a civil war, it makes a certain amount of sense that if the Regent can regain control enough of his territory, he can quell the revolt. But that's the hard way. Speaking in terms of the way revolts usually are handled, the most efficient way is by cutting off the head of the resistance. The "reincarnation" solution may be the only viable way to make this work, and I have a few ideas as to how to make that happen, but I'd very much like to explore alternatives.

erael
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

Hi Cedric,

I was thinking that the "crowning" mechanism would allow players with a go-for-broke mentality to try to seize the win, and also prevent a powerful Regent from crushing individual players since if he overcommits his forces in one theater he runs the risk of a player in another theater crowning a king and the Regent not being able to rush back in time.

Balancing this mechanic w/a normal territory-based win condition at the end of the game would hopefully create a situation where the various pretenders/contenders tried to nibble away at the Regent's territory while the Regent tried to keep them all at bay without scoring a knockout blow against any. The "safe haven" was just to reinforce the survivability of the contenders, but you might not need that (for that matter you might not even need the "crowning" mechanic either, but it's a thematic way to win that doesn't entail knocking out the Regent--see below).

I think the big conceptual problem with the game currently is that you've got the strongest player who needs to be conquered by another player in order for the game to end. That's a recipe for a really long, bloody game. I think the ideal would be to find a thematic way to change that dynamic--why not have the Regent be the usurper, and have the other players be legitimate heirs (each with a claim, each dangerous if they can only establish a power base)?

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

You know, most board games try to avoid the "gang up on the leader" problem that arises, but you might be able to embrace it here to great effect:

At the start of the game, one player is determined to be the Regent. The goal of the other players is to unseat him, and when they do, that player becomes the Regent. Sort of a king of the hill wargame.

Nobody is eliminated, but at the end the "winner" is who held the Regent position the longest.

cedrick
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
A War Game Without Elimination

Julius, I like this idea! I think the "king of the hill" concept is very workable for me. Combining your idea and erael's, all players could start as Usurpers, and the capital is vacant. A Usurper can crown himself by capturing the castle and holding it, and if he controls the capital as well as a certain amount of territory for say 3 turns, we can declare him the King. No Regent required at all.

And the best part is, no need to eliminate players, because if you're knocked off the hill, you can try climbing back on while the other players squabble.

Thank you, everyone, for your help in solving a major design problem!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut