My apologies, folks ... I'll be posting the link to this one later today. I've come down with something over the weekend and need to spend a bit of this morning sleeping. The design/rule doc needs a few touch-ups, and then I'll post it.
-Bryk
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Mon, 05/17/2004 - 09:56
Tue, 05/18/2004 - 08:48
#2
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
I think that this idea definitely has potential, but it doesn't quite feel ready yet to me. Mainly, my concern is that it's a bit dry. I think that this reaction is primarily to the board. I don't particularly like the layout of the tiles, the restriction of having to follow the road, etc. On the other hand, it could be something that would appeal to the more "American" games audience as the idea of following a track will be more familiar to them.
I also don't like the ambiguity of the combat resolution associated with the tile system. The rules say that any Infantry/Cavalry on the same tile or Artillery on the next tile can count towards the attack. In principle, I like this, but because of the tile shape, there could be some weirdness; I could be attacking an army at the edge of a tile, and yet armies just one space over on the next tile wouldn't contribute to the battle, yet armies on the complete opposite side of the same tile would. Things like that seem strange, yet making something more spatially "realistic" will almost certainly lead to exceptions.
I feel like you need terrain effects or something to spice the board up, yet I like the simplicity of the current scheme and wouldn't advocate going too crazy with that. I like the buildings that you've laid out, they're simple and intuitive and I could see different strategies highlighting different buildings. (Although, really, you need a combination of all of them)
One consequence of the board structure is that you could basically build "impregnable fortresses" by occupying a big majority of the spaces on a tile, preventing others from getting their pieces onto the tile. Not sure if that would be viable, but something to watch out for.
I do like the tension between using your cards to build or fight. It seems like fighting will be something of a crapshoot since the cards vary so wildly in value (more than twice as much as a die roll, which is already pretty random!). My guess is that the strategy will amount to holding your high cards back for when you want to start a battle and using your lower cards to build. The very low cards don't appear to serve any purpose other than creating infantry. It's hard to say how the card system would work; it sounds like an ok enough idea, but it feels a bit like you're trying to force-fit a standard deck of cards in just for the sake of using a standard deck of cards, when coming up with a custom deck would almost certainly be more interesting/appropriate.
Allowing each army to take two actions could lead to a bookkeeping nightmare. For example, I attack using several of the armies on a tile, but not all of them; how do I remember which ones still have 1 action left, and which have 2? Maybe it's not so bad, just something to watch out for.
I do think you have some good ideas here, and I think this will be a fun beer-and-pretzels freewheeling wargame; I think incorporating diplomatic elements would definitely make the game interesting, though allowing 3rd party involvement could lead to too many fiddly rules (although the "only armies on this tile can get involved" restriction does limit the chaos nicely...). I'd be interested to see how the game develops further. As I said, I don't really like the tile system in its current incarnation, but I also don't have a lot of great suggestions for what to change it to. Probably others will think it's just fine.
Good luck with developing this one further!
-Jeff
Tue, 05/18/2004 - 10:42
#3
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Hello
I got the feeling that this is more a first approach (or idea) then a game. I start directly.
MAP tiles: They will work but make them different (now it more feels as a variant of chess or as a board game variant from an old PC-game).
Deck of cards: Let each player have one deck of cards each. They will have the hole deck on there hands from the start and when the deck is gone, the game is over (the game will have an end, in the current game you can have a stalemate situation for hours).
Movement: Remove the 2-action policy for units. Limit the number of cards that you can play during a turn. Each army can do 1 movement and 1 attack during its turn.
It is now possible to Move an army to a tile, build a base, create an army from that base, move that army to the next base, attack and destroy your opponent with that army. Build a new base. Build a new army, moves that army and do a new attack… You have the option to do a large number of actions per turn from 1 army.
In a 2-player game you will have a runaway leader situation. In a 3-6-player game you can have "get the leader situation".
// Johan
Tue, 05/18/2004 - 13:52
#4
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
jwarrend wrote:
I think that this idea definitely has potential, but it doesn't quite feel ready yet to me. Mainly, my concern is that it's a bit dry. I think that this reaction is primarily to the board. I don't particularly like the layout of the tiles, the restriction of having to follow the road, etc. On the other hand, it could be something that would appeal to the more "American" games audience as the idea of following a track will be more familiar to them.
As I was looking over the rules quickly yesterday and not having time then to do a detailed post (and still really not enough time yet to do, but I will...) Jeff's words were close to what I was thinking, but didn't know how to say it. I feel that the concept is very simple, which is a good thing, but needs something more to make it feel more like a game and less a simulation. I will try to think of anything that I feel that will help this.
Hope to be able to help soon. Good luck with the game!
Steve
Tue, 05/18/2004 - 23:03
#5
A Good Start
I think jwarrend pretty much said it all. So maybe some of my comments may echo his.
The game right now as jwarrend states is a little "dry." Now there is nothing wrong with a game being like this to begin with. It simply indicates more needed development. I think it is a good thing to start off simple and dry opposed to complicated and multifarious.
The idea of laying out square tiles for the terrain is ok. I think varying the tiles and making them different would go a long way. Maybe some tiles could have impassible obstacles or would not have room for a base, or add some kind of bonus for high terrain (indicated on the tile) or something.
Maybe you can have different types of bases that produce different types of units, and maybe they can only be built on some areas of the terrain. Maybe you have units that can mine and get cards or something.
The game definitely needs something novel to it. Maybe build underground tunnels to attack is an example of a crazy idea you need.
It's a good start.
--DarkDream
Tue, 05/18/2004 - 23:55
#6
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Is the PDF still up? I'm getting a blank screen. Anyway, I like the formula and many of the ideas. I think the mechanics are excellent and interact well, but there is nothing in particular that grabs my interest. A new theme could go a long way. All I see now is a generic Risk-like war game with tiles. Where's the fun in that? It could be about the expansionism(!) of the Polynesian tribes across the island chains - the rampant overdevelopment and destructive wars that led to environmental catastrophe on Easter Island. It could be about the Age of Discovery and colonization of newly discovered lands. It could even be about robots and spaceships battling over the starlanes. Just considering the possibilities can be a source of inspiration. New gameplay elements could be created that match the theme, ie: sprawl, pirates, planet-rending superweapons. I'd also consider rethinking the tiles. They may work from a gameplay standpoint, but - must there be so much squareness? And so much white space? If games were food, I'd say this one needs spices!
Wed, 05/19/2004 - 01:17
#7
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Adding to what some people have said...
Suppose the tiles were different. Suppose there's a tile for each teams base (use only as many bases as there are players, or else maybe 'empty' bases can have a game effect- either way). Suppose some tiles showed a Hill (high ground), and some Woods (limited movement/visibility). This is not too unlike other war games with terrain... Duel of Ages is one example. I'm sure Warhammer and the like are more examples.
Setup could be that the players take turns choosing any one of the tiles and placing them on the board. So you always have all the options. The board could be a set size or shape, or perhaps not... either you fill in a perimeter (maybe always a rectangle with size based on number of players) or else you grow the board from a starting piece outward (like Carcassone ends up). Either one has merit.
Thus, you have a different, interesting board every time. If you want to ENSURE a different board each game then only have about 3 tiles face up at a time to choose from.
Anyway, some simple terrain-defined rules effects (like Artilery cannot help in combat if you're on a Woods tile) and there you go.
- Seth
Wed, 05/19/2004 - 06:03
#8
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
My initial reaction was almost the same as Seth: make the map tiles different, but the same for each player, IYSWIM. e.g. everyone has 1 wood, 1 hilltop and 3 plains. Then just add movement or attack mods for different terrain types - it shouldn't add much complexity but make the map more interesting.
I agree with Jeff's comment about the randomness of card-drawing, but I'm not sure there's any alternative; one of the things I like is the standard playing card deck. And I'd second the comment Johan made, that each player should have their own deck. This also allows for some interesting extra options during combat; how about making a pair count both as the most useful colour? How about making 2s and 3s "wildcards" in combat so that they are worth the same as the highest card the opponent has played? That could be funny too.
Wed, 05/19/2004 - 08:52
#9
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
First off, the game bounced off of me favorably. I like the abstractness of the combat and the concentration more on territorial expansion, which I think is what your aim was (and less of a tactical wargame). Now, let me add my take on what has previously been said.
jwarrend wrote:
I could be attacking an army at the edge of a tile, and yet armies just one space over on the next tile wouldn't contribute to the battle, yet armies on the complete opposite side of the same tile would. Things like that seem strange, yet making something more spatially "realistic" will almost certainly lead to exceptions.
Completely true, and I agree, that seems weird for a land-based combat theme. However, I was thinking a space-based theme, where each tile either represents a planet in one system or planetary systems across the galaxy, might make more sense...ships in one system can obviously engage in combat, but across systems would be too far. In such a theme, perhaps it takes all the actions of a unit to move from one tile to the next, to represent the great distances (or the build up of the warp engines, or however else you want to explain it thematically).
jwarrend wrote:
One consequence of the board structure is that you could basically build "impregnable fortresses" by occupying a big majority of the spaces on a tile, preventing others from getting their pieces onto the tile. Not sure if that would be viable, but something to watch out for.
I had this impression as well, but maybe that's not necessarily bad (i.e. a "viable strategy)? If going with a space theme (and not intending to hijack your idea, but go with me on this), you could say that units traveling from tile to tile appear on the new tile at a random location. Spaces on the tile could have values printed on them A-K. When a unit moves, draw a card and that's where it shows up. If you had multiple A-K's, you could even have the color come into play - red the owner gets to place the ship, black the opponent gets to place the ship, on the indicated space. This would certainly reduce the likelihood of an "impregnable fortress".
jwarrend wrote:
Allowing each army to take two actions could lead to a bookkeeping nightmare.
I agree that that could become an accounting nightmare. One way around this is to have pieces that can have three states - upright, on its side, and upside down. Another way around it is to add a rule that says you have to finish movement of one unit before starting movement of the next.
Johan wrote:
It is now possible to Move an army to a tile, build a base, create an army from that base, move that army to the next base, attack and destroy your opponent with that army. Build a new base. Build a new army, moves that army and do a new attack… You have the option to do a large number of actions per turn from 1 army.
While this would be limited to the cards you had in your hand at the time (plus the two that you drew), it does seem a little "leapfroggy". Perhaps new bases should be placed upside-down or in some other fashion to indicate new construction that cannot themselves produce new units, and at the end of the player's turn all newly constructed bases are turned right-side up.
Overall, though, I think you have some interesting ideas here! Break out the ol' game polish and start rubbing!
Wed, 05/19/2004 - 10:24
#10
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Thanks to everyone for very thoughtful and insightful comments ... I'll try to take on a couple of the generic themes that were brought up ...
Not Quite a Game Yet -- Very true ... but it's more than a half-baked design. I'd say it's about a 3-quarters baked design. ;) But, in my mind, it's at that perfect point to have workshopped. I haven't gotten completely sold on any/all of the stuff in it yet, but I have enough structure to start beating up the theory behind it. So ... here we are.
Dry -- As some of you have already mentioned, I like to start simple and abstract, work out the machine elements of the game and flesh-out the "meaty" thematic part of the game later. I've purposely kept the thing very generic at this point. I could put together a theme from ancient times through far future (as some of you have already done ;)) when the time comes. Or, I could keep it generic, and allow various different themes to be played out in the graphics of different sets -- a middle ages set (Pikemen, Horsemen, Catapults), American Civil War set (Musketeers, Calvary, Cannons), etc.
Tiles -- I agree that they need to be different, but this was the starting point I came up with. What I'm trying to do with the tiles is twofold: (1) Have them represent larger-scale territories (thus, 1 Base per tile) and (2) Have them take care of tactical-scale Army movements and battles. Here's something that came to mind today while driving into work ... I could remove all of the inner squares on the tile and just keep the 8 squares around the outer edge. (I'll even switch the larger Base square in the middle to a circle to make things easier for terminology.) Then a "distance" of "1" will be either moving from your current square to any other square on the same territory, or moving from your current square to the adjacent square on a neighboring tile. I would then make movement something like Artillery=1, Infantry=2, Calvary=3 (Calvary still allowed to "jump"). And attack range would be 1 for Infantry/Calvary and 2 for Artillery. This might make things a bit more spacially realistic. (Although I'd need to figure out how the Road Base would now effect movement.)
Cards -- The standard playing cards replaced a dice-based production points and combat system that was becoming an accounting nightmare. I like the idea of using a standard deck of cards, because it would keep my own production costs down if I move this to a self-produced game. A couple ideas came to me on this one ... first, to build something, the player can put down one or more cards that have a combined total that equals or exceeds what is needed to build the thing. This might make the smaller numbered cards more useful. Second, the attacker can only play cards from his hand during a battle (if you're going to attack, you better have the cards). The defender can still play from hand or draw from the deck. I did like the suggestion about the "wild" cards -- I'm thinking that any one Ace (no matter the color) will allow the defender to remove any one of the Attacker's cards. Finally, I still like the idea of a community deck ... but Johan's point is well received about a stalemate condition. So, perhaps the game is over the second time the draw deck is used up.
Two Actions per Army -- Yeah, I don't like this one either. I could probably split the turn into movement, build and combat phases. Each Army can move their allotted distance. Then, Bases and Armies can be built, where allowed. Finally, the player can pick his fights. The number of fights would be limited by the attackers cards-in-hand, so I'm not sure if I need to put an artificial limit on it (no more than 3 total attacks, or whatever).
Terrain Effects -- I do like this idea -- especially the effects this could add to movement and battles -- and think that I'll eventually work this in ... but I think the baseline mechanics should get nailed down first.
Third Parties in Battle -- I still want to work this in ... I think it would automatically create a diplomatic meta game, without having to spell that out for the players. Perhaps each side could bring one other player into the battle with them, and that other player could only contribute a single Army to the battle. On the attacking side, a supporting third party would provide a card (or two) from his hand and might lose his Army if the defense wins. On the defending side, the supporting third party would provide a card (or two) from his hand -- no drawing from the deck for a supporting third party. I think this is simple enough to carry out and would add a good deal of negotiations to the game.
Thanks again, everyone -- keep the brains flowing. :D
(a very appreciative)
-Bryk
Thu, 05/20/2004 - 10:46
#11
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
I had an interesting vision last night as I drifted off to sleep -- aren't alpha waves cool! 8) Anyway ... it helped me with a combination of closing in on a theme for this game, along with putting the "terrain effects" into play.
The theme will be futuristic, but planetside ... multiple groups either simultaneously trying to settle a newly found planet, or perhaps multiple land grants given out on the same planet. In any case ... two or more groups, and not enough planet for all of them.
To match the theme, I switch the terminology for the Armies: Infantry become "Commandos", Calvary become "Mechs", and Artillery become "TICs" (Track-driven Ion Cannons). In an extension of this thinking, I could even present different races (Humans, Droids, Aveons, Reptilians, etc.) for each color available in the game ... which would lead to different names for each type of Army in order to deepen the theme. Advanced rules might even factor in a special ability for each of the different races. (I realize this has all been done before, but it might just fit in this case as well.) From a practical self-production perspective, I'd probably sell 4 different pairs ... buying 1 would allow a 2-player game, buying and combining more would allow for games up to 8 players.
Each player would still start with 5 different map tiles (each with a circle in the middle to place a Base), but they would be of the following mix:
- 2 Flatlands - The "standard" tile, making up 40% of the map. 8 squares around the outer edges to connect to neighboring tiles. No special properties.
- 1 Rich Resources - Adds an extra card drawn from deck to hand at the start of the owner's turn. 8 squares around the outer edges to connect to neighboring tiles.
- 1 Hilands - Raised area of geography, giving some strategic combat advantages. Only 4 squares around the outer edges (1 on each edge) for connecting to neighboring tiles. Adds an extra card drawn from the deck when an Army on this tile is used in any battle (attack, defense, or support). Artillery on this tile gains a +1 to range.
- 1 Lolands - Rough, serpentine canyons that limit travel but provide extra shelter. Only 6 squares (2 on each of 3 edges, 1 blank edge) for connecting to neighboring tiles. Limits Infantry and Calvary to only 1 movement space per turn. Artillery cannot move onto or through this tile. Armies on this tile cannot be attacked or supported by Artillery.
- 3 Teleport Stations (replaces Roads) - Players can move Armies between squares on two different tiles that each have a Teleport Station on them as if they were the same tile. In other words, if a player has a Teleport Station on Tile A and on Tile B, he could move an Army from a square on Tile A to a square on Tile B and only count it as a movement distance of 1. Also, players can make use of other players' Teleport Stations, with the owner's permission.
- 2 Infantry Barracks
- 1 Calvary Barracks
- 1 Artillery Barracks
- 4 Military Bases (replaces Forts)
- 4 Supply Bases (replaces Cities)
Thoughts?
-Bryk
[/][/]
Thu, 05/20/2004 - 12:40
#12
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Brykovian wrote:
I had an interesting vision last night as I drifted off to sleep -- aren't alpha waves cool! 8)
Yes, they are! I've benefitted more than once from the "epiphany prior to unconsciousness"!
Brykovian wrote:
How would this work connecting, say, to another tile with 2 connection points per edge?
[/]
- 1 Hilands - Raised area of geography, giving some strategic combat advantages. Only 4 squares around the outer edges (1 on each edge) for connecting to neighboring tiles.
Thu, 05/20/2004 - 13:02
#13
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
MikeDew wrote:
How would this work connecting, say, to another tile with 2 connection points per edge?
If you think of the left edge of a standard tile having a "high" and "low" square on it, then the Hiland tiles would only have the "high" one on that side. So, the four squares would be "high left", "right top", "low right", and "left bottom".
When the tile is placed, it would still need to be done so that one of those four squares line up with an existing square already on the map. I hope to get some time to draw up graphical examples in the next day or so ... I'll post them if I do.
-Bryk
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 01:35
#14
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
I was able to throw together a quick and dirty example of the 3 different ways the squares would be setup on the tiles:
The one on the left is the normal 8-square tile (please pretend that the squares line up in a way that you could offset a tile by half its height or width and still be able to line-up a square properly) ... the middle one is for the lowlands (6-squares, 1 blank edge) ... the one on the right is for the hilands (4 squares, 1 on each edge).
-Bryk
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 08:11
#15
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Brykovian wrote:
The one on the left is the normal 8-square tile (please pretend that the squares line up in a way that you could offset a tile by half its height or width and still be able to line-up a square properly) ... the middle one is for the lowlands (6-squares, 1 blank edge) ... the one on the right is for the hilands (4 squares, 1 on each edge).
Nice illustration. So, it'd be okay to place a tile such that a square on one tile isn't lined up with a square on the other (as in the last two tiles shown)?
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 10:05
#16
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
MikeDew wrote:
So, it'd be okay to place a tile such that a square on one tile isn't lined up with a square on the other (as in the last two tiles shown)?
Right ... as long as *at least one* of the squares on the new tile lines up with *at least one* of the squares on an existing tile, we're good to go.
The way the squares are layed out on the tiles, tiles will either be exactly lined-up along an edge, or will be offset by half the tile width.
The Lolands tiles will make for the possibility that there will be a tile adjacent to its "empty" side -- there won't be any movement available between those two tiles ... you'll have to "go around". ;)
-Bryk
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 10:18
#17
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Okay -- more sleep cycles, more evolution and refinement on the ideas behind the game ... ;)
The "Rich Resources" tile will be renamed to "Richlands" ... giving a consistent naming stile: Flatlands, Hilands, Lolands, Richlands. Instead of giving an extra card at the start of the turn, owning one of these tiles at the end of the game will add nicely to your score. They have shifted to becoming a targetted goal for the game. To emphasize this a bit, during the pre-game setup, an extra Richlands tile will be added to the collection of tiles that will make up the map. So, there will still be 5 tiles per player (2 Flatlands, 1 each of Hilands, Lolands, and Richlands), but then 1 extra Richlands tile will be added to the pot as well, giving N+1 Richlands tiles for the taking.
The pre-game map setup will be refined a touch. All tiles for the game will be placed face-down on the table, mixed up, then stacked ... Each tile will be drawn in turn from the top of the stack and flipped face-up. The first tile will be put in the center of the table, and the second will be connected properly to it. After that, each new tile will be added to the map, as before, with the added rule that it can't be placed in connection with the previously-placed tile. This process will optionally just be done by a single player (the "host") or by the group as before.
I'm settling on a single "race" for the game (leaning away from the "each color is a different race" idea) ... keeps things simpler, IMO. Still liking the futuristic theme ... A planet rich in valuable minerals (or another specific material) has been found and surveyed. Several groups look to claim as much of the bounty as they can ... let the battles begin.
Game ends after the draw deck has been emptied a specific number of times (2? 3? playtesting will show the best). Scoring is based upon number and type of Bases and Armies on the map, with significant bonus points for each Richlands tile with a base on it.
And so we're getting somethings that will help with coming up with a better name for the game ... I'm thinking the name "Richland" or "Richlands" could definitely be included in the title ... Richlands Reward, Richlands Goal, Target: Richland, Richland Prime ... {bleah}
Ideas and comments are appreciated ...
-Bryk
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 11:38
#18
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Sounds like it's really coming together. The different races idea didn't sit well with me...I'm glad you dropped it. That doesn't necessarily preclude each color/faction having some unique trait, however.
As for a name, off the top of my head I came up with "Race for the Richlands", although since combat appears to play a significant role, you could probably substitute "Battle" (or "War") for "Race". Another direction you could go is to come up with a name for this mystery planet and call the game that. Or, subtitle it with something from above, along the lines of "Mysteria: War of the Richlands".
Good idea? Bad idea?
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 12:53
#19
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
Can you still travel between squares on a given tile, or has that changed as well?
I would probably only include "Richlands" in the title if you're trying to lure buyers named Rich.
Other than that, I think you have some good ideas. I particularly like the teleport station It may be somewhat chaotic, but it will probably work well enough.
Good luck!
-Jeff
Fri, 05/21/2004 - 13:47
#20
Game #31: Expansionism by Matt Worden (Brykovian)
jwarrend wrote:
Can you still travel between squares on a given tile, or has that changed as well?
Moving from one square on a tile to any other square on that same tile is a movement distance of 1.
Quote:
I would probably only include "Richlands" in the title if you're trying to lure buyers named Rich.
:) Yeah, I've yet to like the ring of that in the name yet, now that I've been trying to force it out. I think Mike might have given a good suggestion to simply name it after whatever the newly found planet would be called.
Don't know yet ... can get to that part later, but I'm still open for suggestions. :)
-Matt
Okey-doke ... here is the link to the PDF file:
http://www.mwgames.com/_ufiles/Expansionism.PDF
Please note the comments I made on the last page of the doc ...
Fire away! :D
-Bryk