Skip to Content
 

Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

25 replies [Last post]
Sun, 07/25/2004 - 18:05
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008

Hi all,

It certainly seems strange on the other side of the GDW, offering a game for comment rather than commenting on other peoples' games.

I've put up 'High Council of Evensford'. Here are the relevant bits and pieces:

*** Sorry - downloads have now been deleted as it looks like a publisher might pick the game up ***

- rules

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/GeminiWeb/Even_Rules.DOC

- player reference card

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/GeminiWeb/Even_Player_Reference.DOC

- board

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/GeminiWeb/Even_Board.pdf

- sample cards

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/GeminiWeb/Even_Card_samples.zip

Please don't be scared off by the length of the rules (which is not an indication of complexity) - that includes a title page and pages of tables in appendices. No doubt, it is more of a reflection that I need to learn to write a bit more succintly. A project for a later date is to write a set of 'quickplay rules' which are much shorter.

The board is set up as 6 A4 pages .. To be set up as:
1 2
3 4
5 6

Some background that might be of interest …

* The game has been played about 15 (?) times for playtesting purposes.

* The game originally had players each building their own city and the game played okay like that. However, I wanted more player interaction (than just through trading), so I decided to make people compete for limited space in a single city (after about 10 playtests). Similarly, I added bonus points for have the majority of buildings in a district to heighten this. The game seems more interesting now as a result.

* The most recent playtests have seen the number of districts drop from 6 to 5 to 4 (which has not yet been playtested).

* The other unplaytested aspect is the recent addition to allow a player to build 2 houses per turn (instead of just 1) with 3 levels of technology in Agriculture. This was to make houses and the 3rd tech level of agriculture more appealling in the later stages of the game.

* The game originally called for people to hold their cards in their hand (which was often quite a few). However, during a playtest we agreed to have the cards face-up til people got the hang of the rules … and it worked so well so I made it a rule!

* Playtesting tends to suggest that the game favours people who:
- are flexible in their strategy, in response to the cards they draw
- are good traders
- don't hoard their cards too much

* One additional rule I am considering is to have the top two cards of each deck face-up (but still kept in order). This will lead to some informed decisions on whether to draw PRODUCTION or RESEARCH cards, or to build. The reason for two cards rather than just one is that people might take a lesser valued card to get to a better card … This is completely unplaytested though.

Any comments would be great. It's nice making a game that my friends enjoy playing on the few occassions we get together to play a boardgame, but a game with wider appeal than that would be much better!

Also, I'd be more than happy to provide files of the full card sets for anyone interested in playtesting (15 plays in 8 months makes for a very slow process …).

Thanks
Bill (GeminiWeb)

Top
Mon, 07/26/2004 - 17:07
#1
Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Howdy ...

I was able to get a quick read-through on the rules during lunch today. It looks like an interesting game. I haven't had a chance to step-through the game as a player would in order to see how everything works together ... hopefully I'll get the chance tonight.

I'll post again once I've done that ... in the meantime, I like what I've seen so far. I really like light world-building games that combine research, production, and building.

The only thing that struck me on my quick re-through was how each thing in the game has its own purpose ... research cards = building tech, production cards = building houses/buildings ... the conflict of decisions for the players, I assume, comes in which of those two things to advance with the limited number of actions he/she can take.

Any chance you'd consider finding a way for something in the game to be used for more than one purpose? For example, generalized "coin" cards that could be used to pay for *either* research or buildings?

More later ...

-Bryk

Top
Mon, 07/26/2004 - 18:29
#2
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Brykovian,

Thanks for 'howdy'.

Quote:
I really like light world-building games that combine research, production, and building.

Good! So do I. Funnily enough I started this game with "I like games that make you feel like you've achieved something ... like building things ... and I also like to be able to research technology in games ... let's see if I can turn that into a game ..."

Quote:
the conflict of decisions for the players, I assume, comes in which of those two things to advance with the limited number of actions he/she can take.

Yes, very much. Typical choices are:

BUILD
- I want to build before the building sites I want are taken.
- I want the advantages that the special buildings provide.
PRODUCTION
- I can't build anything without money
RESEARCH
- I want to build a specific building, but I don't have the technology to build it.
- I need COINS to build, but they are only useful if I have the right technology

This can lead to choices such as ... do I try and draw more PRODUCTION cards (to get resources that I can use) or do I improve my technology so I can use the PRODUCTION CARDS I already have (but don't have the technology to use yet) ... or do I build now rather than risk losing the site and/or the cards?

Quote:
Any chance you'd consider finding a way for something in the game to be used for more than one purpose? For example, generalized "coin" cards that could be used to pay for *either* research or buildings?

Interesting. I hadn't thouight of that. As you say, everything has fairly specific functions. One idea might be to allow people to spend coin to 'hire a scholar', which allows them to draw a research card. The counter-problem with this is that the choice of drawing the production card isn't as tough anymore, as it can give you technology as well ...

Top
Mon, 07/26/2004 - 18:40
#3
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Potential slight variation being considered ...

VARIATION(S) ALSO BEING CONSIDERED

Top 2 cards of RESEARCH and PRODUCTION decks are face-up (but order is retained).

(Advantage => greater feeling of control and strategy
Disadvantage => less difficult decisions as people are less likely to 'get stuck' with resources that they can't use yet and will need to develop the technology for)

Event cards are taken by the player who causes them to become revealed (no additional action to draw them).

Cards prohibiting certain actions are changed to bonus actions and may be kept (but only played one per turn). Possibly reduce their numbers though ... Remove the cards that prohibit trading. Other cards are play immediately.

Consider change 'fire' cards to 'storm damage' or something like that to avoid a comparison to arson ...

Top
Tue, 07/27/2004 - 09:40
#4
Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

After re-reading (and seeing your response), I withdraw my suggestion about having a general-use item that could be used for either end. ;)

It seems that you've done a very good job in getting the players' limited actions to do that very thing, since they have to go through the thinking/balancing that you described. I forgot to factor in the limited building locations and the VPs for building within the same district.

You've tested this a good number of times already ... how hotly contested are the open building slots?

-Bryk

Top
Tue, 07/27/2004 - 10:51
#5
Anonymous
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Hi and thanks for posting your game! I like the simplicity and elegancy with which you have created an efficient and fun looking game! Your rules are well written and laid out and the components seem easy enough to understand.

I like the general feeling and structure of the game. After reading the rules, I am left with the feeling that the game grows and builds throughout, but not so far or so deeply that a player may be shut out completely. That may or may not be true, but if it happens, it looks to me like it would be the exception rather than the rules.

I didn't look too carefully at all the charts and number distributions. You seem to have very carefully worked out that end of the game and I trust that it balances to your liking. I would definitely be interested in a post of the full card sets (you mentioned that you would post them if you get enough interest). I would like to solo playtest a little to see how the numbers come out. It would be interesting to see if a "maxing" strategy (hoarding one type of resource/activity) would tilt the game balance or if the game would tend to balance itself through the mechanics.

A question regarding VP's and victory conditions. You mention that the first player to 18 VP ends the game. I take it the round doesn't play to completion, so there isn't a chance of a tie happening. Have you thought about varying the start player, maybe have the player with the lowest VP begin each new round?

I like to see other games with high numbers of cards in them! I'm working on a game that uses 180 cards and it's good to see that I'm not alone. One thing I have been noticing though, is that published games rarely if ever have more than 120 cards in them. Could you trim back the number of cards if you had to? Not that you would, just something to think about.

The rest of the game seems very straightforward. I like the entire game taking place in the same town, it lends to a more competitive feel that it would if every player had their own town. Just out of curiosity, have you thought about having empty district grids and using a tile laying mechanic to place tiles (buildings/constructs) within these grids? It may over complicate the game, but it would add some replay value if the buildings weren't always in the same spots. Again, probably not a real concern, just something to think about.

The one thing that stands out (and that I'm sure is done for balancing purposes) is the fuzzy math of technology level usage. The whole level one equals one half a level 2 but one quarter a level three seems unduly complicated to me. The one thing I have learned just playing games with others is that players will tend towards what is intuitive to them (often in contradiction to the rules). If the game doesn't overtly benefit or suffer from the misuse of the rules, then players will likely not change their interpretations. If it doesn't make the game off-balance, you may want to consider using a more intuitive math relationship for the values (two level 1 for a level 2, three for level 3, one level 2 and one level 1 for a level 3, etc.).

That's it for the mechanics. I did notice a few grammatical errors and clarifications in the rules that I will try to post a little alter today.

Great job on the game!

Top
Tue, 07/27/2004 - 12:35
#6
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

SiskNY wrote:

I like to see other games with high numbers of cards in them! I'm working on a game that uses 180 cards and it's good to see that I'm not alone. One thing I have been noticing though, is that published games rarely if ever have more than 120 cards in them. Could you trim back the number of cards if you had to? Not that you would, just something to think about.

I was going to make a comment about component overload, but this game isn't as bad as some I could mention (hmmm, why does "Dirty Business" spring to mind? :))

In general however, once a game passes around 100 cards or so (110 being the canonical "double-deck"), there has to be a compelling reason for the excess, given that there are 120 other tokens in this game as well, and I can't tell if there is in this case; I'd like to see the full card set to get an idea of how crucial they are.

I must admit that I like the concept (city-building crossed with civ-development) but I can't tell if you have contracted "Goa-syndrome" - where there are too many mechanics (so it feels a bit clunky at times), but they all interlock so neatly that cutting one out would cause everything else to fall apart.

One minor query: given the other thread about games for just four players: does the exclusion of one zone when playing with three cause imbalance issues with regards to some of the buildings?

Top
Tue, 07/27/2004 - 13:25
#7
Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Scurra wrote:
I was going to make a comment about component overload, but this game isn't as bad as some I could mention (hmmm, why does "Dirty Business" spring to mind? :))

Boy has that design changed, now that you've mentioned it. It's been purculating on the backburner for a while, but a good deal of that game is much different now.

Guess, for now, I'll have to be happy to be a help by providing a non-example, eh? ;)

-Bryk

Top
Tue, 07/27/2004 - 18:34
#8
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Thanks for your comments all. I'll try to reply to them one at a time.

Brykovian wrote

Quote:
You've tested this a good number of times already ... how hotly contested are the open building slots?

Some building slots are more hotly contested than others, but it seems rare for someone to be knocked out of more than one or two buildings they wanted (and had the technology for).

Main instances are:
- vying for control of a district
- the higher VP versions of some buildings (i.e university over library)

The other interesting example I saw one player who attempted to build all the marketplaces (and therefore also cutting everyone else out of the improved marketplaces) ... quite difficult to counter if no-one else has a level of Commerce!

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
I like the general feeling and structure of the game. After reading the rules, I am left with the feeling that the game grows and builds throughout, but not so far or so deeply that a player may be shut out completely. That may or may not be true, but if it happens, it looks to me like it would be the exception rather than the rules.

Thanks! Experience to date suggests that people are unlikely to be completely shut out and often the ones that are lagging behind have a better technology base, so have the capacity to catch up and/or overtake.

I also added the titles for lower victory point totals so people who didn't win could have their own personal challenges (e.g. "I still made it to Senior Advisor!").

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
I would definitely be interested in a post of the full card sets (you mentioned that you would post them if you get enough interest).

Consider it done. I'll post the links as soon as its done. Note however that all cards are available in the sampels, just not in their full numbers.

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
It would be interesting to see if a "maxing" strategy (hoarding one type of resource/activity) would tilt the game balance or if the game would tend to balance itself through the mechanics.

Experience to date has suggested it self-balances, but I'd appreciate any and all offers of further testing!

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
A question regarding VP's and victory conditions. You mention that the first player to 18 VP ends the game. I take it the round doesn't play to completion, so there isn't a chance of a tie happening. Have you thought about varying the start player, maybe have the player with the lowest VP begin each new round?

At the moment, the game finishes as soon as the VP target is met. Not sure if that provides a slight bias to the person who went first though. I'd be happy to say the highest VP of at least 18 won, awarding a tie if equal.

As for varying the start player each round, I think (?) the turn order isn't important enough in the game to add that layer of complexity. Interesting idea though!

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
I like to see other games with high numbers of cards in them! I'm working on a game that uses 180 cards and it's good to see that I'm not alone. One thing I have been noticing though, is that published games rarely if ever have more than 120 cards in them. Could you trim back the number of cards if you had to? Not that you would, just something to think about.

Scurra wrote:

Quote:
In general however, once a game passes around 100 cards or so (110 being the canonical "double-deck"), there has to be a compelling reason for the excess, given that there are 120 other tokens in this game as well, and I can't tell if there is in this case; I'd like to see the full card set to get an idea of how crucial they are.

The cards can be trimmed back ... particularly the 118 to 110 ... In particular, apart form event cards nearly all cards are provided in even numbers so it could be halved ... although I like the variation in the distribution available from a larger card set. Also, people can tend to go through phases of hoarding cards to get to right combinations .... I hope that this can be balanced out by the fact that the cards can be business card sizes (and actually work better that way to save space on the table!)

Thinking about it some more, I wouldn't want to trim the cards back too much, or the higher tech cards would become to scarce ... not a problem at the moment as they tend to be hoarded for when they will be more useful. Thus, back to 110 would be easy ... 60 to 70 would change the game balance ...

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, have you thought about having empty district grids and using a tile laying mechanic to place tiles (buildings/constructs) within these grids? It may over complicate the game, but it would add some replay value if the buildings weren't always in the same spots. Again, probably not a real concern, just something to think about.

Very interesting idea! Could be done, but it would probably be done as a set-up thing (like Setttlers), rather than during the game. At the moment, the balance between houses and the different types of buildings in each district in quite deliberate, partly to create districts with a specific feel and partly to make interesting 'duels' for control of districts. Nonetheless, I my gut reaction is that tiles would work.

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
The one thing that stands out (and that I'm sure is done for balancing purposes) is the fuzzy math of technology level usage. The whole level one equals one half a level 2 but one quarter a level three seems unduly complicated to me. The one thing I have learned just playing games with others is that players will tend towards what is intuitive to them (often in contradiction to the rules). If the game doesn't overtly benefit or suffer from the misuse of the rules, then players will likely not change their interpretations. If it doesn't make the game off-balance, you may want to consider using a more intuitive math relationship for the values (two level 1 for a level 2, three for level 3, one level 2 and one level 1 for a level 3, etc.).

I agree on this one, and at least one of my playtesters will enthusiastically agree. Funnily enough its this way to try and keep it simple and consistent (always 2 cards to get the technology one level higher ... thus 2 tech 1 = 1 tech 2 ... following this 2 tech 2 = 1 tech 3 ... therefore 4 tech 1 = 1 tech 3). I've tried to offset this somewhat by writing the exchange rate on the research cards. Your idea of simply adding the tech levels together is nice and elegant, but will make the higher techs easier to reach (which I don;t necessarily want) ... hmmmm ...

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
I did notice a few grammatical errors and clarifications in the rules that I will try to post a little alter today.

Much appreciated!

Scurra write:

Quote:
I must admit that I like the concept (city-building crossed with civ-development) but I can't tell if you have contracted "Goa-syndrome" - where there are too many mechanics (so it feels a bit clunky at times), but they all interlock so neatly that cutting one out would cause everything else to fall apart.

Thanks. I'm not too familiar with Goa but I understand the concern. I think it's a problem ... but I'm biased! As a result, I'm trying to get some blind playtests happening to get other people's opinions (particularly those who aren't close personal friends!). [If anyone wants to offer, it would be greatly appreciated!]

Scurra write:

Quote:
One minor query: given the other thread about games for just four players: does the exclusion of one zone when playing with three cause imbalance issues with regards to some of the buildings?

I constructed the districts explicitly to provide a good working building distribution for a 3 player game, so I think 3 should be fine. However, all my 3 player playtests were quite early one, so it could definitely benefit from re-playtesting this aspect.

A corollary is that addiing a district migt make a workable 5 player game, and a bit of fiddling (or a double sided board) might make a workable 2 player game ... but this is all largely untried ... at least until I'm confident with it working for 3 and 4 players! (Did someone say 'expansion'?)

Thanks everyone for your comments!

- GeminiWeb

Top
Tue, 07/27/2004 - 18:47
#9
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Full card set

Here is a link to the full card set:

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/GeminiWeb/Even_cards_all.zip

Top
Wed, 07/28/2004 - 09:30
#10
Anonymous
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

GeminiWeb wrote:
I also added the titles for lower victory point totals so people who didn't win could have their own personal challenges (e.g. "I still made it to Senior Advisor!").

I like this in a game. Nothing worse than falling so far behind that your actions really don't matter (and you're more likely to become a kingmaker). One of my favorite "classic" games is cribbage. There you have sub-goals so that, ewven if you're not close enough to win, you can still fell like you have something to work towards right up to the end.

Quote:
Consider it done. I'll post the links as soon as its done. Note however that all cards are available in the sampels, just not in their full numbers.

Cool! The charts in the back of the rules should be enough to determine which cards should be in the final set.

Quote:
In particular, apart form event cards nearly all cards are provided in even numbers so it could be halved...

I started a thread about the cost savings of producing a game with two or more identical decks. The economies of scale would indicate that this would be cheaper to produce (10,000 decks of 60 cards for 5,000 games should be cheaper than 5,000 decks of 120 cards). Still not sure if it's a selling point for a publisher, but it's something to keep in mind.

Top
Wed, 07/28/2004 - 10:57
#11
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Bill,

I haven't been following the discussion very closely, so forgive me if I repeat anything. My first comment is simply a general "moderator" comment, that I've found in the past that heavily-playtested games don't always make good GDW games because those games generally need balancing feedback rather than "maybe try [this big change]" feedback. That's not to say there's any restriction, so much as to say simply that I hope you get feedback that is useful to you, and I hope that you'll let us all know afterwards (or me, at least) whether your session helped your game development.

With respect to the game itself, my first reaction was that it's rather complicated. The game play itself is simple enough, but there's a lot going on with the different technologies, buildings, districts, etc, and my head is sort of swimming. Now, my guess is that this is primarily related just to reading the rulebook; if I was learning the game from you in person, with the components in front of me, it might be easier. I expect that, had I tried to read the Puerto Rico rulebook before playing, my impression would have been similar, yet one picks up the rules easily enough when actually playing, so it's likely not a problem here, either.

One idea that you might consider to reduce this somewhat is to streamline the categories somewhat. For example, I have a Civ building game (which is actually rather similar to this game, actually, though it also has combat), and had several categories players could advance in, with different categories having different kinds of buildings. For example, the "Civic" category allows you to build Aqueducts if you're level 1, Irrigation if you're level 2, etc. But the problem was that every building had a different function. To make things easier, now all the Civic buildings (for example) have the same effect (they let territories hold more people), and advancing in levels simply affects the degree to which that benefit helps you (ie, having a level 2 Civic building lets you hold more people than a level 1 Civic building). I'm not sure if such a thing would make sense at all in your game, I simply suggest it as something to think about; if you can make each category more tightly consistent, it might make learning the game easier.

The random drawing of production and research cards is obviously going to be a love it or hate it mechanic for different players. I fear that this could dramatically limit strategic planning; you can't say "I want to advance in category X", since it's completely a matter of luck whether you have the cards to do so. On the other hand, I think it's simple and adds variety, which is good, however, I worry about this mechanic in concert with the "once someone else has started building a building of Type X in location Y, no one else can start (unless they can finish it in one shot). What if I'm trying to save up the cards to build a particular building in a particular district, and then just before my turn, Joe jumps in and starts the building, meaning I'm out cold; that could be very frustrating. On the other hand, it might work ok in the game itself; perhaps the strategy becomes trying to "stake your claim" early, or perhaps to hold off altogether till you have the cards to do a build "all in one shot". In general, I think restrictions usually lead to interesting choices, so I have hope that this will work in this game, it just raises a big flag in terms of strategy.

The other thing I'd watch out for is that it seems like there's clearly a "best strategy" for the game that would involve simply ignoring all of the upgrades, buildings, etc and simply building houses, upgrading to Industry 1 to get a warehouse, and upgrading in Agriculture. But it seems like you could ignore everything else, and just score many points for your houses, plus situating them in such a way that they score majority bonuses for a couple of towns. Now, maybe the random card draw prevents you from following this strategy in practice, but I think the principle remains that this could be a "flaw" in the game; you've built a huge edifice of complex interplay between resources, buildings, and technology, yet the game pretty much comes down to building houses. I get that there is no other game-related benefit to houses (and I like that, by the way). Although, one thing I didn't notice before was that the buildings themselves have a VP value to them; that might be enough to motivate building the buildings, though I'm still not sure the VP per coin payouts justify those buildings (example. Monument, for 2 VPs, requires 3 build actions, as opposed to 3 houses, which pay out 3 VP for 3 build actions. The "Great Statue" at least pays out 1 VP/action, but there's a huge risk that someone will take it away from you if you don't do it all in one shot, then you've got nothing to show for it; building houses would be much safer)

I suspect you can balance the payouts per build action a little better, but what worries me is basically that you want players to feel like they need to utilize all of the mechanics that you've provided them to be able to do well in the game. You should make sure that all of the mechanics, and all of the buildings, are carrying their weight, and that players can't bypass huge chunks of the game's mechanics and still come out ok. Something playtesting will reveal, no doubt.

One other suggestion is simply to consider dropping trading from the game, or at least try it out. Trading adds length to a game, but doesn't always make a game more interesting. However, in this game, it could be important to mitigating the card pulling luck, so maybe you need it. I'd just try it both ways and see if it is really important enough to merit its position in the game.

Overall, I think the game sounds just fine, although it's one of those "hard to tell without playing it" games, because it's hard to see how everything interlocks. I really like the theme and the backstory; the mechanics work very well at evoking the theme (although it does seem like the time scale of the technology increases would happen on a completely different timescale from that of trying to repopulate the town, but that's just a nitpick). It definitely encourages me to get back to work on my Civ game, and to evaluate it through the same lens that I've brought to bear on your game. I like the simplicity of your turn sequence, and for me, it's all a question of whether the complexity of the technology and buildings systems can be internalized quickly. If, after 5 games, I'm still using the player aid chart frequently to remember what Technology I need to have to build building X, that's not a game I'm likely to want to keep playing. Some people probably wouldn't be bothered by this.

Best of luck with this one, and keep us posted on the progress!

-Jeff

Top
Wed, 07/28/2004 - 18:49
#12
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

jwarrend,

Thanks for your comments - they are much appreciated.

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
That's not to say there's any restriction, so much as to say simply that I hope you get feedback that is useful to you, and I hope that you'll let us all know afterwards (or me, at least) whether your session helped your game development.

I've already appreciated the comments received to date. First, its nice to know people like the theme and whether it sounds interesting enough for me to continue progressing (while I like it as an intellectual exercise, the goal is a game thats enjoyable to play). Secondly, there are some things I'd like to follow up on from comments already made, such as (but not limited to):
- random district set-up using tiles
- reviewing the exchange rate for using lower research cards as higher research cards (although this would involve revising the mix of cards quite a bit)
- considering what can be done to work with a smaller deck size

... and that's even before reading your own comments! As such, I can tell you now that the GDW slot has helped.

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
With respect to the game itself, my first reaction was that it's rather complicated. The game play itself is simple enough, but there's a lot going on with the different technologies, buildings, districts, etc, and my head is sort of swimming

That is a concern of mine - its easy for me because I wrote it and its all up in my head. I'm trying to organise some blind playtesting to assess this. If there is a problem, I really hope it can be solved with improved rules, but other ideas need to be considered as well. In addition, I'd really like to try the game on a wider range of people to get a better feeling of what people might think is over-complicated.

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
One idea that you might consider to reduce this somewhat is to streamline the categories somewhat ... I'm not sure if such a thing would make sense at all in your game, I simply suggest it as something to think about; if you can make each category more tightly consistent, it might make learning the game easier.

Its definitely worth considering. At the moment I have 3 buildings which offer an extra (specific) action (university/library, builders hall, production centre) and the marketplace (and improved marketplace) - all the others just offer VPs ...

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
The random drawing of production and research cards is obviously going to be a love it or hate it mechanic for different players. I fear that this could dramatically limit strategic planning; you can't say "I want to advance in category X", since it's completely a matter of luck whether you have the cards to do so.

Trading can help a fair bit here ... as long as you've got something worth trading. Nonetheless, its something I've really been thinking about whether I should be changing. At the moment, the flavour is about (for example) deciding to try and develop technology because you've got a lot of production cards you can't use and the like ... so the randomness works with this farily well.

However, I'm also considering a variant where the top (say) two cards of each deck are face-up (but kept in order). This means people won't be blind-drawing and might even take cards they don't want because one they really want is just after it. This would need to be playtested though ... Leaves people still at the mercy of the cards, but provides them with a bit more information on which to make their choices.

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
The other thing I'd watch out for is that it seems like there's clearly a "best strategy" for the game that would involve simply ignoring all of the upgrades, buildings, etc and simply building houses, upgrading to Industry 1 to get a warehouse, and upgrading in Agriculture. But it seems like you could ignore everything else, and just score many points for your houses, plus situating them in such a way that they score majority bonuses for a couple of towns

Well picked - that was exactly the strategy in early playtests of the game! The warehouse devalues the strategy a bit, as does the difficulty of aiming for a specific field of technology at the 3rd level (the game encourages people to adapt their strategies to reflect the cards they are picking up).

Also, the limitation of building one house per turn changed things as in the late game (when people often have 2 or 3 bonus actions from other buildings ... if they have built them), people are looking to accelerate their VPs and one per turn is just two slow. As such, houses haven't been built much in the late game ... although I've recently introduced the ability to build 2 houses per turn at Agriculture3 ... but that might not work ... (yet to be playtested)

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
I suspect you can balance the payouts per build action a little better, but what worries me is basically that you want players to feel like they need to utilize all of the mechanics that you've provided them to be able to do well in the game. You should make sure that all of the mechanics, and all of the buildings, are carrying their weight, and that players can't bypass huge chunks of the game's mechanics and still come out ok. Something playtesting will reveal, no doubt.

The balances have been tweaked a lot so far (including the tech levels buildings become available) and I think more playtesting will help me sort the balance out better, but I really need more playtesters at the moment as I'm now seeing personal preferences for specific strategies (possbly coloured by their experiences with earlier verisons of the game) ...

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
One other suggestion is simply to consider dropping trading from the game, or at least try it out. Trading adds length to a game, but doesn't always make a game more interesting. However, in this game, it could be important to mitigating the card pulling luck, so maybe you need it. I'd just try it both ways and see if it is really important enough to merit its position in the game.

In early versions of the game it was actually quite hard to get people trading and I had some blocks to it (e.g. once a marketplace was built, all trading had to be done with someone owning a marketplace ... similar for the merchants guild hall). Trading feels like it speeds up the game as all cards are face-up ... people only tend to ask for a trade if they can see that they have someone the other person wants ... Done well it also can significantly mititgate luck and puts more control back to the player.

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:
If, after 5 games, I'm still using the player aid chart frequently to remember what Technology I need to have to build building X, that's not a game I'm likely to want to keep playing. Some people probably wouldn't be bothered by this.

Agreed! I certainly wouldn't keep playing either! I've played Peurta Rico once and it was okay not knowing what anything did ... but if I didn't know most of them within 5 games, I'd always feel that I was playing suboptimally and missing important opportunities.

Thanks for all the comments jwarrend.

- GeminiWeb

PS - I also agree that it is hard to make comments about some games without playtesting them and while I would put this game in that category, I am grateful for the insightful comments I get nonetheless.

Top
Wed, 07/28/2004 - 19:34
#13
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

jwarrend wrote:

It seems like you could ignore everything else, and just score many points for your houses... I'm still not sure the VP per coin payouts justify those buildings (example. Monument, for 2 VPs, requires 3 build actions, as opposed to 3 houses, which pay out 3 VP for 3 build actions. The "Great Statue" at least pays out 1 VP/action, but there's a huge risk that someone will take it away from you if you don't do it all in one shot, then you've got nothing to show for it; building houses would be much safer)

First off I'll admit that I haven't had a chance to read the rules or this thread in it's entirety. That said, based on Jeff's comment I would simply recommend awarding more points for the more dangerous or more difficult to build buildings, such that a player building onlu houses might win sometimes (if they can manage to keep consistantly building houses and some of the other player's moves don't pay off as well as they could) but not often. This would require them to branch out and go for some of the more risky buildings, the question being how many and which.

Another suggestion would be to go the other way with it. Let the value of houses decrease as the number of houses increases. Maybe that could be relative to the TOTAL number of houses in the game, not just your own. Thus a player who only builds houses will suffer diminishing returns for the resources he puts into building. Also the more houses OTHER PEOPLE build, the less a house will be worth to you. This makes some sense as well thematically, as an overload of any one type of thing makes them all worth a bit less.

- Seth

Top
Wed, 07/28/2004 - 19:59
#14
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

sedjtroll wrote

Quote:
That said, based on Jeff's comment I would simply recommend awarding more points for the more dangerous or more difficult to build buildings, such that a player building onlu houses might win sometimes (if they can manage to keep consistantly building houses and some of the other player's moves don't pay off as well as they could) but not often. This would require them to branch out and go for some of the more risky buildings, the question being how many and which.

I agree that this is probably the best way to address it - I've tried things like having to build more warehouse equivalents and the like, but that meant that no-one was interested in having lots of houses. I'll revisit my spreadsheet ... (and my VP requirements ... this might make 20 VPs (say) a better option ...)

Thanks sedjtroll

Top
Wed, 07/28/2004 - 20:37
#15
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

Another option would be to limit the number of houses available. Either per player, or (like in Monopoly) total. That might be interesting because if houses are clearly better you'd want to get as many as possible before they run out, but then you'd have to shift to other buildings. Actually that sounds lame, as people would always want the same exact resources all the time :/

- Seth

Top
Thu, 07/29/2004 - 11:54
#16
Anonymous
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

GeminiWeb wrote:
However, I'm also considering a variant where the top (say) two cards of each deck are face-up (but kept in order). This means people won't be blind-drawing and might even take cards they don't want because one they really want is just after it.

I like the idea of the multiple exposure to help people plan. That would help with the "I'm stuck with cards that don't fit my plan and now I have to start over in a new direction" syndrome.

Another possibility would be to flip as many cards as players and let each player bid for the order in which they draw a card. It would help others to know who has a card that they may want (more trading), it would also give you a structure for turn order. Towards the end of the game, it would be VERY advantageous to go first in the round since the first player to 18 VP ends the game.

Just something that came to me as I was reading other's comments.

Top
Thu, 07/29/2004 - 21:15
#17
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

jwarrend wrote

Quote:
It seems like you could ignore everything else, and just score many points for your houses... I'm still not sure the VP per coin payouts justify those buildings (example. Monument, for 2 VPs, requires 3 build actions, as opposed to 3 houses, which pay out 3 VP for 3 build actions. The "Great Statue" at least pays out 1 VP/action, but there's a huge risk that someone will take it away from you if you don't do it all in one shot, then you've got nothing to show for it; building houses would be much safer)

I've been doing some thinking about the VP balance and think I'll leave it the way it is for the moment, pending further playtests ...

12 houses + warehouse = 12 VPs at 0.83 VPs / build
(plus added opportunities for gaining control of districts)

Museum + Theatre = Merchant Guild + Port = Great Statue + Hillside Bridge = 7 VPs at 0.88 VPs / build
(plus lower level buildings with worse VP/build ratios but with game advantages)

However, I do think I will remove the ability to build 2 houses per turn with Agriculture3 (which hadn't yet been playtested). This will mean you can't rely solely on houses in the late game as your growth will be too slow.

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
I like the idea of the multiple exposure to help people plan. That would help with the "I'm stuck with cards that don't fit my plan and now I have to start over in a new direction" syndrome

At the very least (assuming it playtests okay), this will be included as a standard variant in the rules.

SiskNY wrote:

Quote:
Another possibility would be to flip as many cards as players and let each player bid for the order in which they draw a card. It would help others to know who has a card that they may want (more trading), it would also give you a structure for turn order. Towards the end of the game, it would be VERY advantageous to go first in the round since the first player to 18 VP ends the game.

I like this idea (particularly as I haven't used a bididng mechanic in a game yet) and it could work quite well. However, there isn't enough stuff to bid with as the game currently stands and I'm a bit wary about complicating the game further. On the other hand, I think it would fit in even better perhaps into another related game I'm thinking of (which is still forming in the dark spaces of my mind)!

Thanks again for you comments.

Top
Fri, 07/30/2004 - 10:45
#18
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

GeminiWeb wrote:

I've been doing some thinking about the VP balance and think I'll leave it the way it is for the moment, pending further playtests ...

Sure, I think you should definitely keep testing things out. However, with respect to this particular issue, I think you can bring math to bear on the balancing, and I think you should do so.

Quote:

12 houses + warehouse = 12 VPs at 0.83 VPs / build
(plus added opportunities for gaining control of districts)

Museum + Theatre = Merchant Guild + Port = Great Statue + Hillside Bridge = 7 VPs at 0.88 VPs / build
(plus lower level buildings with worse VP/build ratios but with game advantages)

But again, what I think this analysis ignores is the fact that a house is a "safe build"; it takes only one action, then it's complete; it's not going anywhere. Whereas with the other buildings, you could get all the way up to say 3 of the builds, but just before you've put up the fourth and completed the buildings, someone could swoop in and you have nothing. I don't think the payout currently justifies the risk.

I think my overall point is something like this. Currently, I think there's no question that there's a "best strategy"; I'm not sure what that strategy is, but I'm pretty sure that if one spent 30 minutes analyzing your tables, one could find a set of buildings that give maximal payout per action.

Now, in the current form of the game, you won't actually be able to pursue that strategy every time, because you're limited by what cards you draw and can trade for. So there's a sense in which the game has a "making the most of what you get" feel, and that's fine. BUT, I don't think that necessarily makes up for it; if a game has a best strategy, the winner will be the player who draws cards most suited to that best strategy.

In other words, I think it's very important, since all your build actions cost the same, that every building be fairly priced in terms of what it requires. You have several variables -- VP payout, number of builds, prerequisites -- so I think that everything can be balanced. Some things will be hard; it may be tough, for example, to quantify whether a building that grants VP is balanced relative to one that grants functionality. But there's no question that for the VP-only buildings, those can be balanced relative to each other. A great example is the monument; I'm pretty sure that, currently, it's too expensive. Sure, it may be that sometimes I'll want to build it simply because it's "what I have the cards for", but I'm not sure how satisfying I'd find that over time; if the game involves making a lot of sub-optimal plays simply to make lemonade of the lemons I've been dealt, I think you can do better. I wouldn't mind a game for which I'd occasionally need to decide to take a lower VP-per-action payout, but there has to be something other than luck motivating that decision. Maybe the monument pays out less, but it's easier to build in terms of prerequisites, or takes only 2 builds to complete, so there's less risk compared to the more lucrative -- but also more dangerous -- Statue.

I guess I'm just very concerned that once people become experts at the game, they'll figure out a "best" approach, and I think you don't need to wait for playtesting to prevent that; I think you can handle it preemptively.

The only other concern I have is the amount of bookkeeping that is involved in the game. It seems like, with 4 technologies, keeping track of what I am allowed to build will involve a lot of cross-referencing. Keeping track of what others are going to build (and thus, making sure I don't throw them exactly the resources they're looking for), would seem to be impossible. Maybe, though, it could be done once one is very familiar with the different costs and prerequisites. Not sure.

Again, best of luck with the project!

-Jeff

Top
Fri, 07/30/2004 - 15:17
#19
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

jwarrend wrote:

The only other concern I have is the amount of bookkeeping that is involved in the game. It seems like, with 4 technologies, keeping track of what I am allowed to build will involve a lot of cross-referencing. Keeping track of what others are going to build (and thus, making sure I don't throw them exactly the resources they're looking for), would seem to be impossible. Maybe, though, it could be done once one is very familiar with the different costs and prerequisites. Not sure.

This reminds me a lot of Settlers of the Stone Age, where there are tracks at either side of the board on which players can advance their marker (by paying a certain amount of resources). Then there are places on the board you cannot get to until you have acheived a certain level in each of those tracks. I liked that mechanic and didn't find it overly difficult to play with. I don't know how you're keeping track of it in your game but perhaps each player could have a playmat n front of them with a track for each of the 4 technologies so their current progress is easily read, then whatever you're building would clearly state the prereq's on it so it's a quick check of your tracks to see if you have the correct pre-reqs.

- Seth

Top
Fri, 07/30/2004 - 15:27
#20
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

I agree, this aspect seemed managable the one time I played SotSA, and in fact, I have a similar mechanic in one of my games. My concern is primarily that there seems to be a lot of cross-referencing required in this game to keep track of what building requires what technology and who's close to being able to build what and whatnot. (For example, if I'm building the High Statue, I want to know who else has the technology to potentially "swoop in" on me). I bet it's no problem at all, just something that raises a potential red flag from reading the rules...

Top
Fri, 07/30/2004 - 15:29
#21
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

jwarrend wrote:
If I'm building the High Statue, I want to know who else has the technology to potentially "swoop in" on me.

If the info is presented well then it's probably not too bad. I mean, how many prereq's are we talking? Like a minimum level in each of 4 categories at the worst, right?

Top
Sun, 08/01/2004 - 02:35
#22
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

jwarrend and sedjtroll,

Thanks for some great comments. I really appreciate the thought that has been going into them.

Regarding VP balance

I agree with the issues you have raised jarrend, particularly the danger in favouring a 'best' strategy. I'm just a bit stuck at the moment because I've relied on the maths a fair bit to get to the current point.

I think part of the problem may be that I've never seen someone in a playtest swoop in and steal someone's partially built site, so I might be underplaying this substantially.

(Aside - do I need this rule? I originally added it as I was worried about players 'blocking' sites with single builds, but that's still a reasonable investment for soemone to make ... and they are likely to find themselves blocked elsewhere as a result. It might be I've got a rule to cover something I don't need to cover ...)

The monuments are interesting as they are the only building (not counting houses) below tech level 3 with VPs and no special game effect. For interest, in the playtests players have tended to be built because someone needs more VPs (they are a good source of mid-range VPs) and its easier than investing the extra effort to get another tech level (or two) in something.

(Aside - interesting note about balancing is the difficulties in working with small integers! Its so much easier to balance things when working with much larger numbers. For example, if a monument takes 3 builds and gives 2 VPs, you get a large shift in the balance by requiring an extra build and adding an extra VP!)

Your point about the houses is also accentuated to some extent, because there are a limited number of house sites (which means everyone won't be able to build 12 houses, so if it is a significant advantage, it will mainly be leveraged by the first 1 or 2 players to buildup their Agriculture base). Its been interesting because in the playtests I found it difficult to balance between no-one wanting to houses to everyone wanting them ... the current point has been the best 'balance' so far, but I don't presume to be there yet.

Another thing from the playtests is that people will often want to pick up the university/library, building hall and/or production centre fairly early so they can get a better long term return on the extra actions this buildings offer. Then, by the later game, building accelerates and people are constrained to building a single house per turn.

Regarding book-keeping of tech levels

The tech table is on the game board, so everyone can see it. The players reference cards also reiterate the benefits from each tech level with a tech table and a building summary table. This seems to have worked okay in terms of everyone knowing what each other can build (made easier as each building one has a pre-requisite from a single technology).

That said, I am 100% with jwarrend's comment regarding be confused with what you or anyone else can and cannot build. Its easy for me to remember - but it shoud be as I MADE THE GAME! Even while the players reference card helps a lot here, I'd be worried if people still needed it much after a couple of games. (How many times does soemone need to check that they need a brick and a wood for a road in Settlers of Catan after a few games?)

I'm alsoa little concerned that I personally think the rules make it sound more complicated than it really is, but I can't blame anyone else other than myself here. Something for me to review.

Thanks again for your comments.

Top
Sun, 08/01/2004 - 18:01
#23
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
It's Monday now down here in Australia ...

... so I'd like to say 'thanks' to all those you made comments on the game. I appreciated the thought that people put it and its really quite amazing the depth of comment that people can make without actually playtesting the game.

- GeminiWeb

Top
Tue, 08/17/2004 - 18:27
#24
Anonymous
-wow-

Let me just say this...

WOW!

The amount of effort put into making this game looks to be much higher than I would expect from a prototype. The board is fairly easy to understand and looks well on the computer. I assume you probably have a different board you play with personally, maybe not.

These kinds of games are popular amongst the gaming community for who knows why. You seem to have made a very good game to go along with the theme. While I won't go to say your game is very complicated, I will say that it is a complex game made easier thanks to the many tables included with the instructions. I don't think my game will ever be as good as yours. I hope you continue forth with the design of this game, I think it could easily compare with Settlers of Catan and other games in the genre.

Final Score - 68,705.63 extra bonus points (i better stop doing that at the end of my posts or people will think i'm nuts)

Top
Tue, 08/17/2004 - 19:40
#25
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #38 - High Council of Evensford by Bill Allen

snipy3,

Thanks for your very kind comments. Your encouragement is certainly appreciated.

Quote:
I assume you probably have a different board you play with personally, maybe not.

Funnily enough, I've only every played it on a rough hand-drawn piece of paper with cut-up index cards (although I have since printed out the cards on business cards).

Quote:
I hope you continue forth with the design of this game

Planning to ... actually I asked someone in the US to help out with some blind-playtesting about 6 weeks ago, but they've been pretty busy. Once I get feedback from that, I'm pretty keen to see where I can take things ...

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut