How much detail is too much?

THis is interesting because I was asking the same question to myself and on here. I think there's a thread somewhere. The best answer I could come up with so far is create expansions. I am not saying it can't be done. But......

************rule of thumb: you can add rules without adding features but you can not add features without adding rules****************************

At some point the rule book would start getting really big.....or game length starts getting really long. Pluse the more complex the more you isolate you audience. Because haing what you described above sounds like it would start to get hard for many people to keep track of in there minds. I'm not saying it can't be done. I continue to contemplate the same question. I would also play only those games that are big and resemble something you want your game to do.

In my remake attempt as a board game of master of magic, there is a lot of elements in the game and the variety of these elements makes the game rich and adds replay value. In other words it is essential.

As a quick glance, here is what all the elements I have tought so far to implement in the game:

Terrain types
Cities of difference size for race
Specialities for capital cities
races
Special resources that gives bonus
Special resources that unlock things
Special locations to explore and resolve
Unit types with various abilities
Various technological advancements
Wonders to build in your capitals
Imperial buildings to build in your capitals
Heroes to hire and boost your actions
Government type for your empire
Armies to place on the board
Gold to manage income and maintenance
Mana to manage income and maintenance
Spells to research
Special wizard trait
Magick items that can be built
Upgrades that can be placed in your covement
Development of your wizard skills
Followers in your covenant that could help you.
Monster herds that you can place on the board
Different summon creature types
Espionage and sabotage of other player ( don't know how yet)
Diplomacy: Negotiate issues, titles and powers ( don't know how yet)
Trading: Negotiate pact and ressource exchange ( don't know how yet)
Special events
And of course different victory condition

This is for the base game. I have tought about an expansion that could add gods in the game with new spells and new mechanics.

So now you might has, How I might going to implements each of these features into 1 game. The answer I have so far: make each elements as simple as possible.

For example, a wizard or government trait is 1 card you choose with 1 special ability. That's it. So this is simply by itself but added to all the rest makes it complicated. But I don't think it would be unplayable.

The only problem I has so far is for designing the game. There is so much elements here and there that I am always lost in my thought and I don't what needs to be done. I would probably have to start writting a new rule set and add things gradually to the game as they get tested and completed.

Although it's not a board game, Side Meier's Alpha Centauri stands out as a game that handles empire management very well. Because it IS a computer game, it's easy to set some of your cities on auto-pilot and focus on your main objectives.

Aside from that, it abstracts many of the elements of empire management that Fhizban seeks to implement.

I use Alpha Centauri as a model whenever I discuss the economics of empire-building games. Complexity, in my opinion, grows exponentially with the number of variables used to describe production.

In every game requiring the acquisition of resources, players must make economic choices. I think that, once the optimal path is discovered, the game will either become predictable or it will evolve as equally strong players seek to undermine the use of the optimal path.

If you accept this premise - and I'm not sure I'm totally on-target, here - then you may attempt to design your game's mechanics around the economic choices, rather than try to create parallel systems of management.

Here's an example: given the production cycle of a military unit, it stands to reason that the more resources you control, the more military units you can produce. Food, Ammo and Space (barracks, etc.) can be the gross resources. Rather than focus on what units can be produced, concentrate on defining how much food, ammo and space are required to support a single military unit. (By the way, you can abstract the military unit itself, calling one unit = to a battalion, so that it makes sense to use large, round numbers of resources.)

Additionally, gross resources are abstractions, too: food=nutrition, clothing and medicine (if you want); ammo=gunpowder,rifles and armor; space=one or more "cells" or areas in a city.

Once you start thinking this way, it is possible that you may find it easier balancing the units. Continuing with the example, diplomacy can be abstracted based on Food, Goodwill and Embassies.

Intrigue can be abstracted by Intelligence gathering capabilities, Goodwill (whcih also allows some counterplay with diplomacy), and spy units in the field.

That's the gist, all excerpted from my enjoyment of Alpha Centauri.

Cheers,

Mitch

"But my game is targeted to catch the flavor of the "whole picture" and not just battles...So besides managing a minimum of resources and trying to build up forces (of wich kind ever), the core concepts of the game focus on: Diplomatic, Intrigue, Economic, Religious and Military Struggles. "

This makes me wonder what is the theme and the topic of the game.

Also, players have certain expectations of gameplay when it comes to cardgames. The scale of complexity that you want to flavor the card game might very well be too logistically big to put in. The real strength of card games is how small the I/O structure is, allowing players to pick it up on the fly.

simpson