Choosing Your Victory

Why don't you make it RANDOM?

Let's say there are nine (9) cards players can pick. Three (3) of each type of Victory Condition. At the beginning it may be hard to know what the player's VC is... But mid-way when a player starts playing a particular style, it will become more obvious.

Just an idea...

I think the idea of randomizing is good but flawed. That still does not fix that some may be unbalanced so its relying on luck how easy the game will be for you to win. Also if someone dislikes a certain victory condition but are forced to play according to that condition it may ruin the fun and cause them not to want to come back to the game.

On the other hand, having unbalanced victory conditions available at all times is not a bad thing. If there is a specific way to win that is very easy a lot of player will fight over it and specifically try to prevent that win condition throughout the game. IF there is a way to prevent remnant building in your game it may be a good idea to consider this concept. Having multiple win conditions of varying speeds allows the game to end early if one player is doing way better than the other rather than drag it out and at the same time if both players are good they should be able to prevent each other from completing the other win conditions up until the hardest one (which i am assuming to reduce health to 0). All this does is creates tension throughout the game, highlighting the areas that result in victory.

Of your ideas above I like number four a lot because it lets people pick but makes gives them more of an advantage the harder they make it for themselves. It definitely adds a game defining moment at the start of the game.

This game seems really cool from what you described, I hope you succeed in your endeavors. Best of luck!!!

I hope this helps,
-Noimage

I wouldn't. Just use some chitz to keep score. Or a scorepad (this way everyone knows who is the leader).

So you have 2 options: 1> Nobody knows who is in the lead. 2> Everyone knows who is in the lead.

The options lead to very different in-game strategies. But both are valid.

I love Ameritrash games... So I'm always interested in games that include characters/roles in them that match with the game's theme or backstory! So having different "Commanders" with an ability and/or a penalty really resonate with me.

Take Small World (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RQ9iI3ORig) I like that races are complemented with a characteristic (2:15 - 4:40).

So what does that mean? Well I would suggest that one Commander have an ability like "Stealth" which means victory points are kept secret. Meanwhile all the other Commanders you know exactly how they are progressing in the game.

Why not use Action points with custom d6s. You could have like 3 d6s with values 1-3 on each one. This means at best you get 9 APs and at worst you get 3 APs...

Do you have a board? Maybe controlling two (2) areas triggers a victory condition after "X" amount of turns...

This would ENCOURAGE combat and attacking the opponent's units - otherwise you lose the game! A pretty good reason to engage your opponent! If I do say so myself...

Update: Even IF you DON'T have a board. You can use special cards or chitz to identify three areas like a Factory or an Oil well, etc. You can even think up of pure Sci-Fi fantasy stuff like a Beacon, etc.

And you place them somewhere in the playing area (virtual board). When you do this, this will determine what players are in "control" of the board. EASY to control one (1) marker, HARDER to control two (2) markers...

Update 2: There could be rules to control like a ratio of "+2" units means you control that marker. So if your opponent has 1 unit at the marker, you need 3 units to be in control of it. Something like that...

Another marker could be a 2:1 ratio. So if you have 2 units, the opponent must have 4 units to control the marker. Ratio is HARDER that a +X... You can playtest this and see what works best. Just some rough ideas...

I see that your board is a simple grid. Personally I remember you talking about how you wanted to design a RTS board game...

And as you spoke about those things, I thought you were going to go in the direction of miniatures - in that there was no REAL board only a fictitious one on the playing surface you played the game (table, desk, etc.)

Then when you wrote the thread "Position Modifiers Explained" (http://www.bgdf.com/image/position-modifiers-expained), I thought that this was a simple way of creating a formation with some simple battle rules that COULD allow something like an RTS board game take form.

And so I was excited in the fact that those two threads were about an RTS that could take shape. All that remained what a method to calculate distances between the RTS units which could be ranged in addition to melee combat units. I really thought you had a handle on the RTS genre.

But, not to be gloomy, I am still thinking about those elements and how they make for what could be the very first RTS. I had helped Jewel on his simultaneous dice rolling game - and I kept quiet about what I had figured out to be a "great way" of implementing REAL-TIME.

I want to take a moment to talk about that. In the event that this might spark interest in reviving the RTS project...

So each player has a set of custom d6s. And players are continually rolling dice to try to reach an objective. Let's say the objective is to "Move" a unit, well he must roll two (2) move symbols. Once one move is rolled, that symbol is locked and the player continues to roll the 2nd dice. What this does is create a timeline of rolls... And it's REAL-TIME. Of course there is a luck factor - but you could also "buy" by drafting dice with different probabilities...

Basically all this "rolling" custom d6s meant that the game is real-time until a player yells "STOP". When this happens, we take a breather from the real-time component because the REAL-TIME objective has occurred.

Say the objective is to MOVE and requires 2 dice to roll the movement symbol. Both players declare their objective and then real-time rolling kicks in and it's REAL REAL-TIME. If player #1 (who wanted to move) beats his opponent, he can decide which units is to be moved (perhaps formation moves should be possible - but require 3 dice instead of 2).

Once the move is done, BOTH player declare their objective. Player #2 can keep the same objective as previously or may elect to try a new objective. And then Player #1 declares his next objective and then the REAL-TIME aspect kicks in and players start rolling dice (REAL-TIME)!

I like the dice drafting idea - both players could earn points to be able to buy dice for a "real-time round" that have different odds.

Anyhow - this is my take on what I expected a RTS board game to be.

And I had hoped that the various discussions about it (from various mechanics to positions, etc) were for the RTS board game... Anyhow I like this... I would maybe want to pursue it in terms of design. Personally it's worth my time - since I think it's a NEW concept and it's something that I would spend further time "exploring"!

Cheers!

I understand... That's why I also have games "on the backburner" so to speak. I think about them every now and then - but I focus on my other games first.

Right now I am waiting for the Florida group to report their findings on "Tradewars - Homeworld" and see what they have to say about the game. Joe is supposed to get back to me about that.

He's bugging me to think about having a crowdfunding campaign. Which is okay - but there are things that I need to learn (such as Amazon.com fulfillment). Basically Amazon can handle the warehousing and shipping of individual rewards. Which is fantastic seeing that I needed some help with this aspect of the crowdfunding campaign since I am in Canada. It's very costly to ship product from Canada to the USA. The reverse is not true: it's actually rather cheap to ship from the USA to Canada.

And so there are things that need clarification like how much is it going to cost, what is the price for delivering wordwide, etc.