Skip to Content
 

Difficulty creating good player decisions. Help needed!

5 replies [Last post]
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 10:44
ChowYunBrent
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2012

Basically I am looking for some ideas as to how I can create interesting decisions in my worker placement game when there are low resources available. Here is a brief description of a turn:

2 dice are rolled one that determines the amount of (A) resources available in that turn and one that determines how many (B) resources. That amount of A and B resources is then given to each player player.

Note: At the end of the turn any A or B resources unused, are lost back to the general supply.

Next players take turns to place down their actions. Players only get two workers, no more no less. The following actions are available.

1) Buy 1 pt tokens for (AA) each
2) Buy 2 pt tokens for (AAAB) each
3) Remove a -1 pt token for (A) (negative points are accumulated elsewhere in the game)
4) Upgrade your ability to gain A, B or C resources. (This costs an escalating amount of (B) and gains the player a +1 to a resource roll at the start of turns)
5) Gain 2 C resources (C resources are 'colourless' but do not dissapear at the end of the turn and can be used in a winter phase, like food)
6) Store 1 A or B token for use next turn.

Now this looks like a lot of choices, and when the resource rolls or flying, or it is relatively later in the game there is nor problem as these descions present a lot of options and strategic choices.

However if there are low resources available, this effectively cuts out most of the options. If you cant to action 1 2 3 or 4 as you dont have enough resources, you kinda have to do 5 and 6. Hence this is not an interesting choice.

I'm looking for ways of creating interesting choices that dont nessescarily depend on having many resources. But yet are not 'back up' choices that you are forced into if nothing else is availble.

I hope this has made sense. probably not. Thanks anyway though guys!

Top
Tue, 09/04/2012 - 12:16
#1
Chegra
Chegra's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/31/2012
Resources

Perhaps a set of random events that are used only when resources are low?

Top
Wed, 09/05/2012 - 01:02
#2
MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Trade

Allow players to trade resources with one-another and/or exchange with a non-player market.

This may not work as it appears 'A' is a valuable short-term resource and 'B' is more of a mid-term resource, but it's hard to say for sure from the description. 'C' seems much longer-term, but storage rules may mitigate the "maturation time" for B and C relative to A.

Also, if possible, rather than giving all players the same resources, let players somehow "gamble" on what they will get so not everyone has the same distribution. This will encourage trade as players develop relative shortages and surpluses.

And, though this is possibly crazy, consider making workers your fourth variable resource. Once players start to have a variable amount of A, B, C, and W (workers), they'll need to trade to optimize their individual strategies.

Top
Wed, 09/05/2012 - 10:51
#3
ChowYunBrent
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2012
Thanks for your replies! Good

Thanks for your replies! Good suggestions!

I guess I want to ensure the choices that players have when resources are low are different than when they are high, but no less interesting. This is preferable to simply having less choices. I am concerned about making a any 'low cost' actions into' back-up actions'that you would only ever choose if you had no option. As this again makes it uninteresting.

Top
Wed, 09/05/2012 - 11:44
#4
MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Low cost doesn't have to mean uninteresting

ChowYunBrent wrote:
I am concerned about making a any 'low cost' actions into' back-up actions'that you would only ever choose if you had no option. As this again makes it uninteresting.

Yep.

The Settlers games do a good job in this regard. You can build "cheap" items with few resources, but they are worth fewer victory points than more expensive items. Similarly, "cheap" items offer weak or partial strategic advantages compared to more expensive ones. Meanwhile, trading gives players something meaningful to do even if they can't immediately build.

Settlers is smart about granting strategic rewards based on resource cost.

Knights are relatively cheap to build, but are easy to outmaneuver until you've purchased several.

Development cards are also cheap, but you're not statistically likely to get victory points from them until you've purchased a few. The strategic advantages (like Monopoly) they offer can be powerful, but are "one use only."

Settlements have a moderate cost, assure a single victory point, and boost your productivity a bit.

Cities have a high cost, garner double victory points, and boost productivity significantly.

This system allows players to make significant purchases no matter what their resources (low/medium/high), and to gain a strategic advantage in each case. The "low cost" choices aren't things you only do when you have few resources, which makes them interesting throughout the game.

Top
Fri, 09/07/2012 - 04:29
#5
ChowYunBrent
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2012
That is a very insightful

That is a very insightful analysis and I suppose an example of balance of choices that I am hoping to achieve in my game. Providing another option, similar to purchasing development cards may be the answer. A cheap action that is accessable to most players at all times yet confers a small strategic advantage. Thank you.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut