Player interaction in a deck builder board game

Hello,
it's difficult to say in general terms but briefly I would suggest:
-small map: Make sure every players can always reach another to combat/interact.
-limited resources: Make sure players cannot find what they need unless they take it from another player. So you force them to interact.
-Make sure the resources are somehow connected to fighting, either improving your skills, or how many warriors you create etc, not just resources that give very non direct bonuses.
-total annhilation is OK but only if you can make sure it happens relatively quickly e.g. as soon as one player dies all their assets go to the one who killed them, making this new player basically the winner next turn. Don't keep somebody out of the game for 45 mins. (and careful this may result in focusing attacks on the weakest player)

if you don't want to track points etc, why don't you just make a winning condition of the sort of "the first clan to get 10 warriors wins". So if a clan has too many warriors the others will have to mow them down (more combat). To get warriors and huts (needed to make warriors faster) you need resources and only some areas have the resources you need (so again more fighting in those areas).

I may be off depending on what you want, how does this sound? Is this in line with what you were thinking?

That while "annihilation" could be FUN for some players... The losing players may not LIKE that. And it could affect the "replayability" of a game if someone (or a couple) had a bad experience their first time.

Just going to SHARE a couple IDEAS/Concepts and you can use, adapt or ignore them if you want to.

Concept #1: Doomsday Counter

This is something like "Defeat" an AI Enemy that appears after "X" turns/rounds. Like you have an island and it gets raided by Vikings (for example). Winning players are the ones who SURVIVE the onslaught.

Concept #2: Allied Factions

This means that although it's a game where anything goes... Players can form "temporary" alliance in the bigger picture of the game. Like if the base game is four (4) players... And if two (2) players combine their Warriors and attack a third (3rd) player... Maybe the fourth (4th) player wants to help out ... Otherwise it becomes a 2-on-1 situation after the demise of one player.

Concept #3: Win by Territory

Although player start with a limited Territory... The goal is to obtain and SECURE x% of land. This can be figured out during play and it makes it a bit as you put: constant battles/skirmishes to reclaim territory back from a opponent who is near victory.

Just some ideas ... to work off and refine (or ignore). Cheers!

Assume that the "Barbarians" will come after a specific number of Rounds. This can be figured out given timing and after some playtesting. How about something simple like... You have "X" Barbarians that SHOW up at the start of Round #Y. And they get places on territory which are NOT occupied by any of the other players.

Maybe like you say, they have "Z" Huts that appear in those spaces making it HARDER to PUSH and advance into those territories.

So NOW you have an AI player that wants to ATTACK the players and the Players want to ATTACK the AI to gain some of the "extra" territory...

For the AI options: you can have say a DECK of twelve or fifteen cards with multiples (as desired or even configurable for variation of difficulty) and they have actions like "ATTACK the adjacent territory with the LEAST amount of Warriors" or "ATTACK the adjacent territory with the MOST amount of Warriors" or "Recruit +U Barbarians" and of course "Defend Territory" (which is like a FREE/Pause Action).

Whatever ACTION you want to have ... you add them to that Micro Deck for the AI. Each player draws ONE of those cards at the start of their turn (or once per round) and perform the action.

That's the SIMPLEST form of AI which is "Doomsday"-based and AI-Driven. And it can really impact the DIFFICULTY with the Number of Barbarians and the type of Micro Deck used to simulate their "ACTIONs/Turns".

If you have questions please let me know... But I think this could be a GOOD ... Maybe GREAT direction for your design/project.

Cheers!

Note #1: If there are "choices" to be made by the "Barbarians" ... Like if there are 2 or more choices for LEAST amount of Warriors in adjacent territories... Well the the AI is controlled by the player who's is the ACTIVE turn. This means that PLAYERS can use the AI to compete and HARM their opponents TOO! Pretty neat if you look at it from that perspective!

I guess if you have "Warriors" that are scattered around the board and are color coordinated to match the player... I have YET another IDEA/Concept for you:

Use a "Joystick" like seen on TGC here:

https://www.thegamecrafter.com/parts/joystick-purple

And to indicate it's STRENGTH with a VARIETY of "Different" TYPES of "Warriors"... Use a "Torus" like this:

https://www.thegamecrafter.com/parts/ring-white

With the amount of Ring/Torus COLORS ... You can have like EIGHT (8) different types of UNITS to add a bit of FLAVOR to "spice up your armies" just a TAD BIT!

Again all things that I have contemplated in my time ... Researching games and various of my own designs. The Joystick/Ring (or Torus) concept is something that I've been working on for a little while (had the idea a few YEARS back). But had no design to implement it with.

Looks like this might be a GOOD way to say "Red Warriors" with up to FIVE (5) Rings. The other ALTERNATIVE is maybe using THREE (3) Ring colors for counts: like Red = 10 Warriors, Green = 5 Warriors and Blue = 1 Warrior.

So ONE (1) ARMY of Warriors is AT MAX 50 Warriors (5x Red Rings).

This COMPACT use of the Joystick/Ring COMBO makes it EASY to manage the armies with some options depending which direction you prefer: quantities or various types of units (Warriors).

Again feel free to use, adapt, ignore these ideas. I'm just sharing because this seems to me ONE (1) direction you can go with... Which is SIMPLE and elegant in design.

Again cheers and I hope some of this is of VALUE to you!

Note #1: Also you can decide IF you pursue the design and/or project further... To create CLAN "Miniatures" with a Base that HAS a built-in Joystick for the Rings/Torus. So like you could have like maybe(!?) ten (10) or so miniatures ... But for prototyping purposes you can simply use the "Joysticks".

Again this is if you get REAL SERIOUS about the design and want to have CLAN "Minis" (which could dramatically increase the interest with people who love games with Minis). Think something like Scythe from Stonemaier Games.

Note #2: Also about the CONTROL of % Territory... With like ten (10) "Armies" your GOAL would be to CAPTURE and HOLD-OFF three (3) ENEMY territories in addition to having your OWN five (5) territories with Huts/Warriors.

So the MAP could be COLOR coordinated or you can have TILES with the colors and either the board is FIXED or DYNAMIC ... Both ways work. You can ALSO have NEUTRAL Territories too.

And then you have like two (2) "Armies" which are EXTRA to help "jockey" for positioning and/or to battle the AI opponents too.

Again more for you to ponder.

Note #3: All the "numbers" are just representative ... you can TWEAK them to what works best for your game. Like maybe 15 minis per player are more feasible and work better for your game. This IDK. Because it's YOUR game. I'm just offering you "general" ideas that you can work with and improve upon to make them WORK for YOUR game.

I thought about it some more... And I think it would be possible with "shards" or "chits". Like one has the symbol of the Bear and the other one has a symbol or the Fox. Is this something like what you plan to use???

Obviously they would be color-coordinated for each Player and could also be different and then it would be obvious that Unit #1 is a Bear and Unit #2 is a Fox...

Am I correct in what you plan on using???

The only downside to this "method" is that each spot is controlled by ONE (1) Unit. Now while that may be OKAY for your game... I see the Joystick and/or Ring/Torus combination more "flexible" to allow MORE than one unit be in-play at any location (on the game map).

So without the rings, you have "Bear" or "Fox" or "Owl", etc. But only one of each at each location (using chits or shards). And with the rings, you can have "2 Bears, 1 Fox and 1 Owl" (as another example).

Having more than one chit at a location is problematic (messy and hard to upkeep). The Joystick Method is easier from that perspective.

But again it depends HIGHLY on YOUR game and how you are implementing it. I'm not a mind-reader so I don't know all the details ... One COMPROMISE you MAY be doing is allowing only ONE (1) TYPE per location.

Am I correct with this assumption???

While I was trying to fall asleep at 3:00 AM today... I came up with an INTERESTING concept concerning the "Deck Building" aspect of the game. Its got to do with your Warriors/Workers and it goes something like this:

Player's start with a Starter Deck of "N" Cards each. If there are four (4) players, their colors are Red, Green, Blue and Yellow.

Each Player starts with Cards in their Deck for their COLOR so things that can be done in THEIR OWN COLOR-CODED Territory and the available lands around them.

In the area of Play are four (4) Piles: one for each color (so Red, Green, Blue and Yellow).

Each Player may BUY cards from the four (4) Piles by drawing an "Diplomatic Measures" card which means that you can perhaps BUY or TRADE or something for a card of another COLOR.

This produces an interesting dichotomy:

1. You can BUY cards from your own Territory (Same color as a Player).

2. You can BUY cards from ANOTHER player's Territory (Other colors).

The PURPOSE is that while you may have a "Scavenge" card for YOUR Territory (Let's assume Red Player), you DON'T YET have a "Scavenge" card for the Yellow Player's Territory.

Which means by drawing a card like "Diplomatic Measures" and combining it with either a BUY or TRADE method, you can ACQUIRE cards for the other three (3) Players.

What is the relevance???

Well it's interesting because unless you learn the opponent's CULTURE and skills they use to "Scavenge" or "Hunt", you CANNOT perform that action in their Territory. This could also include taking actions such as battling an opponent for some of their Territory.

It also means that the more of YOUR cards you BUY ... Means the less chances the opponents will have to buy cards for YOUR Territory (Red). The four (4) Piles could have a preset amount of cards which can allow you to vary the degree of difficulty and add tremendous replay value.

So your meeples (Red) may be sharing a space with the Yellow Player but cannot take battle his opponent until your obtain a "Declare War" for the Yellow Player's Territory.

Again just some IDEAS... Figured it's 3:00 AM ... And if I FORGET... I almost did when I was awake in BED (I was going to get up and post about it ... And then I said no it's too late ... But then when I tried to gather my thoughts about the ideas ... I had forgotten them... Took me a couple minutes to re-think them) and voila I'm at the keyboard banging the ideas out ... So that you have other ideas to help with the DECK BUILDING aspect of the game.

Feel free to use, adapt or ignore these ideas ... I figured it would be great if although there was battles for Territory ... They needed a good "balancing mechanic" to ensure it's not ONLY continuous battles one after another... This adds some variation in that you need BOTH the meeple and the "right card" to engage an opposing player.

And you LEARN these techniques through diplomacy or Battle Tactics if you prefer... Cheers!

To make the game LESS like "Smallworld" where all the units are the SAME, I would entertain the possibility of having multiple TOKENS for different units. It doesn't need to be dramatic ... And you can do it VERY SMARTLY.

Like for example, you define THREE (3) CLASSES of "Warriors". And then your Bears can be the Tanks and maybe White Wolves can Hybrid and Grey Owls can be Flying.

And you can VARY them per CLAN (per Player) too. So say this is a 4 or 5 Player game, you'd have either 12 or 15 Different units in the game.

That to me sounds SUPER exciting and that makes a distinction with "Smallworld".

Now I know your game is NOT like "Smallworld" ... But you Area Control Mechanic does feel a bit like it (or from what I understood).

If you add just a little bit of "flexibility" in units (like having 3 CLASSES) ... You'll make the game less "linear" and offer more interesting CHOICES (Strategic Depth) than "a" and "b" locations having the SAME actions to play.

I'm advocating this ... Because it not only increases the Strategic Depth it also adds much to Re-playability. "Smallworld" does a lot with their "RACES" and "TRAITS" to make armies that conquer the board... Having maybe "3" unique Units per PLAYER (with corresponding actions) could be something very interesting.

Again just something to think about. Cheers!

My only hope is for you to make a BETTER game in-the-end. So IF some of my ideas help you work-out other concepts/layers for YOUR game... Well that makes me happy to know that something I shared gives you a way to take your game to a higher level.

Like I always say, you can use, adapt or ignore the ideas I present. In many cases, designers have their OWN direction because they are closer to the design (and know the inner-workings more accurately) and so the second option "adaptation" is probably where more ideas go...

Of course some ideas just don't match the general direction of certain projects and that too is perfectly okay. Like I always say "YOU are the designer" ... You know what is best for YOUR game.

But sometimes getting fresh ideas can help and unlock other possibilities and improve the overall potential of the design. If it helps YOU figure out more ways to make a BETTER game... Well them my job is well done!

Cheers and please continue to share with us your progress and direction.

The other game I would look at is "Scythe" by Stonemaier Games. It's more explicit in that you have "Warriors" (Mechs) and "Workers" (Pawns) and they both do different actions. That would be another game to look at... Since unlike "Smallworld" where the "Conquering" Mechanic is the most important, Scythe is about Victory Points and optimal actions per turn. So while in "Smallworld" you are about controlling Territory (and getting points for the territory you own...), Scythe is a bit more varied in how you can collect the most Victory Points. And there are several ways to do so. I'm not a PRO Scythe player... I've just discussed the game on one occasion and it's about "optimizing" the actions you take each and every turn to score the MOST victory points on your turn.

Again your game is NOT about "victory points"... So in a way it is DIFFERENT than BOTH of these games. But how you go about in the MAP is sort of like "Smallworld" and a little like Scythe.

So maybe other Game Designer can respond with OTHER "Area Control", minor "Worker Placement" which are MAP-oriented games...? Cheers!

Note #1: I also forgot to mention, Scythe is NOT a "Combat" game. And I see this as a CLEAR differentiator between your game and Scythe. But that's why I mentioned "Smallworld" because it is about territory and sometimes skirmishes occur between the players. For the conversation I had about Scythe, usually the Mechs are put into play towards the near-end of the game when there is limited amount of "free" territory (and protecting your own workers).

This is VERY DIFFERENT from YOUR game... Which you want to ENCOURAGE battles and jockey-ing for land ownership. You very much WANT the combat mechanic to be used often and also early in the game.

Another major difference with Scythe. Cheers!

Thanks for your comment Kristopher, happy to be of any help :) I'll post something on my KS at some point soon, aiming for October and things are going pretty good I think!

On the topic at hand:
I skimmed at medium speed through the whole thread and I do like several of the ideas bouncing back and forth here! Good point Kristopher on how to balance harmony/chaos etc! Trepid, I am not sure I understood how you are planning on using them? Would they lead to different winning conditions? I guess this would be quite cool, with some players focusing on getting harmony, so if they are attacked all the time you are actually helping them (which avoids a poor person to become the default target of everybody)

Although I like the idea of quality over quantity of troops, consider how hard this may be for new players. While 2 units are intuitively double as strong as 1, a red one over a black is...I'll check the rulebook! It's fine of course, it just depends what kind of involvement you want from players and how many other rules they need to learn.

On the wolves etc being attached to troops, I would be careful: As in your game there are no dice, combat risks of turning into a math exercise. What breaks the balance, is that the other players cannot know which card you will play to support your troops (e.g. it is 2 warriors against 1, but the person with 2 warriors is playing the "little bird with attack 1" and the one with 1 warrior is playing "the bear, attack 3", and wins, standing ovation, everybody is shocked) If everybody already knows where the bear and the little bird are, you need something else to add unexpected outcomes, which is fine but again, make sure you are just not overcomplicating things that worked fine.

Finally, what is your main mechanics with cards? I am not an expert in deck building at all, but I find very weird when you just draw cards and can use them all. I think it removes the pleasure of choosing how to play.