Rule variations. Also building hierachies

For Point #2: making it harder to gain a resource.

My idea is sort of a bit more complicated but still rather simple in essence.

Instead of +1 on 1D6. Make it a combination of 3D6s. That way when you roll with less players (think 2) you roll 5D6s and with more (think 4) 3D6s.

What this does is make it harder. Let's say you are giving the Number of Rolls per Player and so 3D6, where you can LOCK a die or several if the corresponding match of the combination is achieved. And in total for 2-Players you would have 5D6s rolled TWICE (2x: 1-Per Player). For 4-Players you would have 3D6s rolled FOUR time (4x: 1-Per Player)... Again making the possibility for LOCKING and only re-rolling whatever dice are NOT locked.

This is much more EXCITING because the NUMBER OF COMBINATIONs of 3D6s are a TON. For example: 1-1-1 or 1-2-1 or 6-5-4, etc.

Again I think this is BETTER because it is BY FAR more "flexible" and offers a lot of variation. You can maybe even not rely on Players, you could say 3-Rolls per combination... Better than 2-Rolls and harder than 4-Rolls.

That's another alternative.

For Point #3: hierarchy of building requirement.

Sorry I didn't understand the Building aspect "A" can't build "B" but somehow you could build "C" or "D" without "A" or "B"??? Very confusing! The example isn't great, there's some ambiguity there.

Please clarify and I'll see if I can offer anything to help you out...

Cheers!

Note #1: Also about Point #2 ... You can VARY the combinations too: 2D6s, 3D6s or 4D6s... To make it EASIER or HARDER depending on the nature of the "resource". That's another ANGLE which shows how this is MUCH more "flexible" than rolling +1 or +2 on a single D6.

Yes that much I understood. "B" requires "A" but you may never get "A". That much I got. But what "C" and "D" have to do with it, IDK?!

I'm not really a Fan of "Tech Trees" like Civilization (for example). A LOT of games use them and most Advancements have Requirements like you explained, "A" before "B"...

I'll pitch this idea AGAIN (not to you, on another project using a "Tech Tree"), because I still think it has merit.

Divide your "Skills" into 3 or 4 Categories. And then some kind of "Look-up" Chart which describes the nature of the skill earned by those "3" or "4" Categories.

Like "Might", "Diplomacy", "Trade" (3 instead of 4 in my example).

And M-M-M-M = Gunpowder (IDK I'm improvising)

Or D-D-T-T = Law College (Requires a balance of Diplomacy and Trade)

Or T-T-T-T = Merchant's Guild (Some kind of Bonus to Caravans... IDK :)

And you wouldn't NEED to know ALL the combinations (at first)... But as you PLAY the game, each time you LEARN something NEW. It makes for AWESOME replayability and surprises of the nature that you don't know what to research NEXT unless you have ALREADY unlocked something in a previous play-thru.

And 3x3x3x3 = 81 different types of "Technologies" or Advancements.

Keeps it relatively SMALL for a Board Game ... But like I said, YOU LEARN as you PLAY. The MORE you PLAY and "research", the better you figure out what is more important to your play-style.

Again something for you to think about.

BTW I think for Point #2 your 2D6s is REASONABLE (doing a +1 on 2 dice is better than just 1). Thank you for explaining that. I agree keeping it simple is what is important. As per your explanation, I misunderstood that you were talking about only 1D6. 2D6s is more flexible and doing +1 per player reasonable.

Note #1: Getting back to Point #3, the only PROBLEM is that it's HARD to keep the "Advancements" SECRET if you can READ them in a TABLE. You'd need some kind of randomization technique. Previously I pitched this for a Video Game (the other thread) and it was better because the computer kept the Advancements a SECRET until you unlocked the corresponding MATCH.

Anyhow it's just an IDEA. Maybe this might spark some other ideas in your own mind rather than going the CIV-way which is OVERDONE in too many games nowadays...

If you have a TRACK with Achievements, like earning "X" Might because of a Military Force Status... That could come as some kind of Table with the "3" or "4" Skills and you can track those globally.

Maybe to get "4" Might requires you to become a "Feudal Warlord" and results in a regime of "Despotism" which has a PENALTY on "Diplomacy and Trade"...

So maybe there can be TRADE-OFFs in what it is you are trying to achieve.

Like I said, I'm giving you things to "think about" because I don't know all the inner-workings of your design.

These are just IDEAs that could help you create something DIFFERENT than a Civ-style Advancement Tech Tree...

Sincerely.

Note #1: For example to reach "4" of the Might Track, might mean that you LOCK "Position #1" to Might ("M"). Which means that as a "Feudal Warlord", you can ONLY research "M-?-?-?" Advancements. So when you get to that point in the game... You are restricted to 1/3rd of the "Tech Tree"...

That's another ideas instead of a "Penalty" to DIPLOMACY and TRADE.

I'm thinking in a WAY something ala "Scythe" where you have a player board and you unlock stuff as you go... But also restrict things from further attaining them once you SPECIALIZE in one aspect ("Skill").

Note #2: If you want to TRIM-THE-FAT a bit... You can also make some of the Research Branches DUDS. Yup NOTHING. That branch doesn't have a corresponding enhancement or benefit (in terms of research). So it could be LESS that 81 particular items... Just wanted to add that in case anyone is wondering if it MUST be 81... Or could it be LESS.

So instead of 81, you could have 75 (-2 on each track) so 25 Techs per Track, so-to-speak. That sounds like a really GOOD TREE. Something more interesting that a Civ-like Tech Tree where there are too many interdependencies in that you basically need to Research EVERYTHING, if you are expected to go FAR in the game.