BGDF folks,
I've been working on a Catan-killer for the last year or so. I've got mad respect for Catan, but after playing that game probably a hundred times and having grown up playing Risk, A&A, Warhammer 40k, etc., I started thinking about ways to incorporate combat into a Euro-style resource management game. Ultimately I settled on a Game of Thrones-type simultaneous action selection mechanic (with semi-random combat resolution), a single resource (gold) generated from variable-production terrain, and an upkeep mechanic that forces players to kill off units if they can't pay for them.
My conundrum with the upkeep mechanic relates to its placement in the game phase. Please stay with me, because this has been a real head-scratcher and I'd love your input.
Let's say the phases work like this (this is the current state of the game):
Income
Upkeep
Actions
In this scenario, players collect their income, then pay one gold per unit as upkeep. If, between income and the gold he already has, a player can't pay one gold per unit on the board, he's got to kill off units until there's no more shortfall in upkeep. It works pretty well, but I'm concerned that it's a bit cumbersome to calculate your income, receive that, and then have to give gold back to the bank for upkeep. In playtesting, more experienced players typically just do the mental math so they don't have to take and then immediately give gold back. But it sucks when four people are all sitting around a table murmuring, "Ok... five plus... three... and... minus four... plus... derrr...".
In an effort to improve the flow of the upkeep mechanic, I've experimented with this order:
Income
Actions
Upkeep
The problem with this arrangement is that it encourages suicide missions: when you know that you'll have to kill units off at the end of a round because you don't have sufficient gold, it behooves you to lash out at the other players during the action phase. The other problem is that if players purchase new units in the action phase, they'll have to (a) pay upkeep for them immediately afterward, which sometimes means inadvertently spending too much money and not leaving enough for upkeep and (b) keep track of which units are new, and therefore upkeep-exempt, and which are not.
For the time being, I've settled on the first phase order (Income, Upkeep, Actions) because the alternative creates perverse incentives. But if you have any advice on how to simplify, streamline, etc. this system, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.
Many thanks,
Rex G. Baker IV
Montrose Games LLC
McTeddy,
Having an upkeep track for each player is a great idea. Not sure that it would work for income, because the numbers change so frequently (folks have a stack of gold chits).
Boomstick,
Your suggestion really upends the game, but I smell what you're cooking. I'll run some playtests with that phase order and let you know how it goes.
To provide more specificity, you get income from a hex if you own a settlement on it. So with your proposed change, combat would be doubly incentivized for someone lacking funds for the *next* round's upkeep phase, as attacking would (a) thin the herd as discussed in my post above and (b) provide more income if the attack on a settled enemy hex were successful.
Very interesting idea. I'll run with it.
Rex