Skip to Content
 

Colonial invasion from the native point of view

7 replies [Last post]
Desprez
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2008

I think it would be interesting to have a game where each player represents a tribal people native to a fictional continent. And they are suddenly faced with the appearance of a technologically superior civilization controlled by the game.
The players are in competition with each other, but must also figure out how to survive against a common threat.

Basically, an analogue of European expansion arriving in the Americas, but from the native point of view.
The invaders start off small, but gain new colonists every turn. Invader actions could be decided by card draws every turn and be influenced by their current relationship with the tribes and locations.

It would certainly raise some very interesting and complex game-theory decisions:

Players can co-operate with each other, but how much? At some point, they still need to win the game.
They can befriend the invaders for favors, technology, trade, etc. But this runs the risk of exposing themselves to disease and being absorbed from a cultural aspect.
Other players' hostile acts could have negative repercussions on non-hostile players due to the invaders perceiving all the tribes as similar "They are all savages and need to be eliminated"
Direct conflict, at first, is likely to be disastrous to the tribes, at least at first. They can attempt raids and terror tactics, but are these likely to do more harm in the long run?
They can try to trade, steal, or assimilate the better technology (weapons, domestic animals, better crops, etc) But this runs the risk of culture diffusion, hatred, disease. And also becoming a target for the other tribes.

I'm reminded of Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that the domination by European civilizations is in large part due to geographical origins and opportunities (particularly grain crops, large domestic animals, and constant military conflict) not present elsewhere, leading to a long chain of events and positive feedback loops resulting in superior technology, production, populations, and disease resistance.

The big question is would it be possible to survive colonization? What is survival anyway? If the people live but the culture is completely absorbed, is that survival? Are there examples in history where similar invaders failed? Why did they fail? And how can these factors be incorporated?

Diplomacy, economics, military, and civics all seem to be major aspects to the game. Research seems out of scope, but technology could be stolen or traded. Battles should be largely abstracted, as this wouldn't be strictly a wargame. Individual leaders or personalities are likely out of scope as well.

Does this stir any ideas?

ThisIsMyBoomstick
ThisIsMyBoomstick's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2013
This sounds pretty interesting.

I actually like the sound of it. I'd definitely be willing to give it a try should I ever get the chance.

One thing I'm confused. You say a lot about the Europeans and the Native Indians, but at the top you say that the players would be tribes of natives in a fictional continent and that the game would be an analogue of the historical events that really took place.

Are you just continuously referencing History to get your point across, or are you debating whether to do it with fictional peoples or base it off of the real thing?

If it's the latter, I'd definitely suggest doing your own thing. It's more interesting, and it gives you more leeway with the setting and the parts of the game. For instance, your continent could be completely different than America, in both shape and geographical features. The colonizing forces could be from one place or multiple places. They could have varying levels of technology. Some might be more feudalistic, and some might be more advanced in nature. Things like that.

If you were to implement event cards or something, you could even have the colonizing forces conflict with eachother, which would open up new strategies for the players. Some might seek to gain benefit from a certain side. Some might seek to use the conflict to their advantage and further their own tribe's more devious agenda. Some tribes might even take up arms against a certain side that they know is a threat to them if it can expand.

Another thing (if you're into this sort of thing) is, if you go with a fictional setting, allowing tribes to interact with their gods. If you made it a very rare but powerful occurrence within the game, supernatural or divine interventions from tribes' gods could also make for a VERY interesting gameplay element. Perhaps someone calls out for a favor from their god, but in order to do so, they have to sacrifice a few colonists. This would of course paint them as a target for rest of the colonists, and maybe even other players too, depending on what the called upon god would do.

Just throwing some suggestions your way! Take 'em or leave 'em (or anything in between)
Regardless of what you do, your base concept sounds like it could be some real fun.

GrimFinger
GrimFinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2008
If your goal is to make a

If your goal is to make a board game based upon this concept, then in a multi-player (more than two, for the purposes of what follows), then I think that how you choose to implement color, in order to distinguish one player from another, could be crucial in effectuating a mechanism to emulate the dynamic of players being in competition with each other, while simultaneously allowing for elements of cooperation, in order that they might survive against a common threat.

A miniature, for example, might have a red figure, with a green base. Either the red or the green players could use the figure for certain purposes. Or, if the red player dies, then the green player would automatically inherit control of any remaining red units on the board at the time of the red player's demise. Perhaps the figure allows certain actions, and the color would exclude any other actions by other players, while the base's color might exclude other players from using it for certain purposes, as well. That way, not all actions available to a figure with a base are common to all players of the color depicted on those figures and bases. You get some common action capability, while reserving some exclusive control.

The inherent weaknesses of the tribal players could be partially offset by utilizing Nature cards, Event cards, Season cards, etc. to introduce into the game some extra-player mechanisms that punish or impede the colonizing power of the colonizing player. Tribal players, for example, could pray to their gods to save them, and the colonizing player's fleet could end up destroyed by storms. The tribal players credit their gods, but the colonizing player credits the weather. Or, if you prefer something a tad more robust, the tribal gods could manifest their anger, directly - though that may take you into a whole new ball game.

Terrain could be a detriment to the colonizing player. It depends on how advanced his technology is, I suppose. Before he can colonize the tribes, he has to find them first. Right? Off-the-main-map growth of tribal villages could be useful. Or, just use a main map to track exploration and movement of the colonizing player's forces, but have tribal players draw cards (that they keep hidden until the colonizing player enters one of their villages). Thus, for much of the early and middle parts of the game, some tribes might gather strength during their times of peace (non-interaction with colonizing forces).

Just some thoughts that came to mind off the top of my head.

rgbiv
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2013
Love it.

This is a sweet idea that you should continue to pursue. Potentially very instructive from a political/historical perspective as well.

A few ideas to experiment with:

1. Different end-states. (a) Total annihilation for the natives, (b) detente/peaceful coexistence between the natives and the colonials and (c) successful repulsion of the colonial invasion. Among these three endgames, you can keep score among the natives to determine the winner. Under (a), it might be the last native faction standing. Achieving (c) ought to be a heroic feat - to my knowledge, there aren't too many peoples that managed to repel an initial colonial invasion (but correct me if I'm wrong!).

2. Along the lines of initial v. mid-game v. endgame strategy for the natives, keep in mind that colonial powers not only introduced new technologies to colonized people, but also new modes of warfighting. It might be that the *only* strategies initially available to the natives are small raids. Over time, either through indigenous capacity building or through an information-transfer mechanic, the available tactics can grow. From a game mechanics perspective, there might be little difference between a "new technology" and a "new tactic," but conceptually I think it's very interesting.

3. You might include an "assimilation" deck that includes a nasty collection of random horribles. Every time a native player cooperates with the colonials for trade, tech transfer, etc., the player must draw a card. BETTER YET, you might measure the COST of the interaction in "assimilation cards," so that for a basic trade, the player must draw one card, but for an advanced technology, the player must draw several. Not all of the cards have to be "catastrophic plague," but they might all do some marginal harm (think Curse cards in Dominion).

4. Multiple kinds of "colonialisms," from conquistador-style to the joint-stock companies in India and the south-west Pacific to the British Raj. Corporate colonialism is driven by (and sensitive to) profit. Late government colonial administration became more sensitive to public opinion back home. Not sure how long a period of history you want to cover (initial invasion vs. the "long game" of colonialism and then post-colonialism), but the rate at which new colonial forces respawn might be diminished as the natives target different aspects of the colonial machine. Personally, I think the long game would be *awesome.* You can get into ethnic politics among different player factions, really explore the different phases of colonialism, etc. It also makes for a "fairer" game because - at least as the superficial indicia of state colonialism are concerned (i.e., ignoring the pervasiveness of liberal-market-capitalism-as-colonialism) - time is on the side of the indigenous peoples.

Hope those present some helpful jumping-off points. And good luck!

Rex G. Baker IV
Montrose Games LLC

GrimFinger
GrimFinger's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2008
That's some really superb

That's some really superb input, Rex.

Desprez
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2008
Thanks!

Thanks! These are all really good ideas. I have a lot to think about.

rgbiv
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2013
Please keep us posted!

Desprez - I think this concept has a lot of potential. Please keep us posted on your progress and let us know if you hit a wall at any point. I would love to see this game get made!

Rex

rgbiv
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2013
Desprez, Any further movement

Desprez,

Any further movement on this concept? I really like the angle you're taking!

Rex

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut