Hi everyone!
I’m new to the whole “board game” craze, and there has been one idea that I haven’t been able to shake, and while I’m content with what I’ve developed, I need feedback. I may like my idea, but who says others will?
Below is the “abridged” version of my game. For a more detailed look, I’ve attached an instruction manual that is extremely basic, no art. I’ll commit to that when I get things hammered down, so apologises for it looking bland. As for a rulebook, I’m in the middle of doing that — but the instruction manual will have to sum up as it for now.
TITLE:
SERACOVA
TYPE:
FANTASY (STRATEGY BASED)
NUMBER OF PLAYERS:
2 PLAYERS
TIME:
30 MINUTES MINIMUM
SYNOPSIS:
Two cities, facing extinction, declare war on one another as they fight for each others resources. Unfortunately for the city of "Seracova", they suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of the other city, “Alvangaard”, forcing the remaining army to go back home while the army of “Alvangaard” chase them down.
If the city of “Seracova” is to survive, its army needs to get home as soon as possible to warn them of the imminent danger they face, but through uncharted lands, getting home is the least of their worries — it’s whether or not they can even survive the strange and alien world at all.
-----------------------------
THE AIM OF THE GAME:
The aim of the game is for both players to make it from one side of the map to the next (to “Seracova”), with whoever getting there first being the winner.
-----------------------------
“FAITH” — AN USP (UNIQUE SELLING POINT):
This is where things get complicated. The entire map is gridded, with each space requiring a certain amount of “FAITH” (a currency) the player needs to have in order to move onto that spot.
The player will have a predetermined amount of “FAITH” thanks to the build they create prior to the game, and with every successful move they make, they gain +1 “FAITH”, allowing them to continue ranking up “FAITH”.
As the player moves from Point A to Point B, they need to be consistently gaining enough “FAITH” in order to make it from one space to the next, with the map getting more expensive as it goes from LEFT to RIGHT.
-----------------------------
“CONFIDENCE” — AN USP (UNIQUE SELLING POINT):
The player is making their way through the gridded map, when they come across a space that requires an amount of “FAITH” they do not have (for example, they have a total amount of 10 “FAITH” but the space demands 12).
You could go another route, but each route is expensive. You are trapped. With seemingly nowhere to move, you decide to pay a bribe. This bribe is called “CONFIDENCE”.
“CONFIDENCE” is a payment the player has to pay if they want to move onto a spot they don’t have the required amount of “FAITH” for.
“CONFIDENCE” and “FAITH” are interlinked, as you will always need both. You gain “CONFIDENCE” the exact same way you get “FAITH” — by moving from one successful space to the next, ranking up +1 FAITH and +1 CONFIDENCE for every move you make.
FOR EXAMPLE:
You, the player, are making your way through the map when you come to a spot that requires 12 FAITH, but you only have 10 (for whatever reason). You notice that the cost to move onto this space is 7 CONFIDENCE. Luckily for you, you have 10 CONFIDENCE.
You cough up the payment, reducing you down to 3 CONFIDENCE and 10 FAITH (which stays the same). You will now have to drastically change your tactic if you want to remain in the game — the moment you end up with 0 FAITH and 0 CONFIDENCE, it is game over.
-----------------------------
THOUGHTS:
My aim is to create an addictive and fun game that requires an amount of thought. With “FAITH” (and with it, “CONFIDENCE”) there is a constant amount of risk involved and it forces the player to think strategically.
There are no dice, and while the time limit is a minimum of 30 minutes, both players can take as long as they want as they plan their route. The less traveled route is more likely the cheapest, so it won’t be a straight dash to the finish line — more likely than not, you will have to round and weave your way through the map to get to “Seracova”.
Not mentioned are POSITIVE CARDS, NEGATIVE CARDS, ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS, as well as “CLASS” (you pick your build before the game).
There are BATTLES both players can engage in at any time, and the map is filled with dangerous territories that require an additional fee on top of the amount of “FAITH” required to move through it.
Also, this is the sort of game I would be itching to play, so the passion behind making it reality is real.
-----------------------------
WHERE YOU CAN HELP:
I’m on the look out for fantasy, strategy-based board games to play and get a feel of the genre. Any suggestions would be extremely appreciated.
Also appreciated is any feedback — good or bad. I understand the importance of getting feedback, and I’ve had this idea in my head for far too long.
-----------------------------
INSTRUCTION MANUEL:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3-gLjt2ZxQlQmNmYi03aXlGbnM
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""Seracova" (Game Idea)\""){kind=small}
Hi guys, I first want to say I really appreciate the feedback. These early stages are so crucial to get right and your advice is definitely invaluable.
It would take too long to go back-and-forth, so I've decided to address your queries (and my thoughts) all in this post!
Also, I think rules could definitely be trimmed down a bit. I think you've made it feel a little more complicated than it actually is.
Seems like it could be a cool game. :)
Your thoughts about the "one path that is definitely cheaper" is quite true. I never really thought that over time, people are going to go these certain routes and the game would be over in no time. Perhaps I could have different map SCENARIOS, such as a desert, a rocky terrain, with different maps having different routes, but even then, it would be a) too expensive and b) people would still find a cheaper and easier way to finish the game.
And I probably have made it really complicated! It could be told in one paragraph but I end up stretching it to three for no reason.
----------------------
Question: have you playtested this yet?
I'm doing an extremely rough mock-up of the board at the moment (cardboard-ish paper and fine pencil drawings) to give myself an idea what it actually looks like. When it was finished (and I'm not embarrassed to take it out due to my horrendous drawing skills), I would playtest it.
At the moment, it isn't playtested.
Very fair point and I can see why it's quite problematic. I always imagined it would be a way for one player to get rid of the other in one fell swoop... but that isn't fun.
If I have an overall defense of 15, but the person has an overall defense of 12, then the "battle" (or "combat") is definitely in my favor without even engaging them.
I need to really go back to the drawing board (he, get it?) on that one. Someone suggested "hit points". That could work. I don't know, I'll have to think about it. Thanks for bringing it, though!
Is there an incentive to move backwards? Seems like as your progress, the older places on the board are inconsequential.
The game is designed to be played as you see fit. If you want to go backwards, you absolutely can. So say you went a certain way on the map but you think it's not going to pan out, you can go back.
I'm really loving this idea. The map can always be changed, or discarded. I'll address this later on with "Tedthebug"'s reply.
This also seems like more players should be involved, up to four I'd say.
I would love to find a way to have more than two players. I'm still figuring that out.
------
The whole idea came to be when I thought about armies going to war, especially in literature or movies, and we see them at war, but I wanted to see what it would be like to see what happens AFTER. So in this case, what happens AFTER an army is defeated? How do they get home?
I can see what you mean about "Faith" and "Confidence". I liked that an army needed "faith" and "confidence" to move on. If the game is the perspective of a general (in this case, you), then the army you are controlling will want to have an amount of faith and confidence in how you lead.
Rather than soldiers being involved in battles, it would just become hit points, and I think your entire mechanic still works.
I mentioned this above. I really like the "hit points" mechanic A LOT. Each player chips away something (say, faith for example) or something else. The person with the least, wins.
I'm just spitballing, but it seems more realistic. I'll have a think about it!
I do think you need a little more element of chance involved. For instance, rather than this next move costing exactly 10 faith, it should cost 6 + d6 of faith, or 6 + an encounter card. In the first case, I might have 11 faith and decide to go for it, in which case you need rules for what happens if I fail. Even though I feel I am always unlucky in these situations, I think that makes for a better game. With fixed costs, it leads to over-analysis.
Could you elaborate on the "6 + d6 faith" part? Do you mean that each tile should be an individual "event", so say I have 11 faith to go onto one tile, there needs to be a payoff for it. So I get a reward for every tile I make it through? If so, that's pretty cool, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
--
Reading your post I may have confused myself a bit but my questions are:
1) does the map ever change between games or are the values per space always static?
Currently, no. The requirements for every tile were supposed to be static, but as I've been reading other peoples' advice, the lack of "change" is a major problem I need to somehow overcome, which sucks.
I would love to have a different scenario for every game, like different maps with different layouts. Maybe have an ocean map or something.
2) why do the retreating soldiers not know the best way back?
In the lore of the game, the soldiers find themselves veering off course and end up in uncharted lands, especially thanks to the winning army who are intent on chasing them down. I also imagined that both cities were solitary, unfamiliar with the world outside their walls.
But I can see what you mean, it's a pretty major (and unfortunate) plot hole. I should have thought that out more.
The first is similar to a post above where it is suggested to use cards or tiles so that the map can change each game to help with replayability rather than people learning the best route & best troop specification to win the game. A random map may cause story issues as it would exacerbate the issue raised in point 2.
This is something Squinshee brought up, and I'm really intrigued by it. Perhaps there is a map, and it is gridded, but there is no faith or confidence requirements for each one. It is simply blank.
Each player must deal a card, which have the requirements. The player can chose to deal (as in, throw the amount of faith into a pot) and move their counter along the map.
That would make things a lot easier on my end, as I wouldn't need to plot out the map itself, but rather have the cards decide their fate.
Along with cards paving their way (as in, each card will have a random amount of faith and confidence they must pay to move forward or pass to the next player), there would be the other cards I had planned, such as environmental events (obstacles) and positive/negative cards, to make the challenge that little bit more interesting.
What do you guys think? Have I bitten off more than I can chew with this one?
I would love to somehow simplify it more.