City token shape in an hex ... part 2

Looks just like one of my two ideas I posted to you last time you asked... *cough, cough*

Taking what ilta said. If you consider placing a city must hide one resource, then a hex that has 3 resources could be more sought after as the city will collect two resources. This may add an extra dimension to the game.

It also adds a strategic consideration of exactly what resource you choose to cover up. If only one of the two resources is really important to your neighbor, but you can use either, then it opens up the possibility for some really nice passive aggressive maneuvers. Of course, in a multiplayer environment, it is unlikely to occur until all hexes are filled once over. And, it seems difficult to imagine why it would ever be advantageous to cover up the third. But, if it is always advantageous to build, then it may just continue until the whole board is full.

In fact, if you added a fourth (uncoverable) resource, then you could imagine a situation where the game ends once all spots are covered over, players have different 'levels' of city they can place (one that doubles, or triples, collection) and those different levels are somehow tied into the range of resources you have access to. Or, you could keep it at three and allow players to 'kick out' the lowest 'level' city if they play a larger one in the last unoccupied space.

I like the concept. There are a lot of different directions to go with it. Now, to find some way to put this resource system to use...

What if the cities themselves became resources to facilitate an alternative mechanic?

At the beginning, one might want to plant a small village on a location that earns a return off of the uncovered resources of the underlying land (either both or select one)... but what if that village then became a legitimate source for resource collection for a larger town placed in the same location? Let's say, for example, it generates revenue for the larger town?

In that situation, it would be worth placing a town in the final spot. And, it's precise value might depend upon the number of colors/types of villages in location. Of course, the owners of the villages would be totally screwed by that... but that might be the nature of the game. Or, you might say (quite plausibly) that because there is a town/market there, each of the villages may choose to generate any resource.

I foresee a number of different directions that this could go...
1. Hexes could contain more than just 3 resources (though I don't think this is a good move to make unless necessary)
2. There could be a positional aspect to each of the resources on the hex so that certain traits (like the market towns) might depend upon an alternative (inter-hex) definition of local neighborhood. This could have the effect of adding more strategy to placement besides simply what resources are available.
3. There could be a third, fourth or fifth kind of piece... so now, we're not just talking about uniform cities, we're talking about farms, markets, churches, forts, etc... enough to make up a whole medieval countryside. The pieces would all have some type of interrelationship to each other, produce different resources and each require some different combination of those resources to build. In the end, perhaps one type in particular grants victory points... and the game ends when all the spaces are occupied.
4. If all spaces being occupied is indeed the closing condition, then the initial villages/farms will either need some way to scale or to be replaced. I mentioned the 'chose any good' approach, but that particular power may better be left to a specific piece devoted to that task. So, some other mechanism would be nice... perhaps the land itself has a uniform underlying good it produces which is marked by its color and is the only one you can choose if everything else is closed up. In this case, the villages/farms would still get the shaft over time, but at least it would be mitigated.
5. There could be a way of either removing pieces or taking control of them, adding a defensive aspect to the positioning of everything.

Either way, I see this randomly generated map exploding with lots of different colors and types of pieces, each generating some benefit in connection with their position on the map as well as in relationship to each other. And, as a result, the accounting may get crazy if the design is not carefully done.

As a iPad game, it would be easy to tally up your income each round from hundreds of spots, but as a tabletop game... I think that it would be a good idea to make the player choose which improvement generates resources. And, personally, I think it would be fascinating if when the player chose which improvement to mine, everyone with that improvement on the board mined it. Sort of like Catan's dice rolling, but selected instead. That way players can benefit from their investments even when it is not their turn.

Food for thought.

What do you envision the win condition of the game to be?
What meta-game goals do you have for the players (ie. to fantasize, to think strategically, to laugh/cry/pout/spite, to learn, etc...)?
What kind of audience do you foresee enjoying the game?
How long do you think the game will take to play?

All these questions to me always seem to fold back into the design and questions of complexity, range of options and board construction/presentation. So, I'm interested in seeing what you see the game becoming.

That is a lot of time to invest in a game. And, also, at first glance, a lot of issues to keep track of it. With Master of Magic, each player can go at his own pace. But, in tabletop games, you will have to wait until other people are done. So, as far as I can tell, you might run into a situation where there is a lot of down time.

I'm not sure what you plan to do to ameliorate this, but have you considered going in a different direction with some of these mechanics than Master of Magic? Streamline the resource system, create one specific goal and reduce the scope. You might end up with a pretty interesting multiplayer game that you could actually publish without talking to Hasbro's lawyers.

It sounds like you have taken on a pretty big project and have made a lot of decisions so far to make it manageable. From what I can tell, you have captured a good amount of the MoM dynamic and extended it into a multiplayer environment. However, to go along with your hourglass metaphor, I would challenge you to think about how you might be able to squeeze that narrow channel even further.

From a design standpoint, the mechanics should be As Simple As Possible, so that you can teach the game quickly to new players and they do not feel overwhelmed by the rules or intimidated by experienced players. Of course, the real trick I have found in design is to figure out a simplicity that can lead to complexity when the player's play the game. You don't necessarily want to dictate the strategies they can pursue. Ideally, you want there to be a large range of option and for all the complexity to emerge from how they choose to exercise those options.

Of course, that is much easier said than done. I know all too well. Good luck. If you get a prototype together let me know.