I have finally got back on board desiging this game, and all the math it involves. Being part of WABA (Western Australian Boardgame Association) allows a few more opportunities to play new games and coerce people in trying something new.
As always play testing highlights good and bad parts of a game.
The Bad:
* I failed to realise the importants of peasants in the game, singuarly the most important resource for building (everything requires a peasant to build). The rate of their ability to be attained significantly inhibits the game flow
* Over valuing of tools, the cost of them needs to be halved, this is more to do with them being over priced compared to how much they are used.
* Timeliness: it is taking too long to get any end game scenario started.
The Good:
* The game type likes and dislikes of the players was varied.
* Most seemed to enjoy the game enough to give it another game.
After all this a few changes are needing to be made.
1. Peasants need to be more accessible. At the moment the maximum number of peasants that can be aquired by village/town/city is 1/1/2, this needs to be changed to 1/2/3 to provide more accessibility and game flow.
2. The cost of tools needs to be halved. There is just enough dependency on them for the cost to create a circular dependency.
3. Advanced resources will be able to be traded immediately rather than being only available when the appropriate building is available. This should enable the end game to start earlier.
