Initial multi-player test of Sovereign Light the board game
I finally managed to co-ordinate a test play for the new and simplified rules, dubbed Sovereign Light. I gathered five people together to play, and it was amazing to watch how different each player approached the game. The main aim of this game was to play out some of the rules and identify dominant strategies in the game. I was focusing on three possible winning scenarios; trying to make each of these strategies balanced. Each player took their own, varied approach and we were able to recognise which strategies were going to pay off long term.
Making your game appeal to a variety of player types
There are five winning conditions listed below, although we mainly focused our testing on the first three:
- Your civilization conquers all others
- You discover all the top tier technologies
- You receive 400 points a turn
- Your point rate is more than all other nations combined
- You are declared unbeatable by other players
The different winning scenarios exist in order to create variation in play, but more importantly, they make the game appeal to different player types. The winning conditions appeal mostly to Achievers and Killers, although there is some room for Explorers. Socialisers will hopefully enjoy the act of playing a game in a group, especially since the game is aimed at 4-6 players. I am also thinking of introducing player cards that would list a nation, its leader, and some personality traits with advantages and disadvantages. This may add a role-playing element to the game, and potentially appeal to Socialisers even further.
With a focus on the first three possible winning scenarios, it became evident early on in the game that fast expansion of small cities was by far the dominant strategy. I tried to vary my approach by not picking optimum strategies in order to test the extent of the disadvantage.
Recessive strategies; adjusting the combat system in the board game
The one player who did take an aggressive approach found themselves at a disadvantage also. We had to modify the rules slightly as it became immediately obvious that attacks on cities needed to be improved. One change we made was to the combat system; we decided that the use of the 1d6 + the bonus value worked fine, as stated in the previous post about combat systems. However, in the initial rules, only one unit could attack another unit at a time. We decided to change it so that the bonus could be compounded, then two units would add both bonuses together to increase the possible roll. This created an extra dynamic to attacking, and added an advantage to the combat approach to winning the game. It also allowed for army building, which adds some extra variety and strategy for the players.
Another change we made is as follows. During an attack on a city, you can continue your attack move through the city so long as you don’t lose. This allows you to capture an entire city in one move. At this point we decided you could also split your army, by choosing to leave units in the captured ‘city tile’ and continuing with the rest of your army. I have created a diagram that displays a move one of our players made.
Using three horsemen in an army, the player attacked with 1d6 +6, against one warrior with 1d6 +1 +1 (city bonus), and then two warriors with 1d6 +2 +1 (city bonus).
In the rules, only the army controlling the city gets the defensive city bonus. I did this to help players defend their cities early on in the game, and prevent it from finishing too quickly.
Reducing the effectiveness of the dominant strategy
I had originally set up the costs of settlers who can build new cities somewhere between the first city expansion and the second. This (I hoped) would discourage single tiled cities. This condition resulted in many cities of two tiles being built all over the board, which is fine, but it also means your points would increase very quickly with this method. Players, as a result, were not really thinking or doing anything else, so there was very little player interaction, and the level of strategy involved in placing city tiles was severely limited.
After some debate, we found an approach which might reduce the effectiveness of this dominant strategy. While we did not implement it in this game, the test playing allowed us to recognise a flaw in the costings of city expansion versus new cities. We came up with a change where the defense of cities was affected by the layout and size of the city. This made logical sense for real world scenarios as well, which in turn supported the players suspension of disbelief.
The change to the rules meant that cities were larger and stronger; two factors I was really hoping to encourage during the game. Strategy was an important factor in the game also, and I really wanted players to have to think carefully about how and where they built their cities. Decisions made earlier in the game could now affect play much later down the track. A player’s skill and in-game experience now made more of a difference to their success in the game, creating more player satisfaction.
Our solution was one simple change; instead of a blanket +1, cities afforded a +1 for all adjacent city tiles (see diagram). This will hopefully encourage players to think carefully about their city location and layout, and placed shadow costs using only the highest point tiles. The simplicity of this rule made is easy for the player to quantify their choices. It is important for a player to be able to easily weigh up the odds when making decisions in a game.
Fairness in game-play
In order to make things fairer, I created one new rule before we played. To prevent players from building single cities near enemies and making this a launching pad for large scale attacks, I restricted cities to only being able to produce as many units per turn as they were in tiles. In other words, a single tile city could only produce one unit per turn, whereas a city of three could produce a maximum of three per turn. Another constraint was that you could only have as many units in a city as it had tiles; this may work for combat as a winning strategy, but it needs some more testing.
Speeding up the game
There was a real need to speed up the movement, which we had learned from the testing. Units moving faster meant that the combat would begin sooner, making combat a more valid approach to winning. In the past, players avoided attacking in the early stages of the game because units took so long to reach an opponent, that the opponent had two or three turns to build up a defence. So I doubled all the movement rates of beginner units and added a few more movement points to the later units. We did not progress far enough into the game to see the impact this had on the later stages of the game, but it certainly helped player interaction at the beginning.
Don’t bombard your player with trivial decisions
One small change (and I suspect there will be many more) was in the first tier of discoveries. We had a free city expansion, which all players happened to pick as their first move. This was the best option for a player, and any player not taking this course of action would have been disadvanatged. If it is a trivial choice, then why bother the player with having to make the choice. As a result, I have since moved the technology to the second tier to remove this temptation. It was important to address these kinds of problems and I will pay close attention to any similar issues.