Well it has been a very long time since I updated… what can you say stuff happens. I have been working on a map of the Caribbean though. Why the Caribbean? Well it was for testing ultimately. The board we have been playing has mostly been Europe, and this has proved quite a lot of fun, but that board had shown certain parts of the game to be less useful.
Most of the land is connected, and the shape of the land is such that the fastest way to move around the board is on land. The down side of this is that players tend to shy away from ship building. So to make sure that this part of the game works well I designed the Caribbean map. The main differences are the map is much larger, 21 land maps instead of 12. However many of these maps do not have anywhere near the amount of land on them. So effectively there is just more space filled with water. Water then becomes the most effective way to move around.
Designing a balanced board or map for strategy games
There are many things in board design that can effect play and the Europe board was changed countless times to help balance the game. I have talked about this in previous posts, but in summary, a players’ position should not determine the outcome of the game.
The board should be balanced in way that strong defensive locations are either low on resources or expensive to build on. While you don’t want a completely balanced board, and it would never happen unless every tile was the same, you want to make sure that the advantages of a location are equaled by the disadvantages. The main reason you don’t want a perfectly balanced board is you need the variation, this allows players to take different approaches to playing the game dependent on where they are.
Why test different boards and maps for your strategy game
The benefit of testing these two maps is that now I can compare the play styles. The Caribbean map has somewhat spread the distance between players allowing limited contact with all players (except their direct neighbors) unless they build boats. Having a military victory is much harder as a result. The new map has helped us address some the issues related to military victories and battles. In turn we have made some major changes to attaining a military victory and I will update the rules next week. Keen players have also occupied the large number of islands in the centre of the board leaving them slightly exposed, but this has also allowed them access almost any player.
They can effectively pick the weakest one from this vantage point. For these players certain technologies also hold more value than others, for example ships are much more useful than railroad. Another change is the geography, a large desert in the north west corner and jungle and rivers in the south east encourage players to build cities in the most economic fashion, rather than the most defensive.
Playing only the Europe map would never have changed play styles to such a degree. The new map also removed the players’ ability to pick key locations on the map, knowledge that had built up over several games. This really leveled the playing field again. On top of which players had a new map to play on, and the change was fun. A new world to conquer, so to speak – sorry
Building a strategy game that works on any board or map
Part of the game design is to make a game system that can work on any map, custom maps included (coming soon). So far the game system is working well for both maps. I feel they are significantly different to push the game rules, but in time more maps will tell me if that’s true.
Players surprised me during a recent game. As one of them hit the lead, the other players co-operated with each other in an effort to stop that player. I must say that it was not my intention to make the rules play out this way, but instead, to create a more open game where player progress was easily identifiable. In saying that, it has effectively encouraged more player interaction. I felt this inadvertently reflected a real-world scenario, as players were put in a position where they had to compete, or they would lose the game. Some players, however, could do little because of their distance from the winning player, or their lack of resources. It played out really well and it created a spectacular and speedy end. Nothing promotes interactivity between competitors like a common enemy.
Players sacrificed their own lead to work together and hold the winning player back. Each player worked only as hard as they had to, so that they would not affect their ability to win. This created an interesting scenario as it became a race towards the end. Players were feverishly counting the number of turns it would take to win the game. At the same time, they tried to stall other players just enough to stay ahead.
The game certainly played out with the three stages I was after. 1. An easy building stage where people built up empires and strategically staked out territory. 2. A middle stage where players are more cautious, and their strategies are well thought out, (while keeping a close eye on other players). 3. The last stage; a mad rush to the finish, where players are counting every action carefully and using bonuses they’ve collected to gain advantage, and ultimately, try and win.
Let’s look at how this was achieved:
Early part of the game: To make players build an empire and think strategically, there had to be limited space. A smaller board space and limited resources at the beginning meant players needed to concentrate on creating a territory. Good players laid their cities in a way that was easy to defend, or provided land for later in the game. Players found it difficult to attack early on as the distance between players made it hard to surprise anyone. Players had plenty of time to build up defences while an enemy army approached. Players who did not spend at least some time building defences early on in the game found themselves weaker in the middle part of the game. Players had to allocate resources evenly between their own strategy, while defending themselves against other players’ strategies. How well one plays this stage could potentially affect the remainder of their game.
The mid-section of the game: Players could now see the other players strategies start to take shape, and build themselves up to counteract them. Any player trying to stop another player would be reducing their chance of winning. This meant players had to be very calculating when making their decisions. With only a limited number of actions, it severely restricted players from getting ahead too quickly. Balance was everything. Players could spend all actions in their turn when expanding, but then they may have found they lacked the technology and armies to defend themselves. Players also may have spent all their action points on technology, without enough city tiles to be able to buy more technology or build the newly discovered units.
The final part of the game: Players could not win by surprise, as you could only collect one victory card per turn (this rule has been changed now, but a similar condition is now in place). Players could clearly see opponent progress, so they always had time to intervene. The limited actions per turn restricted players from suddenly building numerous armies or discovering a complete row of technologies. This has greatly increased creative playing styles and caused the players to calculate very carefully.
In the end I was very happy with the pace of the game. Play at the beginning of the game is now easier, allowing players to concentrate on their own moves and ‘warm up’ their minds. The middle phase is more calculating, and tends to play a bit slower because there are many options to consider. It is also still possible to change strategies during this part of the game without affecting players chances too much. The final phase is usually over in two to four turns, and is highly stressful for the player. Hopefully this leaves them with a bit of a ‘game high’. I always find myself rapidly going over some ‘what if’ scenarios, then I try to remember them for the next game session.
Well the 29th has been and gone, and the day worked out quite well. It was probably more of a thank you to everyone involved over the past year than a game launch, but it was great to watch a few first time players experience the game as well. Everyone decided to pair up and play, which created a slightly longer game, but it was fantastic to hear everyone discussing tactics. I managed to wrangle a large format print of the board! It was nice to play on a high gloss board without seams.
I did find the board a little too large, but I suspected as much from a previous game I had played with my brother (a 2 person game). I will write more in an upcoming post about this issue.
There was some really good discussion afterward, and I now have some great ideas for future versions, and tweaks to the game. I’m going to savor these ideas for later posts, so stay tuned.
I also plan to add plenty more content for downloading and customisation in the next 2 weeks.
Thank you again to everyone who could make it. I hope you enjoyed the game, and of course, don’t forget to download the game when you get a chance.
We recently had another test of the board game. We attempted to play the game through, although we didn’t quite make it after seven hours of play. We did get very close, however, so it did become obvious as to who was most likely to win.
What I was really hoping to check during the game was the balance of the unit strengths and weaknesses, and whether they were balanced against the cost, the game stage, and against other units. The other part of our testing was the discovery tree. There were a number of bonuses in there that had not been tested, and I felt we need to examine these as well.
Combat system testing
Combat is something that is hard to measure without solid play testing. I have created a small program where you can check the numbers of each combat system. I have tried a number of variations, but the format we went with was 1d6 + bonus.
The results were interesting, but not exactly what I was after. Very quickly players would opt to build large armies that did not require a roll, ensuring victory, rather than taking any chances with rolling. This demonstrated two issues; units were not balanced using the 1d6; and there was no real balance with shadow costs, as a player was not taking any risks for the gain of winning a battle.
Balancing with alternate game strategies in your board game
There needs to be an inherent risk involved with the war strategy, and an equivalent reward. In the game, there are of course three winning strategies, and I would like to make each valid and worthwhile. The game balance is heavily weighed towards expansion; war being the next best strategy, and then technology. These need to be equal, and this test-play demonstrated it’s current flaws.
I have recoginsed some of the issues with the game. One player took the option of fighting everyone, and this stopped other players from continuing their strategy, as they needed to concentrate on their defence. Another player took expansion as their approach, and they quickly exceeded other players in points as they researched many technologies, allowing them to catch up with players who had technology as their approach. Expansion is by far the best option, providing you are well placed on the map and not threatened by other players.
Since this test-play, I have given the issue some thought, and I am looking at finding a way to limit expansion as an option and make war and technology more appealing.
Technology also gained rewards which were too great. Doubling of points was powerful, and allowed players to jump forward quite dramatically. I think the technology tree can play an important part in balancing, and there are a few approaches I can take. One is to make technology advantages dependent on other activities. A particular form of technology could allow expansions of cities, but only cities greater than four or five. This means the player who avoids expanding cities has a smaller reward from this technology. This forces the player to think more carefully about their tactics long-term.
Allowing players to implement various strategies is proving to be a real hurdle, but I think it’s an important aspect to the games’ appeal.
Balancing resources on your playing board
Something that needs some work is resource distribution on the board, and it can really only be worked out through test-play, although a little logic always helps. This was evident in the first test-play and I adjusted it marginally for the next one, however, as it turns out I needed to do more. Spain was by far the strongest position, and Greece the weakest. I have since improved resource placement and have tried to entice players to weaker positions for more points, and stronger positions for less points. The logic here is obvious, but the idea is to have players make a tactical choice on their location based on these two qualities and their chosen playing style. Always give your players ‘interesting choices’.
This post has evolved because I was tired of speculating about what may or may not happen in a battle, and I wanted to check out the odds you would get for each system we had discussed while game testing. While I still think test-play is the best way to test out battles (especially because battles are always in the context of the game), this little program I wrote can help rule out quite a lot of bad combat systems for a game. It will save you the trouble of testing them in the very valuable game testing time.
Combat system program: checking out the odds
This tester is built using flash, and you can do a number of configurations. It is, of course, not exhaustive as this would take far too much time to program. However, the main features are:
set the number of die and sides per die – you can’t mix dice
set the bonus per unit and number of units – the bonus will be added to each unit individually and totaled not to all units collectively
set any other bonuses (blanket bonus) – this is applied only once to each roll – not per unit
The results are out of one hundred and will show you the number of successful attacks (offence); defends (defence); draws and the voids (rolls that can’t work or are faulty). The last two numbers are the army bonuses for offence:defence. There is also data on the highest, lowest, and average roll attained.
The tick box will allow you to choose between a single roll scenario, where whoever wins kills all the opposing units, or the default (unticked) which will play battles out on a unit by unit basis. So the trailing player loses one unit, and then they both roll again and again, until all units on one side are gone. It will update the values each time a unit is lost.
You may also choose to have no units and just test the dice rolls. Just put zeros in the other boxes.
Extensive testing of combat systems
I have been testing with this program now for a while and have found two combinations that will probably work well with the game. Originally we used 1d6 plus the unit bonus, and this resulted in many battles that did not require any rolls. The difference between armies was large enough to have a clear winner in many battles.
… 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 one unit at a time. We decided to change it so the bonus could be compounded, so two units would add both bonuses together to increase the possible roll. (quoted from the previous post)
I examined the problems:
players were not needing to roll because the bonuses on the armies were too big, and differences between them were greater than six – players took advantage of this game-play weakness and built big armies to guarantee a win
armies in cities were limited in numbers, while armies outside of cities weren’t
whole armies would be destroyed in a single battle/roll
To combat this I have made the following changes:
rolls will include either an 1d12 or 2d6 (I have yet to test this in game-play, but I am leaning towards 1d12)
the size of an army will be limited by the largest city controlled by that player (this will balance out the city based versus non-city based armies)
battles will destroy one unit at a time, as opposed to an entire army being destroyed in one go (I am not sure if this will work as it may slow down the game. I guess we’ll just have to test it!)
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.
I have recently been investigating the use of different combat dice systems for ‘Sovereign’. This is mostly because I currently have the number on the dice going up to thirteen. Rolling and adding six-sided dice is not going to be fun for the player and will slow down play dramatically. I am also trying to avoid introducing ‘hit’ points, as this will add further complexity to the game. After some investigation, I discovered some alternatives. Here is a list of the systems I am now aware of, and have considered.
The system we currently use is 1d6 for each point of offence or defence a unit has. So a unit of 8 offence will roll 8 dice against a defending unit’s defence number. Whoever has the highest number wins the battle. In the case of a draw the defender wins. The losing unit is destroyed. I have tried to keep this simple by not including¬† things like hit points and making it only possible for one unit to attack another at any one time. This is a limitation of the simplification and I think I would like to find a way around this (more test playing needed).
Risk uses a simple but effective system of three dice against two. Each dice is matched up against the other, highest to highest, next highest to the next highest etc. The higher dice wins and destroys the opposing unit. While offence is favoured through the extra die, defence is balanced against this by giving advantage to defending units in the case of a draw. For example
Offence rolls a 5, 3 and 1: defence rolls a 4 and 3 – the offence wins first roll (5 to 4), defence wins the second (3 to 3), and third attack roll is disregarded.
Axis and Allies use multiple units attacking, multiple units. Units have an attack/defend value which represents the value a six sided dice must roll under or equal to. Each unit that rolls successfully destroys one of the opposing units. Attacks can continue until all units on one side are destroyed. There are exceptions for bombardment and artillery, but this is how the majority of battles play out. For example:
3 tanks with attack value 3 roll a 5, 4, 3 attack two infantry with a defence value 2, who roll a 3, 2. Each team has one successful attack/defend. Killing one unit from each team.
Dungeons and Dragons, use a range of dice with bonuses adding to the resulting roll. So you can have a 4 sided dice 1d4 with a bonus of +2 having the potential to roll between 3 and 6. There are variations on this situation with range of dice types and in a range of games.
There are many more examples, but most of them start to become more complicated and involve things like hit points or tables that explain how each combat scenario should pan out. This will most likely slow down the game.
Testing different six-sided dice combat systems
I have run some test combat scenarios with some programing trying to give some indication of the number of wins to loses on all of these situations. In doing so I was trying to ascertain how quickly the advantage changes in favour of the upgraded units. I am trying to avoid units becoming obsolete too quickly and hence players avoiding even building certain units in the first place.
Of the combat systems I found the most appropriate for Sovereign was option 4. Reflecting on 2 and 3, they did not leave enough room for expansion of units. With 6 levels of research available we needed a certain amount of possible unit advancements and I could not get this to work well with 2 & 3. I was also trying to avoid using another system by directly taking it from an existing game. I found with option 1 that the odds changed too quickly. A player fighting with a 3 dice unit against a 1 dice unit had on average, a 95% chance of winning. This made units obsolete far too quickly.
My goal was to achieve around 20-30% increase in the chance of winning as you upgraded allowing at least 3-4 upgrades before a unit was completely obsolete. System 4 also provided the opportunity to render units completely redundant at some point as well. I think this reflects reality, helping player immersion in the game world, for example a warrior unit would not be able to beat a marine because the difference was greater than the maximum warrior roll.
As a result I have worked out that all units will roll one six-sided dice and then add their attack or defence bonus to the number. Five then becomes the obsolete point for lower units as the maximum difference is 5, a player rolling a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 on a dice.
Balance for novice and experienced players
There is also an extra dice for defending cities and forts, which increases with future research. This adds an element of randomness/luck and improves the chances of players who are behind defending themselves while they catch up, and reduces the chances of an experienced players always winning against a novice. A good game goal is to have experienced players win slightly more often against novice players.
We recently had a board game day, where we played a number of board games. One of the games we played was ‘Sovereign’, and having only played it previously with two players, we managed to discover quite a few new issues with the game. This was great, and the discussion afterward left us with some interesting solutions to these problems.
The main issue, however, still remains; the overly complex economic challenges and calculating all the resources. While the balancing of many resources is challenging, it tends to create unwanted amounts of player stress, and moves game-play away from the social interaction, (especially when playing in a large group). This is one of the more appealing features of board games, and I feel it is an issue that must be addressed.
Simplifying the board game rules
When we looked at this problem, the solution was really staring us in the face. We had to find a way to reduce two things; the number of resources; and all the mathematics – the adding up for each turn was taking up too much time. I have listed a solution to this in the spin-off game ideas under combat version. This discussed reducing the number of resources to one, resulting in less adding up, less spending and shortening turn length. In doing this we had to sacrifice some of the more interesting aspects of the current rules where players strive for a variety of resources, rather than focusing on just one. The multiple resources created a situation for the player where they must think a lot more about the rest of their game-play. When placing cities, they must consider the strategic locations, while also considering the resources in the tiles they have yet to access. This was part of the reasoning behind the variety of resources in the first place.
Upon review, some investigation, and a little number crunching, we found a way to maintain those aspects, albeit a little less complex. By having a single value between one and seven, players can choose between more strategic tiles and the high scoring tiles. As a general rule seven point tiles, which are located on rivers, are accessible by ships and seldom have natural mountain barriers for protection. Low scoring tiles tend to be located in or around natural defenses, or have a more strategic location.
The rules we came up with to govern city capture also help balance choices, by requiring the player to protect the first city tile or risk losing the entire city. Rivers will generally make a long string-like city, and therefore make it harder to defend. There are also advantages in blocking another players’ access to an area by building your city in a choke point on a map. This forces a player to take a city or travel the long way around, effectively buying you time to set up defenses.
Reducing the complexity in each players’ turn
To reduce a typical turn, we decided adding points should be much simpler. Players would simply add all the points of the tiles that their cities occupy. This will give them an amount that they have to spend in a given turn. We can also remove the accumulation of points, and now players have fewer numbers to remember. The spin-off for this was the added challenge of trying to spend all their points in each turn. These rule changes have allowed a turn to be a lot faster, by adding up your points, spending them, and then moving your playing pieces.
I will post the new ‘light’ rules soon, once we have had a chance to test them out.
Discussing the values of hexagon and square grid game board
After some discussion we have concluded that the hexagon map works better, as there are no issues with diagonal movement distance, which you get from using a square grid. Hexagon shapes allow equal-distance movement between tiles, where a square grid allows diagonal movement.
The conflict I have is that squares work better for cities and buildings games and hexagons work better for movement games. As our game is a mixture of both, it makes it an interesting choice. There is a limitation with using hexagons, as you sacrifice either true horizontal or vertical movement. Hexagons will always exclude moving in a straight line for north-south or east-west directions.
As a result of this discussion I have made up a new grid over a map of Europe with hexagons encompassing the United Kingdom to West Russia, and down to Algeria. I think this will work better for moving troops, and should have far less effect on cities. The map takes a total of six A3’s, and is roughly the same size as the previous game board.
In our second test play, we tried to play the game faster and this time, we included combat. There are a couple of areas yet to cover, but we are still looking at getting the basics of the game-play right first. Trying to simplify the process of the game, while keeping the complexity, has proved quite difficult. Part of what makes the game a challenge is the variety of interesting choices you have to make. We are looking closely at making sure we remove all trivial choices, leaving only those that have both an upside and a downside, and therefore making the whole game a balancing act for the player. This invites the player to choose a strategy that suits them and leaves it open to various kinds of playing styles. On the other hand, we are also trying to reduce the overall complexity, as the calculations required throughout the game may be more suitable for a computer game.
Updating the map
The first thing I changed was the map, as it’s scale and dimensions needed improvement. We are still negotiating between grid and hexagon, but I would have to update quite a few numbers to switch to hexagon, so for the time being we will stick with grid. I expanded the map, making it just Europe, and the grid is now larger.
The game became more strategic in relation to city placement as there were more of one type of terrain in some areas. My brother founded Paris, and this had a great deal of grassland. His city grew rapidly as grassland produces lots of food, but he had little production in the city as it had no production resources.
The larger grid made play a little more interesting, as the map had more detail and made the nations more realistic. If you look carefully, we also marked the mountain tiles with green Ms, to signify tiles that could not be placed — a rule we added. We decided at the beginning of the game that this would improve tactical play for city placement and troop movements.
Cities, and far too many resources
After our goal of reducing the complexity we created a new chart to help manage the city data. I still feel strongly that this is to complex and I am trying to find a way to reduce the calculating. I have considered cards, counters, money, tokens and more, but apart from cards, I have yet to find a solution that will reduce the players memory load with out compromising game complexity. Which then leads me to the fact that I will have to reduce game-play complexity in order to do this.
Some of my solutions to this problem include:
One type of resource instead of four (this reduces the need for terrain types, but loses complexity regarding where you position cities)
No resources, and one build per city per turn (this reduces some of the shadow cost related to the strengths/weaknesses of units and other improvements)
Reduced number of resources
Cards for technology discovery instead of a chart (an inherent problem with this is that you end up with a lot of space being used with the cards, and it’s harder to see which technologies are coming next)
Cards for special resources (good for initial use but hard to work out which city they belong to)
Cards for units (this might be handy to remind a player what they can build)
Tokens for resources (could get messy with one for each city, and would become difficult as the amounts increase)
Separate card for each city (good for two to four cities, harder to track for more. I have an issue with this in the future as my chart can only fit four cities on it)
Simplified resource calculating (players could simply count cities and city sizes to work out the total resources) see spin-off ideas
Display complexity but don’t get complicated
I have a confession to make on the last section. While I am all for reducing note taking and dice rolling, I am an old-school D&D player. Those games were basically all note taking and dice rolling, so I don’t actually mind doing it in a game. I wouldn’t, however, want to limit the target audience with this; you always need to consider a variety of player types who may be interested in your game. That is actually where the open source idea came from, because in this game you could have a variety of rules (each with a different level of complexity) so that a wider array of players at different levels could enjoy the game.
With the new chart I did manage to reduce it down to four numbers to recalculate each turn (although any city expansion increased the length of the turn significantly). A shift to hexagons would further reduce this time, as the number of tiles to deal with are less.
We did have our first combat and I didn’t fair too well. While I was annoyed about losing all the battles, it did provide an element of randomness which adds spice to a game. We found that the defence units had the advantage, as you need to roll one point higher in an attack. This meant I lost two horses when attacking my brother’s one horse. In hindsight, I should have just protected my city as this would have given me an extra defence dice. It is important to remember not to let random events determine the outcome of the game.
Unit production costs also need to be adjusted as Warrior units were all but void at the beginning of the game. The cities were too far away to be attacked early on. By the time either of us produced any units we had already upgraded to horseman. As it was a dominant strategy, we tried to balance the shadow costs by reducing the cost to 5p. There is a good chance we may remove them altogether.
For the next test play
I think we may have worked out a few bugs now for play at a basic level. The next game will be with more players — how exciting!
Improvements for next time:
A few small corrections for the technology chart
A couple of updates for the city chart
Changes to costings for city improvements and units