Hey Veeky Forums

> Well, it sucks to lose. So make losing fun.
What I really want to achieve is a design that makes players realize that the game is only truly over for them when it ends. The game is so easy to rise and fall that I even considered naming it "Rise and Fall". The only way for you to be on a "i already lost" situation is if you get brutally raped on the last turns (but then, the game is already over anyway).

> some kind of "tenacity" score
That could be interesting. I thought about making a score system that players can keep an score between games, not dying could award some sort of score as well (making it a valid plan in the long run). Also, playing this way means that if you can't win, perhaps you can prevent other people from winning (the game can draw), reducing your opponent's score.

The only problem is that the game is rather long, so it would take some really hardcore players to play several times (it can't be done on the same day)

I don't know about war games, but lots of board games make a point not to count score until the game is over and have lots of different ways of earning victory points.

By not truly counting until the end of the game you don't have someone with as dominant of a board position.

I guess what I'm saying is don't have the game finish on just a total domination. Having the game end when the final card is drawn or the apocalypse counter rolls to 13 or whatever means you are less likely to reach burn out.

> I don't know about war games, but lots of board games make a point not to count score until the game is over
That usually works for more casual games, but I think its harder for strategy game where people will be always trying to figure out who is winning. Also, since one of the main objectives is to have most cities, its really easy to keep track of it since people tend to have 2~4 cities only.

I don't think score is an issue, the problem is more about resources: "that dude has 5 villages, 2 gold mines, 30+ troops, 20+ gold, and I have 2 troops, only 1 village and no gold... so i stand no chance"

I think people, at least in my country, are used to shitty strategy games that if you have that difference, you are already out of the game. So they bring that mentality into my game, even though I designed the game so that you can always comeback. >

That can certainly be one way of doing it, but it really depends on the execution. By putting the game on a timer, rather than straight domination, you're liable to end the game well before it's reached a satisfactory conclusion, ignoring long-term plans for what's happening now. And then everyone sees the timer getting low, and then all the desperate last-minute scrabbling starts, and then the game just ends, right in the middle of the excitement. Sure, it ends the game before it gets stale, but sometimes a bit too soon?

I think I'd rather have a loose, informal system where the players can just call it if everyone thinks it's really over, and then the players can discuss why it is or isn't, and then maybe the losing players can see that their position really isn't so hopeless after all. But that REALLY depends on what type of players you have, and you're liable to get players who just refuse to end it and make the game drag on anyways.

There's only so much you can do with the mechanics, the players end up playing it however they want, for good or for ill.

I also think you're failing to realize that exposing the behavior exhibited by your friends is a large part of the entire reason wargames exist. It might not be "fun" to lose, but that doesn't mean it isn't important to learn HOW to lose.

Perhaps your friends just aren't cut out for strategy.

Thing is though, like Risk, I think the core issue is that people tunnel-vision in on their own stuff, and the guy beating on them, and down take everything else into account. "That dude has 20 armies and I only have 7, there's nothing I can do!", except they don't think of the third person with 15 armies waiting to pounce on the leader. Or the leader with 20 armies tunnel-visioning in on finishing off the guy with 7 but not taking into account everyone else waiting for their chance to strike. It's just a whole mess of wanting players to be better strategists and diplomats and long-term thinkers than they are. That is, you can't make players play how you want them to. Perhaps better to just make the game you want to play, and the people who like it will play it, and the people who don't, won't?

As far as mechanical solution goes, another idea could be to give players less ability to engage cross-map, but they can 'donate' troops/gold/power to other players to keep things stable and get favorable outcomes/keep their enemies occupied. Gives other players more of a chance to intervene, so that a player hasn't lost until everyone agrees. But at that point I wonder if it would be too much of a overhaul; it sounds like you have a fairly good game already, and advice from a distance can only go so far. Without all the specifics, your playtesting group might have better suggestions about giving the game a more 'diplomatic' feel. Because at this point I feel your issue is more with how your player(s) are interpreting the game, rather than with the game itself.

that is, to use the cliche, "Have you tried talking to your group about this?"

Sorry friend but I think our opinions diverge here. I think putting a timer on the game is great because it avoids people getting too comfortable - when the game is coming to an end, however is not on the top wants that to change. And this is great since it makes every turn count.

> I think I'd rather have a loose, informal system where the players can just call it if everyone thinks it's really over
Not sure that is a good approach for a strategy game. Furthermore, the only thing that stops players from winning is time to execute their plan - if time is loose, no one would ever give up unless killed.

> I also think you're failing to realize that exposing the behavior exhibited by your friends is a large part of the entire reason wargames exist
Maybe I'm just getting a bad batch of players. I for one don't really understand this "i already lost" mentality. A few weeks ago I was playing a tournament of that Jamaica board game, which players have to race around the island of Jamaica. I was reeeally behind everyone else, but instead of giving up, I decided to try an alternative strategy, and I actually ended up winning by 1 point (got an exemplar of Settler of Catan for free, yay).

> Perhaps your friends just aren't cut out for strategy.
When playing this game specifically, I try to avoid inviting people who I think are not cut out for strategy (I usually try to be really clear about the style of the game). Also, I don't play it only with friends, sometimes I just meet random people and play with them.

> pic: just decided to dump random art concept for the game during my posts (i don't own the art, just using it for the prototype)

> Or the leader with 20 armies tunnel-visioning in on finishing off the guy with 7 but not taking into account everyone else waiting for their chance to strike.
The game is designed in a way that is really hard to fight a war on two fronts. In most cases, the 2 weakest players may win against the 1 strongest player, even if he has a lot more troops/territories/gold than both the others combined.

> That is, you can't make players play how you want them to. Perhaps better to just make the game you want to play, and the people who like it will play it, and the people who don't, won't?
Ultimately, yes, but I'm always under the impression that I could improve the design to "induce" players to play "properly". In other words, improve the design to make it more clear that everyone has a shot for the throne, even the weakest dude.

> but they can 'donate' troops/gold/power to other players to keep things stable and get favorable outcomes/keep their enemies occupied
They can't donate troops, but they can trade gold or cards (that do a lot of important stuff) freely between players, trading card for card, card for gold, card/gold for a favor, etc. Just to exemplify the extend, on today's playtest I extorted people several times
> "Uh, seems like you will get 3 troops and 3 gold from these villages here. It also seems I have this army here that could block the road between your villages and your capital and fuck up your resources. 1 gold coin sounds like a fair price for not fucking you up."
> "Ok, you can have this 1 gold coin"
> *turn to another player* "Uh, seems like you have these villages here..."

> your playtesting group might have better suggestions about giving the game a more 'diplomatic' feel
I always try to get feedback, though some people seem a bit uncomfortable to say freely what they think. Also, the game is already a lot diplomatic (with some intense level of treachery

> that is, to use the cliche, "Have you tried talking to your group about this?"
I don't have "a group", sadly. What I do is that I gather people (not always friends, sometimes people I have never met before) to play.

This issue with the mentality, that I really convinced myself I could do something about, is just something that I have noticed happen several times to different people from different groups.

Some people can't handle command. That's why wargames exist.

Okay, here's my 0.02$ worth:

First off:
Does your game support Alliances?
You know - Diplomacy-style.
Or - even better - semi-permanent 'partnerships' where the Victory Points are taken together when determining the winner.
I.e. sort of a "Franco-Sardinian Alliance wins the Second Italian War of Independence" thing.

Second off:
Have you considered giving your players different (and secret) goals?
I tried making a game about Mercenary commanders fighting war for fun and profit (TM) which gave them (basically) a goal to pursue:

Politico - get the highest (noble) title for themselves as possible.
Dandy - get as many wimmen as possible.
Merchant - get as much money as possible.
Socialite - get as many friends as possible.
Warrior - win as many battles as possible.
Gloryhound - lead as many troops as possible.
Disciplinarian - have the best damn troops anybody ever had.

Third off:
Have you considered giving the Players a non-linear goal?
I.e. the one that can be achieved by spending resources gained in the game, but will otherwise be useless within the context of the game?

>The biggest problem I fear right now
I'd like to change that by asking if you are afraid that, properly colored in, your map might look like a man getting fucked by a treant?

Trying to deduce some of the mechanics from the picture. Not much luck. Some observations;
-What's going on with yellow? Appears to be competing for ultra gold mine with black, but only spots connected to cities collect resources, and has ignored a village on the way. Some non-compete with red, or unable to spare the troops? Probably going to build a castle soon, if the fight with black goes well. Also, what's the range on units? Likely more than 1, based on general board positioning, but yellow has left troops outside of the gray defense zone. Alternatively: cap of 5 armies/space. Final note, yellow/black ONLY cities undefended; defense squares give additional troops, not multiplier to existing troops? Probably going for gold victory.

-Black:Armies decentralized/distributed. Undefended on white/green borders? WHAT COULD IT MEAN? Alliance with white/green? 2 troops better than 2 instances of 1 troop?

-Blue=Australia

-White: I just don't know. Troops tucked away in a corner, away from enemies, not on a border. What's the movement speed for an army; does white need that many in reserve? Safe for now, but what's the long term plan? Liable to attack blue.

Red: Cities goal most def. Boxed in a corner, wants to expand, but is giving yellow a wide berth for now. Trying to poach villages from green before consolidating.

Green: Is totally paying protection money to blue.

Prediction: Black wins with a gold victory, but just barely
Mechanics deduced: 0
I have no idea what's going on.

I already assume some people won't like the game/genre. i just want to find a way to improve the experience for those who could potentially handle it

> Does your game support Alliances?
Yes, it does. From 1-turn deals to "semi-permanent partnerships". To things to point out about alliances:
1) There's 2 goals, mentioned here . Two players with different goals can win the game at the same time (so honest alliances can happen).
2) There are cards for alliances, so you can also make "official" alliances where both player's can't attack each other for N turns (you can make alliances without cards, but then you don't get any guarantee the other dude won't buttfuck you later)

> Have you considered giving your players different (and secret) goals?
Basically, there's only 2 different goals (they start as secret, but you can reveal them to get a bonus, so usually around mid/late game you start figuring what each person wants). I have been told this system makes the game feel a bit different from other similar games.

> Have you considered giving the Players a non-linear goal?
Not sure I understood that idea completely. Care to further explain?

Nigga, are you on acid? I can't even see a man or a treant in there.

How about now?

Wow, very cool you analyzed all of that with just a brief explanation of the rules! Here is how it was (according to my memory):

> Yellow
Stop expanding early, gather a bunch of troops and marched to the middle of the map. Had a "let's keep our cool" pact with red, that village is supposed to belong to red (who claimed it a bit soon). First proved military might to black, then cut a deal "you can have ultra gold mine, but you pay me 33% of what you mine there".

> Blue
Australia with no additional troops is just a dull corner. Blue had convinced white from return his troops (that were on white city's footsteps).

> White
Just agreed to retreat from blue's islands. About to assault that village from green.

> Red
Basically what you said

> Green
Not having trouble with the blue (or paying blue), but about to pay the price for leaving so many territories with only 1 troop.

> Also, what's the range on units? Likely more than 1
only "meele" attack, but mobility is a thing. can move up to 5 territories in a turn

> cap of 5 armies/space.
sort of, yeah :) maximum you can use on an attack or defense is 5

> defense squares give additional troops, not multiplier to existing troops?
gives bonus, +2

> yellow/black ONLY cities undefended
cities can't be taken on the first stage of the game (to avoid player elimination too early in the game)

> Mechanics deduced: 0
don't sell yourself short

Too much of a stretch. How about T-Rex Superdino with a Pickaxe?

>learn HOW to lose
>implying losing is a skill and not an outcome

If I am outmatched and/or fate turns against me, I lose. This requires no effort or input on my part. Knowing how to lose gracefully (without flipping the table, in other words) is one thing, but losing is simply an outcome.

Shit, that is a lot of creativity.

> Prediction: Black wins with a gold victory, but just barely

This is the outcome:

> WHITE leaves during the middle the game, everyone is like whyyyyyy. His city/troops/gold/cards get removed from game (but this creates a huge chunk of unexplored land, you can clearly see the glow on the eye of black and blue)

> BLUE gets buttfucked by red+green, and end up cornered on a part of his main island (he reconquered the island only on the last turn, red was occupying it previously)

> GREEN reveals that her goal was to have most cities, build a 3-in-1 city on her original spot...

> YELLOW is going for gold (as you predicted), notices red is also going for gold and backstabs her, cutting her supply line (PS: might be hard to see, but some of the yellow pieces are slightly larger, which means they are 5 troops instead)

> RED was indeed going for gold, but even with owning 2 gold mines while yellow owned only 1, had a lot less gold because she spent most of her gold in fighting while yellow used fighting to get gold ("pay me or I fuck your troops up" style)

> BLACK pretends its settlers of catan and spend most of the game doing nothing, just chilling and gathering troop. Allies with yellow since his goal is to have most troops, yellow helps him take the 3-in-1 capital from green.

PS: last 2 turns, there was a clear alliance between RED+GREEN vs. BLACK+YELLOW, but black+yellow was a lot stronger (green was quite weakened)

> FINAL OUTCOME
Black wins with most cities
Yellow wins with most gold (a lot)

> pic related

>Knowing how to lose gracefully (without flipping the table, in other words) is one thing
You know what I meant. Don't be pedantic.

>> Have you considered giving the Players a non-linear goal?
>Not sure I understood that idea completely. Care to further explain?

Basically, a linear goal is the (usual) one where you pursue the goal to both improve your Victory Conditions AND your position in the game.
Your own game is a good example:
Get territories -> get gold/armies from territories -> gold improves score, armies get territories -> get gold/armies from new territories -> etc.

A non-linear goal is the one where pursuing it will hurt your chances of winning the game.
I.e. you're a local District commander in a (grander) Civil War, and your goal is to support your Cause by sending Food/Gold/Armies from your (tiny) to the Main Front.
BUT there are opposing troops in your (and nearby) District(s) as well, and you can't send the Food/Gold/Armies if you've gotten your ass kicked.

Nice! Not sure if it fits this game, but its a very interesting concept (the difference between linear goal and non-linear goal), so thanks for explaining! That is sort like Dominion (where the score cards you buy don't do shit during the game, so only give you shit draw)

I went for the opposite direction, though. Some players will need cities to win, others will need gold. But I did it in a way that both things are very important... so even if you need cities, its important to get gold so you can pay your expenses. At the same time, having only 1 city is dangerous (because you get out of the game if all your cities get taken away). + other bonus cities give, it make very important for gold-people to get cities too.

This is nice because it makes plays more unpredictable. For instance, last weekend I had the gold goal, but I started conquering cities like crazy, then sold them for someone that wanted cities but had a lot of money.

But ultimately, I really don't feel I should change how the goals work. Not only because its already a strong part of the game, but because many people have told me its one of the big differentials of the game. Also, not sure if the gold goal is much linear, since you need to hoard instead of spending.

Sounds pretty cool. Kind of game I'd love to play, but competitive diplomacy type games tend not to go over well with any players I can scrape up. Mostly cooperative or open-ended stuff here, like Pandemic, or Betrayal at House on the Hill. Still, great fun to read about and look over.

>Also, not sure if the gold goal is much linear, since you need to hoard instead of spending.

IMHO, it is, because you CAN spend it to get more armies & then get more gold by taking more provinces.
It all depends on the time (deck) remaining ...

Don't listen to this retards, positive thinking my ass. You must hide the winning condition from the players so they don't know that they have already lost, that is why most of the games keep secret the amount of points each player has

>The biggest problem I fear right now is that sometimes players feel that they are in a situation with no chance of comeback, even if they are in a situation that is completely possible to comeback and win.

How do you come back and win? If players consistently fall into the "it's impossible to win" mentality, you might want to make the means by which somebody makes a comeback a little clearer. If the person designing the game sees the mechanics that allow a player to make a comeback, but the players don't, then you need to go back and work out whether there's a way of presenting the rules / mechanics a little better.

short bump

> Kind of game I'd love to play
I too love to play this sort of game. In fact, what motivated me to create this one is because I really like the genre, but the only one people play here where I live is a shitty version of Risk. So I was like "fuck it, I'll do a better one"

> Mostly cooperative or open-ended stuff here, like Pandemic,
I fucking love cooperative board games too. In fact, Pandemic was the first cooperative board game I played and I liked it so much it motivated me making my own cooperative board game. If you like this sort of shit, I have recently made a .PDF for one of my cooperative board games (pic related), as a print & play. If you want, I can send it to you :) some of my friends think this one is one of my best games (I have several)

In that way, yes. But its "less linear" than the city goal, where open wars can help you achieve your goal (by taking other people's cities).

Someone else mentioned this as well. The problem is not the winning condition/score, but the board situation. And I can't hide that from players because its just there in the board. I think it comes most from the fact that most people from my country are used to an old and shitty "strategy" game where, if your enemy have 5x your troops and 5x your territories, you have already lost. So the inherit this mentality into my game, even though it doesn't work like that.

> How do you come back and win?
Three key ways to comeback and win are:
1) Retreat and play defensive for a few turns. The less territories you have, the easiest it is to protect your land.
2) Strategic alliance with another player, for support.
3) The fact that a single full battalion (5 troops, shouldn't be hard to get even if you're holed up) has already enough strength to make A LOT difference in the game. With good strategy/planning, you can turn the tide of war with just a single well-placed batallion.

cont...
> work out whether there's a way of presenting the rules / mechanics a little better
This is probably the best way to go. Usually what I do with my games is that I create a little routine of how to introduce the game and teach people the rules. The rules of my game are quite simple and its quite quick/easy to explain them, the problem is that people seems to have a hard time going from "how the rules work" to "how the game works" (getting the game's flow, I mean).

But perhaps you are right, and maybe if I change my "routine", with a few examples and better wording, I could ease this transition and make it easier to new players to realize the full depth of the game's mechanics.

>spaceship diagrams
>co-operative
How much "inspiration" did you take from 'The Captain Is Dead' ?

>trying to design a game with comeback mechanics because they make it fun
>also want the game to reward skill
Fucking impossible

Then detach the winning condition from having territories. If the winning condition is the first that reaches x points then it you are a few points away from winning you will go for one last push, even if the opponent has a much larger empire

Read
mitpress.mit.edu/books/characteristics-games
The first 2 chapters are boring, but then it gets good

It's actually easy, player points alway go up by 100 even if he does the worts possible choice. They do go up by 110 if he does the best. This means thatch every player feels like their points are increasing by a lot each round and every player points are close to each other , while in reality only the most optimal player is advancing

Playing around catch-up mechanics takes skill.

> How much "inspiration" did you take from 'The Captain Is Dead' ?
Considering that I never even heard of this game, none. My inspiration for my spaceship cooperative board game was from the game "Faster Than Light", on Steam (I think), though I never played this game myself (but my brother loves it and tells me all about it whenever he has the chance).

PS: the captain is NOT dead. Captain Ruby is alive, and she is the best pilot and best gunner you can have on board!

>trying to design a game with comeback mechanics because they make it fun
>also want the game to reward skill
Though I understand this struggle, my game already has both things (comeback mechanics + skill rewarding). The problem is that even though comeback is always possible, it is only possible if you use a decent amount of skill in planning/executing it. And that is where people fail - they look at the board and think there's no way out, but that is just because the lack the vision to come up with a new plan based on their new situation. What I want to fix is to find a way to make it more clear that it is indeed possible to come back from being buttfucked.

Next time I play the game, I think I will force myself into a shit situation (either doing stupid plays for the first turn, or maybe just don't do anything on the first turns), and then try to comeback when I'm far behind everyone else. I will do this because I rarely end up in this situation (because I'm an opportunist backstabber when I play the game), but I need to try it out to see if its really possible to comeback or if I'm just talking shit.

> Then detach the winning condition from having territories.
Winning condition was never attached to having territories. See the pic on: . There's two goals on the game: having most gold, or having most cities. Cities are those LEGO blocks, which you build on whatever territory you want. If you want, you can stack up more than one city on the same territory (making a massive capital-like city). So you can achieve any of the goals with only 1 territory, if you manage somehow.

> Read
I will try to

Yes, this also works on some games. I made a card game, sort of MtG style, where each player have 3 dudes and the goal is to kill the other player's 3 dudes. One of the best things about it is that even if you are massive noob, its VERY unlikely you won't kill at least 1 of the enemy's dudes, and most games end with only 1 dude alive (so the guy who lost killed at least 2/3 of the enemy). This help people deal better with losing, because they feel like they actually had a chance during the entire game (thus avoiding the "i already lost mentality)

Yeah, but sometimes people expect catch-up/comeback mechanics to be easy. If they are super easy to perform, then it sort of ignores the skill of whoever was winning before. Because of this, I strongly believe that catch-up/comeback mechanics should be about giving the player a chance to come back to the game, but at the same time making it harder for him to win than for someone who was already doing good (that is the whole point, right? he is trying to catch-up from a shit situation, so it gotta be at least considerably harder for him)

If your rules do not encourage snowballing and players can actually win all the way to the last round, then the problem is presentation. If you think that they give up because of assumptions regarding games with that theme, then change the theme

Of course it is. You want the losers to keep trying but you don't want the winners to feel like all of their victories are for naught.

I think the answer is that a longer type of game should have a surrender condition. Once all the properties have been bought up in monopoly, there's no reason to trick players into playing a couple more hours to wrap it up. Once one side has a ridiculous advantage in a war game, there's no reason to sacrifice all of your soldiers.

Rather than alter the game, what you could do is have past games affect future games. Not sure what the win condition is, but for example, either the players play 3 rounds and get points for whoever ended the game with the most territories each round, overall winner being the one with the most points at the end - or maybe the next game you play you get bonus soldiers for how many turns you lasted. Even if it's minimal, like 1 more unit per 5 rounds, you'll have that last person scrambling to survive a couple more rounds for that small victory.

>If they are super easy to perform, then it sort of ignores the skill of whoever was winning before.

No it doesn't. It means whoever was winning before clearly wasn't skilled. If they were skilled, they would have been aware of the catch-up mechanic, and played around it.

Imagine that a player can play a power once per game when their HP goes below 3, that instantly grants them +5 HP. Their opponent can play around that mechanic by keeping the player hovering just above 3 HP, or push hard through their last 4 HP so they can't heal. But at the same time, if the opponent waited to try and one-shot the player, the player might muster the strength to push back. It's risk-reward.

Don't think of catch-up mechanics as throwing the player a bone. Think of them as an integrated part of your game. Think of them as assets your players can build strategies around, because I assure you they will. That +5 HP recovery I mentioned above? That doesn't mean that the player has a get-out-of-trouble-free card. It means they have +5 more total HP than is directly stated in the rules. It also means that a player who is down to

> If your rules do not encourage snowballing and players can actually win all the way to the last round, then the problem is presentation
Snowballing is usually double-edgy. Many times people start expanding a lot, but when they get attacked, they realize their land and troops are way too divided. One premise of the game is that you can only fully protect a few territories, so the more territories you have, the more open you are to attacks.

> If you think that they give up because of assumptions regarding games with that theme, then change the theme
Well, the game is a war/strategy game. I can't change that =/

> Rather than alter the game, what you could do is have past games affect future games.
That is an interesting mechanic but I don't think I can pull that off. The game is quite a long game, so I really don't see people play 2+ times in a roll. I thought about giving a score in the end of the game, if players want to keep a score through different matches, but I'm not sure this would be enough fix the problem because I think only a small % of the players would play it like this.

My game doesn't feature any catch-up mechanic. What it has is a set of rules that give plenty room for catching-up/coming back. If I added a new rule specific for catch-up, people would notice it a lot more easy, but it would make catch-up waaay too easy (because its already quite possible as the rules are).

Come to think of it, I think the problem is that since there's no catch-up specific rule, people fail to see the catch-up pottential of the game. =/ it all comes to lack of vision + old habits from other games.

>Well, the game is a war/strategy game. I can't change that =/

Yes you can, instead of "taking a province" they "have infrastructure in the area" so the opponent does not feel like you have land, he feels like you have assets and influence

Os the map the ssam every game or is it customizable?

> Yes you can, instead of "taking a province" they "have infrastructure in the area" so the opponent does not feel like you have land, he feels like you have assets and influence
Well, its a medieval themed game, but basically the idea is that if you have troops on a territory, you are exercising influence there, and if it that territory produces resources, you can collect it (but only if that territory is connected to a city you control, through a trail of territories you control).

Something that occurred to me now I read your suggestion is that I could change how the map looks, and perhaps that will influence players. Right now, the map is very color-based - empty territories are just a blank spot (no color), so I think players feel an unconscious need to fill that blank space with their own color (by placing troops there). Perhaps if the spaces weren't so blank (some trees, some mountains, make it look like it is just some random spot of land), people wouldn't feel that need. Also, this could decrease the overall feel of "that guy has a lot more shit than I do", because it would be less visually evident the difference between two players...

What you think?

Yes, the map is always the same. Its designed so resources and relevant spots are not all stuck together, and other shit like that (for instance, there's an prime number of villages so that no matter how players divide that, players won't have the same number of villages, triggering discomfort). But the game is sort of customizable in the way that you pick where your starting city is placed, and you also pick where to build additional cities (and since they are the most important spots, it sort of change how the map is every game without really changing the map itself).

Changing the map could work, instead of changing the colour to yours you could place a little "vassal token" so the map stays the same

> Changing the map could work, instead of changing the colour to yours you could place a little "vassal token" so the map stays the same
Not sure I understood your suggestion. What you mean by "vassal token"?

Well if it's a strategic game, it's hard to avoid a moment in which you've just fucked up so much it's beyond saving, unless your enemies start to equally fuck up.
I can think of 2 ways basically:
First is making the victory conditions achievable not(or not only) by accumulated gains, but by general cunning. An example of what I mean, although it's from a vidya not a board game, are assassins from Stronghold Crusader. The most common way to win in this game is to slay the opposing player's lord, which sits on top of his stronghold(the main building). There was a scrub tactic used in multiplayer: when your enemy was so far ahead of you that it was pretty much sure you would lose, when he would sent his big army to finish you off you could quickly recruit some assassins and try sending them behind his back into his stronghold(now mostly empty, lowering chances of detection), to kill his lord before his army manages to fuck you up. If it worked, it was obviously hilarious for the winner, but the loser felt rightfully cheated, which is a large problem with such solutions
Second option is making the game heavily relying on randomness(rolls, random events etc.), so that you can always count on the smile of fortune to save you(or to fuck up your opponents)

if it was a real game it would be a plasting cube of your color, or a bit plastic shaped as a little man

> First is making the victory conditions achievable not(or not only) by accumulated gains, but by general cunning
It already sort of works like this. For instance, if your goal is owning most cities, you can try to lurk and capture your enemy's city on the last rounds. Since you take cities instead of destroying them, it gives you a big advantage because its +1 point for you and -1 for your opponent. If you are a good strategist, you can just take cities instead of build your own.

> Second option is making the game heavily relying on randomness
That is a big no-go. Some people hate any sort of randomness on strategy games (I for one think some sort of randomness is interesting, specially because strategy is also planning for bad luck). But basically, I feel like I can't make it even more random

>if it was a real game it would be a plasting cube of your color, or a bit plastic shaped as a little man
Right now I already use some colored plastic for armies, from an old war game I have. Ideally (if the game was published), it would be little soldiers, and perhaps some larger knights as well.

But I think the problem is the map itself, not the plastic pieces. I think I need to put some more details on it so it doesn't look that empty. (an empty map gives too much emphasize for the pieces, which I as a player like, but at the same time it makes people who have a lot of territory look like they can't be beaten).

Do you have rules online somewhere OP? Your game looks fun

Sorry mate, but I don't =/ I don't even have the written rules for most of my games (I find writing manuals is fucking hard). I actually just decided to write the manual for this game right now, but got only 20 words so far haha.

But like I mentioned on , I have the written rules+printable version for another game of mine, if you are interested in trying out something new.

shameless self bump

No there is not. I've always been the smartest player in my group. I almost always win any game we play and can always see plain as day what the best solution is. Almost every time we play I run into the whole "I cant win" problem. I can even see ways for them to win but it doesn't click for them. I've tried to teach them how to think like me and find the ways to win from seemingly hopeless situations but they just never learn. People just think differently from each other.

I know how it feels, user. I'm quite intelligent myself and often I find myself on situations like this. Very often I have to "dumb down" my games because most people get stuck in simple mathematical shit (I mean, REALLY basic shit can get in the way of some people). In fact, my game design motto is "players are dumb". Yeah, I know its arrogant as fuck, but its also true as fuck. The average player is thick as a brick.

> I can even see ways for them to win but it doesn't click for them
Yeah, but the difference in our situation is that I'm designing this game. I can't just expect everyone to be above-average smart, because that is exactly the opposite of the definition of average. I also can't just throw the blame into the players - I need to find a way to make it easier for "more casual" players to see things.

From what has been said on this thread, it points out to me that I don't really need to change the game, but rather change how it presents itself. Change how the rules explain themselves, how the game introduce itself, how the map and other elements look. Make the design as a whole whisper "dude, u can do it!" or something haha

As a counter to "I already lost this shit", maybe have an alternate, secret condition that only triggers in desperate times?

Looking at your map, it could be something like:

>Coastal Retreat: If you control less than four provinces, and all of these provinces border an ocean tile, you do not lose.
>Swords to Plowshares: If you control less than four provinces, and all of these provinces are Villages, you do not lose.
>Not Worth Conquering: If you control less than four provinces, and all of these provinces are Fields, you do not lose.

I used "do not lose" instead of "win" because, let's face it, whoever kicked your ass won, but you did better than the poor sap that got exterminated.

You could even have these non-losers be able to give some benefit to active players.

If the timer reach its end, and there are non-losers players, everybody reveal their cards and the game goes in sudden death. The moment all non-losers player are either death or the non-losing condition doesn't apply anymore the game end.
This among other thing give diplomatic leverage to non-losing players, since they can potentially end the game at any given time just by moving troops.

Uh, honestly I never thought about this concept of "neither won or lost". It sounds interesting, but a part of me thinks no player will ever understand that concept. Seems like most players will think more binary when it comes to board game, a point of "either I won, or I lost". In my country there's literally a saying that goes "drawing is losing", which basically goes that anything that is not winning is equally shit. Not saying that I don't get the concept or that I don't think its interesting (because I for one understand the idea of having different levels of success).

Maybe if if I translate this to points/score would ease players into this way of thinking. If instead of saying "having this goal makes you win", I say "having this goal gives you N points"+"having this other minor goal gives you K{K

Uh, I really don't like this idea. For 2 reasons:

> and the game goes in sudden death.
I think that strategy games that can go on forever are a problem, especially when the game is already long. My game can be played in 3 different modes, and the "quickest" mode takes about 4 hours. I never played the longest mode but I calculate it would take 8 to 10 hours. That is already A LOT. To throw in a "let's go on indefinitely" on top of those 8~10 hours really seems like a bad move =(

> The moment all non-losers player are either death
There's 2 goals in the game, A) having most cities and B) having most gold. But there's actually 3 different types of Goal Cards:
> Power (have most cities), 4 cards
> Wealth (have most gold), 4 cards
> Defeat everyone (basically, you win if everyone else don't), only 1 card
In my experience, on 80+% of the matches there will be someone that will choose the "Defeat everyone" goal, just to see the chaos. This spice up the game because it throws in a player that can't be on permanent alliances and that will be plotting against every single other player. Its a hard one to pull off, but there's always someone up to the challenge.

This goal system might look really weird and awkward, but I actually think its a huge plus for the game. And whenever I playtest the game it works really nice, because on the beginning everyone hides their goals, but eventually people starting to be open about it. However, there's always one or two dudes that keep their objective in the dark till the end, and its really a plot twist when they win.

PS: I never thought much of this goal system until several people say its really cool. When I commented to my ex that I was thinking about changing it, she said "this is actually one of the core features of the game". (just saying I think this now because i'm taking the word of the testers for it).

Communicate player options better.

If they cannot see the silver lining, it is because it is not visible enough within the game's mechanic or its readings or both.

Consider player-side rules cards with clear and easy to read wordings, or staggering player turns throughout round phases so that they understand why things are the way they are.

I get what you're saying. Few games can pull off second place without it feeling like losing. The reason I used "not losing" was because 1) I don't have as firm a grasp of your game as you do, and 2) having an objectively superior faction "lose" in a war-like game doesn't make sense. Feel free to make it a full-fledged victory condition.

Actually, you could make it a co-operative victory condition. Basically, it takes the form of a negotiation, where the weaker player asks for peace in return for tribute/vassalage. You could rule it as, for example:

>Player One, on achieving their secondary goal, reveals it and asks for a Liege.
>Players Two and Three offer to Vassalize them.
>Player One accepts Player Three's offer.
>Player Three gets all of Player One's holdings (armies, provinces, resources).
>If Player Three Wins, Player One also wins.

I have often, in games of Catan, found myself in positions where I can't win, but I can choose who does. It's called the Kingmaker Scenario. I've never seen a game that acknowledges or rewards you for this, but I've always wanted to see it done.

Add an element of surprise. Like how you don't reveal your hand until the end in poker. So, don't reveal your points or whatever until the game's over and both sides reveal their secret objectives and whatnot.

It looks like there is. mentions that players get goal cards and can choose to hide their objective.

Since that post mentioned mixed feelings about the cards, I'd like to say that it does seem cool. Players attempting to reach separate goals makes for more deals and co-operation - if I'm going for cities and you're going for gold, we can work something out, as opposed to being in direct competition.

Eurogames usually obscure the score until the end of the game for this exact reason.

7 Wonders and Agricola, for example, do all their math in the final stage, and you can't really get an accurate count on player scores without slowing the whole game down and counting it out. Some games even have hidden VPs that you could be holding onto but other players are unsure of.

bump while i write the repply

> If they cannot see the silver lining, it is because it is not visible enough within the game's mechanic or its readings or both.
Yes, that is where this thread has been pointing me at.

> Consider player-side rules cards with clear and easy to read wordings
I'm about to do a player-side rule card. In fact, these images I've been putting on my posts (like the one on this post) are supposed to become player-side rule cards (I will add the rules on the empty space). However, the basic mechanics are very easy to grasp, the problem is that most people have trouble to understand the meaning of the mechanics. You know what I mean? Players get the rules easily (all my games have very easy to understand rules, I don't like overcomplexing things), but they fail to see how they can excel the best within those rules.

I will try to do my best in changing how the game presents itself (visually, rule-wise, etc) in order to help out, because I think the problem is not the rules but how players understand them (or fail to).

Interesting. I didn't know this "Kingmaker Scenario" concept, but I get what you mean. Your suggestion is definitely something I should put some thought on and think if it can be applied.

Right now, this mechanic sort of exist in a way that if the stronger player has an A goal, any player with a B goal can ally with him, and then both can proceed to help each other secure their own objectives. This is not just in the paper - this happened both times I played this month. Its always easy to win if you secure an honest alliance with someone (but I have also seen some hardcore backstabbing happen because of this).

Main problem I see right now with the idea of tribute/vassalage (which btw, fits 101% with the game's theme) is that the game already allows up to 2 players to win. I think adding the possibility of more players winning might be a bad move.

I'm not sure hiding the score until the end is the best approach, because that is more of a "let's just do our best and see what happens" scenario, which I don't think fits very well with an intense strategy game (where people want to make calculated and very planned moves). Right now, all the score is on the open (though people get a lot of "points" in the last rounds, making it easy to have some twist in the end), but you sometimes don't know what each player is aiming for.

But mainly, the issue is not about score! =/ its not something logical, really. Its a lot more psychological than anything else. The problem of "i can't win anymore" mentality seems to be often related to board distribution and resources. Because people know the scores can change a lot, but that usually requires a decent amount of power in the board, so they assume that if they don't have much in the board, they can't do shit anymore. This is true up to a point that if you don't have enough troops, you can't do shit, but at the same time, the amount of troops necessary to be "enough" is really low (with an army of 5 you already can do whatever you want). But ultimately what I mean is that the problem is not on the scores, but because people sometimes feel they are now powerless after getting beaten a bit (because board distribution).

Everything this guy said is correct :)

Usually there's a point in the game that everyone shows they true intentions, everyone but one guy, who keeps his objective to himself, and sometimes is the source of big twists in the game. The thing about the Goal Cards is that they also grant the player a special ability that helps him or her achieve his or her goal. But you can only use that ability if you reveal your Goal to everyone, which means people only reveal their goals when they are about to do something relevant with their ability.

Oh, its also relevant to point out that while a play controls more cities than any other player, he or she gets the right to wear a Burger King crown I keep with the game's prototype.

That makes you feel like a king. :D

>can move up to 5 territories in a turn
Isn't this the core of the issue?
In theory the game should be balanced that the more territory you control the more resources you have, BUT you also have to stretch thin your massive army, allowing the weaker players to focus down and having a chance to steal your territory. But with that much mobility the dominating player can just move a good chunk of the army wherever he want, making the efforts of the weaker players pointless.

Also, is there a way to directly sabotage a player whose goal is money? In case of players who need cities you can conquer those, but in case of the gold it doesn't seem to be anything other players can really do. Maybe allow the players the option to pillage a city (stealing some of the owner money) instead of conquering it?

A lot of games handle that to a degree by hiding some kind of important scoring information until the very end. This can be anything from the secret objectives in Lords of Waterdeep to saving room for dessert in Sushi Go

> In theory the game should be balanced that the more territory you control the more resources you have, BUT you also have to stretch thin your massive army, allowing the weaker players to focus down and having a chance to steal your territory.
Yes, that is correct

> But with that much mobility the dominating player can just move a good chunk of the army wherever he want, making the efforts of the weaker players pointless.
But that is not how it goes. What happens is that with so much mobility, if you have a lot of territories, you are always open somewhere because players can easy move around your troops and stick it up somewhere you didn't defend for. When you have a smaller batch of land, its a lot easy to protect it. Its important to note that players can't move just a few troops up to 5 territories, not all of them, which means that you can't manage a massive army all at the same time.

Here is how it works:
> players have 5 actions on their turn
> 1 action = move up to 5 troops from one territory to another
> if you move to an enemy territory, its game time

This means that both the player with an army of 40 and the player with an army of 5 have a similar attacking potential during their respective turns, because the bigger player is limited by the amount of actions in their turn. The difference is that the weaker player can't afford to lose any troops, while the stronger player can. (which means that the weaker player should go for mobility attacks and hit where the enemy is weaker, while the strongest player should go for a head-on attack against the enemy army, to hinge it.)

cont...
> Also, is there a way to directly sabotage a player whose goal is money?
Not much, and that is something worth thinking about. There are a lot of utility cards, and one utility card is a single pillage against the enemy (take gold or card), but its not enough to make it a valid strategy.

When fighting for gold, you have a few options:
> 1) Earn more gold
As simple as that. Just earn more gold using any means necessary. This doesn't mean only controlling more gold mines - last time I played I won with this goal controlling only 1 gold mine the entire game. But I got a lot of money from selling things to other people, extorting people, making deal with other people, etc.

>2) Make an alliance
Alliances are not only "we don't attack each other". They can be "let's help each other secure our goals", which means that you can help someone get more cities in exchange of them giving you gold. In the end of the game, old means absolute nothing to people whose goal is to get cities, so your ally can just give you all his or her gold if he or she agrees to that.

> 3) Kill a player
When you take a player's last city, he or she is out of the game, and you take ALL his cards and gold. The point of this is manly because this is a HUGE gold boost and can be a massive twist on the gold goal, in the end game. Cards can be sold for gold (1 card = 1 gold, you earn 2x if your goal is the gold goal).

So this means you can either just kill the richest player and take his place, or simply kill anyone else and go to 1st place in wealth because of the huge gold boost.

What your thoughts on these options?

I know, I'm not saying its an invalid mechanic. I just don't think its the right one for my game, especially because the score/goals are not causing any problems (so no need to change it)

>Basically, there's 2 goals (players get their Goal Card in the beginning of the game):
>A) Control most cities
>B) Have most gold
What happen if two different players archive their respective goal? They both win? Is there a way to assign a score to different goals?
What about goal C) having the most troops, and D) controlling the most territory?

>What your thoughts on these options?
I guess they are fine, but I think there should be a core mechanic to steal money from another player. Maybe when you steal a gold mine from another player you also steal some money?
But I guess I'm going off-topic.

> What happen if two different players archive their respective goal? They both win?
Yes, both of them win. This means the game can have from 0 to 2 winning players. This also means that people can have honest alliances in the game.

> Is there a way to assign a score to different goals?
Not yet, but I'm considering, mostly in order to show who gets 2nd, 3rd, 4th place...

> What about goal C) having the most troops, and D) controlling the most territory?
The thematic idea is that one player will be King (the one who control more cities than anyone else), and one player will be some sort of Lannister-Jewish-Banker dude that is the wealthiest. Having more troops or more territories are only worth to have more influence in the board, which helps getting to your goal.

Each of these goals have 4 cards. There's a third goal, though, that have only 1 card for it:
>C) Make everyone else lose. If no one else get their respective goals, you win.
This is a more challenging goal, because sort of puts you against everyone and prevents you from getting into a true alliance, but most times someone accepts the challenge and go for it.

> I guess they are fine, but I think there should be a core mechanic to steal money from another player
> But I guess I'm going off-topic.
This is something worth thinking about, and no, its not off-topic because all I want is to improve my game. Its interesting that you are pointing this out even without knowing much about the game, and it is indeed something to be careful about. This has never been an issue but I can see it becoming one eventually.

Maybe something to make things swingier as you get closer to the end of the game? Plagues, earthquakes, rebellions, and other kinds of shit that disproportionately affect the bigger and more populated areas, giving those caught in a death spiral at least a chance to take the lead.

In Mahjong the player with lots of less points can still attempts to win by betting on harder to get hands, while the winning player has the privilege to aim for easier and cheaper hands. This system give a clear advantage to the one on the lead, while still give hope to the ones on the bottom.

>Not yet, but I'm considering, mostly in order to show who gets 2nd, 3rd, 4th place...
Maybe that's the solution. You could have each game being made up of three sessions, and the final score being determined by the sum of the position in the three games. That way being second to last is better then being last, giving a reason to fight for the weaker players.

What's to stop someone from bunching up all their soldiers into one province, and moving their soldiers to any surrounding provinces which might be attacked?

>pillage = take card
Could you explain that one for me? It seems like you spend a card to gain a card, only you also had to attack someone for it.
>you earn 2x if your goal is the gold goal
How does this play with the hidden-goal thing? Is getting the 2x one of the benefits of revealing your goal (if it's gold)? Or do you only count this at the end?

By the way, personally I think your main issue is that the layout does suggest that territory-control is important. But in fact, plain provinces are useful only for positioning.

The game already gives plenty of room for comeback. The problem is how players fail to see those opportunities.

I can't make a 4-hours-long game be played 3 times. I also can't divide it into 3 mini-games, because it would leave no room for proper growth/investments. But like I said, I'm considering putting points on the game. (basically, to differentiate who survived vs. who died out).

Nothing, besides the fact you can't move troops outside your turn, which is when you would be attacked. This means that by the time your turn arrives, your whole kingdom might have been cut off from your capital (which makes you unable to collect resources). Its really a bitch.

> It seems like you spend a card to gain a card, only you also had to attack someone for it.
The card works like this: "If you won at least 1 combat against target player, take 2 gold or 1 card from that player". In reality, its not a huge gain for you, but it also takes shit from your opponent. In the case you choose to take a card, its very useful because worse case scenario, your opponent got -1 card and you still have the same amount of cards. Best case scenario, you stole a very important card that your opponent was saving for some major play.

> Is getting the 2x one of the benefits of revealing your goal (if it's gold)?
Yes, its a benefit of revealing it. You can reveal it at any time, as just after you reveal it you become able to use the ability.

> By the way, personally I think your main issue is that the layout does suggest that territory-control is important.
Yes, I've been considering this as well. I think the layout with blank spaces makes people assume that they need to "fill the blanks". I'm considering reworking on the map.

No need to get so defensive. If you're so convinced that the game is perfect the way it is and it's the players who are wrong, then it follows that all you can do is find new players that are more to your liking.

Sorry if it seemed that way, but I'm not being defensive. If I thought the game was already perfect I wouldn't have made this thread in the first place ^^'

From what I have read here in this thread and reflected upon, it seems that the problem is more on how the game presents itself rather than the rules. Comeback is possible, but players fail to see it, so I need to come up with ways to make it clearer to see that. I'm thinking about changing the map, changing how the rules present themselves, perhaps point "score points" in the game to induce players to think that losing is worse than just not winning. The game is good, but there's still a lot of ways it could be improved.

This guy also pointed out something that wasn't the main discussion but is also something to be considered, which is the idea of stealing gold from other players.

>its a benefit of revealing it
Does Cities-goal receive a similar benefit?
>I think the layout with blank spaces makes people assume that they need to "fill the blanks". I'm considering reworking on the map.
A reworking of the theme might also help. If you're a kingdom, you automatically expect that expanding lands -- over ALL the lands -- is a major goal. If you made the players mercenary companies, or cartels, or trading houses, all within a larger already-existing empire, then people might focus more on strategic provinces (if they don't do this already).

>I can't make a 4-hours-long game be played 3 times
Nigga, you don't have to play them in a row.
If you play a session a week, you just tally at the end of the month.

> Does Cities-goal receive a similar benefit?
Yes. The Cities-goal (have more cities than anyone else) reduces the cost to build cities by 4. To build a city, you need a card named "Build a City", which normally costs 5 to be used. So with that bonus, the cost becomes only 1.

> A reworking of the theme might also help.
Uh, good point. On the rules, I call a player's dominion "kingdom", but now you pointed out it doesn't seems the best choice. Thematically, the idea is that each player is a house/faction fighting to see who will be king (or who will be rich as fuck), so I should find a word better fitting with this idea.

Right now, the concept of "kingdom" is an important part of the game - it means "all territories you control that are connected to a city through a trail of territories controlled by you". A lot of things can only be done within your "kingdom", such as gathering resources or placing new troops. Do you have any idea of a better name for this? (I need a name so I can refer to it in the rules)

> If you play a session a week, you just tally at the end of the month.
That's a whole different thing. I have considered that, because I think some people would like to keep an overall score between games. Still not sure, but I'm thinking about doing it like this:

> Win with cities/gold -> 3 points
> Win with "defeat all" goal -> 5 points
> Survive -> 1 point
> Die -> 0 points

>Do you have any idea of a better name for this?
Dominion or sphere of influence. Connecting to a city could represent smuggling or trade routes, or simple lines of communication (depending on fluff); you still need to move things to cities, where your base of operations will be.

You could even completely change it, and make it set on the ocean with coloured provinces becoming islands -- you need to connect your home port/pirate cove to other islands in order to represent routes of trade or plunder. Although that presents the problem of building on oceanic provinces.

> Win with cities/gold -> 3 points
> Win with "defeat all" goal -> 5 points
> Survive -> 1 point
> Die -> 0 points
Eh, I don't think that would really be enough to solve the problem.
You should have something like this:
> Win with cities/gold -> 30 points
> Win with "defeat all" goal -> 50 points
> 5 points for each city you control (regardless if you win or just survive)
> 1 point for each gold (again, like over)
> maybe some additional secondary goals, like this guy was saying
This way even if you are more or less sure to survive, but have no realistic chance to win, you still have a reason to be engaged in the game.

>Do you have any idea of a better name for this?
There's Demesne (pronounced "domain", means "domain", probably the root word for "domain"), which was a feudal term for land you literally owned, as opposed to owning the guy that owned it.
So, the king's castle was in his demesne, his town was in his demesne, but his vassals' land was not. Similarly, a vassal's town was in that vassal's demesne, but the king's land wasn't.
If you want to have a "ye olde" feel, it's not a bad way to go.

That's a pretty French/English thing though. If he went island-y he could give it a more patriotic Hue fluffing.

>Hue fluffing
I don't see how Brazil is relevant.

I'm considering "Dominion" or "Domain", and I also thought about the word "Feud", which would go well with the fact the players are more like lords than kings. What you guys think of "Feud"?

> Connecting to a city could represent smuggling or trade routes, or simple lines of communication
I'm pretty set with the theme already. Its something similar to Game of Thrones, a bunch of lords fighting and backstabbing to see who gets the crown. That is why the original term, "kingdom", wasn't a very good idea.

I get your point, but I'm not 100% sure this would help much, because it would only make difference if players are playing more than 1 match and keeping track of the overall score. I'm a bit more inclined to change names, layouts, etc, to help players see clearly the mechanics.

French/English theme is good, that is what I'm aiming for (though its not supposed to be historical, more like a fantasy setting). Didn't like the word "Demesne" much, since most players won't even know what it means.

> a more patriotic Hue fluffing.
I totally don't want any relationship with the Huefolk on my game.