Skip to Content

Achievments for Victory?

9 replies [Last post]
dnddmdb
dnddmdb's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009

Each card would recieve VA (Victory Achievment) Chips whenever a certain condition is met (conquer a region, advance tech tree, build a factory). Once the card has enough VA Chips, it is considered achieved. Achieve three out of the four cards and you win. If your dealt four cards at random and there are say, 20 cards, this could lead to a lot of possibilities and strategies to think about.

So my main questions are:
1. Any games where this has been done?
2. Should these conditions be kept secret and be revealed when achieved?
3. Is this a good idea?

Thanks.

Louard
Louard's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2010
It's a actually a favourite of mine.

This idea of drawing victory condition cards (and hiding them ^_^) is an idea I actually like quite a bit. I would say that you probably don't need the chips though and the game could probably be designed in such a way as to be obvious when a condition is met. Take building X cities.. If after building X cities I reveal that it was one of my victory cards, all other players can plainly see that I've in fact build X cities.

Hiding the cards makes for an interesting guessing game as players try to figure out what other players are gunning for. Ticket To Ride has a bit of this going with the destination tickets.

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Yes, yes, and yes

Your exact example I can't think of any instances of, but plenty of similarities with other mission-card games. For instance, Mission: Red Planet. It uses mission cards as one way to get victory points, but you only reveal them at the end like in Ticket to Ride. Neither of these is revealed as you go, and neither of these has a "get three out of 4 to win."

I think if you are making the win condition by 3/4 cards, I'm more inclined to let other players see them so they can balance blocking other players vs. achieving their own victory. If they are hidden, it'll depend on how clear the objectives are on each mission card. If other players would have no way of really seeing what you were building for, then keeping them hidden means all the players will be inclined to act independently - and not build counter strategies.

In your case, with 20 some mission cards, I'm betting they'll either be:
- variations on a few themes (in which case they could be hidden, because the other players would know which theme you are playing towards, even if they don't know the particulars), or
- 20 wildly different missions, in which case I think they should be shown

As sure as i am of that, I'm also sure there is a good case for an opposite approach. :)

richdurham
richdurham's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/26/2009
Is there something else, like

Is there something else, like in how you get the VA chips? Say you have a "Conquer 5 regions" card. You get a VA chip on it whenever you conquer a region, right? If this is the case, I agree with the above post about not needing the chips.

Or is it the VA chips determine your overall victory (most VA chips wins at end) and you get chips every time you meet your particular mission cards (so for a "Conquer Regions" card you would get one VA each and every time you conquer a region)?

ilta
ilta's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2008
If players don't need to

If players don't need to accomplish all the tasks on the card, and they don't need to complete all cards for victory, it sounds like you could simplify things but just figuring out how many tasks you want them to accomplish, and making one card per task.

For instance, you list three possible tasks, so let's assume it's "achieved" if you hit two of them, and you mention achieving three cards out of four for a win, so you're talking about completing six tasks out of a possible twelve. Why not just hand out twelve cards, each with a single task? It will be much easier for players to keep track of which things they've achieved and which they haven't.

Otherwise there's going to be a lot of game time spent checking which sub-task has been achieved; additionally, players can memorize 20 cards with three tasks each which will defeat the purpose of keeping them secret (which I like).

dnddmdb
dnddmdb's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009
To Clarify...

@louard: Thanks for the input. Ticket to Ride was the game I had in mind for being the most like this idea... But note that you would need chips because "control 5 regions" is different than "conquer 5 regions" as the amount you control may increase or decrease, but the amount you conquered can only increase. The chips would be needed to keep track of things that can change on the board, such as destroying an army. A destroyed army gets returned to the player's supply, so there is no way of knowing whether or not you destroyed that exact amount, except for with the chips.

@richdurham: They are different, though not wildly so. VA Chips don't allow victory, getting enough to "finish" the card does. I'm a little torn right now as to whether they should be revealed or not.

@ilta: The cards each only have 1 task on them. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

To those who find it important, the action system in the game is based on Auctioning (similar to Cyclades). At the beginning of the round, a number of cards equal to the number of players +1 (in a 3 player game) or +2 (in a four or five player game) are turned up from a deck. Each card has an action on it, such as "Attack", "Upgrade Tech Tree", "Build" or the like. Each player takes turns bidding on these cards. If you are outbid on your card, you must bid on another card. Once no one is outbid, all players recieve their respective actions, with the other one (or two) card(s) that were not bid on going to the highest bidder among cards (second highest recieves an additional card as well: Highest chooses their extra action first). Then, in the same player order, all players take their actions. The goal is to bid on actions you need to complete VA Cards, or to outbid those who need said cards.

Louard
Louard's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2010
Revealed cards

In your 'defeat an army' example, there's no real point in hiding the cards as the other players will likely figure out that's your goal when they see you claim a token for having wiped out an enemy army ^_^.

You seem to be pretty smitten with the idea of using the chips, but if I could offer another possible solution, this time to the defeated army scenario. In Memoir 44, defeated units are kept track of by keeping aside one figure from the defeated unit as a 'trophy' worth VP. You could, similarly, have players keep one figure from a defeated army every time, weather or not plat player has defeating armies as a goal. that way, you can prevent players from cheating by slyly moving chips off one card to another (^_^) while still being able to prove the player actually has defeated X armies.

Otherwise, I would reveal all objective cards so other players can keep track of how many chips everyone has on each objective in order to stave off cheating.

dnddmdb
dnddmdb's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2009
Yeah...

Yeah, I suppose your right. Though i don't know if I'll use your idea, I think I am going to just reveal the cards, as you said.

Thanks.

irdesigns510
irdesigns510's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2009
hidden victory cards

A game that some friends and i play quite often is a smaller wargame called Nexus Ops.
In that game you have a hand of cards that are victory conditions, each giving an amount of points.
The first to 10 points is the winner, and its fun to watch certain moves be more agressive than others in effort to gain these points :)

hulken
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2009
We it looks like I am giving

We it looks like I am giving my input at the last moment ^^ I also think you should have the cards open. With hidden goals it might become a problem if you use "hard" and "easy" objective. If I put a lot of chits on my card then every one will know it is a hard card worth a lot and then they probobly will be more prone to attack me, becaus they might se me as a bigger and more eminent thret that the player who compleats a fast and "easy" goal. I think haveing the goals open takes away some of this.

In regards to other games that uses this I am prity shore there are some but I can onley think of three games that uses simular mecanics. The first is the warhammel LCC, if youre not familiar with it every player have a "kingdome" (or home area) this consists of three difrent regions and one of thees regions is the quest region. Here a player may play out quests, and later ad a unit to send out on the quest. And every turn a unit is on that quest he ads a token to the quest. Thees may then be exchanged for difrent effects, harder quest recuiers more tokens befor they can be activated.
The second game is suicide bomber, here the players places bombs on difrent persons. Every players turn the bombs "tick" and when a bomb have a certan amount of "ticks" if bloes up and hopfully killing a lot of people/places.
And finaly the last game is the old star wars ccg. They uses this mecanis as a building mecanic, player gets a random number of buildpoints each turn that they mey use to seacretly build one or more units. If the unit is not compleat or the player chuses not to compleat it but build another one instead the unit remance face down with the building chits on ot. That way the oponent do not know what youre building, but if it has a lot of building chits on it it will probobly be a big thing.

Well that is the onley games I can think of that uses simular mecanics to what youre going for. It al sound very intresting what youre trying to make. Pleas keep me in the loop on anny more updates if you will =)

Also if you think I can help in anny way just send me a message.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut