Skip to Content
 

Feedback Please - Imperial Scramble - A Game of 19th Century Imperialism

11 replies [Last post]
Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014

Hello everyone,

This post is an introduction to the first game I have developed: Imperial Scramble. I have made a prototype of the game and have finished the first round of play testing. I intend to run one more round of internal play testing before starting a round of blind testing. The reason I am posting here is to get an idea for what sort of interest there is in the board game community for a game like this. The level of interest that I find will help me determine whether I should attempt to commercialize the game or not.

GAME BASICS:

Object of the Game: Score the most points as determined by country specific objectives.

Duration: Between 2 hours (less than 8 player variants) - 5 hours (full 8 player game).

Players: 3-8 (8 players is best for the full experience, but games are still lots of fun and include all the same features with less people).

Cooperative/Competitive: Ultimately, there is only one winner. However, it is impossible to succeed without working with other players.

Player Elimination: NO. It is theoretically possible to eliminate another player, but it would not make sense to do so. Everyone who starts the game also finishes.

Luck: None. Battles are determined by unit placement, not dice.

Complexity: Low. There are two types of units and three types of buildings. After a couple turns anyone over 12 will understand all the rules of the game.

"BACK OF THE BOX" DESCRIPTION: Imperial Scramble transports players to the year 1850 and places them at the helm of the world's great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Japan). Players then have seven decades to attempt to complete numerous colonial, military, and political objectives that are unique to their chosen nations and which will bring them across the entire eastern hemisphere.

These objectives, however, will not be easy to complete. Each objective a country has conflicts with those of another. Often, warfare will be required for a player to accomplish his or her objective in the face of an opponent's opposition! But warfare will not be enough to prosper as no power is strong enough to dominate its adversaries by force of arms alone. Negotiation and diplomacy are required. Only those players who can employ both pen and sword, who can convert enemies into friends, and who can sacrifice the lesser for the greater objective will succeed. It is these players who will bring glory to their nation and who will be the winners of Imperial Scramble.

MECHANICS

The Turn: The game takes place over 7 decades, 1850-1920. One turn equals one decade. Each turn is composed of three phases. Players complete each phase simultaneously by writing down orders for their units and then revealing their orders at the end of the phase.

War: All players start the game at peace with one another. War must be declared before one player can attack another. Wars do not last the While game. Peace agreements are usually reached by the next turn. War need not be declared on natives in order to conquer colonial territories. Players conquer colonial territories by entering the colonial territory with more armies than the native resistance present in that territory.

Movement: The board is huge and it is difficult to move about at first because armies only move one space per phase and fleets only move three spaces per phase. However, players can build sea lanes and rail roads to speed up movement. Sea lanes and railroads allow armies to "instamove" long distances in a single phase.

Battles: Battles occur when hostile units enter the same territory. Battles are determined by the number of units in the battle and adjacent to it. Battles rage on from phase to phase until one side can force the other to retreat through the game's unique battle mechanic.

Economy: Essentially, there is none. The number of units a player can have is determined by the manpower value his or her territories produce. Only home territories produce manpower. Thus, there is no counting up income and expenses each turn, etc. players just focus on actually playing the game.

Winning the Game: Each country has objectives that are unique to it. Each objective is worth a certain amount of points. At the end of the game, each player determines how many objectives they completed and the total points they have, therefore, scored. The winner is the one with the most points.

killerkilroy
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2012
Great idea, but...

This sounds like a very fun idea. While not terribly unique, there is certainly a market for grand strategy games of this stripe, and the "suggested player" size might make it stand out a little. What your description doesn't really do is tell us how the game is played/how your mechanics are implemented. If you share more information about how you play the game you will probably get some more useful feedback about how interested people are in playing it.

Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
Thanks a lot for replying to

Thanks a lot for replying to my post! I took your advice and gave more details about the game basics and mechanics by editing my initial post. I would love to hear what you think of the new details I mention now. Thanks again for replying!

knightshade
knightshade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2013
Sounds cool Sort of

Sounds cool
Sort of smallworld-esque

Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
Thanks for the comment! How

Thanks for the comment! How would you say my game is like smallworld? I have never played that game and would hate to find out that there is already a game that is substantially similar to mine! :-(

Are you generally a fan of games like this involving war, diplomacy, and colonization?

knightshade
knightshade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2013
I posted a large reply and

I posted a large reply and got lost... stupid internet!

In summary.

Take all the best elements from area control games and make one unified game and you can't go wrong.

I like many games. Having people to play with is the hard part. Abstract games have been on my mind lately. Dexterity type abastract as well (tumblin' dice!)

Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
What do you think about the

What do you think about the length of the game? I really can't get the full version below five hours unfortunately. However, the version for smaller numbers of players can get as short as 2.5 hours.

RBanuelos
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2013
Some feedback

Thanks for sharing your game idea!

It does remind me a bit of SmallWorld, Kingdom Builder and War of Roses...especially War of Roses which takes place over 5 decades and players score VP's based on control and such.

What I really like about it is the objectives of the countries. Will these be random? If the country always has the same objectives then a very skilled player will be able to "break" the game.

Although strategy games are great for analytic thinkers, they can turn some people away and you have a chance of someone breaking the game (i.e. there is a sure fire way of a guaranteed victory...see Cathedral)

The premise honestly sounds better as a lighter game 1-2 hours at the most. It also sounds like the type of game where if you make a few mistakes early on you won't have a chance to come back...which isn't so bad if the game didn't take so long.

Maybe the first player to establish certain objectives will win the game as opposed to VP's, to avoid any tie breaker situations.

As far as marketing the game it will have a limited audience in an already limited audience market and that said limited audience already has preferred games they play on this scale.

What makes your game great as opposed to mediocre? Is it great? If it isn't great is it worth production/time/emotion to make a mediocre game?

Play test with people you do not know, they will hate your game. It's a great thing if they hate your game. A good litmus test is to test play with people you don't know and then immediately ask them if they'd like to play again. A really great board game can be played multiple times, a mediocre one gets played once and a bad game will not get played at all.

Every criticism of your game is important! But don't listen to what anyone actually says, understand why they said it.

Example:
"I don't like moving 1 space at a time."

The fix is not to have players move 2 spaces. They are saying this because the game feels limiting, some aspect of the game is restraining the player and makes them feel less in control. This feeling is focused onto just the movement.

I had a game that players would move 2 spaces a turn, the very complaint was that they didn't like moving 2 spaces. Then I tried 4 spaces...now movement was "weird". So the real problem isn't movement, it's that the game was too straightforward and limiting making the game not very fun. The movement wasn't strategic, it was tedious because it clashed with another element in the game.

I think you've got a great idea and theme. The mechanics are similar to other games but DO NOT let that deter you, in fact use what is good about these games to your advantage. Play Smallworld and compare it to your game, what can you learn from SmallWorld and what can you use from SmallWorld if anything at all.

Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
RBanuelos, thank you for your

RBanuelos, thank you for your great comment! I really appreciate your taking an interest in my game.

For your first question, the objectives for each country are unique to that country, but are the same every time. However, I do not think they are subject to manipulation/game breaking by a skilled player for the following reason. Each country has a maximum possible point value of 250 if it accomplishes all of its objectives. However, this is impossible to do. Each objective conflicts with that of another player. The best a player can do is probably 120 and that is very rare. It is more likely that a player who scores 80-90 will win the game. What this means is that a country can pursue different strategies each game and, in fact, will be forced to do so given the strategies that other players are pursuing. For example, if Germany focuses on colonizing Africa, Russia may be able to achieve a lot of its objectives in the Far East. However, if Germany focuses on taking territory from Russia, then Russia will have to adapt and send armies west to fight the Germans. Its Far East goals will have to wait.

As for the greatness (or lack thereof!) of my game, I honestly cannot say yet whether it is truly a great game. I believe that it is, but of course I do! So far I have only playtested it with friends and acquaintances and I have been there for the playtests. So there is still much to do on that front. One thing I will say though is that people who have played it have asked to play again and have repeatedly done so. However, there is still much to do in seeing whether this is a truly great game. Blind playtesting will be an important test.

Would you be interested in taking a look at my rules? I would love to know what you think of them.

Thanks again for your comment!

RBanuelos
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2013
Rules

I would really like to read the rules, can you email them?

If so I'm at roaranimation@gmail.com

Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
To everyone that is

To everyone that is interested in the game so far, I wrote a blog post about the game's most recent play test. You can find it www.imperialscramble.com/blog. You can also find more pictures on that site as well. I hope you enjoy!

Aekenter
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2014
I am considering running an

I am considering running an online play test, is anyone interested in being a part of it?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut