Skip to Content
 

Proxy War-extension for war games

6 replies [Last post]
TDang
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2010

Hello-I'm new here, and new to game design. I'm hoping this will be fun.

I have a thought for an extension to war games similar to Risk. It's been a thought for a long time, and I've just thought of a mechanic which might work. I'm torn between developing the idea in full form for a specific game, or leaving it extremely basic, which could allow it to apply to multiple games.

The idea is that the war being fought in the war game is actually a proxy war between two superpowers (in the case of Risk, imagine two alien races), who don't want to directly dirty their hands but are happy to encourage the locals to fight it out. Players are the Minor Powers who are looking out for their own interests, partly by serving the superpowers. By ingratiating themselves with the superpower (who actually wins the war), they can position themselves to hold power as the victor's preferred governor after the conflict. Given that power is fickle, they can't be sure about how much they have ingratiated themselves until they need a favor.

The winning superpower is determined by standard victory conditions, but treating all of its allied Minor Powers as if they were one player. The winning Minor Power is the one who has best ingratiated themselves to the winning superpower.

Components for the extension are two decks of Favor cards, say Red and Blue, with each deck indicating favor with one of the two superpowers. The front of the Favor cards are numbered 1-10. (As I'm thinking about it right now, these would have to be large decks of cards.)

A Minor Power is said to be allied with a superpower if they have any Favor cards for that superpower, and may only be allied with (have Favor cards for) one superpower at a time.

Acquiring Favor
When a Minor Power begins a combat, they can indicate if they are fighting (for that specific combat) on the side of one of the superpowers (say Red). This is permitted as long as:

  1. The Minor Power is not allied with the opposing (Blue) superpower
  2. The Minor Power is not fighting against another Minor Power allied with the same (Red) superpower.

When a Minor Power is fighting on the side of a superpower, they receive one Favor card for every unit lost (by either side). The Favor cards are given to them face-down, and remain face-down. The value of the card remains unknown to all players.

Spending Favor
When a Minor Power receives new combat units, they may spend their Favor cards to get help from their allied superpower. They may appeal to the superpower for X extra units. This will cost 10X Favor points. The Favor points are spent by turning up one card at a time until 10X points are reached. If more than 10X appears, the extra points are lost. If the player runs out of cards (or decides to stop flipping cards) before 10X is reached, all the face-up Favor points are spent without receiving any units.

For example:

  • if the Minor Power requests 3 additional units, they may turn up the cards: 4, 3, 5, 7, 9, 9 for 37 points. They spend that 37 points and receive 3 extra units.
  • if the Minor power had requested 4 additional units, and turned up the same cards, they would lose the 37 points and receive no units.

At the end of the game
Every Minor Power allied with the winning superpower reveals and counts their Favor points. The one with the most Favor points becomes governor and wins the game.

Random thoughts

  • It seems probably that their should be a mechanic to deliberately switch sides. I was thinking that a Minor Power could trade all their Red cards (without looking at their value) for Blue cards, receiving X/2 Blue cards for X Red cards.
  • Trying to keep it generic limits many options, and so I don't know if it's a good idea. There are a lot of possible favors one could ask for from a superpower (money, spying, etc.) which would be dependent on the base game.
  • Similarly, there could be some Favor cards which are something special (bad or good) other than points, but if that was going to be especially interesting, it might need to be related to the base game.
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Bandwagon

Unless I missed something, you envision of the game ending with the victory of one of the two superpowers. Only those minor powers allied with the winning superpower will qualify for winning. At which point, those minor powers reveal all favor cards they have not used (and do not know the identity of) to find out who won.

If the victory conditions of the superpowers are tied to the outcome of the battles between the minor powers and you may only acquire favor if you fight against a minor power of an opposing side, and you can only be allied with one superpower at a time, then I foresee a bandwagon effect. Once one alliance has more power than another, then it does you no good to belong to the losers side. You may have all the favor in the game with them, but it is meaningless if you don't win.

Do you see the victory of the two superpowers determined as the consequence of one alliance's dominance over the other or is the 'end of game' condition different? Is it possible for blue to win even though it's allies control less territory?

What if you could always flip sides? What if you could collect both red and blue favor cards by swapping who you fight (and fight for). Perhaps victories earned by one superpower through their proxies accumulate over time and are tracked along a chart. And, even though the board may remain divided among the minor powers, eventually red or blue will surpass the threshold for 'victory'. At that point, the minor power with the most favor with the superpower which 'won', wins. The cards that player has with the loser simply don't count.

This could be interesting.

I think it would be even more interesting if the type of units you can purchase for reinforcements was different for each superpower, and perhaps relied upon you fighting a battle for them. So, you might be able to swap sides, but favor could only be redeemed if it was use against the enemy immediately. The leftover assets (such as missiles in Afghanistan) could later be used against the superpower who provided them, but the condition for cashing in favor was to fight for the superpower.

I see this generating a fairly realistic (long-term) bipolar world which is rich with double-dealing and the unintended consequences... while still inevitably moving the game towards an end. But, it would still have to be careful to not generate a bandwagon effect. And, it would run into a problem of identifying who is a legitimate target if everyone has no fixed loyalty. So, I'm not sure it gets passed the game dynamic problem unless you impose a rule that you can only earn favor if you fight for the losing superpower.

Also... favor should not be hidden. I see no real reason to introduce additional chance into the equation. Players should be able to know what they have drawn and pair their cards appropriately to maximize the 2 for 1 reinforcement. Since there is already chance in what you get, it would seem appropriate to allow them some way to mitigate that chance through hand management. And, as the number of cards approaches infinity, the best average they can achieve is 2 for 1 with selected pairing. However, there may be a timeliness which dictates pairing 3 for 1 because you simply cannot wait to draw the right match.

TDang
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2010
Thanks for the thoughts. I'll

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll try to think them through carefully. You do have the gist of it. As for the bandwagon, I'm not sure. That's possible, but there's a countervailing force also.

You're right that there's no value in being allied with the losing superpower. However, since it's a zero-sum game, there's likewise no value in being allied with the winning superpower but being low-ranked in Favor to that superpower.

If it's at all possible to switch sides (and I definitely want it to be possible, the only question is how awkward to make it), then imagine that the Red superpower is approaching victory. The Minor Powers who are number 2 and 3 in the Red alliance may be best served by trying to bring down the number 1 in the alliance (thereby possibly freeing up the Blue alliance to make gains), or may be better served by switching allegiance entirely to the Blue side. Even if the switch wouldn't put them at the top rank of the Blue side, maybe they would buy some time by making the switch.

I don't have a good feel for this balance-avoiding too much bandwagon, but also avoiding an eternal game of allegiance-switching. One of my rationales for keeping the value of the favor cards unknown is that it might mitigate the "well, she's 3 points ahead of me in Favor, I better switch sides now" effect.

Something which could encourage switching to the losing superpower, and also stay with the overall feel would be to make the "exchange rate" for switching dependent on the current ranking of the superpowers. The losing superpower could be more grateful (grant more Favor) for a switch than the winning superpower.

rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
My Words Were Ambiguous

[double post]

rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
My Words Were Ambiguous

Sorry... I realize that my choice of words was ambiguous. I have in mind allowing each player to see his own favor, but no one else's. So, in this sense, each player has a hand of cards he can use for reinforcements or for victory. But, they only know the strength of their own hand. So, they might be willing to bet that their cards are higher than the other persons... but they wouldn't know for sure.

Of course, in order to have high favor for victory, you might need to keep cards which you would otherwise use for reinforcements. This would create a set of conflicting interests and a balancing act for each player... use now or keep... whose calculus would vary depending upon the progress of the game. So, for example, if Red were really close to victory, then you might discount the future value of your Blue favor and 'cash' them out now while you can. But, in order to do so, you would have to acquire Blue type units and you would have to attack a Red target.

Just as long as Red/Blue battle victories accumulate over time, irregardless of whether they are recaptured later, then the game would end for one of the superpowers. Unfortunately, under those circumstance, the players who believe that they have the second best favor are stuck in a lose-lose decision. They can either stick with the leader and lose or flip sides, try to stop the leader and lose to the player who has already been on the losing side collecting favors.

I would suggest this as a mechanic instead.

  • Color the board. To use the Cold War as an example, split the world into 'democratic' nations, 'communist' nations and neutral nations.
  • Use one deck with democratic, communist and neutral military cards intermixed. Shuffle it up, deal out all of the cards to the players and then allow them to seed the board with the types of units that they can purchase with these cards. Democratic cards buy certain specialized equipment, men, munitions. Communist cards buy different specialized equipment, men, munitions. Neutral cards buy general war needs.
  • Collect all the cards again, shuffle them and deal out 6 to each player and create a deck with the rest.
  • Set the game in motion. [Many other mechanics here are omitted]
  • Whenever a player loses a battle, he draws a card for each unit he loses. There may also be other ways to obtain cards based upon what you do.
  • Whenever it is a players turn, he may 'purchase' reinforcements from one of the two sides by spending cards of that side, but in order to do so, he may not purchase reinforcements from the other side that turn and he must attack a territory on the map that is not 'claimed' by that side. Neutral cards may be used along with one of the sides to augment the reinforcements and can be used to attack any territory.
  • [There may be some mechanism as well for 'trading' cards]
  • At the end of the game, only the cards in your hand which belong to the side which won the war count for points for you. Add up the value of those cards and determine the winner.
Pastor_Mora
Pastor_Mora's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/05/2010
I like the idea

I first saw something like this in the Triumvirate trick-taking card game. It is set in ancient Rome and players are aristocrats maneuvering between the three candidates for Emperor. The thing is players give their support to them during play (making candidates more elegible to the Emperor title) and in return they gain their favor. When the game ends, a Triumvir is elected Emperor and the player with the most influence over him wins.

So, my two cents would be, why just 2 superpowers? It makes shifting alliances more difficult, since it's easier to foresee a winner (the mentioned wagon issue). I can see the fun factor increasing in the tension between keeping your options open and going all ahead with one (hopefully winning) superpower.

Keep thinking!

rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Colossal Arena

It seems to me that the superpowers are really just a mechanism through which the players bet on the outcome of the game. If your goal is to figure out which of the superpowers will 'win' and you have the option to affect that through your own actions, then Colossal Arena represents a good, quick, example of how a card game can manage the bandwagon effect.

In this case, along Pastor Mora's line of thinking, there are eight contenders during the battle. Only three survive. So, your goal is to place as many of your wager tokens on the ones which will. But, since the wagering occurs once per round, there is no way to get back bets on contenders who die. So, a lot of the betting needs to take into account not only the cards you can play but what you think other people will want to survive.

Colossal Arena has a pretty consistent game clock. You know exactly how many turns there will be and when it will be over. And, being irrecoverable, it has no balance of power dynamic. In my opinion, this strengthens the game and shortens it. It is a 30 minute game that is deep rather than a 3 hour game that appears to go no where. So, whichever direction you decide to go, I would suggest making it so that the game clock flows in one direction.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut