One type of game that I try to stay away could be called heavy euro games. Now I am not sure exactly how they could be defined, I think the threshold for being heavy could vary from a player to another. Now one thought that came to my mind is that could I design such a game. As a solitaire game, that could make sense because you generally want more complex games since you have more time, and need some challenge. But to do so, I would need to understand how heavy euro are designed.
Now what kind of game do I have in mind when I say heavy euro games, here are some quick examples:
- Terra Mystica (the best example I have)
- Hyperborea
- ??? (Maya calendar board game (forgot the name))
Now what are the characteristics of those games besides requiring heavy thinking:
There is not a core common mechanism. Some could be worker placement, some can have a map to explore, etc.
There is a lots of resources and ways to exchange between them.
Many seems to have a lot of icons.
There seems to have different ways to get the same results, like multiple ways to get a resources. This is not bad in it self until there is too many paths. Or where all paths will give a bit of everything, making choices less meaning full.
Maximum density and complexity of mechanics. It's like if they said, lets put almost all possible mechanics in this game. Have like a dozen of sub systems interacting with each other. Terra mystica is good at doing this.
Poor connection with the theme. You do stuff, to get stuff, but it does not necessarily makes sense. New mechanics get added with little thematic explanation.
Strangely, there is little special powers and text abilities, because those special powers would need to be expressed as icon, which is not necessarily easy.
Now how can we design such a game?
It seems to contradict the KISS principle(Keep it simple stupid). I even wonder if those games are actually balanced, because there is so many combinations and things going on that it's complicated to test thoroughly without digital play testing. Exploding the amount of mechanism and resources to make it heavy seems to make it pointless.
Or maybe we should ask ourselves that attracts that kind of gamer in the first place?
One thing I think is common with those heavy euro games is the lack of cards. At least, the lack of card cycling and shuffling. Card could be used for reference information, or as a worker placement position. But there rarely cycling of card to consider. Low randomness could also be a good characteristics of euro.
I don't have a particular game in mind, just curious of the game genre. See if there is something I have not explored here. Automated digital play testing should greatly make it easier to balance.
What I dislike the most in euro is when you have a game where you can do anything, you want, you will reach your objective anyway. Making it hard to determine what made you win or lose the game. Everybody did stuff and somebody won.