I'm actually worried that "Planes of Aria" (PoA) is too layered and doesn't offer enough variation for the players. Let me do a QUICK AUDIT of the game's components and what is currently featured in the existing design:
1.0 Game Tiles
The game features a Tile Laying Mechanics which is similar to a Sandbox implementation in that player don't have to build upon the opponent's area of play ... But instead features two (2) distinct modes:
1.1 Sandbox Mode
In this mode players play in their own area of play and the opponent doesn't have any contact with his opponent(s).
1.2 Battle Fronts Mode
In this mode players build a common area of play but tile placement is rarely in conflict due to the nature of each player's section of the area of play. Meaning that even though you start building in common with each other at the start, more that likely by the end that each player has his own section of play.
A player may use Front Tokens to prevent an opponent from building in a specific direction. Each Turn for FREE, a player may play (add or move) a Front Token to one of his Game Tiles, preventing the opponent from building in the designated direction. For 1 Gold (Income), an additional Front may be played provided the player has sufficient income.
A player can have 0 to 3 Battle Fronts in play.
2.0 PoA Custom Dice
The custom D6 is used to control which tiles are in play for any given Round. Yes I said "Round" meaning the dice affects ALL players and therefore sometimes a player may pass his Tile Laying portion of his Turn in favor of earning Gold (Income).
3.0 Kingdom Cards
The game features "Kingdom" Cards which have a Value from 1 to 3. Each Kingdom card may be drafted from a Pool of Cards on each turn. A player must PAY the cost of the "Card" (again 1 to 3 Gold) in order to collect that card. Cards are played in the Card Pool Face-down and therefore it is not known which ABILITY is being acquired only that it is of a specific Value.
Players may opt to SKIP the Buying Phase of a Round and therefore SAVE on Gold which can be used for upgrading Building which will be described in the NEXT section.
A player may have from 0 to 5 Kingdom Cards in-play and from 0 to 5 Kingdom Cards in his HAND. Before a Card is used (and REVEALED) it is possible to SWAP out a Kingdom Card for more Value from the player's hand.
Each Kingdom Card has a unique Ability and there are a total of 11 distinct Abilities available to players. The Deck Size of the "Kingdom" Cards is 54 cards.
4.0 Buildings
There are currently three (3) types of buildings: Townes, Temples and Capitols.
4.1 Townes
Townes can be from 1 to 3 Levels. A towne of Level 3 can become a Capitol (more on that further). Each Towne allows a "Temple" to by built which is a multiple of two (2x) for the connected Temple. Each connected Temple must be on the same type of Game Tile and rules of placement require that a Temple be built three (3) Game Tiles away.
So a Level 2 Towne allows for a Temple of (2x) 2 = up to Level 4 Temple.
A player can have from 0 to 5 Townes.
4.2 Temples
Temples can be from 1 to 6 Levels. Depending on their connected Towne, which can be from 1 to 3 Levels ... The permissible Temple Level is a multiplier of two (2x) of the connected City.
So a Level 6 Temple must be connected to a Level 3 Towne (2x) 3 = up to Level 6.
A player can have from 0 to 5 Temples.
4.3 Capitols
Capitols can be from 1 to 6 Levels however each player may only build ONE (1) Capitol. To build a Capitol you must have a City at Level 3 and therefore declare that you are going to build a Capitol for 3 Gold (Income). By doing so a player places the joining Capitol Token to the Towne in question and it becomes a Capitol of Level 3 and earns ONE (1) Knight Token (more on these later).
Each Capitol may be upgraded from Level 3 to 6 and for each additional Level, the player earns an additional Knight (for a maximum of 4 Knights at Level 6).
A player can have from 0 to 1 Capitol.
5.0 Income Generation and Workers
The game has three (3) sources of Income: Commerce-based, Faith-based and Worker-based. Let's examine each one of these in further detail.
5.1 Commerce-based Income
The 1D6 is the Commerce-based Dice and it keeps track of the Gold earned by the Townes in your Empire. The way this works is the PoA Dice determines the type of terrain tile that is in-play for that Round. So say you roll "Mountains" and you have a Towne on a Mountain Tile, you would earn +1 Gold to your Commerce-based Dice (and therefore produce 2 Gold on that turn).
This is the same for any Towne but remember a Towne can only produce +1 Gold if it is on the identical Terrain as indicated by the PoA Dice. Furthermore, a player must elect to NOT place a Game Tile on this turn (Exploration) but instead favor Production. This means that instead of playing a tile or the fact that a player doesn't want to play a given tile on their turn during the Round means that they may instead favor Production of Gold (Income Generation).
5.2 Faith-based Income
The 2D6 is the Faith-based Dice and it works identical to the Commerce-based Dice with the exception that Temples must be on the correct Game Tile as determined by the PoA Dice.
5.3 Peasants (Worker-based Income)
The game will now feature "Peasants" which allow you to produce Worker-based Income. Each time you build a Towne, you earn +1 "Peasant" for a maximum of five (5) Peasants when you have five (5) Townes. The Third (3rd) Income Dice (3D6) is present to track the amount of Worker-based Income you may produce. The amount is from 1 to 6 Gold per turn (remember Income does not carry over from one Round to another).
6.0 Knights
Knights are used for scoring purposes only. The number of Knights goes from 0 to 4 depending on if a Capitol has been built and whether it has been upgraded to a higher Level.
The purpose of the Knights is to allow for allocation of more Victory Points (VPs) at the end of a match.
For example: A Knight NEXT to a Towne at the end of the Game earns +2 VPs.
A player can have from 0 to 4 Knights.
Right now that's what is in PoA in the current design iteration. It's all cool and all... It's a medium EURO Game meaning there is little DIRECT conflict with the exception of the "Kingdom" Cards which can cause players to affect the Temples and Cities of an opponent.
The duration of the game is about 30 Minutes per player. Therefore it is a "medium" EURO because it can take 2-Hours when playing 4-Players.
There are also currently 15 different methods by which players can SCORE "Victory Points" (VPs) which are computed at the end of the game. But be mindful that a strategic player will determine what they should focus on and react to an opponent's own strategy. Everything is visible except the "Kingdom" Cards and so there is a bit of secrecy in the game as well.
The game has LAYERS: first Game Tiles, then Townes, followed by Temples and lastly Ending with Capitols and Knights. My problem ATM is deciding on whether this is SUFFICIENT or not(!?) Some of my "thoughts" are:
A: The Layers have a natural progression...
But are also a bit "static", meaning you can't do things in another way. Is this a logical method for a game??? Of course, you can FOCUS on what you think is more important to you (which buildings and so forth) and you must manage your Gold (Income) on each turn making decisions on what you will do each and every turn maximizing the use of Gold (Income) to advance in the game.
B: The Knights took a long time to figure out
Initially I was thinking that Knights should engage in COMBAT. Of course this is not very EURO-ish and so I finally concluded that they should AFFECT the END of the game and play a vital role in scoring.
Four (4) Knights at maximum is another LIMIT. Using Knights for the better of the players is easier to do in a 2-Player Match vs. a 4-Player Match. This is simply because there are more players and a total of 15 VP scoring methods available to the players.
C: Another Layer (Maybe)???
I'm thinking some Tactical in relation to the Knights. See right now, a player chooses to Deploy a Knight (given the power of his Capitol: 3 to 6 Levels). But there is no way to REACT or COUNTER a player's decision to place a Knight at any given position. I think it could be wise to COUNTER or CONTEST a placement given some kind of "mechanic" for thwarting an opponent's action.
I was thinking about (Maybe!?) a "Dragon" token which is common to all PLAYERS causes ONE (1) Knight to be "invalidated"... Meaning that the Knight is considered "Busy" defending a City, Temple or Capitol.
Again this is EMBRYONIC... And will require more thought. But one thing is for certain, I would like some kind of SHARED "Dragon" to impact the game. Again maybe!? I will continue to ponder this as it AFFECTS directly END of Game scoring... Maybe something along the lines of the "Robber" in Settlers of Catan...
Like I said more thought is required to make this work "correctly".
BTW if anyone reads this Blog Entry, please feel free to comment, add feedback and/or ask questions in the event that the content is not sufficiently clear enough or you have an idea that may work for an extra layer or method of affecting the game in some way or fashion.
Cheers all!
Comments
Addition of a NEW "Kingdom" Card
The idea would be to ADD "6" Dragon Cards which allow players to manipulate the LOCATION of the "Dragon". It would be a Level "3" Kingdom Card and the intended effect is to place a "Dragon" in the tile with an opponent's Knight. This will mean that the "Knight" is BUSY defending that Game Tile location and does NOT participate in Final Scoring.
This would BUMP the Deck from 54 cards to 60 cards. Not unheard of and I like that there are 12 unique Abilities in the game. Much better than 11 which seems a bit "arbitrary"... Hehehe.
***
This is ONLY one possibility. And I'm still evaluating OTHER options. Again I am going to wait on it to see what else could be used. I also considering a FORM of COMBAT between the Knights and Dragon (again Maybe!?) Not sure. It's an element of risk and chance, losing a Knight is a COSTLY proposition and IF you use your Kingdom Cards too EARLY, you might lose a Knight in the END GAME.
Again another LAYER of "strategy" and allows for some head-to-head action which is NOT uncommon in EURO-ish games... Provided that the game is NOT about CONFLICT and BATTLES.
Again TBD... More thought on the matter and if this is the little EXTRA that I want in the game. In a 2-Player game the placement is either in Favor for you or in Favor of your opponent. In a 4-Player game the placement is probably with the leading player and the opponents watch to see who leads and by how many points.
Gold (Income generation and management)
At the start of each Round, the Income Phase of the Round allows all players to re-initialize their Gold. I was wondering if there would be the need for Tokens or Coins to track the amount of Gold per turn and how it changes during the course of a Round.
I came up today with something rather interesting:
This avoids the need for too many components, 3D6s per player is manageable and it allows for a total of 18 Gold per turn. That's probably impossible but I am thinking about including Workers (Meeples) ... Again MAYBE(!?)
I want to have some kind of HARVESTING mechanic. This is the additional LAYER instead of a COMBAT Layer... Combat is NOT "EURO" and therefore "Harvesting" is more like something a player can do which doesn't impede on the opponent's progress, it's another way to score Victory Points (VPs).
But I need more time to figure how this NEW mechanic will work and I think it corresponds to your FIRST D6 (Culture). Your SECOND D6 will be additional Gold earned by your CLERICS (Faith) and lastly the THIRD D6 will be Gold earned as BONUSES (Income).
Something like this... Again all embryonic ideas. But you spend Gold (Income) from FIRST to LASR Dice in-order.
It needs a bit more thought. But I really like the idea of Workers and it's VERY "Euro" ... I will ponder these mechanics and ideas further to see where they lead. But we'll see. These ideas a "solid" and mark the true version of a EURO Game and therefore I will spend some time on them to figure out how best they should work.
I will continue to ponder these "specific" ideas and see how they mature and how I can make the game work with them. TBD.
Cheers all!
Some additional thoughts
1For each City you build you get ONE (1) Peasant (think Worker). Therefore you have a maximum of FIVE (5) Peasants in the game (per player).
The 3D6s go as follows:
1D6 = Culture-based Income
This is the amount of Gold (Income) produced by Cities. You can have a Maximum of FIVE (5) Cities and therefore the Gold produced is from 1 to 6 Gold given that the current PoA Dice Roll determines which "Type" of Tile is responsible for producing "Culture" Income.
For example: If I have two (2) cities on Mountain Tiles and the PoA dice roll is "Mountain" ... You earn +2 Gold on the Culture Dice. So you would have +3 Gold for this FIRST D6.
2D6 = Faith-based Income
This is the amount of Gold (Income) produced by Temples. It works the exact same way as the Culture Income except you use the Temples rather than Cities to determine the amount of Income produced by the Faith Dice.
3D6 = Worker-based Income
This is the amount of Gold earned by Peasants (Workers). Each City you build allows you to recruit one Peasant which allows you to collect Gold based on the position of the Peasants in the area of play.
For example: If I have 3 Peasants (Workers) and have all three of them on Mountain Tiles (different tiles), and the PoA dice rolls the Mountain... You have a CHOICE to make: either you PLACE another "Mountain Tile" into your area of play OR you earn +3 Worker Income (due to your 3 Peasants).
Generally speaking the choice is Income or Placing another Game Tile. There will be no more bonus for choosing to opt for Income generation rather than placing a tile.
This will add a LOT of complexity to the game ... And it all works out to a maximum of 18 Gold (Income) per turn.
I will let these ideas just stand and see what may come of them.
Best.
Really like this additional "worker" mechanic
This "Peasants" (Worker Placement Mechanic) is super interesting. I had some other rules for Income like a "Capitol" generated +1 Gold per turn and seeing as I know have a better way to generate and manage Income (Gold), I don't need "arbitrary" methods of earning more income.
I don't NEED the "Dragon" anymore since "Peasants" are the more Tactical Layer that I was looking for. Worker-placement is another Euro Mechanic which is also good for the "classification" of the game too!
So this is definitely the RIGHT "direction" for this Game Concept... And NOW I can firmly say that the Design is SOLID (90%). Of course the last 10% is all about ironing out the details to make sure everything is playable and feasible in terms of gameplay.
Let you all know how I finalize this design. Cheers!
Here's what I mean
I have been thinking about the Tile Laying vs. "Production" of Income. Now what is APPARENT is that these two (2) Activities are NOT "inter-dependent" and could well happen (Both) on various Phases of a Turn. This much is TRUE.
But... In the World of Design and Game Strategy, I would like to have "Exploration" vs. "Production"... One OR the other!
The idea being that "Exploration" allows you to PLAY a Game Tile and "Production" allows you to earn income from your Cities, Temples and Peasants. Why is this???
Because I need some WAY of making sure that the game DOES NOT simply LAST 25 turns and that on many turns it is a DECISION to be made. The game normally finishes when a player has played 25 Game Tiles and if there is a DUMB rule that allows players to PLAY a Game Tile EACH Round on their turn... Well it's not too exciting and it leads to a bit of a "un-interesting" climax at the end of that amount of turns.
So I was thinking "Exploration" vs. "Production" as a Courtly Decision made by the players on their turn.
I will ponder this some more. But it's DEFINITE that I DON'T want 25 turns to be the End of the Game ... That approach seems WRONG and so "Boring" TBH!
Sincerely.
Moving away from FCE and going back to more traditional layouts
I have been reviewing my earlier idea about making "Plains of Aria" (PoA) closer to "Four Corners of the Earth" (FCE) and generally speaking I have concluded that I don't need the FCE Tile Layout and I can keep the traditional 4-Tile Layout. FCE was using a 6-Tile Layout and it was Novel/Original. But I want PoA to be multiplayer from 2 to 4-Players and the need for easier Tile Placement has forced me to review the Tile Layout.
What does this mean??? It means that I am parting ways with ANY similarities with FCE and PoA is it's own endeavor. I know that I had stated that the PoA would be CLOSER to the FCE design and while this was true for a few months, I have concluded that it is no longer the case.
Basically PoA is in no way similar to FCE (any longer). This is a decision that I will be reviewing over the next month or two to ensure that what I am doing makes sense for PoA.
But from what I can tell FCE can continue to evolve and change as seen fit and PoA will also get made into a prototype and playtested, etc. etc. I'm just saying that there are NO COMMON elements between these two (2) design. They can both flourish and grow separately in their own respective ways.
This is also in part a business decision too. While I hung on to the connections with FCE in the past, I've grown beyond the rule system enforced by FCE and the modern Tile Layout which worked for that game. I had initially thought that by borrowing some of FCE's modern ideas, that PoA could benefit from them and make for a more modern game.
My conclusion in all of this is that I want PoA to takes it's own path which is in no way similar or alike to FCE. This will protect the FCE design and allow @let-off studios (@Stephen) to continue to improve his design and also allow me to continue with PoA even though there was some similarities during the specified period. I had thought that sharing elements would prove to make a more striking design.
Again this is for the better of BOTH Designs in that FCE can evolve and so can PoA ... Without any shared elements that tie the designs to one another. I feel like this is very important because PoA has undergone major ADVANCES since November 2024 and over the last few months the design has "crytallized" into something of interest and worthy of further exploration.
Although FCE playing a pivotal role in some of the ideas behind PoA evolution, PoA is now something different than FCE and there are no more similarities. The 4-Tile Layout (Traditional Layout) has eliminated the last of FCE's artifacts on PoA. It makes the "Battle Fronts" make more sense and it allows for Map Generation more intuitive than the 6-Tile Layout.
I guess what I am trying to get to... Is PoA is NOW it's own design without any shared mechanics, layouts, rules and all that which FCE is comprised of. There is no reason that FCE cannot move forwards in its own evolution and the same can be said with PoA.
Why am I stating this?
Well because I had expressed the opposite sentiment a few months ago and NOW I am going in a new direction which is better for the BOTH Games. There are now no resemblance between the two (2) Games and I believe this is better so that BOTH games can evolve independently from one another.
This is good for FCE since it's unique and original concepts will remain solely with that Design and since I am not "borrowing" any ORIGINAL Content, PoA is its own Design too. There are no longer any links between the two games.
I felt this was important to state since I had earlier stated that PoA's design would be CLOSER to FCE and through the evolution over the last 3 to 4 Months, that is no longer true.
After much thought and evaluation...
Previously the "Battle Fronts" were designed to ensure that an opponent could not "explore" in a specific direction. So it was a DEFENSIVE mechanic that could be used to ensure that a player could protect his own build.
But after some thought, I have determined that it should be an OFFENSIVE mechanic in that it should NOT allow a player to build in a certain direction.
Why the sudden change of heart???
Well it came to me that a "Cake" Pattern would be the default build and that means that it's pretty much simple about HOW(?) to build your Play Area and it felt a bit "dumbed-down".
At some point I was struggling on HOW(?) to define what a build should look like and now that I came up with the "Cake" Pattern a couple nights ago, I realized that it was more easy than I had expected to allow a player to BUILD a simple and yet consistent layout. It's too simple and much too predictable.
So while the NAME stays, I'll still call the "Battle Fronts", the DIRECTION is inverted INWARDS. This means that a player CANNOT play a "Front" on any of their own Game Tiles only on the Game Tiles of an OPPONENT.
This bit of "annoyance" or "mucking-around" will force players to build beyond the box of a "Cake" Pattern and into something a bit LESS predictable. The GOAL is to FORCE players to be ADAPTABLE to NEW Layouts that are not as simple as a "Cake" Pattern and make the layouts that much more difficult to predict and design.
Of course this is the "Battle Fronts" Method of play. The "Sandbox" Method of play will remain and I think this will be reserved for Tournament Play and when players can all agree to any specific Pattern that has been designed. Of course some Tile Sets will not be conducive to many Patterns and ergo the CHALLENGE of making it happen will be more difficult making the game a bit less simple and require players to be that more adaptive.
Again I will let these ideas "simmer" and see what I may think-up in terms of other options or methods to play and I will definitely be testing this in the very first Playtests once a Prototype has been created.
More from me soon enough...
With more THOUGHT comes more QUESTIONS
I had proposed the idea of the "Sandbox" when I was thinking about how to make the Building of the Area of Play. The idea of the previous version of this was that players each had their own "Sandbox" and then their tiles would "migrate" to a common or shared play area.
Of course this was impractical and meant very little.
I instead decided that the shared area would be the method of play moving forwards and then went as far as to decide that "Battle Fronts" could be used as a DEFENSIVE mechanic to ensure that players could somehow "control(?)" the build process and not always get "cut-off" from an opponent.
In the previous post, I went in the opposite direction due to the fact that the "Cake" Pattern would be the easiest way to insert some CHAOS and force a pattern that was NOT the typical "Cake" Pattern.
But to call a SPADE a SPADE is obvious. Why?
Because it seems like in any case the "Cake" Pattern is the easiest pattern to simulate and build. This has DRAMATIC in that it just DUMBS-DOWN the game and make it about the same type of build each time.
My latest ideas is a PURE "Sandbox" concept.
What do I mean???
Players each have their OWN Play Area and there is no MIXING of components of any kind in any of the opponents Area of Play.
This is good because more Patterns could be on the table. Like a "Star" Pattern all players much achieve with the first player making it a reality end the "Tile Laying" portion of the match. And then a round of Final Scoring would occur and then the real winner would be declared.
Another UPSIDE of the "Sandbox" is that it allows for each player to have his OWN "Box Set" of Tokens and Dice (And probably duplicate set of Kingdom Cards). This is really GREAT since players are not interacting with each other and therefore the color of Tokens and Dice does not matter.
Furthermore it may be a question of having individual sets for each player since there is no more common/share area of play ... And this means a SINGLE FORMAT could be made available to the players instead of requiring a SET for all players. Again there would be a duplication of Kingdom Cards.
I will be exploring this in further detail to see if this is a GOOD option or not...
Sincerely.
"Kingdom" Cards (One Deck per player)...
I think I am going to CHANGE The "Drafting" Mechanic in the game. Instead I am THINKING about using twenty (20) Card Decks which are standard (identical) with the exception of two (2) Bonus Cards.
Each player gets one Deck of "Kingdom" Cards and will BUY or PAY for a "Kingdom" Card when it is put in PLAY.
Now when the card is played FACE-DOWN (unused), a player may decide at a LATER time to UPGRADE the card to a higher value. But again ONLY if the card's ability has not ben used and is still played FACE-DOWN.
This sounds like a plausible mechanic and I'm still working out the kinks in this Design Concept (how to change the Mechanic).
More on this later... Cheers!
So I got the mini-workers ("Peasants") from TGC today!
They are super small but look real good! Perfect as "Peasants" for "Plains of Arian" (PoA). I did a bunch of re-working the "Kingdom" Cards and have come to the conclusion that much like "Tradewars" where in the beginning they were Player Sets, the concept eventually became one GIANT game when Mike took over the development of that game.
But with PoA this will never happen because the Game Tiles will be SOLD SEPARATLY from the "Required Parts" and rulebook.
I'm a firm believer in this concept GIVEN the RIGHT "Game".
Furthermore I am ADVANCING an "Agenda"! (Hehehe).
With SEPARATE KITS and TILES and Sandbox method of Play... It means that the game can be from 2 to a dozen players. Obviously the major problem is DOWNTIME but maybe "6" Players is better ... In any event, there is no ceiling on the amount of players except the amount of time taken to cycle back to your turn.
Which is SUPER interesting! More on that soon enough...
My conclusion to the "Sandbox" is...
This is the BEST idea for the PoA. Why? Because in scenarios where players are playing a "shared" area of play, the Cake Pattern will be the simplest and (probably) the ONLY Pattern played. And that to me sounds very BORING. Nothing worst than doing the same thing over and over.
It reminds me of designing a Magic: the Gathering (MtG) Deck and then playing it over and over and over. Sure it may be fun to play until you LOSE and then figure out there are better decks out-there. But for PoA the challenge lies in the Tile Pattern which could be varied per game given a couple Tile Sets.
The "Sandbox" concept really allows for the Tile Patterns to flourish and to encourage the players to design their OWN Patterns and play versus each other all the while trying to beat an opponent given a specific Pattern.
That to me... IS SUPER COOL! And it makes for an interesting game. It also can be useful in Tournaments where players need to come up with a specific Pattern to WIN the game or at least trigger the "End of Game" Last Round.
Anyhow more on this soon. I just wanted to make a brief comment to introduce the topic ("Sandbox") and talk more about it soon enough.
Cheers all.
Still working on finer details...
I can clearly see that the reality is that even with a "Euro-Style" Game... The game feels a bit "FLAT". Each player does as they want and you build your Play Area as you see fit. But the issue with no way to inflict DIRECT damage means that there is NO WAY to "interact" with your opponents and whatever they are doing in their own "Sandbox".
And that's a real problem...
I am thinking about the Kingdom Cards and some of the parts of the game like "Knights" and so forth... IDK ... We'll have to wait and see. I again (for like the hundredth time) need to see what I can come up with in terms of the design to see if we can MAYBE have some form of "Indirect" countering within the game. Because (honestly) without any conflict it may well be a very "Euro-Style" game... I don't see the excitement of ONLY "Building". That's a real issue.
I don't want players to be continuously "in-conflict" but some kind of Battle Mechanic may be worthwhile investigating. We shall see as I ponder further the details for this game. I will keep you all updated as to the progress with this aspect of PoA.
Cheers!
"Kingdom" cards and the direction that I am THINKING about...
So at the start of each Round, in the First Phase ... Each player RESETs their Income levels for 1 Copper, 1 Silver and 1 Gold. That makes sense because those are ALL Standard D6s and the minimum value is 1.
The thinking NOW is to make the "Kingdom" cards to be more like Revenue cards.
What do I mean by "Revenue"???
Well if each "Kingdom" card would have a Monetary Value (like 2 Silver or 1 Gold) and then in addition, it could have a TRADE component which could be "1" Gem of any color produces +1 Silver BONUS...
And the player then PLAYS the "Kingdom" cards to determine the amount of "Revenue" on their turn for the various phases later in the Round.
This is making a lot of sense and may allow the game to have more "indirect" conflict.
How? By having some DIRECT "influence" actions which can force (conditionally) some "Workers" back to their Townes. Or by stealing some "Coppers" from a previous Round. These may seem DIRECT ... but it's not about continual combat or to force "conflict" each and every Round (like a Turn-Phase dedicated for Combat or Conflict).
Instead this method of applying cards and bonus actions makes for INDIRECT conflict (and bonuses too!) without the need of having a specific PHASE or too much influence on the overall game such that it may NOT be considered a "Euro". And I indeed want the Game to be "classified" as a "Medium Euro" game so these cards could make it a bit more "immersive" even if they are not like other "Euros" like Settlers of Catan or Agricola, etc. etc.
I'm feeling good about this "direction", it is definitely going in the right way for sure. Just needs a bit more thoughts in how to SOLIDIFY the actual actions on the cards.
Best.
Instead of using "Peasants"...
I will use "Serfs" as the term for the game's Workers (Worker-based Income). The Serfs produce Gold as the direct currency for making upgrades to the various elements in the game which include: Townes, Temples and Capitols.
The method by which Income is earned will be directly related to the "Kingdom" cards such that they determine the amount of "Gold" is available to make upgrades to your Empire.
The other "aspect" of the game that remains a bit "open to debate" is the whole RESET of the Income Dice at the start of each Round. There are "Pros" and "Cons" to this... One of the "Pros" is that it will make the game a bit easier to play and one of the "Cons" is that extra income becomes harder to track (over 6 on each dice).
With the newer method of Copper/Silver/Gold, you can amass up to 11 Gold on a given Round (The player's Turn). This is rather HIGH. But at the same time, the "Kingdom" cards will allow players to earn more Income from those specific cards that did not have any "Income"-related meaning. So this is a very different way of looking at the "Kingdom" cards and how they relate to Income.
This will be determined during "Playtesting" as I bring this design to a more "firm" direction even though most things were taken care of, this still means that there are aspects to determine through actual PLAY how they should work in the final version of the game.
I'll keep you all posted as to the advancement of the game and more design issues that creep forward as I continue to "wrestle" with the design to make it that much more "Interesting" to play.
Sincerely.
What I am trying to perfect
Changing the "Kingdom" cards to WEALTH is a bit tricky. Firstly we must NOW have a HAND and with that hand we must be allowed to PLAY cards. The question that is on my mind is:
Why is this VERY important???
Well fundamentally it makes for important decisions to be made like what kind of "indirect" conflict can occur (like discarding a "Serf") and also impacts the FLOW of the game.
For example:
This was previously said to be NO... But with lower income earnings, it may make sense to go back on this IDEA and allow players to accumulate wealth across several turns.
Or it can impact the order of the game:
These are ALL important considerations to think about. And must each be examined a bit further in detail.
I need to put on my thinking cap and see what I can come up with in how to RESHAPE the Turn Order/Phases of a Turn. Because it's seems like everything is dramatically impacted from this change of "Kingdom" cards.
I'll let you know my thoughts as I move forwards with this design.
Some early thoughts...
I have the concept of the WEALTH cards to be something like this:
2x Copper = Foreach Opposing Towne (Red) -> Bonus +1 Copper
What does this mean? It means you earn 2 Copper and if your opponent has a towne on a "Red Tile", you earn an additional +1 Copper for a total of 3 Copper.
This is REALLY NEAT! It does what I want in that it is dependent on the opponent but does not require DIRECT CONFLICT. However it DOES play on what the opponent is doing and that's freaken AWESOME!
And since 3 Coppers = 1 Gold ... You would EARN a BONUS Gold.
One thing for certain is that it may be NECESSARY to carry-over Income from one Round to another. With these kinds of mechanics ... What will be important is to decide HOW MANY(?) "Kingdom" cards can be played.
More on this... Soon.
And so I am VERY pleased with this latest "overhaul"
The first conclusion that I have come to is:
The next conclusion that I have come to is:
These are the TWO (2) conclusions that I have come to when it come to Income and/or WEALTH Management. It's pretty obvious that these two issues are "central" to keeping the design more FUNCTIONAL.
And three (3) out of five (5) are sets relating to the OPPONENT's situation in the game. This means no DIRECT conflict, but yet a way to REACT to an opponent's area of play (and where they are at).
It's hard for me to explain, but basically your BONUSES depend on the nature of your opponents, giving you a chance to collect more Income because your opponents may be further ahead. This "sort-of" catch-up mechanic is what makes the "Kingdom" cards so interesting.
Again... It's not all final. It's still very much a Work-In-Progress (WIP) when it comes to fleshing out the components of the game. These are all refinements to prototype (or the actual making of the prototype).
I'm just making sure that the GAME is cool enough for the intended audience and that means making refinements before the final prototype.
Cheers!
With these changes...
Comes "Optimal Play" as a way to MAXIMIZE your Turns such that you can outsmart your opponents. Meaning you need to BALANCE when to play "Kingdom" cards in order to use Income to upgrade your buildings in the game.
Also with some opponents being further ahead, the "Kingdom" cards act as a way to catch-up with them seeing as you can accumulate more Income on your turn in the given Round.
Anyhow ... I will let these ideas to "rest" a bit and see where they may lead.
I strongly feel that the two (2) above conclusions are REAL and will be required if the game is to be FUN and POSSIBLE to play.
Sincerely.
Since this mean 25 "Kingdom" cards...
I am THINKING about adding six (6) more cards:
2x "Re-shuffle the discard and the entire Deck"
2x "Re-shuffle the discard and place atop the Deck"
2x "Draw two (2) additional cards"
These are like CATALYST cards... Which add a bit of VARIETY to each of the Decks.
The "Re-shuffle entire" is mainly used so that not all 25 "Kingdom" cards need to be played before getting the ones that have been already played.
The "Re-shuffle discard" is a bit like Pandemic and allows for a catalyst of bonus cards be re-played. This is a HIGHLY "strategic" card which can allow a player to catch-up or surpass their opponent(s).
The "Draw Additional" just allow players to (as simply put) draw two (2) cards which is usually not allowed (only draw ONE card per Turn). Giving the player a chance to improve his hand.
***
Other RULES are that a player may not have more than THREE (3) "Kingdom" cards in their hand. That's pretty simple and self-intuitive.
Like I said, I'm still doing some refinements before completing the Prototype. We shall see how things go forwards from this point on-wards.
Best.