Skip to Content
 

4X games: Relation of competition between cities to increase possibility space

5 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

Situation

In many fantasy 4X video games that involves being a wizard that cast spell (Warlock, Elemental, Planar Conquest), I always say that there is not enough spells that are not related to combat. Which means that if you remove tactical combat, you remove most of the spell.

That makes it very inconvenient when trying to adapt such game as a board game because most of the time, you'll remove the tactical combat resolution which throw most spells to garbage.

Now I tried to analyze "Master of Magic" spell book to realize that most spells are only made for combat resolution. And the reason for that is because the possibility space for overworld spells is pretty limited.

Most overland spells will either

  • Boost income or reserve of resources and city resource production (ex: more gold, food, etc)
  • Affect the board geographically and mobility ( teleporting units, moving units faster, Floating islands, etc)

Else what differ is just casting modalities: like target self/ opponent, target 1 city/all cities, etc. But the effect remains the same.

But combat seems to have a larger possibility space. So what makes combat so different is because there are conflict between units. And special abilities does not necessarily trigger on it self, but in relation to other units.

For example, your unit could have a fear spell that prevent the defending unit to counter attack. By itself, fear does nothing, it need to be put in relation with somebody else to be effective.

You could have counter abilities, like invisibility that can be countered with a "true sight" spell. Again, "true sight" by it self does nothing, but it must be put in relation to other units.

You also have status effects like poisoned, sleep could have a permanent effect, but also could be countered by other abilities. Like for example, undeads cannot be put to sleep or poisoned.

Solution

Relations: So my idea, is in order to increase the possibility space of non-combat spell, why not put cities in relation to reach other competitively. Like for example, economical competition, spying attack, cultural attacks, etc.

You could have counter abilities too. For example, a spell could increase your surveillance level, preventing spying attacks. Or a spell could make your population charming which makes you more competitive economically, since your population get all the sales.

Status Effects: Then you could add status to those cities. You could have a city that is paralyzed, and therefore unable to produce anything. Put a city in riot, that prevent making military maneuvers, because they are buzy fighting in their own city.

So by adding relations and status effect, it opens up many more possibilities. Not sure if it could work as a board game if multiple cities with multiple type of relations are present.

Do you think it could be interesting?

Will it increase the possibility space for special abilities?

Do you have other ideas and solutions?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not sure if I am suggesting in the right direction

Do you have non combat problems, like diseases? For these, you could have cures. Several random diseases could occur, with several cures to match them.

Perhaps terrain that is in the way?
"Slow" could slow down a river, so that a dam or bridge can be build more easily.
Portals can also be used on rivers for the same reason.
"Forests", could burn down with a fire spell. But you also need to control the fire with a rain spell. Slow will help here as well.
"Mountains", might give you a long way around. A spell could blow up the mountain.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
MOM and warlock have spells

MOM and warlock have spells that interact with terrain (change terrain, raise volcano). I just steamline to the most common spells. Still, in the end, it means boosting income of the city, but using a different approach.

Still terrain changing in board games is touchy to record. I think "Terra Mystica" allow terrain changing, but it requires much more components.

For now, as a board game, I intend to use the system above only on a 1 to 1 relationship where each player owns only 1 city facing each other.

The goal is that it makes it easier to record the status information in a board game. In video games, it's not an issue.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
A reply from BGG I made whic

A reply from BGG I made whic offer another solution:

Quote:
I'm going to go against the flow and really stick my neck out in this instance. I suggest LESS cowbell.

Another approach to go with the flow is to make it only a tactical war game with a map like "Wizard Kings". If battle fields offer more special ability opportunities, than so be it and focus only on that aspect.

The game could take place in a small area of the world containing a few cities where 2 players face each other. So instead of remove combat and focus on civ management while integrating combat concepts. I would do the opposite, I would remove civ management and focus on combat while adding some civ management concepts.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Two very different directions

Those are two very different directions, larienna, and very little advice is going to apply to both :-)

For the civ management version, there is still scope for combat even if the city-states never engage in war. Think wild beasts sent after the livestock, undead rising from the graveyard, etc. Obviously it wouldn't be as detailed as the combat game, but the player can still get in their lightning bolts.

For the combat game, I'd recommend a figurine and a card for each unit, which means doubling up on status markers. For a prototype these markers can just be several different colors of poker chips that sit under figurines bases and on cards.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Of course as a video game the

Of course as a video game the issue does not present itself.

As for having many units and tokens, yes ... and no. I like "component wise" how wizard kings looks (especially the maps), and I might want to have a similar look and feel with maybe a matching card for each city since I am boosting civ management.

But Still, In the old days, I was working very strong to reduce the amount of token to keep track of enchanted units by either echanting everything systematically, or with the "use on demand" mechanics. (A unit get's temporarily enchanted when needed by removing a charge from the spell.)

That, I can deal with it. My issue is really the possibility space which seems to be larger in a tactical game. So it seems more attractive to use this path.

Now it won't be a single battle like a tactical war game, it will be large scale army maneuvering since there will be civilization developments. So a lot of time will pass each turn.

Hmm! it could also have some similarities with the "Viktory 2" board game since you also have a map, expand your empire with units on the map. You just don't have spells. But the possibility space is much bigger already. Since I traded "Wizard Kings" away, I could use my "Victory 2" as a testing prototype.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut