Skip to Content
 

Any Good reasons to reduce the number of players

6 replies [Last post]
Fri, 09/16/2011 - 08:47
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

It's for a civ like game. One idea I had in order to solve many problems would be to reduce the maximum number of players from 6 to 4 and I am trying to give myself good reasons to do it.

Here are a few advantages:

- Easier to make a modular map that fit any amount of players
- Reduce the amount of components required to play
- Reduce the amount of time the game will take

Disadvantages

- Reduce negotiation and player interactions

The problem is that in civ like games, most of the time, there are many opponents. So another idea is that I could reduce the number of players, but have some neutral civilization controlled by the game which could be negotiated with. Or maybe players could get control of neutral factions if they get enough influence on them.

Do you think that fake players could actually increase interactions and diplomacy?

Top
Fri, 09/16/2011 - 11:31
#1
bonsaigames
bonsaigames's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/20/2010
Cost & Strategy

The two reasons that come immediately to mind when I think about reducing the number of players in a game are; Cost & Strategy.
Removing players means removing components and bringing cost down.
and
Sometimes the math of a game works better with fewer players.

As a write, it occurs to me that depending on the way your game plays, Wait Time might be a factor as well.

I love the idea of Neutral Factions that could be used to change the win conditions or give a player an advantage.

Top
Fri, 09/16/2011 - 16:06
#2
Maaartin
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2011
IMHO having many players is important for diplomacy

larienna wrote:
So another idea is that I could reduce the number of players, but have some neutral civilization controlled by the game which could be negotiated with.

This lead to the problem of what should the neutral factions do? Even letting them walk around randomly may be quite time consuming (rolling a lot of dice or whatever).

larienna wrote:
Do you think that fake players could actually increase interactions and diplomacy?

Interactions sure, diplomacy probably not. Fighting for the control of the neutral factions can be a key element of the game. Diplomacy depends IMHO mainly on the number of players, and also on the possible benefits from cooperating/traits. As an extreme example, with just 2 players, no diplomacy makes sense (except for cooperative games).

With 4 players the game quite often turn to 2v2 (or even worse in 3v1), which is fine with some games, but there's hardly any diplomacy then. If diplomacy is important to you, I'd recommend more players.

Top
Fri, 09/16/2011 - 18:37
#3
Soulmate
Soulmate's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/23/2011
Neutral Factions?

If you wish to use the idea of neatral factions, I suggest you could make that the core of the game. Instead of players controlling their own factions, they could try to gain and maintain control of neutral factions, and thereby increasing it's wealth, power ect.
The problem with this kind of idea is of course that you should be aware of a run-away leader or that (re)taking the neutral factions is too easy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Anyway, I would choose between neutral factions or player factions, but no do both. My guess is that it adds too much complecity.

Top
Fri, 09/16/2011 - 19:03
#4
bonsaigames
bonsaigames's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/20/2010
City-States

You could always take the Civ V City-State route. Have Neutral factions / areas that can benefit the players, but do not actively grow or take turns in the game. Even a simple tracker on the board could keep track of the influence / power / wealth of Neutral City-States.

Top
Fri, 09/16/2011 - 20:47
#5
nonopanda
nonopanda's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/16/2011
some reasons for your reference

1. as mentioned above, wait time will be less in a game of few players.
2. Sometimes it's easier to keep balance of power when only 4-5 players attend the competition, and it avoids that a player has no opportunities to win or have little influence on others but have to play with others a long time.
3. Maybe you can set the neutral civilization for players to bid for their power and influence or ask for help, but not a independent force on the board.

Top
Sat, 09/17/2011 - 11:55
#6
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:I suggest you could

Quote:
I suggest you could make that the core of the game. [...] Anyway, I would choose between neutral factions or player factions, but no do both.

Unfortunately, I cannot to that for my game. I want players to be in control of a faction. But in order to remove the need to balance for example map size according tot eh amount of players. there would now only be 1 fixed map size and all factions would be there on the board. I was thinking to have 10 factions where some of them are controlled by players. So what ever the number of players, the number of factions will always be the same and the game would be optionally playable with more players.

I just had an idea where 1 to 4 players can be actually wizards, while the other NPC players which could be taken control by real players are only paladins which does not have the option for magic research and casting (remove components and playing time) but that can still get a permanent benefit from magic without having to manage them.

Quote:
You could always take the Civ V City-State route.

That could be a good idea, but I think with the new map system I want to make, these factions will have to expand more. But I was thinking that these factions could at most colonize around their capital city, and once the space is saturated they do not grow anymore. The only thing that could happen is that they conquer adjacent cities, but maybe they will only raid them.

Quote:
This lead to the problem of what should the neutral factions do? Even letting them walk around randomly may be quite time consuming (rolling a lot of dice or whatever).

That is another problem, I'll have to get into the details of the game mechanics to see what can be done. I thought that they could also not play every turn. Maybe a random card could determine the list of the actions they do. Still, If I could have a system comparable to what players can do, it would remove me the pain of balancing the players actions with the neutral's actions.

Quote:
Interactions sure, diplomacy probably not. [...] With 4 players the game quite often turn to 2v2 (or even worse in 3v1), which is fine with some games, but there's hardly any diplomacy then.

Well not necessarily. The idea is that each player's political power would be relative to their empire size and the size of the neutral factions they have influence on. So not every player will have the same political power which could change the 2vs2 or 3vs1 relation. It might also be possible for some faction to abstain.

anyways, I have to go. I'll keep on thinking.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut