Skip to Content
 

Game Phases — How to switch between them?

14 replies [Last post]
Wed, 05/02/2018 - 23:39
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

Okay so let me just briefly explain a bit how my "Work-In-Progress" (WIP) is supposed to be divided into three (3) Game "Phases":

1. Build Phase: The two (2) players build their Kingdom and fortify their cities in preparation of the Second Phase.

2. Conquest Phase: Both players engage in combat by attacking each others units with the goal of conquering the landmark/lair.

3. Scoring Phase: Lastly after all is said and done, players each compute scores and the winner is determined.

Now while all this sounds cool "in theory"... My MAJOR problem is trying to find a way to go from Build to Conquest to Scoring Phase.

Okay so Build Phase is the starting phase... No trouble with that. Each Player populates a Landmark or a Lair (depending on which side they are playing)...

Now HOW does the "Conquest" Phase begin??? What could be the "trigger" that starts the 2nd Phase and makes conflict a reality?? Building may continue, but "Conquest" is more the focus... Building for "Conquest" is more realistic.

And then HOW do we terminate the "Conquest" Phase and go into the final "Scoring" Phase to determine the winner of the game...?

I'm having a bit of a difficulty figuring out the "triggers"... Like perhaps the "Scoring" Phase begins after ONE (1) Landmark/Lair is conquered. This could be an example of switching phases... Not sure how good/bad this is...? But it's an idea!

Anyone have other ways that could "trigger" the various phases???

Top
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 07:45
#1
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Maybe No Phases at All?

Obviously, I don't know all the details of your game, but to maybe spark some creative thinking, why not have no phases at all?

You simply have build actions and conquest actions. A player has a limited set of actions to use. In the beginning of the game, players are mostly just doing building with maybe an occasional skirmish using an attack action. As the game progresses the players use more conquest actions than build actions when any build actions used is to furnish more defense/forces to battle with.

As for the scoring, you score immediately for winning a battle and at the end of the game. Scoring could be done immediately when a certain building/unit is achieved.

--DarkDream

Top
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 08:25
#2
gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
why scoring?

The beginning game naturally progresses to a mid-game and finally an end game.

Why is there scoring?? You did say it was a 2 player game with conflict as a primary game element, so why is scoring needed at the end? (Unless you are seeking some future goal beyond the build/conflict which requires particular - or preponderance of - certain side goals to be achieved.)

That would suggest a time wars theme with intent to lead to a particular future by setting the conditions that will exist when a certain future event happens. (Aztecs/Incas being prepared for Spaniard arrival could be such a case).

If the purpose of the game is build and fight what is your explanation/justification for scoring to exist in the game?

Top
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 10:39
#3
treeves3
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2018
More Information

I feel like we are missing a lot of details and information from your description that would help us to help you (like what happens during the build phase - are both players developing their kingdom and fortifications in the exact same manner? What options do the players have? Are there random elements during this phase? What resources are used to build? etc.)

Having said that, one simple mechanic could be "the first player to construct X starts the conquest phase," where X is whatever build condition you determine based upon whatever makes sense in your game. And this would be followed by, "the first player to conquer Y triggers the scoring phase," where Y is some quantitative or qualitative goal scaled to your game. But again, I feel we need more information to determine if this makes sense for what you are trying to do.

Good luck!

Top
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 16:36
#4
Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Ideas for timing attack phase

Could you define the play area as common to both players but only able to hold a certain number of cards? Early in the game there would be lots of spots to play in. Perhaps there could even be some incentive/or protection for playing in "your half" of the board. Later in the games players would run out spots to play cards. To free up spots they could move the heroes ect and attack the other player. Then they could play a new card in the spot previously occupied by that hero ect.

---Below here is are recycled but polished ideas from another thread---

Can you design the engine(s) in such away that that after awhile there is a point of diminishing returns for adding to the engine each engine? In theory at this point it would be more beneficial to reduce your opponents engines output.

Can you have two decks? One would be optimized for engine building and the other optimized for attack? There are numerous configurations from here. You can simply place the build deck on top the attack deck. You could have players draw a card from both each turn. You could let the players draw 2 cards and they get to choose from which decks.

Good luck. Feel free to disregard, use or improve upon these ideas.

Top
Thu, 05/03/2018 - 17:47
#5
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More information indeed!

So at the beginning of each "Quest" there is a "formation" of cards which make the game easier (more cards) or harder (less cards) as being the initial setup of the game.

In the "First" Quest (Dwarven Miner) each player has three (3) Landmarks/Lairs they can "BUILD". But at the start of the game, players start with THREE (3) cards + the difficulty (based on how many cards are pre-configured at the start of the game).

Let me focus on the Light side of the game ... the Shadow side is similar with different nomenclature and cards.

So the Light side must "produce" Resources (Build) to do everything that is possible in the game. So if you have a "Noble" that produces "Riches" (or Income) that's a Yellow Wooden Cube. It has a value of 1 VP at the end of the game.

Now it's an ENGINE... So that one (1) Yellow Wooden Cube can be transformed into something ELSE... Given the abilities of each Noble. So say you want to "improve" building (instead of one Yellow Wooden Cube, that Noble can produce TWO Yellow Wooden Cubes) by transforming one (1) Yellow Wooden Cube + one (1) Red Wooden Cube (using 2 Upgrades) = ONE (1) Orange Cube, which means your Noble NOW produces TWO (2) Yellow Cubes per turn...

How EASY/DIFFICULT this is depends on the "setup" chosen too.

But you do this for Boons, Nobles, Equipment, Champions and Guards. For example a "Guard" can cost 6 points: 1 Yellow, 1 Blue and 1 Red. A "Champion" costs 1 Blue and 1 Red (or 5 points) for each level of that unit (which has a maximum defined by each unit)...

That's the whole "BUILDING" phase.

Once a Landmark is equipped with enough forces to both DEFEND itself from an Attack — But also enough force to lead an ATTACK... So begins the "Conquest" phase.

In a way it's a bit arbitrary because Player #2 may not be ready or the opposite the Shadow side gets to an early start and leads the charge.

During the "CONQUEST" phase, a player focuses on defeating the opposing "Forces" via his "Champions" and/or "Equipment". How this phase ENDS, I'm not 100% sure...

Since each QUEST has some kind of GOAL ... well it means maybe once the GOAL is met, independent of what has been conquered or not, the LAST phase gets triggered: the "Scoring" phase.

Something along those lines... IDK — I'm still hypothesizing!

Top
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:04
#6
lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Experiment with player

Experiment with player voting. When enough want to go to the next phase, you do. And as time passes, there are automatic votes for moving to the next phase, so sooner or later the current phase will end.

Top
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 13:36
#7
Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Conquest icons determine when conquest begins

You could add a conquest icon(s) to some of the cards. Once the number of icons reaches a number like 20 you could have the conquest phase begin. If you wanted it to be a little less predictable you could have the conquest phase begin when the number of conquest icons is greater than the sum number rolled on some number of d6s.

Feel free to disregard, use or improve upon.

Top
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 14:51
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Tournaments/Ladder-Play

gxnpt wrote:
The beginning game naturally progresses to a mid-game and finally an end game.

Why is there scoring?? You did say it was a 2 player game with conflict as a primary game element, so why is scoring needed at the end?...

The goal is to one day allow competition and ladder-play. So if you have a best of three (3) matches where the "score" is the deciding factor in the competition, it could be possible to lose 2 games and get 1 blow-out and still move forwards in the competition...

Something along those lines...

Top
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 18:50
#9
treeves3
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2018
Warcraft-esque

Your game reminds me somewhat of the original Warcraft/StarCraft games...

1) Build your base/town and units
2) Send units out to rampage and destroy
3) Rinse and repeat until victory!

But what to do about the early charge tactics that can destroy your base before you even get up and running?

One way to do this is to give units inside open bases a defensive bonus (or defensive towers). However, you must counter this with a penalty for "turtling" too long. But, depending upon the early base/town defenses, it wouldn't be prudent to attack too soon and lose a substantial part of your army.

Another theme to consider is each player begins inside a fort or castle. Your castle has walls and a gate to protect those inside. However, the first player to create a siege engine may knock down the other player's walls, thus initiating the Conquest phase.

You can also have various "resource stashes" outside the base scattered around the board/map. Players can send their units out to collect these resources (perhaps fighting NPC tribes or the like), and also strike at each other's venturing units.

Don't know if this is along the lines of what you're thinking, but hopefully it generates some food for thought.

-Tom

Top
Sat, 05/05/2018 - 17:05
#10
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I kind of like this idea... Variation on it!

Fri wrote:
You could add a conquest icon(s) to some of the cards. Once the number of icons reaches a number like 20 you could have the conquest phase begin...

Maybe a slight "variation"... I don't want to any dice in this game. BUT having said this, I like the "Conquest Icon" idea. I'm not sure if this is what you meant — but once the "TOTAL" count of "Conquest Icons" is reached, a combination of BOTH players, that could signal the start of the "Conquest" phase...

And for the "Scoring" phase, I can use "end-game" scenario specific goals to determine when the game ENDS (and the scoring phase is used to count up the Victory Points of each player)...

Top
Sun, 05/06/2018 - 22:14
#11
AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Build a monument

Maybe have a monument worth several points (and no resource or conquest advantage) that can only be built by one player. The person who undertakes it will want to have an advantage before building. Have it cost enough resources such that when a player decides to undertake the project, the other player(s) have a chance to continue building up their units (thus potentially giving them a slight advantage in the second phase). When the monument is complete, it triggers the second phase, conquest. (From a flavor stand point, the monument angers the other faction in some way.)

This also helps with the lose 2/win 1 and still advance. If one player completes the monument and scores less in conquest such that they barely lose and/or doesn't build the monument and does decent at the conquest (but not quite well enough to win), then wins one game with the monument and dominates the conquest phase, they may score the most points overall, thus advancing.

The monument could also act as a tie breaker (in a single game or best of). Please let me know what you think.

Top
Sun, 05/06/2018 - 22:32
#12
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the monument

I understand what you mean... But I like the "Conquest Icons". It forces players into deeper strategy especially when playing cards. Here's some situations that I can come up with:

  • Early on, players will play any cards, increasing the amount of "Conquest Icons" present in the game.

  • As the game progresses, both players will be conscious that they are reaching the Icon Limit ... and be much more "cautious" as to what cards they play unless they are already READY for the 2nd Phase (Conquest).

  • In some ways this creates a pretty decent BALANCE... In that if your Build Engine is too slow or not optimal, the opponent may get to an EARLY Strike. This too is fair — because it's based on how player's are playing the game.

I don't want to penalize a strong player who has a more optimal deck.

Although I want there to be "fairness" ... this means keeping pace with a stronger or more experienced opponent.

It's like in Chess, when you play a superior player... You are that much more careful of "openings" and "traps" to sucker you into a losing battle where the trade-off of pieces is "not worth it"... Or even worst, a situation setting up a Checkmate.

The icons to me are simple and easy to understand without having to introduce another "element" to the game.

Top
Sun, 05/06/2018 - 23:05
#13
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Importance of the Quest Branding for me...

treeves3 wrote:
Your game reminds me somewhat of the original Warcraft/StarCraft games...

Believe me, I had thought about creating an RTS and forgetting about my Branding. But then I think, it's "Quest Adventure Cards(tm)" and I would want a Second Edition that knocks people's socks off!

Obviously I realize that making the game through POD is way too expensive: $85 USD for two (2) Player Starter Deck + 1 Campaign Pack. That's somewhat too pricey even for me...

Getting back to why I want to keep the "original" Branding was because of the "Campaign Packs": those would be like various Quests and "change" the way the game would play a little from one Quest to another.

I'm still in the design phase... So it all depends on how "smoothly" the game plays out. I've got a lot of design work to do ... and some development work to (build a prototype). But still a bunch of stuff to design in order even to begin designing a prototype.

The game at this point is very much an "idea" with some mechanics and such...

Top
Sun, 05/06/2018 - 23:49
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More about Conquest Icons

Another thought I had was that the NUMBER of "Conquest" icons could be indicated by the "Campaign Pack". This means that it could vary from one quest to another. This is cool because it can make the game MORE or LESS combative. Like a late bought during some small skirmishing to vary the Victory Points or a more intense battle campaign with a quest more focused on combating your opponent...

And tactically this can all be managed with the "Conquest" icons.

To me it's actually a pretty "clever" idea that Fri introduced. And it was his idea about using dice that made me think "Quest-based" could also be another possibility.

Obviously I'm designing the game around the first "Campaign Pack"... but I'll put the Engine to the test with other ones that I will not make available from the very beginning of the product's lifecycle.

Once the engine is 100% ironed out... Then I can focus on designing more "core" cards which at the moment mean ALL the "Shadow" side of things. I'll be getting to those cards too... From there I should be good to getting a "nifty" prototype and test out the game's mechanics.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut