Skip to Content

How to manage "Expansion"

4 replies [Last post]
questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011

Okay so let me briefly explain a bit about the game idea(s) and then present the question in a clear fashion.

So on the design I am working on, two (2) players control a primary "city/lair". One controls the "light" side (city) and the other the "shadow" side (lair).

Each of these landmarks are well protected with troops (early in the game).

(Getting warmer) Each of those landmarks is "far away" from each other. Think that the lair is three (3) "positions" or "steps" away...

(Warmer still) Each player must construct three (3) other landmarks to REACH the opposing player "city/lair".

(Hot) So how do I "control" the building of the three (3) other landmarks???

Some of my ideas:

1. Originally I thought the deck would have six (6) landmarks per player. And you would play a NEW landmark whenever you got one of those cards.

2. Somehow the landmarks are apart from the game and players "somehow" EARN the next landmark.

I'm really unsure about how to proceed with this dilemma ... Maybe other approach could be better... I don't know?!

If the information that I have provided is unclear, please feel free to ask questions. As always feedback/comments/ideas/suggestions/etc. are all welcomed.


Jay103's picture
Joined: 01/23/2018
Is the landmark construction

Is the landmark construction just secondary, or is it a mechanic in its own right? Would you need materials, etc? The drawing cards thing makes it very very random, I think.

Corsaire's picture
Joined: 06/27/2013
If you want to appeal to euro

If you want to appeal to euro players, the landmarks should be exposed so they can subgoal towards it. Having different costs and have two of six exposed at a time gives a fun crunch of figuring out which one your opponent is planning to build?

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
I understood...

Because my "Engine" is a bit different than something like C:SP ... I have resolved something that will work with it. And like you said, exposed and I have added in a "specific" order.

So the idea(s) that I have is four (4) Cities/Lairs will be placed at the very top of the area of play. The "order" is RANDOMIZED...

For example: City #2, City #1, City #4, City #3.

The "Left-most" city is FREE to build. The next City (City #1) costs one (1) White Cube. The next City (City #4) costs two (2) White Cubes. And then the last city (City #3) costs three (3) White Cubes.

You MUST build IN-ORDER (A requirement as you EXPAND your territory)!

So you must PAY one (1) White Cubes to BUILD "City #1". "City #4" and "City #3" both "slide" to the left and each cards cost drops by -1. "City #2" would be FREE. City #4 and City #3 would "slide" again and "City #3" would therefore costs an additional one (1) White Cubes to build...

It would therefore given this City set-up cost you TWO (2) White Cubes to build ALL four (4) cities...

I know it may be "different" than other "Engine Builders" ... but it's my game and it needs to blend building, expanding, conquest and scoring. Two (2) White Cubes is an "inexpensive" price and but it nevertheless thins out your army too by a few units!

But it WORKS and fits into my engine (which again is a bit different). The idea is that there is a COST to building new cities and you need to build by slowly "expanding" your borders.

Very insightful and in my version "rather logical"! LOL

And WHY would you build "City #4" if it only takes three (3) cities to reach your opponent's Primary Lair??? The answer is because it allows you to muster up more army units to increase your odds of winning the battle. So more cities = more armed forces. But it also costs to BUILD cities ... so it's like a COST for this battle which can make the game EASIER or harder depending on the randomization of the cities!

Cool beans! Thx again...

Update: Also you cannot build a NEW city UNLESS the previous one is "at capacity". Another simple rule that puts "timing" into the equation too...

Update #2: I have updated the post such that cards should go from LEFT to RIGHT. Same goes for the cards in play on the table. This is amazing because it "lines-up" the cards on the table! Great stuff...

Update #3: And BTW I'm "not" trying to appeal to the "Euro" crowd... I'm trying to design a game according to a format (CCG + Engine). And while other games have something similar, my game is very different in play styles (and follows the "spirit" of Quest Adventure Cards – First Edition).

While I can't afford to produce a "pure" CCG, I'm not really interested by everything around it either. Things like "random" booster and the likes is not the direction I want to go for. I do WANT "Deck-Construction" and Single "Aftermarket" card sales too. In addition to "Adventure Packs" which vary the quest and details concerning HOW to "win/beat" the Quest/Adventure.

And naturally, that's why the game is called "Quest Adventure Cards(tm) – Second Edition"!!! From visions about pieces here and there, getting inspiration from various games and just getting the colors was HUGE because it unlocked a fundamental "piece" of the puzzle.

Corsaire's picture
Joined: 06/27/2013
Makes sense. Gives room for

Makes sense. Gives room for planning and maintains your pacing.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut