Skip to Content
 

Upkeep Mechanic

6 replies [Last post]
rgbiv
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2013

BGDF folks,

I've been working on a Catan-killer for the last year or so. I've got mad respect for Catan, but after playing that game probably a hundred times and having grown up playing Risk, A&A, Warhammer 40k, etc., I started thinking about ways to incorporate combat into a Euro-style resource management game. Ultimately I settled on a Game of Thrones-type simultaneous action selection mechanic (with semi-random combat resolution), a single resource (gold) generated from variable-production terrain, and an upkeep mechanic that forces players to kill off units if they can't pay for them.

My conundrum with the upkeep mechanic relates to its placement in the game phase. Please stay with me, because this has been a real head-scratcher and I'd love your input.

Let's say the phases work like this (this is the current state of the game):

Income
Upkeep
Actions

In this scenario, players collect their income, then pay one gold per unit as upkeep. If, between income and the gold he already has, a player can't pay one gold per unit on the board, he's got to kill off units until there's no more shortfall in upkeep. It works pretty well, but I'm concerned that it's a bit cumbersome to calculate your income, receive that, and then have to give gold back to the bank for upkeep. In playtesting, more experienced players typically just do the mental math so they don't have to take and then immediately give gold back. But it sucks when four people are all sitting around a table murmuring, "Ok... five plus... three... and... minus four... plus... derrr...".

In an effort to improve the flow of the upkeep mechanic, I've experimented with this order:

Income
Actions
Upkeep

The problem with this arrangement is that it encourages suicide missions: when you know that you'll have to kill units off at the end of a round because you don't have sufficient gold, it behooves you to lash out at the other players during the action phase. The other problem is that if players purchase new units in the action phase, they'll have to (a) pay upkeep for them immediately afterward, which sometimes means inadvertently spending too much money and not leaving enough for upkeep and (b) keep track of which units are new, and therefore upkeep-exempt, and which are not.

For the time being, I've settled on the first phase order (Income, Upkeep, Actions) because the alternative creates perverse incentives. But if you have any advice on how to simplify, streamline, etc. this system, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.

Many thanks,

Rex G. Baker IV
Montrose Games LLC

McTeddy
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2012
My thought would be to use an

My thought would be to use an "Economy Track" labeled -10 to +10. Whenever you buy a troop you move it left, whenever you lose a troop or increase your income you move it right. During the income/upkeep phase you simply look at the track and either gain or pay that money.

While I can see it being a bit clumsy to work with, it would be a simple option for those of us who are lousy at

ThisIsMyBoomstick
ThisIsMyBoomstick's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2013
First Phase

I'm not trying to be 'that' guy that just takes your order and throws it all around, but I'd do Upkeep before ANYTHING else. If you think about it in the sense that you are a mercenary, you'd want to be paid immediately. The next thing is that if you get it out of the way at the beginning of your turn, you don't have to worry about taking your actions or saving whatever income you have left over based around upkeep.

Get it out of the way at the start, then take actions, then receive income based on troop placement and gold generation at the end of the turn. Then NEXT turn, you pay upkeep out of your earnings from last time...and repeat.

Upkeep, Actions, Income.

Think about it. If the other player takes out a large sum of your troops or resource farms (or whatever gets you gold) or you lose troops trying to attack the enemy, it's going to affect your income.

So do upkeep as the first phase, actions as the second phase, and income as the last phase.

rgbiv
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2013
I love that guy.

McTeddy,

Having an upkeep track for each player is a great idea. Not sure that it would work for income, because the numbers change so frequently (folks have a stack of gold chits).

Boomstick,

Your suggestion really upends the game, but I smell what you're cooking. I'll run some playtests with that phase order and let you know how it goes.

To provide more specificity, you get income from a hex if you own a settlement on it. So with your proposed change, combat would be doubly incentivized for someone lacking funds for the *next* round's upkeep phase, as attacking would (a) thin the herd as discussed in my post above and (b) provide more income if the attack on a settled enemy hex were successful.

Very interesting idea. I'll run with it.

Rex

MikeyNg
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2012
Some Other Phase?

Is there another phase besides those 3? Because the way I look at it:

Upkeep
Actions
Income

is pretty the same as:
Income
Upkeep
Actions

The difference is that the turn started at Upkeep instead of Income. But wouldn't you have similar problems/issues? Unless there is a static "end of turn" phase that helps to separate them out which would differentiate the two.

And having forces "suicide" may or may not be bad - depends if you want (and want to integrate it) as part of your game or not.

Of course, despite the fact that the two ways are the same (UAI and IUA), there might be a psychological difference in people's minds so that they don't suicide.

ThisIsMyBoomstick
ThisIsMyBoomstick's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2013
Perhaps

I suppose it depends on how the players take their turns.

If you did it to where one player does all three actions, then yes, the difference MAY only be psychological

If you did it to where each player does a specific phase before moving onto the next (P1 Upkeep, P2 Upkeep, P1 Actions, P2 Actions, P1 Income, P2 Income) it could change up a bit.

I don't really recommend the latter unless it suits the game better though. If you DO go through with the second option, it will give the game more of a simultaneous feel (like Battletech, for instance)

kpres
kpres's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
If you have upkeep after

If you have upkeep after actions, then there's almost no need for it. I would always attack with my troops until I'm down to the right number so that I don't have to sacrifice any at the upkeep phase. That's the best utility for me. If actions came after upkeep, then I'd have to figure out how many extra troops to save for defence, knowing that I'll have to sacrifice them at my next upkeep. This is a harder decision, and that'll be fun.

Should income be before before upkeep? Probably.

Imperial 2030 is a good example of a game that's based on economics and war. It's also one of my favourite games. If you haven't played it, I would recommend playing it just to get an idea of what's been done, and what's fun.

In that game, countries get one phase per turn, and there's a choice of six different phases (manoeuvre, production, investor, taxation, factory, and import). Each phase is optional, but has its benefits. The upkeep happens during taxation.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut