Skip to Content

Village: build mechanic

7 replies [Last post]
Relexx's picture
Joined: 05/31/2010

So in my Village game I have the basic mechanic of building costs resources + time. Simple enough. I have a couple of choices that I am considering for the time component.

Time is 0-3 turns (represented by the sides of the card, the card is turned one quarter from a start position to end position). This I am happy with, the consideration is one of the following.

1. The turns happen automatically, so if the build time is 2 turns then you pay for the resources and place the card at the start position, each turn the quarter tap the card until it is complete


2. You pay the construction cost (aka resources), place the card down at the start point, to quarter tap it you need to allocate a worker resource. The additional choice being more workers equals more taps, or only allowing one tap per building per turn.

As a point of note a worker is a cheap commodity.

Which would you prefer to see?

Joined: 02/18/2009
I like the allocation of

I like the allocation of workers without a tap limit or a "highish" tap limit. The idea of having buildings being built in an order of personal priority is appealing. Cheers Relexx!

Louard's picture
Joined: 02/09/2010
I like both...

I'm not being indecisive I actually like both as the solution. You sort of assume players always have a base workforce that will account for buildings untapping automatically themselves over 1 to 3 turns, however if you choose to speed this process up, you can spend workers (hiring extra work crews) to do some extra untapping too.

I would, in this case make workers less of a cheap commodity and also consider ways workers could be spent on other things to make the choice all the more interesting.

Pastor_Mora's picture
Joined: 01/05/2010
Workers limit

If you don't use a limit to the amount of workers that a player can allocate in a construction, the player will always choose to put all in one. That way, if you have 3 workers and 3 building projects that require 9 worker-time, you will finish the first in turn 3, the second in turn 6 and the third in turn 9. If you choose to split those 3 workers evenly, you won't have a building until turn 9. This is simple math. Use worker's limit to contain expansion. Workers limit hurts the leader player more than the weaker ones, so it's a balancing feature (positive feedback).

PS do you have a name for the game? do you mind using it on top of your posts so it's easier to know what you are talking about?

Keep thinking!

Relexx's picture
Joined: 05/31/2010
Pastor_Mora wrote:PS do you

Pastor_Mora wrote:
PS do you have a name for the game? do you mind using it on top of your posts so it's easier to know what you are talking about?
Actually Village is the game, for some reason it does not appear to be taken, Villages was used as a computer game and converted to a board game (all be it badly by reports)

Relexx's picture
Joined: 05/31/2010
After reading your comments,

After reading your comments, and thank you very much, I have failed you all in missing a vital piece of information.

At present workers (peasants as they are in the game) may be part of a cost to build structure, and just like other commodities in the game they are spent and lost, so you would have to hire new peasants. This is the reasoning behind them being cheap.

Take the Blacksmith building at present, it requires the following resources 1 peasant, 1 food, 1 lumber, 1 stone and 2 turns to build. This represents the blacksmith (and food for him), and the building itself.

If I follow you correctly Pasta_Mora, did you assume that the player had X allocatable worker units per turn in the second option? Thus allocating them created the turn taps? If this is the case then I would agree with your assertions. However I was meaning that you purchase a new worker and expend them to create the turn tap, thus if you purchased 3 workers you could tap 3 buildings all at once, thus creating them simultaneously.

Joined: 06/28/2010

After reading your latest comment i have to go with the first one. I think ultimately losing a worker for making a building would be more frustrating to a player than anything because it leaves the audience wondering why. I do think the second idea would work but i think itd be more frustrating than the first.

Joined: 01/26/2009
strategy, predictability and re-playability

The game will be more readily re-playable if new players have less strategy to worry about building on.

The predictability of the first option is more solid for gameplay, in that it will create a ticking clock for opponents (and your opponents' buildings will do the same for you). Once you see a building being created, you know you have X turns to react (or complement the action with your own building, etc.)

It depends on the thematic style your game is employing. In Settlers of Catan, we understand that peasants and colonists are toiling to lay cobble in fields and along brick mines, but that is never entered in as a part of gameplay. You simply give them the wood and brick, and they (like a broadway show's stage crew) do all the work behind-the-scenes. The road is, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous, and not only does it not detract from gameplay, but takes away a large part of the resource management mechanic so the players can focus mainly on an overarching strategy.

If you are working more toward a "systems management" game, like Starcraft (yes, I know it's a computer game), in which you must manage several systems, all drawing from the same pool of resources in order to more realistically portray the offsets of reallocating those resources, then I would go with the second option.

It really depends on the remainder of the game, how complex other elements are by comparison, and the overarching stylistic dynamic you're going for. If you want a (relatively) quick, replayable strategy game, I would go with option 1, but if you want a more realistic, RTS type management-style game (like Civilization, Axis and Allies, Shogun, etc) then go with the second option. Both are good and enjoyable, but will appeal to completely different audiences in most cases.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut