I have been working with a "Medium Euro" Game called "Plains of Aria" (PoA). PoA used to be a simple Tile-Laying game which needed to be dramatically improve IF it was going to be a GAME that I publish.
Therefore from the simple Tile-Laying game, I added a bunch of "Euro"-style Game mechanics and currently have a "Medium Euro" Game. One of the primary aspects of the game is that there is NO "Player Interaction". Every player has their "Sandbox" and "builds" as they see fit without any of the opponents (from 1 to 3) making any "troubles" for the player.
This is all fine and dandy ... But to ME... It feel like the Euro Game is MISSING a "conflict" mechanic to go along with the Euro style of play.
So let me explain and maybe someone may have an idea worthwhile sharing.
***
PoA has Capitals, Townes, and Temples. It also have Knights and Serfs. Lastly it has Game Tiles which are built according to the choice of "territory" (or Pattern) chosen at the beginning of the game. And I would add that all of this is purely Euro as there is no "Battling" or "Conflict" in the game AS-IS.
So where are we now??? Excellent question!
I would want some kind of "Battling" mechanic. Some thing like players who are "battling" for specific territory without impeding on the Euro elements. Kinda like a "Tactical Layer" and it would involve "attacks" and controlling the tiles their opponent(s) have and control.
***
Again I'm not sure... HOW(?) to implement such a layer such that it doesn't affect the "Euro Elements" of the game. Also PoA is a "Sandbox" game meaning that each player has their own area of play.
Let me share some ideas:
There is another rule in that the Game Tile OCCUPIED by a "Serf" must have AT LEAST one (1) Gemstone. Tiles used for buildings do not count. And therefore the need to "sometimes" occupy enemy territory.
And these are all very EURO concepts and imply no "conflict" even if you occupy and opponent's Game Tile, there is no conflict.
Aside from this very unfriendly "occupation" there is no more conflict in PoA other than that. And that's a bit the problem.
***
What I would like is some kind of CONFLICT which would have a Euro Goal: "For each 'occupied' or 'conquered' territory earns +1 Victory Points (VPs)."
This would make that CONFLICT having an important role in the game yet not over taking the entire game away from being a Euro-Style Board Game.
Some ideas that I am thinking about:
- Each tile has a colored cube which represents the OWNER of that tile.
This would be used to determine at a glance which tiles are "occupied" and which are "free" (occupied by the OWNER of that Game Tile).
- Some how Knights (and their Armies) move around the "Sandboxes".
Not sure how movement is to be controlled. If any ... Could this become something more clever, IDK. This requires more thinking!
- I don't want CONFLICT (think Battles) to be the focus of the game.
There are a total of six (6) Knights per player, one (1) for each Level of a player's Capitol.
- Occupation vs. Conflict
I really LIKE the idea of a Game Tile being occupied but not that the game is majorly about attacking and so forth. Again I am unsure how this could work.
I like something like this:
#1> The player with the MOST amount of Temples earns +4 VPs. This could sway the control of one Temple away from an opponent, resulting in the opposing player to earn this "reward".
#2> The player with the MOST Faith produced by Temples earns +5 VPs. Again this too could alter affect the scoring at the end of the game if an opponent would steal control of an opposing Temple.
So the effect of occupation could ALTER scoring in the last few rounds. However there are some thing to consider like:
- Area Control/Majority Rule to be forced on all players. I don't want this to be the dominating method by which players win the game.
- I want it to be more "sporadic" than an all-out occupation. I don't want it to be too "territorial" like one player "moves into" an opponent's territory.
- So the Cubes are only for tiles controlled by an opponent. And I don't want to necessarily be "permanent"... Not sure.
***
I will re-focus as I ponder about these PoA Details. I share them with all of you in the event that anyone has something they might want to discuss or mention or want to point out some kind of "issue(s)".
Cheers all.
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"How to ADD a "conflict" mechanic to a...\""){kind=small}
There are scarcities of resources (so shared resources), there are terrain disputes (so shared terrain), there are limited amount of upgrades (so shared tokens) and usually a pool of victory goals (so shared scoring).
So even as we know it... No DIRECT conflict, Euros have their share of THINGS to BATTLE over or first one served kind of decision making.
Plains of Aria (PoA) has none of these "conflicts" because the initial GOAL was to make a Euro game and I went on an exploratory path leading to the version of the PoA game.
Let me say that it is YEARS above the original ideas... When we were talking about using Magic: the Gathering or Open-World concepts which only work with Video Games, etc. etc.
So I'm not saying that PoA is BAD. On the contrary it's very GOOD. Just missing something to make it GREAT (so-to-speak)!
***
You build a Towne, GOOD. You earn +1 Serf per Towne. That Serf uses a type of "Area Control" mechanic to earn bonus Gold to help in the game. A player may build a Temple once his Towne reaches Level 2 (which costs 2 Coppers and 1 Silver). Now the player has a Towne (Level 2) and a Tower (Level 1). The player decides to upgrade his Town to Level 3 (and spends 3 Coppers). He now decides to make his Towne the Capitol of his realm (and again spends 1 Copper).
This is ALL GOOD... But means that the opponent can't do JACK to stop or even slow down an opponent. Everyone is like on Autopilot and taking care of their own business as if the realm had infinite resources! Haha.
***
But while it's GOOD, it's still not GREAT!
I feel like the opponent "should" be able to throw a wrench into actions every once and a while. No???
Anyhow ... I've seen sh!tty games which hardly made any sense ... But people NOT interested in ANY form of "competition" where the opponent(s) can add some do-do to make the game that much more INTERESTING... Is what I am going for.
Best!