Recommend
21 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: 4p [+] 2p [+] 3p [+] decktet [+] decktet_game [+] [View All]
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Emissary
~ An intriguing Decktet 4X game for 2-4 players

aka Hegemonic Express

In the distant hinterlands, beyonds the well-traveled mountains and forests, unfolds a curious landscape occupied by the denizens of six nomadic city states. These wandering tribes disregard sovereign boundaries, allowing their populations, government centers, and developments to intertwined into a mystifying and moving mosaic of alliances and settlements. Into this confusion are dispatched the Emissaries of the Great Empires, political agents with a knack for subterfuge. The Emissaries vie for influence among the city states in an effort to unify the region under their patron’s imperial rule.



~ Required Components ~

- Emissary PnP Cards (Landscape Style, 13mb, 8 pages of card faces)

- Resource Tokens: Suit tokens corresponding to each of the 6 Decktet suits, approximately 15 tokens of each color should be sufficient.

- Influence Tokens: Each player will need exactly 15 small influence tokens in a unique color, preferably not in the same color and/or shape as the Decktet suit tokens.




~ Game Rules ~

Emissary Rulebook (v11)





~ Design Concept ~

01 ~ Design Premise

I've been really digging into the Decktet card system lately. For those who don't know, the decktet is a deck of cards that follow the format of a traditional deck of cards, with ranks and suits - except that there are 6 ranks and most of the cards are dual (or even triple) suited. This makes for a really rich set of opportunities for exploring more complex/intricate games. There are many fantastic games for the Decktet, yet I couldn't resist trying my hand at making my own.

As an entry for his contest, I chose make it Hegemonic Express, re-themed to fit the mythos of the Decktet realm. Hegemonic is a heavy space 4X style game (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) being released later this year by Minion Games. I wanted to see if the Decktet, as a generic card system, would have the chops to replicate the dynamics found in a big 4X game. So far, I’ve been pleasantly surprised!

Hegemonic, has a few key ideas inspired by the 4X genre, but with its own unique approach, that are important to the gameplay; and for an “express” version to replicate.

- In Hegemonic, players have some control over how the galaxy is explored and what opportunities are created where. Emissary plays with this idea by allowing players to swap explored (and undeveloped) locations into or out of their hand in order to push the board topology in a strategically beneficial direction.

- In Hegemonic, player empires don’t have discrete boundaries, and multiple players can occupy the same sectors and regions of space. In turn, Emissary allows multiple players to build up influence on the same card(s).

- In Hegemonic, all the action is funneled into an area majority scoring mechanic. Emissary uses the dual suited nature of the Decktet cards to form regions by having adjacent cards that share a suit form a larger region. Players relative levels of influence within these player-defined regions drives the games scoring mechanics.

- What’s 4X without some conflict? Like in Hegemonic, there is a tension in how you use your cards, either for technology or for use in engagements. Emissary takes a similar approach, with cards in your hand being used for resources or being held back for use in fights. Like Tigris & Euphrates (that inspired parts of Hegemonic), combat is based around the strength of attacking/defending networks as a result of its position within the region.



~ Status ~

I'm currently playtesting this game (see the rules linkes above). I haven't had a chance to play face-to-face with other humans, so I'm hoping to do that soon. But my solo tests are proving quite promising. if you have a Decktet set already (or are looking for an excuse to get one) - please try out Emissary and let me know what you think.

I'll be continuing to work on this during (and probably after) the design competition.

Cheers!



This the Work-In-Progress Thread for a game I am designing that uses the Decktet card system and is my entry into the In-a-Tin / Express PnP Design Contest.

Contest Discussion Thread: "In-A-Tin" / "Express" Print-and-Play Design Contest - Discussion Thread

Contest Geeklist Entry: Item for Geeklist ""In-A-Tin" / "Express" Print-and-Play Design Contest - Contestants"

Contest Submission Entry: Item for Geeklist "2013 "In-A-Tin" / "Express" Print-and-Play Design Contest - Final Submission List"
9 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Curious Case of the Decktet 4X Game [Playtesting]
holy f*cking shit.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Curious Case of the Decktet 4X Game [Playtesting]
We will be testing this for sure.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Curious Case of the Decktet 4X Game [Playtesting]
NateStraight wrote:
holy f*cking shit.


Thanks for the interest and the display of enthusiasm! It’s still pretty raw – so of course I welcome your input on it. Cheers!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Curious Case of the Decktet 4X Game [Playtesting]
I’ve updated the rules a bit. And I’ll try to leave them be for a little while. Here’s the abbreviated list of changes:

- Minor reorganization. I moved some items into the “Key Concepts” section and added some additional items.

- Adjusted the layout for 4-players, adding the Excuse card into the center and shrinking the size slightly.

- Tweaked the extermination / conflict procedure. I omitted an intended rule that adjacent crowns provide extra strength in combat among other edits.

- Added some notes about how Pawns & Courts in your hand are used (in Key Concepts).

- Tweaked the end game procedure so all players get an equal number of turns – and we’ll try it with reshuffling the discard pile once. Makes the game a tad longer.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gene Moore
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
I haven't gotten the Decktet out since my last playtest of Ruta. I'll have to give this one a try.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Did some 2-player (real human) testing last night. Here are some observations and possible revisions:

(1) Pacing

We played going through the draw deck only once, and with 2-players the pacing worked out pretty well. The draw pile was running out right around when the board was fully explored and we had most of our influence tokens down.

At least in the 2-player game, and maybe the 3-player, I don’t think there is a need to go through the draw pile twice. Once is enough to basically fill out of the board.

(2) Placing multiple tokens on a card as part of one expand action - Remove
Following from the above, I don't like the rule that you can build multiple influence tokens on a single card as part of one action. It's nice in that you can save up for a big move, but it's a little too swingy and doesn't impose any lost opportunity costs for how strong it can be.

(3) Exterminating … or not?
We actually played without exterminating (i.e. attacking) - which my opponent (my wife in this case) felt was both overly confusing relative to the rest of the gameplay, and also not really necessary. There is already a lot of interaction and conflict. The game worked well without it, although we both ran out of cubes to place since attacking wasn’t removing any from the board.

I’m the on the fence about this part of the rules - I’m not sure the game needs attacking, but at the same time its a nice element I feel. Perhaps it exists as an extended game variant only - coupled with going through the draw deck twice. Not sure yet.

(4) Resource Collection
I need to standardize this for clarity in all situations. There are three ways to get resources: collect from cards on the map (by naming a rank), explore and keep a card in place to collect from it, discard a card to collect from it. To the extent possible, all three should work in the same way. As follows:

- Aces = collect 3 in shown suit

- Rank 2-9 = collect 1 resource in each suit

- Crown = collect 2 resources in shown suit. If crown is on the table, collect 2 resources per influence token on it.

(5) In terms of resource flows, the economy overall seems pretty balanced. We both had periods of surplus and then periods of shortage. On the whole, I think there are probably too many resources to be had - so I think some tweaks are in order to force some tougher trade-offs or a little more planning.

A) When expanding on a Tier 2 or 3 card (Ranks 4-9), you need to pay at least 1 of each resource shown on the card. So expanding on the 8 of Leaves/Waves would require 3 total resources (per the current rules) - at at least 1 each of a wave of leaf.

B) Add in the ability to convert 3 resources to 1 of a different color. While this does give more flexibility, it also means you can burn through excess resources that you have a lot of, but could be useful in the future.

C) Limit discarding a card in your hand for resources to ONCE per turn. If you discard during the turn, you don’t need to discard at the end.

6) Influence tokens
I think we may need more tokens per player. I was using 12, and with 1 going on your Origin card, that’s only 11 tokens to place on the map. On average, with 14 cards in the map there are ~30 points worth of “spaces” to place influence tokens. Indeed, when we ran out we added more cubes and 3-5 cubes each saw the board totally fill out. So I’m thinking 15 or 18 per player is probably the sweet spot (12 being too low).

That’s all the moment - thanks!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
More tweaking thoughts...

Expanding
Despite the previous post - I think I need to re-add the ability to place multiple tokens as part of 1 expansion phase. Without it, I'm finding that players have too many resources lying about relative to the number of actions they can make to spend them. Saving up resources to do a build at greater action efficiency is a nice perk too.

Scoring
Still need to test this idea: I want the scoring to factor in the rank/value of the cards in someway. Really, a 9 is no better or different than a 7 (outside of using the conflict rules). Here's the idea:

When a district is scored, the player with the most influence choses one card in the district and scores points equal to that cards rank. Then the player with the next most influence choses a card to score that hasn't already been counted for this district's scoring. Cycle through all the players until all cards in the district have been scored once (and only once).

So the player with the most influence gets the first pick, and may end up scoring more cards than other players depending on the size of the district and number of players in the game - which is an interesting twist that makes controlling district size a little more strategic. In a 2-player game for example, a district of three cards will let the player with the most influence score two of those cards, while the second place player scores just one. There is an incentive to prevent the district from growing to four cards, since your opponent will score another. If it does go to four, then trying to get it to five cards is advantageous. Nifty eh?

What was bothering me in the previous scoring, particularly in a 2-player game, was the scores were too all or nothing – and the rank of the card’s didn’t really come into play either.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Development continues ...

The new scoring approach (described above) works better. The scores are a little closer and "feel" more in alignment with players relative level of influence as observed during the game. Before, the scores were too swingy, especially with 2-players. I'm still not sure if it's the best approach, but it is a step in the right direction - more depth and simple to score.

Played a 3-player game - and the pacing is off. The deck needs to be shuffled once without a doubt in the 3-player game - going through it only once really only saw the board about half played out.

So I'm wrestling a bit with the end conditions for the game, and it is somewhat wrapped into whether or not the combat rules are included (I've been testing lately without the combat). Combat slows down expansion on the board (as you remove influence tokens) but speeds up the speed you go through the draw pile (since you redraw cards for those played in combat).

I'm tempted to have a double trigger to end the game, as such:

(A) The game ends at the end of a round/cycle is all players cannot make a legal move. This occurs when not using combat and all map locations are maxed out with the maximum number of influence tokens placed on all the cards.

OR

(B) After reshuffling the discard pile once (and only once), the game ends at the end of a round/cycle where one or more players are unable to redraw back up to the hand limit. This trigger works if playing with combat (since otherwise players can always make legal attack moves), and provides a nice end cue without having to play out all your cards either.

Resource balance is getting better!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Working on a little reference card...

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fire Lord
United States
Fort Collins
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Have the rules been updated to your latest thinking?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
roseundy wrote:
Have the rules been updated to your latest thinking?


I just finished updating the rules to reflect all of the above ... Although I now have another thought...




I'm still not perfectly happy with the scoring rules - although I have another idea to try out. My concern with the current one is that by treating the relative amounts of influence players have in a region as a ordinal ranking (i.e. 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, etc.) instead of their absolute position (i.e. 6 influence, 2 influence, 1 influence) I think it will incentivize play towards creating only small 2 card regions with a high value card and a low value card, such that the 1st place player gets the most benefit. Currently, a big high value region (e.g. rank's 9, 7 and 6) in a 3-player game (for example) is terrible - as the 1st place player get's 9 points, then 2nd place get's 7 points, etc. It doesn't matter if the 1st place player has 6 influence and the 2nd and 3rd place have 2 or 1 respectively. The ordinal ranking doesn't care.

So how about this "Alternate Scoring"

When scoring a region, each player subtracts the amount of influence they have in the region from the player with the MOST influence. Next, players subtract that from the SIZE of the district (i.e. number of cards). The resulting value is the number of cards in the region a player may score by adding up the ranks of those cards, starting with the lowest ranked card.

Example: Region with a 9, 7, 6 and 3. Three players have influence as follows: Player A = 4, Player B = 3, Player C = 2.

Player A has the most influence, so their amount of influence, minus itself, is 0. The size of the region is 4, so 4 - 0 = 4. They score each card in the region, earning 3 + 6 + 7 + 9 = 25 points.

Player B has 3 influence, and the difference between their score and the player with the most is 4 - 3 = 1. In turn, they will be able to score 3 cards (4 - 1 = 3), starting with the lowest rank, earning 3 + 6 + 7 = 16 points.

Last, Player C has 2 influence, for a difference of 2 from the player with the most, and can score 2 cards, earning 3 + 6 = 9 points.


Scoring from the bottom up is to ensure that if a "crown" is present and fully maxed out with 3 influence (and consequently worth 12 points), the player with the most influence gets to score that crown.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Mezmorki wrote:

I'm still not perfectly happy with the scoring rules - although I have another idea to try out. My concern with the current one is that by treating the relative amounts of influence players have in a region as a ordinal ranking (i.e. 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, etc.)


This is common in area control games. The advantage of extra cubes (or whatever) is just that it would be harder for another player to surge and steal the area from you.

There's also already this incentive to put in extra cubes in Emmissary: My cubes use up spots where your cubes might have gone.

You worry that the current rule "will incentivize play towards creating only small 2 card regions with a high value card and a low value card", but that might not be true. The second place player in such a region has an incentive to add a second high value card. For example: I am second place in a 9/2 region. If I make it a 9/8/2 region, then I get a net gain of 8 points.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Good points! I hadn't considered the second place player in that context. I can certainly see it working out well. I'll stick with the current scoring for now, and continue testing. Cheers.

Edit: if the "alternate" scoring is used, it should probably be added highest to lowest in further examination, not lowest up.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
pmagnus wrote:
Mezmorki wrote:

I'm still not perfectly happy with the scoring rules - although I have another idea to try out. My concern with the current one is that by treating the relative amounts of influence players have in a region as a ordinal ranking (i.e. 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, etc.)


This is common in area control games. The advantage of extra cubes (or whatever) is just that it would be harder for another player to surge and steal the area from you.

There's also already this incentive to put in extra cubes in Emmissary: My cubes use up spots where your cubes might have gone.

You worry that the current rule "will incentivize play towards creating only small 2 card regions with a high value card and a low value card", but that might not be true. The second place player in such a region has an incentive to add a second high value card. For example: I am second place in a 9/2 region. If I make it a 9/8/2 region, then I get a net gain of 8 points.


On further reflection, here are some additional thoughts regarding the scoring system you reference (this all excludes use of the conflict mechanics):

- It's relatively easy in the game to break into a region with a single influence, and it's in the interest of the 2nd place player to do so with a high value card if possible - netting them a lot of gain for little effort. This isn't bad, but it feels a little "cheap" to me.

- I'm attracted to the idea of incentivizing creation of larger regions. It makes the map less atomized and provides more avenues of entry into a region, which makes the dynamics for 3 and 4 player games a bit more interesting. Granted, with the above scoring the 3rd and 4th players have an interest in adding a card to the region to score something from it - but this scoring opportunity mostly only affects their own scoring prospects, as the region as a whole is not realized in its entire value by any one player.

- Strengthening your amount of influence relative to other players is well and good - but I feel like this relative difference should flow into the scoring as well to incentivize sustained competition. If someone has 5 influence in a region, and I only have 1, chances are I'll never bother investing more in the region as I'll never be able to to get 1st place. Likewise the other player doesn't have much interest in further investment, their lead is already solidified. With the way expansion and early influencing works, players would have their early regions with a lot of control and wouldn't play a meaningful part of the conflict.

- Overall, I'm not discounting this scoring approach - but it feels a tad "gamey" too - needlessly tricky from a tactical standpoint with different player choices leading to greater point discrepancies in somewhat non-obvious ways. Maybe that makes for a better game though?




The alternative scoring system requires an extra step to calculate, but I feel the resulting scores better reflect the actual board state - which is something I like. While it may make the tactical choices with respect to a single region less interesting (more influence relative to the leader is always better, unless I can't get enough to score) - it shifts the focus more towards how you balance your influence across all the regions. It may also drive more interest cost-benefit type of considerations. Whether or not I even break into a region (a no brainer in the original scoring) has to be weighed against whether or not I can narrow the gap with the leader, and/OR increase the district size, to score some cards.

Decisions, decisions...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Oh the plight of scoring mechanics!

I’ve played a few more games, both face-to-face and solo, to test out the scoring options a bit more. After discussing things with the playtesters I’m leaning towards going back to the original scoring approach - or some variation of it. Here is for reference:

Original Scoring
In each region, players subtract the number of influence the player with the least influence has from their own influence. Multiply the resulting value by the total number of cards in the region to determine your score.

The advantages of this scoring approach are thus:

- Of all the scoring methods, it’s the easiest to do, requiring the least mathematical steps to tabulate. The final numbers are smaller as well, making the overall game totals easier and faster to add up.

- Generally the incentives are right. Once you are in a region, you always have an incentive to increase the amount of influence you have, even if in last place, as it reduces everyone else’s score.

- Encourages the creation of bigger regions to take advantage of the multiplier effect, which I like because bigger regions mean more opportunities for more players to get in on the competition, which means more interaction.

There are two things it doesn’t really do, which is the compromise. First, it doesn’t account for the rank value of the cards in anyway - other than the rank’s determine the amount of influence tokens that can be placed on the card. Not a big deal really.

Second, in a 3+ player game - if two players are competing in a region and close in relative influence, it doesn’t make sense for a 3rd (or 4th) player to jump into the region, because you’re actually giving players more points if you do.

For example, say there is a 4 card district with a 9, 7, 6, and 3. Say the region is influenced such that Player A has 5 influence, and Player has 3. Currently, Player A scores (5 - 3) x 4 = 8 points and Player B + C score 0. If Player C were to build one influence in the region, Player A scores (5 - 1) x 4 = 16 and Player B scores (3 - 1) x 4 = 8 points.

Anyway, it’s simple tweak to fix - all you need to do is make it so that in the first case up above, player C is considered to have the least influence at “0” in the region. Players A & B score 20 and 12 points respectively - and there is an incentive for Player C to build into the region to reduce their scores.

Alternatively, you could simplify the whole thing even more - and each player scores their number of influence * the region size. The numbers are bigger, but the relative amounts are the same.

Conflicts ... or Not?

I’ve done some thinking about conflicts. In almost all of my testing, I haven’t bothered trying the conflict mechanics, and frankly I don’t know if the game needs it. I do know the current implementation is too complex and fiddly - so I want to try something else.

However, I was also thinking of other ways to handle the conflicts. Here’s one though:

True to the idea of “ousting or exiling” other player’s influence, rather than destroying/removing the pieces, what if winning the conflict allowed you to “push” someone’s influence token to an adjacent card - provided there is room on that card for another influence token. Or - it could be setup as a choice for the loser, such that they either (A) allow the winner to push the losers token onto another open card; or (B) let the token be removed but collect the resources (or half the resources?) used to pay for the attack. Could be interesting.

In terms of the conflict resolution mechanics, some simplification is in order:

Pay 2 resources, matching the attacking card, for each influence token the opponent has on the target card. Then do the following:

(1) Each player starts with strength equal to their attacking or defending card’s tier (1, 2 or 3).

(2) Each player adds the number of their influence tokens on their attacking/defending card as well as the number of their influence tokens on adjacent cards in the same region(s) to their strength total.

(3) Each player selects and simultaneously reveals a card from their hand, addings its tier level (1, 2 or 3) to their strength total. Crowns auto-win. If both players player a crown, they cancel each other. Ace’s auto-win if the opponent plays a Crown, otherwise they provide 1 (for tier 1).

If the defender loses, for each point they lost by one of their influence tokens in the targeted card is pushed out. The defender decides for each token to either:

A) place it on an open card in a region from where the region(s) it originally occupied. This open card can must be adjacent to its originally occupied card.

or

B) Remove the influence token entirely and collect 1 resource of any suit.

I’m looking forward to trying this out. Cheers!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Mezmorki wrote:

Anyway, it’s simple tweak to fix - all you need to do is make it so that in the first case up above, player C is considered to have the least influence at “0” in the region. Players A & B score 20 and 12 points respectively - and there is an incentive for Player C to build into the region to reduce their scores.


Note that you would need this rule even in the two-player game. Otherwise, a player who is alone in a region would earn zero points for dominating it! ninja

Quote:

Alternatively, you could simplify the whole thing even more - and each player scores their number of influence * the region size. The numbers are bigger, but the relative amounts are the same.


Just making it influence*size would be more intuitive, I think. As you note, it would change neither the outcome (who wins) or the margin (how much they win by).

In Colour Bazaar, scoring is just chips*value. There's a tip at the end which suggests discarding chips when each player has at least one, so as to make scoring easier. You could do it similarly here. That way, the part with strategic consequences is clear from the rules (every influence marker increases your score by the size of the region) and there's a suggestion to keep the numbers smaller.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Yes - you are right regarding one player only being in a region

I updated the rules to just be (influence) * (region size), with one small tweak. The second place player subtracts 1 from the region size, the 3rd place player subtracts 2, etc. Maybe it's not neccessary but it comes into play with ties (which occur fairly often). The tie breaker is whoever has the most influence on the highest ranked card in the region - so they get a perk in this case instead of the scores being the same.

Maybe it's too cumbersome and doesn't matter - not sure yet.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Mezmorki wrote:

Maybe it's too cumbersome and doesn't matter - not sure yet.


I think it is more cumbersome than can be justified by what it does. If you want order to matter, rather than just total influence, then it should matter more.

You could make scoring be straight influence*size, but add a separate bonus: +X points at the end for controlling the largest region.

A player could vie for this bonus by trying to control a particular large region, or by trying to make a different region that's larger.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Yeah, I think you are right. I'll pull this out of the rules - not really neccesary.

I wonder about the bonus idea though. There could be a bunch of bonus categories...

- Player controlling the biggest district
- Player with influence in the most number of districts
- Player controlling the most crowns/aces

This could just be further complicating things though...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ghislain LEVEQUE
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Mezmorki wrote:
Yeah, I think you are right. I'll pull this out of the rules - not really neccesary.

I wonder about the bonus idea though. There could be a bunch of bonus categories...

- Player controlling the biggest district
- Player with influence in the most number of districts
- Player controlling the most crowns/aces

This could just be further complicating things though...


I played with the influence*(size-reverse rank) rule and it felt nice and right.

I think bonuses can be really nice ! We could even think about hidden objecsives by using the remaining pawns and courts
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Some thoughts for end-game bonuses:

Biggest Region: +1 point for each card in the region for being the player with the most influence in the biggest region.

Most Regions: The player with the most influence in the greatest number of regions earn +2 points for each region in which they have majority control.

Crowns & Aces: The player with influence on the most Crown and Ace cards recieves +1 points for each influence token they have on a Crown or Ace.




Still thinking of strippig out the attack action... thoughts?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Mezmorki wrote:

Biggest Region: +1 point for each card in the region for being the player with the most influence in the biggest region.

Most Regions: The player with the most influence in the greatest number of regions earn +2 points for each region in which they have majority control.


Most regions encourages lots of small regions, which seems like the opposite of what you want.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ghislain LEVEQUE
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Mezmorki wrote:

Biggest Region: +1 point for each card in the region for being the player with the most influence in the biggest region.


Hum... this is win to win, you will probably award a bonus to the player that already wins the game

Mezmorki wrote:

Most Regions: The player with the most influence in the greatest number of regions earn +2 points for each region in which they have majority control.


This seems like a cool way to balance the "big region => big winner" stuff

Mezmorki wrote:

Crowns & Aces: The player with influence on the most Crown and Ace cards recieves +1 points for each influence token they have on a Crown or Ace.


I like this one very much, it rewards the player that tried to build an economic




Mezmorki wrote:

Still thinking of strippig out the attack action... thoughts?


Don't, it can be usefull... but you should try to simplify it
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: [WIP] [Express PnP Contest] Emissary - The Decktet 4X / Civ Game [Playtesting]
Take a look at the current oust action rules - I did some tweaking. It's a bit simpler now. Basically, each player just takes their number of influence tokens on their attacking or defending card, plus the number of their influence on adjacent cards (doesn't need to match suits), then you add the card from your hand.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.