Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Help advice on game mechanism rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
José Antonio Rivero
Spain
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Gran Canaria- Canary Islands
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello, I am currently with a design of a boardgame. It is a trading game, and I am blocked with a phase of it. I will try to explain what I need:
In their turn players must draw cards from a pile to get actions (sort of Ticket to ride) and they also must deal with objective cards in another pile.
There will be 25 objectives card on the pile and always 5 of them must be face up. All players may try to get any objective of the face up cards and collect VP when achieved, besides that players gain money from the sale of goods.
Objective can be get more than once by any player until 3 times ( even by the same player and thus more money is gained) , see image below



My question is:
how would you make in order to rotate these objective cards?
Waiting until one of them get the 3 cubes can take a long time and I prefer that it moves quicker but not that quick as a card per term as it would not give time to get the objective.
Any thoughts? All help or ideas on this matter will be welcome
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Harper
United Kingdom
Wantage
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about something like whenever a second cube is put onto a card, the rightmost card is removed from the row, and replaced by a new card on the left.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
José Antonio Rivero
Spain
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Gran Canaria- Canary Islands
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Rob thanks for the idea, I thought about that as well, but I would like at least 3 in order to get more player interaction and struggle among players for particular objectives.
The other problem that I face with your idea is that some cards can go away of the track without even getting a single cube ( an objective fulfilled).

I thought about this as well: The first cube can only be placed when the objective is achieved but the second and third cubes could be placed by any player even without getting the objective (in order to remove that particular card out of the game) but that has to have a cost, which one??

In the game there are coins as currency if that helps
Players also can draw until four actions cards as first phase turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Bird
United Kingdom
Kent
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
It's hard out of context, but how about once any player has placed three of their cubes (i.e. first player to complete three objectives, irrespective of their VP placements within those objectives), either that player can remove any one objective (unachieved or maybe even achieved or unachieved) from the game (thus possibly depriving other players of achieving that objective) or, the player with the most VP points at that point (irrespective of who first achieves three objectives) chooses?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
José Antonio Rivero
Spain
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Gran Canaria- Canary Islands
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello Jamie, Thanks for your idea , this one seems better to be able to apply. You are right out of context is hard to imagine, but think that it is going to be trading routes and sell of goods and that once a player connects one route( objective) he has more chances than another player to repeat again that same objective.

If I understood well your proposal is something like say for instance that the red player gets again one objective (now on second card C-n) and then he has already got 3 cubes on board and can choose any card that he picks and removes from the game, correct?
It could happen also the following that he places his third cube on the very first card (objective A-d), automatically that card must be removed and a new from pile replaces it.
Should he also now choose a second card to be removed?

For the second proposal, the players who has got more VP on all the cards decides which card goes out, it is interenting to study, but how to apply this?? Every turn ? ( this is not prefered as cards will go out very quick) , when a certain number of VP are achieved ? or ?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. Rubinelli
Brazil
flag msg tools
mb
It looks like the problem is that there is very little incentive to put the third cube and get only 1 VP, when you can start a new route, and for the same effort, get 3 VP.

What if you inverted the distribution? Say, 1 VP for the first, 3 VP for the third player to complete an objective. Or 2 VP for the first two players, so being the first isn't as disadvantageous. It may sound unintuitive, but it will force players to finish the objectives that have already been started.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kendall McKenzie
United Kingdom
Bournemouth
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe give the person who finishes the card (i.e. places the third cube), some sort of minor power or bonus? Because the person who started the route gets all the fame for being the first company to connect this route, the second player gets famous too off the coat tails (and fame = VPs), but the third company can build off the experiences of the first two: they know what works on this route and what doesn't and they can leverage that into some sort of bonus like getting a little extra cash from the route or having a slightly easier time building routes in similar locations.

This doesn't actually mechanically rotate the objectives any faster, but encourages players to complete an objective earlier to get the power for longer, plus it should speed up the endgame a little by giving everyone more efficient turns, which could lead to them taking more points and rotating them that way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dogmantra wrote:
Maybe give the person who finishes the card (i.e. places the third cube), some sort of minor power or bonus?


Blue Moon City has something like this.

"The player with the most number of markers on the building (ties broken by the marker farthest left) receives rewards as indicated to the right of the asterix. All contributors receive rewards as indicated below the asterix."



So maybe all players who contribute can draw an extra card or two?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
José Antonio Rivero
Spain
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Gran Canaria- Canary Islands
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry , gulp I forgot to mention earlier that players do not only get VP for achieving objectives but also an important they get money for the sale of goods !!!

It is not a bad idea as Rubinelli suggested to put an inverse order of gaining VP , that is the first player gets only 1, second 2, and third 3, in order to increase interest for that objective. any more ideas ?


OR



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Breckenridge
United States
Richmond
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You could give a player the option of paying some sort of cost on his turn to replace any empty objective cards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Bird
United Kingdom
Kent
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
jarinu wrote:
Hello Jamie, Thanks for your idea , this one seems better to be able to apply. You are right out of context is hard to imagine, but think that it is going to be trading routes and sell of goods and that once a player connects one route( objective) he has more chances than another player to repeat again that same objective.

If I understood well your proposal is something like say for instance that the red player gets again one objective (now on second card C-n) and then he has already got 3 cubes on board and can choose any card that he picks and removes from the game, correct?



Yes, correct. If he has completed three objectives (whether first, second or third), then he gets to remove one objective. I don't know if it would make sense, but I imagine that tactically that could be quite interesting.

Quote:
It could happen also the following that he places his third cube on the very first card (objective A-d), automatically that card must be removed and a new from pile replaces it.
Should he also now choose a second card to be removed?


Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. If his third cube completes an objective totally (that is all three spots have been taken) then maybe no other objective should be removed. Again, this might make it quite 'thinky' in as much as players would have to consider the order in which objectives were completed and be prepared to change that order depending on the moves of others and their own strategy.

Quote:
For the second proposal, the players who has got more VP on all the cards decides which card goes out, it is interenting to study, but how to apply this?? Every turn ? ( this is not prefered as cards will go out very quick) , when a certain number of VP are achieved ? or ?



No, I meant to say, if, for example, player A completed 3 objectives, but at that point, player B had more VP (from objective completion only), then player B would decide which objective (completed or uncompleted if appropriate) should be discarded.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Sevier
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jbrecken wrote:
You could give a player the option of paying some sort of cost on his turn to replace any empty objective cards.


I had this thought as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
José Antonio Rivero
Spain
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Gran Canaria- Canary Islands
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With all the ideas given so far I have come up with this :
A) as soon as an objective card has 3 cubes on it , it will be removed from the track and a new one replaces it.
B) as soon as a player places 4 cubes on the cards he can select any objective card (with or without cubes on it), removes it and replaces it for a new one.



It could work that way....I am still doubting the VP order on the cards: 1-2-3, 3-2-1 or even 1-2-1 ? shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Harper
United Kingdom
Wantage
Oxfordshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jarinu wrote:
It could work that way....I am still doubting the VP order on the cards: 1-2-3, 3-2-1 or even 1-2-1 ? shake


You could always have a mix. No reason they all have to be set up the same way.

Either way, though, you can just make your best guess and then playtest and revise based on how it works in actual play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Austin Andersen
United States
Berrien Springs
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems that there is a simple solution, either increase from 5 cards to more, or reduce the number of cubes that can go on a box from 3 to 2 or 1. Perhaps some cards should only be able to be filled once or twice before being completed. I also don't see why there can only be 5 cards. Perhaps have 2 rows going, where the top row of cards are cards that haven't had anything completed, and another row where objectives are partially completed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
José Antonio Rivero
Spain
Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Gran Canaria- Canary Islands
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reducing the numbers of cubes on several objectives cards is something I havent thought about and it could give a lot of variables to the mechanism.
Adding more face up cards to the track I dont really see it, too many options adds Analysis Paralysis and less struggle and interaction among players for certain objectives.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.