วีดีโอ

make bridges also cost 1 brick

pls pls finish and put it for sale

may you make the map bigger and put 4 or 6 players?

Concerning the General piece you mentioned in the video. I absolutely agree with you that it would be too simplistic to have the entire game be dependent on that one piece, however, what if you used the general as an ultimate support unit? What if the General unit was very expensive to purchase and also had demanding requirements to allow the player to be eligible to purchase it? From there, as I said, the General would be the ultimate support unit allowing ally pieces adjacent to it to have special abilities. (Perhaps they can attack twice instead of once?) I will leave the specific nature of the General’s benefits to be up to you, because you are a lot more acquainted with the minute specificities of the game. I really enjoy how everything is coming along so far, keep up the good work!

I wanted to expand on my idea about indigenous populations. There would be a random hex or three that have are marked with an indigenous settlement. An indigenous unit will be placed there. If the unit is killed while not on its settlement: it respawns on the settlement. If the unit is killed while on the settlement, the settlement is displaced. Pick up that Hex and swap it with another hex on the board. -Put it someplace inconvenient for your opponent (kinda like the robber in Catan) If you place the tribe where it can support/recapture another tribe, it would be very hard to displace. If you have hostile relations with the tribe. Indigenous units will attack. If you want a peaceful relationship, then there’s a resource cost. (That would be the main way to move military units through their territory) It would be cool to have a bonus for Diplomatic Relations with them. You’d probably have to build a Trading Post, like building a Port for a trading bonus. I think it would make sense for the Trading Post to not affect the trading ratio you get with the Harbor. Instead, it could decrease the cost of infantry/cavalry units. Like you’re recruiting soldiers and buying horses.

p1 is red, p2 is blue, vc is victory condition i have an idea, now lets say p1 got a vc, lets say conquest, it doesn't matter, but p2 also got a vc, lets say economic, again it doesn't matter, then the one closest to getting a third vc, lets say super project, i think you got that it dosn't really matter who got wich vc but i will say that it dosn't matter anyway, wins, so if p1 gets the most land but p2 gets the most recourses then if red came closest to build elizebeth tower p1 wins but if p2 got closest to building the eiffel tower p2 wins

I think looking at the Advance Wars series could be a good place to get inspiration. There's generally three conditions, capture the most property, capture your opponent's base and defeat all enemy units. Even if you're not going for the property condition, capturing property is important because you get more money which can be used to buy more units and you can also deploy more units from the property you've captured. With the other conditions used to prevent infinitely long games since property usually ends up being divided 50/50. I really like the idea of building the game's economy around resource cards. I could see a mechanic where you need resource cards to build settlements and you could only deploy soldiers from those settlements which could be destroyed or taken over. It could create a win condition where the opponent simply doesn't have the resources to keep going and be forced to resign. It'd be less like having the bigger stick and more like having a pencil that wears down over time.

It would also be fun if there could be more than 2 players. You know, like up to 6 players, and in that case, 3-4 times more tiles. Trade is now possible but limited, and if we add more players, there could be strategic alliances or even a whole coalition against the winning player. If you really want to create the perfect strategy board game, you should consider that. Also, as I understand, you are managing and creating a colony. Have you thought about maybe adding a neutral, non-playable faction? They would take up space on the board, and perhaps you could recruit units from them.

I would not say all water tiles should be connected but like it is okay to have a lake of 7 to 8 tiles. So you might need two fleets

I would like some sort of science involved. Like for example you can change a tile from for example water to a new tile which can be imagined like a dam and in order to do that you have to invest resources over the course of a couple of turns. You could trap enemies boats with it or give you better defensive terrain. To make it less powerfull it might need a range limit. It would then be a building you can set up in a colony. Also you could add a builder who can not attack but move one tile and build something like a wall on a tile. Both of these would offer a playstyle which does not focus on getting a big army but a smal,er and strong one. Btw I really am fascinated by that game. It really is not game but a piece of strategic art.❤

Perhaps you could do it like catan where you get a victory point for different things. Maybe players can build projects with resources to get points but also get points for ports and castles. Then they just need to get a certain amount of points to win. This would encourage balanced gameplay

Catan gives you points for everything so you can take whatever path you want as long as it gets you points. I think resources, units, ports, etc. should all be worth various point values and the first player to X points wins. Also having specific achievements that give additonal points could be good to. For example having 1 Infantry, Cavalary, and a Cannon could give you some kind of military achievement that grants points or having 1 of each resources of 5 of the same resource could give you additonal points. So on so forth.

I came up with an idea that I believe could make the Cavalry unit as thrilling as it’s portrayed in history. My suggestion is to turn the Cavalry into an elite unit, something players would be genuinely excited to use. I've detailed my thoughts in the Shared Google Doc linked below. Google Doc ID: 1YhSd8b-Mv-9Kq9mzvmK88ZGIQatEGsmkk5v2ZcofKIU [TH-cam does not allow me to comment direct link to google docs for some reason]

I came up with an idea that I believe could make the Cavalry unit as thrilling as it’s portrayed in history. My suggestion is to turn the Cavalry into an elite unit, something players would be genuinely excited to use. I've detailed my thoughts in the Shared Google Doc linked below. Google Doc ID: 1YhSd8b-Mv-9Kq9mzvmK88ZGIQatEGsmkk5v2ZcofKIU [TH-cam does not allow me to comment direct link to google docs for some reason]

I came up with an idea that I believe could make the Cavalry unit as thrilling as it’s portrayed in history. My suggestion is to turn the Cavalry into an elite unit, something players would be genuinely excited to use. I've detailed my thoughts in the Shared Google Doc linked below. Google Doc ID: 1YhSd8b-Mv-9Kq9mzvmK88ZGIQatEGsmkk5v2ZcofKIU [TH-cam does not allow me to comment direct link to google docs for some reason]

Hi Julian, A few weeks ago, I came across a video about the board game you're developing, and I was immediately excited to try it out. Using pieces from various board games I had at home, I started playtesting it with a friend. We found the mechanics really engaging and had a great time playing. However, we felt that the Cavalry unit didn’t quite live up to the excitement that a Cavalry should bring. After giving it some thought, I came up with an idea that I believe could make the Cavalry unit as thrilling as it’s portrayed in history. My suggestion is to turn the Cavalry into an elite unit, something players would be genuinely excited to use. I've detailed my thoughts in the Shared Google Doc linked below. Google Doc ID: 1YhSd8b-Mv-9Kq9mzvmK88ZGIQatEGsmkk5v2ZcofKIU [TH-cam does not allow me to comment direct link to google docs for some reason]

As you have said. Having a good wining condition is very important. Thats why i ussualy start creating a board game after I found a good win condition.

How would it feel to win as ruler? -> You stay in power. - so it has to be hard to stay in power because of three reasons maybe 1. you have to not lose the favour of your own population. not enough ressources, victories -> they overthrow you. 2. you have to not get conquered by the other player 3. a simulated NPC or outer threat could help make the game more diplomatic. The three options should apply so much pressure that decisions are interesting. Do I wanto to win against the other player or join forces to defeat the outer threat. But that may makes me look weaker and lose the favour of my population, so I would lose anyway -> maybe join the outer threat to defeat the other player ... or go completely solo.

here's an idea each player start the game with 5 VP you gain more VP or decrease other players VP by controlling the key areas in the map there is like 5 of them, one can be near each player starting tile but other can be all over the map when you have a colony in this key areas you have two option ( you have to use resource for them) 1:increse your VP by 1 - 2: decrease your enemy VP by 1 and if you have a fort in that area you can do both or the value goes up (from 1 to 2) now you can have 2 victory condition: 1) reach a certain number in VP to win 2) decrease other players VP to 0

Why not create an end goal for examples when all colony’s are build And have different points How many colony’s you have captured Units Combat victories Recourses

This game screams of being over-designed and attempting to do way too much. There is an entire card game to resolve combat. You are adding diplomacy and building mechanics to something that is already attempting to do both tactical and strategic combat. I am suspicious that this channel is knowingly building hype for something that is not functional.

you can combine those victory condition with a system of victory point . for exemple the big project gives a lot of point each colony gives victori point to , we can also imagine that the general pieces gives point the goals would be to get more point that the over . I thinks that this system would allows a lots of different strategy .

I’m thinking of a few simple win conditions. I think having a win condition for each type of “historical victory” would be great, and make the game feel more open to make decisions, while also making the game more interesting, fun, and still realistic. Historical Victory Types: Conquest Treaty Dominance Conquest: Simply Put, you win by a devastating and powerful war victory. Perhaps you destroy a vital building or simply destroy so much that they have no chance of return and therefore you conquer that nation. Treaty: Sounds boring, is boring, but each nation decides to not engage is war and decides to agree to a truce. I suppose so one wins here, but it would be an option in real life. Dominance: Similar to the 2/3 of the board idea, but focused more on economy and that. Perhaps a nation is so grand and dominant that they basically just win. (A last second idea that isn’t as thought out would be Respect. Perhaps you incorporate a sense of right and wrong within the game so that citizens may respect, fear, or hate you. Leading to more citizens choosing you, citizens partially following simply out of fear, or citizens leaving you out of hate. This idea may not fit your game or ideas, but it’s an idea that can be built off of or forgotten tbh) I think the idea of using Historical Win Conditions and giving Players a few options, not too many or it gets chaotic and complicated, but enough to give a sense of freedom.

Love the occupation idea, losing a colony to a battle can hurt really badly and give a huge economic advantage to the person taking it whitout giving a real chance to take it back Like the economic victory condition too, i would maybe suggest the following: introduce some sort of currency in the game that you can get by trading ressources for it and by building a bank that can gives passive income each time it is your turn. The win condition would be getting maybe 10coins. (Would have to play test it) This means that when an ennemy troop occupies your colony you can keep it's regular income fish, wheat, wood, and so on but if there is a bank that income would go to the invader Theses coins could also be used to pay for ressources or mercanary troops

When you said "having a General piece" I heard "having a general peace". So basically (read in a tale tellers voice): _The word was once at peace, and everybody was working harmoniously together. Over time tension built up between the nations and at long last, one nation finally gave into temptation. And war came over the land._

Maybe this is kinda unrelated to the video, but it’s something I am curious about, in the game can we choose to build both tall and wide? I mean, from what I see it seems the more colonies you have, the more powerful you are, but it would be nice to also be able to have one single OP colony, it could even open possibilities for new victory conditions, idk. This could be done by being able to upgrade your colonies, similar to Catan where you can upgrade villages to cities. Or smt like civ, and you can expand the colonies, being able to collect resources from further away.

I like the idea of building a supermonument as a final goal. A possibility for this might be to only allow for building on these supermonuments if players hold at least 3 colonies or something balanced. Then the other have to work together to stop a winning player from finishing his monument. Each turn you fullfill the requirements for building on the start of you turn you van build one of the 3/4 layers, so players are not only focussed on claiming land but also holding it long enough to build their ultimate building.

Twilight Imperium Much?

Love the video series! Hey- what about “secret victory conditions” ? Each player chooses a card at the beginning and keeps it secret until they succeed- it’s always fun when you don’t what your opponents end game actually are.

I think that you should explore the diplomatic way a bit furthur, especially regarding the victory conditions

Your videos are great but the ultimate strategy board game already exists. It's called Inis. Best of luck on your journey non the less!

For all have sinned and the wages of sin is death but the free gift of god is eternal life in Christ Jesus God alone

I really like the idea of keeping one infantry in a conquered colony! Not only is it much more historically accurate, it would also be a drain on the occupier since he would have a portion of his army tied down. this in turn could lead to a really powerful player being stretched thin. another idea is that when occupying an enemy colony you get to use it as one of your own, however, maybe after a few turns of occupying it you could have the option to pay a certain amount of resources and turn that colony into his own, thereby freeing up his infantry.

I think victory conditions are meh An "end of game" condition with scoring can open way more possibilities for a player to win a game End the game when X colonies have been built, end the game after X turns ... Then you count the points : 1 point for every resource in your hand, 10 points if you built a wonder, X points for every opponent settelement you control ...

I love the tension of 7 Wonders Duel. From BGG: “You can win 7 Wonders Duel in one of three ways: each time you acquire a military card, you advance the military marker toward your opponent's capital (also giving you a bonus at certain positions). If you reach the opponent's capital, you win the game immediately. Or if you acquire six of seven different scientific symbols, you achieve scientific dominance and win immediately. If none of these situations occurs, then the player with the most points at the end of the game wins.”

Hy ! How about "Honor" as a winning condition? If you win a fight . Get some honor. If you sell recources cheap . Get some honor. Bribes could get honor ore take it away. Depending who you bribe ! All the involved parties should be in some scoring list. Moving the list up by getting honor. After a certin amount of rounds . The first in the list winns the game ! Stay healthy !

6:06 Keep it simple... if you want a monument, make it a simple one that all players can achieve in the same way... the more differences between the armies, the more balancing required.

What's left unsaid in the video is how the lead-up to victory is experienced by the players. Most important to my own enjoyment is that it's still possible for all players to win up until the very end of the game; it's no fun having to play the last 20 minutes of a game knowing that player A will be the winner regardless what anyone else does.

Have multiple victory conditions. The game could have an "end-game" phase that starts after the final colony is settled, allowing a number of turns to play out to give players time to occupy other's colonies, gather resources, finish their great project, etc. The game ends after this set amount of turns, and whoever has the most resources wins. The game can end earlier if any player reaches any other victory condition such as conquest, great projects, or other. The possibilities of trade-based victory conditions open up when you have 3 or more players, allowing players to ally with each other to form factions, and they can work together to build their great projects, form defensive lines, or go for the resource victory. All players in the alliance of the victor also win, or at least don't lose.

The General could be captured and then ransomed for resources and to make it worth paying the ransom every turn you don’t have your general under your control you loose soldiers because they don’t have a general.

I like multiple ways to win at the same time. So you can have different players using different strategies.

The game already has a lot of depth, so I think adding even more mechanics and content would make it lose it focus and be mostly detrimental. A straightforward win condition, like conquering all enemies, is good enough Perharps you could teak it a little bit investing on the idea of colonies being occupied, rather than conquered. To fully conquest an opponent, you would have to occupy all of its colonies - otherwise, occupation is temporary and can be reverted

So another idea for an economic victory is this: When you put down your second colony, you receive a random card. This card instructs you to gain a certain amount of a certain combination of resources. For example, you draw a card that commands you to possess 30 ore, 20 grain, and 10 fish. If you have the required resources, you may elect declare your objective. Doing so allows the other players one final turn to intervene, possibly stealing your resources to deprive you of victory.

A drawback for multiple victory conditions, which I like, is that you would have to change the tagline

Not all games have a victory condition, most board games kind of need it though.

Back to the roots of the game: you initially wanted a chess like+ Conflict is necessary, stay with the basic victory condition of conquest/annihilation. And stay away from other cultural or economic or diplomatic victories. Distill the experience between 2 nations in friction and eventual conflict. Be wary of feature creep.