To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/JulianBirke/ You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Mark Rosewater from Wizards of the Coast (Magic the Gathering) as a great talk about game design. One of the things he says is: Your players are great at identifying problems but bad at solving them. Meaning they can tell you exactly which things in your game aren't fun but only you have the tools to fix them properly. So getting feedback on what to change, yes. On HOW to change? No.
@@Dudldom it's funny because I really thought with the playtesting survey, I'd find all the answers I needed. I really didn't account for all the conflicting options it'd cause.
Unless your player also happens to be a game designer. Then they might be good at solving them as well. They could also have their head up their own behind like that one guy that played Metroid Dread.
Dune imperium has a similar mechanic with Intrigue cards. You know how many your opponents have, but you're not sure how many are related to combat. There's also an interesting mechanic where when someone has more than 6 intrigue there is opportunity for other players to steal some.
Right, except the steal limit is four nit six! The original Dune boardgame also has similar mechanics with the item cards you can carry to a combat in a way that some of them are used as "bait" mechanics against your rivals like the laser gun and shield combo.
1 Manouver card (Entrench-Montain, Surprise Attack-Forest, Encircle-Farmland, Outflank-Hills/Water) Is chosen and placed face down only at the start of your turn. Just before a combat start, players (Attacker and or Defender) draws the corresponding tile manouver card (If in a Montain draws entrench). Then the players can choose one of the 2 cards he will use, and in case of tie the defenders win. Outflank beats Encircle Encircle beats Entrench Entrench beats Surprise Attack Surprise Attack beats Outflank If you want the game faster and cheeper in the interaction cost, just make all players choose 1 manouver card all at the same time at the start of the round, and place ir face down, and once a combat starts the involved players reveal their Manouver card. You can also add a special rule to change your Manouver card in their turn but it would be very costly or even limited, like player can only do that 3 times in the whole game. Just a few ideas, loved your game to bits
@@danielkjm I do like the idea of each player having one maneuver face down, and then the option to change it or buy new ones. I'd probably have to change the affects of them.
@@julianbirke I concur. Forcing the players to choose one (and only one) maneuver card at the start of the round forces them to really try to predict enemy movements. (You could even place a normal resource card as a bluff!) By limiting it to one, it keeps the combat fast, as only one combat action will be complicated by maneuvers
I think giving all the resource cards a manoeuvre is a great idea. Because then positioning becomes a lot more important. What a unit can't and cannot do changes, depending on where on the board it stands. BUT If I understand correctly resources are hidden information, right? So even if all the cards contain a manoeuvre you still don't know if your opponent actually has the corresponding card. So it becomes a bit of a bluffing game as well.
@@Dudldom exactly. To me that's part of the of the fun - the bluffing aspect of it. To me they offer the perfect amount of 'chance' to shake up the rigid combat system.
well you know the starting resources and can see which resources get tolled and which cards get taken. if you then keep track of what they spentyou know what they have on hand. good catan players try to do exactly that to gain an advantage
They seem similar to Ambush cards in Root, which add a level of uncertainty to attacks (beyond the dice rolls, who favor the attacker by default) and giving defenders a small bonus
Building on another comment I saw, I really like the idea of Players having to "prepare" their manoeuvre by placing the card face down. Maybe the face down card doesn't even need to actually be a manoeuvre, allowing players to bluff and save their manoeuvre cards by placing down a normal resource card.
@@julianbirke I know nothing about your game other than what's in this one video, but, I think the initial aspect of a surprise nope is way more interesting and daunting than a face down potential bluff. Like, MTG would be shit if I had to prepare a counter spell, or any instant by placing it face down. The challenge and fun of out thinking your opponent comes from wondering / guessing what they have on their hand. You also can get the same bluff by someone choosing to keep at least one non-maneuver resource card in their hand instead of spending it, to maintain the appearance of having the ability to respond. Also, unless you make more strict rules about when you can place/remove a reaction card, why wouldn't I just place one every turn and pick it up next turn?
Just giong by the intro: If you have conflicting views on a part of the game, and you like that part, that is the best part. That is the hook that people will "either love or hate", that is a defining characteristic. now to watch the video
You mentioned that Encirclement and Out Flank are essentially the same, so maybe swap out Encirclement for a different maneuver entirely. For example: Turn Coat: Swap a Musketeer Unit that your opponent controls for your own colored Musketeer Unit. This Unit is now under your control OR Cross Training: Remove one of your Frigates that is adjacent to a Land Tile and replace it with a Musketeer on that Land Tile The latter could potentially open up a new way for a player to engage in a land battle from the sea, but only if they have the “maneuver” I saw or heard another viewer mention an idea for a maneuver called Entrench Entrench: The selected Unit becomes impervious to attack and cannot be removed from the board, but cannot move (maybe until the beginning or the end of your next turn?) Hopefully that opens up some inspiration!
Playtesting is a 'thing' for a reason. There is no harm in playtesting ideas. Keep the ones you like and throw out the ones you don't. Keep the 'core' mechanic ideas you started with and look for ideas that can add too or enhance them. Resist changes that would alter your 'core' mechanics, but not completely rule them out either. Focus on enhancements to YOUR game idea. If over time you feel your design has a flaw you can't live with, then make changes. But if you don't feel that... stick to YOUR game design. Like Jessie said... 'make the game man'. I would say 'make YOUR game man'. Board gamers have a lot of experience playing a very wide variety of games. They know what they like when they play it. The purpose of playtesting is to find out just as much about what players like as what they don't like. Flaws in games will turn players off. They'll play it once and move on. Games people like will be played over and over and those players will recruit friends to the game. That's what you really want. Word of mouth spreading your game to wider and wider audiences. My 2 cents: The more interaction you can create between players the better. As it stands, the 'interaction' among players is relegated to combat in your game. I would recommend finding ways to add interaction outside of combat. Example ideas: Steal cards from opponent's hands. Allow trading. Sabotage/Destroy roads. Convert enemy units into your units by persuasion or revolt. Slow enemy production with cards that limit their production for a round / counter balanced with cards that increase your own production for a round. Playtest the ideas. Brainstorming should be encouraged. Avoid EVER telling someone their idea is bad... as this will discourage that brainstorming. In the end the decisions are yours! Keep up the awesome work Julian!
I agree: the more player interaction, the better. It gives players the opportunity to forge alliances and create a sense of comradely before the inevitable betrayal
A lot of great wisdom in this! I totally agree too - I'd really like to find more ways to encourage player interaction, I think that makes people more engaged and creates a better game. Thank you for the support! 🫡
In all of your play testing , what is the average length of a single game? I had watched your previous play test and saw it took you over 3 hours. However I am understanding that a lot of explanation was done in between so I wanted to know how long a regular game of Pincer would take.
@@bw0081 right, that first playtest had a lot of joking, talking, commentary. I've mostly played 2-3 player games and they seem to last around 1-2 hours. I am implementing some changes to the rules to help speed it up though. The main one is allowing players to trade 5:1 of ANY card in for their choice, instead of 5 of the same.
I love the maneuver cards. And I want outflank and encircle to stay the way they are. They just need to be explained better. First, you need to make it clear: "does two consecutive moves with the same piece" mean that your opponent gets a countermove, or not? If your opponent does get a countermove, that will give cavalry a much needed slight buff, which makes sense, because cavalry have traditionally been the best units at outflanking. It will also differentiate outflank from encircle, so I lean towards that option. The second change you need to make is that encirclement "keeps your opponent from making a countermove", instead of "allows you to make two consecutive moves with different pieces". I think that these two slight changes will give you a nicely balanced game. After seeing the playtesting, I like the percentage of maneuver cards in the deck, and I LOVE that they are connected to different kinds of territory. I think maneuver cards are a stroke of genius on your part, *just* the bit of flavor that pincer would otherwise be lacking.
It's a tough call! I've been going back and forth for weeks over it. I mostly would like to test out the 'espionage' concept but I'm not stuck on it. I do think they are currently too similar - outflank and encirclement. Its really 'encirclement' that I'm unhappy with. We really need an offensive maneuver that's easy to understand and takes its place.
@@julianbirke Maybe this is indeed a "kill your darlings" moment, but encirclement just makes so much sense, to me. It seems like the most natural and simplest offensive maneuver possible: deny the opponent a countermove. And espionage seems like a low-reward "maneuver" that is disconnected from actual combat. Or do I underestimate the value of knowing your opponent's cards?
@julianbirke I would create different action cards which change action depending on what tile the army is standing. One card can thus do several things depending on what army you use, or how you chain up movements. You can then increase opportunities by gaining cards and by gaining armies on different resources. For example: Defense: wood: all attacks miss stone: move one space wheat: move one space, take a wheat card water: move one space in the direction of your closest harbor; Attack: wood: move up to 2 spaces on connected wood land, then attack stone: attacking a neighboring tile gives double the damage wheat: move 3 spaces, then attack, water: attack water: attack Spy: wood: check your opponent hand stone: sacrifice your army, steal a random action card wheat: move two enemy armies by 1 space water: sacrifice your boat, gain two "unknown action cards"; Produce: wood: move towards the closest city, gain 2 boats stone: sacrifice two armies, gain 2 action cards wheat: gain 3 armies water: gain 2 armies Unknown: While other action cards have a colored back, so other players know what your options are, unknown action cards all have the same back, so other players don't know whether it is a Defense/Attack/ Spy/Produce card.
Declaring you action cards (as I saw in other posts) in order before doing the attack also becomes more interesting. As you can still change what army you use the card for.
I do like the idea of having different 'action cards'. I had an idea of different 'governments', that would give you different bonuses. This seems like it could tie in or add to it. Perhaps depending on your go government type you could get different economic bonuses for military bonuses based off the terrain. A lot of good stuff to think on!
I think an important thing to consider [before bringing changes to the movement cards effects] is the naming conventions used. The easiest way too assist player in understanding the cards effects, is giving the movements names that infer that effect. Retreat? Move a space back > makes sense. Fortify? Repel an attack > makes sense. Outflank? Move a unit twice? You can immediately notice the difference in clarity. I would suggest naming the card blitzkrieg. It becomes recognizable as the "move fast" card that way. Also renaming "encirclement" to "reinforcements" or something regarding troop support would explain the moving of another unit of your team right after your own. Lastly, maybe consider naming them "tactics" instead of movements. This way you can be a bit more free in your naming conventions! Sincerely hope this helps!
When coming up with ideas of what powers to have, I like to think of 4 categories. Attack - Destroys opponent's units. Defense - Keeps your units from being destroyed. Support - Aids (OR lessens) a unit's capabilities for a limited time Recon - Gathering (OR obscuring) information
BTW me and my family are HYPED about the release of Pincer a Gentleman War and we want to know if you have any plans about the shipper or website that you might be selling it on Thank You
One idea to break up combat instead of maneuver cards is to give each troop a bonus depending on the terrain they are on (or the terrain they are attacking) For example: Hills could give advantage to Cavalry, Forests to Infantry, Stone to Artillery. Wheat could give advantage for all 3 types, while mountain could be a disadvantage to all 3. So in theory, controlling specific locations on the map and moving the right type of unit on the right type of terrain could be the key to victory. You could even add an additional disadvantage, such as... Infantry in forests is protected from Artillery, Cavalry on hills is protected from Infantry, Artillery in Stone is protected from Cavalry.
I like the idea that every resource card might have an alternate ability, including maneuvers. That way you can choose to use the the resource for it’s intended use or an immediate short term bonus
I didn’t like how the start of the live latest game was gridlocked as players waited for enough resource cards to trade in. I get that you don’t want to copy Catan’s trade mechanics, and I think I have a decent alternative. The Trading Post If you want a particular resource, you may make a ‘bid’ to buy one by placing a stack of cards next to the Supply deck for the desired resource. Ex: I might place two wood cards next to the Iron deck. Other players can also make bids, so Bob could place his bid of 1wood and 1 wheat next to the iron deck as well. When Charlie (the only player with access to iron). Rolls iron and gains the resource, he may choose to accept a bid from either player and sell the resource.
A DIFFERENT idea, that gives trading an element of player interaction, but not as much: SUPPLY & DEMAND When you trade in cards for a resource (standard 5:1). The cost of that resource increases. Place a +1 token next to it. Conversely, the cards used to trade in are placed face up next to their discard piles (not the cards used to buy units /build items, just the ones traded with the bank). When a particular resource has 5, the cost of that resource is reduced by 1. I think this could have applications of trying to buy out the iron market so other players can’t afford it. Or maybe make you reconsider which resource cards to trade in, in case it helps your enemy afford a needed resource. This idea would work concurrently with the limited deck size you already have in place
@@lifefindsaway7875 May want everything to be 'tokens' next to the corresponding deck so if there is ever a need to reshuffle a discard pile for a resource... you don't have those resources stuck in face-up piles acting like tokens.
I agree, the playtest took way too long at the beginning. I am changing the exchange rate to where you can trade ANY 5 cards in for the one of your choice. Instead of five of the same. I think that will give players a lot more flexibility. I do like the idea of some sort of trading Post. That could encourage player interaction more. We'd have to figure out how the ports/roads all fit into the mix. It could diminish the benefit of building those, if you can get a better deal from bidding. Good ideas though, definitely going to chew on that.
Reenforcement card could also be interesting. Basically if a piece is captured and you have reenforcement you can capture the enemy piece who just tried to capture yours and perhaps even replace your original piece with a different unit.
You could have 2 variants to the game, one where manuevers are placed randomly within the resources and another where they are always in a set position, so as cards are drawn, more experienced players can keep count and have a notion of what manuevers are coming up.
One thing you could do which you've probably already thought of is include an entirely separate maneuver in that "development card" deck different from all the terrain/resource ones. Instead of just separating all the maneuvers into that deck. If you weren't already putting espionage in stone I'd say something like it would be ideal for that scenario.
I dont know your game but it's clear that you need some kind of randomness/unpredictability otherwise you're just creating a new version of chess. And with your system maybe the players can mindgame/bait their opponent by moving onto a specific terrain as if they had the corresponding maneuver. You're probably on the right path, dont listen to the haters ;)
I am designing a co-operative engine builder and your analysis of the systems is refreshing. Players are amazing at knowing problems with games, but terrible at solving them. That is what puts designers apart from players. The fluidity of the maneuvers being attached to terrain types is incredibly seamless. However, any point of randomness (when there is so little of it) makes pain points more potent. With this system, the issue you may run into is a game being ruined for a player simply for being unlucky. There may be another way to solve the issue to avoid luck ruining the skill based gameplay that is being provided. In a game like risk, when there are sometimes hundreds of dice rolls, luck distributions even themselves out overtime.
Love the idea of the manuever cards being tied to the resources, gives players something to think about when planning their attack. There is something I would like to point out though. In playtesting I found that whoever builds their first colony on a tile that does not have access to all resources is at a MAJOR disadvantage over other players. I am wondering if you ever noticed this and plan on changing the rules regarding the placement of the first colony
I think it's great that you keep the maneuver cards. Since I have not playtested the game yet I did not feel qualified to participate in the poll. However, from an abstract point of view a bit of randomness is super important. Chess is an awesome game but a new player has to put in hundreds of hours to be able to have a slight chance to win against a veteran. Hence there are so much fewer occasions where one can play the game and have fun. This is the problem of determinism. Moreover, the "asymmetric" randomness where the outcome is in theory already set but both players lack knowledge about the other players possibilities is much more interesting than just rolling dice. So I really like the concept.
As a fellow designer and I assume fellow publisher, I have to say this video series is excellent! Great example of using outside skills to benefit your design. As for the mechanism, it sounds to me like the feedback your getting is due to these card being an output randomness issue which doesn’t fit in with the other strategic elements. Defensive player is trying to fish for maneuvers and may or may not get them. Attacking player has no way to account for what maneuvers may or may not be out there. This is causing a negative impact to the game for both sides. Have you considered adding maneuvers to some sort of river system? This way players have a reasonable chance to acquire maneuvers they want, and opponents can try and account for what maneuvers are in play? This might also build up the tension as both players are striving to set themselves up to outmaneuver the other in combat
This is the first that I have seen this, so take my comments with a grain of salt. First off, the game looks intriguing! Without knowing anything more than what is discussed in the video, it looks like an abstract strategy game with a very light war theme. It gives the appearance of an area control game, but I’m not sure if it truly is area control as it doesn’t appear that you gain any advantages for occupying any specific locations over any others, outside of being able to use a card matching its terrain type, which again just leans more toward abstract strategy in my mind. That all being said, I had a couple ideas that immediately came to my mind: 1) Instead of gaining cards randomly and then playing them when in the matching terrain, what if all cards were readily available in stacks according to the terrain type and then you GAINED the matching card when you entered and remained in any specific terrain? So you might visit specific terrains on purpose just for the sake of gaining its card, even if there is no enemy present. Then, when appropriate, you can play one card during a single turn with the terrain type listed on the card having no direct relevance as to when or how you play it, just the tactic itself? 2) What if certain terrain cards gained strength/weakness or extra/reduced benefit depending on what terrain tile it is being played on? For example, maybe a Forest card has a standard benefit of movement when going to most tiles, but you gain one extra tile of movement if going through desert or one less tile of movement if going through mountain? Something like that.
I would use dice for more suspense and dynamics but it is an interesting idea. My problem is that at a larger scale it would be more like chess, meaning for a good move you must make moves in your mind which will take time and might be not so interesting for spectators. Manoeuvres are good for spicing things up, but still not enough excitement.
If you want a card to have a cancelling effect, like you originally talked about, you could give attackers the option to play a card with every attack, face down. Then defenders can play a card face up in response, or let it through. Then the attacker reveals their card, and if it was a regular resource card (aka, a bluff), it is returned to their hand. If it was a maneuver card, then it plays however it's supposed to. If you go this route, you could also have defensive cards that punish bluffs (maybe they discard or steal the resource card, while returning the anti-bluff card to their hand). Just to make bluffing have a consequence. All of this is only useful if you want an element of bluffing in the game. If bluffing isn't the mechanic you want, these would be terrible solutions. (Also, I'm not saying you should do this, I'm just making sure you know it's an option.)
If there are too many maneuver types relative to the number of tile/resource types, maybe the types could be varied by some having one maneuver that is commonly on it and one that is rarely on it. This would give many combinations, and the opponent could still have a good idea of what a unit could do from there without it being as assured.
Something I think of as a modder and hobbyist game-dev: If I ever find myself trying to justify myself by showing my process to players, it means my game is undercooked. The justification takes the form, "My game had [problem]. [Controversial mechanic] fixes [problem]. If we remove [controversial mechanic], [problem] will come back, and [problem] was worse than [controversial mechanic]." All of that will be true, and some players will be convinced by that, but this won't do anything to change the minds of the other 99% of players, many of whom will never see my justification post. The only answer that will reach those players is to take a step back and try to solve the problem from another angle.
In Heroes of Air, Lands ans Sea every players have the same hand of "manoeuver" cards and they cost different resources and do all sorts of things. When fighting you both player can use one of them if they can pay the cost. These cards can relate to certain units and some counter other cards than can be played meaning there can be a mind game there. What make it predictable is that you know what your opponent can play because you have the same cards in hand and you can see his resources. You cannot be certain thou if he have the resources other cards but you can plan ahead for what he cannot pay for. And as multiple fights happen and cards are played, you can predict more what you will play since his option and your are more limited.
For espionage you could consider limiting the number of cards you get to see. Maybe hard-limit to three cards, or make it proportionate to the number of cards at hand (say - a quarter of the hand, rounded down). The rival would hand you his hand face down and spread and you would choose which cards to pick. In my opinion this way it fits more with how a spy would be able to gather some information about the enemy, the spy won’t be able to give you all information that possibly exists about the enemy.
I don't like the idea of some cards being strictly better than others, especially not in a strategy game when you're trying to reduce randomness. Maybe have one attack type where you then move to the defended location, one where you sit still, and maybe even one where you move in the opposite direction (though I think that one could be considered worse in most cases).
You could tie maneuvers to more than one location if they were in a non-resource deck. Also you could use some that make use of the opposing tile instead of your current terrain, for example a siege works against a lot of terrain, but it is less effective against people on the sea(who can just fish for food) or people on farmland(the siege will starve first). Encircle in particular sounds more like you are making use of the enemy terrain than your own.
Hi Julian, thank you for being so tranparent with your game design process. I know it can be intimidating to show your design to people. I think keeping the maneuvers in the game is the right choice. But I also think drawing a maneuver card is strictly better than drawing any other resource card, which is mot optimal. - Here is a suggestion, if I might: Imagine you can use all resource cards for maneuvers, but you need to spend 2 identical resource cards to play a maneuver (2 timber for an ambush etc.). That way it is more costly to play them and not so much dependant on a lucky draw. just an idea. cheers!
I love the cards mechanic. Otherwise combat would be too predictable and the one with more resources to grind down the enemy would always win. One idea that I may sugest is a "spy card" where, after you spend it, it forces one of the enemy players to always keep ONE of their hand cards visible to others on the table. The specifics could be thought up latter, but my idea is that one of the cards is always on the table until he spends a spy himself to conduct a counter inteligence operation, removing the condition
Hidden information can be very cool! It’s half of why yugioh is so exciting for me. Also, the randomness is an inherent part of games. Some people might find it uncompetitive because someone could get lucky and get more maneuvers. But then people aren’t drawing resources so it’s still a trade off.
The concwpt of a separate "Manuver" deck seems pretty compelling. It makes me think of "Scythe" in a way where your opponent knows you have ways to influence combat without knowing exactly how you can. Scythe does counter balance that by having you able to spend a basic resource to boost your base combat value before modifiers however which, gicen your desire to keep things relatively simple, doesn't really fit the design philosophy. You do have the benefit of having different piece movement types though, which could fill that slot. My pitch, lean more into the Manuver cards, make it a separate deck, but also maybe use a different way of gaining them rather than just buying them. Maybe you have a certain maximum hand size for them and draw one each turn, discarding the excess face up, or every time you lose a unit, you draw a manuver card (Which could balance out those "Snowball" combats.) Either way, perhaps you shiuld consider locking certain Manuvers to UNIT type instead of Terrain type, I think most people would want to use manuvers more often rather than less, they seem like a very fun way of making your combat stand out from just back and forth, BUT the limitations could also play interestingly with offensive and defensive considerations. Example: "I just saw them discard a 'Retreat' Manuver, that means they probably have an extra one in thier hand, I should attack their Cannon instead of their Musketeer, because Cannons can't use 'Retreat' and Muskets can.".
How about you put a special move in every card BUT half the cards have the move connected to the specific location (eg ambush with woods) while the other half have random ones?
like i said it is a good decisions to make the combat not too simple, i hope the end result will be cool to play and strategise around (and not just feel like guessing) but i‘m confident :)
I'll admit that I'm not as versed as everyone else is on the topic, but from the little that I have played your game, I really like the concept of the maneuver cards. I wonder if it might be worth having them in a separate deck but associating them with leadership like corporals, field Marshals, or generals. . This would help it feel less like catan, And still work thematically with your goal here. In that purchasing or hiring different military personnel at different ranks could offer you one two or even more maneuver options based off of that commanders training, expertise, etc. They could even still be associated with the terrain cards as some generals throughout history have been known to be better in mountains or forests etc. It would keep the spirit of it, allow it to be a little bit less random and I think might play out really well. Even without taking my suggestion. I like your game and your collaborative approach to building. Keep up the great work. Looking forward to seeing the final product at the end of all of it
Memoir '44 - and the "Command & Colour" game series uses cards for everything - basically some are better than the others and you dont know what your enemy has in hand - i think you should definitely take a look as it might give you some ideas. Also i think your idea is great, people are too hang up on certain "industry standards" when it comes to rules. The only thing i would point out is : check about the probabilities of how often a player has access to maneuver cards as they are clearly important and it would just be unfun to feel like you never have any. Good luck with your game
Algorithm pointed me to your video and I haven't played your game, but I think your game looks interesting. I think the random maneuvers create too much chaos in your strategy. The problem to me doesn't seem like it's in your cards, but how you obtain them. For examples - Have a few cards face up to choose when drawing, but allow to draw an unknown card from the deck. Or Have a deck for each terrain type and have a resource distribution list where not every card is the same. Mountains can have mostly stone/ore resources but maybe a couple forest resources in there. Similar to dungeon petz for example. Or something way out of left field. Make troop patterns on the cards that need to be matched to use. this give the opponent a hint of what they're trying to do if they know the game well. I'll keep an eye on your game, interested to see what you decide (sorry for the long post)
Find the idea very interesting. The only problem with randomness is if you can not predict it or play around it, that way it feels unfair, it can work in some games but I don't think that is your idea considering you want a more chess like approach to it. Maybe the best way to solve this is making the attacker having some kind of responding chance, like in magic the gathering, giving this cards counter play basically. And I don't think it should be attached to the cards, because spionage with stones has zero thematic sense. First time I am on this chanel but this game already inspired me a 20 paragraph comment, well done.
Uhhhh.... Cool chanel I've found. As a hobby designer whos main forte is in TCGs I think I know the mechanic that could help you implemet manuver cards. Back in the early-mid 2000's there was this game called Dinosaur King. Yor deck was made of mainly 2 types of cards: Dinosaur cards, and Move cards. Move cards worked a lot like your manuvers, but BOTH PLAYERS got to play up to 1 per attack. How did you decided who can plays theyre card first? By a rock, paper, scizors system. Aside from power each dino was also given an attribute of rock, paper or scizors, whoever LOST the rps either played it before the other or not at all. (In terms of a tie the turn player goes 2nd.) For example: My 1500 power dino with the rock attribute attacks your 1400 power dino with scizors attribute. Now you decide to play a move to try and 1up me and risk to loose a move and a dino or play it safe and just let your dino die. Things become more interesting when its your dino who has the higher power, but mine is the one to win rps. Given your units dont have power or hp or any of that, it dosent mean they couldnt have some other trait besides the way they move. For example a speed or initiative value that detirmines aginst who they can play mauvers 1st. Wich could make the system easier to understand while giving it more depth, since now both players know that combat looks like: If attack that with this than I play a card or not, than you play a card or not and than we see what happens. This not only adds to the mind game aspect of the chess like combat, but also makes manuvers feel more fair, since neither player is completly at their mercy. Given that manuver cards become more acassable, wich would be more or less a reqiurement for a mechanical change like this.
From the few videos of this series that I have watched, so far my only dislike are the colors of the tiles. I love the idea of the tiles but to me that look somewhat "old-fashioned" maybe. They just look kind of dull and uninviting. I think I dislike the color scheme because they seem to be largely just one color with a touch of shading. I would love to see a bit more detail in a few of them. In particular, I'd personally like it if the water had a darker blue and the trees had a darker green. I like the wheat tile the most. Also, I think there should be more distinction between stone and iron. Yes, it is obvious which is which if you look at it for a second. But when you are looking at the whole board in generally they might blend together. Not to mention they are both gray and gray is such a boring color. If people disagree then they disagree and that is perfectly fine, this is just how I feel about the tiles personally.
Why not give a permanent buff for the terrain you are in either defending or attacking or both? Maybe make players pay some sort of resource to use the buff or to be able to circumvent it.
I like the movement tactics, but unlike the water version, it becomes predictable, cause you know they may have that card. Having a defensive and attacking ability eg woods ambush or hide. Water I feel this era ship of line tactics eg weather gage, have initiative to engage first or escape. Having two or more ships in a line give repel attack. I still like to see cavalry to either attack one hex and move to another not back original as well as hit two hex.
I like that idea a lot. There's no reason naval units couldn't have different maneuvers. Creating insensitives for different formations could be really cool as well.
@@julianbirke eg infantry form square repel cavalry attack. Cavalry charge may use the attack first hex and second? Artilley bombardment gives extra attack or range
I am kinda new here, but did, You considered adding maneuvers to diffrent terrains in lower quality ? For example: wheat is primarly retreat, type, but also have 2 other (ambush and outflank for example). That would require more extensive resource decks, to keep good ratio. I would propose 36 cards (to keep Your 1 to 6 ratio), with 30 "blanks", 4 primarly tactic, and two secondrary - one copy each, so You would generaly know what maneuver expect on certain field, but there is also room for suprise. But, as I said, I am new here, maybe working on wrong assumptions.
Have you thought about adding the ability to spend x# of a resource cards to execute the action? I’m not fully aware of how the resource cards work so this might not be a good idea, but sometimes it is good in games when u have tough decisions where you are not sure if you should risk it or not.
Great video! Now it’s time to look ahead to marketing! Keep building the community- maybe even take it to a convention “unpublished” room- many talented Playtester’s will give you more insight and better feedback- plus a chance to met publishers and get them excited!
The main thing I dislike about them is being tied to resources. Too situational, and feels that you are just restrsining player freedom just for the sake of it. I'm not telling you there shouldn't be restrictions or conditions in some cards (maybe still tied them up to the resources), but not as a general rule.
I'm Not sure If it ist still that was but the first time I looked at the tts Version of the Game it was not stated that you couldn't move on Mountains. Love the Game and your videos
I'll have to double check but I'm pretty sure it says that land units may not move onto mountain tiles. Thanks for the heads up though! Appreciate the support!
I like the maneuver cards but the espionage card feels out of place. I think encirclement, although confusing at first, fits better with the other maneuver cards. I know espionage is an important part of war but in gane it just seems like it would feel lik cheating. Sorry for bad english.
Chess is such a classic combat system but your gameplay is much more like an RTS so I feel like chess style combat is too powerful. As much as I think trying to do chess style combat is an elegant design, I fear that it conflicts with the RTS type of game you're making. I know you're not into dice combat but I feel as though it might need it...Actually I wonder if there was a way that some units had more HP while others didn't. So that you had more defensive or harder to kill units. I've been playing a new space empire game called "Arcs" and both ships and buildings take two hits to destroy them. A damaged ship is tipped over while a building token is flipped over to its damaged side. They have dice combat but I wonder if there was a way where some of your units take two or three hits for them to be defeated. It might solve the I have more units than you problem. Perhaps a unit has to be surrounded by multiple units before it is destroyed. Things like that.
t oall the haters, if you want to play chess then play chess, if you want to play risk then play risk, if you don't want to play this game then don't play this game
Are the manuvers hidden or public. I assume hidden. Never played you're game, never designed a game but an avid gamer of all types. I see why you like the mechanic. I know he has a unite in a field tile, so i know which effect he could have. So basicly every time he moves onto an field tile, its kinda like a bluff situation. How much intel do I have on what rescources my opponent has? Do i see that he just used the Woods with the manuver on it? I don't like the situation where I either know or have to gues, he has an manuver card. Is there a counter play to that? From what I have seen, I have to be in a woods tile and need the ambush card. I realy like the thematic of the cards, like I know this is a Tile that is good for defence and if the unite is "smart enough" simulated by having the cards they can pull off a manuver. Just a suggestion from what I feel, how about you make it like an bluffing game. What if, you make every resource basicly an ambush, so en attacking player can allways be safe and pay an extra ressource for the atack. This would open up for ambush to be "atacking player loses", which would be cool. It should balance itselfe, since sure you can counter every manuver but you cripple your economie. Which I also think is very thematicaly. If you have a large enough ressource advantage, you should win the game. Mybe some resources has to be excluded, from this group or mybe specific resources counter different manuvers. Or its associatat with the unite, a Musketer just need wheat to be safe but a cannon needs iron. This realy debends on how you're economie system plays out. From what i see it feels a bit "settler of catan"ish. So probably players have to much of some resource and to few of others, probaly why you have a trading mechanic. If thats true youd have to limit the use of which ressource can be used to counter manuvers. sry for bad english. This is me just throwing ideas out, since you got my creative jucies flowing.
For me associating with the unite Type seems very cool, a Musketer might be relatively easy to keep spending resources on but a cannon might need an more rare resource and a ship might need even two of those. This could work thematicaly as well es gameplaywise. In this case this would make the Musketer the hardest to bring in position but if you can they cant be countered by manuvers.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days,
visit brilliant.org/JulianBirke/
You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
First sponsor?
@@Henry-u8d9c yes! I do have one other video with brilliant but they are my first sponsorship.
Mark Rosewater from Wizards of the Coast (Magic the Gathering) as a great talk about game design. One of the things he says is:
Your players are great at identifying problems but bad at solving them.
Meaning they can tell you exactly which things in your game aren't fun but only you have the tools to fix them properly. So getting feedback on what to change, yes. On HOW to change? No.
@@Dudldom that's an interesting point. I hate to say, but I think I agree 🤣
@@Dudldom it's funny because I really thought with the playtesting survey, I'd find all the answers I needed. I really didn't account for all the conflicting options it'd cause.
Unless your player also happens to be a game designer. Then they might be good at solving them as well.
They could also have their head up their own behind like that one guy that played Metroid Dread.
One of my favorite game dev talks was - if I recall - one of the devs of Subnautica giving an entire presentation about this exact quote pretty much
Dune imperium has a similar mechanic with Intrigue cards. You know how many your opponents have, but you're not sure how many are related to combat. There's also an interesting mechanic where when someone has more than 6 intrigue there is opportunity for other players to steal some.
Right, except the steal limit is four nit six!
The original Dune boardgame also has similar mechanics with the item cards you can carry to a combat in a way that some of them are used as "bait" mechanics against your rivals like the laser gun and shield combo.
I think you’re making the right call. Adding an element of uncertainty is fun and more uniqueness is preferable to less.
I really likes manouvers being tied to terrain.
1 Manouver card
(Entrench-Montain, Surprise Attack-Forest, Encircle-Farmland, Outflank-Hills/Water)
Is chosen and placed face down only at the start of your turn.
Just before a combat start, players (Attacker and or Defender) draws the corresponding tile manouver card (If in a Montain draws entrench). Then the players can choose one of the 2 cards he will use, and in case of tie the defenders win.
Outflank beats Encircle
Encircle beats Entrench
Entrench beats Surprise Attack
Surprise Attack beats Outflank
If you want the game faster and cheeper in the interaction cost, just make all players choose 1 manouver card all at the same time at the start of the round, and place ir face down, and once a combat starts the involved players reveal their Manouver card. You can also add a special rule to change your Manouver card in their turn but it would be very costly or even limited, like player can only do that 3 times in the whole game.
Just a few ideas, loved your game to bits
@@danielkjm I do like the idea of each player having one maneuver face down, and then the option to change it or buy new ones. I'd probably have to change the affects of them.
@@julianbirke I concur. Forcing the players to choose one (and only one) maneuver card at the start of the round forces them to really try to predict enemy movements. (You could even place a normal resource card as a bluff!)
By limiting it to one, it keeps the combat fast, as only one combat action will be complicated by maneuvers
I think giving all the resource cards a manoeuvre is a great idea. Because then positioning becomes a lot more important. What a unit can't and cannot do changes, depending on where on the board it stands.
BUT
If I understand correctly resources are hidden information, right? So even if all the cards contain a manoeuvre you still don't know if your opponent actually has the corresponding card. So it becomes a bit of a bluffing game as well.
@@Dudldom exactly. To me that's part of the of the fun - the bluffing aspect of it.
To me they offer the perfect amount of 'chance' to shake up the rigid combat system.
well you know the starting resources and can see which resources get tolled and which cards get taken. if you then keep track of what they spentyou know what they have on hand. good catan players try to do exactly that to gain an advantage
algorithm fed me hear, using your existing resource cards to sneakily put maneuvers in players hands sounds perfect for simple move and take combat.
They seem similar to Ambush cards in Root, which add a level of uncertainty to attacks (beyond the dice rolls, who favor the attacker by default) and giving defenders a small bonus
The great manouver card schism of 2024
@@alexzhukovsky8361 😂
@@alexzhukovsky8361 going to divulge into civil War
Building on another comment I saw, I really like the idea of Players having to "prepare" their manoeuvre by placing the card face down.
Maybe the face down card doesn't even need to actually be a manoeuvre, allowing players to bluff and save their manoeuvre cards by placing down a normal resource card.
That's genius, I really like this idea. That card could be unplayable as long as it's face down as well.
@@julianbirke I know nothing about your game other than what's in this one video, but, I think the initial aspect of a surprise nope is way more interesting and daunting than a face down potential bluff. Like, MTG would be shit if I had to prepare a counter spell, or any instant by placing it face down. The challenge and fun of out thinking your opponent comes from wondering / guessing what they have on their hand.
You also can get the same bluff by someone choosing to keep at least one non-maneuver resource card in their hand instead of spending it, to maintain the appearance of having the ability to respond.
Also, unless you make more strict rules about when you can place/remove a reaction card, why wouldn't I just place one every turn and pick it up next turn?
Just giong by the intro: If you have conflicting views on a part of the game, and you like that part, that is the best part. That is the hook that people will "either love or hate", that is a defining characteristic. now to watch the video
You mentioned that Encirclement and Out Flank are essentially the same, so maybe swap out Encirclement for a different maneuver entirely.
For example:
Turn Coat: Swap a Musketeer Unit that your opponent controls for your own colored Musketeer Unit. This Unit is now under your control
OR
Cross Training: Remove one of your Frigates that is adjacent to a Land Tile and replace it with a Musketeer on that Land Tile
The latter could potentially open up a new way for a player to engage in a land battle from the sea, but only if they have the “maneuver”
I saw or heard another viewer mention an idea for a maneuver called Entrench
Entrench: The selected Unit becomes impervious to attack and cannot be removed from the board, but cannot move (maybe until the beginning or the end of your next turn?)
Hopefully that opens up some inspiration!
Playtesting is a 'thing' for a reason. There is no harm in playtesting ideas. Keep the ones you like and throw out the ones you don't. Keep the 'core' mechanic ideas you started with and look for ideas that can add too or enhance them. Resist changes that would alter your 'core' mechanics, but not completely rule them out either. Focus on enhancements to YOUR game idea. If over time you feel your design has a flaw you can't live with, then make changes. But if you don't feel that... stick to YOUR game design. Like Jessie said... 'make the game man'. I would say 'make YOUR game man'.
Board gamers have a lot of experience playing a very wide variety of games. They know what they like when they play it. The purpose of playtesting is to find out just as much about what players like as what they don't like. Flaws in games will turn players off. They'll play it once and move on. Games people like will be played over and over and those players will recruit friends to the game. That's what you really want. Word of mouth spreading your game to wider and wider audiences.
My 2 cents: The more interaction you can create between players the better. As it stands, the 'interaction' among players is relegated to combat in your game. I would recommend finding ways to add interaction outside of combat. Example ideas: Steal cards from opponent's hands. Allow trading. Sabotage/Destroy roads. Convert enemy units into your units by persuasion or revolt. Slow enemy production with cards that limit their production for a round / counter balanced with cards that increase your own production for a round.
Playtest the ideas. Brainstorming should be encouraged. Avoid EVER telling someone their idea is bad... as this will discourage that brainstorming. In the end the decisions are yours! Keep up the awesome work Julian!
I agree: the more player interaction, the better. It gives players the opportunity to forge alliances and create a sense of comradely before the inevitable betrayal
A lot of great wisdom in this! I totally agree too - I'd really like to find more ways to encourage player interaction, I think that makes people more engaged and creates a better game. Thank you for the support! 🫡
In all of your play testing , what is the average length of a single game? I had watched your previous play test and saw it took you over 3 hours. However I am understanding that a lot of explanation was done in between so I wanted to know how long a regular game of Pincer would take.
@@bw0081 right, that first playtest had a lot of joking, talking, commentary.
I've mostly played 2-3 player games and they seem to last around 1-2 hours.
I am implementing some changes to the rules to help speed it up though. The main one is allowing players to trade 5:1 of ANY card in for their choice, instead of 5 of the same.
I love the maneuver cards. And I want outflank and encircle to stay the way they are. They just need to be explained better. First, you need to make it clear: "does two consecutive moves with the same piece" mean that your opponent gets a countermove, or not? If your opponent does get a countermove, that will give cavalry a much needed slight buff, which makes sense, because cavalry have traditionally been the best units at outflanking. It will also differentiate outflank from encircle, so I lean towards that option. The second change you need to make is that encirclement "keeps your opponent from making a countermove", instead of "allows you to make two consecutive moves with different pieces". I think that these two slight changes will give you a nicely balanced game. After seeing the playtesting, I like the percentage of maneuver cards in the deck, and I LOVE that they are connected to different kinds of territory. I think maneuver cards are a stroke of genius on your part, *just* the bit of flavor that pincer would otherwise be lacking.
It's a tough call! I've been going back and forth for weeks over it. I mostly would like to test out the 'espionage' concept but I'm not stuck on it. I do think they are currently too similar - outflank and encirclement. Its really 'encirclement' that I'm unhappy with. We really need an offensive maneuver that's easy to understand and takes its place.
@@julianbirke Maybe this is indeed a "kill your darlings" moment, but encirclement just makes so much sense, to me. It seems like the most natural and simplest offensive maneuver possible: deny the opponent a countermove. And espionage seems like a low-reward "maneuver" that is disconnected from actual combat. Or do I underestimate the value of knowing your opponent's cards?
@julianbirke I would create different action cards which change action depending on what tile the army is standing. One card can thus do several things depending on what army you use, or how you chain up movements. You can then increase opportunities by gaining cards and by gaining armies on different resources. For example:
Defense:
wood: all attacks miss
stone: move one space
wheat: move one space, take a wheat card
water: move one space in the direction of your closest harbor;
Attack:
wood: move up to 2 spaces on connected wood land, then attack
stone: attacking a neighboring tile gives double the damage
wheat: move 3 spaces, then attack, water: attack
water: attack
Spy:
wood: check your opponent hand
stone: sacrifice your army, steal a random action card
wheat: move two enemy armies by 1 space
water: sacrifice your boat, gain two "unknown action cards";
Produce:
wood: move towards the closest city, gain 2 boats
stone: sacrifice two armies, gain 2 action cards
wheat: gain 3 armies
water: gain 2 armies
Unknown:
While other action cards have a colored back, so other players know what your options are, unknown action cards all have the same back, so other players don't know whether it is a Defense/Attack/ Spy/Produce card.
Declaring you action cards (as I saw in other posts) in order before doing the attack also becomes more interesting. As you can still change what army you use the card for.
I do like the idea of having different 'action cards'. I had an idea of different 'governments', that would give you different bonuses. This seems like it could tie in or add to it. Perhaps depending on your go government type you could get different economic bonuses for military bonuses based off the terrain. A lot of good stuff to think on!
I think an important thing to consider [before bringing changes to the movement cards effects] is the naming conventions used. The easiest way too assist player in understanding the cards effects, is giving the movements names that infer that effect. Retreat? Move a space back > makes sense. Fortify? Repel an attack > makes sense. Outflank? Move a unit twice? You can immediately notice the difference in clarity. I would suggest naming the card blitzkrieg. It becomes recognizable as the "move fast" card that way. Also renaming "encirclement" to "reinforcements" or something regarding troop support would explain the moving of another unit of your team right after your own.
Lastly, maybe consider naming them "tactics" instead of movements. This way you can be a bit more free in your naming conventions!
Sincerely hope this helps!
When coming up with ideas of what powers to have, I like to think of 4 categories.
Attack
- Destroys opponent's units.
Defense
- Keeps your units from being destroyed.
Support
- Aids (OR lessens) a unit's capabilities for a limited time
Recon
- Gathering (OR obscuring) information
BTW me and my family are HYPED about the release of Pincer a Gentleman War and we want to know if you have any plans about the shipper or website that you might be selling it on Thank You
One idea to break up combat instead of maneuver cards is to give each troop a bonus depending on the terrain they are on (or the terrain they are attacking)
For example: Hills could give advantage to Cavalry, Forests to Infantry, Stone to Artillery. Wheat could give advantage for all 3 types, while mountain could be a disadvantage to all 3. So in theory, controlling specific locations on the map and moving the right type of unit on the right type of terrain could be the key to victory. You could even add an additional disadvantage, such as... Infantry in forests is protected from Artillery, Cavalry on hills is protected from Infantry, Artillery in Stone is protected from Cavalry.
I like the idea that every resource card might have an alternate ability, including maneuvers. That way you can choose to use the the resource for it’s intended use or an immediate short term bonus
I didn’t like how the start of the live latest game was gridlocked as players waited for enough resource cards to trade in.
I get that you don’t want to copy Catan’s trade mechanics, and I think I have a decent alternative.
The Trading Post
If you want a particular resource, you may make a ‘bid’ to buy one by placing a stack of cards next to the Supply deck for the desired resource. Ex: I might place two wood cards next to the Iron deck.
Other players can also make bids, so Bob could place his bid of 1wood and 1 wheat next to the iron deck as well.
When Charlie (the only player with access to iron). Rolls iron and gains the resource, he may choose to accept a bid from either player and sell the resource.
A DIFFERENT idea, that gives trading an element of player interaction, but not as much:
SUPPLY & DEMAND
When you trade in cards for a resource (standard 5:1). The cost of that resource increases. Place a +1 token next to it.
Conversely, the cards used to trade in are placed face up next to their discard piles (not the cards used to buy units /build items, just the ones traded with the bank). When a particular resource has 5, the cost of that resource is reduced by 1.
I think this could have applications of trying to buy out the iron market so other players can’t afford it. Or maybe make you reconsider which resource cards to trade in, in case it helps your enemy afford a needed resource.
This idea would work concurrently with the limited deck size you already have in place
@@lifefindsaway7875 May want everything to be 'tokens' next to the corresponding deck so if there is ever a need to reshuffle a discard pile for a resource... you don't have those resources stuck in face-up piles acting like tokens.
I agree, the playtest took way too long at the beginning. I am changing the exchange rate to where you can trade ANY 5 cards in for the one of your choice. Instead of five of the same. I think that will give players a lot more flexibility.
I do like the idea of some sort of trading Post. That could encourage player interaction more. We'd have to figure out how the ports/roads all fit into the mix. It could diminish the benefit of building those, if you can get a better deal from bidding. Good ideas though, definitely going to chew on that.
Reenforcement card could also be interesting. Basically if a piece is captured and you have reenforcement you can capture the enemy piece who just tried to capture yours and perhaps even replace your original piece with a different unit.
You could have 2 variants to the game, one where manuevers are placed randomly within the resources and another where they are always in a set position, so as cards are drawn, more experienced players can keep count and have a notion of what manuevers are coming up.
One thing you could do which you've probably already thought of is include an entirely separate maneuver in that "development card" deck different from all the terrain/resource ones. Instead of just separating all the maneuvers into that deck. If you weren't already putting espionage in stone I'd say something like it would be ideal for that scenario.
I dont know your game but it's clear that you need some kind of randomness/unpredictability otherwise you're just creating a new version of chess.
And with your system maybe the players can mindgame/bait their opponent by moving onto a specific terrain as if they had the corresponding maneuver.
You're probably on the right path, dont listen to the haters ;)
Exactly! I think the bluffing element could be really neat. Thank you for the support!
I am designing a co-operative engine builder and your analysis of the systems is refreshing. Players are amazing at knowing problems with games, but terrible at solving them. That is what puts designers apart from players.
The fluidity of the maneuvers being attached to terrain types is incredibly seamless. However, any point of randomness (when there is so little of it) makes pain points more potent. With this system, the issue you may run into is a game being ruined for a player simply for being unlucky.
There may be another way to solve the issue to avoid luck ruining the skill based gameplay that is being provided.
In a game like risk, when there are sometimes hundreds of dice rolls, luck distributions even themselves out overtime.
Love the idea of the manuever cards being tied to the resources, gives players something to think about when planning their attack. There is something I would like to point out though.
In playtesting I found that whoever builds their first colony on a tile that does not have access to all resources is at a MAJOR disadvantage over other players. I am wondering if you ever noticed this and plan on changing the rules regarding the placement of the first colony
I think it's great that you keep the maneuver cards. Since I have not playtested the game yet I did not feel qualified to participate in the poll. However, from an abstract point of view a bit of randomness is super important.
Chess is an awesome game but a new player has to put in hundreds of hours to be able to have a slight chance to win against a veteran. Hence there are so much fewer occasions where one can play the game and have fun. This is the problem of determinism.
Moreover, the "asymmetric" randomness where the outcome is in theory already set but both players lack knowledge about the other players possibilities is much more interesting than just rolling dice. So I really like the concept.
Check out the battle game Unmatched by restoration games. They use a single miniature with a deck of cards for combat
As a fellow designer and I assume fellow publisher, I have to say this video series is excellent! Great example of using outside skills to benefit your design.
As for the mechanism, it sounds to me like the feedback your getting is due to these card being an output randomness issue which doesn’t fit in with the other strategic elements.
Defensive player is trying to fish for maneuvers and may or may not get them.
Attacking player has no way to account for what maneuvers may or may not be out there.
This is causing a negative impact to the game for both sides. Have you considered adding maneuvers to some sort of river system? This way players have a reasonable chance to acquire maneuvers they want, and opponents can try and account for what maneuvers are in play?
This might also build up the tension as both players are striving to set themselves up to outmaneuver the other in combat
This is the first that I have seen this, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
First off, the game looks intriguing! Without knowing anything more than what is discussed in the video, it looks like an abstract strategy game with a very light war theme. It gives the appearance of an area control game, but I’m not sure if it truly is area control as it doesn’t appear that you gain any advantages for occupying any specific locations over any others, outside of being able to use a card matching its terrain type, which again just leans more toward abstract strategy in my mind.
That all being said, I had a couple ideas that immediately came to my mind:
1) Instead of gaining cards randomly and then playing them when in the matching terrain, what if all cards were readily available in stacks according to the terrain type and then you GAINED the matching card when you entered and remained in any specific terrain? So you might visit specific terrains on purpose just for the sake of gaining its card, even if there is no enemy present. Then, when appropriate, you can play one card during a single turn with the terrain type listed on the card having no direct relevance as to when or how you play it, just the tactic itself?
2) What if certain terrain cards gained strength/weakness or extra/reduced benefit depending on what terrain tile it is being played on? For example, maybe a Forest card has a standard benefit of movement when going to most tiles, but you gain one extra tile of movement if going through desert or one less tile of movement if going through mountain? Something like that.
I would use dice for more suspense and dynamics but it is an interesting idea. My problem is that at a larger scale it would be more like chess, meaning for a good move you must make moves in your mind which will take time and might be not so interesting for spectators. Manoeuvres are good for spicing things up, but still not enough excitement.
If you want a card to have a cancelling effect, like you originally talked about, you could give attackers the option to play a card with every attack, face down. Then defenders can play a card face up in response, or let it through. Then the attacker reveals their card, and if it was a regular resource card (aka, a bluff), it is returned to their hand. If it was a maneuver card, then it plays however it's supposed to.
If you go this route, you could also have defensive cards that punish bluffs (maybe they discard or steal the resource card, while returning the anti-bluff card to their hand). Just to make bluffing have a consequence.
All of this is only useful if you want an element of bluffing in the game. If bluffing isn't the mechanic you want, these would be terrible solutions.
(Also, I'm not saying you should do this, I'm just making sure you know it's an option.)
If there are too many maneuver types relative to the number of tile/resource types, maybe the types could be varied by some having one maneuver that is commonly on it and one that is rarely on it. This would give many combinations, and the opponent could still have a good idea of what a unit could do from there without it being as assured.
Really fun you changed encircelment to espionage and the game as whole is just getting better every time.
Something I think of as a modder and hobbyist game-dev: If I ever find myself trying to justify myself by showing my process to players, it means my game is undercooked. The justification takes the form, "My game had [problem]. [Controversial mechanic] fixes [problem]. If we remove [controversial mechanic], [problem] will come back, and [problem] was worse than [controversial mechanic]." All of that will be true, and some players will be convinced by that, but this won't do anything to change the minds of the other 99% of players, many of whom will never see my justification post. The only answer that will reach those players is to take a step back and try to solve the problem from another angle.
0:20 When the feedback is conflicting you've hit the sweet spot. Leave it as is.
It could also be a sour spot though.
In Heroes of Air, Lands ans Sea every players have the same hand of "manoeuver" cards and they cost different resources and do all sorts of things. When fighting you both player can use one of them if they can pay the cost. These cards can relate to certain units and some counter other cards than can be played meaning there can be a mind game there.
What make it predictable is that you know what your opponent can play because you have the same cards in hand and you can see his resources. You cannot be certain thou if he have the resources other cards but you can plan ahead for what he cannot pay for.
And as multiple fights happen and cards are played, you can predict more what you will play since his option and your are more limited.
For espionage you could consider limiting the number of cards you get to see. Maybe hard-limit to three cards, or make it proportionate to the number of cards at hand (say - a quarter of the hand, rounded down).
The rival would hand you his hand face down and spread and you would choose which cards to pick.
In my opinion this way it fits more with how a spy would be able to gather some information about the enemy, the spy won’t be able to give you all information that possibly exists about the enemy.
That's a good point, definitely considering this!
I don't like the idea of some cards being strictly better than others, especially not in a strategy game when you're trying to reduce randomness. Maybe have one attack type where you then move to the defended location, one where you sit still, and maybe even one where you move in the opposite direction (though I think that one could be considered worse in most cases).
You could tie maneuvers to more than one location if they were in a non-resource deck.
Also you could use some that make use of the opposing tile instead of your current terrain, for example a siege works against a lot of terrain, but it is less effective against people on the sea(who can just fish for food) or people on farmland(the siege will starve first).
Encircle in particular sounds more like you are making use of the enemy terrain than your own.
Hi Julian, thank you for being so tranparent with your game design process. I know it can be intimidating to show your design to people. I think keeping the maneuvers in the game is the right choice. But I also think drawing a maneuver card is strictly better than drawing any other resource card, which is mot optimal. - Here is a suggestion, if I might: Imagine you can use all resource cards for maneuvers, but you need to spend 2 identical resource cards to play a maneuver (2 timber for an ambush etc.). That way it is more costly to play them and not so much dependant on a lucky draw. just an idea. cheers!
I love the cards mechanic. Otherwise combat would be too predictable and the one with more resources to grind down the enemy would always win. One idea that I may sugest is a "spy card" where, after you spend it, it forces one of the enemy players to always keep ONE of their hand cards visible to others on the table. The specifics could be thought up latter, but my idea is that one of the cards is always on the table until he spends a spy himself to conduct a counter inteligence operation, removing the condition
Good on you, Julian. I'm curious to see how these changes affect the game.
@@Catninjas thank ya, thank ya. I'm curious as well! Only way to figure out is to playtest!
Hidden information can be very cool! It’s half of why yugioh is so exciting for me. Also, the randomness is an inherent part of games. Some people might find it uncompetitive because someone could get lucky and get more maneuvers. But then people aren’t drawing resources so it’s still a trade off.
The concwpt of a separate "Manuver" deck seems pretty compelling. It makes me think of "Scythe" in a way where your opponent knows you have ways to influence combat without knowing exactly how you can. Scythe does counter balance that by having you able to spend a basic resource to boost your base combat value before modifiers however which, gicen your desire to keep things relatively simple, doesn't really fit the design philosophy. You do have the benefit of having different piece movement types though, which could fill that slot.
My pitch, lean more into the Manuver cards, make it a separate deck, but also maybe use a different way of gaining them rather than just buying them. Maybe you have a certain maximum hand size for them and draw one each turn, discarding the excess face up, or every time you lose a unit, you draw a manuver card (Which could balance out those "Snowball" combats.)
Either way, perhaps you shiuld consider locking certain Manuvers to UNIT type instead of Terrain type, I think most people would want to use manuvers more often rather than less, they seem like a very fun way of making your combat stand out from just back and forth, BUT the limitations could also play interestingly with offensive and defensive considerations.
Example: "I just saw them discard a 'Retreat' Manuver, that means they probably have an extra one in thier hand, I should attack their Cannon instead of their Musketeer, because Cannons can't use 'Retreat' and Muskets can.".
How about you put a special move in every card BUT half the cards have the move connected to the specific location (eg ambush with woods) while the other half have random ones?
Limit the player to 4 cards which have to be revealed on the table at all times. It will remove randomness and make it all about your decisions.
like i said it is a good decisions to make the combat not too simple,
i hope the end result will be cool to play and strategise around (and not just feel like guessing)
but i‘m confident :)
I'll admit that I'm not as versed as everyone else is on the topic, but from the little that I have played your game, I really like the concept of the maneuver cards. I wonder if it might be worth having them in a separate deck but associating them with leadership like corporals, field Marshals, or generals. . This would help it feel less like catan, And still work thematically with your goal here. In that purchasing or hiring different military personnel at different ranks could offer you one two or even more maneuver options based off of that commanders training, expertise, etc. They could even still be associated with the terrain cards as some generals throughout history have been known to be better in mountains or forests etc. It would keep the spirit of it, allow it to be a little bit less random and I think might play out really well. Even without taking my suggestion. I like your game and your collaborative approach to building. Keep up the great work. Looking forward to seeing the final product at the end of all of it
Memoir '44 - and the "Command & Colour" game series uses cards for everything - basically some are better than the others and you dont know what your enemy has in hand - i think you should definitely take a look as it might give you some ideas. Also i think your idea is great, people are too hang up on certain "industry standards" when it comes to rules. The only thing i would point out is : check about the probabilities of how often a player has access to maneuver cards as they are clearly important and it would just be unfun to feel like you never have any. Good luck with your game
Algorithm pointed me to your video and I haven't played your game, but I think your game looks interesting.
I think the random maneuvers create too much chaos in your strategy. The problem to me doesn't seem like it's in your cards, but how you obtain them.
For examples -
Have a few cards face up to choose when drawing, but allow to draw an unknown card from the deck.
Or
Have a deck for each terrain type and have a resource distribution list where not every card is the same. Mountains can have mostly stone/ore resources but maybe a couple forest resources in there. Similar to dungeon petz for example.
Or something way out of left field.
Make troop patterns on the cards that need to be matched to use. this give the opponent a hint of what they're trying to do if they know the game well.
I'll keep an eye on your game, interested to see what you decide (sorry for the long post)
Find the idea very interesting. The only problem with randomness is if you can not predict it or play around it, that way it feels unfair, it can work in some games but I don't think that is your idea considering you want a more chess like approach to it.
Maybe the best way to solve this is making the attacker having some kind of responding chance, like in magic the gathering, giving this cards counter play basically. And I don't think it should be attached to the cards, because spionage with stones has zero thematic sense.
First time I am on this chanel but this game already inspired me a 20 paragraph comment, well done.
Uhhhh.... Cool chanel I've found.
As a hobby designer whos main forte is in TCGs I think I know the mechanic that could help you implemet manuver cards.
Back in the early-mid 2000's there was this game called Dinosaur King. Yor deck was made of mainly 2 types of cards: Dinosaur cards, and Move cards.
Move cards worked a lot like your manuvers, but BOTH PLAYERS got to play up to 1 per attack. How did you decided who can plays theyre card first? By a rock, paper, scizors system. Aside from power each dino was also given an attribute of rock, paper or scizors, whoever LOST the rps either played it before the other or not at all. (In terms of a tie the turn player goes 2nd.)
For example: My 1500 power dino with the rock attribute attacks your 1400 power dino with scizors attribute. Now you decide to play a move to try and 1up me and risk to loose a move and a dino or play it safe and just let your dino die. Things become more interesting when its your dino who has the higher power, but mine is the one to win rps.
Given your units dont have power or hp or any of that, it dosent mean they couldnt have some other trait besides the way they move. For example a speed or initiative value that detirmines aginst who they can play mauvers 1st. Wich could make the system easier to understand while giving it more depth, since now both players know that combat looks like: If attack that with this than I play a card or not, than you play a card or not and than we see what happens.
This not only adds to the mind game aspect of the chess like combat, but also makes manuvers feel more fair, since neither player is completly at their mercy. Given that manuver cards become more acassable, wich would be more or less a reqiurement for a mechanical change like this.
From the few videos of this series that I have watched, so far my only dislike are the colors of the tiles. I love the idea of the tiles but to me that look somewhat "old-fashioned" maybe. They just look kind of dull and uninviting. I think I dislike the color scheme because they seem to be largely just one color with a touch of shading. I would love to see a bit more detail in a few of them. In particular, I'd personally like it if the water had a darker blue and the trees had a darker green. I like the wheat tile the most. Also, I think there should be more distinction between stone and iron. Yes, it is obvious which is which if you look at it for a second. But when you are looking at the whole board in generally they might blend together. Not to mention they are both gray and gray is such a boring color. If people disagree then they disagree and that is perfectly fine, this is just how I feel about the tiles personally.
Why not give a permanent buff for the terrain you are in either defending or attacking or both? Maybe make players pay some sort of resource to use the buff or to be able to circumvent it.
Apologies if this has already been brought up, but should it be “Encircle” as all your other manoeuvres are verbs and “Encirclement” is the only noun?
Bring back the old design of the cards they were great 😢
Also I can’t stress enough how good quality your videos are, keep up the great work 🎉
@@sSardine-t1jmuch appreciated, thank ya! Also, are you referring to the old resource cards?
@@julianbirke yea the old designs were amazing and it fit with the theme. I don’t mind the manoeuvre cards but I like the old design better
I like the movement tactics, but unlike the water version, it becomes predictable, cause you know they may have that card. Having a defensive and attacking ability eg woods ambush or hide. Water I feel this era ship of line tactics eg weather gage, have initiative to engage first or escape. Having two or more ships in a line give repel attack. I still like to see cavalry to either attack one hex and move to another not back original as well as hit two hex.
I like that idea a lot. There's no reason naval units couldn't have different maneuvers. Creating insensitives for different formations could be really cool as well.
@@julianbirke eg infantry form square repel cavalry attack. Cavalry charge may use the attack first hex and second? Artilley bombardment gives extra attack or range
I am kinda new here, but did, You considered adding maneuvers to diffrent terrains in lower quality ?
For example: wheat is primarly retreat, type, but also have 2 other (ambush and outflank for example). That would require more extensive resource decks, to keep good ratio. I would propose 36 cards (to keep Your 1 to 6 ratio), with 30 "blanks", 4 primarly tactic, and two secondrary - one copy each, so You would generaly know what maneuver expect on certain field, but there is also room for suprise.
But, as I said, I am new here, maybe working on wrong assumptions.
Have you thought about adding the ability to spend x# of a resource cards to execute the action?
I’m not fully aware of how the resource cards work so this might not be a good idea, but sometimes it is good in games when u have tough decisions where you are not sure if you should risk it or not.
Great video! Now it’s time to look ahead to marketing! Keep building the community- maybe even take it to a convention “unpublished” room- many talented Playtester’s will give you more insight and better feedback- plus a chance to met publishers and get them excited!
That sponsor caught me off guard
The main thing I dislike about them is being tied to resources. Too situational, and feels that you are just restrsining player freedom just for the sake of it. I'm not telling you there shouldn't be restrictions or conditions in some cards (maybe still tied them up to the resources), but not as a general rule.
I'm Not sure If it ist still that was but the first time I looked at the tts Version of the Game it was not stated that you couldn't move on Mountains. Love the Game and your videos
I'll have to double check but I'm pretty sure it says that land units may not move onto mountain tiles. Thanks for the heads up though! Appreciate the support!
bro made Catan + Risk
I like the maneuver cards but the espionage card feels out of place. I think encirclement, although confusing at first, fits better with the other maneuver cards. I know espionage is an important part of war but in gane it just seems like it would feel lik cheating.
Sorry for bad english.
Need to add diplomacy în the game.
Chess is such a classic combat system but your gameplay is much more like an RTS so I feel like chess style combat is too powerful. As much as I think trying to do chess style combat is an elegant design, I fear that it conflicts with the RTS type of game you're making. I know you're not into dice combat but I feel as though it might need it...Actually I wonder if there was a way that some units had more HP while others didn't. So that you had more defensive or harder to kill units. I've been playing a new space empire game called "Arcs" and both ships and buildings take two hits to destroy them. A damaged ship is tipped over while a building token is flipped over to its damaged side. They have dice combat but I wonder if there was a way where some of your units take two or three hits for them to be defeated. It might solve the I have more units than you problem. Perhaps a unit has to be surrounded by multiple units before it is destroyed. Things like that.
t oall the haters, if you want to play chess then play chess, if you want to play risk then play risk, if you don't want to play this game then don't play this game
Hello, Julian! I am interested in coming up with factions in CATAN colonizers. Do you have any ideas to share?
Are the manuvers hidden or public. I assume hidden. Never played you're game, never designed a game but an avid gamer of all types. I see why you like the mechanic. I know he has a unite in a field tile, so i know which effect he could have. So basicly every time he moves onto an field tile, its kinda like a bluff situation. How much intel do I have on what rescources my opponent has? Do i see that he just used the Woods with the manuver on it?
I don't like the situation where I either know or have to gues, he has an manuver card. Is there a counter play to that?
From what I have seen, I have to be in a woods tile and need the ambush card.
I realy like the thematic of the cards, like I know this is a Tile that is good for defence and if the unite is "smart enough" simulated by having the cards they can pull off a manuver.
Just a suggestion from what I feel, how about you make it like an bluffing game. What if, you make every resource basicly an ambush, so en attacking player can allways be safe and pay an extra ressource for the atack.
This would open up for ambush to be "atacking player loses", which would be cool. It should balance itselfe, since sure you can counter every manuver but you cripple your economie. Which I also think is very thematicaly. If you have a large enough ressource advantage, you should win the game.
Mybe some resources has to be excluded, from this group or mybe specific resources counter different manuvers. Or its associatat with the unite, a Musketer just need wheat to be safe but a cannon needs iron.
This realy debends on how you're economie system plays out. From what i see it feels a bit "settler of catan"ish. So probably players have to much of some resource and to few of others, probaly why you have a trading mechanic. If thats true youd have to limit the use of which ressource can be used to counter manuvers.
sry for bad english. This is me just throwing ideas out, since you got my creative jucies flowing.
For me associating with the unite Type seems very cool, a Musketer might be relatively easy to keep spending resources on but a cannon might need an more rare resource and a ship might need even two of those. This could work thematicaly as well es gameplaywise.
In this case this would make the Musketer the hardest to bring in position but if you can they cant be countered by manuvers.