Bringing Home The Bacon: Victory In Strategy Games

May 25th, 2009 Zen

While on the topic of Twilight Imperium, a game much played by my friends recently, I got to thinking about victory.

I have to thank Mr Ford though, as through failing to achieve many objectives towards the game’s victory, it made me wonder why. In Twilight Imperium, at least, most of the objectives you have to complete in order to gain victory points are economic or technological - a facet of the game that doesn’t appeal to anyone. Some people just like to blow stuff up. In the interests of science, and because I like making lists, he’s a few motives for play and endgame objectives I can think of. Try to work out which one you like best.

• Conquest: Wipe out the other players. Very popular in computer games and best used in games that don’t last that long. It is a tug-of-war type game, in that players will push back and forth until one wins. Because players can be eliminated, its best not to use this in a game like Twilight Imperium unless you’re prepared to have players pack up, walk out the door and go home many hours before the game ends. One important aspect of the conquest objective is balancing your resources between warfare and development, using developed territory or technology to fuel your war machine. Players who fail to balance this could be left with a destroyed fleet and no income. This option is more commonly used in Real-Time Strategy games on computer and rarely in board games.

• Attrition: An alternative to conquest, wherein players just try to deal damage or take territory to gain victory. It doesn’t involve the complete elimination of any player, though it’s certainly not discounted as an option. This is the type of victory used in games like Defcon, and in the alternative objective deck provided with the Twilight Imperium expansion.

• Economic: Victory usually occurs after a player has amassed enough stuff. It is, in essence, a race to a victory point, with which one player can suddenly and unexpectedly emerge the victor. This can put emphasis on budget, management of purchases and the occasional aggressive action to get the job done. This is the type of objective I prefer, as I don’t like being forced into conflict if I can avoid it. The economic victory requires the player to leverage diplomacy in their favour, which can be hard against a heavy-handed conquest player. This is the option used in the base Twilight Imperium game and in games like Settlers of Catan.

• Build Up: Victory is achieved through establishing a certain level of infrastructure or technological advance, and appeals to the type of gamer who likes the economical victory. Similar to the economical victory, it is a race gametype. Unlike economical though, it requires the player to invest in something other than warfare, while still maintaining a formidable defense force - in case things go south. It requires a little more tactics than economical, as the money or gains are not immediately available for use in warfare whenever you need it. Therefore, players who like to build upwards are going to have a lot more invested in static defenses such as minefields, forts or cannons. This is partly used by Twilight Imperium in the base game.

• Precision Strike: Victory is gained by acquiring one particular location or thing, and is favoured by players who prefer underhanded tactics and negotiation. This type of strategy is frequently only available in games with alliances, or variations of them. This objective is definitely for people who like action, as it doesn’t require much investment in infrastructure or forces, but rather careful foreplanning, an opportunity - and luck. However, lack of power usually leads to fatal backlash from the person you backstabbed, and is frequently the downfall of the precision player. Additional planning can lead this sort of player to defend against a backlash, causing further damage to the intended target. The precision player needs to use threats more than any other negotiation, which doesn’t win you friends.

Posted in Board Games, Card Games, Console Gaming, Game Concepts, PC Gaming, Player Satisfaction | 1 Comment »

Suspicion, Distrust and Teamwork

April 20th, 2009 Zen

I tend to favour games with flimsy alliances and deadly tactical consequences. To explain, I like games that allow you backstab, and be vulnerable to the same. When I half-bake an idea for a board or card game in my head, I deliberately keep teamwork in mind.

Permanent alliances, or teams set out from the start, harbour a sense of security. You know who your friends are, you know where the enemy is - you build your tactics on numbers and probability alone. However, when you play a game in which you form alliances that can be broken, or you just don’t know who the enemy is, a human element of suspicion and distrust develops - which extends the game beyond simply knowing the rules and the best tactics. Note that these rules apply to certain fantastic electronic video computer games, in which Spy Checking can be a waste of time and ammunition.

In a card game idea that has been ongoing for some time now, I have toyed with the idea of players’ reliance on each other, even though there can be only one victor. It is my hope that players will begin the game with complete teamwork in mind, in order to complete their common objective, but as they get closer to the end, will begin playing against each other or, at the very least, leaving each other to die.

So, if you ever aspire to making a computer game or two, throw in some suspicion and distrust with your teamwork.

Posted in Board Games, Card Games, Game Concepts, PC Gaming | No Comments »