Today, I ran another playtest at a Break My Game event.  The goal was to experiment with modified rules , and different player configurations besides the normal 1v1 format.

 

 

Here are several of the things I tried.

Modified supply rules:

I decided to try something different from using Go  rules to determine if unit should be removed from the game. Instead,  I changed the rules so that any unit that could not trace a path through friendly or neutral territory to a player’s capital was removed from the game. Players found these supply rules to be more intuitive,  and it led to more decisive attacks as it was easier to remove large chunks of territory from an opponent. However, I am not sure if I want to use the modified supply rules since it makes it too easy for players to surround and maintain control of large swaths of territory.

Team Rules(2 v 2):

For this playtest, I played with 3 other people, and we organized into teams of 2 with more available regions. The playtest went well because it maintained the things that made players enjoy the 1 v 1 game while the larger map and coordination with your teammate made the game interesting.

Free-for-all(3 players):

This did not go well because players were forced to play passively. An important part of this game is being aggressive to attack your opponent to reduce their influence. However,  attacking one person was discouraged because it left the player open to being attacked by the third person. Another important part of the game is not wasting turns, and that player would gain a major advantage if the rules allowed them to take one or two free turns. Players may also form alliances, which means a free-for-all version of this game would devolve into a series of 2 v 1 situations where the player being attacked by two people has essentially lost.
As a result, I’m going to ignore free-for-all-games for now to focus on 1 v 1 and team games.

Other comments

• Balance
  • Recruit cards were not useful at the game end.
  • Some players felt that there were issues with lame duck players and runaway leaders.
  • Map has too many choke points and needs to be opened.
• Ease of learning
  • Rules for extra troops on a territory was confusing.
  • Some players were confused about the rules, which made it hard to enjoy the game.
  • The map is confusing and needs a visual redesign.
  • Some of the territory borders were hard to read.

Things to change

• Rules clarity:
  • Create player aids.
  • Rewrite the rules so they are easier to understand.
• Game board design:
  • Make the map bigger.  There were many complaints about the map because it was too small.
  • Make sure the territory borders are clear.
  • Often, parts of the map will not be used, so have a clear way of covering them up.
  • Some parts of the map do not have enough contrast, which makes them hard to read.
• Theme
  • Find alternative game components for the board besides cubes. Currently, all the pieces on the board are cubes, which is confusing and does not make thematic sense.
  • Rename Constantinople territory to Istanbul.
  • Add pictures to the cards.
• Balance
  • Figure out rules for adding multiple units in a territory.  Placing multiple units in a territory needs to have a useful benefit such as a combat bonus that is easy to understand.