Email Concerning Eliminating Resource Model and Using Town/City Supported Units

November 27, 2003

Conquest updated

Background: After the last couple of games of Conquest were played, in my own
personal post game assessment, I felt that there were a couple of weaknesses
that had been identified in the game.

First, optimal strategies seemed to be converging on early game passiveness.
It seemed the each player was best served by developing economically (gaining
cities or even roads) and military aggression only came into the forefront in
the last couple of rounds of the game.

Secondly, the structure of the game makes it extremely easy for players to gang
up on an early emerging leader.  If one player goes aggressive and starts to
look too big through early military success, it results in their attracting the
attention of all the other opponents who quickly form a Grand Alliance to
contain that early dominant player.

Similar Game Comparisons:

Risk - The early game passiveness is also seen in Risk, which IMO has to resort
to the game destabilizing card bonuses in order to drive the game to a
conclusion.  Risk is quite similar in game structure in that there are no fixed
alliances, and the game allows players to build up strength by sitting
passively and collecting their reinforcements passively.  Risk also suffers
from the gang up weakness, and if a player emerges as a leader too quickly,
they are promptly shut down by the pack.

Axis & Allies – A&A begins and ends with military aggression.  That is the
theme throughout each game.  There are fixed alliances and is no point in
building up passively.  However, the games are all somewhat similar (first
turns can be identical) and has fixed alliances that in essence turn it into a
2 player game.

Settlers of Catan – no military action, but provides a quick, fun game with a
variety of resources.  Each game is completely different from the last.

Diplomacy – A game I hope to soon own a copy of – it hinges around negotiation.
 My rule knowledge is a bit fuzzy I confess.  There are no dice rolls and
territorial gain is accomplished by weight of numbers.  It is set in WWI, pre
WWI era in Europe.  Each country has 4 or 5 cities.  Each city supports an army
or naval unit.  If Germany moves 3 armies adjacent to Paris, and the French
only have 2 army units in Paris, then Germany forces the French armies out of
Paris and Germany takes control of it.  Then the French lose an army unit (the
one supported by Paris) and Germany gains an army unit supported by Paris.  The
game has military action through (albeit without dice action) but has fixed
starting positions and winning is dependent upon negotiating peace and
cooperation with allies that you may or may not be able to trust.  Strategy is
mostly in the player negotiation as opposed to execution on the board.

Strategic Game Conclusions:

Fixed Alliances vs. Player Independence – Any game that starts with fixed
alliances will achieve immediate military action as much of the guesswork is
removed and the battle lines are drawn.  Games that have players function
independently are at a great disadvantage to achieve immediate military action.

Passive Growth vs. Aggression Growth – Most games allowing players to grow
economically will eventually result in an equilibrium that is completely one
sided.  Either the economic growth is to be preferred or the military
acquisition growth is to be preferred.  Optimal strategies will emerge that are
tilted to one or the other.


Personal Ideal:
A game with random or changing placement, no permanent alliances, continuous
military action from the beginning, available economic growth that is not a
dominant strategy, a variety of unit options and resources, resource
consideration, dice rolling, simple rules, easy game play, quick games (< than
3 hrs.)

Based on these conclusions and my own self-assessment, I tried to develop a set
of rules that would alter the game play of Conquest enough to provide for
continuous military involvement.  These are the results:

Town – supports 1 unit
City – supports 2 units

Food – Infantry
Gold - Cavalry
Ore – Artillery
Wood – Frigates

Examples:
A wood town supports 1 frigate, a gold city supports 2 cavalry, etc.

Combat rolls are the same.  “Hits” cause units to be “routed” or forced off the
field, forcing them to retreat to an adjacent hex and out of the hex in
contention.

When a town/city is captured, the former owner must immediately remove 1 or 2
units (1 for town, 2 for city) that were supported by that town/city,
regardless of where they are on the map (owner’s discretion).

Additionally, the new owner gains 1 or 2 new units after holding the town/city
for a turn.  They have to place those units in the town/city that is going to
support the units.

Units are only lost when a town/city is captured or when there is no place for
a unit to retreat.  In that last case, the player that lost their units will
generate new ones in the town/city (of matching resource) of their choice on
the following turn.

Town costs 1 food, city costs 6 food

Food hexes that support infantry are the only resource hexes that produce
resource chips each turn.

Game play begins with a player having an infantry and 1 food chip.  Infantry
are no longer converted into towns.  Instead infantry have to be on the hex to
found the town, but a food chip is spent for them to found it, rather than them
being converted into the town.

A newly founded town will generate its supported unit on the beginning of the
next turn.

Battle example:

Blue attacks from hex A into gold hex B, controlled by Red.
Blue has 4 infantry, 2 cavalry, 1 artillery
Red has 2 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 artillery
Blue rolls 3 dice, 1 for each unit type, rolling a 5, 3, 2, scoring two
nonselective hits
Red rolls 5 dice, 1 for each unit type, 2 for the city, and rolls a 6, 5, 3, 3,
1, scoring three hits, one of which is selective
Blue’s routed infantry and artillery are forced back to hex A
Red’s routed infantry retreat back to friendly hex C
Blue now has 2 infantry, 2 cavalry, and rolls a 3, 1, scoring 2 hits
Red now has 1 cavalry, 1 artillery, and rolls a 5, a miss
Blue takes the city with the unrouted 2 infantry and 2 cavalry
Red’s cavalry and artillery are forced back to hex C

At the end of the battle, Blue has 2 infantry and 1 artillery in hex A, Blue
has 2 infantry and 2 cavalry in hex B (the city), and Red has 2 infantry, and 1
artillery (Red chose to lose the routed cavalry and another cavalry elsewhere
on the map to pay for its loss of the gold city).

On the beginning of the following Blue turn, Blue will get to put 2 cavalry in
hex B and immediately use them (assuming Blue maintains control of hex B).


Comparison Table based on personal ideal:
 

www.viktorygame.com