Stronghold-An AT/Euro Worker Placement Game?

clockwirk wrote:

You ever play Commands & Colors: Ancients? Wooden blocks (not cubes, but close) and victory "banners". Admit it, if they used plastic armies instead of wooden blocks and called them "objectives" instead of "victory points", there would be no problem.

Yea, I would say you would be right. But they would have to be true objectives.

---

Whatever happened to all those great conversations everyone would have, talking about the "toy factor" of these games? Give me Fire and Axe, Conquest of the Empire and Napoleon in Europe any day of the week.

An excellent "cube" based game? Shogun/Wallenstein. And how much cooler if it could have had plastic figures?

Now I love tons of plastic in my boardgames, I play D&D with Dwarven Forge and tons of other unessential visual stuff, and I love minis games, but fucking christ Ryan, you need to go buy a sack of army men and get out of the fucking sandbox. You sound like a complete tool. Notahandle makes good points and brings some actual thought to the table, you just sound like a braying mule.

As to the topic itself, I can feel the dislike of VP in the theme but I think Clock points out pretty perfectly why it CAN be a perfectly workable solution to a situation where there are a lot of tactics beyond just smashing the other guy (though smashing the other guy should still be a key possible road to victory). It could still totally fall flat, but I think it also has the potential to allow for an even more engaging experience where you can really try out some werido tactics.

Also, I don't think it's possible for me to get tired of fantasy themes.

MattLoter wrote:

Now I love tons of plastic in my boardgames, I play D&D with Dwarven Forge and tons of other unessential visual stuff, and I love minis games, but (^*&^(*& christ Ryan, you need to go buy a sack of army men and get out of the &*^)(&^* sandbox. You sound like a complete tool. Notahandle makes good points and brings some actual thought to the table, you just sound like a braying mule.

As to the topic itself, I can feel the dislike of VP in the theme but I think Clock points out pretty perfectly why it CAN be a perfectly workable solution to a situation where there are a lot of tactics beyond just smashing the other guy (though smashing the other guy should still be a key possible road to victory). It could still totally fall flat, but I think it also has the potential to allow for an even more engaging experience where you can really try out some werido tactics.

Also, I don't think it's possible for me to get tired of fantasy themes.

I'll move past Matt Loter's base comments and try to get to the core of what I think he is saying: I think what Loter is saying is that I am doing waaaay too much complaining... but not doing anything at this point in providing an alternative solution or even making any logical, cohesive argument to support my case.

On this point, after going back to review, Loter is right... probably too much frustration coming out for me on this topic. Obviously, am not a fan of his actual characterization of it. But in the end...right is right. And on this one, Loter does have a valid point.

So, I apologize to the group for spinning the conversation too far off task.

MattLoter wrote:
" I can feel the dislike of VP in the theme but I think Clock points out pretty perfectly why it CAN be a perfectly workable solution to a situation where there are a lot of tactics beyond just smashing the other guy (though smashing the other guy should still be a key possible road to victory). It could still totally fall flat, but I think it also has the potential to allow for an even more engaging experience where you can really try out some werido tactics."
But smashing the defender is what it's all about. Why have VPs, as Michael suggested, for things like killing a battering ram crew or breaching a wall? Is it a measure of how well you're doing and to encourage you as the game progresses? Why is that necessary? The defender has no option, and the attacker ought to be able to judge his progress and whether or not to continue.

Regarding weirdo tactics, you're adding VPs to allow unrealistic play, which makes it less AT and more Euro. Michael said before that this could be a good Euro and I can see that. Unfortunately, besieging a small castle appeals a lot less as an efficiency exercise Euro, than as an AT game. I'm hoping that this will be a good hybrid with the mechanics matched to the setting, i.e. nothing forced in that ruins the 'suspension of disbelief'.

I've always liked VP inticement as a sort of guide for games where you're not sure what you should do. It kind of frames out a plan of action. I could see where some folks find this to be too confining, but more often than not - if done well - the VP are only awarded for doing stuff that you'd already *want* to do. In this case, for smashing through a wall, or killing x guys in one turn. It adds gradation to who's winning or losing at any given point.

That said, when someone wins by VP but clearly gets their asses kicked, I'm less of a fan. But again, a good game can avoid this.

I could see it adding unrealistic play, but I could also see it as being a reasonable way to measure the value of certain tactics. For example, it would be pretty easy to track dudes pushing against each other along the battle line/wall by just seeing who's pushing where. But then how do you incorporate the value of cutting off supplies or poisoning the well without it still needing to be majorly abstracted. Oh you can't eat so this random soldier dies is just as out there. Or how about issues of morale? I think if you are able to set up a reasonable system of relative value for different successful actions, you're able to open up a lot more roads to victory than just beat down the walls, which in turn seems a lot more true to reality and could make for a more interesting game.

It would be nice if it had a hybrid sort of vibe, where there were multiple victory conditions that could be represented both by a dudes on a map sort of thing but also by a points system that tracked other ways to successfully besiege a castle. Perhaps something similar to Twilight Struggle's system.

I don't have a problem with victory points when they are awarded for something that seems to make sense in the game. In the fleet games, you get victory points for ships sunk, but you also get victory points for certain objectives in the game. In some of the other wargames, you get victory points for things that mimic what you would try to do in real life (taking a hill and holding it for a certain period of time comes to mind). It's when they are awarded for more arbritrary things that sometimes seem to be completely unrelated to the game where I have a problem.

Ska_baron wrote:
" I've always liked VP inticement as a sort of guide for games where you're not sure what you should do."
I'm in two minds regarding VPs as guidelines, I know that it can work well but it still feels artificial in a 'get VPs in somehow' sense. Plus, I prefer my guidelines to be in the Designer Notes (too few games have them).
" ...when someone wins by VP but clearly gets their asses kicked, I'm less of a fan. But again, a good game can avoid this."
That's it exactly! I hate it when that's possible, the conflict becomes almost irrelevant as the emphasis is far too much on the VPs.

MattLoter wrote:
" I could also see it as being a reasonable way to measure the value of certain tactics."
This works better for me if you play two games and swop roles. Then you can compare how well I did as attacker compared to you, ditto for defender.
" But then how do you incorporate the value of cutting off supplies or poisoning the well without it still needing to be majorly abstracted."
One way would be to abstract the cutting off of supplies into a turn limit for the game. The defenders have to break the siege or starve. Stronghold has numerous attackers versus few defenders, so they'll have ensured the attacker won't just sit and wait. Poisoning the well isn't really relevant on this scale because it was normally inside the castle. You could award the defender some VPs for doing it out of revenge, however!
" Or how about issues of morale?"
Could be abstracted as decreasing unit strength over time and linked to the turn limit. That probably works better for the defender though.
" I think if you are able to set up a reasonable system of relative value for different successful actions, you're able to open up a lot more roads to victory than just beat down the walls, which in turn seems a lot more true to reality and could make for a more interesting game."
This is a realism vs playability decision. For a siege game I lean towards realism, and to me VPs indicate it may be more towards playability than I'd like. You could have sabotage and betrayal, but you're then balancing the extra possibilities against extra rules. I'd like it if Stronghold was a really streamlined pound the walls game, that would be something different and new.

mikoyan wrote:
" I don't have a problem with victory points when they are awarded for something that seems to make sense in the game. ..."
Absolutely! I agree with this 100%. On the grander scale(s) you mention it works extremely well as a measure of success because it's in tune with realism. Trouble is, on a much smaller scale it's harder to do well. Michael gave some really good examples earlier, but I still wonder whether there's much point, whether it's merely too intrusive player hand-holding.

Despite the reservations I have, I'm certainly looking forward to getting Stronghold!

And I'll echo the other folks in that I have a problem where the victory points don't match the outcome of the game. I mean you have a game where you are playing well. Everything is clicking but because you didn't take the choices that net victory points, you end up losing. And I really hate the games where a certain VP threshold will win the game because that's usually the point where someone is mounting a comeback.

Game Designer’s Journal #3 has been posted.

Michael Barnes wrote:
"so far, it's the only Essen title I'm really interested in."
Let's try and make it two: Another Vlaada Chvátil game - Dungeonlords..

ubarose wrote:

Wouldn't this be a military unit deployment game, rather than a worker placement game?

As they say in Baltimore, THANK you . . .

Or Resource Management if you want to get into the support aspect of the battle. That actually would be pretty interesting.

I don't see how this has anything to do with worker placement, where each player is vying for common (and limited) resources. Unless the designer has truly gone off the deep end, I don't see how Worker Placement can be utilized in a siege scenario, and THANK FRACKING GOD FOR THAT. I appreciate that Worker Placement is the new Tuck Boxes of boardgaming lingo, but putting a guy on a space does not satisfy the minimum requirements of the dissatisfying play that is called worker placement.

My first Risk game had cubes. Dudes are dudes, I don't care much about the shape.

Sag.

Sagrilarus wrote:

ubarose wrote:

Wouldn't this be a military unit deployment game, rather than a worker placement game?

As they say in Baltimore, THANK you . . .

Or Resource Management if you want to get into the support aspect of the battle. That actually would be pretty interesting.

I don't see how this has anything to do with worker placement, where each player is vying for common (and limited) resources. Unless the designer has truly gone off the deep end, I don't see how Worker Placement can be utilized in a siege scenario, and THANK FRACKING GOD FOR THAT. I appreciate that Worker Placement is the new Tuck Boxes of boardgaming lingo, but putting a guy on a space does not satisfy the minimum requirements of the dissatisfying play that is called worker placement.

Not knowing anything about the game at the time of my post I erred on the side of "Euro" with my terminology (hence posing the subject line as a question). I agree with you both in light of emerging details.

Dudes are dudes, I don't care much about the shape.

I agree with you although I tend to be more of an ass man myself.

It's listed as Worker Placement on BGG.

Sag.