We performed our second major play test today. First, we played on our original board (16 spaces on the outer tier, 12 middle and 8 inner) but included 20-sided dice for battling. This resulted in a much more fun and unpredictable experience. There were several instances where a single army defeated two armies, however it was not the common outcome.

I think we have found a good balance between chance and predictability. During a player’s turn, he (or she) may only move one army (pawn) up to the number shown on the rolled six-sided die. This means that each player generally has a good idea of which of their armies are at risk from an attack during the next round. Attacks are dependent on dice rolls and player tactics, so the risk is never fully known. This gives rise to a dual-continuum of tactics. Players that choose to advance their armies together are defensively stronger but move at a much slower pace, while those that move armies over large distances can reach the top faster, but are at greater risk of encountering (and losing) a battle.

In later games during the play test, I introduced a board with a slightly different layout. This new board featured tessellating hexagons that spread out from the central hub space. The spaces on each tier were now 18, 12, and 6 for outer, middle and inner tiers respectively. I personally found that this gave more room for players to make their initial moves without falling into battle, and discouraged trivial battles on the outer tier. Battles on the inner tier were not any more frequent as with the previous board, but this was because the middle tier was used more as a strategic platform that on the other board.

Even though I have encouraged my group members to create a different board design, I feel that the one we have now is very suitable to the game experience we are trying to make. The board encourages the forming of relationships between players, whether by working as passive allies on lower tiers, where battling is mutually destructive; facilitating destruction of ramps as a game tactic; or forcing battles on higher tiers between winning players. Three appears to be the ideal number of tiers, as two would be too easy and make ramp-building a frivolous game dynamic, and any more would make game tactics difficult to decide upon and also depreciate the board’s ability to convey the game state.

I suggested that we keep our current rule of army movement only being allowed in one direction (clockwise), but that players can move any number of spaces up to that shown on the die. Giving choice to the number of spaces to move gives the player more control over his tactics, but this is ultimately governed by chance: the number rolled. Restricting the direction of travel forces players to overtake opponents’ armies throughout the match, and sets up possibilities for combat. It also means that a player can’t simple collect nearby resources and build ramps near his base; diminishing the game to a simple game of chance to see who can get the highest dice rolls and thus reach the top unchecked in the smallest amount of time.

As I expressed last week, I think that the underlying theory we have applied to this game design has meant that it is very exciting and easy to tweak. We are much closer to realising a balanced game that rewards players for working with tactics that involve forming alliances, betraying those alliances, understanding risk and reacting to changes in the game state. I feel that all the group members are contributing effectively. If our game design creates a great experience, my part in that will be that I did not allow my team-mates to introduce complex passages of play when there were already other complex rules present. As the game stands, we don’t have any really complex concepts, and I’d prefer to keep it that way.