Tag: game

  1. Scarcity Game

    This game mechanic represents overfishing.

    So, I actually have two models.


    Stacks of tokens, each of which have a random number of null tokens on the bottom, and full tokens on the top.

    So, you draw from the stack knowing that at some unknown point suddenly that thing will be gone, but people can't predict when.


    In this case you have a bag of tokens that starts with some number of null tokens and some bigger number of live tokens. You shake the whole thing up.

    Now you draw from the bag, removing live tokens, and throwing back null tokens. Every turn you can put some number of tokens back into the bag, but if you spend more than went in, it's unsustainable.

    This one has the advantage of more uncertainty. If you draw 3, and you happen to get 2 nulls, you might be like "Woah, we're running low", but also maybe you were just unlucky. You never know when you reach in if you'll get a bounty, or not.

    At some point people will just realize that bag's not a good gamble any longer.

  2. Gambling Gods

    In this game you have a relatively simple mechanic for tribes that prevale over one another to capture territory or kill each other.

    That's not the game, though.

    The game is that the group of players all randomly creates the initial conditions for the game, with the different tribes all in different places with different resources and stuff.

    Then the gods each place down 2 bets on various outcomes. One might bet that the blue tribe will have the most land, whereas another might bet that pink will.

    One might bet that green will have more farmers than soldiers. Something like that. These bets are placed face-down and locked in.

    Then you play the game, which should hopefully be relatively simple and fast ish. No one player controls a given tribe, everyone controls all of them on their turn.

    At the end, you reveal your bets and the points are tallied up. Things which were picked by other players are worth less points per player, but you had more help trying to get them to succeed. Things which no one else chose are worth the most points, if you can make them come true without other people stopping you.

    Might be better to base the points on numbers, rather than most, so the scaling works. If you want points for each territory blue has control over, and blue has 20, then you get 20 points. But, if 3 other people also wanted that you get 20/4 = 5 points.

    The other player who was alone in being intereted in green's farms only needed 6 farms to beat all of you.

  3. Promise

    In this one people have a small hand of cards that say things like "I support you" and "I stab you in the back" and stuff.

    Then, the rest of the game is social. You give your promises to other players, but they don't know what you actually gave them.

    So, you can do things like tell one player you're going to back them, and give them a card. Then you can tell another player that you actually stabbed that player in the back, and you're giving them your actual support.

    I don't yet know how the game actually plays.

    Maybe you can / must also reveal one of your cards every turn. So I can reveal my "back stab" card to convince people I haven't used it on them.

    Maybe one card is a "+1" and whoever has the most +1s at the end gets 2 points, and whoever gave them a +1 gets 1.

    That way you really want people to pool their resources with you, but failing that you want to back the right other player.

    Then another card is -1, which subtracts.

    Maybe every round players are required to give two of their cards to someone else, reveal one, and keep one. The cards are +1, -1, 0, and 0.

    I'm thinking the round could go "give one, reveal one, give another, keep and tally"

  4. TDD Game

    Game secretly about TDD. You start with a empty space with all sorts of things on it and it looks really confusing, but the text bubble says "Woah hang on, that's a lot of stuff. Let's start slow and ignore all of this", and he gives you a single requirement that goods go from source A to sink A. Just a nice straight line of pieces.

    You run it, and it works. At that point, unlike other games where we clear it and go to the next puzzle, everything stays where it is, and the next challenge gets added to the bottom. Things should go from source B to sink B. Things still need to go from source A to sink A, though. You just have two tests now.

    Then things can ramp up, like "Source C has a lot of weird stuff in it. Some of it should go to A, and some of it should go to B". Again, though, A still goes to A and B still goes to B.

    By the end you've built up a large complicated thing by going through the steps.

    I'm thinking the name should be something like Tango Delta Distribution or something to make TDD...

    Other things that might happen:

    • Some things need to be held so they can go together because sink D needs A B A B A or something.
    • Maybe some things need to be packed and repacked (kinda like spacechem here, but that's likely alright)
    • Later, things change and A is now not only providing A, so you have to filter that too.

    I like the constant growing system, and the concept of giving people all the tools at the start and telling them "Just ignore these for now..."

  5. Evolving Card Game

    In this game everyone has all the same cards, and they list on them a power that takes effect in the first round of the game, one that takes effect in the second, and one in the third.

    Each one gets better the longer you keep it, but you can only play each card once, and you always have to play a card.

    Or something like that. Maybe it's rounds "1,2,3", "4,5,6", "7,8,9" or something.

    Either way, it's a tradeoff between immediate effects and later effects.

  6. Abstract Diplomacy

    In this concept there are N different shapes, where N is the number of players. Each round one of each shape is laid out, and at the end of that round everyone must get one of them, and so every one must go to someone.

    That's it. The shapes don't mean anything beyond that, and there's no reason to get one over another.

    The trick is that everyone has some secret goal. Someone's trying to get 5 squares, someone else is trying to get 3 circles and 2 squares, etc. The first person, or people, to get above their goals win.

    So, the game is just an arbitrary choice of "fine, I'll take the circle then so we can just get on with this turn", followed by the mistrust of "wait wait wait, didn't you get a circle last turn too?", answered by "well, yeah, but that's because no one wanted it last turn as well so I took it", "but why would you take something you didn't want two turns in a row? I'll take the circle", "Ok, fine, I'll take the square then", "Damnit. Someone else take the square and give him the triangle!"

  7. Anti Drafting

    In this mechanic players draw resources which they are forced to give to other players.

    It goes roughly as follows:

    1. Each player draws a card from the pool
    2. Each player, in turn, chooses another player to give their card to
    3. That player then must then choose someone else to give the card they had to, but that player can't have already recieved a card this turn (no loops)
    4. That goes around until, through some chain of some length, the original player gets a card

    This could be, in an N player game, up to N trades, but it can't be more, because of the no-loops, and can be 1, if the player who recieved the first card chooses to give their card to the original player, making it a swap.

    Play goes around until each player has had a turn starting the giving. At this point, every player keeps the card they have, and they begin again.

    The gist, in general, is to try and give your card to the player it will disadvantage the most, so far as you know.

  8. Balance

    The idea with this one is that each player has a stack of chips of red and black colour. The red ones go on the right, and the black ones go on the left.

    Then, each turn, the player has to take 2 of any colour from the centre, and add it to their pools. Then they get to take any number of one color tile from their pool and pass it around mancala style, one to the next player, one to the one after that, onward.

    Then they get points based on how balanced their pools are.

    Maybe you get scored before doing the mancala. Dunno.

    Might suck.

    Also potential wrench, is that each turn players alternate between being themselves black and red by passing tokens around each turn, and so you get more points if you're out of balance with your colour. Dunno.

  9. Expanding Area Game

    In this one there's a grid that's all forest or something, and each player has a hand of tiles and a starting location.

    Then on their turn they play a tile so that it's adjacent to other tiles. This represents that tribe exploring the forest and finding something.

    Some may be good, and some may be useless.

    So, the gist is that if you had a gold mine, you should play it near your guy, and if you had a mud-pit then you should play it in someone else's camp.

    Then, once the tribes areas meet, there is some mechanic of capturing territory from someone else, or something.

    Other Approach

    In this one there are a few different tribes, but they're not owned by any player. Gold may be selected on one person's turn, but that means they also didn't get points for expanding. If they'd chosen to expand, that would have left to gold for the next player.

  10. Cumulative Set Game

    In this game every player has a hand of cards of a few different colours and values. Then each player discusses their next play, and then plays two cards from their hand together in secret.

    After that, the total for each colour is added up and the points are evenly distributed amongst the people who contributed to that colour.

    So, it's not trick taking. If you play a 1 of red, and someone else plays a 5 and 8 of red, and that's all of the red, then you each get 7 points. That's not great for the guy playing the 5 and 8, but awesome for the person playing a 1, since if they'd played that on their own they only would have gotten 1 point.

    If, though, two people played an 8 of red, then they both get 8 points.

    So, the gist is that you make alliances and agree on what you will play to get the most value out of your cards, but then you play them and see who stabbed you in the back.

    I'm thinking there's also one or two cards that are "take-alls" where that player gets all of the points for the colour their other card that turn is.

    Maybe one cards that's a shield that protects from take-alls.

    I'm thinking each player has their own identical draw-deck, so every player got an even chance at every card. Then it's play-2-draw-2.

  11. Bloom Filter Game

    This one is basically a mechanic of using hash collisions in a bloom filter. Every turn there's some sort of "hash function" like "Grain goes into slots 1,4,6"

    Something changes that.

    Then, you can also use that to test for existence of something:

    • So, let's say in the six slots you've got [0,1,0,2,0,4]
    • Then, you trade in one of your grain with the above example hash to make the breakdown into [1,1,0,3,0,5]
    • Now gold this turn is "1,2,4", which means I can extract one gold from my magic bag, and leave myself with [0,0,0,2,0,5]

    So, basically, I'm using a magic hash function and my magic bloom-filter-bag-of-holding to transmute materials from one type to another.

    Maybe there's a deck of hashes, and you draw into a queue of 3, and relace at the end of the queue. That way you can play wheat now knowing that two turns from now you can exchange it for gold.

  12. Assembly Line

    This is a co-operative game where each player represents a forman of a particular part of a factory floor.

    Materials are produced by workers in an area, subject to forces, from inputs, and produce outputs.

    Those outputs are in turn inputs to the next player.

    Each turn is a day, and the players decide how many workers they want at each station. Then, through some sort of randomness, some of them just don't show up.

    Those that do are allocated to each place, and there they work on the inputs of the line and pass outputs to the next guy.

    You can maybe pass people from one station to the next up or down, but only sometimes or something.

    The score at the end is just how many pieces go out the last step.


    So, this could be called an uncooperative game. The motif could either be a factory floor, or perhaps divisions of a big company.

    The gist is that each division is out for themselves, but unfortunately have to work together just enough to keep the show running.

    Each player represents one part of an assembly line, or one division in a company. I think I'm going to stick with the Factory flavour for now.

    So, at the beginning of each turn each player looks at the inputs they have piled up, and perhaps any cards or modifiers they have in their hand, and commits to a production goal for this turn. This is your quota. These are kept in secret, and then everyone reveals them at the same time.

    Now, the floor starts for the day. Chips with random numbers of workers on it are shuffled and turned over. Now, players in an order to be discussed later pick which pools they want. This is a topic of much discussion and bickering, because the number of workers you get controls your throughput.

    Throughput, though, is also limited by inputs and outputs. If you don't have anything coming in to work on, then your workers will be idle.

    So, at the end of your turn, you get a number of points equal to the number of items you produce. Then you get penalized if you are under-quota by varying amounts. Now, the order for the next day's draft is assigned by the people who were most under-quota to the people who were most over quota. Those who guessed low, but scored really high, get last pick of workers next time.

    The last thing is that, depsite all this bickering and sabotaging, the factory needs to produce items. If at any point the output of the whole chain is under a certain amount, everyone gets penalized in some fair way. That way the people who crushed other people underfoot to get more points are hit harder when the whole thing comes down.


    I think different stations have different traits, and each turn people rotate through each station.

    - Shipping: This has random and fixed input of different types, and multiple outputs. You decide how many of each input goes to each output subject to your workers. - Assembly: These are straighforward. You draw from the input pile, apply your workers, to move things to the output pile. - Consolidation: These take inputs from multiple sources, and produce outputs that combine them. Each output is worth more points, but requires more inputs to produce.

    Different numbers of players have different layouts of floor. In a three person game it might just be:

    shipping -> assembly -> assembly.

    In a five person game is might be:

    shipping -> assembly -------------==> consolidation
            \-> assembly -> assembly /


    So, the gist is that each department wants to get the most people to produce the most items to look the best, but they have to work together enough to make sure that the factory still produces enough items to look reasonable on the outside.

  13. Garden Game

    This game uses the Weather Mechanic to model a growing season of some length, and the goal of the game is to produce a useful and prosperous collection of plants.

    Every "day" the day's weather is flipped over and every player has to deal with the weather of that day. I'm thinking that, like Dominion, every person has the same roster of plants they can purchase and plant, and they all deal with the same weather, so it's not an unfair game. Everyone has all the same conditions, but their choices affect their success.

    So, every turn people may buy plants, and plant them into their garden, which is their playing board. Every person has their own garden. Plants are placed facedown, which is a sprout, for a number of turns, and then are turned faceup and are now a plant.

    Plants have certain requirements, like some only grow if they maintain a certain amount of sunlight, and others only grow if they don't get over a certain amount of sunlight. All need a certain amount of water, but different ones need different amounts.

    Then, some plants have bonuses they give to other plants. Sod is more hardy when adjacent to more sod.

    Trees shade the adjacent spaces.

    Moss, maybe, provides moisture to adjacent spaces, or something like that.

    That way you can use some lower value plants to help protect your higher values plants. For example, the tree would make it so that a sunny day didn't fry all of your shade plants.

    Also, some plants will be perenial, which means that they yeild, then get flipped over into sprouts again, and continue. The annuals, though, yield and then are discarded.

    Status of a plant is kept as counters on the plant tile. Any rainy day a blue square is put on the tile, any dry day one is removed, etc. Same goes for yellow circles for sun exposure.

    Then if a plant gets too much sun, it dies, or if it gets too little, or whatever.

    So, plants cost some money to buy and plant, and they yield some value when they mature. They can be sold at a lesser cost before that. Dead plants loose all of their value.

    I'm thinking that annuals are worth more per yeild, whereas perennials are worth more over time because they yield more than once. They continue to occupy garden space, though, and must survive, whereas annuals yeild and then free up the space.

    You can also, I'm thinking, pay money on a turn to temporarily shield some of your plants from the sun or rain, or water them, or whatever. Or you can spend more money to get irrigation so you can water a whole area for less cost, etc.

    The game, then, comes down to managing space, and trying to plan to place your plants in an efficient way, while keeping them alive, and hedging the weather.

    For balance, and keeping people in the game, I'm thinking that one choice you can always take is hobby farm, which lets you put a tile on your land that yeilds a small but consistent amount of money per turn. That way you can always do something to dig yourself out of a bad investment. Or something.

    You'd have to balance it out so that filling your land with hobby farms isn't the winning choice.

  14. Blind Cooperative Game

    The idea is to have a co-operative game where the players all either win together or all lose, but they can't communicate with each other, except through the board.

    So, on their turn a player will choose some tile from their hand and lay it down on the grid somewhere in a way that would seem, to them, to make the most sense and be the most valuable.

    That may, though, screw over another player's actions.

    I'm thinking that the theme be something like spies trying to sabotage something, or infiltrate something, in a Loose Lips Sink Ships scenario. Any player who leaks information, even by just going "Rrr, damn" when someone puts something down, costs the team points due to a raid.

    So, the game should roughly end up like carcassone poker, where everyone wants to play together but can't co-ordinate.

    There would perhaps also be "intention" tiles which can be played instead of normal tiles. They cost you a turn, but they might have a little red X or an arrow or something on them to signify "Please don't put things here" or something. That has to go on the board, though, and costs a turn.

    Then, later, tiles can replace those ones.

    If you wanted to get crazy, you could even have a mechanic where the board is setup with a spinning shade around it, and players don't see the board until it's their turn. Then they don't even know who did what, they just know how the board was when they last touched it, and how it is now.


    Maybe it's something like a machine or factory where some parts take inputs and produce outputs. We're all trying to take resource A and get to resource B, but I don't know that other people have better cards than me, I just have to go forward assuming I'm the best, or something. Dunno.

  15. Teleport Partner Game

    In this game you and your partner are trying to achieve some goal, and the only way to get through the trials is to, roughly, fire each other out of your guns. So, my gun fires my partner, and their gun fires me.

    The original idea had some sense of "Maybe I'll purposefully dump you in the spikes so I get all the points to myself", or "Ok buddy, I pulled the lever and this place is sinking into the lava, get me out of here" "Nah..."

    But I'm not quite sure how to work it so that both players aren't just trying to race to kill each other at the end.

  16. Sacrifice

    A game where every play you make helps something, or a few things, but always hurts something else.

    It'd basically be a game where you always have a few objectives going at once, and you can help some while hurting others of yours.

    I'm thinking perhaps you have two red tokens and two green tokens.

    Then, there is a shared board with types of materials and amounts. Each player puts one token down each turn onto an unoccupied space. One of each colour goes on an amount, and one goes on a material. Once every player has played all of their tokens, the green item goes up by the green amount, and the red item goes down by the red amount.

    So, you can pick an amount first, but you might not be able to get the material you want. You can pick the material you want, but you might not be able to pick the amount you need.

    Then, you can pick the one to go up first, but then get jammed into the one you don't want going down, or vice versa.

    I'm thinking each player has some total amount of points, and also has goals.

    • Simple goals are "Element A: 20-30 points"
    • More complicated goals are "Element B: 24 points"
    • Even harder are "Element C: 20-25 points, Element D: 18-20 points"

    The harder goals are worth more at the end.

    You can satisfy multiple goals on a turn. Your goals are secret until you finish them. So, you're all trying to adjust your totals around so that you can fill your goals. But, because of scarsity, you can end up with your totals going way off if you're not careful. You might focus on getting A to 25, but that accidentally drops your B to 3 because you had to sacrifice it and take a bad value.

    I'm thinking there should also be a yellow token and player order slots. On one of your turns you also need to claim a position in the turn order.

    That means that someone can sacrifice one of their turns early to make sure they get the first turn next time. If you instead grab materials or values first, then your turn order is mostly decided by others.

    I feel like it's very important for there to be scarcity. The last person to choose something should have basically no choice.

    I'm thinking that each player always has some number of active goals, like 3, and when one is completed they get two more and can choose to keep one and must discard the other. More generally, if a player finishes N on a turn, they draw 2N and discard N. So, if you finish 1 on this turn, you get 2 and discard the one you don't want. If you finish all 3 in one turn, though, you can draw 6 and keep any 3 you like, and discard any 3 you don't. That is superior, as it gives you more choice.

    The game ends when someone completes some number of goals.

    Scaling the game involves more amounts and material cards.

  17. Motive Paranoia

    Game where there are a few different items, and each person has some motive.

    Like, they want to get the "Hairbrush" into the "Lobby" or they want to give their "Ring" to the "Jock" or something. Maybe they have a few different things they need to do.

    These motives are all secret, though. And, every person needs someone else to do stuff. Like, you all start with something, but you can only hold one thing at a time, or something like that.

    So, everyone needs to sneak and bargain their own things in, but everyone's paranoid because everyone's out to get their own thing done and even if someone is offering to help, you know it has to be for their own interests. There should be some sort of collaboration that must be kept, to keep forcing people to rely on each other while trying to backstab them.

  18. Sabotage Game

    Kinda like Resistence, but more goal oriented. Essentially, everyone picks up cards that let them do damage, or something, and every turn they must play a card, give a card to another player, and discard a card.

    The magic is that some players are trying to win, and help others win, and others are trying to cause people to lose.

    So, a player on the winning side would attempt to discard low cards, and either use high cards for themselves, or send high cards to their teammates to help them fight things that are coming up.

    A player on the losing side, though, would attempt to discard high cards, and play low cards, or fill his teammates' hands with useless cards. They have to be careful, though, because if they are obviously only ever playing low cards, people might get suspicious.

    So, they have to be, roughly, apologetic when they give someone a bad card, without being obvious.

    So, I think that players will have trials they go through, which is what the cards are for. So, perhaps, someone has a strength trial coming up, people can give him strength cards, but someone sabotages the deck with a weak strength card, so he doesn't make it back from the trap.

    Ok, new plan. Each player has a pile of cards, that are hidden to him. Every player gives in one or so cards, and then the pile is consulted and the lowest card is used, or something, so people don't know who did what, but they can see that it didn't go well. Work in progress.

    I'm also thinking that perhaps, instead of a trial, a player can choose to duel another player. (Which is a sort of trial)

    The player who loses leaves the game and must remain silent.

    The gist, then, is that the winning team must suss out and destroy the enemy, while the enemy must trick the good guys into failing and being killed, or defeat them outright without becoming obvious. Roughly.

    So, sorta Werewolf Resistence.

  19. Wheel Mechanic

    Each action is on a wheel, and the wheel has a marker at one position.

    You can take the action that is at that position for free, the one next to it for one point, the next for 2, etc. One of the things in the game moves the wheel, allowing a different price for each action.

    This seems like it'd be a neat way to strategize and screw over your fellow players.

  20. Pilgrim Game

    This is a cooperative game that uses the Weather Mechanic to model the year.

    Roughly, you're a group of pilgrims in an isolated area, looking to survive together. This involves hunting for food, growing crops, raising animals, making clothing, etc.

    Each player has a hand of cards that allows the village to do something. One might be "blacksmith crafts better axe, +2 to lumber" or something.

    Roughly, you as a group need to balance doing things to survive today, while also perparing for the future. In the summer you want to produce food, but also preserve some for the winter.

    You need to put some work into your shelter, and your clothes, and your farms, etc.

    I'm thinking as players play cards, they get "better" at them. So, there's an advantage to getting your blacksmith cards to player 2, because he's played 2 already, so he could get more value out of this card. There should, therefore, be a restriction on trading cards on your turn, to make it more tricky.

    Possible mechanic is a "trading-post" card or two, that you never spend, but always goes with a trade. So, if you wanted to give a card to another player, you must first have the trading-post card. Then, you give the trading-post card along with the card you want to trade to another player. Then, you no longer have a trading-post card. They do. You can never give the trading post card on its own. Only with a card.

    So, the balance is between having specialized people, but having to do more trading, or having generalists who don't get as much value out of each card.

  21. Weather Mechanic

    This idea is about modelling weather for a game.

    It could be anything that is periodic, but random.

    There are, say, 24 different groups and each group has 10 cards in it. These groups are kept separately, but shuffled individually.

    Then each card in that group has weather conditions or something on it. So, this one might be 10°C and sunny, and the one under it might be 5°C and cloudy. In each part of the year you don't know what the next card will be, but you can know roughly what it will be.

    If you're in the springtime you don't know whether it'll be rainy or whatever, but you do know it won't be 35°C and bone dry. That can happen in the Summer, but you know it can't happen in the winter.

    This allows a random, but reliable, season mechanic.

    Each group is just crafted so that any one of the cards in that group is plausible for that time of year.

    At the end of each year you could either play with the second card from each group if you're fine with each group being different from last year, or you can reshuffle each group at the beginning of the year to allow each year to be completely independent.

  22. Stock Market Game

    So, this is just an idea. The idea is that you've got a typical scoring track, like a normal game, and the player that has the most points at the end of the game wins.

    The problem is that points are also the currency of the game.

    So, on your turn one of your potential actions is to take some points from your pool, and convert it into movement on the track, but if you put all your points into that, then you can't buy stuff. If you never put points into there, then you can never win because you have no points at the end of the game.

    Also, certain events in the game will refer to placement, like "The first player moves back 2 points" or something. I'm thinking also that you can turn position back into points, but as a loss. That way, if you suddenly need some money for something you can lose points, but it's not as good as if you just kept the points around.

    Actually, I'm thinking this could be a not bad Economics game. Your scoring points would be capital, and your useful points would be liquidity.

    So, if the game ends and you have 0 capital, then you lose, but if you never have any liquidity then you can't buy new assets because all of your money is tied up.

    I've sorta wanted to make a market game anyway, this could be part of that... Anyway, cool.

    Also, I'm thinking, that play order goes in reverse capital order, so the player with the most capital goes last. But, obviously, if the game were to end, then they'd win.

    Working on the stock market concept, I think I'd want to do commodity stuff. And then some combination of cards and prisoner's dilema stuff would dictate the market. So, maybe everyone keeps their stocks secret, and the price goes up over time. When someone sells something, though, then the price goes down.

    So, if everyone has corn, they don't know that everyone else has corn. The price of corn goes up every turn, but as soon as the first person puts down corn, they get the money, and the price drops for everyone else. So, that way if everyone holds out things go up, but like a dutch auction, the first person to break gets the payout.

    Then, random stuff can come up on the cards like "Warm Summer, Corn and Wheat +2.5, Stone -0.9" or something. One is probably market crash, which is "Everything down to 1.0" or something. There could be a bunch of cards, like, 300, but each game is only played until the deck is empty, so a normal game might be 70 cards. That way you never know which ones are in your little period, and you can play for as long or short as you like.

    Then there might be other stuff. There might be special Insider Trading cards you can buy. They give you the ability to hold them in your hand and play them when it's most advantageous to you. So, if you're holding a card that says "Corn -3.4", then you can hold on to it, cash out on corn, then play that card to further damage the price. Or, if it said "Corn +2.7", you can play that, then cash out on your turn.

    Maybe one of the cards is "audit" or something, and anyone who has an insider trading card when that comes up has to pay a fine with their liquidity. Maybe one for each card they have. Or, it could be a counter card, and you play audit against them. So, they play their card and you say "Actually, audit", which causes them a fine and loses them their turn. Or something.

    Anyway. Just for kicks, I think I'd put in bonds, which you can buy and aren't affected by anyone else, and do go up in value, but do tie up your stuff. And maybe shorts, because they're cool. That'd make it profitable to know have the "Corn -3.4" directly, and to hope that someone else will drop corn. I don't really know the best way to do that though...

    Maybe the best thing to do is to have it, and bonds, just in the face down pile in the middle that you can purchase from. Then each player looks at the pile, but they don't know what was there before, and picks something to maybe buy. If they buy something, they blindly replenish it.

    So, you buy it, and park your points in there. So, the card might say "Up to 7 shares, at 10/share, in Corn". Then you put it face down in your collection, with 60 points on it.

    Later, you can reveal it and say "A ha! The price is currently 14/share, which means I get these 60 points back, and another 24!" So, since in my model the purchase price is always on the card, but the sell price is set by the market, sometimes it might be useful to just see a great deal and turn it around immediately. That's like Arbitration.

    Bounds you park money in, and they last a certain length of time, but then they pay out obviously. Like, 4/share. In 2 turns, sell for 8/share.

    Shorts are things that, rather than saying "Up to 7 shares, at 10/share, in Corn" say "Up to 7 shares, at market value in two turns, in Corn. Sell at 10/share" So, in that case you hope that the price of corn will drop in the next two turns, to be below 10, so when it matures, you can make the difference.

    I'm not sure how secret to be. I need to stop people from cheating, at least a little bit.

    So, shorts and bonds mature. So, I'm thinking there'd be markers for that, so when you put the card into your portfolio, you would place two markers on it. Then, every turn, you remove markers from it until it matures, when you must play it.

    Stocks, you play them, and put your money into them. Then, you may play them at any time, and when you do the money goes to the bank, and you get back the value. So, for example, if you buy at 10/stock, and want 4 shares, then you put the card facedown in your portfolio and put 40 points on top of it. Then, when you want to sell, you turn the card faceup to show everyone and show everyone that you had 40 points at 10/stock, so you have 4. Then you compute the current value, so if the current value is at 12, then you get back your original 40, plus an additional 8. If, though, you're forced to liquidate, and the price is only at 8, then you only get back 32, and 8 of your payment returns to the bank.

    Bonds mature, but you put money on them, so they are stocks that mature.

    Shorts mature, but you don't put money on them.

    I'm not sure I want people knowing what you've got, though.

    Also, the game might quickly turn into "Wait until you find low hanging fruit, then take it". Maybe stocks also mature. And all longs can be shorts. So, the card might say "Up to 8 shares, Corn, matures in 3 turns, 10/share" Then you can either put money on it, making it a long, or not, making it a short. That way no one knows which card you picked, they just know that you'd shorting something. Bonds, then, look just like longs, they're just not in a commodity.

    Then there's the question of whether or not stocks should go up over time alone, or just in response to cards. Then the cards could be made to, across the whole deck, average out. On any individual game, built out of a shorter subset of the cards, individual stuff could go way up or way down. It's random, though, so mostly gambling. Is this game too random? Also, when people drop their thing, the price goes down, but if it's just static, then the game can't know that, and it'll never really recover. It'll just drift downwards.

    I think I've now boiled it down to the point where there's no real strategy, and no market, and it's just gambling on cards. Fuck.

    I'll rethink this.

    What It's Become

    I've been thinking about it. It's very different now.

    In this game there are N players. Each player has a hand of instruments, which are stocks, bonds, and assets. They also have a hand of trends. On the board is a chart of value for each of 6 companies on the market, each set at some starting value.

    At the beginning, each player is given some number of points as their initial liquidity. This is a pool they may use to buy instruments, which should make them more money.

    The first stage of each turn is to distribute trends. From the deck of trends, 2*N cards are drawn off the top. Each player, in turn, from lowest liquidity to highest, picks one card to put in their hand, and one to discard. Then they pass it to the next player, along with another card from the top of the deck.

    This means that, for 5 players, the first player has 10 to choose from, the next has 9, the next has 8, and the last has 5, but the each player has the possiblility to stop the next player from getting something good. Maybe something good replaced it from the top of the deck, maybe not. Now each player has a new trend in their hand.

    Next, the same thing is done with the instruments deck, this time from lowest cumulative asset value to highest. Each player should have a new instrument in their hand.

    In the next phase, each player may buy instruments from their hand, and put them into their portfolio (on the table).

    • Assets are the point value of the game. They do not generate profit, but at the end of the game the player with the highest cumulative asset value wins. Also, every turn, the turn order for instruments is defined by this asset value Obviously, when in your portfolio, these are face up, and the value of each is a well known figure.
    • Stocks are valued based on the price of a company. They are placed facedown with some number of points on the back of them, and a number of maturity tokens as indicated on the card.
      • They may be placed "long", which is that some number of shares, up to the value written on the card, may be purchased at the current price. The money for that many shares is taken out of your liquidity pool and placed on the back of the stock, and a marker for the current turn is placed on the stock to help remember what the price was when that was purchased. When the stock matures, you are given as many points as that number of shares is now worth. In this case, you're hoping for the value to have gone up.
      • They may also be placed "short", which is that some number of shares, up to the value written on the card, may be sold at the current price, in the future. The money for that many shares is taken from the bank and placed on the back of the card. When the stock matures, the points are added from the card to your pool, then a number of tokens must be paid out from your liquidity pool at the current price. In this case, you're hoping for the value to have gone down.
    • Bonds are instruments which yield predictable, but modest, profits, and have nothing to do with the value of any company on the market. They may be purchased for the value on the card when played, and a number of maturity tokens are placed on the card as indicated by the card. The points to purchase them are removed from your pool, and placed on the back of the card. When the bond matures, you reclaim your points, and recieve the extra points from the bank as indicated on the card. Bonds are also placed facedown, and are indistinguishable to the other players from stocks.

    Unlike assets, while the amount of money you have tied up in the active stocks and bonds in your portfolio are public, as is the timing of when your stocks will mature, etc, the actual terms of those instruments are not. Other players cannot tell if a given facedown instrument is a stock or a bond, and if it's a stock they can't tell for sure which company it's in.

    Players may, on their turn, pruchase as many stocks or bonds as they can afford, but may only purchase one asset per turn.

    In the next phase, the market moves. Each player chooses, in secret, one of their trends from their hand. They each put their facedown trend in the middle, and when everyone has chosen, they are all turned faceup and go into effect. Example trends:

    • Company A, -4 for 2 turns.
    • Company D, +6 for 1 turn.
    • Company B, +2 for 5 turns.
    • Company B, -4 for 2 turns.

    Trends are given maturity tokens based on the number of turns they take effect for, and are placed into the active market area with the other trends. Now each trend is taken into consideration and the net change for each company is instituted. If those examples were the only examples, then this turn A's value is decreased by 4, B goes down by 2, C is unchanged, and D goes up by 6. Every trend has one maturity token removed from it, and any that are out of tokens are discarded.

    Next, each player's instruments have a maturity token removed from it. Any that come mature are dealt with, then discarded.

    At this point the next turn begins.

    I say that if a stock's value drops to, or below, 0, then there's a reissue. In this case all trends on that stock are discarded, and each player must discard any stocks associated with that company from their active portfolio. Any value locked up in those stocks are lost.

    If two or more stocks are reissued on the same turn, then there's a market crash. All stocks are reissued.

    The last bit is loans. They're mostly a mechanic to allow players to get through some tough times. A player may, at any point, liquidate one of their assets by discarding it and getting back 90% of its value. (It might actually be easier to give them back 100%, and having to lose it from your hand and lose the time you spent building it might be enough to stop people thrashing it) If that's insufficient, though, to make a payment, then there are also loans.

    These are like the opposite of a bond. They are not in the instruments pile, and they don't need to be played from the hand. Any player may take a loan at any time.

    The loan just says "Collect 200 points from the bank. Matures in 3 turns. Pay back 250 points." or something. So, if you need a little more liquidity now, but you're pretty sure you'll have enough to pay it back in 3 turns, you can take the loan. It goes faceup in your portfolio and has the right number of maturity tokens on it. When it matures, like any other instrument, you pay back the number of points it says on the card.

    I think that a player can never fully lose, because they can always take a loan to pay off another loan, but at some point they get in way over their head. The games probably aren't long enough for that to matter, though.

    The game ends after a set number of turns, and the players are ranked buy the total value of their assets alone. At the end of the game, none of your stocks or liquidity are important.

  23. Teleportation Game

    Use a system to allow a relatively few number of keystrokes to do two angles and a distance This, then, allows your person to teleport to that position.

    Because of the way precision works for angles, this means that you are less precise the further you're going.

    There will likely be a button that while you're holding it down allows you to enter a destination and then when you release it goes there. At the beginning, I'm thinking this button will also freeze time and give you a nice readout so you can get a feel. In medium mode time will slow, but not stop. In hard mode time keeps going.

    The idea is that as you practise, you can actually get good enough, and get enough of an intrinsic sense for it, that you can just take under a second to dump where you want to go, without thinking too hard about it.

    Which'd be cool.

    Actual Game Bits

    I don't know what I want the game to really be. I just want the mechanic.

    So, one easy use is just a multiplayer tag game. You give people a cool environment, and they play a game of tag between people who can run, jump, and teleport.

    A combat game would be cool, but more work.

    A whole FPS style game with story and stuff would potentially also be very cool, but even more work.

    I think tag, for a tech demo, would be fine.

  24. Perspective

    Since it'd be messing with perspective, it's automatically similar to Echochrome The idea with this one is that you can grab stuff which prevents it from changing with perspective.

    So, you can walk really far away from something, lock it, then walk close again and now it's small.


    I've done some thinking on this.

    I think there'd be a few different locks. Shape lock would be essentially like picking an item up. It maintains its perspective by moving with you when you move, appearing constant to you but moving relative to the other objects.

    Position lock would be the interesting one. In this case you move around, and it appears the same. This is not because it's changing position, though, but rather becaue it's changing shape and size to appear the same despite the change in perspective.

    One obvious use of this is to look at an item and and walking away from it or towards it, like above, which would make it smaller or large relative to the other objects.

    Another one, though, is finding some really weird long pointy shape, but finding that when it's viewed from on point it looks kinda a like a cube. Now when you lock it there and move down the shape it becomes a neat little box.

    With position lock you can obviously do some motions which would make it impossible for the object to shape itself to still look the same. This is true also if you're just carrying an item around, though, and walk into a wall.

    So, at some point if you've got an object position locked an moving in some way would cause the object to be impossiblly positioned or shaped, then you just hit a wall, same as if you were carrying something through a wall.


    I don't know what kind of game I want to make. It could be an FPS game where you have the ability to do this.

    It could be a First Person Puzzle Game where the goal is to get shape A into position B.

    It could also be an Abstract Puzzle Game where you're just a disembodied force in a zone of floating shapes. The goals here would be the same as the above, where you have to get the shapes from some initial configuration into some target configuration.

  25. Castle Siege

    Tower defense and resource allocation game. Rather than having just one tower, you have a castle. It has gates and walls and towers.

    Then, you have a certain number of things inside the wall, and people attack the castle from all around. It's your job to get wood to the fletchers, arrows to the archers, soldiers to the gates, masons to the walls, etc.

    Perhaps from time to time you'll run out of wood so you'll need to send lumberjacks out to the woods with some number of soldiers, and they'll need to fight their way out and back.

    And not just distribution, but redistribution.

    Sometimes the siege will start from the front, but then more people will come from another side and you'll have to choose to split your forces or take care of the front first, or whatever.

    Sometimes you just can't hold the outer walls any longer, and you'll have to retreat back to the inner walls. It'd be good, in that case, to try to get as many of your resources back out of the depot there and into the back before retreating.

    Sometimes the soldiers need to defend a broken gate until the builders can get the gate fixed, then they'll need to rush over to the east wall where the archers have been doing well, but not well enough to stop the siege ladders from going up. In that case you'll want to pull your archers out, since they'll get slaughtered up there, and get your soldiers over to kill the people rushing up the walls and destroy the ladder.

    That kind of thing.


    Ok, so, have a series of things, like towers and walls, and gates.

    Each one has some number of slots, and each slot has a unit type.

    So, for example, a tower might have 4 archer slots. A wall might have 6 archer or tar slots, and 6 soldier slots. A gate might have 2 archer or tar slots, and 4 soldier slots.

    So, unit types:

    • Archers shoot arrows at long and medium range.
      • They can hit close range, but they're less effective there.
    • Soldiers attack enemies they are next to.
    • Tarslingers attack enemies at close range for great damage.
    • Workers can fill any slot and while there they repair whichever structure they're attached to

    Then, the way the game works is that there are locations and you move units from location to location. Resources work almost the same way, but we'll get to that in a bit.

    So, the first location is the pool. This is where all the untrained labour sits.

    Then there is the archery range. It has a certain number of slots, that when filled by someone they become an archer, after a brief time.

    So, say it has 8 slots. That means that there can be 8 archers either in training, or trained and unassigned. To train more, you grab 8 units from the pool, and move them into the archery range. They sit there for a bit as unassigned, but after a while they become archers, still in the slot. Then, you can move 4 archers from the range out to the Western Wall. They first reserve the slots on the wall, then vacate the slots in the range, then walk to the wall.

    There'd also be a place to create soldiers and tarslingers.

    Any unit can be moved back to the pool to be stripped of their training and become another unit waiting for further instruction.

    Training a unit consumes time, but also some amount of resources. For example, training an archer might cost a bit of wood, whereas training a soldier might take a bit of iron.

    Other potential units:

    • Wizard:
      • Wherever the wizard is stationed is considered to have inifinite resource.
      • You can put them wherever you need them the most.
      • If they're placed on the wood pile, then you have infinite wood.
      • If they're placed on the wall, then you have infinite arrows, tar, stone, food, whatever.
      • On the wall, they consume a slot.
      • The wood pile doesn't have slots, though, so they just hang out there.
    • Medic:
      • The medic consumes a slot, but heals the other units in that location.


    I'm thinking that one unit is "mover" or something. They have a wheelbarrow. So, each resource has its own stockpile. Each consuming area also has one. So, if one takes a wheelbarrow unit and moves him to one stock pile he will load up on that resource, then you tell him where to put it.

    For example, each wall or tower or gate with archers needs arrows. You need to tell the wheelbarrow guys to fetch arrows from the fletcher and move them to the walls. The fletcher, though, needs wood to make arrows. You need to then also fetch wood from the wood pile and drop it off at the fletcher.

    Depending on how I wanted to do it, I could also require all units to be fed, and have food as a resource.

    Tar is itself a resource, and without it Tarslingers can't fire, just like archers.

    Soldiers don't need anything, I don't think.

    Builders may or may not need stone...

    At the beginning of the game, while I'm easing people into it, I'm thinking that resources will be infinite. Then, one by one, as they progress I will make things harder by making them have to do more.

    So, in the beginning, each archer will have an infinite number of arrows and everything will be fine. Later, though, they'll have to move arrows from the fletcher to the wall, but the fletcher will have infinite arrows. Later still they'll have to move wood to the fletcher to get arrows, which they then have to move to the wall. But there will be infinite wood. For a while...

    Gathering Resources

    At some point they'll need to gather wood, and will run out of wood inside the castle. They'll have to venture outside the castle walls to the forests out there.

    While you can set your mover to take his wheelbarrow out to the woods, and he'll run through the gate and grab wood and come back to put it in the wood pile, that's not a great idea. The movers are not combat unit, and chances are if you need wood it's because things are not safe outside the castle walls.

    So, sometimes it might be the case that you're being sieged from the west and there's a forest to the east, and you can just have your movers fetch it safely. Othertimes, though, it might not be so easy.

    In those cases you can build a caravan which has slots. Then you can fill the caravan's slots with some movers, some archers, and some soldiers, for example.

    The more military units you put into a caravan, the safer it will be. It will not carry as many resources, though, as one that had more movers and fewer guards. That's the tradeoff. So, once the caravan is loaded to your satisfaction, you can send it like it was a mover. It's much harder to attack, though.

    I'm thinking later in the game you might have two castles under siege, one that has all of some resource, and another that has another. Then you need to use caravans to move resources between the two castles in order to keep up both of their defenses.

    Damage and Enemy Units

    The enemy has a lot of units you don't, and vice-versa.

    They have soldiers and archers, like you do, but they also have siege machines like trebuchets, and battering rams.

    • An archer's job is to take enemy units off the walls, like archers and tarslingers.
    • A soldier's job is to attack any units they encounter beyond the wall, to attack the gate to try to break it down.
      • If there are any siege ladders active, they will try to climb up them.
    • A catapult is used to attack gates, towers, and walls
      • I'm not really sure how to defend against these.
      • I'm thinking we could build trebuchets inside the castle to take these out...
      • Or maybe we can't defend against those, it just makes the level harder because you have to do whatever while still repairing the walls
    • A battering ram's job is to breach the gates
    • A siege ladder is run to the wall, and if it makes it then it's set up
      • Once it's set up, enemy soldiers may pass through the wall as if it had been destroyed
      • Enemy soldiers on the wall will be stopped by your own soldiers posted to the wall so long as there are some
      • Your soldiers and tarslingers, and to a lesser extent archers, will destroy any ladders on the wall they're stationed at

    The way the enemy wins is to get their soldiers into your castle.

    Any entrance (walls with ladders, destroyed walls, open gates, destroyed gates) is a way a soldier can get into your castle. Any time a soldier gets to your pool they kill some number of members of it. When you run out of units, you loose, so that's bad since it's much easier for soldiers to kill untrained peasants than soldiers or whatever.

    The enemies at an entrance must fight any units at that entrance before they can enter the castle. So, as long as there's some soldiers there, it's not truely open. That can sometimes give you just enough time to get a builder out to repair the gate, or give your soldiers time to destroy the ladders.

    I think each unit has a preference for who they try to kill first.

    • Archers first try to kill other Archers, then Tarslingers, then Soldiers
    • Soldiers first try to kill other Soldiers, then Tarslingers, then Archers
    • Tarslingers first try to kill Soliers, then other Tarslingers, then Archers.

    This means that if your wall has 3 Soldiers and 6 Archers and enemy Soldiers are coming up the ladder, they will not attack the Archers until you don't have any more Soldiers.

    This will also need to extend to all enemy units. For example, the Tarslingers should be much more interested in destroying the Battering Ram than the Soldier attacking the gate.


  26. Hijack

    This is somewhat similar to my Hacker Game idea which I haven't written up yet, so I can't link to it right now. This, though, is a tabletop game.

    So, we have a gameboard with a grid, and it's got some stuff randomly on it. One gets points in the game from collecting items off the grid and putting them into your target zone. When an item is put into a player's target zone, it is removed from the board and put into the player's stash.

    The way you play, though, is with robots that are also on the grid. Each robot, for each turn, can do some number of actions (let's say 4). The types of actions are "pick up item, drop item, move left, move right, move up, move down". The move commands all have some number attached to them, so "Move 3 squares up", for example.

    These actions are on cards and are played into slots 1-4 of a robot in the Players part of the round. Then, in the Robots part of the round each robot does each action, as described by the cards, one after another. So, the action in slot 1 is taken first, then the action in slot 2, etc. If at any point it can't complete an instruction, the robot ends its turn. So, if instruction 1 is "Move 4 sqaures up", but there is a box 3 squares above it, then it instead moves 3 squares, until it hits the wall, then it stops. It doesn't run instructions 2 through 4, since 1 failed to complete.

    I think players take turns going around laying one card in an open slot until all slots are full, or each player passes. Oh, or, there can be an unlimited number of NoOp cards that a player can always play. So, a player may play a card from their hand, or a NoOp, but they must play a card. That way there are always 4 * (number of robots) turns, and stuff.

    So, that's the basic game. Control bots to move to resources, grab them, then move them to your target zone, all without other people screwing you over.

    Then there are special cards:

    • Firewall N: If you play this card, it gives you N firewall cards of your colour you can immediately play into slots. Other players cannot play cards into those slots, but you can.
    • Off By One: You can play this card to modify an existing movement card to make it either one more or one less than it was.
    • Glitch: You can play this card to turn an existing card into a NoOp
    • Bug: You can play this card to make an existing card do the opposite of what it normally would. Pickup becomes Drop, Up becomes Down, Left becomes Right
    • Shift: You can play this card to open up an earlier space, shifting all previous instructions down.
      • So, if we're on the 3rd card, and you play this you could move what's previously in 1 and 2 down to be 2 and 3, opening up 1
    • Insert: Same as shift, but allows you to play a card into this newly opened slot immediately
      • Possibly Insert is Insert X, where X is the explicit instruction you can insert into.
      • Like, Insert 2 would only allow you to put an instruction in 2, no matter what stage we're at
    • Dual-Core: Allows you to play two more cards this turn.
      • Playing (Dual-Core + Shift + Any Card) is the same as playing (Insert + Any Card)
      • Playing (Dual-Core + Dual-Core) is allowed if you have two in your hand, etc
    • Flush: Take all cards from either a given robot, or maybe the whole board, and discard all of them
      • I don't know if I want to allow those slots to come up for grabs again, or if I want them all to become NoOps
    • Abort: Like Glitch, this makes an instruction be performed, but no instructions after it are run
      • It's possible I don't want this, and instead want a clever use of Insert and a bogus Instruction instead.

    The robots have to have some assigned order, but I don't know if they perform all of their operations before moving on to the next robot, or if they each perform instruction 1, then each perform instruction 2. It only really matters when the robots interfere with one another. Do they interfere from stage 1 to stage 1, or from stage 4 to stage 1. I'll say the robots have a defined order, and they run stepwise. Stage 1 Robot 1, Stage 1 Robot 2, Stage 1 Robot 3, Stage 1 Robot 4, Stage 2 Robot 1, etc.

    Robot Rules:

    • A robot cannot move into a space occupied by a stationary barrier, or another robot. If an instruction would move it there, it will move as far as it can, then abort.
    • A robot may move into or out of a space containing an item.
    • If a robot is instructed to Pickup while in a space that doesn't contain an item, it will abort.
    • If a robot is instructed to Drop while it isn't holding an item, it will abort.

    And really, I don't even know about those last two. On one hand, that's an easy way to abort things. On the other hand, if you have a whole chain setup, and someone throws down an Off By One, then it make it move, then miss the item you thought, then pickup nothing, then move around with nothing, and will be more disasterous than if it just moved to right beside the item and then stopped. Yeah, I think I want to get rid of those last two as abort cases.

    I'm also not sure how I feel about having the robot carry more than one item, or having more than one item on a space. I think it'd be fine. A robot would have to issue one Pickup instruction for each item, and one Drop for each item to drop, but it should be fine. And again, we're playing these cards from a hand, so you have to have enough Drop instructions, and the more items a robot is carrying, the more valuable it is, and fragile, so yeah. I'd say you can do it if you like, but it's risky. A robot can carry as many items as it wants, but must Drop each of them separately. They Pickup and Drop in a stack. As many items as is desired may be Dropped into a single space.

    I think playing order is that each player draws a card, plays a card, potentially playing a NoOp from the bank. So, when it comes time to fill Stage 2, you draw a new card which you can play, but didn't have when you were filling Stage 1.

    To pick player order for a given round:

    • The player with the fewest cards in their hand goes first, second fewest second, etc.
    • If players have the same number of cards in their hand, the player with the lowest score goes first.
    • If players have the same number of cards and the same score, then the order is determined by shuffling a set of cards set aside for this purpose containing 1 through the number of players.
      • So, if we're tied in all ways for 2-4, then put cards 2, 3, 4 from this tiny deck into a random order by shuffling them, then deal them out to the tied players. This card contains their ordering.
      • At the start of the game, all players will have the same number of cards, if no one discards, and will all have the score of 0. This card method will therefore be used until there is more variation.

    Before player order is chosen in a round, any player may discard any number of cards to achieve better player order.

    I think I like having 4 actions per robot, but that can easily be tweaked to something else. Also, to make it line up more, I think having one robot per player makes sense. Either that or some multiple like 2 robots per player.

    Many tweaks to those number will give the game a different feel. Having 1 robot per player with 4 actions per robot will be normal, having 1 robot per 2 players with 6 actions will allow for more struggle and correction. Having 2 or 3 robots per player with 1 or 2 actions per robot will give a faster more chaotic game.

  27. Airlock Game

    The idea of this one is that you're in the centre of a bitchin' automated bunker. Then, the zombie apocalyse happens, and there are a bunch of civilians that want into your bunker.

    So, it's a puzzle game that involves getting the civilians in without letting the zombies in. The inside of the bunker will be like a maze of doors, but certain doors are all on the same circuit, so you can only open all of them or none of them. So, you have to work them through the system while keeping the zombies from getting too far.

    Then, there are also defense systems, like rooms that fill with fire, incinerating everything within, or other such things. So, the idea is you can sometimes let the zombies in there without screwing the civilians over, and burn the zombies, allowing the people through.

    Another potential puzzle element would be that perhaps there's a room where people can put on, like, fire-retardent suits, or something, so they can walk through the fire, but the zombies can't, once they've visited there.

    Or, given hooks, they can cling to something, while the zombies are flushed.

  28. Dilution

    I see this as a 2D top down puzzle game.

    The idea is that there's some liquid resource, and you have to move it from one place to another. To do that, there's typically some source, and then you have a bunch of units you can use to carry it.

    The issue, though, is that carrying the resource in a unit, consumes the resource. Units, without the resource, can't do anything.

    So, you can, say, pickup some resource at the source, move it a bit to the next unit, and give half of your reserve to them. But, you have to have enough to get back, since otherwise you can't get to the source again, and are probably screwed. Then, that unit needs to have enough that they can get to the goal without having spent all their cargo in the process so they have enough left to get to the target amount.

    That's the rough concept.

    Other twists:

    • Static Pipelines
      • When the resource is put in one side, it is deposited at the other side, allowing transfer of resource across distances without carrying it.
      • Perhaps these distances are even impassible to the units
    • Cisterns
      • These are static holds for a limited amount of resource
      • One can deposit here to either build up an amount, or as a transfer point between units that don't have to physically meet
      • On some of the harder levels, there might not be an infinite source, but just a cistern. In these you'd have to make it in a certain number of steps so as to not run out.
    • Gates
      • These require some resource to open, so a unit must give some to the gate in order to move beyond it.
  29. Micronatia

    A little like Risk, a little like Transport Tycoon, a little like Catan, mostly a Turn-Based Strategy Game.

    I want to make a game that could be a boardgame, but I'm writing it in the computer instead because that's easier. So, I want it to be tile based, the rules / logic to be relatively simple.

    The Gist

    Game starts, tiles are randomly laid facedown on the playing surface. (Facedown shows only black)

    Next, each player picks, in some sort of order, where they want to start, and then turn that tile faceup and put their starting unit there.

    There are different types of units:

    • Pedestrian
    • Car
    • Train
    • Plane

    Then there are different types of tiles:

    • Grass
    • Mountain
    • Desert

    I want more, but I can't come up with them.

    The gist is that each type of tile has different properties for each unit.

    • Pedestrians can move, say, two tiles on grass, one on mountains and desert.
    • Cars can move 4 tiles on grass, 2 on mountains, 1 on desert
    • Trains can move 5 tiles with a track on it, but tracks are cheap on grass, expensive on mountains, and really expensive in desert.
    • Planes can only go from airport to airport, they can go over any tile, but the flight costs some amount per tile. The plane, for all intents and purposes, is considered to teleport, not truly crossing any intervening tiles. (Do the cost as the number of tiles in the minimum path)

    That's the gist.

    One of the age-old questions regarding different tile-based costs is "Does it cost to enter or exit?". I'm thinking exit. That is, if I'm on a grass tile it costs me to move to any adjacent tile, no matter what it is.

    Oh, crap, duh. Yeah, I can't do what I did above with the "2 on grass, one on mountain" thing, because a given path may be across different tile types. I've got to switch it to a cost based system.

    Also, I'm concerned now, because I wanted to have desserts and mountain ranges and stuff, but it seems now like if I do it randomly I'll just get a grass, with a mountain next to it, and some desert next to that.

    I may have to rethink the world-generation.

    Anyway, so, then people can put stuff on tiles:

    • Airport (Only on grass)
    • Train-track (Anywhere, but costs more depending on tile)
    • Resource Gathering Building:
      • Mine
      • Refinery
      • Etc?
    • Fence
    • Gate

    So, the airport is where planes can go to and from. The train track is what trains move on.

    Resource gathering

    The idea is that different types of resources, to build these things, can be gotten from different tiles. A pedestrian can always, as their turn, extract any valid resource out of a tile they're on. A resource gathering building, though, does that automatically, and allows that to build up. So, while a pedestrian can stand on a mountain tile, and every turn he can add one stone to his load, that seems like a waste. Instead, he can go there and build a resource gathering building, then leave. Now, that building can't move, but on every turn it accumulates a stone. This stone just stockpiles, though, and must be picked up by another unit before it is useful. There are no rules that say that another player's units can't take resources from the stockpile on my building. In general, resource buildings are not owned.


    Since I may want to protect some resource, or establish a border for my micronation, I need to erect fences. Units may pass through a fence, if they could otherwise travel on that space, but it breaks their progress. Specifically, a pedestrian may not move through a fence, they must walk to the fence, then walk away from the fence next turn. A car, I think, can drive to a fence normally, but while on a fence, can only move 1 tile, then may move normally. (Essentially, taking an extra turn) Trains can't go there, since you can't build a track and a fence on the same tile. Planes are unaffected by fences.


    These allow units of the owner's choosing to pass through them normally. Any other units treat it as a fence. This allows one player to put a fence around their area to protect it, but still not disturb their own transit. The part about the owner's choosing is to allow for allegiances involving open borders. Or, alternatively, a player could exact a tax on another player, asking them for some bounty in exchange for free passage on this turn. If the player refuses, then they treat it as a fence.

    Resources and Building

    There are no banks in my system. Resource tiles never enter a players possession, they all stay on the board and are carried about by units.

    A unit may, for free during their turn, place resources they carry onto any adjacent tile, or pickup resources from any adjacent tile.

    To build either a building or a unit, the player uses their units to assemble the necessary cost onto a tile and then an adjacent pedestrian uses its turn to swap those resources for a unit or building. I would say a unit doesn't get any actions on the turn it's created.

    So, potentially tedious, but the gist is that one must, over some series of turns, carry the resources from one place to the target location in order to build there. That seems neat, though.

    If two units are adjacent, they may take resources from, or place resources on, the other unit as part of their turn. This must be consensual, though. So, if the two units are of the same player, it's easy. If, though, two units are from different players, then one unit may not steal from another, or place other items on them unless the other player allows it.


    Because players never truly own resources, all trading occurs in the metagame, which seems cool. If some player wants to trade with another, it involves an entirely non-mechanical agreement that this player will drop a resource somewhere this other player wants it.

    Things like loans, interest, IOUs, etc can all exist just based on players trusting one another, and agreeing on some terms.

    Same is true for gates, tariffs, or tolls. One player could demand that anyone traveling through their gates must be carrying some resource to leave at the gate as a toll.

    Another may only ask for a tariff: Any unencumbered unit may pass freely, but any units carrying a load must leave some of it behind.

    Another player may "commission" a second to build things for them. The first player leaves some resources around, and the second player agrees to use their units to build there.

    Either way, anything one can think of, and agree on, goes, since as far as the game is concerned, it's all just units and resources sitting around.

    Unit Cost

    I think I've decided how I want to do things. Each unit starts the turn with some amount of starting "power", and different things have a cost. Different types of landscapes hold different movement costs for one unit type than another.

    Also, each unit type has some load rate of holding. So, a pedestrian may lose 1 power for every two resources it carries. A car may lose 1 power for every 4 resources.

    I'd say that if a unit drops sufficient resources at any point in their turn, they immediately gain that power back and may continue their turn with it. Similarly, if a unit takes on sufficient resources at any point, then they immediately lose power.

    I'll also say that we mark as follows: A pedestrian loses 1 power if it has 1-2 resources, 2 for 3-4, 4 for 5-6, etc. That way there's no question of "If I lose every 2, but I have 3, have I lost 1 or 2?"

    A unit is never allowed to pick up enough resources that they would have less than 0 power.

    Planes, I'd say, start with no power, and gain 1 power for every "fuel" resource they consume from their hold, losing power for every 6 resources they carry, or something. Then, the only valid moves they can make is to immediately be placed on another airport they would have sufficient power to reach. They may, though, pick up and consume more fuel at their destination and then continue their turn.

    Planes may land at an airport only if permitted by the airport's owner.


    Any adjacent chain of units may be considered a group, and may all take a single turn. They must, for the duration of that turn, continue to be adjacent at all times, and through each move.

    Every move made by any unit in the group must be valid, and stay within the group.

    Because of this, groups that are single file must zig-zag, while double file groups may travel in a straight line.

    --    --    --    -0
    0-    0-    00    -0
    0- -> 00 -> -0 -> -0
    0-    --    --    --


    --    -0    -0    -0    00    00    00
    00    0-    00    00    -0    00    00
    00 -> 00 -> 0- -> 00 -> 00 -> -0 -> 00
    00    00    00    0-    0-    0-    --

    Also, because of the above restrictions, a group can not move through a single gate, since that would force them to become single file, and move in a straight line.

    Each unit costs independently for each move they make, and units with cost remaining may continue to take actions so long as the group is maintained.

    Since the units in a group take a single turn, and since there is adjacency by definition, resources may be distributed throughout the group instantly, so long as no individual move would reduce a unit to a below-zero power, even temporarily.


    While a fence slows units down, they can't truly prevent a unit from entering a given area.

    The only way to truly prevent it is with security units.

    If a group of one player's units encounters a group of another player's units (or a single unit), it may add that unit to its group so long as it maintains a majority of units. This unit no longer takes its own turn, it takes a turn with the group, controlled by the group owner, until the group owner chooses to allow the unit to be released.

    No resources may be stolen from this unit, but if the other player is willing, they may be given up.

    This allows one player to capture another player's units, and either keep them where they are, or by escorting them back to a border, etc.

    One can, with sufficient units, make a "prison" that can hold units.

    For example:


    This structure will always have more X units than 0, and can be added to easily as the need arises.

    If a group consisting of 5 units belonging to player A encounters another group consisting of 3 members of player B and 2 members of player A, player A may choose to, on their turn, add the entire other group to their group. This would switch the balance of power form 3B2A to 7A3B, meaning the group is now A's, and the captors have become the captives.

    This feature is not only interesting for hostile purposes. If two players are allied, they can choose to form an allied group that acts on one of their turns, but is otherwise the same as a single-player group.

    While restricted, this is one way that one player can provide units to another player.



    Because one must move resources from one place to build anything, setting up a depot where one stockpiles resources can be effective. This way, when a series of disparate resources are required, a unit can pick them all up from the depot and take them to where they are needed. Similarly, everyone transporting from the resource buildings can centralize at the depot.

    As the airplane can, with sufficient fuel, cross any distance instantly, having different depots next to airports tends to be a good idea. Also, since planes can, with sufficient fuel at each depot, have a very long turn, it allows one to, with a single plane in a single turn, move a bunch of stuff all over.

    Unit Pipelines

    While airplanes are very effective at moving resources from one place to another, they cost resources every time you move. When one wants to move a resource over a distance quickly, one can also consider a unit pipeline.

    The gist is that if one has a remote resource they want to bring in to the depot every turn, they can have a series of cars or pedestrians in a trail from the resource to the depot. At the beginning of their turn, the first unit collects the resource from the source, drives to the next unit, gives the resource to them, then drives back. That next unit then does the same, and on and on it goes until, in one round the resource has moved instantly far for free.

    The issue with this, though, is that while it is free to move resources over any distance once the pipeline exists, it's very expensive to setup. Each unit must be built.

    Then there are tradeoffs, cars are more expensive, but you may need fewer of them because they can travel further on the given terrain. One can build a pipeline with far fewer items if it operates every few rounds rather than every round. For example, if the car didn't have to worry about getting itself back home, it could go almost twice as far, meaning about half as many units in the pipe. But, the second turn for the pipe would then be resetting.



    A tile can hold infinite resources, so the easiest way to make a depot is to simply pile resources on the ground. Any player's units that can make it to the pile can take from it, though. A more secure strategy is to have a unit who stands near the depot and is full of resources. They can't move, and can only hold a limited number of resources, but resources can't be stolen from them either.

    An airplane, at an airport, can hold any number of resources, given sufficient fuel. This means, though, that if one can afford both the cost of constructing an airport and plane, and the per-turn cost to feed the plane, then it can hold many many resources safely with a single unit. As soon as the airplane ceases to be fed, though, it is forced to unload all resources it can no longer hold.

    World Generation

    So, I think hidden random world isn't really going to give me the kind of game I want. So, I'm thinking that either one player builds the map, and everyone agrees to play it, or one can play a world generation game before hand.

    We start with an empty grid.

    Every player's turn works as follows:

    • Pick up a random tile
    • The player places the random tile on the grid
      • If the player places the tile, they get 1 point for every tile of the same type adjacent to the tile they placed, and lose 1 point for every different tile.
      • The points accumulate, so the player can add to a mountain range on this turn, which allows them to end it next turn.
      • A player cannot make a move that would reduce their points to under 0.
      • Since it costs 0 points, a player can always place a tile that isn't adjacent to anything, if there are such places left in the grid.
    • If a player can make a move, they must, and if they cannot then they must take tiles until they can make a move.

    I think this would result in the kind of world I want, large areas of one type of tile, but still with borders and stuff. A mountain range between these grassy areas, and a desert on the other side, etc.

    Play Order

    I'm thinking that there's some order players go in, but each unit takes a turn (with groups counting as a single unit), and that goes around. The round is over when each player's units have gone.

    So, we have 3 players, A, B, and C.

    A picks one of their units and does its turn, then B picks a unit to take its turn, then C does, then back to A if A has units left.

    Game End

    I honestly don't know when I want the game to end.

    I'm thinking one could, like with RTS games, have different kind of games.

    I feel like even just sitting around and playing until one is done playing could be fun, but one could also try some of these:

    • First to some target value works
      • First to 13 units
      • First to 100 oil
    • One could do capture the flag style, stuff
    • Maybe capturing the king, and bringing him back to your base.

    Dunno, not really my interest actually. I just wanted to make the system.