| 1 |
[i][b]If you and a friend wanted to fight a ZK battle that was both epic and challenging, how would you go about it?[/b] What conditions, features, or scenarios would you impose on the battle to produce that kind of outcome?[/i]
|
1 |
[i][b]If you and a friend wanted to fight a ZK battle that was both epic and challenging, how would you go about it?[/b] What conditions, features, or scenarios would you impose on the battle to produce that kind of outcome?[/i]
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
By "epic" I mean longer than average, with more combats between larger forces and with more expensive units than the average game sees. By "challenging" I mean a game that requires continuous involvement and aggressive action, one in which the outcome is not certain until the end, where early gains are important but not decisive and early mistakes are costly but not ruinous.
|
3 |
By "epic" I mean longer than average, with more combats between larger forces and with more expensive units than the average game sees. By "challenging" I mean a game that requires continuous involvement and aggressive action, one in which the outcome is not certain until the end, where early gains are important but not decisive and early mistakes are costly but not ruinous.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
-------
|
5 |
-------
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
The board game [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2651/power-grid]Power Grid[/url] is a game of resource management and territorial expansion. Expanding gives you more resources, having more resources allows you to expand. But the game is (brilliantly) designed to prevent a runaway victory by someone who takes an early lead. There are three primary mechanisms it uses to do that:
|
7 |
The board game [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2651/power-grid]Power Grid[/url] is a game of resource management and territorial expansion. Expanding gives you more resources, having more resources allows you to expand. But the game is (brilliantly) designed to prevent a runaway victory by someone who takes an early lead. There are three primary mechanisms it uses to do that:
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
1) Marginal returns to scale are decreasing, not increasing. Incremental expansion gets more expensive and produces fewer resources as you grow.
|
9 |
1) Marginal returns to scale are decreasing, not increasing. Incremental expansion gets more expensive and produces fewer resources as you grow.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
2) Leaders are penalized. Each round, the players are ranked by amount of territory; the player ranking determines the order in which everyone takes their turn, with those doing the best getting the worst turn order. This has a substantial effect on the game, so much so that an important strategic element is deciding whether to take the lead in territory or hold back so as to get a better turn order.
|
11 |
2) Leaders are penalized. Each round, the players are ranked by amount of territory; the player ranking determines the order in which everyone takes their turn, with those doing the best getting the worst turn order. This has a substantial effect on the game, so much so that an important strategic element is deciding whether to take the lead in territory or hold back so as to get a better turn order.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
3) The game is structured into phases, with each new phase pushing up the scale of the game by a substantial amount. Players also usually have an incentive to pause before starting each new phase, which gives trailing players a chance to catch up.
|
13 |
3) The game is structured into phases, with each new phase pushing up the scale of the game by a substantial amount. Players also usually have an incentive to pause before starting each new phase, which gives trailing players a chance to catch up.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
Power Grid is very tense and engaging from start to finish. Good early gameplay is rewarded but on its own is not enough to clinch the victory. Coming back from far behind is unusual but possible if you spot something the leaders missed or if they make a crucial mistake. Among the leaders, the game usually comes right down to the wire, with the top two or three players coming within just a few points of each other, and the victory going to whoever played the best within the last one or two turns. But playing well early on gives you the luxury of making some mistakes in the late game while still having a chance to win.
|
15 |
Power Grid is very tense and engaging from start to finish. Good early gameplay is rewarded but on its own is not enough to clinch the victory. Coming back from far behind is unusual but possible if you spot something the leaders missed or if they make a crucial mistake. Among the leaders, the game usually comes right down to the wire, with the top two or three players coming within just a few points of each other, and the victory going to whoever played the best within the last one or two turns. But playing well early on gives you the luxury of making some mistakes in the late game while still having a chance to win.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
It seems that Zero-K is not like this.
|
17 |
It seems that Zero-K is not like this.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
1) In ZK, marginal returns to scale are increasing. Getting more resources lets you expand faster, getting more territory pushes up your income faster. Lanchester's square law means that as a large force gets larger its advantage increases even more rapidly.
|
19 |
1) In ZK, marginal returns to scale are increasing. Getting more resources lets you expand faster, getting more territory pushes up your income faster. Lanchester's square law means that as a large force gets larger its advantage increases even more rapidly.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
2) Leaders are not penalized. In fact, they are rewarded - not by the game mechanics, but because a player in a winning position (who will typically be on the offensive) is better able to direct their limited attention by choosing their actions, in contrast to the losing player who will usually be forced into being reactive.
|
21 |
2) Leaders are not penalized. In fact, they are rewarded - not by the game mechanics, but because a player in a winning position (who will typically be on the offensive) is better able to direct their limited attention by choosing their actions, in contrast to the losing player who will usually be forced into being reactive.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
3) There's no distinct phases and no incentive to wait for the other players before escalating. The scale does increase over time as incomes rise and more metal is available to make larger and more expensive forces, but it scales up smoothly rather than in chunks, and of course there's no incentive whatsoever to wait until your opponents are ready to scale up the battle along with you.
|
23 |
3) There's no distinct phases and no incentive to wait for the other players before escalating. The scale does increase over time as incomes rise and more metal is available to make larger and more expensive forces, but it scales up smoothly rather than in chunks, and of course there's no incentive whatsoever to wait until your opponents are ready to scale up the battle along with you.
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
Many
ZK
battles
are
over
quickly,
and
many
of
those
that
aren't
short
are
merely
taking
too
long
to
play
out
a
forgone
conclusion.
Not
every
battle
is
like
this,
of
course.
But
most
of
them
are
effectively
decided
by
an
early
advantage,
whether
due
to
skillful
play
by
one
player
or
blunders
by
the
other.
One
big
exception,
of
course,
is
the
porcfest.
But
games
like
that
aren't
very
engaging.
They're
certainly
"epic",
but
they
don't
have
the
elements
that
would
make
them
"challenging"
(
by
my
definition
above)
.
If
both
sides
porc
the
conclusion
is
epic
but
there's
no
meaningful
interaction
until
the
very
end.
If
one
side
porcs
the
conclusion
is
epic
but
the
game
is
a
forgone
conclusion
-
the
defender
will
lose,
it's
only
a
question
of
how
long
it
will
take.
|
25 |
Many
ZK
battles
are
over
quickly,
and
many
of
those
that
aren't
short
are
merely
taking
too
long
to
play
out
a
forgone
conclusion.
Not
every
battle
is
like
this,
of
course.
But
most
of
them
are
effectively
decided
by
an
early
advantage,
whether
due
to
skillful
play
by
one
player
or
blunders
by
the
other.
One
big
exception,
of
course,
is
the
porcfest.
But
games
like
that
aren't
very
engaging.
They're
certainly
"epic",
but
they
don't
have
the
elements
that
would
make
them
"challenging"
(
by
my
definition
above)
.
If
both
sides
porc
the
conclusion
is
epic
but
there's
no
meaningful
interaction
until
the
very
end.
If
one
side
porcs
the
conclusion
is
epic
but
the
game
is
one-sided
-
the
defender
will
lose,
it's
only
a
question
of
how
long
it
will
take.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
----------
|
27 |
----------
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
But does it have to be that way?
|
29 |
But does it have to be that way?
|
| 30 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 31 |
Couldn't we have epic games that are actually meaningful and interactive and challenging the whole way through? If so, how?
|
31 |
Couldn't we have epic games that are actually meaningful and interactive and challenging the whole way through? If so, how?
|
| 32 |
\n
|
32 |
\n
|
| 33 |
Please note that I'm [i]not[/i] suggesting we make any changes to ZK. I'm only asking what two players (or teams) would need to do if they wanted to play a battle that was more likely to be as ambitious in scale as it is ferocious in gameplay.
|
33 |
Please note that I'm [i]not[/i] suggesting we make any changes to ZK. I'm only asking what two players (or teams) would need to do if they wanted to play a battle that was more likely to be as ambitious in scale as it is ferocious in gameplay.
|
| 34 |
\n
|
34 |
\n
|
| 35 |
I'm eager to hear your thoughts.
|
35 |
I'm eager to hear your thoughts.
|
| 36 |
\n
|
36 |
\n
|
Epic By Design