The one thing that I feel like is missing is simply being able to define the card values each board. I can't stand some of the card setups that you are forced into on boards. Can we make a default, where you can then choose different incrementing ones. Where are any of the (4,6,8,10,4,6,...etc)?

It kills some of these boards that have huge incrementing values for the cards, makes the games pointless.

Board designers have a lot of control over card progressions. I personally stay away from standard boards that have repeating progressions (like 4, 6, 8, 10, 4, 6...) because they lead to protracted games. E.g. crab games. There are boards that have them, but I can't think of which ones off the top of my head.

Which boards are you playing that you don't like the progressions? If the designer is available and will, they can make a custom scenario with a requested card progression.

I guess that's each person's opinion right? I guess my question is, why isnt that card progression just an option to choose on any board? Why would it matter, the designer can pick a default, but why does it matter if you want to pick one of those kinds of progressions. I personally, enjoy long, protracted games, thus the request for a 4,6,8,10. I think it takes more skill than games than the leaping card progressions.

You can pick some form of fog types on each board, why can't we be able to pick a card progression per a board? I guess that's my suggestion. I can't see how it would impact the board design at all, it's just the card numbers.

It definitely impacts design, but not always in game-breaking ways. In some of my games, cards could ruin the game in a number of ways. Some games use run-away card sets essentially as the intended win condition by letting them get huge, and making card capture being significant. Alternatively, a designer can turn off card capture, so that card sets trading for too much could turn a game that would otherwise be more fun if they don't.

I can see an argument for a designer setting card set options for you to choose from, then deciding whether or not to lock that option, or having a few sets for players to choose from with the designers permission... but I think it's a more complex ask than you're making it.

As a side note, many of my boards lock the fog option intentionally. That being said, I make weird stuff.

jamesd wrote:I guess that's each person's opinion right? I guess my question is, why isnt that card progression just an option to choose on any board? Why would it matter, the designer can pick a default, but why does it matter if you want to pick one of those kinds of progressions. I personally, enjoy long, protracted games, thus the request for a 4,6,8,10. I think it takes more skill than games than the leaping card progressions.

You can pick some form of fog types on each board, why can't we be able to pick a card progression per a board? I guess that's my suggestion. I can't see how it would impact the board design at all, it's just the card numbers.

I disagree that it takes more skill to slug out a game that cycles card bonuses. These are different skills, but absolutely are both skills. Knowing whether to hold onto cards or make a dash for eliminating someone and capturing their cards is a big deal, and knowing how to grind down an opponent who sometimes gets 5 reinforcements and sometimes gets 50 is also a skill. When cards escalate you cannot slowly leverage an early advantage — you have to maintain some degree of aggression, and have to think about lots of contingencies regarding who has or who will have cards. Even deciding “escalating cards here will mean early game doesn’t matter much, I will play a long strat here” is a skill/knowledge advantage.

I make dramatically different decisions depending on whether boards cycle, stay constant, or escalate, and also make different decisions when boards do not allow card capture upon eliminating opponents.

My personal opinion is that escalating card bonus is more satisfying on most boards because it more frequently provides a decisive victory with a relatively quick kill. You spend less time in games that you know you will eventually lose, and more time I games that you *do* lose with a plausible hope that just one more card cash will salvage your hopeless position. It’s fun to win on either board type — but assuming there are more than 2 players (or teams), most people in the game do not win.

jamesd wrote:I guess that's each person's opinion right? I guess my question is, why isnt that card progression just an option to choose on any board? Why would it matter, the designer can pick a default, but why does it matter if you want to pick one of those kinds of progressions. I personally, enjoy long, protracted games, thus the request for a 4,6,8,10. I think it takes more skill than games than the leaping card progressions.

You can pick some form of fog types on each board, why can't we be able to pick a card progression per a board? I guess that's my suggestion. I can't see how it would impact the board design at all, it's just the card numbers.

Could it be that having played just 24 games on 19 maps total that you haven't realized the reasoning behind some of the chosen card value progressions? There just might be a learning curve in the way some maps are played imho. Check the reviews of the maps you are questioning the card values on, if there isn't anyone else mentioning the card values on a map, it might be that you need a larger sample size? The more you play the more you learn.

Another important consideration is that giving game creator' too many options can be intimidating. Not only that, but the more complicated or varied the types of games, the more that folks who were joining games have to pay attention to the different ways games were set up.

These were considerations that were debated often in the early years of the site as more and more features were added, and it was felt that at a certain point, a balance had been achieved between keeping things accessible and providing options.

@M57: I think you make some really valid points about it just being different and different strategies apply, I agree with you.

@hootz72, I am coming from years of Warfish, so I'm newer over here on Wargear.

I think my point is still valid, and I'm not suggesting that the board designer need to do anything. Just like you allow for customization of choosing Fog level, why not just allow for a different card option. The designer can pick a default that they choose, and when people are starting games they can use the default...... .just like the fog setting.

It just allows for more iterations and different playing boards on a given board, it seems like an easy win to me still.

i think the long and short of it is that designers successfully lobbied for control of that option so that choices didn't break their vision or balance of the board.

there is still a mechanism to have choices. it just takes the concerned party to contact the designer and see if they can make a new scenario with the changes desired. where that breaks down somewhat is when the designer has retired from the site. i've had discussions about how to implement in those cases, but it hasn't reached critical mass.

weathertop wrote:i think the long and short of it is that designers successfully lobbied for control of that option so that choices didn't break their vision or balance of the board.

there is still a mechanism to have choices. it just takes the concerned party to contact the designer and see if they can make a new scenario with the changes desired. where that breaks down somewhat is when the designer has retired from the site. i've had discussions about how to implement in those cases, but it hasn't reached critical mass.

+1

As a designer I put a lot of thought into achieving game-play balance and keeping game length reasonable, and I feel that card progression almost always has an influence on those game attributes. I don't remember those conversations, but I'm pretty sure that if I participated in them, I would have been in the "designers control cards" camp.

I do think there would be room for designers choosing a pool of card sets that are selectable, but I also know this takes some work to implement on tom's end.

Players being able to choose card sets on some of my boards would break them entirely, but on many I think leaving some options could be really interesting. Especially on boards where card sets aren't as influential.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Players being able to choose card sets on some of my boards would break them entirely, but on many I think leaving some options could be really interesting. Especially on boards where card sets aren't as influential.

I could get behind this; altho there might be some work to implement (both by Tom && designers/play testers)

Edward Nygma wrote:I do think there would be room for designers choosing a pool of card sets that are selectable, but I also know this takes some work to implement on tom's end.

I once proposed (mostly as a thought experiment as I realized there was no chance it would happen) that it would be cool if cards could be members of factories.

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed:card_membership

jamesd wrote:

@hootz72, I am coming from years of Warfish, so I'm newer over here on Wargear.

Welcome!

I think my point is still valid, and I'm not suggesting that the board designer need to do anything. Just like you allow for customization of choosing Fog level, why not just allow for a different card option. The designer can pick a default that they choose, and when people are starting games they can use the default...... .just like the fog setting.

It just allows for more iterations and different playing boards on a given board, it seems like an easy win to me still.

Edward Nygma wrote:

I can see an argument for a designer setting card set options for you to choose from, then deciding whether or not to lock that option, or having a few sets for players to choose from with the designers permission...

This would be more convenient than creating a different scenario for differing card values. The designer would still have control over which card options to allow. (just like with fog.)

Edward Nygma wrote:

but I think it's a more complex ask than you're making it.

Back in the day on this site tom (the sole, and very awesome, admin) was implementing changes at a frequent pace. That has largely stopped and we are just very happy that he keeps this site up and running smoothly. So we love it, warts and all.

M57 wrote:Edward Nygma wrote:I do think there would be room for designers choosing a pool of card sets that are selectable, but I also know this takes some work to implement on tom's end.

I once proposed (mostly as a thought experiment as I realized there was no chance it would happen) that it would be cool if cards could be members of factories.

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed:card_membership" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed:card_membership

You know I'm all for the wacky options that allow for more design features, but I do think it's a little unlikely.

Edward Nygma wrote:M57 wrote:Edward Nygma wrote:I do think there would be room for designers choosing a pool of card sets that are selectable, but I also know this takes some work to implement on tom's end.

I once proposed (mostly as a thought experiment as I realized there was no chance it would happen) that it would be cool if cards could be members of factories.

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed:card_membership" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed:card_membership" target="_blank"> https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed:card_membership

You know I'm all for the wacky options that allow for more design features, but I do think it's a little unlikely.

Hah, at full implementation, it would change the site completely. It's way too powerful. You could practically create card games where the board is just a playing surface. But at its intended simple level it could simply be used to create territorial goals or objectives, like "When cashed,,receive an extra five armies if you hold Brazil." Of course, the designer would necessarily want to create a separate card for every territory, but it would be worth the work, right?

@jamesd: While not what you asked for, there a few of boards that already have multiple scenarios with different card settings.

The three that I can think of right now are:

• Colossal Crusade: https://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Colossal+Crusade
• Global Warfare: https://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Global+Warfare
• Micro Mission: https://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Micro+Mission

As long as it wouldn't break anything, I'm happy to add a scenario with different card values on any of my boards.

Ozyman wrote:As long as it wouldn't break anything, I'm happy to add a scenario with different card values on any of my boards.

This is a great solution, it just blows up pretty fast if you already have multiple scenarios. Scenario 1 with Cards A, Scenario 1 with Cards B, Scenario 2 with Cards A... etc.

Edward Nygma wrote:Ozyman wrote:As long as it wouldn't break anything, I'm happy to add a scenario with different card values on any of my boards.

This is a great solution, it just blows up pretty fast if you already have multiple scenarios. Scenario 1 with Cards A, Scenario 1 with Cards B, Scenario 2 with Cards A... etc.

I would like to request Scenario 3 with Cards A, win condition: have my user name