In a previous video you were talking about what the win condition should be, and I REALLY like the megaproject idea that you suggested. Maybe it could be something that you construct in 3 separate phases and that could also be destroyed by your opponents. This would give you the feeling of progress while also giving your opponents time for counterplay.
Yeah if I remember well, I proposed the same thing in his last video. He could also develop even more this project with some (simple) mechanics : with a spy, you can affect this project (discover it or delay it)
The bait and bleed seems the most similar to the game Scythe. You have to make sure you gather enough resources and power before making attacks on the other players. This has always been the most successful strategy for myself in that particular game.
I saw another comment abaut the siege. Why would you, when siege begins actually pay some amaunt of food, that would corespond with amaunt of turns colony must be under siege to capture. You could use dice to keep track of it. Each turn move 1 number down.
@@JohnyRedstar that's a really clever way to keep track of the siege - with dice. I'm not opposed to paying resources durring a siege, that could be fun. I'll have to think it out a little more.
@@julianbirke you can add many other trick then, like underground tunels or something like that. Sieges are very interest field of war, that is underrated
@@sSardine-t1j I know, I know. I wish it were published already! We have the TTS coming soon, possible a p&p and once we have adequate play testing, we'll start publishing. Probably next year sometime.
Since you mentioned that frigates can't attack land units, the idea of a flagship piece seems really appealing to me. Maybe there's only one per player (super expensive) so there's an incentive to protect it while still using its power. Allowing it to attack land units like a frigate+cannon combo while still carrying another unit would add a lot to combat strategy, and depth to naval tactics. I'm imagining a flagship that's carrying a cannon, so it can effectively bombard two coastal units in one turn, shattering defenses and bleeding ports. Maybe it could also be invincible to frigates, as in the frigate would need another bombard unit to assist it, like attacking a fortified colony. Hmm yes i think this would add a lot of depth to naval strategy, with more pieces as well as players thinking about how to utilize their flagship while also protecting it, and bolstering their own navies to counter other flagships. Maybe it could be called a ship-of-the-line or a man of war?
I just read a comment about a strategy that involves making a fortified coastal colony with a cannon and surrounded by ports, and I think the flagship would be great at breaking up those turtle strategies.
I like using the "tightening the noose" strat against all of my enemies, especially in chess. Idk if you've ever heard of it, but it's pretty essential to modern chess.
one of the inherent aspects of the game you designed is that 100% capture of the board will always be a win condition. if you want a different win condition, it needs to be able to counter a domination win.
@aidenaune7008 in the comments of the Crafting Combat video, @julianburke mentioned that he'll test other win conditions with the community when the game is uploaded to tabletop simulator.
Suggestion: after being under siege for say, 5 turns, a colony will surrender. This is not the case if the colony has a port, but the port can be blockaded meaning the fort cannot be supplied with food and stuff.
@@julianbirke maybe you lose units in the colony if its fully encirceld and there isnt a port (or blockaded). Would give an incentive to break a siege and even allow strategies like kamikaze to be viable.
Every turn put a counter token in the fort. Or for more immersion, make the player store food in the fort that gets depleted every turn. Players that stored more food can hold out longer. Alternatively you can use the grain cards?
Hey, will there be player trade? If yes, will it be free trade, so you can also give free stuff, or will there be rules? I REALLY hope for the game to have trade, because it will make diplomacy and economy so much more fun
it only makes sense with more than 2 players. why would you willingly give your enemy resources they could use to destroy you? even if you think you would gain more from the trade, you have to realize they are asking the same question, "why would I willingly give my enemy resources they could use to destroy me?" its always either "no, they will gain too much for it to be worth it," or "they will say no because I gain too much for it to be worth it to them." only when a third player is in the field is it viable. it would be just like alliances, being a 3+ player feature.
Nice! Alter another playthrough I do think that playing with 3 or even 4 players is very exiting and it does balance things out, leading to alliances and trades. I also find the variation in which you have to protect a certain piece realybfujny since I can lead to unexpected fast Victory without having long stalemate. Actually, the only negative thing that happended were the stalemate, however with the maneuver cards you can spice things up. One question: is there a limit on how many things you can buy per turn? I tried playing with one build per turn leading the difficult decision what to invest in and there was no spamming of things like building 5 roads or 3 cannons In every city.
Not to criticize: I've only heard of your game a few weeks ago, but I think a lot of strategy games give less of an advantage to the defender. I think strategy versatility is the best part of strategy games. Although I can't think of an immediate suggestion, I would like to see the potential for more aggressive styles and slightly quicker games. Very excited for Pincer either way!
@@thegmer5249 you're 100% correct, the advantage usually goes to the aggressor. Taking over a colony is a pretty big event in the game and usually determines the winner pretty quickly, there's lots of smaller battles leading up to it that I think can favor the aggressor slightly.
I wish i had thought of a better example for the 'pincer movement'. I think a pincer is more of a smaller scale tactic and my example was a more broad strategy.
Show two ‘forward’ enemy units guarded by the same unit. By attacking from opposite sides, you can trade units in the first battle, and then the enemy can’t recapture when you take the second unit
it could actually be beneficial to leave your cannon outside your castle after it attacks. either they spend a turn taking out your cannon, or they attack the city, giving you an opportunity attack against their invading piece, which would then also allow you to move your cannon back into your fort.
@@thebomber11 they could theoretically have enough nearby pieces to make this unviable, but this is specifically for when they dont, or where you have a direction they cannot counter it from. essentially, leaving the cannon out helps you stop them from capturing. they can either move a piece in, and have it be killed immediately, or they can move that piece over to attack the cannon (if it is even close enough for that). this breaks if they have 2 troops nearby, one to take the city, and one to take the cannon. BUT, this is only really a concern if they had 2 cannons there in the first place, which makes having 2 non cannons far less likely. it makes taking the city very hard, as you have to have 2 cannons and 2 troops, and them positioned just right for them to counter you taking out either cannon and leaving yours there. and it doesnt even need to be a cannon that you defend the city with, this move can be done with the musketmen. the cannon only helps stop ships.
Keep the game simple and chess like. That is the strength of the game. There are way better games if you want more in depth economics or combat. 2-6 players would be ideal.
I would suggest waiting 'till first playtest to Find Out what the best strategies are. You can guess them just by tinking about the game, but at the end of the day that's guessing. You will only know for sure when a ot of ppl start playing and evolution will reap the weak. tactics tho, of course you just decide what they are when you're writing the rules
@@VihniPuh-kolinkrivi right I'm sure there's lots of strategies that will come from that. This is mostly based off of my own playtesting with friends and family.
@@Valadox_ I'd say we're about 80% of the way there. I really need adequate playtesting before I publish though, which is why I'm working on the TTS. I'm thinking about producing some physical playtesting kits though, where people could buy the tiles/pieces/cards/die.
Omg, the fortified city is an absolute unit, and that's assuming they dont have an army there. Also, I would like to ask, is there going to be an island campaign type of batte? That would add more tactical options if not already there.
Yes they're pretty tough! Haha As far as islands, it's all about how you decide to set the tiles up. Ive played where there's islands and it's pretty fun, lot of cool naval battles
@@nathaniellazo5912 yes lol. My original board was static with a small island in the middle and that was always where the action was. Either get there first and fortify, or wait for other player to fight while building your own strength to come in.
So, it sounds like there is really only one strategy for defensive capitol buildings. Place it on the coastline, surrounded by docks for eco, and a single cannon for defense. The enemy can cut off your trade for a single turn, but cannot attack you, meanwhile your canon goes on a killing spree if they ever try
@@identityvdreamwitch3557 that could be a good strategy, only one port/colony though. Also, it takes time to build all these things (fort, port, cannon), you could easily be under a blockade before purchasing a cannon. Being on a coast could be a dangeras well; if your opponent has a large navy, they could come in fast, outnumbering your cannon, while disembarking land units, surrounding you.
@@julianbirke Interesting. This makes me want to ask even more questions. Once someone has water control, is it fairly impossible to take it back? Like is someone rushes a single ship to block your port well before anyone has cannons. Also if the enemy is going large navy, wouldn't some of their ships block other ships, meaning it could take more then 1 turn to dismount infantry/cannons to surround a capitol and start a siege, so that would mean the defensive cannon would have at least 2 turns to attack before the siege begins, and if prioritizing cannons could delay a siege by water almost indefinitely (unless the enemy has a flood more troops and in that case the game should have ended a while ago). It would seem the Navy would need to dismount some units further away from the capitol, and a turn early to prepare, to push more units into siege at the same time, otherwise they're just wasting bodies
For someone who gets this video as a suggestion through the algorithm I would not be surprised if they dip quickly. It seems to me that you assume everybody who watches this video knows what every unit / card does. I fear they do not. I suggest for further videos you mention the rules on the Pincerpedia ( which is incomplete for land units and manoeuvres aren't even mentioned) or at least the videos where you go over the units and manoeuvres in the intro. Put them in the description or on screen. It would help a lot that you don't have to search your entire channel to find this information. Great video nonetheless!
@@W56productions good to know. Yeah, I should have mentioned the previous video, because I went over to maneuvers/combat last week. I plan on making one video that has all the rules in one place, in order to reference in future video and finally completing the 'pincerepedia'. Thanks for the feedback!
You build the units with ressources, as far as I understood, but the ressource cards are the same cards that gibe you the option to fortify/ambush/....Bigger arms, harder to steer.
Suggestion: since this game is not purely about warfare, but more about politics, economics and diplomacy, why not let the win condition reflect that? What if when there are more than two players playing this game... multiple players can win. For example: the goal can be building a unique building that requires not just a set amount or resources, but also a specific set of tiles surrounding colonies. This ensures that while there is no inherent goal to defeat or even undermine other players, the limited amount of tiles naturally leads to conflict. To make this even more dynamic, the building might need a sertain amount of turns to get built. A process that can be interrupted by someone else occupying your colony (or even if the project is already complete, that building can also be occupied), which is at a higher risk of happening if that player doesn't choose to compromise a victory with anyone else and because of that ends up ganged up on. In this case the game would end not when one player comletes a project, but after the last player who built or reoccupied their project is able to keep it for a set amount of turns, after which the winners are simply those who have a project with no other players occupying it. A true spirit of warfare: legacy, negotiations and endurance. What do you think? Like, I know that it's a bit too specific and big for something that is that late in development, and that you will most likely just borrow one or two small details if anything at all, but still. What do you think?
Maybe instead of drawing those strategy cards(fortify, ambush, etc.) the players have a set amount, or something like that, to minimize the amount of chance in the game. I like the cards, but I feel like it adds to much chance.
some other guy some time ago said, that theese manouver cards could just be bought with the corresponding resources. i really liked that idea, since you have to choose if you want an economical advantage or a combat one
@@Lukaz1352 buying the maneuvers could be good. I do like how they're correlated with the the terrain types by combining them with the resource cards right now. Not saying you couldn't if they were separate but I think it's pretty simple to understand now
In a previous video you were talking about what the win condition should be, and I REALLY like the megaproject idea that you suggested. Maybe it could be something that you construct in 3 separate phases and that could also be destroyed by your opponents. This would give you the feeling of progress while also giving your opponents time for counterplay.
Yeah if I remember well, I proposed the same thing in his last video. He could also develop even more this project with some (simple) mechanics : with a spy, you can affect this project (discover it or delay it)
The bait and bleed seems the most similar
to the game Scythe. You have to make sure you gather enough resources and power before making attacks on the other players. This has always been the most successful strategy for myself in that particular game.
@@bw0081 right, I think bait and bleed is one of the best. Unless one opponent gets the upper hand and a large advantage from that.
I saw another comment abaut the siege. Why would you, when siege begins actually pay some amaunt of food, that would corespond with amaunt of turns colony must be under siege to capture. You could use dice to keep track of it. Each turn move 1 number down.
@@JohnyRedstar that's a really clever way to keep track of the siege - with dice. I'm not opposed to paying resources durring a siege, that could be fun. I'll have to think it out a little more.
@@julianbirke you can add many other trick then, like underground tunels or something like that. Sieges are very interest field of war, that is underrated
Hey! I just wanted to say that you've been an inspiration for my own game design process! I hope you succeed in making this a wonderful game.
@@gugimeks8304 I'm always happy to hear that! I wish yo luck in your design journey 🍀
Great video this might be the only game that does naval infantry well
Also when will this game be released 😭
@@sSardine-t1j well thank you. I always have fun with naval battles, I think it gives you a good idea of how important Navy's are in war
@@sSardine-t1j I know, I know. I wish it were published already!
We have the TTS coming soon, possible a p&p and once we have adequate play testing, we'll start publishing.
Probably next year sometime.
Since you mentioned that frigates can't attack land units, the idea of a flagship piece seems really appealing to me.
Maybe there's only one per player (super expensive) so there's an incentive to protect it while still using its power.
Allowing it to attack land units like a frigate+cannon combo while still carrying another unit would add a lot to combat strategy, and depth to naval tactics.
I'm imagining a flagship that's carrying a cannon, so it can effectively bombard two coastal units in one turn, shattering defenses and bleeding ports.
Maybe it could also be invincible to frigates, as in the frigate would need another bombard unit to assist it, like attacking a fortified colony.
Hmm yes i think this would add a lot of depth to naval strategy, with more pieces as well as players thinking about how to utilize their flagship while also protecting it, and bolstering their own navies to counter other flagships.
Maybe it could be called a ship-of-the-line or a man of war?
I just read a comment about a strategy that involves making a fortified coastal colony with a cannon and surrounded by ports, and I think the flagship would be great at breaking up those turtle strategies.
I like using the "tightening the noose" strat against all of my enemies, especially in chess. Idk if you've ever heard of it, but it's pretty essential to modern chess.
one of the inherent aspects of the game you designed is that 100% capture of the board will always be a win condition.
if you want a different win condition, it needs to be able to counter a domination win.
@aidenaune7008 in the comments of the Crafting Combat video, @julianburke mentioned that he'll test other win conditions with the community when the game is uploaded to tabletop simulator.
Suggestion: after being under siege for say, 5 turns, a colony will surrender. This is not the case if the colony has a port, but the port can be blockaded meaning the fort cannot be supplied with food and stuff.
That could be interesting, the only problem I would say is it it would be hard to keep track of.
@@julianbirke maybe you lose units in the colony if its fully encirceld and there isnt a port (or blockaded). Would give an incentive to break a siege and even allow strategies like kamikaze to be viable.
Every turn put a counter token in the fort. Or for more immersion, make the player store food in the fort that gets depleted every turn. Players that stored more food can hold out longer. Alternatively you can use the grain cards?
@@Janovich JANOVICH? What are you doing here? Big fan, I didn’t know you were interested in stuff like this!
@@Janovich BTW great suggestions
Hey, will there be player trade? If yes, will it be free trade, so you can also give free stuff, or will there be rules? I REALLY hope for the game to have trade, because it will make diplomacy and economy so much more fun
it only makes sense with more than 2 players. why would you willingly give your enemy resources they could use to destroy you? even if you think you would gain more from the trade, you have to realize they are asking the same question, "why would I willingly give my enemy resources they could use to destroy me?"
its always either "no, they will gain too much for it to be worth it," or "they will say no because I gain too much for it to be worth it to them."
only when a third player is in the field is it viable. it would be just like alliances, being a 3+ player feature.
I can't wait to play this game with my friends...
@@randomviever I can't either! One day my friend.
Nice! Alter another playthrough I do think that playing with 3 or even 4 players is very exiting and it does balance things out, leading to alliances and trades.
I also find the variation in which you have to protect a certain piece realybfujny since I can lead to unexpected fast Victory without having long stalemate.
Actually, the only negative thing that happended were the stalemate, however with the maneuver cards you can spice things up.
One question: is there a limit on how many things you can buy per turn? I tried playing with one build per turn leading the difficult decision what to invest in and there was no spamming of things like building 5 roads or 3 cannons In every city.
Not to criticize: I've only heard of your game a few weeks ago, but I think a lot of strategy games give less of an advantage to the defender. I think strategy versatility is the best part of strategy games. Although I can't think of an immediate suggestion, I would like to see the potential for more aggressive styles and slightly quicker games. Very excited for Pincer either way!
@@thegmer5249 you're 100% correct, the advantage usually goes to the aggressor. Taking over a colony is a pretty big event in the game and usually determines the winner pretty quickly, there's lots of smaller battles leading up to it that I think can favor the aggressor slightly.
cant wait
I wish i had thought of a better example for the 'pincer movement'. I think a pincer is more of a smaller scale tactic and my example was a more broad strategy.
Please Julian reply me ones game is out can is it available in all countries like my India please tell me 😢 and hope your game release soon
Show two ‘forward’ enemy units guarded by the same unit.
By attacking from opposite sides, you can trade units in the first battle, and then the enemy can’t recapture when you take the second unit
it could actually be beneficial to leave your cannon outside your castle after it attacks. either they spend a turn taking out your cannon, or they attack the city, giving you an opportunity attack against their invading piece, which would then also allow you to move your cannon back into your fort.
Can't they just move a knight on top of your cannon and be sieging your castle in the same turn, if they have enough pieces?
@@thebomber11 they could theoretically have enough nearby pieces to make this unviable, but this is specifically for when they dont, or where you have a direction they cannot counter it from.
essentially, leaving the cannon out helps you stop them from capturing. they can either move a piece in, and have it be killed immediately, or they can move that piece over to attack the cannon (if it is even close enough for that). this breaks if they have 2 troops nearby, one to take the city, and one to take the cannon.
BUT, this is only really a concern if they had 2 cannons there in the first place, which makes having 2 non cannons far less likely.
it makes taking the city very hard, as you have to have 2 cannons and 2 troops, and them positioned just right for them to counter you taking out either cannon and leaving yours there.
and it doesnt even need to be a cannon that you defend the city with, this move can be done with the musketmen. the cannon only helps stop ships.
Keep the game simple and chess like. That is the strength of the game. There are way better games if you want more in depth economics or combat.
2-6 players would be ideal.
I would suggest waiting 'till first playtest to Find Out what the best strategies are. You can guess them just by tinking about the game, but at the end of the day that's guessing. You will only know for sure when a ot of ppl start playing and evolution will reap the weak.
tactics tho, of course you just decide what they are when you're writing the rules
@@VihniPuh-kolinkrivi right I'm sure there's lots of strategies that will come from that. This is mostly based off of my own playtesting with friends and family.
How far would you say you are with your board game? And what do you plan on adding? Me and my friend are really interested.
@@Valadox_ I'd say we're about 80% of the way there. I really need adequate playtesting before I publish though, which is why I'm working on the TTS. I'm thinking about producing some physical playtesting kits though, where people could buy the tiles/pieces/cards/die.
Omg, the fortified city is an absolute unit, and that's assuming they dont have an army there.
Also, I would like to ask, is there going to be an island campaign type of batte? That would add more tactical options if not already there.
Yes they're pretty tough! Haha
As far as islands, it's all about how you decide to set the tiles up. Ive played where there's islands and it's pretty fun, lot of cool naval battles
@@julianbirkethat's awesome to hear!! I can only image how much more difficult an Island Fortress would be
@@nathaniellazo5912 yes lol. My original board was static with a small island in the middle and that was always where the action was.
Either get there first and fortify, or wait for other player to fight while building your own strength to come in.
Hi @julianbirke, would you be happy to organize a members get together during the weekend after this one?
@@Catninjas that would work for me! I'll get in contact about it.
Sweet.
So, it sounds like there is really only one strategy for defensive capitol buildings. Place it on the coastline, surrounded by docks for eco, and a single cannon for defense. The enemy can cut off your trade for a single turn, but cannot attack you, meanwhile your canon goes on a killing spree if they ever try
@@identityvdreamwitch3557 that could be a good strategy, only one port/colony though. Also, it takes time to build all these things (fort, port, cannon), you could easily be under a blockade before purchasing a cannon. Being on a coast could be a dangeras well; if your opponent has a large navy, they could come in fast, outnumbering your cannon, while disembarking land units, surrounding you.
@@julianbirke Interesting. This makes me want to ask even more questions. Once someone has water control, is it fairly impossible to take it back? Like is someone rushes a single ship to block your port well before anyone has cannons. Also if the enemy is going large navy, wouldn't some of their ships block other ships, meaning it could take more then 1 turn to dismount infantry/cannons to surround a capitol and start a siege, so that would mean the defensive cannon would have at least 2 turns to attack before the siege begins, and if prioritizing cannons could delay a siege by water almost indefinitely (unless the enemy has a flood more troops and in that case the game should have ended a while ago). It would seem the Navy would need to dismount some units further away from the capitol, and a turn early to prepare, to push more units into siege at the same time, otherwise they're just wasting bodies
Suggestio the megaproject was cool soo make it like in CIV 4 that have multiple phases but is easy to destroy soo you can counter
So...lets do a Napoleon tactic 😅. Love from France, like always👌👌
@@ArthurDuchet would love to see that play out! Always a pleasure hearing from our French friends 🇫🇷
For someone who gets this video as a suggestion through the algorithm I would not be surprised if they dip quickly. It seems to me that you assume everybody who watches this video knows what every unit / card does. I fear they do not.
I suggest for further videos you mention the rules on the Pincerpedia ( which is incomplete for land units and manoeuvres aren't even mentioned) or at least the videos where you go over the units and manoeuvres in the intro. Put them in the description or on screen. It would help a lot that you don't have to search your entire channel to find this information.
Great video nonetheless!
@@W56productions good to know. Yeah, I should have mentioned the previous video, because I went over to maneuvers/combat last week.
I plan on making one video that has all the rules in one place, in order to reference in future video and finally completing the 'pincerepedia'.
Thanks for the feedback!
"Did you think it would be easy" needs to be a gif.
Haha
We'll make it a T-shirt haha
Is it on table top simulator?
@@drdentall1678 not yet, getting close though! I'm hoping to have it by the end of the month.
A can’t wait to arm wrestle my opponent in this game.
That's the alternative way to play, once the rules break down 😂
2-4 game❤
How many are there per piece?
@@Valadox_ how many what per piece?
You build the units with ressources, as far as I understood, but the ressource cards are the same cards that gibe you the option to fortify/ambush/....Bigger arms, harder to steer.
With how much I’ve watched you I feel dumb that I never herd you say your name was Julian
And here I thought you cared 😔
@@julianbirkelol
Ao the Old card-based combat system is gone?
Have you played root ?
A little suggestion : you could complexify the navigation system because fregates looks cheat in your exemples
@@Bernieguduale you mind elaborating a little more?
Suggestion: since this game is not purely about warfare, but more about politics, economics and diplomacy, why not let the win condition reflect that? What if when there are more than two players playing this game... multiple players can win. For example: the goal can be building a unique building that requires not just a set amount or resources, but also a specific set of tiles surrounding colonies. This ensures that while there is no inherent goal to defeat or even undermine other players, the limited amount of tiles naturally leads to conflict. To make this even more dynamic, the building might need a sertain amount of turns to get built. A process that can be interrupted by someone else occupying your colony (or even if the project is already complete, that building can also be occupied), which is at a higher risk of happening if that player doesn't choose to compromise a victory with anyone else and because of that ends up ganged up on. In this case the game would end not when one player comletes a project, but after the last player who built or reoccupied their project is able to keep it for a set amount of turns, after which the winners are simply those who have a project with no other players occupying it. A true spirit of warfare: legacy, negotiations and endurance.
What do you think? Like, I know that it's a bit too specific and big for something that is that late in development, and that you will most likely just borrow one or two small details if anything at all, but still. What do you think?
How is a 2 player game about diplomacy?
Maybe instead of drawing those strategy cards(fortify, ambush, etc.) the players have a set amount, or something like that, to minimize the amount of chance in the game. I like the cards, but I feel like it adds to much chance.
some other guy some time ago said, that theese manouver cards could just be bought with the corresponding resources. i really liked that idea, since you have to choose if you want an economical advantage or a combat one
@@Lukaz1352 buying the maneuvers could be good. I do like how they're correlated with the the terrain types by combining them with the resource cards right now. Not saying you couldn't if they were separate but I think it's pretty simple to understand now
Chance is needed.