Just wanted to say thank you all for your input and support! I'll be doing my best to give a thoughtful reply to every comment this week. You all gave me a lot to chew on!
Oh boy, your first board game design. Welcome to the boardgame hobby pal. There is so much for you to explore. Let me start by saying that your ideas look very nice to me. I would suggest looking at video's from board game designers because there is a lot to learn from those (Adaminwales, jameystegmaier). Furthermore I would really suggest playing or learning about more strategy boardgames, there's so many great things out there. Your game here looks a little like 'Roads & Boats' or 'Diplomacy' to me. I also recommend Scythe, Concordia, Root, Tigris & Euphrates, Brass: Birmingham, Civilization a new dawn. There's a possibility that a game you are willing to make is already somewhere out there. Don't let that stop your creative process. But beware that you're not investing too much money into a sunken cost fallacy. Designing boardgames is tricky, I've tried. But please let this spark in you be fuel for a love for the boardgaming hobby.
@@bramklinkenberg9140 thank you for the insight! I'll definitely checkout those channels and games. There's definitely play plethora of board g ames out there, it's hard even finding a name that's not taken, but good stuff to keep in mind!
Hi! Holler if you ever want to swap playtests. Some buddies and I are working on 4X games and we’d welcome other designers who want to be part of the digital playtest group.
If you support solo mode, I would be interested in playtesting. 4X is favorite genre of mine. A good test for the game existing is if it becomes a favorite of mine.
Your art and components look great, especially the idea of the wooden-style chess pieces. But as an aspiring board game designer of many years with nothing published to my name, let me make a suggestion: focus on rules before components. The more work you've invested in components / art, the more you'll resist changing it, even when it's best for the rules. My most successful prototypes were the cheapest ones that I could quickly tear down and rebuild as the rule changes demanded. The game sounds intriguing so far - keep going.
@@robmaxwell3076 I appreciate your insight. These are things I didn't consider at all, especially when first starting a few years ago. I can definitely see where you could get attached to a certain part that you've sunk a lot of time into. Thank you and good luck with your endeavors as well!
@@julianbirke premature polishing in terms of components can also harm your playtesting experience and the data you get from it; players think the game is "good" because of the shiny and are less able to identify problems they're having with it.
Really excited to see this progress. All I have to say is that if you plan on crowdfunding, please do not feel pressured to go crazy with stretch goals. So many crowdfunding games completely lose their original identity and become bloated. Also, I definitely prefer the chess like wooden resin pieces. Good luck with the game!
I get the sense from the games you mentioned that you liked that you haven’t played many boardgames, in particular not many modern ones. It’s not impossible, but trying to design the ultimate board game after playing chess, Risk and Catan sounds a little like trying to write the greatest novel ever after reading the Hobbit, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and The Dark Vinci Code: technically possible but you’re putting yourself at a massive disadvantage.
@@rowdy35967 Well my top 3 are Risk, Catan and Chess. I will admit I haven't really played to many more modern games. I have played ticket to ride, which I though was fun. I've always loved clue, it's the perfect social game on a nice stormy night. Besides that, I like regular card games such as Rummy. Any games you you would suggest? Thank you for your input as well!
@@julianbirke I would highly recommend trying out some of the more 'modern' games that have a higher level of production, depth and concentrated design. For example you mention you liked the Lord of the Rings: Risk - you should try War of the Ring!
Ohey this is where I was in 2018! Best of luck. Don't be afraid to get sidetracked and spin off an idea that doesn't belong into a side project to refine your game design skills. You're absolutely right that designing the rules is the hardest part, and playtesting being vital - so many projects, even from big companies, go all in on presentation and ship massive boxes filled with expensive miniatures with barely functioning rules.
@@CaptainHoers man, congratulations! You've put in some hard work. Thank you so much for your advice. It's much appreciated and I'll definitely keep it in mind.
Happy you're pursuing a passion. I've considered a similar thing inspired by different sources. My primary gripe with game design is its current two extremes: There's the chess end, where people prefer perfect information and mind-games only, which is never how real-world strategy plays out. There must be fog of war. The other extreme is the zeitgeist of modern hobby board gaming: Engine building. You can't pivot. Once you've set a strategy in motion, it's an investment that corners you, and most games brutally punish attempts to shift to a new tack. All my thinking revolves around these two problems, and are honestly best solved in a simple video game if I speak for myself. Best of luck with your work.
@@nERVEcenter117 I appreciate your insight. I agree, video games open almost endless possibilities as far as game play. I think humans have been attempting to create a board game that resembles real life scenarios for thousands of years. At the end of the day, I love video games but there's a social component of board games that I'll always prefer.
Will this have Scythe's "passive aggressive threat of war is better than actual war" or Adrenaline's "kill credit majority control + first blood incentive"? Or both, somehow?
I think it will depend on how many players there are. When it's only 2, war is inevitable but when there's multiple players the best strategy seems to be staying out of it, unless necessary.
There is no ultimate strategy / tactic board game. There are huge variety of game mechanics, some of them are popular some of them are not. And this changes over time, what game mechanic is the most popular. For example tableau building is very popular and cards are also very popular game components, but this will get overused over time and new mechanics and game components will be the most popular :)
If you're still looking for input, there's the board game design podcast, where the host invites board game designers on and they discuss mechanics or how they approach board game design. It's really great to get new ideas! Also don't feel like you need to get through all the input before being able to start, start and then maybe listen/watch/read some things :)
What if there's a Worker unit? Cost: 3 resource (since theres 2 and 4 cost units alrd, could be 2 wheat and 1 iron) They must be placed adjacent to a colony/road, it acts like a colony but cant create units in its space (basically expands your resource gathering). Can only move 1 space and must end at an adjacent colony/road. So like it adds a new choice if you want to increase your chances of getting a resource you need without investing too many cards to build a colony. They cant attack but can be sacrificed to be a wild resource (thematically, they were recruited or smth). I think it can be explored more... Btw, love what u have so far!
@@Y0UM I do love the idea, Ive thought of something similar, such as "workshops" or "farms", however I'm leaning more against it, just for simplicity's sake. I feel as if I already have so many unit types and don't want to overwhelm players.
A recommendation to consider if you’re aiming for milk RNG and diplomacy, would be to check out the Game of Thrones game. Each player has a hand of cards 1-10 (they have effects but you could probably skip that) When combat happens the player adds on of the cards of their choice to their total and discards it. You get all your cards back after you’ve used them which means you have to effectively make bets on where to spend extra resources. Like diplomacy turns happen simultaneously after a short bit of negotiation between players. Ditching turn order is really the only way I’ve ever successfully seen true diplomacy occur at a table, because turn order isn’t affecting who you should and shouldn’t trust.
I'll definitely have to check out the GOT game, that could be a pretty interesting concept. The idea of simultaneous turns is also intriguing. I'll have to think on that, thank you!
Tip: if you want to market this game, gentleman's war is a classy name, for men. For a wider playing audience maybe something less gendery like chivalrous crusade, patriots prize, whatever. I'd run in that direction.
I’m curious about what time period you’re going for, or if you care about matching any historical time period. It feels like competing English and Spanish colonies settling the New World. Which gives me the idea of a third player to represent the native populations. Or local privateers who aren’t under imperial control. (The other two players)
I love your concept , I truly like the aesthetic you are leaning towards. Your graphics I think are timeless in my opinion a simplistic and not cartoony style will never get old. As for the minis that's a really cool idea and would add more class , how would you do different faction colors tho ? A more muted pallet for pieces is always best in my opinion. Board games pieces are always so gaudy and loud these days. Just watching some of your vids , I'd say a larger amount of board pieces would be nice. I personally like a large board , for example Carcassonne has to few tiles for what the game trys to do.
I want to share my take on board games in 2024: * The world doesn't need another game. * an unestablished game designer does not have the luxury of releasing a game without a solo mode. * it is hard to get sufficient playtesting in. A game has a shot of being properly playtested if it works solo. A game that is not engaging enough for the designer to playtest enough solo is not a good sign. * a way to get to solo is via multiplayer cooperative. A game that supports that can also support solo. * the game looks great in the video, but... no matter how good it looks, I have no need to own any game without a solo mode. The looks is a closer. Something can be said for a rough prototype being able be requested to be replayed as a good sign. * Do not fall for the teen and tween boy like it trap. Too many game designers run their games by teen and tween boys who love the game. The game flops. * Tabletop Simulator is THE tool for tabletop game design and playtesting. Best of luck with this.
I really like you're current style for your tile art. Don't be afraid to keep the map looking design now, and do a different style after you have published the game, maybe as deluxe version?
If you like chess but also want some uncertainty without forcing the player to risk everything with the role of one crucial dice roll... what about input randomness? Input randomness means you throw the dice before the player has to make a decision. For example: There could be something like a weather dice, that is rolled before the players turn and it could effect something like moving distance, terrain types that cannot be attacked under certain weather conditions or the initiative which units go first in a round. Dry weather: first the cavalry is moved by both players, then the artillery shoots and then infantry moves and finally the artillery moves. Rain: the artillery shoots, the infantry moves first and then the cavalry moves and the artillery cannot move because it is stuck in the mud (maybe depending on terrain). Just as an example. It doesn't have to be a weather dice. War of the ring for example uses input randomness with dice to determ what kind of actions the players can do in a round, but it also uses output randomness in combats. But I always wondered how a game would be if it only uses input randomness so that calculating more rounds in a row becomes fuzzy, but playing one turn is 100% deterministic.
When it comes to conflict resolution specifically around "battles". The recently released ARCS by Leder Games has what may be one of my favorite combat resolution mechanism. If you are unfamiliar with ARCS it is a space strategy game. Combat is resolved with dice, where only the attacker rolls the dice. You get one dice per ship involved in the combat, but you can pick from three different types of die. The different dice have different potential outcomes and represent different strategic goals. Keeps the game moving and resolves combat quickly and elegantly.
I think wooden chess piece style game pieces might make it difficult for players to distinguish which piece belongs to who when looking at a glance. Unless each player have very distinct pieces representing different factions?
@@SoRa228 that's a good point, I'll have to see how different they look after printing. If it's as distinguishable as a chess set it might work. I actually have thought about making different pieces for each player, almost representing different nations or countries. However, that's lower on the priority list until I get more solid rules.
2:45 Exact same thing happened when I was designing a game. I realized the chance involved makes combat much more exciting. When luck is involved, there are 2 outcomes that you have to be prepared for, versus a single outcome of victory. That's probably why most games use some sort of luck-based system for combat. I like Root's combat system - you roll 2 dice (numbered 0-3), and then you (the attacker) get the higher die, and the defender gets the lower die. This gives you more control since the attacker always has an advantage, but there's still a good amount of luck
Hi Julian, I hope you’re doing well. The game concept for Pincer has really intrigued me, especially as I have also recently been thinking about a game like this. I’ve been thinking about how risk could be combined with resource management. It’s funny, I imagined it and then found your channel not long after! I don’t think I ever would make a game myself but it’s the type of thing I’ve brainstormed for the sake of it (I’m a nerd). Also full disclaimer: this comment is a yap session so feel free to ignore some of these things lol. Also note that everything I say is based off of the information on your channel, and I assume there is a lot more going on behind the scenes. Perhaps you already have much of this figured out, so ignore me if that’s the case, I’d just really enjoy the opportunity to discuss ideas. I look forward to seeing your developments on this project! I saw, in one of your videos, that the combat system started as risk-style with dice and then moved to the chess mechanics. I think you mentioned that you still like the idea of chance, and I have to agree. It’s what gives risk a little excitement; the idea that the smaller sized army could defeat the larger one keeps conflicts fresh. The way I see it, risk and chess have two opposite extremes when it comes to combat. In risk the only important detail is the quantity of the army, and the strategy is about managing the probabilities and army distribution. This works extremely well for territory-centred battles. In chess, however, each unit is important, and the strategy comes from the movement and hence avoidance of conflicts, which may be asymmetrical. What I mean by that is a pawn could ‘take’ a queen, despite the value of those pieces being different. Under the risk logic, a pawn vs queen battle should mostly result in the queen winning, because it is more powerful. Chess places a much higher value on each piece, which works well given that the objective is to take pieces, and ultimately the checkmate, not control space. Herein lies my reservation with using chess combat mechanics in Pincer. The style of the game is that of territory control, not a focus on the interaction of pieces. This is strongly suggested by the fact that you can pay resources to get more troops, like in risk. From the gameplay I’ve seen, troops feel disposable for the greater goal of protecting your territory/buildings. And given that the map looks like it could be randomly arranged, being able to move in only specific ways would feel very limiting. In the brief combat tutorial I saw (I think it was a short), both armies basically reduced each other down until there were 1-2 pieces left. This felt very much like a conflict in risk, and felt like it lacked the strategy implied by chess based combat. Chess is fundamentally about conflict avoidance, and so I don’t think it’s a great fit for a game where conflict is going to be largely inevitable. Another consideration is that asymmetrical unit value I spoke of. I assume cavalry and cannons cost more than infantry, and yet an infantry unit can ‘take’ them in one move. From the information I have, it doesn’t seem to fit right for this game. For your game, you wanted to get away from the risk ‘extreme’ of combat, but I’m not convinced that going to the other extreme is the right move. I have recently found a game called echoes of emperors (EoE), which is on kickstarter. This game mixes these elements together with a stronger focus on chess, due to a smallish board and unit specific move directions. This game is more about unit interaction and so I think that works well. Pincer is closer to risk on the risk-to-chess spectrum, so the combat wouldn’t exactly fit, but I think there are interesting details from EoE’s conflict to consider. EoE uses a health and attack value system for its battles, to get around the issue that conflicts are inevitable. This allows the fact that you can spawn in new units to fit with the chess-based concept. The strategy becomes avoiding situations where you won’t win the conflict, or changing strategic approach, rather than avoiding conflicts if possible, and I think that would be perfect for Pincer. Higher health and attack values align with the increased resource cost for that unit, and so you get what you pay for so to speak. I believe that Pincer would benefit from similar battle mechanics, whereby each unit type has a health and attack value. I also think that this would allow for closer alignment to how risk battles work, as you could allow more than one unit into a tile, for instance it could be capped at 4. That tile would then have a total attack value to fight with, and so several ‘weaker’ units could defeat the better one. Different units should also work in different ways, ie cannons should have longer range. I also imagine more unit types being in the game to flesh out this battle strategy. For instance, there could be the following classes of ground units: 1) light infantry 2) ranged infantry 3) shield bearers 4) cavalry 5) artillery. Light infantry may attack short ranged such as swordsmen or spearmen. They have to move into the opponents tile to attack. Ranged are your existing infantry units with muskets, but could be archers etc. these could attack one tile ‘long’ range, but are weak to melee combat. Artillery could be even longer range still and have anti building attack value bonuses. Cavalry could simply be able to move more freely. Shield bearers is an idea of mine for a unit type with a defence value to units it is with but doesn’t have attack itself. Perhaps a combination of spearmen with shield bearers could outplay the musketeers? This way the interaction of units is important but the combat is akin to risk. You could even throw in some dice or chance somewhere in the combat process to keep it interesting. For the sake of example, let’s say there is an attacking combat die and a defending one. On it could be values (perhaps 1-3) and maybe a blank or some other feature. Obviously the values would have to be balanced based on the average attack value of units. This extra attack value could mean the difference in close battles, but the probability doesn’t dictate conflicts. Also I must say that I love the ships being in the game, I’ve always wanted risk to have that naval side to it, it would just fit right. Perhaps there could be more ships such as a frigate being the cheaper one and something like a galleon being more expensive, capable of moving more units around. It could attack with a higher amount too, with cannons etc… Moving to the infrastructure, something my imaginary game has is more types of building. I’m thinking of: 1) settlement 2) capital 3) castle 4) barracks 5) port 6) walls 7) roads 8) monument The settlement, roads and ports you already have, and I love the idea of the wall being able to just surround another building. Perhaps with the health mechanics, this would mimic the protection offered by barracks in EoE. Speaking of, a barracks is a space where unit deployment is easier/cheaper. Capitals could be just better settlements, perhaps limited to 1 active capital, upgraded from a settlement. Castles could be more military focused somehow. A monument could offer simply some bonus while in your ‘cities’, like morale or efficiency somewhere. Another idea in my imaginary board game is to implement a rudimentary tech or skill tree. I know this is a video game thing, but I really feel like it could work. It would have to be simple, but it would allow a player to double down on a particular strategy. For instance, they could upgrade agriculture for more resources or infrastructure so that their roads are actually rail capable of transporting much more. a player could upgrade a certain trait or type of unit. Or perhaps they could become a naval powerhouse on the map. I also can’t get away from the thought of an air force class of unit, like steampunk 1700-1800 ship-style air ships with the big balloons. That would go pretty hard, albeit very complicated. Finally I think that the action cards idea from EoE is really cool and could easily work in a game like Pincer. At the cost of resources you could play a particular tactic in response to certain conditions on the board. Just a question on the board, is this a set size and is the tile placement random at all? How does that work, are any tiles upside down and early game involves exploration? Sorry for the essay lol. As mentioned, don’t take what I’m saying too seriously, I think that you’re going to make the right decisions for your own game, I just think this is a great space to share creative ideas. I look forward to seeing your future uploads - best of luck!!!
I came across your project completely by accident - YT showed me, as part of the shorts, one of your previous videos. And I must say that your project interested me a lot. Pincer is a game that I would definitely like to try to play. I myself have been creating my own board game for a few years now, only that it's a battle game, and I smile to myself because I've struggled with exactly the same problems and dilemmas as you - such as the issue of dice, or randomness vs. non-randomness in general, or aesthetics. I hope you find the right solutions. Good luck. I will be happy to follow your further reports on the game development process 🙂
Man that's awesome to hear, I appreciate it! It's honestly a blast making board games and it's interesting to hear different people's approach to solve these common dilemmas. I hope you stick with it and would love to hear more about your game possibly!
@@julianbirke If you would like, I would be happy to share my thoughts on your game in the context of what I have seen within the videos on the channel. If so, it's just a question of whether you'd prefer it in the form of a comment on the video, or some other form 😉
Greetings, I am also woking on my dream boardgame for the last 7+years (getting very close to the final version). If you are interested we can have a talk and exchange ideas / or just have some other person who is in the same spot to talk to.
I'm also doing a boardgame, similar in style but it has to do with evolution and extinction of species, I know exactly what you mean. In the last 3 years I've gone through several iterations, thinking that logic works but when you finally put it down physically in front of you, it doesn't. And I've loved all the learning and problem solving behind it, trying to tackle the walls that you unknowingly, have placed in front of you. I've had times where I had to stop for a while, thinking that it just wasn't going to work, and suddenly out of nowhere and idea or a simplification of mechanics comes to mind and reignites the whole project again. Creating is a beautiful thing.
Hi Julian, you shared a few things that really resonated with me as a fellow board game designer. We have the same types of experiences and goals in making the games. I also remember playing with the Lord of the Rings Risk edition and even just using the pieces to recreate battles from the movies because I loved the way they looked. Similar to you, I have been working on a board game prototype that combines elements or Risk and Catan to make the ultimate strategy board game that scratches the itch I am looking for. I've played games like Scythe, Warhammer, Game of Thrones, and Root which have helped me grow the design while focusing on not making the project overscoped. Making deep rules that are smooth, not overly complex, and without bloating the game is definitely a challenge. I also really like the idea of chance based luck in combat. Combat should be about managing risk, not about counting to the highest number. Eager to hear how you are approaching that. But the thing that really resonated with me in your video is that you mentioned you really love graphic design. My background and first love is in rules writing and editing, graphic design is something I never really enjoyed to do. I love playtesting and finding ways to make the rules capture the theme I am trying to create, so that the ludonarrative matches the gameplay. I have several years of playtesting and rules writing on my game, but have not been able to collaborate with anyone who has a similar vision for what a game like this could look like. Would you be open to sharing rules with one another, or exploring a playtest of each others games? My game is currently playable in Tabletop Simulator and can be played remotely. I think there is a potential to be good collaborators based on our different skillsets and aligned vision. Shoot me a message if this is something you would like to explore, even if its just to chat about what would make the ultimate strategy board game. At the very least, I would be happy to help you import your game into Tabletop Simulator if you needed help with that for remote playtests. Let me know how I can help you on your journey, love what you are tying to go. Good luck!
1:40 I love Lord of the Rings Risk. It's so good. Also try playing Twilight Struggle. That's the closest board games have got to strategic perfection imo.
Yes! This was always my dream to come up with a game like this! Although I never got to it. Glad to see I'm not the only one that loves this type of game. :D
Love the idea and direction on how things are looking! I’m also creating a game right now as well and agree with you about play testing. Just when you change one rule it breaks something else. Dude keep up the good work! I hope to be buying your game someday and playing it!
@@thatkid6735 it's nice hearing from other board game designers, it's funny how we all run into the same hurdles. I love hearing the different solutions people come up with. Thank you for watching, good luck in your own quest! ⚔️🎲
I like the artwork you have so far. I think the borders you show in the Refining section of the video bump things up a few notches. I also love the wooden resin-it made that soldier piece look amazing!
I like the idea of more stylised artwork on the board tiles, but I also do like the simplicity of easy recognition with simple art. I like the way that Spirit Island approached this by making the boards double sided, so that you could have the best of both worlds.
41 seconds in to your video, I have already subscribed to your channel, I'm saddened I have less than four minutes left to watch, and I can't wait until the next one. Those were some damn good 41 seconds.
Made it to the end. Very excited to follow you here. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on the randomness point. I've always seen randomness as a crutch that designers lean on because they're afraid someone will find a simple solution to win every game if they have a turn order advantage. Resulting in a game that becomes snakes and ladders once everyone has learned the correct moves. I concede that a game of chance is more fun than a game I can effortlessly guarantee victory, but a zero randomness game has a level of bravery from the designer that just has me reaching for my wallet. All the other reasons for randomness... I've never really felt them. A lot of games break if you remove the randomness, but I've never seen a player feel the need to add randomness to a game that isn't broken. If randomness has all these fun and amazing properties, why has no one added it to chess yet?
@@jonydude man, that's probably the best compliment I could receive. Thank you so much, and I'm glad to you'll be coming along on the quest! ⚔️ As far as the randomness, I see your point. I will say, I've always loved the idea of representing real world scenarios in my game, in a simplistic way. If you look at battles throughout history, there's always upsets that have happened due to things such as weather, miscommunication or just sheer luck. I don't want to lean too heavy on these, but I'd like to find a way to sprinkle just a touch of that in there.
Just wanted to say thank you all for your input and support! I'll be doing my best to give a thoughtful reply to every comment this week. You all gave me a lot to chew on!
Oops, it's called protohype (silly autocorrect)
Oh boy, your first board game design. Welcome to the boardgame hobby pal. There is so much for you to explore.
Let me start by saying that your ideas look very nice to me.
I would suggest looking at video's from board game designers because there is a lot to learn from those (Adaminwales, jameystegmaier).
Furthermore I would really suggest playing or learning about more strategy boardgames, there's so many great things out there. Your game here looks a little like 'Roads & Boats' or 'Diplomacy' to me.
I also recommend Scythe, Concordia, Root, Tigris & Euphrates, Brass: Birmingham, Civilization a new dawn.
There's a possibility that a game you are willing to make is already somewhere out there. Don't let that stop your creative process. But beware that you're not investing too much money into a sunken cost fallacy. Designing boardgames is tricky, I've tried. But please let this spark in you be fuel for a love for the boardgaming hobby.
@@bramklinkenberg9140 thank you for the insight! I'll definitely checkout those channels and games. There's definitely play plethora of board g ames out there, it's hard even finding a name that's not taken, but good stuff to keep in mind!
Hi! Holler if you ever want to swap playtests. Some buddies and I are working on 4X games and we’d welcome other designers who want to be part of the digital playtest group.
@@benchapman2724 that sounds great! Please send me an email at designsbyjulian@gmail.com
@@julianbirke Will do!
If you support solo mode, I would be interested in playtesting. 4X is favorite genre of mine. A good test for the game existing is if it becomes a favorite of mine.
Your art and components look great, especially the idea of the wooden-style chess pieces. But as an aspiring board game designer of many years with nothing published to my name, let me make a suggestion: focus on rules before components. The more work you've invested in components / art, the more you'll resist changing it, even when it's best for the rules. My most successful prototypes were the cheapest ones that I could quickly tear down and rebuild as the rule changes demanded.
The game sounds intriguing so far - keep going.
@@robmaxwell3076 I appreciate your insight. These are things I didn't consider at all, especially when first starting a few years ago. I can definitely see where you could get attached to a certain part that you've sunk a lot of time into. Thank you and good luck with your endeavors as well!
@@julianbirke premature polishing in terms of components can also harm your playtesting experience and the data you get from it; players think the game is "good" because of the shiny and are less able to identify problems they're having with it.
Clearly you've put in a hell of a lot of work. Having made a stab or two over the decades at creating a game, I fully apricate your effort.
I REALLY like the sample borders you showed at 3:49
Really excited to see this progress. All I have to say is that if you plan on crowdfunding, please do not feel pressured to go crazy with stretch goals. So many crowdfunding games completely lose their original identity and become bloated. Also, I definitely prefer the chess like wooden resin pieces. Good luck with the game!
This looks like the Risk-Catan hybrid I always wanted as a kid.
@@nathangerber1547 it's crazy that it isn't already a thing, I think it'd be so much fun!
I get the sense from the games you mentioned that you liked that you haven’t played many boardgames, in particular not many modern ones. It’s not impossible, but trying to design the ultimate board game after playing chess, Risk and Catan sounds a little like trying to write the greatest novel ever after reading the Hobbit, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and The Dark Vinci Code: technically possible but you’re putting yourself at a massive disadvantage.
Keep going with the classic look/direction. We need more of that.
You mentioned some classic games, but im wondering what modern board games do you enjoy? (aside from Catan)
I like the tiles with borders.
@@rowdy35967 Well my top 3 are Risk, Catan and Chess. I will admit I haven't really played to many more modern games. I have played ticket to ride, which I though was fun. I've always loved clue, it's the perfect social game on a nice stormy night. Besides that, I like regular card games such as Rummy.
Any games you you would suggest?
Thank you for your input as well!
@@julianbirke I would highly recommend trying out some of the more 'modern' games that have a higher level of production, depth and concentrated design. For example you mention you liked the Lord of the Rings: Risk - you should try War of the Ring!
There's already a Civ board game... 😉
Ohey this is where I was in 2018! Best of luck. Don't be afraid to get sidetracked and spin off an idea that doesn't belong into a side project to refine your game design skills. You're absolutely right that designing the rules is the hardest part, and playtesting being vital - so many projects, even from big companies, go all in on presentation and ship massive boxes filled with expensive miniatures with barely functioning rules.
@@CaptainHoers man, congratulations! You've put in some hard work. Thank you so much for your advice. It's much appreciated and I'll definitely keep it in mind.
So Total war in board game?
Happy you're pursuing a passion. I've considered a similar thing inspired by different sources. My primary gripe with game design is its current two extremes: There's the chess end, where people prefer perfect information and mind-games only, which is never how real-world strategy plays out. There must be fog of war. The other extreme is the zeitgeist of modern hobby board gaming: Engine building. You can't pivot. Once you've set a strategy in motion, it's an investment that corners you, and most games brutally punish attempts to shift to a new tack. All my thinking revolves around these two problems, and are honestly best solved in a simple video game if I speak for myself. Best of luck with your work.
@@nERVEcenter117 I appreciate your insight. I agree, video games open almost endless possibilities as far as game play. I think humans have been attempting to create a board game that resembles real life scenarios for thousands of years. At the end of the day, I love video games but there's a social component of board games that I'll always prefer.
Will this have Scythe's "passive aggressive threat of war is better than actual war" or Adrenaline's "kill credit majority control + first blood incentive"? Or both, somehow?
I think it will depend on how many players there are. When it's only 2, war is inevitable but when there's multiple players the best strategy seems to be staying out of it, unless necessary.
@@julianbirke I hope there's gonna be an incentive against piling on the weakest player, like in adrenaline
There is no ultimate strategy / tactic board game.
There are huge variety of game mechanics, some of them are popular some of them are not.
And this changes over time, what game mechanic is the most popular. For example tableau building is very popular and cards are also very popular game components, but this will get overused over time and new mechanics and game components will be the most popular :)
If you're still looking for input, there's the board game design podcast, where the host invites board game designers on and they discuss mechanics or how they approach board game design. It's really great to get new ideas!
Also don't feel like you need to get through all the input before being able to start, start and then maybe listen/watch/read some things :)
What if there's a Worker unit?
Cost: 3 resource (since theres 2 and 4 cost units alrd, could be 2 wheat and 1 iron)
They must be placed adjacent to a colony/road, it acts like a colony but cant create units in its space (basically expands your resource gathering).
Can only move 1 space and must end at an adjacent colony/road. So like it adds a new choice if you want to increase your chances of getting a resource you need without investing too many cards to build a colony.
They cant attack but can be sacrificed to be a wild resource (thematically, they were recruited or smth).
I think it can be explored more...
Btw, love what u have so far!
@@Y0UM I do love the idea, Ive thought of something similar, such as "workshops" or "farms", however I'm leaning more against it, just for simplicity's sake. I feel as if I already have so many unit types and don't want to overwhelm players.
A recommendation to consider if you’re aiming for milk RNG and diplomacy, would be to check out the Game of Thrones game.
Each player has a hand of cards 1-10 (they have effects but you could probably skip that) When combat happens the player adds on of the cards of their choice to their total and discards it. You get all your cards back after you’ve used them which means you have to effectively make bets on where to spend extra resources.
Like diplomacy turns happen simultaneously after a short bit of negotiation between players. Ditching turn order is really the only way I’ve ever successfully seen true diplomacy occur at a table, because turn order isn’t affecting who you should and shouldn’t trust.
I'll definitely have to check out the GOT game, that could be a pretty interesting concept. The idea of simultaneous turns is also intriguing. I'll have to think on that, thank you!
Tip: if you want to market this game, gentleman's war is a classy name, for men. For a wider playing audience maybe something less gendery like chivalrous crusade, patriots prize, whatever. I'd run in that direction.
I’m curious about what time period you’re going for, or if you care about matching any historical time period. It feels like competing English and Spanish colonies settling the New World.
Which gives me the idea of a third player to represent the native populations. Or local privateers who aren’t under imperial control. (The other two players)
I love your concept , I truly like the aesthetic you are leaning towards. Your graphics I think are timeless in my opinion a simplistic and not cartoony style will never get old. As for the minis that's a really cool idea and would add more class , how would you do different faction colors tho ? A more muted pallet for pieces is always best in my opinion. Board games pieces are always so gaudy and loud these days.
Just watching some of your vids , I'd say a larger amount of board pieces would be nice. I personally like a large board , for example Carcassonne has to few tiles for what the game trys to do.
I want to share my take on board games in 2024:
* The world doesn't need another game.
* an unestablished game designer does not have the luxury of releasing a game without a solo mode.
* it is hard to get sufficient playtesting in. A game has a shot of being properly playtested if it works solo. A game that is not engaging enough for the designer to playtest enough solo is not a good sign.
* a way to get to solo is via multiplayer cooperative. A game that supports that can also support solo.
* the game looks great in the video, but... no matter how good it looks, I have no need to own any game without a solo mode. The looks is a closer. Something can be said for a rough prototype being able be requested to be replayed as a good sign.
* Do not fall for the teen and tween boy like it trap. Too many game designers run their games by teen and tween boys who love the game. The game flops.
* Tabletop Simulator is THE tool for tabletop game design and playtesting.
Best of luck with this.
I really like you're current style for your tile art. Don't be afraid to keep the map looking design now, and do a different style after you have published the game, maybe as deluxe version?
If you like chess but also want some uncertainty without forcing the player to risk everything with the role of one crucial dice roll... what about input randomness?
Input randomness means you throw the dice before the player has to make a decision.
For example: There could be something like a weather dice, that is rolled before the players turn and it could effect something like moving distance, terrain types that cannot be attacked under certain weather conditions or the initiative which units go first in a round.
Dry weather: first the cavalry is moved by both players, then the artillery shoots and then infantry moves and finally the artillery moves.
Rain: the artillery shoots, the infantry moves first and then the cavalry moves and the artillery cannot move because it is stuck in the mud (maybe depending on terrain).
Just as an example. It doesn't have to be a weather dice. War of the ring for example uses input randomness with dice to determ what kind of actions the players can do in a round, but it also uses output randomness in combats. But I always wondered how a game would be if it only uses input randomness so that calculating more rounds in a row becomes fuzzy, but playing one turn is 100% deterministic.
The music overshadows some of the talking parts
I wish you luck on your journey. This game sounds very interesting to me.
I appreciate that, thank you kindly! I hope to hear more from you on my channel.
When it comes to conflict resolution specifically around "battles". The recently released ARCS by Leder Games has what may be one of my favorite combat resolution mechanism. If you are unfamiliar with ARCS it is a space strategy game. Combat is resolved with dice, where only the attacker rolls the dice. You get one dice per ship involved in the combat, but you can pick from three different types of die. The different dice have different potential outcomes and represent different strategic goals. Keeps the game moving and resolves combat quickly and elegantly.
@@OgamiTringle interesting, I'll definitely have to look into that. I like the idea of choosing which dice you roll, adds an element of control.
Once you have cannon, walls on your cities become pretty pointless.
Ah combining elements from the games I detest the most. Risk and Catan!
There is a tabletop simulator version of the prototype or game?
add this in tabletop simulator
I think wooden chess piece style game pieces might make it difficult for players to distinguish which piece belongs to who when looking at a glance. Unless each player have very distinct pieces representing different factions?
@@SoRa228 that's a good point, I'll have to see how different they look after printing. If it's as distinguishable as a chess set it might work. I actually have thought about making different pieces for each player, almost representing different nations or countries. However, that's lower on the priority list until I get more solid rules.
Can we plz have a wood only version
Looks promising good luck
Yes, give us wooden peices.
2:45 Exact same thing happened when I was designing a game. I realized the chance involved makes combat much more exciting. When luck is involved, there are 2 outcomes that you have to be prepared for, versus a single outcome of victory. That's probably why most games use some sort of luck-based system for combat.
I like Root's combat system - you roll 2 dice (numbered 0-3), and then you (the attacker) get the higher die, and the defender gets the lower die. This gives you more control since the attacker always has an advantage, but there's still a good amount of luck
Hi Julian, I hope you’re doing well. The game concept for Pincer has really intrigued me, especially as I have also recently been thinking about a game like this. I’ve been thinking about how risk could be combined with resource management. It’s funny, I imagined it and then found your channel not long after! I don’t think I ever would make a game myself but it’s the type of thing I’ve brainstormed for the sake of it (I’m a nerd).
Also full disclaimer: this comment is a yap session so feel free to ignore some of these things lol. Also note that everything I say is based off of the information on your channel, and I assume there is a lot more going on behind the scenes. Perhaps you already have much of this figured out, so ignore me if that’s the case, I’d just really enjoy the opportunity to discuss ideas. I look forward to seeing your developments on this project!
I saw, in one of your videos, that the combat system started as risk-style with dice and then moved to the chess mechanics. I think you mentioned that you still like the idea of chance, and I have to agree. It’s what gives risk a little excitement; the idea that the smaller sized army could defeat the larger one keeps conflicts fresh.
The way I see it, risk and chess have two opposite extremes when it comes to combat. In risk the only important detail is the quantity of the army, and the strategy is about managing the probabilities and army distribution. This works extremely well for territory-centred battles. In chess, however, each unit is important, and the strategy comes from the movement and hence avoidance of conflicts, which may be asymmetrical. What I mean by that is a pawn could ‘take’ a queen, despite the value of those pieces being different. Under the risk logic, a pawn vs queen battle should mostly result in the queen winning, because it is more powerful. Chess places a much higher value on each piece, which works well given that the objective is to take pieces, and ultimately the checkmate, not control space.
Herein lies my reservation with using chess combat mechanics in Pincer. The style of the game is that of territory control, not a focus on the interaction of pieces. This is strongly suggested by the fact that you can pay resources to get more troops, like in risk. From the gameplay I’ve seen, troops feel disposable for the greater goal of protecting your territory/buildings. And given that the map looks like it could be randomly arranged, being able to move in only specific ways would feel very limiting.
In the brief combat tutorial I saw (I think it was a short), both armies basically reduced each other down until there were 1-2 pieces left. This felt very much like a conflict in risk, and felt like it lacked the strategy implied by chess based combat. Chess is fundamentally about conflict avoidance, and so I don’t think it’s a great fit for a game where conflict is going to be largely inevitable.
Another consideration is that asymmetrical unit value I spoke of. I assume cavalry and cannons cost more than infantry, and yet an infantry unit can ‘take’ them in one move. From the information I have, it doesn’t seem to fit right for this game.
For your game, you wanted to get away from the risk ‘extreme’ of combat, but I’m not convinced that going to the other extreme is the right move.
I have recently found a game called echoes of emperors (EoE), which is on kickstarter. This game mixes these elements together with a stronger focus on chess, due to a smallish board and unit specific move directions. This game is more about unit interaction and so I think that works well. Pincer is closer to risk on the risk-to-chess spectrum, so the combat wouldn’t exactly fit, but I think there are interesting details from EoE’s conflict to consider.
EoE uses a health and attack value system for its battles, to get around the issue that conflicts are inevitable. This allows the fact that you can spawn in new units to fit with the chess-based concept. The strategy becomes avoiding situations where you won’t win the conflict, or changing strategic approach, rather than avoiding conflicts if possible, and I think that would be perfect for Pincer. Higher health and attack values align with the increased resource cost for that unit, and so you get what you pay for so to speak.
I believe that Pincer would benefit from similar battle mechanics, whereby each unit type has a health and attack value. I also think that this would allow for closer alignment to how risk battles work, as you could allow more than one unit into a tile, for instance it could be capped at 4. That tile would then have a total attack value to fight with, and so several ‘weaker’ units could defeat the better one.
Different units should also work in different ways, ie cannons should have longer range. I also imagine more unit types being in the game to flesh out this battle strategy. For instance, there could be the following classes of ground units: 1) light infantry 2) ranged infantry 3) shield bearers 4) cavalry 5) artillery.
Light infantry may attack short ranged such as swordsmen or spearmen. They have to move into the opponents tile to attack. Ranged are your existing infantry units with muskets, but could be archers etc. these could attack one tile ‘long’ range, but are weak to melee combat. Artillery could be even longer range still and have anti building attack value bonuses. Cavalry could simply be able to move more freely. Shield bearers is an idea of mine for a unit type with a defence value to units it is with but doesn’t have attack itself. Perhaps a combination of spearmen with shield bearers could outplay the musketeers? This way the interaction of units is important but the combat is akin to risk. You could even throw in some dice or chance somewhere in the combat process to keep it interesting.
For the sake of example, let’s say there is an attacking combat die and a defending one. On it could be values (perhaps 1-3) and maybe a blank or some other feature. Obviously the values would have to be balanced based on the average attack value of units. This extra attack value could mean the difference in close battles, but the probability doesn’t dictate conflicts.
Also I must say that I love the ships being in the game, I’ve always wanted risk to have that naval side to it, it would just fit right. Perhaps there could be more ships such as a frigate being the cheaper one and something like a galleon being more expensive, capable of moving more units around. It could attack with a higher amount too, with cannons etc…
Moving to the infrastructure, something my imaginary game has is more types of building. I’m thinking of: 1) settlement 2) capital 3) castle 4) barracks 5) port 6) walls 7) roads 8) monument
The settlement, roads and ports you already have, and I love the idea of the wall being able to just surround another building. Perhaps with the health mechanics, this would mimic the protection offered by barracks in EoE. Speaking of, a barracks is a space where unit deployment is easier/cheaper. Capitals could be just better settlements, perhaps limited to 1 active capital, upgraded from a settlement. Castles could be more military focused somehow. A monument could offer simply some bonus while in your ‘cities’, like morale or efficiency somewhere.
Another idea in my imaginary board game is to implement a rudimentary tech or skill tree. I know this is a video game thing, but I really feel like it could work. It would have to be simple, but it would allow a player to double down on a particular strategy. For instance, they could upgrade agriculture for more resources or infrastructure so that their roads are actually rail capable of transporting much more. a player could upgrade a certain trait or type of unit. Or perhaps they could become a naval powerhouse on the map.
I also can’t get away from the thought of an air force class of unit, like steampunk 1700-1800 ship-style air ships with the big balloons. That would go pretty hard, albeit very complicated.
Finally I think that the action cards idea from EoE is really cool and could easily work in a game like Pincer. At the cost of resources you could play a particular tactic in response to certain conditions on the board.
Just a question on the board, is this a set size and is the tile placement random at all? How does that work, are any tiles upside down and early game involves exploration?
Sorry for the essay lol. As mentioned, don’t take what I’m saying too seriously, I think that you’re going to make the right decisions for your own game, I just think this is a great space to share creative ideas. I look forward to seeing your future uploads - best of luck!!!
I would love brightly colored plastic pieces like in those games I played as kid.
@@jonasmiekkamies noted! 📝
I came across your project completely by accident - YT showed me, as part of the shorts, one of your previous videos. And I must say that your project interested me a lot. Pincer is a game that I would definitely like to try to play. I myself have been creating my own board game for a few years now, only that it's a battle game, and I smile to myself because I've struggled with exactly the same problems and dilemmas as you - such as the issue of dice, or randomness vs. non-randomness in general, or aesthetics. I hope you find the right solutions. Good luck. I will be happy to follow your further reports on the game development process 🙂
Man that's awesome to hear, I appreciate it! It's honestly a blast making board games and it's interesting to hear different people's approach to solve these common dilemmas. I hope you stick with it and would love to hear more about your game possibly!
@@julianbirke If you would like, I would be happy to share my thoughts on your game in the context of what I have seen within the videos on the channel. If so, it's just a question of whether you'd prefer it in the form of a comment on the video, or some other form 😉
@@rev3lin I would absolutely love that! You want to get in touch over email? designsbyjulian@gmail.com
@@julianbirke Great, I will write you soon.
I want to play your game.
The Uno Amalgam all over again but now it's with strategy games? Count me in!
@@Nathouuuutheone welcome aboard! 🫡
Love the look you’re going with. Good decisions are being made!
Awesome Sauce
Brown
Greetings,
I am also woking on my dream boardgame for the last 7+years (getting very close to the final version). If you are interested we can have a talk and exchange ideas / or just have some other person who is in the same spot to talk to.
@@Levyten_Games that's exciting! I'd love to hear more about it and get in touch, feel free to send me an email at designsbyjulian@gmail.com
@@julianbirke emial sent. : )
I'm also doing a boardgame, similar in style but it has to do with evolution and extinction of species, I know exactly what you mean. In the last 3 years I've gone through several iterations, thinking that logic works but when you finally put it down physically in front of you, it doesn't. And I've loved all the learning and problem solving behind it, trying to tackle the walls that you unknowingly, have placed in front of you. I've had times where I had to stop for a while, thinking that it just wasn't going to work, and suddenly out of nowhere and idea or a simplification of mechanics comes to mind and reignites the whole project again. Creating is a beautiful thing.
Hi Julian, you shared a few things that really resonated with me as a fellow board game designer. We have the same types of experiences and goals in making the games. I also remember playing with the Lord of the Rings Risk edition and even just using the pieces to recreate battles from the movies because I loved the way they looked.
Similar to you, I have been working on a board game prototype that combines elements or Risk and Catan to make the ultimate strategy board game that scratches the itch I am looking for. I've played games like Scythe, Warhammer, Game of Thrones, and Root which have helped me grow the design while focusing on not making the project overscoped. Making deep rules that are smooth, not overly complex, and without bloating the game is definitely a challenge.
I also really like the idea of chance based luck in combat. Combat should be about managing risk, not about counting to the highest number. Eager to hear how you are approaching that.
But the thing that really resonated with me in your video is that you mentioned you really love graphic design. My background and first love is in rules writing and editing, graphic design is something I never really enjoyed to do. I love playtesting and finding ways to make the rules capture the theme I am trying to create, so that the ludonarrative matches the gameplay.
I have several years of playtesting and rules writing on my game, but have not been able to collaborate with anyone who has a similar vision for what a game like this could look like.
Would you be open to sharing rules with one another, or exploring a playtest of each others games? My game is currently playable in Tabletop Simulator and can be played remotely. I think there is a potential to be good collaborators based on our different skillsets and aligned vision. Shoot me a message if this is something you would like to explore, even if its just to chat about what would make the ultimate strategy board game. At the very least, I would be happy to help you import your game into Tabletop Simulator if you needed help with that for remote playtests. Let me know how I can help you on your journey, love what you are tying to go. Good luck!
Good luck!
This is a splendid idea. I'm keen to see how you develop this. I agree that the classic chess / card game look is very attractive
Looks really similar to Clash of cultures, and thats a great thing
Wooden style looks greatc
@@Janisurai I'm leaning that way as well
i think your idea for wooden resin and stepping up the classiness of your card design is great
Wood look 100%
You got me interested
@@stevengracey5061 yeah I think it looks sick. Hopefully it'll work out!
1:40 I love Lord of the Rings Risk. It's so good.
Also try playing Twilight Struggle. That's the closest board games have got to strategic perfection imo.
@@misomiso8228 LOTR Risk is just so nostalgic. So many good memories playing that. I'll have to give that game a shot!
I want to be a playtester.
@@TheFelipea I would love for you to play test! Send me an email at designsbyjulian@gmail.com
Yes! This was always my dream to come up with a game like this! Although I never got to it. Glad to see I'm not the only one that loves this type of game. :D
@@VykingVale it's funny, I feel like everyone who's played risk and Catan has though, "why not both"? 😆
Twelve sided dice are criminally underused. They could be fun to incorporate to make the game unique.
@@nathangerber1547 that's a great point. I need to seriously look into that because honestly, I haven't ever even thought about that. Thank you!
Love the idea and direction on how things are looking! I’m also creating a game right now as well and agree with you about play testing. Just when you change one rule it breaks something else. Dude keep up the good work! I hope to be buying your game someday and playing it!
@@thatkid6735 it's nice hearing from other board game designers, it's funny how we all run into the same hurdles. I love hearing the different solutions people come up with. Thank you for watching, good luck in your own quest! ⚔️🎲
Algorithm bump.
@@grantdixson1442 bless you sir 🙏
Game design is like… my favorite hobby, even though I’ve never put any games out. So I’m super looking forward to seeing what you make happen here.
@@quickattackfilms7923 it's a blast man, glad to have you along for the journey!
I like the artwork you have so far. I think the borders you show in the Refining section of the video bump things up a few notches. I also love the wooden resin-it made that soldier piece look amazing!
@@spencerpalmer2918 I really appreciate it, thank you. The wooden resin would be so cool, hopefully it'll work!
I love the wood look for pieces.
I like the idea of more stylised artwork on the board tiles, but I also do like the simplicity of easy recognition with simple art. I like the way that Spirit Island approached this by making the boards double sided, so that you could have the best of both worlds.
Thank you and great insight. That's actually a great idea of making it double sided!
Subscribed. Looking forward to following your design journey.
@@TheRealJavahead welcome aboard 🫡
Great Sound Design! Staring with the new world overture is always a banger
@@---zh8qn thank you! Yeah, it's pretty epic ⚔️
Please what's the song at the end of the intro?
It's from my subscription to Evanto Elements, it's a stock song. You want the actual name? Haha
@@julianbirke Got it already :)
The Symphony No. 9 in E minor, "From the New World", Op. 95, B. 178, from Dvorák
@@tom_hawki oh nice 😆
This is realy nice, Good luck!
@@ymir4487 much appreciated 🙏
41 seconds in to your video, I have already subscribed to your channel, I'm saddened I have less than four minutes left to watch, and I can't wait until the next one. Those were some damn good 41 seconds.
Made it to the end. Very excited to follow you here. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on the randomness point. I've always seen randomness as a crutch that designers lean on because they're afraid someone will find a simple solution to win every game if they have a turn order advantage. Resulting in a game that becomes snakes and ladders once everyone has learned the correct moves. I concede that a game of chance is more fun than a game I can effortlessly guarantee victory, but a zero randomness game has a level of bravery from the designer that just has me reaching for my wallet.
All the other reasons for randomness... I've never really felt them. A lot of games break if you remove the randomness, but I've never seen a player feel the need to add randomness to a game that isn't broken. If randomness has all these fun and amazing properties, why has no one added it to chess yet?
Hey @jonydude. Check out the shorts on this channel for more content if you haven't done so already.
@@jonydude man, that's probably the best compliment I could receive. Thank you so much, and I'm glad to you'll be coming along on the quest! ⚔️
As far as the randomness, I see your point. I will say, I've always loved the idea of representing real world scenarios in my game, in a simplistic way. If you look at battles throughout history, there's always upsets that have happened due to things such as weather, miscommunication or just sheer luck. I don't want to lean too heavy on these, but I'd like to find a way to sprinkle just a touch of that in there.