Someone asked me, "What would you want to see in an area control game?" It's a really interesting question and one that required a lot of thought. Here's my answer.
I've mentioned this idea in an article about skirmish wargames, but since then I've started to suspect that it could apply to broader designs with any sort of direct contest/confrontation, including area control.
I think we could define area control as a variation of an auction: players place bids (commit forces/influence) to win certain stakes (control areas). Defining qualities of area control would be:
- bids are usually granular, rather than monolithic (you can commit specific amount of units/influence, rather than a fixed package)
- outcome of stakes usually impacts other stakes spatially (adjacency you've noted).
If that's true, then general principles for designing good auction games (such as skirmish wargames lol) should apply.
The most useful practical guideline I've found is that at any moment the system should spotlight certain, very specific number of hotspots (around 3), all of which demand immediate attention. Usually those have predictable outcomes that are sort of "floating in the air" and will come to pass unless you do something. All player actions concerning those should result in dramatic twists, rather than gradual buildup. If there's no clear spotlight, then action across the board becomes homogenous and grindy. If player actions merely adjust probabilities of the outcomes, rather than completely changing the most likely outcome, the game becomes a turtly push-pull trench warfare.
Good examples of this principle, area control-wise, would be Chaos in the Old World and Spectre the Board Game. And that's what I'm looking for!
Area control games are absolutely auction/bidding games! It's a good call out to look at what makes auction (or bidding) games good to see how to improve area control games.
I've heard so many good things about Choas in the Old World. Would love to try that some day.
Excellent article. I like all of it, although I don't worry about turtling as much as the others (I have played some great games of risk where turtling carried the day). What I do require is a well incorporated theme. Like in Arc Nova or Hard Rock 1977, you really feel what you are doing.
What I'd like to see in an Area Control game: In addition to the above, I'd also include creativity. I like personal expression in games (creating a deck that's unique, combining an army of unexpected units, pushing emergent mechanics) so I'd probably add the ability for each player to customize their forces. If this can happen in a secret way all the better. The fog of war this creates reminds me of Starcraft and how surprise is a fun and powerful aspect of the game.
This is such a good point! It taps into the "self expression" kinds of fun even in area control and wargames. The ability to customize units or create unusual combos are perfect examples.
I would like to make the case for a catch-up mechanic being the absolute most important element of area control games. I know full well that when playing this kind of game with my regular board game group that I will never win, regardless of mechanics, (they are all much more tactically minded than me) but when the game doesn't even offer a chance to delude myself into thinking I can catch up, it's disheartening. You play a game for 3 hours then realize that you're stuck at the table for 6 more hours with no chance of ever making a comeback? I can think of many other things I could do with that time. Without hope, area control games are just painful. How many games of Monopoly (perhaps the most frustrating area control game) end with the board being flipped by someone with no more cash and no property to mortgage? Great for social commentary. Terrible for entertainment.
You’re right - this is a great question to ask, and it made for a really good post.
I don’t really enjoy area control games, but I’ve never been able to articulate why. Part of it is that I don’t really like the continual aggression, but my regular group is a three, and I realise now that this has a real impact on how players need to act.
I think the meta game plays a large role in area control games too (or maybe this is just that my group has unresolved issues going back 30+ years…) - I spent about 30 seconds wondering if you could add an automa to a 3 player game, before realising that many groups would either pick on the AI or ignore it at the expense of their friends.
It was really interesting to read your thoughts on this - I hope you make it a series
When I was asked the question, it hit me how I didn't have an easy answer ready. Really made me take some time to think about it. I'm so used to mechanical/objective answers, that asking what *I* most enjoyed was unexpected! :)
I really felt the section on the catch-up mechanic. In our (very) consistent game group we have one guy who has a huge selection and has played the games a lot, two guys who enjoy working the system to get the most points, and me who like to see what the game can do.
However, my style of play often puts me way behind because I'm focused on doing one specific (often weird) thing that takes so much time that I have no hope of competing. So I'm just watching people play, which is no fun.
And!
Even knowing this about myself doesn't help me prevent it, as I'm constantly distracted by something shiny in the game that I want to play with while everyone else is building troops...
Mostly this means when I'm competitive in a game I've either played it before or I got lucky.
I've mentioned this idea in an article about skirmish wargames, but since then I've started to suspect that it could apply to broader designs with any sort of direct contest/confrontation, including area control.
I think we could define area control as a variation of an auction: players place bids (commit forces/influence) to win certain stakes (control areas). Defining qualities of area control would be:
- bids are usually granular, rather than monolithic (you can commit specific amount of units/influence, rather than a fixed package)
- outcome of stakes usually impacts other stakes spatially (adjacency you've noted).
If that's true, then general principles for designing good auction games (such as skirmish wargames lol) should apply.
The most useful practical guideline I've found is that at any moment the system should spotlight certain, very specific number of hotspots (around 3), all of which demand immediate attention. Usually those have predictable outcomes that are sort of "floating in the air" and will come to pass unless you do something. All player actions concerning those should result in dramatic twists, rather than gradual buildup. If there's no clear spotlight, then action across the board becomes homogenous and grindy. If player actions merely adjust probabilities of the outcomes, rather than completely changing the most likely outcome, the game becomes a turtly push-pull trench warfare.
Good examples of this principle, area control-wise, would be Chaos in the Old World and Spectre the Board Game. And that's what I'm looking for!
Area control games are absolutely auction/bidding games! It's a good call out to look at what makes auction (or bidding) games good to see how to improve area control games.
I've heard so many good things about Choas in the Old World. Would love to try that some day.
Excellent article. I like all of it, although I don't worry about turtling as much as the others (I have played some great games of risk where turtling carried the day). What I do require is a well incorporated theme. Like in Arc Nova or Hard Rock 1977, you really feel what you are doing.
Thank you!
Also, I agree on the theme. I personally enjoy games more when they are highly thematic.
What I'd like to see in an Area Control game: In addition to the above, I'd also include creativity. I like personal expression in games (creating a deck that's unique, combining an army of unexpected units, pushing emergent mechanics) so I'd probably add the ability for each player to customize their forces. If this can happen in a secret way all the better. The fog of war this creates reminds me of Starcraft and how surprise is a fun and powerful aspect of the game.
This is such a good point! It taps into the "self expression" kinds of fun even in area control and wargames. The ability to customize units or create unusual combos are perfect examples.
Thanks for this comment!
I would like to make the case for a catch-up mechanic being the absolute most important element of area control games. I know full well that when playing this kind of game with my regular board game group that I will never win, regardless of mechanics, (they are all much more tactically minded than me) but when the game doesn't even offer a chance to delude myself into thinking I can catch up, it's disheartening. You play a game for 3 hours then realize that you're stuck at the table for 6 more hours with no chance of ever making a comeback? I can think of many other things I could do with that time. Without hope, area control games are just painful. How many games of Monopoly (perhaps the most frustrating area control game) end with the board being flipped by someone with no more cash and no property to mortgage? Great for social commentary. Terrible for entertainment.
There are many who would disagree with us, but I agree with you! :)
Thank you for the comment!
You’re right - this is a great question to ask, and it made for a really good post.
I don’t really enjoy area control games, but I’ve never been able to articulate why. Part of it is that I don’t really like the continual aggression, but my regular group is a three, and I realise now that this has a real impact on how players need to act.
I think the meta game plays a large role in area control games too (or maybe this is just that my group has unresolved issues going back 30+ years…) - I spent about 30 seconds wondering if you could add an automa to a 3 player game, before realising that many groups would either pick on the AI or ignore it at the expense of their friends.
It was really interesting to read your thoughts on this - I hope you make it a series
When I was asked the question, it hit me how I didn't have an easy answer ready. Really made me take some time to think about it. I'm so used to mechanical/objective answers, that asking what *I* most enjoyed was unexpected! :)
Thank you for the comment and kind words!
I really felt the section on the catch-up mechanic. In our (very) consistent game group we have one guy who has a huge selection and has played the games a lot, two guys who enjoy working the system to get the most points, and me who like to see what the game can do.
However, my style of play often puts me way behind because I'm focused on doing one specific (often weird) thing that takes so much time that I have no hope of competing. So I'm just watching people play, which is no fun.
And!
Even knowing this about myself doesn't help me prevent it, as I'm constantly distracted by something shiny in the game that I want to play with while everyone else is building troops...
Mostly this means when I'm competitive in a game I've either played it before or I got lucky.