Collusion

We have had some sick girls over the last little bit, so I have not gotten into much gaming recently (That is besides the regular Resistance games at lunch, and the periodic games of the game that I dreamed up).

Recent playtesting has made some changes to the game. I am not really happy right now about the pacing of the game. It takes too long to play, but I am not sure what to do to make it faster. Perhaps I will make the profit margins larger.

Also, I think that the name of the game will be something like 'Collusion', or 'Price-Fixing'

Right now the rules are as follows:
Each player has a color. Your Goods tokens are tokens of your color.
Each player starts with 4 Goods tokens.
The game alternates between selling and buying phases.
If any player ever has 30 money they win the game.

During a selling phase:
  • nd4 are rolled, where n is the number of players. The sum of the roll is m, or the demand. This will be used to calculate how many goods will be purchased at the end of the round.
  • The player with the most Goods goes first. In the event of a tie, the player who has the most actual cash (meaning non game currency) on hand goes first. Players with fewer goods than the player that just played are skipped (so that everyone ends in the same round of play).
  • Players take turns 'offering' one or more Goods for sale at a price (2-6). To do this they place the good on the board at the back of the queue which corresponds to the price that they are attempting to sell at.
  • Players may discuss with each other the price that they desire to sell at, and attempt to form alliances and fix the price wherever they want to. No agreements are binding.
  • Players may always offer 1 or 2 goods for sale, but may only offer more goods for sale if they have at least double that many goods (E.G. having 6 goods enables you to sell 3 at a time, and 8 would allow you to sell 4 at a time)
  • Play proceeds in a clockwise direction.
  • When all players have no goods left to offer, roll 1d6, and modify the demand according to the following table:
Roll123456
Modifier-2-1-0+0+1+2
  • m Goods are sold in the following order: Lowest -> highest price, first -> last good offered.
  • All remaining goods are not sold.

During a buying phase:
  • The players may all buy as many goods as they desire.
  • The price of goods is calculated thus: floor(a) where floor means round down, and a is the average (mean) sale price of last round. Sale price does not include the price of goods that were not actually sold. 
Options:
Use median sale price - 1 instead of average round down for the price of goods.
Remaining goods could deprecate (obsolesce?) in value. Perhaps lose 50% of your unsold goods each round?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Skye Frontier

Image
I just played a work in progress by Seth Jaffee, so I thought that I would post about it here. The game called Skye Frontier right now. It is an Isle of Skye and The King of Frontier mashup. Since The King of Frontier seems like a Carcassonne/Puerto Rico mashup, this is a second order mashup. Anyway - the game was totally playable, and allowed for strategic decisions to be made. Alison went all out in combining multiple synergistic goals with building a good kingdom. I just went for a degenerate strategy of building the biggest lake possible and then producing and consuming in a cycle. After the game end we summed up our scores using the remaining money tokens, so you can see that I won by 6 points (78-84), so my strategy didn't seem too overpowered, however perhaps it should be nerfed a bit, since it was pretty powerful, and degenerate strategies (in my opinion) should be less powerful than well-thought-out ones. Here is the end state: the reasoning behind my strategy - spelled ou
Read more

More Automatown and getting ready for SaltCon

Image
Alison and I played Automatown with many of the discussed changes last night. We liked some of them, and others we did not. The game ended up ending in 6 rounds, and it took about 80 minutes. The later rounds were longer than the first few rounds. We also were being distracted by kids, so perhaps we could have gone faster. Alison ended up with 7 workers and 9 points while I had 9 workers and 28 points (more about that later). Having fewer types of resources was very good. It made the economy less confusing, and setup and cleanup much faster. The mats worked well, and during the game, we thought of more things to put on them - (the three starting workers can be added here, as well as a reminder of what level is what in terms of dots.) Here is the mat that we played with: We started with 3 scrap, which was not enough given that we were also playing with the rule that made upgrades cost a scrap. In fact, that rule made us strapped for scrap the whole game. We decided that m
Read more

Three more playtests

Image
On Friday I played another game of Skye Frontier with my dad (also Mike), brother in law (Dave), and nephew (Logan). My dad and nephew play games sometimes, but are not super big into the hobby, and my brother in law is moderately a gamer (he buys games and brings them to my game nights, but he doesn't play all of the newest games). Logan started the game (and picked the blue castle), Dave was white, my dad was yellow, and I was red. My dad and I ended up contending over the lakes, while Dave focused on building mountain regions, and Logan built some of everything. I couldn't get a shipping empire set up because boats were hard to come by, and Logan (and Dave) started grabbing cash at an alarming rate, so I instead focused on building up points using scrolls and by closing regions. With a 1 point per sheep scoring tile out there, we all tried to get sheep, and the build for free action was used a lot. I capped off my regions just in the nick of time, and Dave ended the game (wh
Read more