Blast from the past! Applying "basic strategy" to Riders of the Pony Express

For YEARS I've been searching for an article I once read about basic strategy, why it's not always bad to make a trade that's not obviously in your own favor. Nobody seemed to recognize it when I described the article, or the hypothetical gem trading game used in it as an example. Google searches had left me high and dry. At times I started to wonder if the article never really did exist...

The other day I was exchanging emails with my friend Rick, who's come on board to help me with my Worker Learning game, and he referenced (and linked to) an old article about "bombs" in games by Jonathan Degann. I clicked the link, and recognized the article. I'd read it some years ago. On top of that, I kind of recognized the look of the page. I wondered what else I had seen on it. I didn't see any navigation buttons, so I deleted the last part of the URL (showing the title of the article), and what I got was a text list of links to different article by name. I recognized that too...

Clicking through some of those links, I saw more and more articles that I remember having seen or read years ago. One of them, oddly enough, I have a printed copy of sitting right next to me at my desk!

And then it happened. One of the links I clicked on made my eyes light up. FINALLY, after all this time, I had found it. I had found that article about trading gems! It's by Greg Aleknevicus from 2004 in The Games Journal: Basic Strategy 1.0

I wholeheartedly recommend reading this short article, which talks about why it's not always bad to make a trade that's not obviously in your own favor. It's insight that applies to games, of course, but also to real life. Here's a highlight, maybe my favorite single line from the article:

When most people contemplate a trade, they consider only the two involved parties and this is why they fail to appreciate the value of "unequal trading". There are really three parties involved: you, your trading partner, and the other players. Even though your trading partner has gained more victory points than you (on any single trade), you've gained on everyone else.

By the way, I also recommend the next article in that series, Basic Strategy 2.0 -- it gives a great and very simple description of how to start considering all the factors in your strategic decision making.

I am SO HAPPY to have found this! Now, to show how it is relevant to a game designer, let's consider one of my own designs: Riders of the Pony Express.

In Riders of the Pony Express, there's sort of a low-bid auction where you receive $10 and a parcel to auction off ("Anyone want to do this delivery for me? I'll give you $3. $4? How about $5?"). If someone claims the parcel for $4, then you keep the remaining $6. Each player will do that twice per round. There's a dynamic that has come up in which players can simply bid the absolute minimum ($3) for parcels, claiming every one right away. Since you only get $3 for doing that, I had hoped that it would not be worthwhile (except perhaps in rare circumstances). But in fact, especially in a 5 player game, claiming every parcel for the $3 minimum bid can be a dominant strategy for exactly the reason outlined in that strategy article linked above!
This is true for 2 reasons:

1. In a 5 player game, you can get away with significantly more money than each opponent if you take every parcel for $3 (you get $3 x 4 opponents x 2 parcels/opponent = $24, and they each get $7 x 2 parcels = $14). This is less true in a 4 player game (you only get $18 to their $14, which is much closer), and in a 3 player game you don't actually make out ahead. So the issue is most pronounced when there's a full complement of 5 players.
2. The costs of making a delivery that's out of your way do not appear to be high enough. As one playtester put it, you have to traverse the entire board anyway, so nothing really seemed out of the way. Now, I'm not 100% sure he's right, but it's possible the costs need to be a bit higher to go "off course," in order to make the route planning and parcel claiming properly interesting.

Again, it may be that this is only a problem in a 5 player game, which might just mean the game should only be for 2-4 players. If simply reducing the player count solves the problem, then it seems a reasonable solution. Besides, I've had complaints about game length and stuff in 5 player anyway. However, I'd hate for that to be the solution, I'd rather understand the problem and fix it! And re-reading Basic Strategy 1.0 might remind me how to do just that!

Under the Hood: Belfort

"Under the Hood" is a series of strategy articles about the inner workings of games developed for Tasty Minstrel Games. Watch for these posts a couple months after the release of the game so that players have a chance to explore the game for themselves first!

Under the Hood: Belfort

Belfort is a game with a jovial and lighthearted theme – as a Master Architect, you direct a workforce of fantasy characters who toil to erect buildings which make up the city of Belfort. But don’t be deceived by the cute elves, dwarves, and gnomes on the box! Belfort is a heavy game of resource management, area control, and strategy!

Large vs small workforce
Like many worker placement games, Belfort rewards players for increasing their workforce. While it’s possible to win without your full complement of Elves and Dwarves, it’s very difficult if you don’t at least hire 1 or 2 more workers. With no upkeep cost, the only real down-side to hiring is the upfront cost – a placement and 2 Gold to go to the HR Department. After a point, the return on that investment diminishes – if you hire a Dwarf in round 4 for example, he’ll only provide 3 placements before the game is over. A round 4 Dwarf will pay for itself, and may contribute to resource majorities and points, but it’s nowhere near as useful as a turn 1 Dwarf! And while a turn 1 Dwarf is awesome, it does cost a significant portion of your starting capital. So be sure to hire when the opportunity arises and you can afford it, but also make sure you’ll get your money’s worth out of your new employee!

Gardens and Pubs are good Properties when working with a small workforce. They are inexpensive, they increase your income, and by turning a worker into a Master, they allow you to increase your resource gathering ability.

Income generation vs Taxes
There are 3 types of buildings in Belfort – Properties, Guilds, and Walls. Properties have a wide range of cost and effects. Guilds are expensive, but do not require a card – meaning you can build them in whichever district you want. They provide income when used, and that income comes at an interesting time: during the Placement phase. Walls are moderately priced, but provide no income at all, making them very poor choices in the early game. The strength of a wall is in the late game, when you know which district you’d like to build in, but do not have the correct card to build there.

Deciding which Property to build is one of the interesting things you’ll do in a game of Belfort. You’ll want to consider the ability – would you like to use many building powers and fight for Gnome majority? Maybe the Tower is a good choice – but you should also consider the income of the Property. The Inn is a good building for expanding your workforce, but with no income it can really hurt when tax time comes around. The Keep is expensive and only good for scoring, but it does give 1 gold income as well.

If you can produce more income from buildings than you are paying in taxes, then you’ll have a lot more gold to spend on things like Gnomes and Guilds!

Majority scoring
It’s easy to forget while building properties and collecting resources that you only score for 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd majorities in each district. Placing additional ownership markers in a district where you’re already way ahead may be a waste of resources! Also, keep in mind when hiring new workers that there are points to be had for controlling the most Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes.

One more note about area majority scoring – it’s better to score 2^nd place in two districts than it is to score 1^st place in one!

Belfort has another area majority mechanism in addition to scoring – bonus resources from the Forest, Quarry, and Mines. Being the last player to pass gives you the advantage of seeing where other players have sent their workers, but every placement spent stalling means 1 fewer worker to send for resources. Earn majority bonuses where you can, but make sure you’re getting the resources you need to build this turn, and don’t forget about your taxes!

King’s Camp
Turn order in Belfort is unusual – it doesn’t change unless you go to the King’s Camp and change it. And when you do that, you get to CHOOSE your turn order. It can be advantageous to go first for the best worker placement choices next round, but that can also make you a target for another player to take your turn order crest. You could choose to go 2^nd, hoping that a future player will choose to take the turn order crest from player 1 rather than you, while still getting an early placement order. You could even choose to go last, which is especially strong in a scoring round so you can see where other payers have placed their ownership markers. However, going last runs the risk of the spots where you’d like to place drying up.

Some guilds, such as the Thieves’ Guild and the Bandits’ Guild, make the King’s camp a much more important consideration, so it’s important to look at what guilds are in play when you decide how you want to deal with turn order. Maybe a trip to the King’s Camp is the right play!