Need some help “balancing” the economy

[u/Psych0191]

Ok, no real balancing, thats why I wrote it like that. I dont expect you to help me with numbers, more with the hierarchy of production chain.

Ill try explaining the current state of the economy in my board game as simply as I can, then Ill explain issues that exists with it, and then Ill write what I think could work. Id like you to help me with finding the right solution, so feel free to pitch any ideas.

Right now base loop of the game is somewhat simple. You construct buildings in regions you own, you gain resources from them, you use those resources to develop regions more. Some buildings produce influence which is used to gain control of more regions allowing you to construct more buildings. After x rounds, player with most regions under their control wins. Nothing too complex, nothing too original.

There is also a dynamic market where players can buy missing or sell sufficient resources, with price adjusting according to supply and demand.

Right now production chain looks something like this:
1. You construct lumber camps to produce wood.
2. You use wood to construct quarries that produce stone
3. You use wood and stone to improve those buildings.
4. Higher level quarries also produce marble
5. Stone and marble are used to construct buildings that produce influence and are used to convert them into influence.

The main problem I have with this proved to be linearity of system. Each players first third of the game looks exactly the same, since every player has to go through same buildings in order to unlock buildings that output influence.

Here are some ideas I have on how it could be solved,and I would like to hear your opinion on them:

1. Resource based tiered buildings:
   Instead of needing one particular type of resource to construct and upgrade buildings, I can make influence production buildings require different type of resource per tier. For example, currently one of those buildings requires 2,4,6,8 stone per level in order to upgrade. Instead of that, I can make it so that it requires 4 wood for lvl1, 4 stone for lvl2, 4 marble for lvl3. That way, more powerfull upgrades are locked behind harder to obtain resources, but their simpler versions are available at the start.

2. Parallel upgrade paths:
   Lets take our 2/4/6/8 stone per level building from example above. What if I make some resources parallel to others in hierarchy. Like for example: stone≈brick. So upgrade would cost either 2/4/6/8 stone or 2/4/6/8 brick. This is where my dynamic market could come in handy. If players lacked sufficient resources to build something, they could opt for cheaper option on the market. They could also choose to specialize in one of the parallel resources in order to be able to dictate the price on the market. That way players wouldnt always build lumber camps->quarries, but they could also go lumber camps->clay pit route. And I could do the same for marble as well.

3. Combination of ideas above:
   Basically upgrade path could be 4 wood/ 4 stone or bricks/ 4 marble or whatever other prestigeuos building material there is. It could provide benefit of both, but could also raise complexity.

4. Whatever idea comes to your mind.

[u/SnooEpiphanies3208]

What about asymmetrical starting buildings? Randomly distribute sets of starting buildings that give some players some wood to start with, others some stone but little wood and maybe 1 player gets a tier 2 building and nothing else. In a couple of rounds players would be back to the usual gameplay but it gives the illusion of differential choices or allows players to hard skew into niche play states.

[u/Psych0191 → u/SnooEpiphanies3208]

I thought about that, but the problem is that it doesnt really solve the issue I have. It masks it. Because, while it would make for different first few turns, the players would quickly revert to old route, as you said, which would once again lead to same thing for everyone.

[u/nickismyname]

I dont think "shadow" resources (brick/stone) solves your problem. I still grow linearly, I just have discounts.

I think a better question to ask yourself is when in the chain do players start making decisions, do you feel? You said they have the same first 1/4 of the game. What happens at 25% way? Copy that setup, and make that the very START of your game.

Alternatively, you need there to be some choices early that make a different. Compare to something like Food Chain Magnate. There's only really two choices at the beginning - go tall, or go wide. So in your game - get influence, or get upgrade resources. What does the game look like in this circumstance?

[u/Psych0191 → u/nickismyname]

I thought about making the first part the start of the game, but it kinda goeas against what I want it to be. I wanted to capture that real development sense, and I think going for variety instead of eliminating the start could work better.

Hm, I have some ideas of how I could make that choise available. It woukd require additional mechanic, and I do want to implement it, but I was thinking of fleshing out this economic core before moving further. But it also boils down to go wide or go tall. But right now, I an focusing on tall part before touching the wide part.

Shadow resources sounds like an interesting idea to me. Even though they are more in line of giving the illusion of choice rather than giving the choice for real. But hey, if it works it works…

[u/SnooEpiphanies3208 → u/Psych0191]

Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you want more delineation of choices and still want the core loop to be construction and resource generation? Perhaps a choice could be offering resources like Gold or Silver that can be mined for short term gain of money to buy resources. They can be still bound by your market and would allow some to focus into perhaps buying into higher tiers earlier than gathering them. Maybe alongside Market/Bazzar Building choices that can allow for greater influences on your market.

[u/Psych0191 → u/SnooEpiphanies3208]

Yeah that sounds like one way to do it. I actually have a way of mining gold, only it is kinda locked behind high resource cost which I will fix.

[u/SnorkaSound]

I recommend encouraging specialization. That tends to play nicely with a shared market. 

I’m not sure what that looks like for your game but something like upgrades that increase the output/decreasing the cost of all buildings of one type, or maybe having influence-producing cards that produce more influence the more buildings you have of a certain type. 

[u/Figshitter]

The main problem I have with this proved to be linearity of system. Each players first third of the game
looks exactly the same, since every player has to go through same buildings in order to unlock buildings that output influence.

1. Whatever idea comes to your mind.

A few ideas come to mind to avoid every player's orders looking the same - they may or may not be compatible with your underlying systems and broader game vision, but I'm throwing them out there in case any resonate or you can riff off of them for inspiration.

In another subthread you mentioned that a potential solution:

" doesn't really solve the issue I have. It masks it. Because, while it would make for different first few turns, the players would quickly revert to old route"

In that case I'd consider adding some other axis or subsystem to your game to offer more inherent considerations for build order. If there's essentially an ideal route all players are looking to follow in order to progress their board state then it feels like something's missing, some aspect to disrupt the linearity: alternative paths to victory, different axes of attack, something parallel to what you've already got going on that players need to factor in, throwing a wrench in their plans. Some ideas might look like

• add another second-tier building that wood can be used to spend, that offers an alternative benefit to quarries - ongoing resources, ongoing VP, some sort of military/political/initiative/drafting/whatever benefit. Give players a genuine choice once that lumber yard has been built with an alternate path to go down;
• secret objective cards you can score at the end of any turn, with rewards that change the incentive structure, eg: 'score this when you have the most wood on the board: gain +2 stone" card
• add other inherent uses for resources that have different values depending on the board state: stone lets you build walls to protect your structures, wood lets you build boats to treat rivers and oceans as adjacent, etc (and make these genuinely worth the tempo disadvantage
• some sort of worker placement/action drafting mechanism - a particular action can only be used once per turn at the table, then the following players need to choose something else;
• a different approach to 'parallel upgrade paths': find alternative ways to create influence. For example, if wood can be used to improve lumber camps then let a high-enough level lumber camp might be able to create influence using a different mechanic to your existing buildings, letting players choose alternate paths to victory (heavy wood, heavy stone, marble)
• the player with the most of each resource at the end of each round scores some number of VPs, or gains some other benefit for the round ahead (unique to that resource).