The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion: Dark Ages
Total War
Mage Knight: Board Game
Fantastiqa
Libertalia
The Lord of the Rings: Nazgul
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
Eclipse
Mice and Mystics
Doctor Who: The Card Game
Lords of Waterdeep
Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
Dungeon Fighter
Android: Netrunner
Virgin Queen
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
Glory to Rome
Infiltration
Collapsible D: The Final Minutes of the Titanic
Dominion
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
Twilight Struggle
City of Horror
Snowdonia
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Goa
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective
Agricola
Among the Stars
7 Wonders: Cities
7 Wonders
The Swarm
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Arkham Horror
Village
Ora et Labora
Battles of Westeros: House Baratheon Army Expansion
Race for the Galaxy
War of the Ring
Trajan
Kingdom Builder
The Castles of Burgundy
Zombicide
Twilight Imperium (third edition)
Space Alert
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Hacienda
Battlestar Galactica
Ground Floor

BoardGameGeek News

To submit news, a designer diary, outrageous rumors, or other material, please contact BGG News editor W. Eric Martin via email – wericmartin AT gmail.com
Recommend
110 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up

Designer Diary: Core Worlds

Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Inspiration

The story of Core Worlds begins at DexCon, a popular game convention in New Jersey during the summer of 2009. My friend Geoff Engelstein (co-designer of The Ares Project) had picked up a copy of Arctic Scavengers, the first deck-building game to follow up on the massive success of Dominion. We played Scavengers with a prominent publisher and some other friends and had a good time – but afterwards an impromptu discussion arose about the nature of the new deck-building genre. Here was the second incarnation of this intriguing game mechanism, and although it offered some interesting twists, there also seemed to be a lot of room for innovation.

After getting home that evening, I thought about this for some time, focusing on the sorts of things I would love to see in this type of game. At that point, I focused on two elements that would eventually become the core of the game design: 1) inspired by Vlaada Chvátil's Through the Ages, we would replace the face-up piles of draftable cards with an ever-changing mix of cards that would become progressively more difficult to draft and increasingly more valuable to own; and 2) instead of relying solely on the cards you draw each turn, we would create a tableau in front of each player where cards could be stored until ready for use, thereby allowing for more long-term planning.

I thought of gearing the theme toward the tastes of the publisher who had played the game with us and originally considered a World War II theme. Players would invade different regions and score them for their team, while also upgrading units and attacking the other players. Instead of players having to draw resource cards into their hands, they would place conquered regions in front of themselves, thereby creating a constant stream of resources while also keeping the players' victory points on display throughout the game.

Well, the difficulties of creating a team deck-building game began to weigh down on me, and I also realized I didn't know quite as much about World War II as I would have liked for tackling such a difficult project. So I thought of other themes that appealed to me that I had not yet used in a game. Growing up, I was a big science fiction buff, particularly enjoying works about massive space empires and all of their complexities. I was an ardent fan of Frank Herbert's Dune books, as well as Asimov's Foundation series. In particular, Foundation presented a galaxy in which the empire, ruled from a central core world called Trantor, was on the verge of collapse. A scientist named Hari Seldon had set up a Foundation on the edge of the galaxy that would slowly grow to power and eventually challenge the crumbling empire, albeit indirectly. The Foundation was surrounded by other rebellious planets seeking to expand their power as well.

The more I thought about those outlying, rebellious planets, the more I found they inspired me, even more than the methodical Foundation that was the focus of the story. What if the players could be barbarian kingdoms living on the edge of a similar galaxy, but this galaxy would be ruled by many core worlds (six to be exact)? And instead of biding their time for centuries like the Foundation, the players would immediately work their way in from the outer edge of the galaxy all the way to the galactic core, building up new forces and conquering planets along the way. Funded by these lesser planets and bolstered by powerful new fleets and ground troops, the players would ultimately invade the center of the galaxy during a final, epic confrontation.

Image from lead artist Maciej Rebisz

Creating the Prototype

Those who have playtested my games in the past know that I like to make detailed prototypes. In particular, I like to use images as a source of inspiration, both to immerse players in the game world and to spark new ideas for cards. Fortunately, the Internet is filled with such inspiration in the sci-fi arena: Star Wars, Halo, Warhammer 40K and on and on. I found myself in one of those rare moments where you get on a roll and can do nothing else. For three straight days, I did nothing besides eat, sleep, and create prototype cards for Core Worlds. The structure of the game was not yet fully formulated, but I'm a believer in letting some of the game design itself. As I would make cards, I would make rules for those cards. Those rules would then influence previous cards, and I would go back and forth.

In the first version of the game, drafting Unit cards was easy and cheap: You spent as much Energy as the current Sector number. And as I created planets, the amount of strength needed to conquer a World became a relatively simple mathematical formula: (Energy Generation X 2) + Empire Points + 1 if there was card text. Thus, a planet that generated 2 Energy, provided 1 Empire Point, and had special card text would require a strength of 6, divided up between Fleet Strength and Ground Strength. Coming up with Deploy Costs for deploying Units into the tableau had to be much more intuitive based on the value of their special text (and therefore I made lots of mistakes). At the end of those three days, I had a playable prototype – but would the system work or fall apart completely during the first playtest?

Prototype card

First Playtest

Traditionally, the first playtest of one of my games ends in complete failure. Sometimes we can't even finish the first turn; other times the developers give me that look that says, "This is not working"; and at still other times they will literally say "This is not working" and throw their cards into the center of the table.

Sometimes, enough of the math has been worked out that you can actually finish the game despite its many flaws. Such was the case with Core Worlds. We actually got all the way to the end. Of course, my math was way off as we could barely even conquer any of the Core Worlds. (The formula for conquering Core Worlds was purposefully different, but it was completely wrong.) Those sorts of problems are to be expected. But there were two fundamental flaws that I had not anticipated that required immediate attention:

1) Some Units provided inherent victory points, and everyone drafted them immediately; and

2) The player who had the most Energy would just keep playing cards, conquering worlds, and generally bullying the galaxy while the rest of us watched helplessly.

Fortunately, I am blessed with an incredible team of developers. The Quixotic Games crew does not quit. Even when I'm ready to say "Let's just stop for now," they will continue to talk and discuss and argue until a solution is found. Such was the case here. The first problem was relatively easy to fix. We realized that Units that provided inherent victory points had to cost more to draft than other Units from the same Sector. At that time, no matter how powerful a card was, its draft cost was equal to its Sector number; more powerful cards might be more expensive to deploy to your tableau, but drafting costs were constant. This had to change, so we developed this formula: Draft Cost = Sector Number + Victory Points. Problem solved.

But the second problem was a bear. We did not want players to win simply because they conquered the biggest Energy planets at the start of the game. Yet about halfway through the game, people with big Energy were doing twice as many things as everyone else. Thus, pursuing any strategy other than acquiring massive gobs of Energy was a losing battle. We played around with the Energy Surge cards as a means of playing catch-up for those who did not conquer an early planet, but we quickly discovered that these cards would have too strong an effect if they were too powerful, almost negating the effort put forth by those going for big Energy. We didn't want to negate the importance of Energy; we just didn't want those people doing more things than everyone else. And that's where it hit us: Action Points. By making sure everyone always performed the same maximum number of Actions each turn, we stopped big Energy players from dominating the entire game. Yes, they could draft and deploy more expensive cards, but they could not keep playing on and on while everyone else just watched.

One of our design principles then became: "Thou shalt not create cards that grant more Actions." We would start everyone off with a certain number of Action Points each round, and as the game progressed, we would give players an increasing number of Actions, but although some would have more Energy than others, the number of Actions would be a constant for all players.

This ended up being an important breakthrough as a player who wanted big Energy could go too far, accumulating too much Energy instead of needed Empire Points, and by the time he started focusing on Empire Points, it might be too late. This change also meant that a player who built an efficient deck, using synergistic card text to deploy cards more cheaply, could focus on Empire Points more quickly. In the end, the player who makes best use of his Energy will have a strong advantage over the other players. Sometimes the player with the most Energy wins the game; sometimes the player with the least Energy wins. Making wise choices about how to use one's Energy became the key to success, which is exactly how we wanted it.

Prototype player board

Additional Playtests

The team was fond of the game, so it got a lot of attention over the next several weeks. We knew we had two other issues that separated us from other deck-building games in a potentially negative way: length and complexity. The epic scope of the game required a longer play experience, with players building themselves up from humble origins and slowly developing their space empires. And the types of strategies that can build up in a tableau are necessarily more complex than those in a game that is primarily hand-driven.

We originally had six Sectors, and we reduced this to five early on. This cut a lot of time without sacrificing the feeling of progression. But even so, the game took 1-2 hours depending on the number of players, and that was unlike other deck-building games at the time. Fortunately for us, over the course of the next two years, the desire for more complex deck-building games arose, so our fears were somewhat allayed. After we started working on Core Worlds, games like Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer came forward and used a central drafting pool. Our game's central zone works differently, but it was interesting to see that the desire for a changing pool of cards was there among gamers. Similarly, Thunderstone showed that players didn't mind a slightly longer game if it followed a bit of a story, so we were heartened by that as well.

But we still had one major problem that other deck-building games did not share. Because Core Worlds takes place over ten Rounds, players are typically not shuffling and drawing new cards as frequently as in other games. Because of this, many of the cards drafted by the players were not being seen. People were getting increasingly tired of seeing the six Galactic Grunts and six Snub Fighters that littered their starting decks, so we realized that we had to ramp up the drafting process and get many of those Grunts and Snubs out of the deck.

The first thing we did was remove one Grunt and one Snub, reducing the size of the starting deck and allowing players to get through their decks more quickly. We also came up with the Colonization Rule which allowed you to permanently remove Grunts and Snubs from your deck without needing to spend a whole turn or possess a special power to do so. Essentially, whenever you conquer a world, you can ditch one of these cards on the planet to "colonize" it – and since we wanted to encourage players to conquer worlds, this was an extra incentive for them to do so.

But it was still not enough. People were still drawing Grunts and Snubs and having trouble putting together a coherent strategy that would fire off throughout the game. That's when we finally came up with the pre-game draft rules. Now experienced players can upgrade their starting decks during set-up. First of all, when using the pre-game draft rules, the players immediately eliminate another Grunt and Snub (leaving only four of each), and replace them with two "Sector 0" cards of their choice. Everyone's starting deck therefore begins with a bit of customization, and that level of customization might even lend itself to a full-blown strategy by the end of the game. I can't say enough how much this changed the game. Now people were seeing serious deck synergies by the third and fourth turns of the game, with everyone's deck looking almost entirely different by the end of the game. It was a huge turning point for the design, and we felt at last it was ready for presentation.

Finished card design

The Presentation

Any game designer will tell you that nothing makes you sweat more than showing a prototype to a publisher. There are so many strange things that can go wrong, and often things that you never even thought of can suddenly happen during the publisher demo, and the publisher just stares at you and says, "Why the heck did you do that?" This is not really coincidence, of course, as often you have been playing the game with a small group of people and new players will get in there during the demo and try crazy things. However, with Core Worlds, we had playtested it a lot, bringing in lots of new players and watching all kinds of interesting things happen, so we were reasonably confident that nothing insane would occur.

The good news is that the game played like a dream. In fact, it was probably one of the most perfect sessions of the prototype to date. However, although the publisher enjoyed the game very much, he wanted us to change something fundamental – add player versus player combat. At first this seemed possible. After all, hadn't I originally considered this back when the design was going to be a WWII game? How hard could it be to add a different type of action to the game that allowed players to conquer each others' worlds, or perhaps just attack each other's forces?

Well, sadly, it was very hard. We tried three different rulesets to allow this, but unfortunately the game fell apart each time. The biggest problem is that the game's "fun value" evaporated. Nobody wanted to do anything for fear that it would make them vulnerable to attack. The game's indirect interaction already has a "competition for resources" feel to it. You feel a lot of pressure to go out and get the things you want before anyone else snatches them up. And typically there are at least two things out there that you really want, so a difficult decision must be made. However, by adding the possibility of player combat, nobody would make the first move. And anyone who dared to conquer a world would get jumped by everyone else. Also, players who were doing poorly were beat on continuously. The problem was simply that the game system we had created did not support this mechanism. We would have had to completely recreate the system from the ground up.

A Strong(hold) Opportunity

As chance would have it, I was discussing the situation at the 2009 World Boardgaming Championships with Stephen Buonocore, a fellow gamer who at the time was in the planning stages of creating his own game company, Stronghold Games. He and his friends had helped us playtest Core Worlds, and they really enjoyed it with its current model of indirect interaction, so during a pivotal discussion in the lounge behind the buffet table at the 2009 WBC (over a beer of course, as Stephen loves his beer), Stephen mentioned that if he did indeed go forward with creating his game company, I could present the game to him and Stronghold Games for consideration.

And the rest is history. Stephen Buonocore, with his business partner Kevin Nesbitt, did start Stronghold Games a few months later, and after several more months of heavy playtest and revision, we presented the game to them for consideration. After reviewing the game with outside testers for several months, Stronghold agreed to publish the game, offering important feedback such as the creation of the Player Boards to keep track of Energy and Action Points – we had been using giant piles of Energy Tokens before then! – as well as simplifying the table layout by using Sector Cards. Over the course of the next year we worked together on important changes and adjustments to the cards and to the game components, and after securing some extremely talented artists and a wonderful graphic designer (Chechu Nieto), the game went to press at the end of August 2011. The first copies were sold during Spiel 2011 in October, with the full release expected in December 2011.

Andrew Parks

Twitter Facebook
27 Comments
Subscribe sub options Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:30 am
Post Comment
Jacob Cassens
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Awesome. I really can't wait to get my hands on this. Thanks for the insight!

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 7:44 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Giles Pritchard
Australia
Shepparton
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes - very good. This is certainly on my wishlist!

Cheers,

Giles.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 11:30 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
I will not rest until Biblios is in the Top 100.
United States
Budd Lake
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Well I been watchin' while you been coughin, I've been drinking life while you've been nauseous, and so I drink to health while you kill yourself and I got just one thing that I can offer... Go on and save yourself and take it out on me
Avatar
mb
Nice writeup, Andy.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 12:12 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Scott Slomiany
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
"Arctic Scavengers, the first deck-building game to follow up on the massive success of Dominion. "

For some reason, that kind of made me laugh. Hopefully, that's not the marketing blurb on the back of the box for Arctic Scavengers.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:10 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Stephen Buonocore
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Andy,

Great write up on the design process behind "Core Worlds"! We are very excited to be publishing this great game for you!

And my favorite part of this design diary, of course, is:

Andrew Parks wrote:
..., so during a pivotal discussion in the lounge behind the buffet table at the 2009 WBC (over a beer, of course, as Stephen loves his beer), ...


'Tis true... I do like my beer...

That was a very memorable meeting for me. As was the playing of "Core Words" just a little while before that. Stronghold Games was only a glimmer in my eye at the time. I am very glad that we had the opportunity to bring this great design to life...

Thanks,
Stephen M. Buonocore
Stronghold Games LLC
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Nov 3, 2011 5:51 pm
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 3:21 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Robert Kuster
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Honestly with so many card building games on the market at present and more coming there are few that get me excited but this one intrigues me. I intend on picking up this game even more so now due to this article. I hope it gives a new feel to the card building mechanics it does look promising.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 5:22 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
David Dawson
United States
Champaign
Illinois
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the designer insight, this game is really high on my wishlist. I'm a huge Foundation series fan, as well, it's interesting to hear that that was part of the inspiration.

When I was reading through the rules to Core Worlds, it mentions a few symbols on the cards that are going to be used in a future expansion, I believe. I originally thought that would mean more player interaction, if maybe not necessarily outright warfare. This write-up leads me to believe, though, that that's probably not the direction you'd like to go with an expansion.

Not that that's bad, as I'm a big fan of the get-to-something-before-somebody-else-because-you're-more-efficient kind of interaction, but that leaves me kind of curious about what direction the game might go in an expansion.

Art looks great, too! I'm on the verge of a preorder, and if not, this will probably be an early post-Christmas pick up.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:01 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dawson_osu wrote:
When I was reading through the rules to Core Worlds, it mentions a few symbols on the cards that are going to be used in a future expansion, I believe. I originally thought that would mean more player interaction, if maybe not necessarily outright warfare. This write-up leads me to believe, though, that that's probably not the direction you'd like to go with an expansion.


Hi, David.

If Stronghold decides to move forward with an expansion, the special icons create a new source of indirect interaction, but you are correct that we are not planning on outright warfare... at least not yet!

Andrew
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:40 pm
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Board games addict
United States

flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Nice to hear the direct conflict warfare angle was dropped, I wouldn't have been interested in this game if that had been included. In my game group we play with my friend's son quite often and somehow he never seems to attack his Dad in those types of games, lol, which tends to unbalance things.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 8:01 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Breakaway
United States
Citrus Heights
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This looks like an awesome game... Maybe be a post-Christmas pickup for me as well!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 8:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeff Myers
United States
Los Ranchos
New Mexico
"Always rely upon a happy mind alone." Geshe Chekhawa.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great job, Andrew! Looking forward to this one (as well as teaching my kids your very fine The Nightmare Before Christmas TCG).

Stephen, if you like beer, your next step should be to take up Advanced Squad Leader and listen to the 2 Half Squads podcast. The show features a Three Stooges bottle opener used for special effects when opening their brews.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 9:33 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Daniel
United States
Orange
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Andrew, I'm REALLY looking forward to this game. Hopefully I'll win that signed copy in the Jack Vasel Memorial Fund auction http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/74068/item/1894675#ite...

(shameless plug for the auction directed toward those of you looking at this game with interest...)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 3, 2011 10:34 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Alain Baum
Luxembourg
Grevenmacher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This was a total surprise for me at Essen. It's really a great game and gives a really different feel than Dominion or Ascension. It is neither too complicated nor too simple, and I am eagerly anticipating expansions.

There are two things to note:
1) The game's design promotes holding a relatively small amount of cards in your hand over the course of about 1.5 - 2 hours. After the first game with my copy, a number of cards were already starting to get greasy, even without junk food at the table. Sleeving should be considered by potential buyers.
2) This goes to the publisher: The game box. Seriously? Do we need a Stone Age-sized box for 200 cards, a handful of tokens and some player boards? The cardboard inlay's "dip" was even a tad too small for the boards, which caused them to warp very slightly. I printed the rulebook on A5 format and moved everything into a box taking up a fourth of the space. Which is a pity, considering the beautiful artwork on the original box.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sun Nov 6, 2011 12:34 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Daniel
United States
Orange
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DukeOfEarl wrote:

2) This goes to the publisher: The game box. Seriously?


I've often thought the same thing about boxes that are far too large than needed to hold the components.

But these are my guesses as to why manufacturers do what they do:

1 -the box does seem to be the same size as their other offerings (escape, confusion, code 777) so publishers probably try to maintain some continuity with box sizes when they can (perhaps a cost issue with manufacturing?).

2- Games that are likely to see a number of expansions need more room in them

3- Gamers when browsing shelves might overlook a tiny box with a few cards compared to a standardish box size that fits among the other games that it competes with in weight (complexity).

But I could just be making all this up. Either way, I kind of like it when my game boxes line up naturally without too many random sizes...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sun Nov 6, 2011 2:22 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Carl_S Gamer
United States

New Jersey
designer
Great stuff! Really looking forward to getting my hands on a copy. The reviews so far have been stellar (pun intended!) - Carl
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Nov 7, 2011 1:59 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Scott Roberts
United States
Southlake
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But even so, the game took 1-2 hours depending on the number of players, and that was unlike other deck-building games at the time.

IS 1-2 hours the typical play time? How long does a typical 3 player game take for people who have played a couple of times?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Nov 7, 2011 4:59 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
scottandkimr wrote:
Quote:
But even so, the game took 1-2 hours depending on the number of players, and that was unlike other deck-building games at the time.

IS 1-2 hours the typical play time? How long does a typical 3 player game take for people who have played a couple of times?


Hi, Scott.

With experienced players, the game takes about 20 - 30 minutes per player. So a 3 player game with experienced players should run 1 - 1.5 hours, depending on player decisiveness.

Thanks,

Andrew
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Nov 7, 2011 6:19 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Scott Roberts
United States
Southlake
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Andrew! Looks like a great game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Nov 7, 2011 8:09 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Colin Lim
Singapore

Hi Andrew,

got a copy off Stronghold at Essen 2011 and this game ha been receiving regular gameplay. As a Dominion, Ascension and Race for the Galaxy fan, Core Worlds fit nicely in with us being both simple enough to pick up and strategically challenging for us to keep playing. Looking forward to much more from you! And all this fun despite not trying out the drafting rules! Thanks for the great game!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:00 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, Colin.

Thanks so much for your comments. Glad to hear you guys are having so much fun with the game, despite not playing with the pre-game drafting rules yet. I think you will find the replay value (and fun value!) of the game increases significantly when you add those rules.

Thanks!

Andrew
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:23 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Randall Kent
United States

mb
Andrew,

I'm very interested in picking up Core Worlds to share with my gaming group. In fact, after doing my research the only thing stopping me from pre-ordering right now is a few questions about expansions.

Of course it's understood that a publisher will need to decide whether or not an expansion is warranted or not, and even after that playtesting, etc. will dictate whether or not anything makes it into the game.

What I want to know is if the planned expansions will offer different economies/resources/production-chains, etc. to ultimately gain victory points that do not revolve (at least not directly) around building armies and taking planets?

I don't mind the heavy emphasis on war (I personally love the theme and am grateful for a new space opera style wargame in a deckbuilder); but I know others in my group will be not care if it's a strategy based on star cruisers, or a strategy based on infantry - while they are smart enough to appreciate how those will effect their point totals - they will want alternate avenues that FEEL different than just investing in a different style of gun. It would also be a plus for them to have different colors dictate different core development strategies (example is your yellow for military units)

I also want to know if the planned expansions will offer more interaction, both of the indirect and direct nature?

As stated above, I personally love the war theme, and for myself I'm in the camp that would like more outright warfare between the factions. Although if the masses just want more indirect interaction I'm still fine with it. You've already basically answered this above with a "yes" regarding the special icons, but more cards and hopefully dedicated mechanics that help you trade/build/score off what your neighbors do would be greatly appreciated.

Lastly, will planned expansions allow more "faction-unique" cards for the starting barbarian empires?

I know the base game doesn't go into a lot of depth fleshing out the five starting empires besides a symbol and a unique hero, but I'm anxiously hoping that this signals a possibility that we will see more "asymmetric warfare". Potentially in more unique starting cards, faction-only draftable cards, and faction specific powers/keywords? I like how this game has the potential to ooze a little theme and I would love to see this theme more fully fleshed out so that it's easier to feel like you are playing a different barbarian empire every time you play.


Please don't take any of the above as being overly critical with your game. The basic game seems fun and interesting as is; and as I mentioned I'm strongly considering pre-ordering it and playing with just the base game for a good while. I guess in short what I'm saying is, that for a deliberate group of strategy minded gamers 2 hours a play-through seems a bit long for this type of offering but that I believe that this basic design and setting has the legs to grow to be something considerably more involved and interesting making the time well worth it so it will hit the table often (My group has no problems with long games of 4+ hours, but they need to be worth the investment.)

Again, I realize nothing is set in stone, and I'm not trying to make you tip your hand as to specifics that far in the future, but just knowing your general philosophy and intentions for the future of this game would be a great help. Thanks Andrew.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:59 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cannibal wrote:
Andrew,

I'm very interested in picking up Core Worlds to share with my gaming group. In fact, after doing my research the only thing stopping me from pre-ordering right now is a few questions about expansions.


Hi, Randall.

Thanks for all your questions about potential expansions for Core Worlds. I will do my best to answer them in a satisfying way without getting into specifics. I will answer all questions below with the caveat that they are only valid in relation to the publisher's decision to actually print one or more expansions.

Cannibal wrote:
What I want to know is if the planned expansions will offer different economies/resources/production-chains, etc. to ultimately gain victory points that do not revolve (at least not directly) around building armies and taking planets?


Yes. There will be an entire system in the first expansion that provides an alternative means for gaining in-game powers, as well as endgame victory points. These powers are not gained from invading planets, but from drafting and deploying Units that are related in a unique way.

Cannibal wrote:
I don't mind the heavy emphasis on war (I personally love the theme and am grateful for a new space opera style wargame in a deckbuilder); but I know others in my group will be not care if it's a strategy based on star cruisers, or a strategy based on infantry - while they are smart enough to appreciate how those will effect their point totals - they will want alternate avenues that FEEL different than just investing in a different style of gun. It would also be a plus for them to have different colors dictate different core development strategies (example is your yellow for military units)


There is one new card type planned for the first expansion, and plans for two new card types for the second expansion. I will say that the strategy for the first expansion is not dependent on Unit "types" (Infantry, Starfighter, Robot, etc.). Take a look at the Special Icons on Units and Tactics in the base game for clues.

Cannibal wrote:
I also want to know if the planned expansions will offer more interaction, both of the indirect and direct nature?


There will definitely be more indirect interaction, in fact a whole new source of such interaction, in the first expansion. Direct conflict in the expansion would be limited to a few cards akin to the "Smugglers" card in the base game.

For the second expansion, we have plans for an entire system that allows for a very unique form of direct conflict, although not involving stealing cards from the opponent (i.e. NOT conquering opponents' planets, stealing Units, etc.)

Cannibal wrote:
As stated above, I personally love the war theme, and for myself I'm in the camp that would like more outright warfare between the factions. Although if the masses just want more indirect interaction I'm still fine with it. You've already basically answered this above with a "yes" regarding the special icons, but more cards and hopefully dedicated mechanics that help you trade/build/score off what your neighbors do would be greatly appreciated.


No direct warfare, but the "trade/build/score off" is exactly what we have designed for future expansions.

Cannibal wrote:
Lastly, will planned expansions allow more "faction-unique" cards for the starting barbarian empires?


There are certainly more pre-game Sector 0 cards designed for the first expansion, but not starting deck specific cards. That said, fleshing out the identity of the factions is something we are planning for the second expansion in a big way.

Cannibal wrote:
Again, I realize nothing is set in stone, and I'm not trying to make you tip your hand as to specifics that far in the future, but just knowing your general philosophy and intentions for the future of this game would be a great help. Thanks Andrew.


No problem, Randall. I hope I was able to answer your questions without getting myself into too much trouble.

Andrew
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:58 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Randall Kent
United States

mb

Andrew,

Thank you very much for the fast detailed reply. If it helps, know that your answers guaranteed a pre-order from me. (Well, I'm feeling generous right now so I might "let" my wife get it over the weekend for her Christmas shopping)

It sounds like you plan to take this game exactly in the direction I was hoping for. And I'm extremely encouraged that you already have the wheels turning for a second expansion.

Quote:
There are certainly more pre-game Sector 0 cards designed for the first expansion, but not starting deck specific cards. That said, fleshing out the identity of the factions is something we are planning for the second expansion in a big way.


Actually my inarticulate question regarding "starting barabarian empires" was not in reference to the pre-game sector cards, but rather was the product of a unvoiced assumption that at some point an expansion would increase the number of players to 6 (or more) and thus you would have "new" barbarian empires that were not "starting barbarian empires". It was done unconsciously.

At any rate it sounds like between the first and second expansions I'll end up with exactly what I asked for; so now the only thing to do is get the game in hand and start getting other people interested in buying it so that Stronghold will be "forced" into making more money for themselves and I get what I want.

Thanks again Andrew.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:51 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No problem, Randall. Enjoy!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:04 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
mike berk
United States
rancho cucamonga
California
mbmbmbmbmb
I recently got to play a friends copy of core worlds and I absolutely loved it, becoming an immediate must buy for me. So I decided to read the forums on the game and found this thread. I see that this game was inspired by through the ages and I found this interesting because after playing I felt the game mechanics would make a great civ-lite building themed game. I felt that it would play like Through the ages, in a much quicker simpler form. So Andrew make a civ game with similar mechanics and I will buy that too
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:54 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Parks
United States
Somerset
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, Mike.

Glad to hear you enjoyed Core Worlds. I do love Through the Ages quite a lot, and have played it many times. If I ever get a chance to design a civ-lite building game, I'll be sure to let you know!

Andrew
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:02 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Peaceful Gamin'
Canada
Vancouver
BC
designer
Looking for a playtester/editor/translator for your cool new game? Contact us, we're free (but we ask to be mentioned in the acknowledgements, and a copy of the game would be a nice gesture, but not necessary).
badge
Looking for a playtester/editor/translator for your cool new game? Contact us, we're free (but we ask to be mentioned in the acknowledgements, and a copy of the game would be a nice gesture, but not necessary).
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Very nice art. Enjoyed reading this diary, too. meeple
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:22 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.