In March 2022, we met with the main test group, André and Robert, as well as publisher Uli Blennemann, in Wolfsburg for an intense testing weekend, during which we played almost all the scenarios.

 

 

As a result, we were collectively satisfied with the state of development, but there were still issues with the Progress scenario. The handling of progress cards, which worked very well online, proved to be very confusing at the table. The space required for the many cards (17 different ones in stacks of three) on the table, and the error-prone and space-consuming tiered stacking of progress cards in one's layout, made it necessary to choose a completely new approach.

 

In the further course of development, I consolidated the progress cards so that on large cards, the development from the first level of progress through the second to the third level could be seen at a glance, without the need to compare between one's layout and the open progress card display or a separate tech tree overview.

 

 

Another positive outcome of the workshop was the agreement on the basic structure of the campaign. More on that now...

 

 

The Cherry on Top: The Development of the Campaign and Solo Challenge

 

Even while we were individually testing the scenarios in the test groups, I developed the first ideas for the campaign.

 

A primary decision was to set a maximum number of games in a campaign. The progression should be linear, so there would be a foreseeable end from the start. I didn't want to offer a legacy game encompassing 12-15 games or more, to avoid deterring some players with its length and uncertain duration. After all, a single game of EPOSalready takes about 2 hours when learning additional rules and playing a scenario for the first time.

 

 

Naturally, there should be an overall winner after multiple games, who wouldn't simply be the player with the highest total prestige points, and the games should be more than just a loose sequence of individual games. Therefore, a connection from the end of one game to the start of the next was necessary. Thematically, it made immediate sense that throughout history, a civilization would rise and fall, only to rebuild on the ruins of previous generations. Thus, it was not necessary to carry large quantities of cards, cities, etc., from one game to the next. I decided that each game could essentially start from scratch with the normal starting setups. However, the choice of starting hand cards and the starting construction site should be limited by what the player had achieved at the end of the last game.

 

 

It was important to me that players could not 100% predict the sequence in which the scenarios would be played. I wanted some variability in the sequences of individual campaign runs. On the other hand, I had to ensure that the gaming group would not play the same scenario twice. Therefore, I drew many different flowcharts and branches, which often became extremely complex and widely branched after the 4th or 5th game. This only resolved when I decided that after 4 games, a sort of interruption in the flowchart could occur, and the second half with the remaining 4 scenarios would again contain variability. I recognized the disadvantage that in this case, the scenario for the 1st game would also determine the scenario for the 5th game. To fix this, I mirrored the sequence of games 5-8 and swapped the 5th scenario with another in the mirrored branch of the flowchart.

 

 

A crucial aspect was how to decide the path on the flowchart. I soon discarded the initial idea of a central scoring sheet in the form of a chronicle to keep administrative effort minimal. Players should focus on their own scoring sheets. To solve this, I set tasks for the players in the scenario rules, such as "build as many cities as possible." In the final scoring, it would be checked how many cities all players had built together, and depending on whether a certain value was exceeded, one scenario would be played next; otherwise, another scenario. When we decided not to pack the scenario rules with the scenario components separately and only reveal them during the campaign, I discarded this approach and moved the tasks to separate cards. This way, players could always see the task, as the card could be placed next to the game board. It also allowed for different tasks for the same scenario depending on the campaign progression. Players could simply read on the back of the card to find out what happens next in the campaign.

 

 

As a core element of the campaign, I envisioned extreme situations on the game board, player boards, and other circumstances that rarely occur in "normal" games, so players would have to play specifically towards these goals. For example, players should be torn between following their usual paths to do well in the current game or reaching a special campaign goal lying outside their usual paths. In normal games, one rarely trains the same profession 6 times on the population board or accumulates 45 coins or 8 temple and oracle stones, instead preferring to use resources for profitable actions as soon as possible. Those who achieve these unusual goals should be rewarded with special points for the campaign scoring. Additionally, I wanted a thematic connection to the subsequent games, where accumulated wealth, for example, could provide extra starting coins.

 

 

The main challenge for balancing was the danger that early campaign advantages would help a player achieve further special goals in subsequent games, thereby gaining increasing advantages. Conversely, a player who initially fails to achieve their own special goals and has fewer starting resources would quickly fall behind.

 

I first created an incentive to forgo earned bonuses by awarding special points for the campaign scoring, increasing the earlier one forgoes the bonus. However, this led to enormous administrative effort and lengthy considerations at the start of a game. It took excessively long for everyone to decide, as each player feared giving up a bonus they might urgently need in a later scenario. This approach had to be abandoned.

 

 

A simple solution to the "rich getting richer" problem was to limit the maximum number of bonuses each player could use per game to four. This way, the gap in game preparation could not widen too much, especially since it is relatively easy to achieve the first special goals and bonuses in the first game. Players can choose from the 20 goals the ones they can easily fulfill. Only as more goals are achieved do the really difficult ones remain, with the difficulty level depending on personal play style. For instance, a player who never uses a double hourglass might find the goal "no double hourglass in a game" easy, while players who prefer double hourglasses might feel very restricted. This made it extremely difficult to assign specific points to the special goals for campaign scoring, although it was clear that some goals had to be more valuable than others.

 

 

A breakthrough occurred when I moved away from continually reducing the starting resources assigned to each player and instead relying on the bonuses from their special goals. Previously, the starting resources had to be noted relative to the previous game (e.g., +1 hourglass or -5 coins). Ultimately, I no longer specified the starting resources in the final scoring of a game as relative values for the next game but printed the actual starting resources on the task card for the next scenario. This way, everyone could immediately read from the card and then take their earned bonuses from their completed special goals to supplement the starting resources. Naturally, the starting resources provided in the campaign are less than those given in a standalone game of the scenario to avoid creating an imbalance with the additional bonuses.

 

 

Testing a campaign involves a huge time commitment, as multiple individual games must be played. I was very grateful for the patience and dedication of my online and offline testers. I was a guest in Kassel and Hagen to play an entire campaign over intensive weekends. We benefited from a short campaign designed for 4 games, so even with the "only" 4 games, a strong campaign feel emerged, forcing players to deviate from the single-scenario play style to achieve special goals.

 

As a result, there are 3 types of campaigns: the "large" campaign covering all 8 scenarios, the "small" campaign with 4 games, where only certain scenarios are played depending on the progression but not predetermined which ones, and finally a "small" campaign of 4 scenarios known to the players from the start.

 

 

 

As it became increasingly impossible to play all scenarios in solo mode without investing significant effort in developing one or more scenario-specific “bot players”, I had to abandon the idea of designing the campaign uniformly for 1-4 players. It was simply not feasible to simulate the interaction of road construction or the competition for majorities with one or two virtual opponents.

 

 

However, I was determined to offer the large solo-player community more than just the challenge of beating their own high score. On BGG, there was a monthly GENTES solo challenge for a while. I joined the discussion and suggested trying a different task each month. For example, build all cities in the first 4 rounds or own a certain amount of coins at any point. This was well received, and I developed a solo challenge making it similarly difficult for solo players to balance goals in the current game with achieving special goals, as in multiplayer campaigns. A total of 10 games with staggered tasks are necessary to complete a challenge – plenty of material to explore!

 

 

The Finale: Graphics, Material, and Rulebooks

 

In September 2023, I met with Uli Blennemann as the publisher, Harald Lieske as the graphic designer, and Henning Kröpcke as the editor. We spent an entire day discussing the details of individual illustrations, component qualities, and the construction of the rulebooks.

 

 

Fortunately, we had already received many suggestions from the tests, such as the "+1" reminder on the back of the population indicators when a civilization card includes a virtual profession. This helps counter the common phenomenon of overlooking the virtual profession on the card because players are too focused on their population board.

 

 

It became clear that we would need separate rulebooks for the individual scenarios. The box would have to be large to accommodate the amount of components, keeping up with the standard set by other games like Weimar or GENTES Deluxe when aiming for a premium setup.

 

 

The initially planned bilingual version had to be abandoned because the number of rule booklets would have simply exceeded the box's capacity.

 

 

 

We have played the game a lot – yet we still want to play it more.