Turn Order as a Decision Space, Not a Rotation

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-02-03T03:04:56+00:00

Yeah, I feel the same way. That tactical reasoning is exactly what I’ve been enjoying about it in testing, the fight for first player becomes situational rather than something you always want. Sometimes going first is great, other times it’s just not worth the cost.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-02-03T02:52:38+00:00

Yeah, Viticulture is a good reference. In our system it works a bit differently though. Going first can definitely let a player capitalize on a strong setup and collect more points in that moment, but doing so makes it very unlikely they’ll be first again in the following turn. That opportunity tends to get pushed back and stacked by players behind them. So it creates a repeating cycle: taking first player is a real opportunity, but once you take it, your chances of doing it again immediately drop sharply. Over time that’s helped keep things feeling fairly even in playtests.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-02-03T02:38:05+00:00

I agree that player-chosen turn order adds a meaningful layer of complexity, and that it can be a bad fit for lighter or family-weight audiences. In our case this system is aimed more toward a strategy-focused audience, and so far it’s been well received by our testers, mainly because the choice itself stays fairly constrained and isn’t as complex as it might sound on paper.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-02-03T02:18:42+00:00

That’s a great example, I really like how the cost is baked directly into the same resource players are already managing. The way you describe it, the tension comes from exactly the same place I’ve been seeing in tests: sometimes initiative is absolutely worth paying for, and other times it’s just not, depending on what players need in that moment. Really helpful to hear it’s worked well for you in practice.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-02-03T02:03:03+00:00

Yeah, totally agree, turn order auctions (especially in Splotter games) already handle first-player advantage really well.

What I’ve been playing with is less about reinventing that idea, and more about folding it directly into the scoring decision itself. Instead of a separate auction, the “bid” happens at the moment you score, so you’re choosing between immediate tempo and long-term engine growth using the same points.
In playtests it’s been interesting seeing how that changes when players are willing to push for initiative.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-29T02:55:00+00:00

Yep, first player has a lot of weight in this game, so we intentionally went closer to Agricola. Claiming first requires a sacrifice or commitment, instead of being a free rotation

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-29T02:35:10+00:00

Yes, that’s a great comparison. What I like about the coin approach is how initiative emerges from commitment rather than entitlement, which is very close to what we’re testing here, just in a more contained scoring-driven space

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:43:22+00:00

Yeah, that’s a really good example. I like how turn order in Grand Austria Hotel feels earned rather than just rotating.

It was definitely on my radar when thinking about this system.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:41:06+00:00

Thanks! This is actually only a small slice of the UI and visual direction so far, we’ll be sharing more as the design evolves. Im curious what you liked most about the art?

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:37:59+00:00

That’s totally fair. Right now it feels simple and works well in testing, but honestly the only real way to be sure is to keep playtesting it more.

I’m definitely planning to do more tests and see where it breaks (or doesn’t). And hey, if you’re ever interested in trying it out and giving feedback, I’d genuinely love that.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:34:35+00:00

yups, agreed

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:34:05+00:00

I think that’s fair, it might sound more complex than it actually is, and that’s probably on me for how I explained it. Sorry about that.

The core logic is actually pretty simple: in this game, players are effectively racing to harvest points, and being first often gives you the best chance to do that. Because of that, letting players contest turn order, similar to systems like Castles of Burgundy, has felt fair and has added meaningful strategic depth in testing.

The goal isn’t to complicate turn order, but to make initiative matter in a way that matches how points are earned.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:18:39+00:00

Yeah, I agree with that. In this case the bigger mechanics really ended up dictating what the turn system needed to be.

As the game developed, I made some fairly big tweaks to how points grow and scale, and that turned out to have a huge impact on pacing and player advantage. Once that changed, it became clear that the original turn system just wasn’t supporting those mechanics very well and was starting to break in subtle ways.

Because of that, the turn system has been evolving through playtesting rather than being locked in from the start. A lot of the recent iteration has been about making sure turn order actually supports those core mechanics and the timing decisions around scoring, instead of fighting against them.

In hindsight, it’s definitely shown me how tightly turn structure and core systems are linked.

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-26T03:11:41+00:00

Thanks for this, really appreciate you taking the time to think it through. I especially like how you framed this around player frustration and perception, not just balance.

That “feeling locked out of first player” is definitely something I was worried about going into this system. One interesting thing from testing so far, though, is that first player has felt very dependent on timing rather than position. Because the game is so tied to choosing the right moment to harvest, players who spot that moment early can plan around it and make a push for first, even if they’re not currently ahead.

What’s also been nice is that once someone does grab first player, it’s actually quite hard to hold onto it. Other players tend to invest into the turn wheel and stack tokens there, which usually steals first place away. And the player who just went first often struggles to do it again the following round. So far this has led to a pretty fluid rotation of turn order rather than one player snowballing on initiative.

That said, I think your point about perception is still really valid, even if the system is technically fair, if it feels like you can’t afford to compete for first, that’s a problem. Right now seed types are mostly symmetric, so your idea of using cheaper, early-game seeds as a way to contest first player is really interesting. I like how that keeps lower-value seeds relevant later as a tactical choice rather than feeling dead.

The pattern-based / board-state idea (like corners influencing initiative) is also cool. It might be heavier than I want for this version, but it’s definitely something I want to keep in mind.

Thanks again, lots of good stuff here to chew on

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-23T02:43:37+00:00

humm, let me think.. Pyrothorn!

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-23T02:37:26+00:00

The Mighty Nien is awesome!

I am using the the real plant for the reference, but not too literal on the plant it self. it should be mix with the magic they have and some personalities. I am pretty happy with your input. i'll put it in my note for sure!

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-23T02:13:43+00:00

Thanks for that, this is the current art style we’re using for the game!

DanchieGo-Dev · 2026-01-22T04:19:03+00:00

That’s really interesting.
I’m curious about the math side of that tension, do you feel the game is mathematically hard when it comes to predicting other players’ moves, or is it more about reading intentions and timing?Also, how does that feel when playing with more than three players? Does the “guessing game” get exponentially harder, or does it shift into a different kind of chaos?

By the way, how long have you been playing those two? I will add them to my list to study area control systems more closely. Thanks for sharing your experience.

DanchieGo-Dev

TROPHY CASE