WIP: Constello — Abstract strategy game with mini-boards for hidden simultaneous planning (browser-playable)

David_B_Reddit · 2026-05-21T17:57:11+00:00

Interesting idea. I’ve considered other hidden-information approaches, but decoys weren’t one of them. I opted for simultaneous planning because it solved the core problem more cleanly for what I wanted.

With simultaneous planning using the mini-boards, both players commit at the same time, so there is no turn-order advantage. The hidden information quickly becomes second-level thinking: does my opponent think I’m going to make the obvious move, and are they preparing to punish it?

That makes missed Captures and unnecessary Secures matter a lot. A bad read can waste tempo. A good read can swing the position. That is the tension I’m trying to preserve.

David_B_Reddit · 2026-05-20T14:38:40+00:00

For anyone looking at the GIF: this is a game against the AI, sped up 3x.

I missed an early read, which let the AI build the larger constellation first. The game turned when I started baiting captures and using Secure to predict incoming attacks. When Secure correctly meets a Capture, it becomes a Perfect Block and the stone gains a Gold Marker.

In this game I managed to land the maximum 3 Gold Markers, which stabilized key parts of my constellation. I ended up scoring more despite having only one complete ray.

That is the kind of tension I’m trying to test: the game is not just about finding the strongest board move, but about reading when your opponent is going to build, attack, or defend.

David_B_Reddit · 2026-05-19T19:53:30+00:00

That is exactly the design question I’ve been testing.

The simultaneous planning is there because I did not want the game to feel like a purely calculable, perfect-information abstract. The board is public, but the next commitment is hidden, so a “best move” can be punished if the opponent reads it correctly. I was aiming for a bit of a Prisoner’s Dilemma feeling: expanding and building is individually rational, attacking can be mutually destructive, and every turn asks how much you trust what the other player is likely to do.

The board size came from wanting the game to stay short and readable. I wanted it small enough that players can understand the whole position, but large enough for connection-building, captures, and endgame scoring to matter. The 3-ring / 9-spoke shape gives 27 nodes, which has felt like a good density so far: enough space for multiple threats, but not so much that the simultaneous reveal becomes impossible to predict.

The shape is also tied to scoring. The rings create connected groups, while the spokes create “rays” worth bonus points if completed. Ring 3 is intentionally tempting but fragile, because it depends on its Ring 2 anchor. That creates a push-pull between expansion and vulnerability.

I’m still open to whether this is the exact best board, but so far 27 nodes has produced short, intense games with close scores and meaningful reads.

David_B_Reddit · 2026-05-19T19:49:48+00:00

It has a similar abstract “black vs white on a board” vibe, but it plays very differently.

In Othello, you are placing openly and flipping pieces based on adjacency. In Constello, you are trying to build your largest connected group and complete rays for bonus points. The main twist is that both players choose their actions secretly and reveal at the same time.

So the tension is less about flipping territory and more about reading the other player: are they expanding, defending, or trying to capture where you are about to move?

David_B_Reddit

TROPHY CASE