Should the hiding rules incentivise travelling as far as possible? #100

New issue

Open

opened 2026-08-07 23:20:47 +00:00 by moof · 1 comment

moof commented

2026-08-07 23:20:47 +00:00

Owner

This is issue number 100. To celebrate, I felt it needed a more complex topic to chew on.

One of the problems I'm finding with the game is that there is too much incentive to do a massively long trip to the other side of the country.

I found this particularly annoying in the last Netherlands game. The two of you went to and from Limburg and that alone easily added 90 minutes to the hiding time. Similarly, my jaunt to Feanwâlden had much the same effect, and we still managed to optimise the run to kitty's location to the point we could not have done it faster.

Meanwhile, I went to Den Bosch, and I definitely noticed a reduced game time by the end of it, because I was effectively 90 mins away from the starting point, rather than the full 3 hours.

Part of what is motivating #99 - wanting to up the hiding time in Germany - is that we instinctively feel the need to move as far as possible from the start point. Same as the ICE station start point rule.

Similarly, when I've brought up the idea of a Danish game (which given what we've talked since then makes no sense) and a Benelux Game, we had a bit of a back-and-forth about the fact we were forcing players into pinch points, given the limited cross-border services between the three Benelux countries. How much of this is because we're unconsciously attempting to move as far as possible due to the obvious advantage of doing that, and thus the pinch point limits the spread of where we can go when we're past it?

I agree we don't want to get gummed up in Thuringia again. I think the ICE station rule is good. But I also wonder if there's maybe some base assumption that the existing rules have forced us into, and that has a mismatched incentive as a result.

Or maybe we've semi-consciously decided that long end games suck and the long game is the fun bit, and so are trying to optimise our strategy based on that.

On the other hand, I do get, and share, @Ash's love of high speed, long distance trains. There is definitely incentive beyond the game mechanics to want to go long distances. But I wanted to raise the possibility that a tweak in the core mechanism of the game may make it nicer for those who want to travel shorter distances.

I'm not necessarily expecting a rule change to come from this. More of a philosophical discussion over some beers.

This is issue number 100. To celebrate, I felt it needed a more complex topic to chew on. One of the problems I'm finding with the game is that there is too much incentive to do a massively long trip to the other side of the country. I found this particularly annoying in the last Netherlands game. The two of you went to and from Limburg and that alone easily added 90 minutes to the hiding time. Similarly, my jaunt to Feanwâlden had much the same effect, and we still managed to optimise the run to kitty's location to the point we could not have done it faster. Meanwhile, I went to Den Bosch, and I definitely noticed a reduced game time by the end of it, because I was effectively 90 mins away from the starting point, rather than the full 3 hours. Part of what is motivating #99 - wanting to up the hiding time in Germany - is that we instinctively feel the need to move as far as possible from the start point. Same as the ICE station start point rule. Similarly, when I've brought up the idea of a Danish game (which given what we've talked since then makes no sense) and a Benelux Game, we had a bit of a back-and-forth about the fact we were forcing players into pinch points, given the limited cross-border services between the three Benelux countries. How much of this is because we're unconsciously attempting to move as far as possible due to the obvious advantage of doing that, and thus the pinch point limits the spread of where we can go when we're past it? I agree we don't want to get gummed up in Thuringia again. I think the ICE station rule is good. But I also wonder if there's maybe some base assumption that the existing rules have forced us into, and that has a mismatched incentive as a result. Or maybe we've semi-consciously decided that long end games suck and the long game is the fun bit, and so are trying to optimise our strategy based on that. On the other hand, I do get, and share, @Ash's love of high speed, long distance trains. There is definitely incentive beyond the game mechanics to want to go long distances. But I wanted to raise the possibility that a tweak in the core mechanism of the game may make it nicer for those who want to travel shorter distances. I'm not necessarily expecting a rule change to come from this. More of a philosophical discussion over some beers.

moof added this to the Next Game milestone

2026-08-07 23:20:47 +00:00

moof added the

Status

Pending Discussion

label

2026-08-07 23:20:47 +00:00

moof removed this from the Next Game milestone

2026-08-07 23:31:19 +00:00

moof commented

2026-08-14 13:12:21 +00:00

Author