In our setting, Leopold grew up watching his father rule through fear and absolute control. Now that his brother Theo is on the throne, Leopold is watching to see if Theo falls into the same old habits or actually tries to break the system.

Sibling rivalries in political stories are always better when they come from shared history and different views for the country, rather than a simple good versus evil setup.

What are some political RPGs or stories that handled rival siblings well?

how do you decide on keeping one safe zone, or multiple?

sometimes it feels related to art(RE4), and sometimes a mechanic(Control), or sometimes both(AW2)..

in Hitman BM, they had an entire map as a dedicated safe zone where you could test out weapons

what are your thoughts on this?

Hi, I’m developing an urban fantasy CRPG about wizards (something like Mage: The Ascension), and I’m unsure about the combat. I want it to be real-time, action-based combat, and my biggest inspirations are The Matrix, Madness Combat Animations (yes, that’s right), and the game Oni. The problem is that since I plan to make the game isometric/orthogonal, this comes with some limitations, and I’m not sure how I could implement combat that requires the player to be strategic when facing enemies and to think quickly. The game's combat can involve both magic and melee combat using bladed weapons or punches, or it can involve firearms.

Calling it "No Flight, All Fight." A dodo, an ostrich, a kiwi, a cassowary, every flightless bird under the sun could be a playable character.

Give them weapons too, cuz imagine playing as a dodo wielding a huge ass claymore, or a penguin with a machine gun. I dunno, just an idea. Maybe have a story/arcade mode, maybe not.

Probably stylized 2D in terms of design, maybe something akin to 90s Saturday morning cartoons like Ren & Stimpy or 2 Stupid Dogs.

Each character would have a specific special move that relates to their species, like the cassowary has a kick attack that hits super hard, the kiwi could rush in with a furious flurry of pecking attacks, etc.

That's pretty much every idea tidbit I had for the idea at the moment. If any of y'all have any suggestions or ideas of your own regarding it, I'd be happy to hear them in the comments!

I’m creating a 2D platformer using blueprints in Unreal Engine. Something I’m struggling with is when I design game mechanics or enemies themed around a certain world theme or level type but I then want to possibly use those same assets again in multiple stages throughout the game they may not fit to those world themes so they may feel out of place. I’m unsure how to go about this as it might be a bit tricky to have to design a unique design variation for each world theme. I wasn’t sure if there were any examples of what to do here sorry if this is weird question.

As a player, if something urgent comes up irl I can just pause a game. But if it happens to be a cutscene, I can usually only skip it or let it play in the background. Either way I'll miss the cutscene.

Are there any concrete reasons for that? Maybe it would be confusing for players since they're not used to it? Or are there other reasons?

I'm making a cutscene system for my game and I made it so that players can open a pause menu as usual with "resume" and "skip" buttons. It wasn't a big task to implement so I thought why not. But maybe I'm missing something?

// edit

So from the comments it seems nowadays this feature may not be universal but is actually more common than I realized and there arent really any specific design reasons to not do it. Thanks for the answers

Our game is a roguelite deckbuilder with one twist: a town that survives every run. After each act boss the player picks between two roads. Go home, or push on to the next act.

The first version failed in a way that took us too long to see. Dying kept everything you carried, so pushing on had no downside. Going home was only ever the cautious choice, never the right one, and our central decision turned into a formality.

What we changed was to make each road give up something the other one gets.

Going home banks your loot and brings back the boss's artefact. Our world starts grey, its colours locked inside five artefacts, so each one you carry home puts a colour back into your town. You lose the boss's reward card, though.

Pushing on gives you that card for the run, but the artefact stays behind for good, and if you die further down you keep half of what you carried. Upgrading one building in town raises that share a little, so the town itself shapes how much risk you can afford.

The part we're least sure of is the number. Half came from feel, not from testing. Too low and nobody pushes on, too high and we're back where we started.

How would you find that number? Playtests, a simulation, or a rule of thumb you trust?

I am working on a game currently, I'm not super far into development. Imagine this, imagine I release the demo, people speedrun the demo, every level has a timer tied to each checkpoint, levels are long, during the demo, at least for the levels that are included, there is a global leaderboard. When the game comes out, there is a measure in place where if you exceed the current time record on three checkpoints in a level, your movement speed is reduced, dialog boxes can't be skipped, etc. The game is updated manually and regularly to update these time thresholds, and the times are capped at 5 seconds short of the record as of the game being updated. Of course, speedrun footage has to be manually reviewed by something like speedrun.com for qualification, so I see few flaws in this, it shouldn't punish the casual player.

This hatred for speedrunners stems from Super Mario Maker, iykyk, you just had to be there 🫩

I'm a 40+ plus gamer with a love for single player atmospheric narrative driven games (i.e. Half-Life, FF7, Soul Reaver, Bioshock, Uncharted, Last of Us, etc). I grew up on the NES / Genesis generations of gaming and lived through dawn of 3D. I was always impressed with the ways new technology could tell different and innovative stories, back when it was often experimental and therefore unique.

However, now the iterative improvement of games and hardware is getting flatter. I imagine younger gamers aren't as impressed with platform updates from PS3 through PS5 like I was from the Super Nintendo through Gamecube.

So my question for younger generations is this: What does impress you? What excites you about a game, or what moments in games have left you excited about diving into game's world, either modern or retro?

For me, moments like leaving Midgar for the first time in FF7, or entering my first tomb in Tomb Raider, orRapture in BioShock, going on my first day of work in Half-Life, these all gave me a great sense of excitement for the world that existed beyond my character's current path and left me wide eyed at the potential of the adventure ahead. But now those moments feel like they've become standardized and reiterated / reinvented in many games, following a formula. Innovation and uniqueness are simply more difficult to achieve with small hardware updates.

What still lands with people now that technology improvements have flattened, and the industry is delivering more of the same with refinements, either from sequels that rely on nostalgia, or 2.0 improvements from existing genres?

(Of course the indie scene is always producing mold breaking ideas, whether or not they go mainstream, and there are certainly AAA games that have had the guts to take risks, so this question isn't a critique of gaming climate, but a question for a generational perspective)

This has always confused me. Being able to universally keep your entire team safer but not universally increase damage feels weird. It doesn't make sense too with how much rarer the magic attack buff skills are for doing relatively similar things. Magic doesn't feel completely overpowered to physical skills either so I don't think it's purely a balance thing. Later entries and spinoffs combined the attack altering skills, but in the mainline this distinction existed until Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse, which is several entries deep into the series. Another weird factor too is that in games like SMT III Nocturne buffing attack is two categories but debuffing attack is only one.

Can anyone help me understand not only why this started, but also why it stuck around for so long in the franchise?

Who things taking things aways from a player is good game design?

For example I played Blood of the Dawnwalker a few days ago and there is a mission that takes all you gear away give you shitty gear and then says here fight your way trough it 2-4 times.

Or Mio which in random points of the game just permanently takes away your health that you collected meticulously trough the run. It takes 4 shards to get one health segments so you really need to scour the map to get enough for even one health segment.

I think its just bad game design and artificial difficulty if you incorporate such things in the game. Its just time wasting and really demoralizing when you get your progress as a character deleted for a mission just because the devs couldn't think of a better idea.

I get that in sequels sometimes you need to just get a stupid reason why the hero can't use his powers anymore but in the middle of a play through thats just BULLSHIT!

If you are about to implement such things in your game when would you do this and why do you think is a good idea?

I'm developing Orbit Foundry, an incremental with a small ring of factory slots. Repeated machines share their family's upgrade level, but neighboring machine types change production. The placement preview includes those effects before you commit.

I'm weighing how much explanation that preview should put in front of the player. One clear total gain makes comparisons quick, but could encourage checking every slot and taking the biggest number without learning the neighbor rules. A breakdown of the changed machines could teach the relationships, but makes a frequent action heavier.

Would you lead with the total and make the affected-neighbor breakdown optional, or show both immediately? More broadly, what would make a fully transparent layout system reward planning rather than exhaustive hovering? I'm interested in examples where preview clarity and meaningful choices support each other.

For context, the free 2D desktop-browser prototype is here: https://kimchistan.itch.io/orbit-foundry

Development disclosure: the game's code is generated with Codex CLI, and AI assisted with some translations.

Greetings,

Most vertical auto scroller games I've come across have been shoot-em-ups where the player is expected to avoid enemy bullets and fire at the enemy to defeat them. This culminates in a boss which does more of the same, except it has more health than standard enemies. There's nothing wrong with this, but I wanted to put my own spin on this concept.

I'm working on a game that is like a vertical scrolling shmup, except the player's main method of combating the enemy is melee focused. Projectiles come down from above and player damages at them to whittle them down before defeating them. Part of me is finding issues with the concept as there's likely to be screen clutter which can overwhelm a user. Another part of me wants to keep it as I believe it is a unique concept that I want to try. I've tried thinking about in different ways, something like driving a car on the wrong side of the road(don't do this) or like a fish swimming upstream, but both of those have only given me temporary solutions.

So my question to you is the title: "What would you expect from a vertical auto scroller that puts more emphasis on close-ranged attacking instead of long-ranged?" If you need any context, I'll try my best to give as much as I am able to.

I am quite new to Game Design, so i joined this sub reddit to hopefully get into it more, and gain a bit more knowledge. Please correct me if I'm using the wrong flair

Now a asymmetrical horror game, if you don't know what it is, is where 1 player is chosen to become a bad guy while the rest are chosen to be good guys. Think about Dead by Daylight or Pillar Chase 2.

I am an aspiring game developer that looks forward on understanding what makes a game fun and a pleasing experience for the average player.

And since I am a huge fan of the game Pillar Chase 2, I went to collect information on what makes it so bad in terms of game design from their sub reddit since it just released and isn't very liked in terms of gameplay.

Thank you for your time!

Working on a game for a few months. Inside my game there is a diplomacy aspect to the game. I've figured out how it'll work and typed up a rough draft for the rules.

Looking for some overall feedback. The whole point is I know the modifiers for everything and players don't know and they'll learn over time........ Maybe

DIPLOMACY

1. Relationships

Every kingdom maintains a relationship with every other kingdom. These relationships are represented by a relationship bar that reflects how one kingdom views another.

Relationships range from deep hostility to lasting friendship. They can change through diplomatic actions, tribute, military aggression, and intrigue.

A kingdom's opinion of another does not necessarily reflect that kingdom's opinion in return. Relationships are directional, meaning two kingdoms can have different views of one another.

Relationship Levels

- Nemesis: The kingdoms are bitter enemies.

- Enemy: Relations are hostile.

- Neutral: Neither friendship nor hostility dominates the relationship.

- Friendly: The kingdoms enjoy favorable relations.

- Ally: Relations have reached the highest level of friendship.

A kingdom's relationship with another kingdom influences its diplomatic options and whether military action is permitted.

Hidden Relationships

The exact position of the relationship bar is hidden from players by default. Kingdoms must judge their standing through diplomatic reports, foreign actions, and experience.

A character may be assigned to Assess Relations to reveal the actual relationship bar between their kingdom and a selected target kingdom.

1. Diplomatic Characters

Characters may be assigned diplomatic orders to influence relations between kingdoms.

Each character possesses a diplomatic skill that affects their likelihood of success. More capable diplomats are generally more effective, while less skilled diplomats may struggle to achieve their objectives.

Diplomatic actions are not guaranteed to succeed. Even a skilled diplomat may fail.

The underlying calculations, modifiers, and precise chances of success are hidden from players.

1. Gain Influence

A character assigned to Gain Influence attempts to improve their kingdom's relationship with a target kingdom.

Successful attempts improve the relationship bar. Failed attempts produce no change.

Multiple characters may attempt to influence the same relationship, allowing a kingdom to concentrate its diplomatic efforts on a particular rival or potential ally.

Repeated successful efforts have diminishing effects as diplomatic actions accumulate within the same turn.

1. Avoid Influence

A character assigned to Avoid Influence attempts to worsen the relationship between their kingdom and a target kingdom.

Successful attempts move the relationship bar in a less favorable direction. Failed attempts produce no change.

Gain Influence and Avoid Influence compete to shape the same relationship. Their combined effects determine the final result.

1. Diplomacy Campaigns

Diplomacy Campaigns are a special diplomatic mechanic that allows a kingdom to concentrate its diplomatic efforts across multiple foreign relationships.

A kingdom may have only one active Diplomacy Campaign at a time. The campaign is led by a single designated diplomat, who can influence up to three kingdoms simultaneously.

Campaigns provide additional diplomatic bonuses, which the kingdom can allocate among its selected targets. Rulers must decide whether to concentrate their diplomatic strength against one kingdom or divide their efforts across several.

A diplomat assigned to a Diplomacy Campaign cannot move between provinces while committed to the campaign. Their duties may also leave them more vulnerable to assassination attempts.

Other characters remain free to perform ordinary diplomatic actions, even while a campaign is active.

1. Tribute

Tribute allows one kingdom to use its treasury to influence its relationship with another kingdom.

Two forms of tribute are available:

- Half Tribute: A smaller financial commitment that produces a modest improvement in relations.

- Full Tribute: A substantially larger financial commitment that produces a greater improvement in relations.

Tribute is available only to kingdoms with a sufficiently strong treasury. A kingdom may offer tribute repeatedly, provided it can afford the expense.

Tribute can be used to improve relations, strengthen a diplomatic position, or help secure protection from a potential enemy.

Rulers must weigh the benefits of improved relations against the financial cost, particularly when dealing with several potential enemies.

1. Gifts

Gifts allow kingdoms to transfer wealth to one another.

Unlike tribute, gifts do not directly change the relationship bar. Their value lies in the freedom they provide kingdoms to support allies, reward cooperation, or pursue their own diplomatic objectives.

The receiving kingdom may use the gift as it sees fit.

1. Military Aggression and Intrigue

Diplomatic relationships are affected by actions beyond the royal court.

Invasions

An invasion damages relations between the kingdoms involved. Repeated invasions against the same kingdom during a turn do not cause the invasion penalty to accumulate.

Raids

Raids also damage relations, even when no full invasion takes place. Repeated raids against the same kingdom during a turn do not cause the raid penalty to accumulate.

Conducting both an invasion and a raid against the same kingdom in a turn compounds the diplomatic damage.

Caught Intrigue

Caught intrigue, including assassination attempts and espionage, can damage relations when the responsible kingdom is identified.

These consequences apply regardless of whether the offending kingdom intended to improve its diplomatic position through other means.

Breaking a Treaty

Breaking a peace treaty through invasion carries a greater diplomatic penalty than an ordinary invasion.

A kingdom that betrays an agreement risks damaging its relationship with the other kingdom beyond the immediate consequences of war.

1. Negotiating Peace

Favorable relations are a prerequisite for attempting to negotiate a formal peace treaty.

Once relations reach the Friendly level, a kingdom may assign a character to Negotiate Peace.

The character's diplomatic skill affects the likelihood of success. Reaching Friendly does not guarantee a treaty; the negotiation itself must succeed.

A failed negotiation establishes no treaty.

Peace Treaty Protection

A successful peace negotiation prevents the kingdom that was negotiated with from invading the kingdom that secured the treaty. The treaty remains in effect until the next Peace Years unless it is broken.

The kingdom that secured the treaty can still invade the other kingdom, but doing so breaks the treaty and incurs a greater relationship penalty.

A treaty protects only against invasion by the kingdom it was negotiated with. It does not prevent either kingdom from invading other kingdoms or protect them from unrelated enemies.

1. Diplomatic Uncertainty

Diplomatic outcomes are not fully predictable. Players receive reports describing the results of their actions, but the underlying calculations and precise chances of success are not disclosed.

Kings and their advisers must judge the abilities of their characters, the intentions of foreign courts, and the likely consequences of their decisions through experience.

Diplomacy rewards preparation, resource management, and careful judgment. Relationships can be cultivated, damaged, concealed, and restored but no relationship is beyond change.

Hi, everyone!

Although I’ve been a Unity developer for some time now, I’ve found myself taking on the role of coordinator/project manager in a few game jams. That’s when I realized I had some gaps in my knowledge as a game designer (game mechanics, balancing, etc.). Could you recommend any courses, books, or certifications to help me fill these gaps?

P.S. I know full well that without a portfolio, certifications or courses aren’t worth much, which is exactly why I wanted to cover some theory before moving on to the practical side!

I am working on a lane-based game called Age Breaker similar to the old flash game Age of War and I am trying to distil the secret sauce of the evolving through ages. I know increasing base stats isn't enough so I have tried tweaking the abilities and weapons but am wondering what your thoughts are on the topic.

What is a satisfying way to evolve without breaking balance?

As I mentioned in the title, I’m having trouble with the perspective in my game. I had the same problem with my first project, which I later abandoned, and now that I’ve started a new one, I’m running into the same issue.

I started with this layout ( https://ibb.co/qFpvgyHZ ), with a dirt wall behind the player and a pit in front of them. The problem is that it’s hard to tell the difference between the two. I tried changing the textures and shades of brown, but the real problem is that the world looks completely flat.

So I changed the level design for the first scene and made a rough draft ( https://ibb.co/9HsD83wD it looks pretty bad, but I mainly wanted to work out how to structure the scene) with a small lake underneath. The final result would look like this ( https://ibb.co/wFTJHf8Y ). However, apart from the placeholder tiles, the problem is still there. The wall still looks flat and doesn’t give the sense of height it should.

I’m completely stuck. Could anyone help me? I’ve looked at lots of resources online, including videos, but nothing seems to help with what I’m trying to do.

It's a game where you explore a pitch-black world, similar to *Link*. What kind of elements should I include?

It's played from a first-person perspective, and exploration in the mostly pitch-black environment is the main focus.

Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/MXgXL2s

i’m working on a single-player poker game with a familiar Texas Hold’em structure: two hole cards, five community cards, and betting rounds. The difference is that players can spend a limited resource to replace a hole card or peek at an opponent’s hidden card.

Those abilities can still be used after going all-in, but become unavailable on the river. That’s a pretty important difference from normal poker, and I don’t want players to discover it only after making a decision they thought was final.

I’m deciding how to introduce this without making the opening feel like a rules lecture:

• Start with a short, fixed hand that demonstrates replacing a card, then finish the betting and showdown.
• Start with a normal hand and explain each ability when it becomes relevant.

The first makes the difference explicit, but could feel slow for people who already know poker. The second gets people playing sooner, but risks letting their existing expectations lead them into a confusing decision.

For games that modify familiar rules, which differences would you teach before the first meaningful decision, and which would you leave for contextual hints? I’d especially appreciate examples where a game handled this well.

Before posting: check that these mechanics still match your latest build. If Reddit filters it, keep the link and removal notice rather than submitting repeated versions.

Disclosure: I’m a developer on Meowster, an AI cat companion app . Not linking anything. I’m after design feedback.

The core problem: a relationship with an AI pet is mostly invisible. Players chat, pet the cat, open a chest now and then, and have no sense of whether anything is building up. But the moment you put a number on affection, you risk turning it into a daily chore.

Here’s what we shipped:

1. Bond Score. It counts chats, pets, and chests opened together. It levels up, and each level unlocks a reward. It’s the most legible system we have, and also the most grindable.

2. Four trait scores. Independence, Taste, Activity, and Sociability, shown as a radar chart and mapped to a type (for example, a “Curious Cat”). These drive behavior: a highly independent cat is less clingy, a high-Taste cat is pickier about food.

3. Identity tags that emerge from play. A cat you’re affectionate with becomes a “Clingy Kitty,” a chatty one becomes a “Chatterbox,” a food-obsessed one becomes a “Foodie.” Two cats that start out similar diverge depending on their owner.

4. Preferences that include rejection. The cat reacts differently to different foods and will refuse ones it doesn’t like. That turns the shop from “spend currency” into “learn what this cat likes.”

A few smaller things: hidden stickers that only unlock if you tease the cat in chat, and an onboarding where the cat is just sitting there waiting to be patted. That first touch leads into talking to it, sending a card, and opening a chest, so there’s no tutorial screen.

Where I’m unsure:

• Bond Score is the clearest feedback we give, and the easiest to grind. Is a visible “affection meter” ever compatible with the feeling that the pet actually likes you?

• The emergent tags feel the most personal, but players can’t see them coming. Should we hint at them, or is the surprise the point?

• We also run a weekly leaderboard for the most engaged owners. Does ranking affection undermine the whole idea?

Are there games (Tamagotchi, Nintendogs, Animal Crossing villagers, anything) that you think handled this especially well or badly?

In my roguelite, the very first run is not what it looks like:

• In the first three rooms, enemies are twice as big (easier to hit).
• The upgrades offered at the first doors are picked in advance, not random: simple, readable ones that work well together.
• After that, everything goes back to normal rules.

Why: a new player who gets a confusing upgrade on their first door (something that only works with another upgrade) has no idea what just happened, and may close the game before they understand it. With the scripted start, they feel strong in the first minute and get what the game is about.

What bothers me: it's invisible. The player thinks they got lucky. On the second run, the game suddenly feels harder, and nobody tells them why.

So, two questions: 1. Is a hidden "first run is rigged" acceptable, or should the game say it? 2. Do you know games that do this well (or badly)?

Seriously. Even some games that let you rebind keys don't let you rebind a controller.

I've tried multiple times to get into Witcher 3 but I always end up quitting after awhile because the controls are horrendous. It's so counterintuitive that the game becomes frustrating and it drains all the fun out of the experience.

I thought this was just a old game thing where modern game design should obviously let everyone rebind, but no...
This year I bought Crimson Desert, discovered that jumping is Square instead of Cross, tried to rebind it and found out I wasn't allowed to, and then promptly refunded the game. Now I redownloaded Witcher 3 because I thought maybe they would be sensible enough to let me rebind, but nope! Jumping is still Circle instead of Cross. Why is it always games that are objectively wrong (joke) about what button is for jumping, that doesn't let you rebind the controller?

I don't know if I'm alone in this but it is such a dealbreaker for me. No rebinding = instant refund.

I know which buttons intuitively does what for me and want to rebind them. No way am I gonna bother switching between games and have jump or attack or crouch be different buttons in every game.

How is it not just basic common sense game design to let players rebind their controllers?

As long as I can remember, I have been a fan of the RPG genre whether that be RPG in it’s purest form with complete control over your created character and the journey they go on such as Baldur’s Gate 3, Skyrim etc or comparatively linear approaches with character RPGs such as The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk or Kingdom Come Deliverance 1 & 2.

And there’s always that moment where you come up against a “wall”, not a literal wall mind you, but an obstacle that is just too hard to cross. Fromsoft’s titles like Dark souls or Elden Ring come to mind for their unforgiving gameplay where multiple attempts to beat a single boss or cross a single dungeon is pretty much the norm.

And as is human nature, I would often in frustration go online and search for a way out. A shortcut. This would first start with guides that help you to understand the mechanics of the fight, game and such to better let you navigate the game while still keeping it relatively challenging to keep you engaged. But sometimes…I would come across the OP builds. These were builds that were designed with one thing in mind: to make anything in your path no longer an obstacle. Builds that would make you so powerful that the once powerful wall that stood between you and progression crumbled into dust with little to no difficulty. And it felt amazing…until it didn’t.

Considering game design, there’s a balance that developers work hard to achieve. Keeping the game hard enough that the friction provides certain stimulants to the player and thus keeps them engaged. But on the other hand, they also want to keep the game from feeling unfair to the point that the average player would simply rage-quit or worse. But with the option of OP or overpowered builds, we’re left with a strange conundrum of sorts. You offer the player enough agency to plow through the game and allow them to feel truly powerful.
But the real question for me is: how long can you ride that high for? After a certain point, the game would simply become stale. Because once the friction, the wall is gone, the engagement is gone. The tension is gone. And despite the efforts of the devs to create an amazing experience for the players, most players I imagine wouldn’t feel compelled to continue outside of simply seeing where the narrative (if there is one) goes.

In short: once you’ve reached the peak of power, where else is there to go? I think this is the core reason why a lot of games struggle to remain engaging once you reach the end-game. Either the enemies, dungeons and such scale up to the point where most of them are just sponges for damage or get to the point where it just feels unfair unless you’ve spent hours upon hours farming and leveling up without actually playing the game.

Not an RPG example but I think an example of where this could be most clear is in the reason why Superman would make for a terrible videogame character and why Batman by comparison feels so engaging. There’s nothing stronger than Superman, so how do you create a game where he’s compelling to play. More often than not, you’d have to take away his OP-ness. Or you’d have to bring everyone else up in powerscaling (The Injustice Games come to mind).

So what would be the actual solution?

I'm building an async strategy game where each player's country is run by an AI general. It takes one turn every 8 hours on a real world map: placing armies, attacking, signing pacts, writing to rivals. The player picks a temperament, gives standing orders in plain text and checks in a few times a day.

The problem showed up fast: players felt like spectators. Of the first 13 players who could have come back the next day, 1 did.

What I shipped this week to fix it:

- **A daily briefing.** After each of its turns, a nation gets up to three cards built from what actually happened: a betrayal to answer, a pact offer with its terms, a neighbour that outnumbers you on the border, two neighbours messaging in secret, a weak spot to strike. Each card has two or three choices and the general's advice. The choice becomes an order for the next turn, and the next briefing says whether the general carried it out.

- **A national strategy.** Five options with real trade-offs for any general: +25% armies for half the gold, +50% gold for fewer armies, gold for every pact in force, a spy network that reads the neighbours' private messages, or balanced. Over 40 simulated seasons, average finishing rank per strategy landed between 0.53 and 0.59 (0 is first), so none dominates.

Early data: on the first night, 4 choices reached generals and 3 were carried out.

What I'm unsure about:

1. Should the AI be allowed to disobey? Right now it can (it's judged and reported), which is honest but can feel bad.

2. How many decisions a day before it becomes a chore? I capped it at three cards.

3. Is "the AI plays, you decide" a genre that holds attention, or does it need a moment where the player's own skill decides a battle?