Rival Cities Designers Diary
Rival Cities continues our two-player series! Today, we're taking a look behind the scenes of its development with author Andreas Steding!
How did it all begin? What was the initial idea, the starting point? Was the theme first, or the mechanics first?
The beginning of Rival Cities was—as is often the case with my games—a historical anomaly. In a book about Johann Friedrich Struensee, I found a note that from 1757 onward, he worked as a doctor for the poor in Altona, Denmark's second-largest city at the time. It took me a moment to understand that Altona was a district of Hamburg and not an unknown city in present-day Denmark. Altona lay in the territory of the Counts of Schauenburg and Holstein-Pinneberg and was supported by them, deliberately directed against Hamburg. One legend for the naming of Altona was "all too close," meaning all too close to Hamburg. In 1640, the area fell to the Danish crown after the line of counts died out. The Danish kings granted the city further privileges.
When Altona was (forcibly) merged with Hamburg in 1937, this was not in the best interests of all residents. In 1928, Altona was a large city with 230000 inhabitants.
This rivalry between two such neighboring cities, which later became one city, had to be lost.
How did you develop the game? Was it easy or did it take a while?
It was clear from the start that Rival Cities would be a two-player game. Initially, however, the focus was on the asynchronous development of the two cities. Altona, as a rival city, had different rules than Hamburg. Hamburg, as an old Hanseatic city, focuses on trade (merchants) and crafts (guilds). In contrast, Altona initially had no guild regulations at all, later a very weak one, less censorship, more freedom from customs duties, and more religious freedom than Hamburg.
Guild regulations, in particular, prevented the establishment of manufacturing factories, or later, factories, in Hamburg. New industries (as we would call them today) settled in Altona, primarily those that required simple, unskilled workers. The focus was on the textile industry, shipbuilding, and equipment.
During the game's development, however, the asynchronous element was increasingly pushed back. It would have become far too complex, and I wanted a simpler game, one that's more connoisseur-friendly than expert-level. Therefore, while all the elements are present in the game, each game can develop differently, with only one or two elements taking center stage, depending on the layout and the players' playstyle. Both cities have the same options at the beginning.
A little anecdote is a test game against an experienced strategy player who, after the rules were explained, found the game almost too easy, but then deigned to play it once. The game was over after five minutes because he was planning a great long-term strategy and lost the game after a few moves. However, they played three more times that evening, and the games lasted the usual 5-30 minutes. You have to get involved with the game and the unusual concept.
Would you change anything now? Did you encounter any problems along the way? Was there a point in the development that you particularly struggled with?
The biggest challenge for me was developing a game that simply reflected the constant competition. It shouldn't be a case of each player playing independently, developing their own strategy, and then comparing victory points at the end. It should be more of a duel, a constant observation of the opponent. Therefore, I opted for the rondel with one piece that both players move. This way, you not only have to plan your move, but also anticipate your opponent's possible move. This led directly to the sudden death rules, which are unusual for Euro games. Each side should be able to win at any time. Every move is important, and every mistake could be your last.
When did you first show the game to a publisher?What were the initial reactions? And how did it end up at Deep Print Games?
I had only shown the game to one publisher before Deep Print. One editor also found the game interesting, but it just wouldn't fit into the publishing concept. I don't base my games on publishing concepts or current trends, so rejections are a common result. I had shown it to Deep Print because they had two-player games in their program, and I had been in contact with them frequently, as well as about another game. And unlike other publishers—I don't want to point the finger at anyone...—the publisher made a quick decision. The fact that it took a bit longer to realize is probably still due to the aftermath of Corona, and perhaps one or two other "major projects" at Deep Print.
What has changed in the game due to the publisher?What do you think of the finished product?
During development, little changed; houses became ships to emphasize the maritime character, and one item was changed to "cabinets." The editors apparently had little to complain about in terms of the process.
What do you like most about the game?
In my opinion, the finished product is better than I expected. Firstly, the very harmonious graphics, and secondly, the interior of the box with its four boxes. A truly beautiful product, very suitable for a quick, small duel.
Thanks Andreas for these insights!
