Northgard as a board game : Rig and Brand hit the table
upper safe zone
Introduction
As part of a personal project carried out during the final months of my studies, I set out to adapt the video game Northgard (Fig. 1) into a board game. This document outlines and analyzes the process I followed to successfully complete this project. Northgard is a strategy game inspired by Norse mythology, featuring village management and exploration mechanics, all in real time with unit control and resource management. It blends elements of both the 4X and RTS (Real-Time Strategy) genres. The game was released in 2018 and developed by Shiro Games.
I chose to take on this project as a way to challenge and demonstrate my game design skills through case study analysis and targeted problem-solving.
My choice of this game was deliberate. I have spent a significant amount of time playing Northgard, as I was immediately drawn to its more accessible approach compared to other titles in the genre—without that being a negative trait. The game does not overwhelm players with overly complex or abstract systems. Instead, as matches progress, it gradually reveals the depth of its mechanics, and it becomes highly rewarding to learn the unique traits of each clan in order to outperform opponents. I was also aware that the game had already been adapted into a board game by Studio H in 2022 (Fig. 2), so I made the conscious decision to differentiate my approach by proposing an original interpretation, ensuring that my work would be both distinctive and aligned with the expectations of a game designer. My initial goal with this project is to introduce Northgard through a different medium to players who are less familiar with this type of game.
This project therefore involved a key challenge of simplification, which had to be considered throughout the entire design process. However, this is not the only challenge, and I will elaborate on the others later in this document. Before that, I will first provide a brief analysis of the genres that define Northgard and the specific characteristics of its gameplay.
Fig. 1: In-game screenshot, Northgard, Shiro Games
Fig. 2: Game board, Northgard : Uncharted Lands, Studio H
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
I. Analysis
Genre Overview: 4X
4X games—named after their four core pillars: exploration, expansion, exploitation, and extermination—are strategy games in which the player typically controls a territory and must explore the world, exploit its resources, and eliminate opponents. A major reference within the genre is the Civilization series (Fig. 1), originally developed by MicroProse and later by Firaxis Games starting from the third installment. The first title was released in 1991.
The exploration phase at the beginning of a match is meant to spark the player’s curiosity and enable long-term planning. To grow their empire and conquer territory, players must manage numerous interconnected systems involving resources, infrastructure, and military units. This management must be both intuitive and deep enough to provide a rewarding sense of progression.
The economic system as a whole should reward long-term planning while presenting meaningful strategic dilemmas that reinforce the impact of player decisions. Similarly, combat systems must integrate seamlessly with other mechanics and produce significant consequences.
Because 4X games are particularly difficult to balance—due to cascading effects that can impact multiple aspects of gameplay—it is crucial to avoid dominant strategies that could harm replayability.
Additionally, offering multiple paths to victory encourages strategic creativity.
Finally, while narrative is not necessarily central in 4X games—since players themselves generate unique and memorable situations—the diversity of factions and events still contributes greatly to immersion.
Many of these elements can be found in Northgard, albeit in a streamlined form designed to improve accessibility and reduce match duration. For example, the game features a highly condensed tech tree that varies depending on the selected clan, offering different tactical choices in each playthrough. Other systems inherited from 4X design include procedural map generation, early- and mid-game exploration phases, and resource production tied to territorial control.
Fig. 1: In-game screenshot, Civilization 7, Firaxis Games
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Genre Overview: RTS
The core of an RTS (Real-Time Strategy) game lies in resource management: players must plan and execute an overall strategy while maintaining a constant production flow. A key reference in the genre is the StarCraft series (Fig. 2), developed by Blizzard Entertainment, with the first title released in 1998. However, Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty (Fig. 3), released in 1992 and developed by Westwood Studios, laid the foundations of the genre.
Real-time action is the other defining aspect of RTS gameplay. Controls must be responsive and fluid during combat, while still allowing for tactical depth that rewards both fast execution and strategic planning. When developing their base, players must consider spatial and temporal constraints, as buildings differ in size and construction time. The strategic placement of defensive or production structures can significantly hinder an opponent.
Beyond buildings, unit diversity plays a key role in renewing gameplay and enabling varied strategies. Each unit type should have distinct strengths and weaknesses to support meaningful tactical choices.
In terms of difficulty balancing, the pacing must be fast enough to keep players engaged while still allowing sufficient time for decision-making. Balance between units and factions is also crucial to prevent dominant strategies that could reduce gameplay diversity. At the same time, factions or armies should have distinct characteristics, encouraging players to experiment with different approaches and develop unique playstyles.
In Northgard, real-time gameplay is primarily expressed through unit control across the map and large-scale, chaotic battles that remain highly satisfying to win. The game also features unit upgrades that go beyond simple stat increases by introducing new abilities.
Fig. 2: In-game screenshot, StarCraft II, Blizzard Entertainment
Fig. 3: In-game screenshot, Dune II : The Building of a Dynasty, Westwood Studios
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Northgard’s Unique Selling Points
The additional ingredient Northgard brings to this formula is its integrated survival dimension. While not as in-depth as in a game like Frostpunk (Fig. 4)—a city-building survival game released in 2018 and developed by 11 bit studios—it still includes mechanics such as hostile wildlife to defeat in order to expand territory, recurring winters that challenge the player’s production, and the management of hunger, illness, and cold. Various PvE events can also occur, potentially shifting the course of a match. Together, these systems add depth and reinforce the credibility of the game world. Players are, above all, conquerors who must expand their territory while ensuring the survival of their people.
Fig. 4: In-game screenshot, Frostpunk, 11 bit studios
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Which Direction to Take?
At the start of a project like this, one key question helps define the overall direction: should I faithfully translate the mechanics from one medium to another, or should I take a different approach while aiming to reproduce the same emotions and player experience? This fundamental decision has implications for every aspect of the game, including genre, player count, and components.
I ultimately chose the first option: to faithfully translate Northgard’s gameplay systems. This decision is based on several factors.
First, this approach allows for a rigorous adaptation of an already proven system, reducing the risk of balance issues or mechanical inconsistencies. Second, by offering a faithful transposition, it becomes possible to highlight the strengths of the original gameplay while making it accessible to a new audience through a different medium—namely, board gaming.
As mentioned earlier, a board game adaptation already exists, published by Studio H. Their approach follows the opposite direction: recreating the feel of the game rather than its mechanics. This gives them more creative freedom, using the original game primarily as inspiration for the setting and general gameplay elements, rather than for its systems. While some resources, buildings, and the exploration concept are retained, the core mechanic revolves around a growing hand of cards that players develop over time to build a deck. This mechanic, known as deckbuilding, was popularized by Dominion (Fig. 5), released in 2008.
Fig. 5: Game board, Dominion, Filosofia
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Target Audience
The next step is to define the target audience for this adaptation. This introduces a new challenge, as player profiles differ significantly between video games and board games—especially at the extremes of the spectrum: casual and hardcore.
In board gaming, a “hardcore” player is typically someone willing to engage in long, complex games and learn intricate rules. In contrast, the term “hardcore gamer” in video games usually refers to a high level of play frequency and engagement across multiple genres. Should my target audience match that of the original video game? The answer directly impacts both playtime and mechanical complexity—two aspects that should not be confused with depth.
My target audience consists of core gamers familiar with games such as Stone Age, a worker-placement game released in 2008. A core gamer is generally an engaged player who seeks games that are both accessible and mechanically deep. Unlike casual players, they actively invest in understanding game systems.
Additionally, I do not require players to be familiar with the original video game. Prior knowledge of Northgard is not necessary to understand its universe or gameplay.
Players aged 15 and above, who regularly play board games and occasionally play video games, represent an appropriate target audience. This group is both large and engaged, and actively seeks diverse gaming experiences. They share common motivations: entertainment, escapism, and social interaction—elements present in both media. Their openness to innovation and curiosity toward new formats make them particularly receptive to an original adaptation combining traditional board game mechanics with video game influences.
Finally, a key constraint directly tied to this audience is playtime. From the outset, I set a target duration of 60 minutes for a four-player game. Based on my personal experience, this represents the upper limit before a noticeable drop in attention and engagement occurs among less regular players.
The meeples I created for each player using FIMO clay
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
References
Defining a target audience helps identify relevant references. Understanding what players are used to playing is essential. I can therefore establish a list of games such as Stone Age (Fig. 6), mentioned earlier, as well as Puerto Rico 1897 (Fig. 7) and Catan (Fig. 8).
All three games rely on resource management systems, where players must plan the collection, conversion, and use of resources to build structures or expand their influence. This gameplay loop encourages mid-term planning, strategic dilemmas, and a balance between individual optimization and player interaction.
Players drawn to these games typically enjoy strategy and management experiences. They appreciate thoughtful gameplay without being overwhelmed by overly complex rules. These are often regular players or families looking for richer experiences than party games.
More broadly, I consistently use references in my projects to establish points of comparison and to support and justify my design decisions.
Fig. 6: Stone Age, Filosofia, 2008
Fig. 7: Puerto Rico 1897, Alea, 2008
Fig. 8: Catan, Filosofia, 2006
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
II. Design Intentions
Translating Game Mechanics
As explained earlier, my goal is to directly recreate certain mechanics from the video game within the board game. However, to remain consistent with my target audience and ensure accessibility, I cannot implement all of them. I therefore relied on two key questions to guide both the selection process and the simplification of the game, while preserving its core identity and original intent.
First, for each mechanic, I asked myself: “Why is this mechanic present in the video game?” What purpose does it serve, and how does it impact other aspects of the game? I also considered how players perceive and engage with it.
Second: “How can I implement this mechanic in a board game?” In this context, I evaluated the implications of introducing each mechanic and ensured that it would be suitable for my target audience.
I then created a simplified representation of the main mechanics and systems that make up Northgard, including visual links to highlight their direct connections (Fig. 1). Naturally, a more detailed diagram would be significantly denser. However, this version already provides a clear overview of the game and highlights its layered and complex structure.
Next, I developed a variation of this diagram to illustrate which mechanics and systems were completely removed from the adaptation, and which ones were modified—sometimes significantly—throughout the playtesting phase (Fig. 2). I provide more detailed examples shortly.
The clan system is the only exception. Its integration requires extensive balancing work, so I initially chose to develop a well-balanced version of the game without clans, allowing me to optimize my time and focus on establishing a solid core design.
Fig. 1: My own interpretation of the main mechanics and systems in Northgard
Fig. 2: A visual representation of the mechanics and systems modified in my adaptation
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Setting Priorities
With so many mechanics available, it is not possible to treat them all equally without creating confusion for players. It is therefore essential to define what players will primarily be doing in the game—and, by extension, to clearly establish its genre.
Northgard is fundamentally a resource management game centered around territorial control. Each player has resources to exploit, but with production rates that eventually plateau, limiting further expansion. A mechanic that closely reflects this system is engine-building: players progressively develop a set of elements that, with each iteration, generate increasing returns from the same inputs.
Engine-building enhances replayability through numerous combinations and configurations. However, it is important to avoid a win-more loop—where early advantages snowball into increasingly dominant positions—ultimately preventing fair competition. This issue can easily arise in systems with low randomness and one-sided interactions, where one player’s actions disproportionately impact others.
Since building construction plays a more central role than exploration in my adaptation, I oriented the engine-building system toward a city-builder approach. This genre focuses on optimizing an interconnected urban ecosystem, where players interact with multiple interdependent systems. Starting from a limited base, players must construct buildings, gain bonuses, increase resource production, develop their army, and ultimately achieve victory.
The handmade box for storing the game components and the printed rulebook
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Examples of Adaptations
For example, I removed the happiness mechanic. This resource has a significant impact on systems such as villager growth and production, making it costly to adapt into a board game. It would require players to track numerous passive effects depending on their happiness level, increasing cognitive load, complicating planning, and extending playtime due to additional calculations.
I also reworked the fame system, simplifying it into a score counter. In Northgard, fame increases through most player actions, but victory often comes from decisive battles over key territories. In my adaptation, players can achieve a fame victory by successfully carrying out a certain number of attacks against opponents. Fame therefore also replaces the military victory condition.
Similarly, I removed the trio of basic units—warriors, axe throwers, and shield bearers. This system, inherited from classic RTS games such as Age of Empires (Fig. 3), ensures combat balance but did not seem relevant to retain, as it added complexity without providing meaningful benefits. I therefore merged these units into a single type: the warrior.
Fig. 3: In-game screenshot, Age of Empires, Ensemble Studios, first edition published in 1997
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Controlling Playtime
In Northgard, a match typically lasts between 45 and 60 minutes. For a board game targeting core gamers, this represents the upper limit for an enjoyable experience, as mentioned earlier. Achieving this optimal playtime requires careful balancing, including resource generation rates, action costs, and the requirements for meeting victory conditions.
It is also important to consider how players perform actions. Excessive or frequent calculations can unnecessarily slow down the game. This issue may stem from how resources are gained or spent, or from card effects that significantly alter established rules. I also minimized the use of passive effects that increase mental load by requiring players to remember ongoing conditions.
To reduce calculation overhead, player actions must remain simple and rely on a limited set of keywords. This allows players to plan sequences of straightforward actions while still engaging with meaningful strategic dilemmas.
The mini figures of the war leaders, also made with FIMO clay
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
III. Adaptations
Map and Terrain Representation
Exploration in Northgard is a key component that contributes significantly to the game’s replayability, alongside another major element: the clans and the diversity of their gameplay mechanics.
Each map is procedurally generated, but this generation follows well-defined rules that players can gradually learn. For instance, there will always be two territories adjacent to each player’s Town Hall that contain no hostile creatures, allowing for quick early expansion. Similarly, there is always a unique central tile that provides an opportunity to accelerate progress or secure victory.
In my board game adaptation, I aimed to recreate the feeling of exploration while avoiding overly bulky components, in order to keep the box size reasonable. From a potential publishing perspective, cards represent a cost-effective choice aligned with my target audience. I therefore opted for a card-based system, with a dedicated draw pile for each round, making balancing easier and giving players greater control over randomness (Fig. 1). In line with this approach, when a player explores—i.e., draws a card—they do not draw blindly from the top of the deck, but instead choose from three face-up cards.
From a balancing standpoint, some players may choose to explore less in order to gain additional turns. However, this limits their access to key resources required for village expansion, such as ore or additional villagers.
Finally, I wanted exploration to play a central role in the early game, as it does in the video game. As the game progresses, however, its importance evolves depending on the players’ chosen strategies.
Fig. 1: A photo of the Exploration card deck that players can draw from during the first year
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Managing Game Formats
My adaptation supports two to four players, and certain mechanics are impacted by player count—particularly the balancing of Exploration cards. The fewer players there are, the fewer cards are included in each round’s decks.
This is a common approach in board game design, allowing designers to better control randomness. It can be seen in games such as 7 Wonders (Fig. 2), a civilization-building game published by Repos Production in 2010, or Knarr (Fig. 3), an engine-building game published by Bombyx in 2023.
The trading mechanic is also affected by player count due to its inherent nature. In a two-player game, trading with a direct opponent is less intuitive, whereas in three- or four-player games, temporary alliances can emerge, and trades can be used strategically to slow down a leading player.
Limiting the maximum player count helps maintain a consistent playtime aligned with my initial goal of a 60-minute session, while also matching genre conventions.
Fig. 2: Game board, 7 Wonders, Repos Production
Fig. 3: Game board, Knarr, Bombyx
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Building Selection
Northgard features more than 25 buildings, but I chose not to include all of them in the board game adaptation in order to improve readability and clarity—especially since some are less essential than others. For example, I removed redundant resource-production buildings such as the Farm and the Hunters’ Lodge, both of which generate food, as well as more situational or exceptional structures like the Altar of Kings or the Offering Well.
This allowed me to reduce the available building pool to six, with each one contributing to a distinct victory path (Fig. 4).
However, players must diversify their construction choices if they want to win, as victory cannot be achieved without sufficiently developing each branch of the game—military, knowledge, and economy.
Fig. 4: an overview of the connections between buildings and potential victories in Northgard
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Adapting the Tech Tree
The knowledge tree in Northgard (Fig. 5) is directly inspired by the research-based technology systems found in more traditional 4X games (Fig. 6).
Players can choose between different paths to orient their village toward a specific strategy. In theory, it is possible to unlock every bonus, but doing so would take too long to be achievable within a standard match.
This mechanic requires a significant time investment for players to learn how to make optimal decisions at the right moments. It is also a major contributor to the game’s replayability, which is why I chose to retain it in my adaptation. I kept some bonuses unchanged, as they aligned well with my balancing and overall system, while also introducing new ones—particularly for the military path, since combat in my version relies on dice.
I also modified how new knowledge is unlocked. Each time a player reaches a new threshold, they draw three knowledge cards associated with that tier, choose one, and discard the other two. Each step therefore represents a meaningful strategic decision, as discarded knowledge cannot be obtained later in the game. While I moved away from the literal structure of a tree, I preserved the strategic decision-making and sense of progression.
Fig. 5: Complete knowledge tree for a clan, Northgard, Shiro Games
Fig. 6: Part of the tech tree, Civilization 7, Firaxis Games
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Real-Time Tracking of Opponent Strategies
An important aspect of board games, in my view, is player interaction and the ability to influence other players’ gameplay. With this in mind, I designed strong connections between components and mechanics through the use of colors and icons, allowing players to identify their opponents’ strategies and adapt their own plans accordingly to secure victory.
Unlike the video game, where a fog of war conceals enemy bases until late in the game, players here can analyze each recruitment and construction to anticipate their opponents’ next moves (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7: Photo of a player’s board at the end of the game
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Playtesting
A key part of my adaptation process was the development of playtests. Early on, I began running sessions with different players to test my rules and uncover issues I might not have identified on my own (Fig. 8 & 9).
To ensure the effectiveness of these playtests, I structured them around specific objectives: testing a mechanic, refining balance, evaluating a particular strategy, and so on. This approach made feedback collection and analysis much more efficient. I also varied the number of players between sessions.
My presence during playtests was essential—not only to answer players’ questions but also to observe their decision-making and thought processes. It is also important to consider the players’ profiles: whether they match the target audience and whether they are familiar with the original video game, as this can influence the relevance of their feedback.
It is not always advisable to take all playtest feedback at face value, due to various situational biases that may interfere (such as poor tactical decisions, unfavorable randomness, or misunderstandings of the rules). Nevertheless, I systematically recorded key player actions and feedback for future reference.
Following playtests, any changes I implemented had to be carefully considered to ensure alignment with the project’s core direction—although I remained open to diverging from it when justified. For example, playtests were particularly useful in iterating on the combat system. Through player feedback analysis, I was able to refine the mechanic and ultimately return to a proven and efficient rule set inspired by the combat system of Risk (Fig. 10), a strategy game first published in 1957.
Playtesting also helped me identify ways to reduce playtime by simplifying calculations and introducing a clearly defined end condition. In many cases, improvements came from observing player behavior and reactions. However, some suggestions were less relevant—for instance, replacing resource tokens with more abstract tracking systems such as dials or sliders. I chose to retain the tactile aspect of resource management and the sense of accumulation it provides.
Fig. 8: Photo of the game board from one of the earliest versions of the game
Fig. 9: A photo of the game board from one of the most recent versions, taken during the LudiNord event
Fig. 10: Risk, 1982 edition, Parker
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Results Analysis
Based on the playtest summary table (Fig. 11), several insights can be drawn.
First, the distribution of victories was not perfectly balanced. In early versions of the game, the wisdom victory was the easiest to achieve, while the trade victory required too many intermediate steps. The military victory was also difficult to pursue, as it required the complete elimination of opponents. However, by the 11th and 12th playtests, iterative improvements to the combat system helped rebalance these conditions. At this stage, the trade victory would still benefit from simplification to make it more accessible and comparable to the others.
Further analysis reveals a clear link between playtime and player count. Initial sessions tend to be longer, as players need time to learn the rules. The first playtest lasted 40 minutes longer than the next two, despite involving the same player. There were also a few outliers, such as the 6th playtest, which was too easy due to balancing issues, and the 10th, where certain rules were overly confusing.
Finally, playtime stabilized below 60 minutes for two-player games during the later playtests. The two sessions conducted with four players slightly exceeded one hour but remained within a reasonable range. It can be assumed that future sessions would become shorter as players gain familiarity.
Collecting this data is essential, as it allows me to identify effective gameplay dynamics. It facilitates the evaluation of balance between different victory strategies and the overall flow of the game, particularly in relation to player count. Based on these insights, I can further refine the game’s mechanics and systems to ensure a coherent, accessible experience that remains faithful to the spirit of the original video game.
Fig. 11: Summary table of playtests carried out to date
lower safe zone
upper safe zone
Conclusion
In conclusion, this methodological summary reflects nine months of work dedicated to adapting Northgard into a board game. The project involved a significant challenge of simplifying and synthesizing its mechanics, achieved through a rigorous analysis of the original game, regular playtesting, and continuous questioning in order to design a coherent experience and refine it over time.
In a post-mortem perspective, I can identify both strengths and areas for improvement. First, the rules currently include too many exceptions and edge cases, resulting in fragmented elements that make them more difficult to explain clearly.
Additionally, victory strategies are not easily identifiable at the start of the game for new players. There are too many available actions early on, without a clear or immediate objective to guide decision-making.
Due to time constraints, I chose not to implement different clans, as doing so would have required extensive adjustments. As mentioned earlier, I focused instead on a symmetrical game design to facilitate iteration, testing, and balancing. However, this could be a valuable addition in the long term.
Despite these limitations, I am very satisfied with the number of playtests conducted. They allowed for continuous iteration on the game mechanics and led to a well-balanced experience. In other academic projects, we rarely had the opportunity to conduct such thorough playtesting, yet it is often what makes the greatest difference in terms of overall quality.
Furthermore, the combat system is particularly effective and satisfying. It is the result of numerous iterations and was clearly one of the most challenging systems to adapt successfully.
Finally, my initial constraint of keeping the playtime under 60 minutes has been largely respected, highlighting both the fluidity of the gameplay and the effectiveness of the adaptation work.
If I were to revisit this project, I would first aim to identify more relevant references earlier in the process to better guide my design decisions. I would also define the core gameplay mechanic sooner, as delaying this step ultimately cost me valuable time. Some design choices were not fully consistent with the rest of the game—an issue that could have been avoided with clearer initial intentions.
Nevertheless, I implemented an effective playtesting methodology that allowed me to remain efficient throughout the project.
To conclude, I am satisfied with the outcome I was able to achieve. Despite limited time, I made the most of each stage of the process to work efficiently and deliver a coherent result.
A photo of the final game board set up for four players