$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 47.21

3,565 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
22.5% of Goal | 30 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » Variants

Subject: Pulsar Star too risky? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Zen Fairborn
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So I've going through the 6 phenomena, and I cannot help but feel they haven't been fully balanced against each other.

First of all, all the phenomena gain a faction the same amount of research (i.e.: +1 extra research each turn) provided they survive its hazardous effect. Thus the Neutron Star will teach your faction the same amount each turn as the McCalister Nebula - save the latter will only destroy 1/6 ships sent to observe it, while the neutron star will destroy 2/3 ships (not considering shields of course).

Second the linking points of the phenomena are almost all the same - McCalister being the only 4 linkable phenomena, everything else being a 3. Again, this means the positioning of a Neutron Star is almost of an equal tactical advantage as anything else for the sake of isolating it.

I feel this was a missed opportunity by gf9 to create some more interesting risk/ reward mechanics. Thus I propose the following house rules:



1) When a ship/ fleet successfully braves the McCalister Nebula Hazard, it does NOT immediately gain its research token. Instead roll a dice for each surviving ship. On a 5+, take the research token. Otherwise it remains on the Nebula.*

2) When a ship/ fleet successfully braves the Neutron Star, it gain its research token AND rolls a dice for each surviving ship. On a 5+, your fleet gains a second research token.*

3) Increase the max space lanes on the Eagle Nebula and Murasaki 312 by +1 (from 3 to 4) to be in line with the Mc Calister Nebula.

*: If a research token remains on the Phenomena after a failed dice roll to research it, the ship/ fleet may choose to brave the hazard again and do so multiple times until successful. However, once a token has been gained via this dice roll, it cannot be taken again this turn (i.e.: a once per turn limit).


As far as I can see, this would cause the following results:


1) McCalister is the easiest phenomena to survive, but the hardest to gain research from.

2) Neutron Star is the HARDEST to survive and research, but has potentially double the research reward of any other phenomena.

3) The remaining four phenomena give a stable +1 research each turn. However two are easier to survive but also easier to access (5+ rolls with up to 4 lane attachments), while the other two are harder to survive but easier to isolate (4+ rolls with up to 3 lane attachments).


Its not a huge change, but I think it brings a nice sense of balance to them all and makes every one of them have a mechanically equal appeal in some way.

Thoughts? Counter responses?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
i would say that space is what it is, so its not impossible to encounter a very dangerous place while later on an easy place.

i dont feel that balancing is required, and the design idea i assume is that its a random element which a player must take into account when evaluating the risks of exploration. if you dont want to risk losing your ship then you ight decide against risking exploration this turn.

once you get a few shield modifiers later on, those hazards will become harmless, certainly for federation that has a tech for +1 shields vs hazards
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Fairborn
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I do hear what you're saying in the random. This houserule is VERRRRY minor at best because, frankly, I think the random element in this does counter any real need for balance.

If anything it was more me doing what I usually do - question everything I consider uncertain to get confirmation for personal satisfaction.

... that said... I still like my idea :P
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guðmundur Skallagrímson
Canada
flag msg tools
I like your sense of balance, and I'm sure your changes would not break the game in any way. If all the locations were equally available to a player, there would also be meaningful choices - the heart of a good game... however, there is something to be said in the defense of an "unbalanced" selection of systems. Not only do the planets still remain different from each other with some having arguably better access to more nodes or better event or civ cards depending on your situation, but when a location is objectively better, it becomes a desirable point of conflict between the players as who should control it. Initiative becomes more valuable to grab the research before an ally, or you might risk war to deny a player the faster and easier research. I think the original is fine the way it stands to push player interaction, but I appreaciate the clean symmetry of your option. I would definitely make a change like that if I were trying to develop a solo variant.
 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grish
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
"Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life." ♯ ♩ ♫ ♪ - Beethoven
badge
--------ViSiT--------- ---------------------- DockingBay416.com ---------------------- ------for some------ ---------------------- -------STAR--------- -------WARS-------- --------------------- ------l-o-v-e--------
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see the problem, but I haven't played the game yet so who knows.

The way I see it, some races are better at research and some are better at fighting.

The Federation and Romulans have cards and fleets that can help them dealing with dangerous phenomena while the Klingons have cards and fleets that help them kill things.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Bennett
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think they need balancing. The risky ones may come out where you need them most and force you to use them. As for more advances rules for phenomenon this is the base set remember i think we may see more advanced ones later
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zen Fairborn
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
guthmundur wrote:
I like your sense of balance, and I'm sure your changes would not break the game in any way. If all the locations were equally available to a player, there would also be meaningful choices - the heart of a good game... however, there is something to be said in the defense of an "unbalanced" selection of systems. Not only do the planets still remain different from each other with some having arguably better access to more nodes or better event or civ cards depending on your situation, but when a location is objectively better, it becomes a desirable point of conflict between the players as who should control it. Initiative becomes more valuable to grab the research before an ally, or you might risk war to deny a player the faster and easier research. I think the original is fine the way it stands to push player interaction, but I appreaciate the clean symmetry of your option. I would definitely make a change like that if I were trying to develop a solo variant.


This is one of the best responses I've ever had to any question I've raised! Honestly I hadn't considered the Interaction factor as deeply as I thought I had, and this clarified that up for me quite nicely.

Thankyou for your insight. I shall NOT be modifying my copy due to this excellent explaination :)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Igor Horvat
Croatia
California
flag msg tools
OR simply;

when you brave a hazard gain research tokens equal to 7-hazard level.

so 1 token for McCalister nebula and 4 tokens for Neutron star.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nova Cat
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Horwath wrote:
OR simply;

when you brave a hazard gain research tokens equal to 7-hazard level.

so 1 token for McCalister nebula and 4 tokens for Neutron star.

Let's not get crazy with passing out research.

Remember that, while less dangerous phenomenon may mean easier research, that's not the only purpose of these systems. They can be used as a defensive buffer for protecting your territory also. More dangerous phenomenonae are more useful for a longer time for this purpose.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.