Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Quantum» Forums » Variants

Subject: The defender doesn't loose dominance rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Paul Rieder
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
I have around 4 games under my belt. Mostly 3 and 4 player.

Before I got the game, I thought, loosing dominance as a defender in a battle is pretty tough, in addition to ship removal and not being able to construct a cube.

When I played it, it didn't feel that bad. But I noticed, on smaller maps there is a lot of back and forth and the game tends to stall. People start researching more and a cold war athmosphere arises.
Trying to increase your dominance seems kind of pointless without the help of command cards. Because often times, opponents will attack you, once you go out there, to construct a cube.

So, what about taking away that rule, that a defender should loose dominance on lost combats? It could avoid stalling situations. Yes, its less risky flying around and attacking others with your scouts and interceptors. But also, you hand others dominance, if you bring these ships out there (easy targets).

I am thinking, this could be a nice house rule for smaller maps. Tried it once and it worked. Will have to playtest. One could also say, once a player has only one cube left, his dominance does go down on lost fights as a defender ( that way a runaway leader could be slowed down a bit). Surely, that one command card (righteous) would have to be taken out.

What do you think?

I remember , Eric posting in this forum, he wanted this game to move at a steady pace. This rule seems to contradict this idea. Maybe more advanced players find a way to upgrade their abilities, up to an extent, that they manage to sneak through and find a quick way to victory.

Looking forward to your thoughts.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Day

League City
Texas
msg tools
mb
I'm hesitant. On one hand, I like games with lots of aggression. On the other, I've also put together some pretty solid combat-oriented strategies. They DO require you to pick out the correct technologies, you really cannot wage an effective war without the techs. I just wonder if war might become TOO prevalent using this option.

But this rule would make it so the game wouldn't move backwards, and thus it would stagnate as much. That would be nice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Rieder
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
Gylthinel wrote:


But this rule would make it so the game wouldn't move backwards, and thus it would stagnate as much. That would be nice.


You mean, it would not stagnate as much?


----------

I am sure you can be really powerful and go along the dominance route, once you picked the right cards. But I assume, there is competition for these cards and others wanna grab some as well.

However, in a small map, if someone got a killercombo for combat, how do the others make progress? For them, combat is still not helpful, because dominance is reduced all the time. Constructing cubes is also still difficult.
If you get a good combo for fighting, it does not matter to you, whether anyone can loose dominance in combats or not. You simply don`t loose combats anyways. For that person, it doesn`t make a diffence and doesn`t give them an advantage.
However, the others gain an advantage, because they suffer less, from one person being a successful aggressor.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
si Mon
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
For me the game is good as it is but i play mainly two players. The back and forth is what makes the game balance as even if you loose combats you will be able to make up for it next turn. Give some more feedbacks when you playtested it some more !
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Piotr Konieczny
Poland
Katowice
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I will bump this because I was about to start a very similar thread anyway. I am on my third game, and actually the first one and a half we played ignoring the "lose 1 dominance if your ship is destroyed rule". Well, those games played quite well, and using the original rules slowed things down.

What I mean is that not losing dominance makes the game go faster. More feedback on this variant would be appreciated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Clinite
msg tools
mbmb
It would make the game faster, but it would also make offense the go-to strategy. The whole downside to the dominance route is that it's hard to hold on to it, but the benefit--dropping a cube on ANY unclaimed planet--is huge.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kenny
Canada
Regina
SK
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
islan wrote:
It would make the game faster, but it would also make offense the go-to strategy. The whole downside to the dominance route is that it's hard to hold on to it, but the benefit--dropping a cube on ANY unclaimed planet--is huge.

Definitely agree on this one. Being able to reduce your opponent's dominance is sometimes the only way to prevent them from winning. Implementing this rule would take away options, which is something I think any variant (or game!) should generally be trying to avoid. If you're just looking for a faster game, all the power to ya, but it's going to make the game worse, in my opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Rieder
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
I usually play mostly with that new rule. In most of my games, all players get to put one cube down due to dominance. With the house rule in play, you can still block aggressive players, by denying them good offensive combo cards. Also in the late game, you can try to put some distance between you and them. The good thing with this rule is:

- It avoids a 'bash the leader' phenomena
- in a 3 player game: if two people fight each other back and forth, they still gain benefits (dominance) and thereby don't hand the victory to the third
- it makes the game move forward at a steady pace

In addition, I took out the sabotage cards, because they tend to create stalling situations. I also took out two of the '+3 dominance cards', to weaken the aggressive strategy a bit.

I have to add, I play mostly 3-player games, because I don't like downtime.

Enjoy playing!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kenny
Canada
Regina
SK
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Saxofaxo wrote:
- It avoids a 'bash the leader' phenomena
- in a 3 player game: if two people fight each other back and forth, they still gain benefits (dominance) and thereby don't hand the victory to the third

That's a good point. If you don't like game politics, you'll probably like this rule change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Rieder
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
Was that sarcasm ?
I just put it up as a suggestion. No one is forced to play with that house rule.
...I guess, the human mind simply loves to debate and to be right.
Enjoy your games guys!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Clinite
msg tools
mbmb
Umm, could be just a difference of point of view, but it seemed to me he was just saying "if you don't like playing game politics with leader gang-up and kingmaker issues, you might like this houserule".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kenny
Canada
Regina
SK
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Yeah, no sarcasm there. Game politics and the ability to hinder my opponents' progress when required is important to me. If that's not important to you, I can see why this change would be more appealing. I think having that ability makes Quantum better, mostly because it should be possible to disrupt the combat strategy when it's so easy to disrupt the players getting planets the old fashioned way. But again, all the power to ya.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Anonymous
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Saxofaxo wrote:

I also took out two of the '+3 dominance cards', to weaken the aggressive strategy a bit.


+2.
 
 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.