$15.00
$5.00
$20.00
Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Leaving Earth» Forums » Variants

Subject: Joint ventures rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Joe Fatula
United States
San Jose?
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
For this upcoming space station expansion I've been working on, I'd really like to have some kind of joint ventures, international groups formed by several players working together to accomplish things they might not do on their own.

Thematically, I'm looking at everything from small activities like the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project to major multinational undertakings like the International Space Station to interplanetary probes like Cassini-Huygens.

Mechanically, these joint ventures (or whatever they'd be called) would act like space agencies of their own, with a few exceptions.
- Instead of being owned by one player, they would be owned jointly by several players.
- One player would run the day-to-day operations.
- Certain actions could only be done with the approval of all the member agencies (like giving away a spacecraft).
- Any missions completed by the joint venture would have their points divided up among the members. (So if a two-agency joint venture completes a 10-point mission, that counts as 5 points for each of them.)

In general, I'm happy with this concept, but there are several rule areas I still need to explore a bit further. Before I get into them, what are your thoughts?
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Joe,

Is your aim for this to be a multiplayer addition to the game, only? Or could it be suitable for solo play as well? Though given the description you wrote, it seems like writing solo rules would be a challenge.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Fatula
United States
San Jose?
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:
Is your aim for this to be a multiplayer addition to the game, only? Or could it be suitable for solo play as well? Though given the description you wrote, it seems like writing solo rules would be a challenge.

As far as I can see, this kind of thing would only be useful for a multiplayer game. If you were using the space station expansion for a solo game, everything else would be usable, but the joint venture concept wouldn't be.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuel Hinz
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting. Could only certain types of missions be completed this way or any mission?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gerry Smit
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Joe: You might consider the possibility for this to have three parts:

1) Something similar to Advancements:
Joint Venture Membership:
- $5 Advancement, no Outcome Cards.
- represents the infrastructure necessary, both as an Agency and Politically to join with a partner.
- every Agency wishing to co-operate within a Joint Membership must buy one

2) New Joint Venture Spacecraft cards
- these are the component holding cards that each Agency has (Mariner, Lunik, Mir, Apollo) but are now a multi-national Joint Membership Spacecraft

3) Joint Venture Mission Cards. Either:

a) New Mission Cards that require Joint Membership Agency's to complete
- ASTP
- ISS
- etc

and/or

b) Joint Venture add-on's to existing Missions.
- something the size of an Outcome Card.
- drawn when the Mission is [Started |Completed]
- randomly adds +5, +0 or -5 Mission points due to world prestige
examples:
Cold War Thaw: +5 Mission Points
Same old thing : +0 Mission Points
You're all just doing this on the cheap, right?: -5 Mission Points.

OR

c) A separate Joint Mission Modifier Track or Deck sorted in order:
- ANY existing Mission Card can be completed by a Joint Venture
i) 1st Joint Mission Success: +10 Points to mission- "World in Awe"
ii) 2nd Joint Mission Success: +5 Points to mission - "keep it going folks"
iii) 3rd JMS: +2 Points per member -
iv) 4th JMS: +1 Point per member
v) 5th JMS: +0 points (it's getting old)
vi) 6th + JMS: -1 Points/member : sharing too much glory.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Fatula
United States
San Jose?
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
abodi wrote:
Interesting. Could only certain types of missions be completed this way or any mission?

I've been imagining that any mission could be completed this way.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Fatula
United States
San Jose?
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
GerryRailBaron wrote:
Joint Venture Membership:
- $5 Advancement, no Outcome Cards.
- represents the infrastructure necessary, both as an Agency and Politically to join with a partner.
- every Agency wishing to co-operate within a Joint Membership must buy one

I like the idea of a cost to get into the whole joint venture idea. Instead of having an advancement-type card, I'm thinking that your membership in a venture is shown with a card, and that card has some cost which goes to the joint venture.

This would let you sell the other membership cards to off-board investors, giving you some starting cash for the joint venture, but diluting the points you get from missions.

GerryRailBaron wrote:
New Joint Venture Spacecraft cards

Absolutely. Each joint venture will come with its own agency card (to show who's directing it), spacecraft cards, and spacecraft tokens.

GerryRailBaron wrote:
Joint Venture Mission Cards...

Interesting -- could you explain a bit about why it would be good to have missions or mission modifiers specifically for joint ventures?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will H.
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
For the ISS, it would be neat if each country had their own unique module. It could only be purchased by that country, but boosted by anyone. The ISS Advancement might be owned by a single player, but worth VP to all who have at least one component at it in Earth Orbit.

Once it is completed (x components for x players in the game), you all share in the victory points, and perhaps get to claim some fully researched advancement or remove a hard mission from the game or something like that. Haven't worked it all out--just throwing the idea out there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michel Kangro
Germany
Bonn
NRW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Would the joint venture have its own set of advancements? Or use components of participating agencies?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Zscheile
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I see Joint Ventures mostly as catch up mechanism. If I understand correctly, they work just as normal agencies controlled by one of the partaking players, while points are being split evenly. As such, I think it is problematic to let players throw their budget together to share points, as up to 50M$ per year will get you wherever a lot faster than 25M$.

I would penalize it a bit, maybe by splitting up points by number of partaking players +1, so that with two players achieving a mission, both get 1/3 of the points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gerry Smit
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
buffalohat wrote:
GerryRailBaron wrote:
Joint Venture Mission Cards...

Interesting -- could you explain a bit about why it would be good to have missions or mission modifiers specifically for joint ventures?


I'll try!

In the first version, where you have new Mission Cards that are Joint Venture only it's because the inherent nature of the Mission requires it to be a Joint Venture between two agencies. Apollo-Soyuz is definitely that. It was a project to PROVE that two agencies, bitter Cold War rivals at that, could co-operate and meet in space. MUCH of it's "Mission" Points will be the Political bonus of showing to the world such is possible. But it may be very difficult to come up with more such missions that have been flown for only those reasons. ASTP Station I guess would be the other one, Manned Station from Agency A has a docked spacecraft from Agency B at start of year, with astronauts from both Agencies aboard.


On the other end is Cassini, where multiple agencies came together to share costs.

In the middle is ISS. By the nature of it's name, ISS requires International, aka, Joint Venture, co-operation. But in reality Salyut, Mir, Skylab had proven space station capability. Space Station Columbia, (one possible NASA venture) was too expensive to go it alone, and so NASA reached out to ESA and eventually Russia and we get today's ISS. So in truth ISS is a cost-sharing venture, as well as a proof of international co-operation and goodwill venture.

Given that I could only come up with ONE actual "Joint" mission that HAD to be Joint, I thought along the lines of what happens when Joint Ventures fly the current Mission Deck? And that's where I came up with the idea of modifiers to the total Mission Points. The reason for this being that there IS some value in doing things Joint. Co-operation, easing of cold war tensions, sharing of costs. But How much is that extra Joint value worth? So in my one example, it's random, some amount of positive, neutral, or even negative reaction by the world as a whole to these missions being performed by International groups of Nations. The alternative to random is sliding scale or Track. The earlist Joint Missions where HUGE in their effect. ASTP was during the Cold War, and the whole world watched as the astronauts and cosmonauts shook hands. Later missions to Mir by Space Shuttle had similar attention, but quickly die off as the public get bored (Apollo 13's live broadcast hours before the explosion was NOT carried by the networks for example)

What you have to decide though is "Is cost sharing sufficient reward?" Combining agencies budgets into one mission will get you to Saturn in ways a lone agency can not hope to accomplish. Is there any need to add more points to that? I'm not sure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
buffalohat wrote:
GerryRailBaron wrote:
Joint Venture Membership:
- $5 Advancement, no Outcome Cards.
- represents the infrastructure necessary, both as an Agency and Politically to join with a partner.
- every Agency wishing to co-operate within a Joint Membership must buy one

I like the idea of a cost to get into the whole joint venture idea. Instead of having an advancement-type card, I'm thinking that your membership in a venture is shown with a card, and that card has some cost which goes to the joint venture.
Would this override the normal tech-trading, ship selling rules? So you have to foster international cooperation before you can actually cooperate?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michel Kangro
Germany
Bonn
NRW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rakaydos wrote:
Would this override the normal tech-trading, ship selling rules? So you have to foster international cooperation before you can actually cooperate?


Now we're talking. I'd like that. Cooperation is costly, sharing tech isn't easy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Swack
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
I don't have the game but been interested in the game for a while and peeked at the rule book the other day. In the Beyond the Game section you have Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, yet no Boeing or Lockheed Martin nor their Joint Venture United Launch Alliance... the most successful launch services provider and launcher of the world's heaviest lift capability rocket operating today.

Anyways, the point of all that was to let you know of a real joint venture operating today as inspiration/thematic purpose. JV benefits of sharing components, increase in reliability, reduce time, etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
Relly, between them, Boeing and LM are responcible for everythign attributed to NASA. They fade into the backround, however, because they arnt intependantly motivated. They are AMERICA's program, first and foremost.

It's just a shame that America is falling behind a south-african immigrant with a vision and private funding.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michel Kangro
Germany
Bonn
NRW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rakaydos wrote:
It's just a shame that America is falling behind a south-african immigrant with a vision and private funding.


Is it? Because I thought individuals with a vision and private funding is pretty much the definition of the american dream?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Swack
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
Rakaydos wrote:
Relly, between them, Boeing and LM are responcible for everythign attributed to NASA. They fade into the backround, however, because they arnt intependantly motivated. They are AMERICA's program, first and foremost.

It's just a shame that America is falling behind a south-african immigrant with a vision and private funding.
I think you are mistaking PR and being boisterous with actual achievement. Yes, SpaceX has come a long way for being privately funded, but ULA has over 110 consecutive successful launches since its formation. An Atlas and/or Delta rockets have delivered probes and satellites to every planet in our solar system. Delta IV launched the EFT-1 test flight couple of years ago which is a step to America's return to manned missions on American vehicles. They just launched Osiris-Rex to return an asteroid sample on an Atlas last month. BA, LM, OA are publicly held companies and responsible to its shareholders. They go about quietly doing their jobs and doing it successfully.

Blue Origin is a privately held company by another billionaire (Jeff Bezos). They actually beat SpaceX to returning a booster. This however is not a new idea/technology. McDonnell Douglas worked on this with the Delta Clipper back in the 90's. Blue Origins also just had a successful in flight abort test returning both the capsule and rocket.

So their are plenty of advancements and progress being made by others. They are just lot less self promoting. BTW, you know SpaceX blew up their rocket and took out their pad with it. I think there hasn't been a complete failure of a rocket during testing (i.e., while sitting on the ground and not actually trying to launch) since like the 70's.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
jswack wrote:
BTW, you know SpaceX blew up their rocket and took out their pad with it. I think there hasn't been a complete failure of a rocket during testing (i.e., while sitting on the ground and not actually trying to launch) since like the 70's.

It's interesting that Bezos's Washington Post is alleging that that explosion was possible sabotauge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
Up with goats! Down with sheep!
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the possibility of this variant mind boggling but in a good way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuel Argento
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:

Joe,

Is your aim for this to be a multiplayer addition to the game, only? Or could it be suitable for solo play as well? Though given the description you wrote, it seems like writing solo rules would be a challenge.



I agree, buy the game to play solo, I hope someday play in groups. Still, to make an AI for solo play would be a great addition.

---------------------

In another thread it has also been asked to do more exploration.

A good element would cause components to be "modular".

That the expansion modules have to ships and probes have subcomponents to uncover different technologies between different agencies and to collaborate.

I try to do a sketch when you have time to make it clearer.
 
 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.