$15.00
$20.00
$5.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
3 Posts

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » Variants

Subject: Another idea for helping to mitigate downtime rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
So people who have tried to play using the rule that you just perform your actions one at a time going clockwise report that it doesn't really work because you tend to be able to broadcast your intentions long in advance. Plus it places a lot less importance on winning turn order.

So I thought about it a bit, and came up with this potential idea and just wanted to see what people thought and if there'd be any obvious massive problems with it before trying to implement it.

The basis of the idea is this: instead of the turn order cards representing turn order, they represent how many actions you are allowed to take in a row.

A bit more specifically, the variant would work like this:

- In each game, use a number of turn order cards equal to the number of player plus two (so cards 1 to 5 in a 3-player game).

- At the start of each round, shuffle the cards, and deal out a number of them equal to the number of players faceup on the table. These are the cards that players will be able to choose between for this round.

- Players bid as in the original rules, spending resources to decide the order in which they can choose which turn order card to take.

- Players then take their turns (the order players take their turns in could either be as in the original rules - in number order - or just clockwise from some "first player", or from whoever paid the most resources during bidding; whichever works best). On a player's turn, he can perform up to a number of actions up to the number on the turn order card that he took (with a minimum of 1). Play then passes to the next player.

- Players are still limited by the number of Command tokens they have for their actions for the round as a whole; the turn order cards only limit how many actions they can spend on an individual turn.

My thinking is that this will chop up the players' turns a little more and so alleviate the feeling of immense downtime a bit, while still retaining the ability to perform multiple actions consecutively and still retaining the importance of bidding for the turn order cards.

Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maldus Alver

Washington
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It does change the advantage of having more commands from an aggressive advantage to a reactive advantage. When you have more commands bidding for 1st player over bidding for last player allows you to take either an aggressive stance hoping that your command combos (making ships, making fleets, moving fleets and taking systems) make those clutch plays before your opponent could react and might not have enough commands to perform an effective counteraction. However if you are worried about what your opponents will do you will bid heavily on the last turn so that you can react to what ever your rivals do.

But if everyone spends 1 command per turn the person with the most will have the most to react and no one else would be able to counter it. It might reduce downtime between turns but might also make the game longer and give a runaway leader in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that it could potentially make the game longer, but I think runaway leader wouldn't be *too* much of an issue (not any more than it already is, anyway). If someone uses the end of one round to gain an advantage, then that will be countered the same way as it is in the current game: the other two players will just start to gang up on him.
 
 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.