Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
The shuttle technoligy is really powerful, providing an amazing heavy lift rocket, that is also a heat shielded capsule. It also provides a weaker rocket (between juno and atlas) who's main claim to usability is that you dont need to test it because it uses the same outcomes as the heavy lift rocket.

Splittig the Daedelus off the shuttle tech slightly weakens the shuttle, but it majorly weakens the daedelus. The one advantage is that the Fuel generator, that itself requires Synthesys and can only feed the daedelus, only needs 3 techs to be used, not 5. Overall, though, it means the daedelus needs buffs.

The daedelus, in the core rules, has about as much thrust as 4 junos, and each fuel tank costs as much as 3 junos. The daedelus itself costs as much as 10 junos, so you need to use EACH Daedelus 10 times to break even... and there just arnt that many maneuvers where 3 mass for 15 thust is useful, that isnt a 1 way trip.

There are reasons the daedelus isnt more effective. The designer was trying to avoid it being used as an awkward orbital lift engine, like a cheaper Atlas. that doesnt explain the pricing, but I want to change the cards themselves as little as possible.

What if the daedelus was REALLY fuel efficent, though?

If you replace "Discard a small fuel tank for 15 thrust" with "Damage a small fuel tank for 15 thrust", the Daedelus now has twice the endurance of other engines. Even if you dont make the damaged side 1 mass to account for depleting fuel, the daedelus can now perform the mars cycler transfer 1 way carrying 2 mass, or the inner transfer-> venus flyby, also carrying 2 mass (4 mass with an assist out of earth orbit). This also changes the price comparison- instead of 3 junos as the comparison point, it's 6 junos, or more dependong on the maneuver, because the juno stack still has to carry itself to the second maneuver. That starts to put the Daedelus into a category of difficult comparison- a good place to be for an independant tech.

It makes the fuel generator slightly more useful, too. In comparison to bringing 2 atlas to mars orbit (8 mass) for sample/crew return, you can bring a fuel generator, 2 spare parts and a Daedelus, and bring 2 mass home through the cycler after converting the spare parts to fuel. (1 trip to launch fuel to orbit, free maneuver down, second launch on the original tank to bring payload, collect fuel tank, and 2 difficulty 3 maneuvers home.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been reading your threads in the Stations forum. In about all of them, there is something that you don't like about the game. "This is weak, this is worthless, this is better than X which should be never used, home rule this, home rule that."

Because by reading these posts, it sounds like this expansion is horribly unbalanced and not tested at all.

I'm interested in buying this expansion but if there are SO many things wrong with the game, then I don't want to.

Which leads me to the REAL question I've been wondering:
How much experience do you really have with the game and its expansion? Maybe there are more things than meet the eye? Maybe everything doesn't really suck as bad as you think it does?

or

Maybe the game is badly designed and this expansion is hastily released without proper testing.

Now, which is it? I don't really know but it surely makes me think twice about buying...

It would be nice if the designer would answer some of these "the X component is useless" posts to see a different perspective...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Baron von Doom
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You'd be doing yourself a disservice by rejecting a game based on posts by one guy who clearly enjoys playing the game and it's expansions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Baron von Doom wrote:
You'd be doing yourself a disservice by rejecting a game based on posts by one guy who clearly enjoys playing the game and it's expansions.


Don't you find it at least a bit weird that so many things from the new expansion are supposedly underpowered, worthless etc.

Wouldn't you like to have more info before buying?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
I've had two games of Stations, and have had plenty of experience with the base game and Outer Planets.

The expansion as a whole is pretty good. The shuttle is a bit strong, (it's basically a soyuz with 2 built in Apollos) and the tech comes with a second rocket type which is really nothing to write home about. The Fuel generator is weak card, because it is at the bottom of a different tech tree, and only works with the "nothing to write home about" engine that's an extra perk of taking Shuttle.

One strong card and one weak card isnt horrible. This post in particular is about balancing them out.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Zscheile
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
@Bowmangr: I suspect for now that it is like with some people and the Ion Thruster in the base game. At the beginning you think it is weak and slow until you get its mechanism and see its potential. I expect Deadalus to valid use cases, as there yet has to be some primary (meaning components, places and manoeuvres) aspect that is ill-designed in Leaving Earth. Imo.
I am eager to see how fuel synthesis e.g. on the Moon can alter the game's rocket economy.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I think of Deadalus as a good cycler for surface/orbit of some bodies where Ion thruster does not go - to deliver valuable samples to costless Ions. On a diff 2 maneuver (Luna, Mercury, Ganymede) Deadalus ascends 4 samples (using 2 small tanks). On Mars it is 2 samples (using 1 small tank) which equals the same. To feed Deadalus Ions need to deliver 2 tanks (mass 4), possibly worth 2$ after fuel synthesis on Earth and delivered to Earth Orbit with an efficient Shuttle.
So we can see:
- synthetize 2 small tanks on Eart and deliver them with Shuttle to Earth Orbit
- bring them with multiple Ions to the destination orbit
- there, Deadalus will exchange two tanks to 4 valuable samples
- bring the samples back to Earth

The money flow frequency will depend on the amount of Ions involved. Deadalus delivering 4 valuable samples is a sweet spot in sample liquidation economy, better than Juno's 1 and then a bit heavier and costier Atlas.
And this even without fuel synthesis on Mars.

So here we arrive in one particular use of Deadalus.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
Dagar wrote:

I am eager to see how fuel synthesis e.g. on the Moon can alter the game's rocket economy.
It doesnt. There is no feature to give the moon Co2, so the fuel generator doesnt work there. Mars is the best use case until they add C02 to outer planets, and atlas is just plain better when dealing with the flight home from mars than stacks of small fuel tanks.

The advantage Daedelus has is that it doesnt need to be tested- it has the same outcomes as the shuttle. I've used it as a slightly cheaper way to test shuttle and landing tech, and as a way to pick up Manned Flyby of the Moon in the early game. Daedalus is weak, but the way the game is set up now, it's a free bonus for another tech.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Zscheile
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the spoilers...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
Dagar wrote:
Thanks for the spoilers...

Gotta know the game before you houserule the game...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Zscheile
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
... and where did I state I wanted any house rule about Deadelus?

But apart from your nonsense reply, maybe it would have been sensible on your part to actually edit your comment and put that into spoilers, in case others do want to participate in discussion without knowing every card there is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
Dagar wrote:
... and where did I state I wanted any house rule about Deadelus?

But apart from your nonsense reply, maybe it would have been sensible on your part to actually edit your comment and put that into spoilers, in case others do want to participate in discussion without knowing every card there is.

It was implied by posting in the Variants section of the forums.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry L
United States
Stockton
California
flag msg tools
He who games with the most dice wins.
badge
I + I = 0
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it correct to say that you would not allow Fuel Tanks to be repaired in the usual ways?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
RingelTree wrote:
Is it correct to say that you would not allow Fuel Tanks to be repaired in the usual ways?

Hmm. By mass it shouldnt be a problem.... unless an engineer uses 1 spare part to fix multiple small tanks, i guess. I cant think of any situation that might be useful, but I may be wrong, especially around saturn or a low radiation jupiter.

You're right, Small fuel tanks should not be repairable, under these houserules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Rakaydos wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
Is it correct to say that you would not allow Fuel Tanks to be repaired in the usual ways?

Hmm. By mass it shouldnt be a problem.... unless an engineer uses 1 spare part to fix multiple small tanks, i guess. I cant think of any situation that might be useful, but I may be wrong, especially around saturn or a low radiation jupiter.

You're right, Small fuel tanks should not be repairable, under these houserules.


What about this:

Recycling variant.
Whenever using small tank, player may elect to recycle it. After resolving standard Shuttle outcome, draw an additional outcome card from the bank. On success, the tank is recycled anew. On minor failure it is consumed, on major failure it is consumed without providing thrust.

We can apply this to other components. Food, Medical Supplies, Spare Parts, if used to serve only one component or astrounaut, may be elected to be recycled. If so, draw an outcome card from the bank. On success the resource is recycled anew. On minor failure the resource is consumed. On major failure the resource is consumed without desired effect.

This way small tank is 2.5 times more durable.
Also resources are 2.5 scalable if serving only one component/astronaut.

(edit: fixed maths)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
improove wrote:
Rakaydos wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
Is it correct to say that you would not allow Fuel Tanks to be repaired in the usual ways?

Hmm. By mass it shouldnt be a problem.... unless an engineer uses 1 spare part to fix multiple small tanks, i guess. I cant think of any situation that might be useful, but I may be wrong, especially around saturn or a low radiation jupiter.

You're right, Small fuel tanks should not be repairable, under these houserules.


What about this:

Recycling variant.
Whenever using small tank, player may elect to recycle it. After resolving standard Shuttle outcome, draw an additional outcome card from the bank. On success, the tank is recycled anew. On minor failure it is consumed, on major failure it is consumed without providing thrust.

We can apply this to other components. Food, Medical Supplies, Spare Parts, if used to serve only one component or astrounaut, may be elected to be recycled. If so, draw an outcome card from the bank. On success the resource is recycled anew. On minor failure the resource is consumed. On major failure the resource is consumed without desired effect.

This way small tank is 1.5 times more durable.
Also resources are 1.5 scalable if serving only one component/astronaut.

Not something I'd be interested in playing with. 1 mass per astronaut for infinite food (assuming reliable life support tech) is not balanced.

This isnt about "making things lant longer" in general, it's "Fuel generator/Daedelus is a pointless combo that doesnt do what it's thematically supposed to do (ISRU on mars), let's fix that as simply as possible."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Rakaydos wrote:
improove wrote:
Rakaydos wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
Is it correct to say that you would not allow Fuel Tanks to be repaired in the usual ways?

Hmm. By mass it shouldnt be a problem.... unless an engineer uses 1 spare part to fix multiple small tanks, i guess. I cant think of any situation that might be useful, but I may be wrong, especially around saturn or a low radiation jupiter.

You're right, Small fuel tanks should not be repairable, under these houserules.


What about this:

Recycling variant.
Whenever using small tank, player may elect to recycle it. After resolving standard Shuttle outcome, draw an additional outcome card from the bank. On success, the tank is recycled anew. On minor failure it is consumed, on major failure it is consumed without providing thrust.

We can apply this to other components. Food, Medical Supplies, Spare Parts, if used to serve only one component or astrounaut, may be elected to be recycled. If so, draw an outcome card from the bank. On success the resource is recycled anew. On minor failure the resource is consumed. On major failure the resource is consumed without desired effect.

This way small tank is 1.5 times more durable.
Also resources are 1.5 scalable if serving only one component/astronaut.

Not something I'd be interested in playing with. 1 mass per astronaut for infinite food (assuming reliable life support tech) is not balanced.

This isnt about "making things lant longer" in general, it's "Fuel generator/Daedelus is a pointless combo that doesnt do what it's thematically supposed to do (ISRU on mars), let's fix that as simply as possible."


This isn't infinite. You draw from the bank outcome deck, not from the Life Support outcomes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
improove wrote:
Rakaydos wrote:
improove wrote:
Rakaydos wrote:
RingelTree wrote:
Is it correct to say that you would not allow Fuel Tanks to be repaired in the usual ways?

Hmm. By mass it shouldnt be a problem.... unless an engineer uses 1 spare part to fix multiple small tanks, i guess. I cant think of any situation that might be useful, but I may be wrong, especially around saturn or a low radiation jupiter.

You're right, Small fuel tanks should not be repairable, under these houserules.


What about this:

Recycling variant.
Whenever using small tank, player may elect to recycle it. After resolving standard Shuttle outcome, draw an additional outcome card from the bank. On success, the tank is recycled anew. On minor failure it is consumed, on major failure it is consumed without providing thrust.

We can apply this to other components. Food, Medical Supplies, Spare Parts, if used to serve only one component or astrounaut, may be elected to be recycled. If so, draw an outcome card from the bank. On success the resource is recycled anew. On minor failure the resource is consumed. On major failure the resource is consumed without desired effect.

This way small tank is 1.5 times more durable.
Also resources are 1.5 scalable if serving only one component/astronaut.

Not something I'd be interested in playing with. 1 mass per astronaut for infinite food (assuming reliable life support tech) is not balanced.

This isnt about "making things lant longer" in general, it's "Fuel generator/Daedelus is a pointless combo that doesnt do what it's thematically supposed to do (ISRU on mars), let's fix that as simply as possible."


This isn't infinite. You draw from the bank outcome deck, not from the Life Support outcomes.
Either way, it failes to accomplish the goal of making the Daedelus/Fuel Generator combo more useful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pawel Garycki
Poland
Gdansk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Rakaydos wrote:
Either way, it failes to accomplish the goal of making the Daedelus/Fuel Generator combo more useful.

Let's analyse usefulness of recycled small tank only.

Your variant assumed double use as far as I understand, with the indicator of amount of uses being a damaged side of the component. This way your solution is to give the small tank 2 uses.

Having done math with my proposal, the average amount of uses is 2.5 (I calculated 1.5 incorrectly), which is higher than 2. So it does make the combo more useful in almost the same way as yours. In fact it is your method modified with no use of the "damaged" side of the component (which requires additional wording that you cannot repair it). Instead, the method relies on probability of outcome cards. So, attempting to make a recycled use (now 2.5 cycles) comes with a risk of not making even one cycle (1/6 chance) - at player's decision.
Why did I merge this with supplies? Because I always wanted a scalability on supply use - and the solution satisfied two goal at one shot.
If you don't want me to spam my variant in your thread, I will remove those entries and put in a separate thread instead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rakaydos Vashini
msg tools
mb
improove wrote:
Rakaydos wrote:
Either way, it failes to accomplish the goal of making the Daedelus/Fuel Generator combo more useful.

Let's analyse usefulness of recycled small tank only.

Your variant assumed double use as far as I understand, with the indicator of amount of uses being a damaged side of the component. This way your solution is to give the small tank 2 uses.

Having done math with my proposal, the average amount of uses is 2.5 (I calculated 1.5 incorrectly), which is higher than 2. So it does make the combo more useful in almost the same way as yours. In fact it is your method modified with no use of the "damaged" side of the component (which requires additional wording that you cannot repair it). Instead, the method relies on probability of outcome cards. So, attempting to make a recycled use (now 2.5 cycles) comes with a risk of not making even one cycle (1/6 chance) - at player's decision.
Why did I merge this with supplies? Because I always wanted a scalability on supply use - and the solution satisfied two goal at one shot.
If you don't want me to spam my variant in your thread, I will remove those entries and put in a separate thread instead.

Go ahead and make a new thread, but I believe the use of the main outcome deck, rather than tech outcome cards, will make your approach a non-starter. While it is true your approach offers a higher "average" number of uses, it has a 5/6 (not a major failure) x 4/6 (not a major or minor failure) = 20/36 (or 5/9), or 55% reliablility that cannot be improved. Those are not numbers I would be willing to fly an astronaut with.
And the other extreme is just as silly- a rocket cant magically "run on fumes" forever. (shut up, ion engine, I argued there should be a Xenon card too)
 
 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.