Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Race for the Galaxy» Forums » Variants

Subject: New actions - diplomacy, sabotage rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Mitchell
United States
Pine Hill
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
One thing that I would like to see more of in this game is more interaction between the players (and thier Empires). It is especially annoying when you see another player leap ahead due to a lucky series of draws with no way of stopping them. That being said here are my recommendations:

Action - Phase I (Explore) - Diplomacy
Select one other player (prior to the all player action), you each may select one card from your hand (talking is encouraged), at the same time trade cards. You may now participate in the "all player" action for phase I.

Action - Phase I (Explore) - Sabotage
You do not participate in the "all play" segment of this turn unless you have played an additional Explore card of another type (Other players do the "all play" actions as normal). After the "all play" segment you select a player to sabotage, you and the other player secretly place a number of cards face down to be discarded. If you are discarding more cards than your opponent you may destroy a development card with a value up to the difference in your discards.
example: You have discarded 5 cards, your opponent has discarded 3. You may destroy a development card belonging to your opponent with a value of two or less.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Biggar
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
FatherNature wrote:

Action - Phase I (Explore) - Sabotage
You do not participate in the "all play" segment of this turn unless you have played an additional Explore card of another type (Other players do the "all play" actions as normal). After the "all play" segment you select a player to sabotage, you and the other player secretly place a number of cards face down to be discarded. If you are discarding more cards than your opponent you may destroy a development card with a value up to the difference in your discards.
example: You have discarded 5 cards, your opponent has discarded 3. You may destroy a development card belonging to your opponent with a value of two or less.


Is this purchase value or VP value?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FatherNature wrote:
One thing that I would like to see more of in this game is more interaction between the players (and thier Empires). It is especially annoying when you see another player leap ahead due to a lucky series of draws with no way of stopping them. That being said here are my recommendations:

I don't think luck plays that strong of a factor into this game.
I also believe you're focusing on very specific cards or the believe that a given card can change the course of the game, when really it's the choice of available cards and how you manage your actions that brings it home. That said...

Quote:
Action - Phase I (Explore) - Diplomacy
Select one other player (prior to the all player action), you each may select one card from your hand (talking is encouraged), at the same time trade cards. You may now participate in the "all player" action for phase I.

May... implies that the recipient can refuse. In a 2 player game, why would I help my opponent? In a 3+ player game, if you offer diplomacy to someone else and they refuse, can you switch targets? Have you blown your action if no-one wants to trade with you?

On the practical side - this is a loss of card tempo, since you're giving up a chosen card you don't want in return for a chosen card someone else doesn't want, if they want to trade with you... and you can be sure they won't give you a card you can actually use if they can help it. If you want to get rid of a card you don't want, use it to pay for a development/planet you do. If you want to see a card you potentially don't want, isn't drawing TWO of them from the Explore/+1+1 action a better alternative than letting your opponent choose on your behalf?

Put another way, I'd rather look at 3 and keep 2 (net hand size +2, net tempo +1 over opponents) than trade away a card I don't want for an opponent's choice of card to hand me (hand size +0) and then than look at 2, keep 1 (net hand size +1, net tempo +0 over opponents).

Quote:
Action - Phase I (Explore) - Sabotage
You do not participate in the "all play" segment of this turn unless you have played an additional Explore card of another type (Other players do the "all play" actions as normal). After the "all play" segment you select a player to sabotage, you and the other player secretly place a number of cards face down to be discarded. If you are discarding more cards than your opponent you may destroy a development card with a value up to the difference in your discards.
example: You have discarded 5 cards, your opponent has discarded 3. You may destroy a development card belonging to your opponent with a value of two or less.


This is intriguing, but really only serves the purpose of someone who has a good card generation engine directly mucking with someone who doesn't.

In a 2 player game (since you allude to playing a second action card, which is only possible in a 2 player game), this would serve as a a way to extend the game at a fairly hefty cost, an extension that will probably only widen the VP gap between you and your opponent, meaning you'll lose by more.

Developments probably went down at a -1 cost (if they played develop to get it down), or the player had sufficient income to support playing it during someone else's development phase. Now you're discarding cards at cost in order to destroy a specific development, and that's your action, and you're not drawing cards from a proper EXPLORE action and your opponents did draw at least one card. That's quite a tempo loss in the name of 'interaction'.

I can think of no situation where this would be useful and could actually serve as an effective means of hurting a player already in the lead. At that point, admit defeat, finish the game, let them win, shuffle up and deal again.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roland Wood
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FatherNature wrote:

Action - Phase I (Explore) - Diplomacy
Select one other player (prior to the all player action), you each may select one card from your hand (talking is encouraged), at the same time trade cards. You may now participate in the "all player" action for phase I.


Another implementation would be to make this a new Phase III bonus since you could use the extra card supplied for the two-player games. Thematically, it would could fit well with the idea of a new colony receiving aid from an already established world or a wartorn newly conquered world receiving help. Instead of trading cards you could just pick one at random from their hand or maybe steal one of their goods from their planets. This would of course be an alternative bonus so you would get no card draw for settling. (You'd have to play the original settle action card to get that)

Quote:
Action - Phase I (Explore) - Sabotage
You do not participate in the "all play" segment of this turn unless you have played an additional Explore card of another type (Other players do the "all play" actions as normal). After the "all play" segment you select a player to sabotage, you and the other player secretly place a number of cards face down to be discarded. If you are discarding more cards than your opponent you may destroy a development card with a value up to the difference in your discards.
example: You have discarded 5 cards, your opponent has discarded 3. You may destroy a development card belonging to your opponent with a value of two or less.


This sounds cool but I do have to agree that it would lengthen out the game and favor the player who gets their engine going first. So maybe this could also be moved to Phase II using the extra Phase II card and be an alternate bonus instead of getting a discount on your development. Perhaps instead of outright destroying their development you pay the cost of one they have down plus the cost of one in your hand (with no discounts) and it replaces the one they have down. This way it mucks up their plans and keeps the game the same length.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's enough threads on interaction and how much there is in the game's base set. These actions are both attempting to get into direct interaction, something the base set simply doesn't support by design.

The expansions will slowly introduce the desired direct interactions that people beleive they want (I'm actually worried that the expansions and direct conflict rules may ruin a beautiful game), and it will either be through new action cards for each color or new powers on developments and settles.

If you note, the action cards have 7 options for 5 phases. If you look at the symmetry, putting some form of direct interaction as an action in phases II, III and V may be the way Tom's jumped.

What will be interesting to see is how the official rules go.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roland Wood
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I too love the base game the way it is and am happy to play a game about building without any tearing down mechanisms. The type of player interaction that Race offers is different than any other game I own and makes it a distinctive and interesting one to play. Like you, I am worried about whether I will even want to use the direct conflict rules when they are released.

That being said, I don't think people should be discouraged from getting creative with the game and trying new things nor should they be told to just wait until the official expansion. Tom Lehmann, himself, has encouraged experimentation. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/236138

There is an official solitaire ruleset coming but that hasn't stopped several people from sharing some great ideas that will be fun to play around with until the official one comes out. I daresay some might continue to play those variants even after they learn the official solo rules.

I'm pretty sure the OP was aware of the fact that the game was designed to have no direct conflict. I think he was having fun sharing an idea for injecting some direct conflict into the game as a variant. I also had fun sharing the ideas that came to me after reading his.

Of course, being that this is the internet, it is also fun to pooh-pooh other people's ideas out of hand without trying them. To each their own...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a die hard wargamer who loves conflict in games, I have actually fallen in love with the more subtil interactions of R4TG. Also, as someone who plays multi-player games with the family, it's refreshing to not have a gang up on the leader element. The sabotage rule, as suggested, would more likely be used by a weak player to hurt the leader and help another at the table - in exchange for help in a future game or something.

By all means experiment and try out new ideas but, if you are concerned about player interaction, give the game a chance as it is and see if it doesn't grow on you.

I can not believe how much I love this game - so many decisions, very different every time you play, quick play, great theme, nice components.
 
 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.