Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Eclipse» Forums » Variants

Subject: Copy a Tech rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Luca Tolomelli
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I was thinking to try the possibility to use an "industrial espionage" to copy a Tech of your neighbors.

With the Research action you can use the standard effect OR place a numbered token of your color on one of the Tech of one of your neighbors (a player is a neighbor if you have a full gate connecting, like for a diplomat).

With another Research action (by paying the relative Science cost) you can place the second numbered token corresponding to one of the "copied" Techs (tokens are numbered in pairs) on your Board.

Do you think it would have dramatic changes?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Bernardo
Taiwan
Taipei
flag msg tools
badge
Wargame? Eurogame? Ameritrash? Asia!! Check out Asian board game reviews at CardboardEast.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes. It would break the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
evilpanda wrote:
Yes. It would break the game.

While I don't necessarily disagree, this kind of answer isn't very helpful to the OP. Stating it breaks the game is fine and dandy... but why - what about it would "break" the game?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Sanchez
United States
Clermont
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think it's broken, but highly undercosted. In a decent number of games, technology scarcity is one of the things that gives players a leading edge. The ability to take that away for the cost of a little additional maintenance for a turn (essentially only costing a single extra action) I think is too generous. At least make it cost double the usual science or something.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Tolomelli
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
delta_angelfire wrote:
I don't think it's broken, but highly undercosted. In a decent number of games, technology scarcity is one of the things that gives players a leading edge. The ability to take that away for the cost of a little additional maintenance for a turn (essentially only costing a single extra action) I think is too generous. At least make it cost double the usual science or something.


3 alternatives:
1) double action, single Science cost
2) single action, single Science cost
3) double action, double Science cost

What would you vote for?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LukeZ wrote:
delta_angelfire wrote:
I don't think it's broken, but highly undercosted. In a decent number of games, technology scarcity is one of the things that gives players a leading edge. The ability to take that away for the cost of a little additional maintenance for a turn (essentially only costing a single extra action) I think is too generous. At least make it cost double the usual science or something.


3 alternatives:
1) double action, single Science cost
2) single action, single Science cost
3) double action, double Science cost

What would you vote for?
with the usual" not play tested" caveat, 3. One possible fallback is single cost, no discount. Denying or penalizing VP in that tech track should also be considered.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Sanchez
United States
Clermont
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The best way to test something new I think would be with #3. If people are still willing to take it after a few games, then it should be fine. If you notice a trend of players doing consistently better than ones who chose not to use the option, you might need to up the cost a little more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think double cost will be ridiculous. Double action and adjacency is already expensive and restrictive (sufficiently so for a variant).

I am up to about 15 plays now, and I have seen good players have bad luck, sometimes they recover and sometimes they don't. But it is impossible for good players with a lead to take every valuable tech that comes up, the more they expand the less flexibility they have. Some techs counter other techs, if you take missiles and +3 computers I will invest in disks and improved hulls or shields or missiles +2 computers and drives.

I have not played with 5-6 players so maybe that is where this becomes an issues. In addition, I always play with turn order is in the order you pass because that is the way the game should be played for maximum fairness and maybe that fixes this issue on its own.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Pass
Canada
Regina
SK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another Alternative.

As a Research Action, break an existing diplomatic relationship to copy one technology from the other player in that relationship. This counts as an offensive act, and you take the Traitor tile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Sanchez
United States
Clermont
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dlhammond wrote:
I think double cost will be ridiculous. Double action and adjacency is already expensive and restrictive (sufficiently so for a variant).


The thing is, it doesn't stop you from researching normally. If you don't want to pay extra, just wait for it to reappear on the tech board (if it ever does). The problems I see with letting become too unrestrictive is the game boils down to a bland copy fest. If only one advanced hull comes out in the first 6 turns, one player has an advantage that suddenly becomes meaningless when everyone can just copy pasta off of him/her.

Adjacency isn't really that difficult either, I regularly play in five player games and it's very rare that you never have the opportunity to get an adjacent system to a player you WANT to be adjacent to, especially after the GCDS goes down. The thing with breaking rules I think is that it should be impractical, because if you're that desperate to have the technology, you CAN get it - it just comes at the cost of being flexible with what comes out (as the game is now). If it's too easy, it becomes ubiquitous and not a strategic choice at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2 actions and the normal cost is expensive, if you also have to be adjacent then I can't see the point in charging someone double the cost of development to steal tech, in the real world people steal tech because the work has already be done for them, not to end up spending twice as much as the designer did to get the same benefits. I think some people underestimate the value of an action. There are ways to mitigate tech advantages without this variant though.
 
 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.