Hey, I've created a video channel! Hover over my avatar to get more info! :) - Josh -
Canada
Cambridge
Ontario
flag msg tools
My video channel has a Facebook page - Find it by searching "Josh Yaks page" on Facebook
badge
Find my video channel on YouTube as "Josh Yaks"!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Having played Twilight Imperium (Third Edition), Galactic Emperor, Eclipse, and Empires of the Void over the years and having owned all those except TI:3 at various points, I figured the last thing I would need is another "4X" space empires game. However, having downloaded and read through the rulebook, I'm really impressed by the look of this game. I believe it does bring something new and interesting to the table through the way in which it utilizes populations and resolves ship movement, and it does so with a very simple and intuitive rules set.

I just wish I could find someone here in southern Ontario to go in on the Indiegogo pledge with me so that I can get the price down to an affordable level!


THE DICE

The only thing I really don't like after reading the rules is the rampant use of dice. (And this is coming from someone who enjoys rolling dem bones more than the average gamer!) Specifically, using dice to determine the amount of CP received with a "Banking" action, and the amount of resources received with a "Mining" action, leaves me concerned that there could be quite a spread regarding how much individual players received that is determined solely by the whims of the dice rolls. As I said, I love rolling dice, but overuse of die rolls as a mechanic reeks of lazy game design.

Given some time, I could perhaps come up with a better system, but off the top of my head, if I was sticking with a roll of a d6 to resolve these actions, I would want the 6 sides of the die to look something like this:

2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5

At least that would result in a more even distribution of resources.


TURN STRUCTURE

While not really a concern per se, I found it a little odd that the turn structure would consist of 2 back-to-back "Conquest" stages. To me, it would make more sense to spread them out, with a turn structure looking like this:

1) 1st Action
2) 1st Reaction (optional)
3) 1st Conquest phase
4) 2nd Action
5) 2nd Reaction (optional)
6) 2nd Conquest phase
7) 3rd Action (for players who have researched the "Master Politics" tech)
8) Bonus Action, if chosen by the Chancellor (might be a 3rd Conquest phase)

This would give more of a sense of a simultaneous process of empire development while the ships are flying around the galaxy doing their thing.


SHIPS

Reading about the ships sparked my imagination for other ship types, although I realize that adding more ships to this game would greatly increase the game length with the way in which movement tokens are preplanned. But that aside, I envision a distribution of space ships per player that would look something like this:

Dark Raider (4 ships) - As described in the original rules

Fighter (3 ships) - As described in the original rules

War Cruiser (2 ships) - As described in the original rules

Battle Carrier (2 ships) - As described in the original rules

Bomber (1 ship) - Cost to build: 1 Axinium, 2 CP, (1 VP when destroyed); Blueprint: small Drive, 1 small Cannon, 2 Shields; Special abilities: If the Bomber starts at one of your planets where you have built a Hypersonic or a Biochemical rocket, it may load 1 rocket on board and carry the rocket with it while it moves. (It may not carry Graviton rockets.) At any point during the Bomber's movement, it may launch the rocket against a planet in its current hex. No distance check needs to be made, and 1 extra die is added for the damage roll due to the "point blank" shot.

Smuggler (1 ship) - Cost to build: 2 Axinium, 4 CP, (1.5 VP when destroyed); Blueprint: large Drive, 1 large Cannon, 2 Shields; Special abilities: When in a hex with any planet that has a resource(s), the Smuggler may spend a movement point to load a resource into the ship. The Smuggler may hold up to 2 resources at any given time, but must spend 1 movement point each time it loads a resource. When a loaded Smuggler is at one of your planets, it may spend 1 movement point per resource to unload the resource(s) at your planet.

Planet Defense System (1 "ship") - Cost to build: 3 Axinium, 3 CP, (2 VP when destroyed); Blueprint: no Drive, 2 large Cannons, 4 Shields; Special abilities: The Planet Defense System (PDS) can be built at any planet where you have at least 3 Population cubes. The PDS has no Drive and cannot move, but it acts as a ship in the case of any battles that occur at that hex. Whenever that planet is targeted by any WMDs, the MDS rolls 1 die per WMD that is targeting the planet and is successful with the distance check. On a roll of 3+, the WMD is destroyed. Also, with every future "Build Ships" action, the player owning the PDS may build 1 of the new ships at the planet with the PDS.


As I said, with the number of moveable ships per player increasing from 8 to 13, rules might have to be created in order to limit downtime during the Conquest stage. Perhaps something along the lines of either a strict limit of 8 ships moving per Conquest stage, or if more than 8 ships are moving, some ships must be grouped and moved together.



Anyhow, this is just some initial brainstorming after reading through the rules. The fact that I'm taking the time to play around a bit with various options is just an indication of my excitement about the game! I hope that it gets funded and manages to succeed in an ever-crowded market.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jürgen Mayer
Germany
Nuremberg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
squash wrote:
Given some time, I could perhaps come up with a better system, but off the top of my head, if I was sticking with a roll of a d6 to resolve these actions, I would want the 6 sides of the die to look something like this:

2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5

At least that would result in a more even distribution of resources.

Or, if you want to stick to regular d6s, you could just use 2d6 and average the result. You could still get results of 1 or 6, but much rarer.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Ruhland
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MadMoses wrote:
squash wrote:
Given some time, I could perhaps come up with a better system, but off the top of my head, if I was sticking with a roll of a d6 to resolve these actions, I would want the 6 sides of the die to look something like this:

2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5

At least that would result in a more even distribution of resources.

Or, if you want to stick to regular d6s, you could just use 2d6 and average the result. You could still get results of 1 or 6, but much rarer.
Played my first game today and loved it. My only real complaint about the gameplay (component quality and design choices aside) was the wildly swingy results of a single die roll for banking, mining, and trading. The solution I offered at the end of the game was much like yours, simply role 2d6 and divide by 2. I suggested rounding towards the middle; rounding up for a roll of 3, 5, or 7 and rounding down for roll of 9 or 11.
The likelyhood of rolling a particular value is listed below and while it adds a great deal more predictability to the die rolls there is still the potential for volatility.
2=1 (2.78%)
3-4=2 (13.89%)
5-6=3 (25%)
7-9=4 (41.67%)
10-11=5 (13.89%)
12=6 (2.78%)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Adams
United Kingdom
Haddington
East Lothian
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I had a similar reaction (have read the rules but not played yet).

I suppose the mining action hurts/benefits everyone? You could even say that if you're the first player you WANT the mining roll to be low so you get resources and others don't.

My initial thought on bank action was this: the player chooses between taking exactly 3 cp OR rolls a die. (so you go for low/high risk/reward). Thematically this might simulate an investor choosing between safe and risky stocks, like real life. If you've plenty of money already you might take the risk of the die, but if not, go for the safe 3. What dyou think?
The same with trading? (you're choosing between safe buyers and erratic ones)?

I guess the designers must have play-tested this and have a reason for going with an even random distribution of 1-6? But what was the reason?

Looking forward to getting the game to the table though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrei Novac
Poland
Warszawa
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I can tell you what was the idea behind rolling one D6 for these actions and I will use the example for mining. When you're looking for oil, you do a survey, then you drill a well provided that your survey has shown potential. But you only know how much oil you'll get out after you drilled the well. The same way, you mine and you may discover a great deal of new resources or you may just discover very few.

However... I do support the idea of house rules on rolling for mining, trading and banking. There are already several good idea suggested by people who played the game and all of them seem to work fine. For a future edition we'll also consider improving the odds a bit on these dice rolls.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Davenport
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
squash wrote:

While not really a concern per se, I found it a little odd that the turn structure would consist of 2 back-to-back "Conquest" stages. To me, it would make more sense to spread them out, with a turn structure looking like this:

1) 1st Action
2) 1st Reaction (optional)
3) 1st Conquest phase
4) 2nd Action
5) 2nd Reaction (optional)
6) 2nd Conquest phase
7) 3rd Action (for players who have researched the "Master Politics" tech)
8) Bonus Action, if chosen by the Chancellor (might be a 3rd Conquest phase)

This would give more of a sense of a simultaneous process of empire development while the ships are flying around the galaxy doing their thing.
market.


has anyone tried a turn structure like this in an actual game?
1 
 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.