Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition): Shattered Empire» Forums » General

Subject: Usefulness of mines and facilities rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi all,

I'm preparing for a game of TI3 in a couple of weeks, and I wanted to include pretty much everything in the game (both expansions). Also, I'm not exactly averse to the odd house rule or two, and I was wondering particularly about mines and facilities:

1) I remember reading on these boards a long time ago that facilities were maybe undercosted, as people would generally snap them up right away. Is this generally considered to be true? Might a better "cost" simply be to exhaust the planet you are building the facility on (i.e, you cannot build a facility on a planet that is already exhausted), meaning that you lose all of that planet's resources/influence for that round, but you don't have to expend any other resources. This would make facilities more in line with what it seems their intent was - to help give a boost to poorer planets - without players attaching them to their rich planets.

2) Mines: are they really worth 2 resources?

Many thanks for the info!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Person
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
I generally will not use a CC to just activate a system to build facilities (especially single planet systems.) But if there are facilities available and I am activating a system anyway I will almost always build facilities. It helps to get them out early to both gain benefits from them and deny them to other players.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2) Mines...generally "no"

1) Facilities...YES...another way to look at them, cheap "Enviro Compensator" AND if you get it early enough, more than pays for itself. Colonies are really good too for adding the +1 Influence to odd#'d value planets (in SE anyway) so that exhausting [1] planet nets one or two CC's, with no excess Infl lost.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:
2) Mines...generally "no"

1) Facilities...YES...another way to look at them, cheap "Enviro Compensator" AND if you get it early enough, more than pays for itself. Colonies are really good too for adding the +1 Influence to odd#'d value planets (in SE anyway) so that exhausting [1] planet nets one or two CC's, with no excess Infl lost.


So are you saying that facilities *are* undercosted? Do you think my suggestion for a change is a decent one to make them more situational?
 
 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
bleached_lizard wrote:
SFRR wrote:
2) Mines...generally "no"

1) Facilities...YES...another way to look at them, cheap "Enviro Compensator" AND if you get it early enough, more than pays for itself. Colonies are really good too for adding the +1 Influence to odd#'d value planets (in SE anyway) so that exhausting [1] planet nets one or two CC's, with no excess Infl lost.


So are you saying that facilities *are* undercosted? Do you think my suggestion for a change is a decent one to make them more situational?

Personally, I don't find them undercosted. They go quickly, but if you make them more expensive, they'd be much less worthwhile. As it is, if you buy a Refinery, the next round if you use it, you've only just broken even; it takes one more round for it to start paying off. If you make it cost 2, all of a sudden it's going to be THREE rounds before it even starts making a profit.

They go quickly mostly because they are limited, and you get the best use out of them by taking them early. I think they cost right for what they provide, especially since they can't be built in home systems, and if an opponent takes over the planet, they are destroyed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
SFRR wrote:
2) Mines...generally "no"

1) Facilities...YES...another way to look at them, cheap "Enviro Compensator" AND if you get it early enough, more than pays for itself. Colonies are really good too for adding the +1 Influence to odd#'d value planets (in SE anyway) so that exhausting [1] planet nets one or two CC's, with no excess Infl lost.


So are you saying that facilities *are* undercosted? Do you think my suggestion for a change is a decent one to make them more situational?


Actually, I was just saying that in general I don't think Space Mines are worth the money, but I think Facilities (both types), definitely are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magne Ellen
Norway
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I feel that the Space mines price are are fine. It gives you a free shot at every ship except fighters. Your opponent might reconsider sending in his huge blob of warships and rather send in one just to get rid of the space mine. So, you can potentially delay a large attack.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Norton
United States
Seymour
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tretiak wrote:
So is there a general consensus that mines are overpriced?

I have never played with this option but I'm considering it and would like to know if there is a sound reason for lowering the cost to 1 resource.


I don't think they are overpriced, but I do think they add a level of randomness that doesn't help the game.

Bill
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bnorton916 wrote:
Tretiak wrote:
So is there a general consensus that mines are overpriced?

I have never played with this option but I'm considering it and would like to know if there is a sound reason for lowering the cost to 1 resource.


I don't think they are overpriced, but I do think they add a level of randomness that doesn't help the game.

Bill


Randomness because you can either be incredibly lucky or unlucky with the mines? Where PDS only grants one shot against invaders, mines attack all...?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Kamber
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
bnorton916 wrote:
Tretiak wrote:
So is there a general consensus that mines are overpriced?

I have never played with this option but I'm considering it and would like to know if there is a sound reason for lowering the cost to 1 resource.


I don't think they are overpriced, but I do think they add a level of randomness that doesn't help the game.

Bill


Randomness because you can either be incredibly lucky or unlucky with the mines? Where PDS only grants one shot against invaders, mines attack all...?


And unlike PDS, you cannot assign the damage from the mines. With PDS, you can counter the threat by bringing meat shield ships to take the damage.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm... So in the interests of making the mines less swingy, how about if they were changed so that one die is rolled for each ship, but the total hits rolled are assigned by the owner of the ships being hit (as in normal combat). Then the mines would still be useful, but not as completely random as in the original rules.

How much would mines be worth then? Still 2 resources? Or only 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.