[Galactic Council]

Quote

Gnaw here. First, I'm not rushing the other game at all. This is a sign up sheet but is also a discussion thread on the subject of what kind of game it should be.
.
- Gnaw

D'rek's point about the overall lack of experience gained from a grand total of 3 games strikes me as a damn good one. So I'm staying as close to the official rules as possible while adjusting to the realities of forum play vs. in person. Despite my misgivings on Alliances, Developments, etc. I am going to go by the rules on these. D'rek's point wins the day.

Planta and/or Draco. In or out?

Game Prep:

• 7+ player game.
  
• Hives, Supernova, warp portals, and Pulsar in.
• Predictable technology but hard cap limit of 5 drawn. Gives a bit of a teaser and might help move the game along a little faster.
  • 26 tiles are drawn pregame. 5 tiles for round 2 will be drawn and revealed at this time.
  • 11 tiles in cleanup phase for the next round along with 5 tiles for the following round.
  • Rare techs will not count toward the 26 or 11, but will count for the 5 predictive tiles.
• Alliances are in.
• Ancient Homeworlds are out.
• I will be using Orokos for all things dice related. That allows a combat phase fuckup by me to be moved back to the last roll made prior to said fuckup.

Mechanics:

• Reputation tiles are face up (so no unfair advantage to moderator)
• An image file will be placed here showing all of the hexes in the game, so the mod has no unfair advantage in knowing exactly which ones are left and what they look like. Text listing will be included.
• Player order determined by randomizing the sign-up sheet. There are 3 choices to be made. "Play", "Race", "Rotation". All 3 must be picked before race selection begins. "Rotation" applies to both choice of race and direction of first round.
  • First person in the list.
  • Last person in the list.
  • Middle person in the list.

Quote

Example using the player list from game 3.
There were 9 items in your list. Here they are in random order:

• Morgoth
• Twelve
• Khell
• Gnaw
• Solidsnape
• D'rek
• cerveza_fiesta
• Tattersail (ganoes paran)
• Tapper

Timestamp: 2013-08-11 22:54:47 UTC

Morgoth would choose first, Tapper second, SS third. The reason I'm adding Rotation to the list is there is a good chance that Morgoth might decide that the most important thing for him is to make sure he doesn't follow Twelve. So he picks Rotation. Tapper then has the option of picking Play or Race; he chooses Race. So SS will get to play first.

The player order and choices will not be made public until after Morgoth and Tapper choose. Morgoth will be PMed the list. He makes his choice. Tapper will get the list and Morgy's choice. Once Tapper replies the game thread will be opened with Player list in order by First player, Race selection and Rotation,. Should Rotation be left for last, then that choice must be made before game thread is started.

In this example play would be

• Solidsnape
• D'rek
• cerveza_fiesta
• Tattersail (ganoes paran)
• Tapper
• Morgoth
• Twelve
• Khell
• Gnaw

with Tapper choosing race first and SS choosing after Gnaw.

With the layout of the 9 player grid all the the positions are not equal. 3 positions have only one connection to the 2xx ring. In game 3 that was Khell, Morgy, and Tapper.
Starting hex will be determined by random.org. Only the remaining players will be eligible for this draw. In a 9 player game that gives 4 people a say in determining the initial course of the game. (I wanted to go with "first person out of Game III" but I think that would be a conflict of interest.

• Discussion happens in the post as normal, and actions are posted in the thread:
  • Actions must be bolded.
  • Actions must be at the end of the post.
• There will be a second thread for Actions only posts. And please keep a running count in these posts
  • Player X: Turn 3 Build 2 cruisers in Y. -7 upkeep 8 money, 4 sci, 2 mats
  • Actions should be bolded. The upkeep would be useful in a blue or green.

Colors: Given the probability of so many Game 3 players joining in this one, I think colors staying consistent would be helpful. D'rek == green, Khell == blue, etc. OR, nobody gets the same color.

I really want this to be fun. I'm trying to eliminate headaches but if where I'm being heavy handed, please so inform me.

This post has been edited by Galactic Council: 02 October 2013 - 07:16 PM

[Galactic Council]

Gnaw, on 16 August 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

D, on 16 August 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

It's possible we'll have new players in game 4 who are learning the ropes and everyone gets bogged down with inactivity sometimes.

Of course, the best way to run a very fast game is to have the mod not play at all and be entirely neutral so that players can send in super detailed provisionals ahead of time and don't need to login often at all.

First part, I don't know that we will. I *think* you and Tatts are the only ones who haven't said 'in' yet.

Second part, it isn't that I want a very fast game it's that I don't want a super slow one. Summer with vacations has hurt this one too.

and I know I said that I'd bump myself if needed. 'but i wanna play too'.

Provisionals will work better if they are sent to GC as a new message each time. Time stamp will show if I peaked or not.

D, on 16 August 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 16 August 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Provisionals will work better if they are sent to GC as a new message each time. Time stamp will show if I peaked or not.

It's still limited to "If X does Y, do Z" provisionals though, rather than laying out an entire strategy that allows for a bit of flexible judgement calls depending on circumstances.

There's also another option of splitting the 9 signed up people into 2 different games of 4 and 5 or 3 and 6 (or more of others sign up)

Sign up register for a single game:

• Ganoes Paran
• Tapper
• Morgoth
• Twelve
• SS
• CF
• Khell
• Gnaw

Maybe: IH, D'rek


Sign up register for two simultaneous games:

• Game 4 - mod == Gnaw
  • G5 mod

<li>Game 5 - mod == ?

• Gnaw

Two games would (almost certainly) not be 9 players. If you want to play in both that's great. If you want to play in only 1 say that and we'll see how many we get. Pick your game after we get a more solid idea of the numbers.

To keep from confusing the shit out of every one, I *think* that the other mod and myself would pretty much have to have the same rules. Or we could go wildly different. "close but only a couple of differences" would cause headaches all the way around I think.

And it would require a second moderator account. Hugin & Munin / PS style.

This post has been edited by Path-Shaper: 17 August 2013 - 11:54 AM

[D'rek]

If you want to run a heavily-modified game, go for it. Put whatever you want into it. You've got a loooooooong time to figure it out before the current game ends (though OTOH there's nothing to say 2 games couldn't be run simultaneously).

I don't have any major opinions, if it appeals to me I'll sign up and if not I won't.

[Gnaw]

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

If you want to run a heavily-modified game, go for it. Put whatever you want into it. You've got a loooooooong time to figure it out before the current game ends (though OTOH there's nothing to say 2 games couldn't be run simultaneously).

I don't have any major opinions, if it appeals to me I'll sign up and if not I won't.

So one vote for a standar rules game then.

[D'rek]

Gnaw, on 15 July 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

If you want to run a heavily-modified game, go for it. Put whatever you want into it. You've got a loooooooong time to figure it out before the current game ends (though OTOH there's nothing to say 2 games couldn't be run simultaneously).

I don't have any major opinions, if it appeals to me I'll sign up and if not I won't.

So one vote for a standar rules game then.

That's not what I meant.

[cerveza_fiesta]

It strikes me the designers put a lot of effort into balance of the existing rules and standard game variant. Luck of the draw always factors in and I don't feel anybody really exploited existing mechanisms for unfair gain. Your explores Gnaw (for example) were a choice you made. Others could have prioritized exploration but weren't necessarily in a position to do so. You were relatively un-harassed for the first 3 rounds and so you were free to explore. I was more interested in combat and connectivity and so missed out on creating a massive intersteallar empire.

So my response is the same as D'rek, if the variations aren't too crazy then I'd be interested in trying it out.

Might be better if you cruise boardgamegeek for recommendations and reviews of different game modifications so that we have an idea of how it might affect the game.

But sign me up for now.

[twelve]

I guess I'm with D'rek. I need to know and undertstand the changes before I form an opinion on it first. I'm okay with changes of letting players pick both Planta and someone else picking the Terran Union but some of the fun in selecting races is to deny someone else of a race choice even if it's by not selecting the Planta but by selecting the Terran option instead. But like I said I would be okay with it as long as the House rules selection was one of the first items listed so players know what changes to expect.

Bad & Good Draws are part of the game and I was actually inspired by you bogarting the explore action so I don't see any great need to do much to change this.

Now as for this part:

Galactic Council, on 15 July 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

Gnaw here. First, I'm not rushing the other game at all. This is a sign up sheet but is also a discussion thread on the subject of what kind of game it should be.
It has occurred to me that this game suffered somewhat by bad explore draws and good explore draws kept hitting basically the same people. Not to mention that one asshole who seriously bogarted the explore mechanism.
We have a lot more choices on playing since we're using virtual hexes. Why should the Planta not get in because somebody else choose the Terrans on the reverse of the tile? We've got homeworls for every race. And, for those not chosen to play, why not mix them into the hex discovery tiles?
Why not have a Super GCD? Two of them connecting on the north south points. With the east /west hexes being limited to: 1 each supernova, hive system, warp portal,a completely empty hex, etc, etc. if we need more 100 series hexes, we jus make them up. Same with 200 and 300 hexes. The complete layers of 200 composed of current home worlds and the unused home worlds? Just some wild thoughts. Please feel free to blow holes in them.
This could potentially give us the ability to have more than nine player. Assuming more that would want to play.
- Gnaw

I need some more clarification as I don't understand exactly what you are thinking of trying out. But gut tells me I'm not to keen on the idea if you are saying you preselect how anything other than starting homeworlds and the GC are to be layed out. Like I said I like the uncertainty of how things will turn out. Adds to the spice of the game.

[Gnaw]

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 15 July 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

If you want to run a heavily-modified game, go for it. Put whatever you want into it. You've got a loooooooong time to figure it out before the current game ends (though OTOH there's nothing to say 2 games couldn't be run simultaneously).

I don't have any major opinions, if it appeals to me I'll sign up and if not I won't.

So one vote for a standar rules game then.

That's not what I meant.

Well, my vast experience with Eclipse is 3.5 rounds. So yeah, I asked for input. And threw some wild ideas out. There are at least 3 experienced people with fantastic imaginations playing the current game. I'd be a bit silly not to ask for their input.


For the record:

• I intend to run a 7-9 player game.
• Hives, Supernova and Pulsar in. And warp portals
• Alliances I'm 50/50 on at the moment.
• Simultaneous play variant I'm 3:1 against it. Not certain that it's useful in a non-table game.

The less wild ideas:

• Instead of discarding the races not chosen, scatter those tiiles in with the 300s. They would be insular, "we just want to be left alone, we fear and distrust everyone and especially those of our own kind."
  • More explores that way.
  • They would be in essence no different than running across a hex with an ancient in it.
  • Maybe, maybe, maybe give them a couple of starbases.
• To address Tapper's complain that game 3 has to much chatter in it, just toss in Diplomacy. You can talk off thread as much as you like to whomever you like, about whatever you like. But none of it is binding in any way.

Edit: added warp portals

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 15 July 2013 - 06:19 PM

[Gnaw]

cerveza_fiesta, on 15 July 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

It strikes me the designers put a lot of effort into balance of the existing rules and standard game variant. Luck of the draw always factors in and I don't feel anybody really exploited existing mechanisms for unfair gain. Your explores Gnaw (for example) were a choice you made. Others could have prioritized exploration but weren't necessarily in a position to do so. You were relatively un-harassed for the first 3 rounds and so you were free to explore. I was more interested in combat and connectivity and so missed out on creating a massive intersteallar empire.

So my response is the same as D'rek, if the variations aren't too crazy then I'd be interested in trying it out.

Might be better if you cruise boardgamegeek for recommendations and reviews of different game modifications so that we have an idea of how it might affect the game.

But sign me up for now.

I sort looked at the explores as an offensive weapon. If I'd have tossed the Warp Porta away instead of taking it, I could have had a string of worlds with only one way in. Then did what Twelve suggested: build orbitals and slam the front door. It was a logistics maneuver as it developed. Deny resources to others.

[Gnaw]

twelve, on 15 July 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

I guess I'm with D'rek. I need to know and undertstand the changes before I form an opinion on it first. I'm okay with changes of letting players pick both Planta and someone else picking the Terran Union but some of the fun in selecting races is to deny someone else of a race choice even if it's by not selecting the Planta but by selecting the Terran option instead. But like I said I would be okay with it as long as the House rules selection was one of the first items listed so players know what changes to expect.

Bad & Good Draws are part of the game and I was actually inspired by you bogarting the explore action so I don't see any great need to do much to change this.

Now as for this part:

Galactic Council, on 15 July 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

Gnaw here. First, I'm not rushing the other game at all. This is a sign up sheet but is also a discussion thread on the subject of what kind of game it should be.
It has occurred to me that this game suffered somewhat by bad explore draws and good explore draws kept hitting basically the same people. Not to mention that one asshole who seriously bogarted the explore mechanism.
We have a lot more choices on playing since we're using virtual hexes. Why should the Planta not get in because somebody else choose the Terrans on the reverse of the tile? We've got homeworls for every race. And, for those not chosen to play, why not mix them into the hex discovery tiles?
Why not have a Super GCD? Two of them connecting on the north south points. With the east /west hexes being limited to: 1 each supernova, hive system, warp portal,a completely empty hex, etc, etc. if we need more 100 series hexes, we jus make them up. Same with 200 and 300 hexes. The complete layers of 200 composed of current home worlds and the unused home worlds? Just some wild thoughts. Please feel free to blow holes in them.
This could potentially give us the ability to have more than nine player. Assuming more that would want to play.
- Gnaw

I need some more clarification as I don't understand exactly what you are thinking of trying out. But gut tells me I'm not to keen on the idea if you are saying you preselect how anything other than starting homeworlds and the GC are to be layed out. Like I said I like the uncertainty of how things will turn out. Adds to the spice of the game.

Most of that is simply aimed at a bigger game. In people and in size of game board.

A less wild version could be two GCDs connected to each other. Make the race to the center more interesting and doing away with the distance disadvantage Morg, D'rek, and SS had in game 3.

[Imperial Historian]

I may or may not be in depending on whether my thesis is finished.

I would include alliances (maybe a house rule that alliances can't be formed until a certain point, say turn 4, but definitely include them) the alliances are a good mechanism to prevent a player who has got very powerful quickly from running away with the game like twelve in this game.

If you are looking for a homeworld with ancients mechanic, look up ancient homeworlds they are a good addition in my book, though they can really screw over someone's early expansion, so I wouldn't put in too many, and probably only in tier 3.

Boardgame geek has a few good variants with extra weapons, new rare techs etc, but you have to be careful not to unbalance the game, it is generally pretty well balanced (more so if everyone is up to speed initially)

[twelve]

I agree with what IH says about alliances; both including them and putting in a house rule to stop people from forming them as early as they did in game #2. Round 4 seems reasonable but definately not before round 3.

[D'rek]

twelve, on 15 July 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

I agree with what IH says about alliances; both including them and putting in a house rule to stop people from forming them as early as they did in game #2. Round 4 seems reasonable but definately not before round 3.

I think part of why they formed so fast though was that we hadn't played with them before. People will be more cautious a second time knowing how things can shift and that the penalties are extensive for breaking their alliance.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Yes, I rather liked the alliances too, with the house rule for delaying them until mid-game.

Alternatively, the house rule could be that you need to maintain diplomacy with a player through 2 cleanup phases before you can form an alliance with them. That way no round-1 diplo could not possibly become an alliance before round 3 and people would generally need to be careful who they form diplo with if alliance is their intent in the future. Just an idea, what do others think of that? I'd also be up for a mod that penalizes both players for intentionally breaking an alliance (like EM and Khell last game) where one lagging player leaves the alliance in order to free up other's score.


I like keeping the 1 GC, though some kind of greater incentive to compete for it would be cool...like an increase to its VP score. Possibly Boardgame geek has some advice on this.

I'm also with IH RE the homeworld thing. Just use the ancient homeworld mechanic already in place (though they only recommend it for low player games). If they were sparsely scattered in tier 3 it would be interesting I think. A nice boon for a militarily strong race near the start, or a cool barrier for weaker races to break down later in the game. Maybe add a house rule that they're all warp portal connected so that board connectivity improves as the game progresses.

RE the draco and Planta specifically - they are removed from play in 6-9 player games because their racial bonuses are too advantageous relative to the other races...not because they're on the back of one homeworld tile or another. I'd be fine with being free to choose all other races, but those two specifically have an established game balance issue in high player-count games. We should not include them unless the player count is low.

[Gnaw]

D, on 15 July 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

twelve, on 15 July 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

I agree with what IH says about alliances; both including them and putting in a house rule to stop people from forming them as early as they did in game #2. Round 4 seems reasonable but definately not before round 3.

I think part of why they formed so fast though was that we hadn't played with them before. People will be more cautious a second time knowing how things can shift and that the penalties are extensive for breaking their alliance.

Along with the other crazy ideas I've had over the course of game 3 is: Ambassadors with Benefits. A level between exchanging diplomacy ala the original game and full blow alliances in the expansion.

I've got to shut the laptop down and don't want to lose all this. (No battery) I'll finish it tomorrow.

It's a completely stupid idea. But it's a fun stupid idea.

Spoiler

To use an example from this game. Whichever turn it was when D'rek moved in on the Hive.

Hive: 212

Morgy has a ship in 234. 321 was influenced by him.

Tatts has influence in 210 and 107 but NO ships in either hex.

Ambassadors with Benefits would allow Morgy to move his ship through 210 and 107 to attack D'reks's 205 hex without breaking diplomacy with Tatts.

• There can be no ships in the hexes transited.
• Morgy has to be in and out of Tatt's hexes in one turn. Make sure to go before leaving as there are not pit stops.
• Neither Tatts nor Morgy can have the betrayal card.

There should be a cost involved. Morgy gives (in addition to the disc for taking the action) Tatts an influence disc that Tatts gets to use as his own for the remainder of the round.

If Morgy betrays Tatt's goodwill and attacks him, Tatts gets to keep the influence disc for the remainder of that round and the full next round.

The use of AWB must be pre-announced on thread during a turn. Because if Tatts can be bought, then others should have the opportunity to buy him.

So Morgy does whatever he does for turn 3 and then says something like "Tatts I wish to purchase safe passage through hexes 210 and 107 for next turn."

Assume CCW so Tatts is next. He does whatever his action is and then says Yes, No, or Yes unless somebody pays me to say No.

[Khellendros]

Gnaw, on 15 July 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 15 July 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

If you want to run a heavily-modified game, go for it. Put whatever you want into it. You've got a loooooooong time to figure it out before the current game ends (though OTOH there's nothing to say 2 games couldn't be run simultaneously).

I don't have any major opinions, if it appeals to me I'll sign up and if not I won't.

So one vote for a standar rules game then.

That's not what I meant.

Well, my vast experience with Eclipse is 3.5 rounds. So yeah, I asked for input. And threw some wild ideas out. There are at least 3 experienced people with fantastic imaginations playing the current game. I'd be a bit silly not to ask for their input.


For the record:

• I intend to run a 7-9 player game.
• Hives, Supernova and Pulsar in. And warp portals
• Alliances I'm 50/50 on at the moment.
• Simultaneous play variant I'm 3:1 against it. Not certain that it's useful in a non-table game.

The less wild ideas:

• Instead of discarding the races not chosen, scatter those tiiles in with the 300s. They would be insular, "we just want to be left alone, we fear and distrust everyone and especially those of our own kind."
  • More explores that way.
  • They would be in essence no different than running across a hex with an ancient in it.
  • Maybe, maybe, maybe give them a couple of starbases.
• To address Tapper's complain that game 3 has to much chatter in it, just toss in Diplomacy. You can talk off thread as much as you like to whomever you like, about whatever you like. But none of it is binding in any way.

Edit: added warp portals

Tapper thinks there's too much chatter? That's the best part for me. I wouldn't consider playing if banter is restricted to PMs, in all honesty.

[Tattersail_]

I am going to say IN cause I don't want to miss out, I don't think changes need to be made, it is complex as it is and fun to boot.

[Imperial Historian]

Perhaps have a thread just for moves, and another thread for game related chat. As it is it can be easy to miss what others are up to amongst the pages of text.

[twelve]

Khellendros, on 16 July 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 15 July 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 15 July 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

D, on 15 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

If you want to run a heavily-modified game, go for it. Put whatever you want into it. You've got a loooooooong time to figure it out before the current game ends (though OTOH there's nothing to say 2 games couldn't be run simultaneously).

I don't have any major opinions, if it appeals to me I'll sign up and if not I won't.

So one vote for a standar rules game then.

That's not what I meant.

Well, my vast experience with Eclipse is 3.5 rounds. So yeah, I asked for input. And threw some wild ideas out. There are at least 3 experienced people with fantastic imaginations playing the current game. I'd be a bit silly not to ask for their input.


For the record:

• I intend to run a 7-9 player game.
• Hives, Supernova and Pulsar in. And warp portals
• Alliances I'm 50/50 on at the moment.
• Simultaneous play variant I'm 3:1 against it. Not certain that it's useful in a non-table game.

The less wild ideas:

• Instead of discarding the races not chosen, scatter those tiiles in with the 300s. They would be insular, "we just want to be left alone, we fear and distrust everyone and especially those of our own kind."
  • More explores that way.
  • They would be in essence no different than running across a hex with an ancient in it.
  • Maybe, maybe, maybe give them a couple of starbases.
• To address Tapper's complain that game 3 has to much chatter in it, just toss in Diplomacy. You can talk off thread as much as you like to whomever you like, about whatever you like. But none of it is binding in any way.

Edit: added warp portals

Tapper thinks there's too much chatter? That's the best part for me. I wouldn't consider playing if banter is restricted to PMs, in all honesty.

I have to agree here. Khell the best part of your game isn't your game at all but the table talk you bring. You are frickin hilarious!!!!!

[twelve]

Imperial Historian, on 16 July 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Perhaps have a thread just for moves, and another thread for game related chat. As it is it can be easy to miss what others are up to amongst the pages of text.

That does seem like a fair compromise. That and we can eliminate the need to update the front page if there is just a thead for actions and they should be in turn order so no need to search through pages of spam to find out who did what.