Malazan Empire: Eclipse Games Four+ - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Eclipse Games Four+ Discussion and potentials

#21 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:14 AM

View PostKhellendros, on 16 July 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

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

  • 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.



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.



No. It was back when you cried like a baby for its mommy. Tapper said something about there was nothing wrong with talking off thread given how much smack talk in the thread. I took it more as a "we need alliances" thing.

So it was't the chatter he was talking about. It was the "oh, SS have you noticed how vulnerable Tapper is right now?"
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#22 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:24 AM

View Posttwelve, on 16 July 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

View PostImperial 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.


I semi-sorta was thinking of that when I ran the idea of a "boardgame" sub forum past Silencer.

Gnaw, on 07 July 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

What would be the chances of getting a "boardgames" sub-forum? Diplomacy and Eclipse would be out of the way of the video game threads.
Galactic Council, Adjudicator, and Twelve as forum admins.
Thanks either way.


Silencer, on 08 July 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

We could, though really the Games subforum is not meant to be exclusive to computer games, and I haven't noticed Diplomacy and Eclipse getting under anyone's feet...is it going to have much effect on the games themselves? Are they as popular as Mafia? XD I dunno, I just kinda cruise over those threads, and I figure if you squirrel them away in their own sub-forum they will get even less traffic, rather than more...

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#23 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:26 AM

And yes that was indeed presumptuous of me.
:crybaby:
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#24 User is offline   Tapper 

  • Lover of High House Mafia
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 6,646
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location:Delft, Holland.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 15 July 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

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.





Are Planta and Draco really removed from those games by the book? I figured they were unbalanced mostly in smaller games, where a Draco walling off ancients and a Planta outgrowing the other 1-2 players too quickly, but a game where ancients are fair game for all other players and any Planta has two neighbours, make them more balanced, imho. I'd use the ancient worlds in any single game without a second's hesitation. Those cruisers are frickin' awesome and really force a player to strategize for them.

As for a 'bigger' game: all concerns about set-up aside (people run 14 player games of Twilight Empire, 10 player games of diplomacy, and so on, so it can be done): I think the main factor against it is that such a game on this forum might be susceptible to player attrition rather than un-balanced gameplay. We've seen it in other games like diplomacy: people leave midway and don't always come back.

This game will take in total several months if not half a year, now multiply that with a larger galaxy for all, leading to longer rounds...

Gameplay wise, we have to face the fact that the expansion(s) added so much new stuff and mechanics already that there's bound to be some snags (SS's double pulsar hexes is a purely chance based result but nonetheless is a significant factor in 3.0) - if Eclipse (ever) gets a second big expansion, it will be undergoing even more changes, most likely. Furthermore, if everyone gets into the 20/20/20 resource territory as a consequence, you'll see a lot of similarities in fleet construction especially that currently don't exist because we don't have the availability /resources to pay for them, and faction strengths/weaknesses become totally different.

Magellan for example with their resource production that is currently as strong as a 10% resource buff mid-game would be marginalized to less than half that, whereas the cheaper ships for Mechanema would magnify their already good combat potentials.

For 4.0, I would totally go for the alliance system. I understand the reason for not including them but I think that this game suffers from some of its side-effects anyway (I would say the negative ones), without any consequence like the alliances have (the averaged points, that can really, really fuck you up). The system would also add oomph to the more turtling/ less combat dependent species especially (Lyra, Hydrani & Planta) if it allows them to ally rightly, while jack-of-all-trades species can combine powers and really challenge, as well.
Everyone is entitled to his own wrong opinion. - Lizrad
0

#25 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:15 PM

View PostTapper, on 17 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 15 July 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

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.



Are Planta and Draco really removed from those games by the book? I figured they were unbalanced mostly in smaller games, where a Draco walling off ancients and a Planta outgrowing the other 1-2 players too quickly, but a game where ancients are fair game for all other players and any Planta has two neighbours, make them more balanced, imho. I'd use the ancient worlds in any single game without a second's hesitation. Those cruisers are frickin' awesome and really force a player to strategize for them.

As for a 'bigger' game: all concerns about set-up aside (people run 14 player games of Twilight Empire, 10 player games of diplomacy, and so on, so it can be done): I think the main factor against it is that such a game on this forum might be susceptible to player attrition rather than un-balanced gameplay. We've seen it in other games like diplomacy: people leave midway and don't always come back.

This game will take in total several months if not half a year, now multiply that with a larger galaxy for all, leading to longer rounds...

Gameplay wise, we have to face the fact that the expansion(s) added so much new stuff and mechanics already that there's bound to be some snags (SS's double pulsar hexes is a purely chance based result but nonetheless is a significant factor in 3.0) - if Eclipse (ever) gets a second big expansion, it will be undergoing even more changes, most likely. Furthermore, if everyone gets into the 20/20/20 resource territory as a consequence, you'll see a lot of similarities in fleet construction especially that currently don't exist because we don't have the availability /resources to pay for them, and faction strengths/weaknesses become totally different.

Magellan for example with their resource production that is currently as strong as a 10% resource buff mid-game would be marginalized to less than half that, whereas the cheaper ships for Mechanema would magnify their already good combat potentials.

For 4.0, I would totally go for the alliance system. I understand the reason for not including them but I think that this game suffers from some of its side-effects anyway (I would say the negative ones), without any consequence like the alliances have (the averaged points, that can really, really fuck you up). The system would also add oomph to the more turtling/ less combat dependent species especially (Lyra, Hydrani & Planta) if it allows them to ally rightly, while jack-of-all-trades species can combine powers and really challenge, as well.


Everyone seems to like the Alliance thing. The only thing I dislike about it is:

founding an alliance Two players, who have Diplomaticrelations with each other, may agree on founding an Alli-ance at any time during either player's action in the ActionPhase. They both take an Alliance Tile of one yet unfound-ed Alliance and place them face up next to their PlayerBoards. In a game of six or more players, a third player mayjoin the Alliance if he has Diplomatic Relations with eitherof the two Allies and if both founders agree. You can onlybe part of one Alliance.



Looking at the current game, Khell and Tapper would be naturals to form an alliance. But they couldn't given these rules. *shrug*
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#26 User is offline   twelve 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 9,149
  • Joined: 27-March 09
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:19 PM

View PostGnaw, on 17 July 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Everyone seems to like the Alliance thing. The only thing I dislike about it is:

founding an alliance Two players, who have Diplomaticrelations with each other, may agree on founding an Alli-ance at any time during either player's action in the ActionPhase. They both take an Alliance Tile of one yet unfound-ed Alliance and place them face up next to their PlayerBoards. In a game of six or more players, a third player mayjoin the Alliance if he has Diplomatic Relations with eitherof the two Allies and if both founders agree. You can onlybe part of one Alliance.



Looking at the current game, Khell and Tapper would be naturals to form an alliance. But they couldn't given these rules. *shrug*


They could act as an alliance in principle until they offically can exchange embassadors and work together to eliminate CF if they wanted.
I don't know what I'm doing but it sounds good.
0

#27 User is offline   D'rek 

  • Consort of High House Mafia
  • Group: Super Moderators
  • Posts: 14,599
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location::

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:49 PM

I'm not really a fan of shoe-horning alliances into a certain time or anything like that. As I see it, that will just make everyone very hesitant until the arbitrary cut-off time arrives, and then everyone will immediately form alliances all at the same time. I prefer that the alliances can develop naturally at any time when the circumstances are ideal. If you were to change anything about them, I would rather alliances be made even riskier or long-term-affecting so that you need to carefully consider if it is the right choice even more. But really, I think they're fine as they are now and now that we've had one game with them we'll all be more hesitant to form one anyways, especially if creating one would incite everyone else to gang up on you. I also think we're likely to have 9 players again in the next game, which makes a big difference for the alliances, too - with 6 or 7 like our last game it was easy for the galaxy to become nothing but alliances, but with 9 players that could be much less likely.

View Postworrywort, on 14 September 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I kinda love it when D'rek unleashes her nerd wrath, as I knew she would here. Sorry innocent bystanders, but someone's gotta be the kindling.
0

#28 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

View PostD, on 17 July 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

I'm not really a fan of shoe-horning alliances into a certain time or anything like that. As I see it, that will just make everyone very hesitant until the arbitrary cut-off time arrives, and then everyone will immediately form alliances all at the same time. I prefer that the alliances can develop naturally at any time when the circumstances are ideal. If you were to change anything about them, I would rather alliances be made even riskier or long-term-affecting so that you need to carefully consider if it is the right choice even more. But really, I think they're fine as they are now and now that we've had one game with them we'll all be more hesitant to form one anyways, especially if creating one would incite everyone else to gang up on you. I also think we're likely to have 9 players again in the next game, which makes a big difference for the alliances, too - with 6 or 7 like our last game it was easy for the galaxy to become nothing but alliances, but with 9 players that could be much less likely.


It's very hard to argue with the "there have only been 3 games so far, so it's way to early to be fucking with things" argument.

Especially given that the current game is likely to last into 2014. Posted Image
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#29 User is offline   Tapper 

  • Lover of High House Mafia
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 6,646
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location:Delft, Holland.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 08:27 PM

View Posttwelve, on 17 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

View PostGnaw, on 17 July 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Everyone seems to like the Alliance thing. The only thing I dislike about it is:

founding an alliance Two players, who have Diplomaticrelations with each other, may agree on founding an Alli-ance at any time during either player's action in the ActionPhase. They both take an Alliance Tile of one yet unfound-ed Alliance and place them face up next to their PlayerBoards. In a game of six or more players, a third player mayjoin the Alliance if he has Diplomatic Relations with eitherof the two Allies and if both founders agree. You can onlybe part of one Alliance.



Looking at the current game, Khell and Tapper would be naturals to form an alliance. But they couldn't given these rules. *shrug*


They could act as an alliance in principle until they offically can exchange embassadors and work together to eliminate CF if they wanted.

I would say that SS and me are the natural alliance partners, really.
Everyone is entitled to his own wrong opinion. - Lizrad
0

#30 User is offline   D'rek 

  • Consort of High House Mafia
  • Group: Super Moderators
  • Posts: 14,599
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location::

Posted 17 July 2013 - 08:49 PM

View PostTapper, on 17 July 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

View Posttwelve, on 17 July 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

View PostGnaw, on 17 July 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Everyone seems to like the Alliance thing. The only thing I dislike about it is:

founding an alliance Two players, who have Diplomaticrelations with each other, may agree on founding an Alli-ance at any time during either player's action in the ActionPhase. They both take an Alliance Tile of one yet unfound-ed Alliance and place them face up next to their PlayerBoards. In a game of six or more players, a third player mayjoin the Alliance if he has Diplomatic Relations with eitherof the two Allies and if both founders agree. You can onlybe part of one Alliance.



Looking at the current game, Khell and Tapper would be naturals to form an alliance. But they couldn't given these rules. *shrug*


They could act as an alliance in principle until they offically can exchange embassadors and work together to eliminate CF if they wanted.

I would say that SS and me are the natural alliance partners, really.


That or you and Twelve - twelve holds still and defends while you have a free hand to conquer SS for a boatload of shared points.

View Postworrywort, on 14 September 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I kinda love it when D'rek unleashes her nerd wrath, as I knew she would here. Sorry innocent bystanders, but someone's gotta be the kindling.
0

#31 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:26 PM

I have a house rule to propose:

No Developments may be researched in Round 1.

OR

Developments will be drawn at a rate of 2 per round alongside other tech.

Edit: Yes, this is aimed at the Eridani.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 18 July 2013 - 11:39 PM

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#32 User is offline   twelve 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 9,149
  • Joined: 27-March 09
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:39 PM

View PostGnaw, on 18 July 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

I have a house rule to propose:

No Developments may be researched in Round 1.

OR

Developments will be drawn at a rate of 2 per round alongside other tech.



I vote against either of these proposed house rules!!!

I do, however, like the rule you added in red where there is partial predictable tech, though I hope it won't confuse people as to what is actually available to what WILL be available. It will make those early in round passes more profitable hopefully.
I don't know what I'm doing but it sounds good.
0

#33 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:00 AM

View Posttwelve, on 18 July 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

View PostGnaw, on 18 July 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

I have a house rule to propose:

No Developments may be researched in Round 1.

OR

Developments will be drawn at a rate of 2 per round alongside other tech.



I vote against either of these proposed house rules!!!

I do, however, like the rule you added in red where there is partial predictable tech, though I hope it won't confuse people as to what is actually available to what WILL be available. It will make those early in round passes more profitable hopefully.



I think it should be easy enough to keep the two separate. Easiest would be a "preview of coming attractions" post on the first page. If we go with it, there would be a partial draw posted before people even pick races.

As for the Eridani & developments: it's pretty obvious it basically gives them a full round's worth of an advantage over everyone else. One of the +resource discovery tiles in the first round and Eridani could have all 3 developments. I think there's a damn good argument to be made that the science dev should be the very first action for them.
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#34 User is offline   twelve 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 9,149
  • Joined: 27-March 09
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:22 AM

Well yes but I wouldn't be where I am without the flux missiles and I got those the old fashion way. Without those I'd doubt I would have taken down the GC for a round or two later than I did.
I don't know what I'm doing but it sounds good.
0

#35 User is offline   D'rek 

  • Consort of High House Mafia
  • Group: Super Moderators
  • Posts: 14,599
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location::

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:12 AM

You know what would be an interesting (but not necessarily good) spin on developments? Each player can only obtain one development. So if you really want a certain want, you need to get it early before anyone else does, but then you need to make sure you get or keep that benefit or make good use of it! And with 9 players, there'll still be 2 people for the last one, though that could change if players are eliminated or near-eliminated. I like the strategic choices it would force you to think about... do I get the trade fleet now for that crucial little income bonus, or do I make do so that I can get the artifact link later... okay, it's a little evil :crybaby:

View Postworrywort, on 14 September 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I kinda love it when D'rek unleashes her nerd wrath, as I knew she would here. Sorry innocent bystanders, but someone's gotta be the kindling.
0

#36 User is offline   Solidsnape 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 802
  • Joined: 21-March 11
  • Location:England.
  • Interests:Playing Guitar/Ukulele/Banjolele, reading, music, Wing Chun Kuen, my 2 boys and my wonderful GF.
  • From good 'ol Newcastle upon Tyne.

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:51 AM

View PostGnaw, on 17 July 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

View PostD, on 17 July 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

I'm not really a fan of shoe-horning alliances into a certain time or anything like that. As I see it, that will just make everyone very hesitant until the arbitrary cut-off time arrives, and then everyone will immediately form alliances all at the same time. I prefer that the alliances can develop naturally at any time when the circumstances are ideal. If you were to change anything about them, I would rather alliances be made even riskier or long-term-affecting so that you need to carefully consider if it is the right choice even more. But really, I think they're fine as they are now and now that we've had one game with them we'll all be more hesitant to form one anyways, especially if creating one would incite everyone else to gang up on you. I also think we're likely to have 9 players again in the next game, which makes a big difference for the alliances, too - with 6 or 7 like our last game it was easy for the galaxy to become nothing but alliances, but with 9 players that could be much less likely.


It's very hard to argue with the "there have only been 3 games so far, so it's way to early to be fucking with things" argument.

Especially given that the current game is likely to last into 2014. Posted Image


Haha.
I'm sure your impatience was your downfall!
"If you seek the crumpled bones of the T'lan Imass,
gather into one hand the sands of Raraku"
The Holy Desert
- Anonymous.
0

#37 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:42 PM

View PostSolidsnape, on 19 July 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

View PostGnaw, on 17 July 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

View PostD, on 17 July 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

I'm not really a fan of shoe-horning alliances into a certain time or anything like that. As I see it, that will just make everyone very hesitant until the arbitrary cut-off time arrives, and then everyone will immediately form alliances all at the same time. I prefer that the alliances can develop naturally at any time when the circumstances are ideal. If you were to change anything about them, I would rather alliances be made even riskier or long-term-affecting so that you need to carefully consider if it is the right choice even more. But really, I think they're fine as they are now and now that we've had one game with them we'll all be more hesitant to form one anyways, especially if creating one would incite everyone else to gang up on you. I also think we're likely to have 9 players again in the next game, which makes a big difference for the alliances, too - with 6 or 7 like our last game it was easy for the galaxy to become nothing but alliances, but with 9 players that could be much less likely.


It's very hard to argue with the "there have only been 3 games so far, so it's way to early to be fucking with things" argument.

Especially given that the current game is likely to last into 2014. Posted Image


Haha.
I'm sure your impatience was your downfall!


I was commenting more on D'rek's point. There have only been 2.5 games played on the MzE forums. So screwing around with variants to make things "more interesting" is probably counter productive.

The current game at the pace it's been going will be over in mid September I'd say. Maybe sooner but I doubt longer. Vacations could extend it though.
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

#38 User is offline   Galactic Council 

  • God
  • Group: Game Mod
  • Posts: 4,983
  • Joined: 30-April 13

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:53 PM

Minor details like 1 development each is something I could live with but I don't think it's strictly necessary

And I'd argue the Eridani are at a massive disadvantage despite their high money at the outset. They have 2 fewer action discs and are always running up a deficit as a result. Twelve got lucky that a) the flux missiles were drawn, giving him a chance at the GC production early and b ) that he was in a position to use all his starting money on quantum grid right away and c) that teh quantum grid was drawn early at all.

Twelve had some good luck this time, but a lot of things have to come together for Eridani to achieve such an early lead I think. Switching things around just for 1 race's success in 1 game seems a bit of an overreaction.

EDIT

sorry should have posted as CF. This is CF, not Gnaw.

This post has been edited by Galactic Council: 19 July 2013 - 06:53 PM

0

#39 User is offline   Imperial Historian 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 7,880
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:47 PM

The eridani, double development, quantum grid + 2dread start is pretty powerful, but I don't think it is overly so. Not much more than early orion or early mechanema anyway. Admitedly, if quantum grid is in the initial tech draw it's nearly always a race to try and get, but if lots of improved hulls are out i'll try and get orion, or lots of cheap tech hydrans. Twelves disc disadvantage should start to become more prominent as others grab extra discs.

And you have to remember, twelve was a mulligan away from losing both those dreads very early on, which would have completely changed the game.

That said I'm not a huge fan of the current development mechanic, in less than 9 player games when you draw some at random I find strategy is a lot more varied. A rule where developments appear over the first 3-4 rounds at random i could get behind (if only to remove the monotony of the eridani start always being nearly exactly the same), something along the lines of draw 2 at set-up, then 2 each round until they are all out.

I once played a variant where the developments were placed on the round track (mainly so people kept track of the number of rounds better), with one revealed at the beginning of each round, but only available at the start of the following round... this worked reasonably well and led to some interesting strategy on passing first/saving resource for a specific development.
0

#40 User is offline   Gnaw 

  • Recovering eating disordered addict of HHM
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 5,966
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:48 PM

View PostImperial Historian, on 19 July 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

The eridani, double development, quantum grid + 2dread start is pretty powerful, but I don't think it is overly so. Not much more than early orion or early mechanema anyway. Admitedly, if quantum grid is in the initial tech draw it's nearly always a race to try and get, but if lots of improved hulls are out i'll try and get orion, or lots of cheap tech hydrans. Twelves disc disadvantage should start to become more prominent as others grab extra discs.

And you have to remember, twelve was a mulligan away from losing both those dreads very early on, which would have completely changed the game.

That said I'm not a huge fan of the current development mechanic, in less than 9 player games when you draw some at random I find strategy is a lot more varied. A rule where developments appear over the first 3-4 rounds at random i could get behind (if only to remove the monotony of the eridani start always being nearly exactly the same), something along the lines of draw 2 at set-up, then 2 each round until they are all out.

I once played a variant where the developments were placed on the round track (mainly so people kept track of the number of rounds better), with one revealed at the beginning of each round, but only available at the start of the following round... this worked reasonably well and led to some interesting strategy on passing first/saving resource for a specific development.


There's also the fact that he was rather unlucky in his two explores. The thing I dislike about the developments and the Eridani is that with their very first turn they can grab a +12 dev. That is, to my simple mind, a fairly significant thing deserving of a nerf.

Another idea for that: the other developments are there from round 1. But the 3 +12 don't become available until round X. Either all three the same round (4 maybe) or randomly over 3 rounds (3-5?).


Edit: This refers to the last paragraph in IH's post. Now that last one is interesting. I'm not certain I like it for what will be my 2nd game with others having only played a couple more. The draw 2 per round sounds better I think.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 20 July 2013 - 09:23 PM

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users