[Tapper]

What about:

Growth
# 11
Primary: whenever a player passes, place 1 commodity on this card.

Primary ability: activate to place 1 commodity on this card for each player who has passed. Then, take half of the commodities on this card (rounded up) as Trade Goods. Add additional Influence to one of your planets equal to the leftover commodities on this card. This bonus lasts until clean-up.

Secondary: if you are an active player, you may pay 1 CT to place 2 infantry in a system you control. If you have passed, take 1 commodity from the supply, instead.

----
The free commodity to early passers is basically a bit of a catch-up mechanism for low influence players with few CTs, and the primary and secondary both inject TGs into the agenda phase, allowing more trades and bribes.

With regards to the others;
Relocation is cool and unique.
Production sounds like a highly useful card that will see massive play (extra moveable carrier turn 1, anyone?)



I like Raiding's intention, but I feel it is a win-more card or something that is going to encourage Carrier-sniping, especially early on (easy win for 2 TG, more if it is loaded with infantry that can't shoot back).
Maybe:

Raiding
PRIMARY: collect 1 TG and place a Bounty token on a ship of your choice, controlled by any player other than you.
If the ship is destroyed, the active player collects the Bounty token, otherwise, it is owned by the ship's owner.
During Clean-up, the owner of the Bounty token collects 4 TG.

SECONDARY: pay 1 CT to move a Bounty token from a ship you control to a ship controlled by any player other than you.

[Galactic Council]

I feel like the Primary of growth would be a little complicated to keep track of.
probably
I really like Tapper's suggested changes to Raiding. Basically it would incentivize a little more fighting, but also would probably encourage some players to pull "bountied" ships back from the front lines to protect them. I think it would have to be clear if there can be more than one bounty token in play at once. My thought would be that there can only be one bounty token in play at once, so you either use the Primary to place a bounty token if one isn't in play, or move it to another ship? Although then I think the secondary would basically just make the primary useless as the person who owns the ship the user of the primary puts the bounty on could just pay to immediately move it, couldn't they? I guess it means they'd have to waste an ST, perhaps unplanned...


At the moment, I think our best suggested additional strategies would be Production, Raiding (Tapper's suggested changes), Relocation. I think 3 additional strategies would be enough. Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Galactic Council: 03 June 2020 - 05:25 PM

[Galactic Council]

Also, I think if we end up using the 3 above strategies, then this is where they would fit in the intiative order:

1 - Leadership
2 - Diplomacy
3 - Politics
4 - Construction
RELOCATION
5 - Trade
6 - Warfare
RAIDING
7 - Technology
8 - Logistics
PRODUCTION
9 - Imperial


Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Galactic Council: 03 June 2020 - 05:20 PM

[Imperial Historian]

Galactic Council, on 03 June 2020 - 05:16 PM, said:

I feel like the Primary of growth would be a little complicated to keep track of.
probably
I really like Tapper's suggested changes to Raiding. Basically it would incentivize a little more fighting, but also would probably encourage some players to pull "bountied" ships back from the front lines to protect them. I think it would have to be clear if there can be more than one bounty token in play at once. My thought would be that there can only be one bounty token in play at once, so you either use the Primary to place a bounty token if one isn't in play, or move it to another ship? Although then I think the secondary would basically just make the primary useless as the person who owns the ship the user of the primary puts the bounty on could just pay to immediately move it, couldn't they? I guess it means they'd have to waste an ST, perhaps unplanned...


At the moment, I think our best suggested additional strategies would be Production, Raiding (Tapper's suggested changes), Relocation. I think 3 additional strategies would be enough. Thoughts?

I'm not sure about Raiding changes, I agree incentivising fighting is good but I think the interactions of the secondary don't quite work.

The primary ability on it's own is pretty weak, most strategies gain you something in the region of 3-6 extra resources, the primary for raiding gives you 1 TG, plus a potential for an additional 4, if you spend a CT and engage and win a combat. This is a significant opportunity cost compared to most strategy tokens, however with only one bounty token in play which other players can move with there secondary this isn't a great ability, as chances are the targetted player is going to spend a CT, move the bounty token and then can immediately spend a CT to move and attack to claim the rewards before the owner of the raiding primary can make a move. The primary is significantly weaker than the secondary which we have been trying to move away from, Additonally the way secondaries work if the player who uses his secondary to move it can easily move it onto someone who can't react and move the bounty, whilst the primary player always has the risk that his bounty will be removed.

I think we are all agreed that a token which incentivises combat would be a good thing, I'm not sure how to do this though.

Re relocation, i think the primary should also include the secondary ability

[D'rek]

I don't think Raiding is going to end up doing what you think it's going to. I think whoever picks it is just going to stall playing it as long as possible until someone with an exposed ship passes, then they'll put the bounty on it and attack it.

And like IH says, for pure resource value I'd get more out of Trade, Diplomacy, Tech, etc... without having to use a tactical action to get my reward.


Raiding sounds more like an Agenda or cyclical ability (Elect a player; that player places a bounty on a ship, etc) than a Strategy Card. I want the feeling of "Ok, my space civilization's ruler is focusing their attention on _____ this year" in a strategy card.

[Galactic Council]

Okay, so back to the drawing board with Raiding.

We could just go with 11 strategies for now? That still leaves 2 unused strategies per round in a 9 player game, which would certainly give the last chooser a few options instead of none and alleviate the feeling of being stuck with a "useless" strategy.

In the regular game there are 8 strategies, and a max 6 players, so it's 2 more than the number of players, so that would still be in line, though I think that 3 additional would also be acceptable.

[Galactic Council]

What do you guys think about something like this?

Trade Fleet

Primary: Trade your commodities with the Galactic Council.

Secondary: Pay 1 ST to trade with any player once this round, whether or not they are your neighbour.

[Galactic Council]

Though I guess you'll probably not like the secondary cause it's Hacan's main ability, thus making it useless to the Hacan. Never mind!!

I just like the idea of something that allows someone whose neighbours won't flip their commodities (or who doesn't want to trade with their neighbours for whatever reason) can still get them flipped.

[Galactic Council]

Another thought - if we don't limit Bounty markers to just one, and then you only get TGs if you destroy a ship with a bounty on it, it would start out not being much of a pain, but eventually there could be a bunch of bounties on the board... I dunno, I really like the idea of a bounty marker, but as IH said, it's difficult to figure out how to make it work.

[Tapper]

Galactic Council, on 03 June 2020 - 05:16 PM, said:

I feel like the Primary of growth would be a little complicated to keep track of.
probably
I really like Tapper's suggested changes to Raiding. Basically it would incentivize a little more fighting, but also would probably encourage some players to pull "bountied" ships back from the front lines to protect them. I think it would have to be clear if there can be more than one bounty token in play at once. My thought would be that there can only be one bounty token in play at once, so you either use the Primary to place a bounty token if one isn't in play, or move it to another ship? Although then I think the secondary would basically just make the primary useless as the person who owns the ship the user of the primary puts the bounty on could just pay to immediately move it, couldn't they? I guess it means they'd have to waste an ST, perhaps unplanned...


At the moment, I think our best suggested additional strategies would be Production, Raiding (Tapper's suggested changes), Relocation. I think 3 additional strategies would be enough. Thoughts?

The idea is that during clean-up, when the Bounty is paid, the token disappears until the next use of the Primary (just like the High Alert token).
The Secondary is purely there to bounce the token from your ship to that of another player - at the cost of a CT.


Potentially it can come back to the player who had the Strategy (who can't take the secondary), or being bounced up the chain to a player who already (had the opportunity to) used the Secondary and can't move the token on. Trick is indeed to decide which ship is vulnerable, where it is safe, and whether it is cheaper to bounce the token or save or protect the ship.

Also, the bounty is not particularly meant as a benefit to pay out to the player of the Primary. Instead, my idea was that the Primary paints a target on another player's back to drag a third player into combat against that player. Any moving-the-bounty-token-then-attacking through the secondary costs 2 CT for a payout of 4, which is a net loss. However, knowing you can get into a smallish combat you were considering anyway might be worth it. Also, it is a little compensation for facing a Sardakk Norr Exotrireme II or the Yin flagship.

The player with the Primary can also use it for negotiations: "If I target that totally safe cruiser of yours in your HS, that will get you 4 TG. That in return for your SftT?"
I also considered equalling the bounty to the value of the ship, but that makes putting it on easy pickings like a fighter, destroyer or cruiser even more marginal, and while the payout on a flagship would be huge, it is not the big combats we want to encourage, but smaller ones. The whole problem there is that often, it is the cost of a CT compared to what the combat yields that is the problem.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 04 June 2020 - 07:14 AM

[Tapper]

Imperial Historian, on 03 June 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 03 June 2020 - 05:16 PM, said:

I feel like the Primary of growth would be a little complicated to keep track of.
probably
I really like Tapper's suggested changes to Raiding. Basically it would incentivize a little more fighting, but also would probably encourage some players to pull "bountied" ships back from the front lines to protect them. I think it would have to be clear if there can be more than one bounty token in play at once. My thought would be that there can only be one bounty token in play at once, so you either use the Primary to place a bounty token if one isn't in play, or move it to another ship? Although then I think the secondary would basically just make the primary useless as the person who owns the ship the user of the primary puts the bounty on could just pay to immediately move it, couldn't they? I guess it means they'd have to waste an ST, perhaps unplanned...


At the moment, I think our best suggested additional strategies would be Production, Raiding (Tapper's suggested changes), Relocation. I think 3 additional strategies would be enough. Thoughts?

I'm not sure about Raiding changes, I agree incentivising fighting is good but I think the interactions of the secondary don't quite work.

The primary ability on it's own is pretty weak, most strategies gain you something in the region of 3-6 extra resources, the primary for raiding gives you 1 TG, plus a potential for an additional 4, if you spend a CT and engage and win a combat. This is a significant opportunity cost compared to most strategy tokens, however with only one bounty token in play which other players can move with there secondary this isn't a great ability, as chances are the targetted player is going to spend a CT, move the bounty token and then can immediately spend a CT to move and attack to claim the rewards before the owner of the raiding primary can make a move. The primary is significantly weaker than the secondary which we have been trying to move away from, Additonally the way secondaries work if the player who uses his secondary to move it can easily move it onto someone who can't react and move the bounty, whilst the primary player always has the risk that his bounty will be removed.



I think we are all agreed that a token which incentivises combat would be a good thing, I'm not sure how to do this though.

Re relocation, i think the primary should also include the secondary ability

If you really wanted to incentivize smaller scale combat, the following would work, by making (aggressive) moves much cheaper and CT slightly more accessible/affordable than just through Leadership:

Quote

PRIMARY:
until the end of the phase, after activating a system containing one or more ships controlled by another player, gain 2 TG.
You may pay 4 resources to gain 1 Tactical CT (I also considered 6 for 1 Tactical and 1 Fleet each)


SECONDARY:
Pay 4 production from planets to gain 1 Tactical CT.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 04 June 2020 - 07:15 AM

[Imperial Historian]

The more I think about the bounty token the less I think it will encourage combat. I like the secomd version more though I think you've overpriced the secondary, 4 resources and a CT for one tactical token is to much, neckro pay 4 resources and 1ct using the technology secondary for 3CT. 2CT would seem more in line with the game economy.

[Tapper]

Imperial Historian, on 04 June 2020 - 07:54 AM, said:

The more I think about the bounty token the less I think it will encourage combat. I like the secomd version more though I think you've overpriced the secondary, 4 resources and a CT for one tactical token is to much, neckro pay 4 resources and 1ct using the technology secondary for 3CT. 2CT would seem more in line with the game economy.

I think this primary is pretty strong.
Imho the secondary should be less efficient than Leadership's secondary is, also to prevent factions like Letnev or L1z1x from being able to get more CT out of their home systems than high-influence factions can get out of theirs through Leadership (4 influence is the maximum, I think?).

[Imperial Historian]

I thought you had to spend a CT to buy CT, buying a CT for 4 resources is entirely reasonable. Primary is fine.

[Morgoth]

How about a different version of the raiding primary altogether.

Primary:

Target a planet owned by another player in a system you control. You take trade goods and/or commodities from the targeted player equal to the planet's production value. Exhaust the planet.

[Morgoth]

I worry that there will be too many ways to generate trade goods now, with three cards that all produce additional trade goods. It could change the balance in favour of the races with limited commodity production. With this version of raiding at least, the total amount of trade goods on the board does not change.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 05 June 2020 - 06:54 AM, said:

How about a different version of the raiding primary altogether.

Primary:

Target a planet owned by another player in a system you control. You take trade goods and/or commodities from the targeted player equal to the planet's production value. Exhaust the planet.

How often does this happen?

[Morgoth]

Tapper, on 05 June 2020 - 07:32 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 05 June 2020 - 06:54 AM, said:

How about a different version of the raiding primary altogether.

Primary:

Target a planet owned by another player in a system you control. You take trade goods and/or commodities from the targeted player equal to the planet's production value. Exhaust the planet.

How often does this happen?

More so if this card was available I think. You can't perhaps take the planet, but it might be easy enough to take control of the system.

[Morgoth]

but you're right I think that it can produce situations where there's no benefit to playing the card at all, which makes it perhaps not such a great suggestion.

[D'rek]

I wanted to put a 10-SC set into the SVG template I'm setting up, so I quickly put together a 10-card set with the classic 8 + Warfare (adjusting the wording to what we'd talked about in this thread before) + Training: something I made up that is basically just putting free ground forces on planets in a similar manner to how Construction places buildings. It's in the reference thread now if you want to see it.

We can definitely have multiple 10-card sets though if we want to revisit the other ideas in this thread, too, though.