1,501 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Starmada)

Okay -- the difficulty is that I assumed all ships in the Iron Stars setting would have searchlights, and so I didn't bother trying to figure out a point cost for 'em. If everyone's got searchlights, the effect on relative point values is moot.

But thinking out loud, here... the effect of searchlights is to effectively cut the range to the target in half (or double the weapons' range). Range is not exactly a prime factor in the combat rating formula (it's [Range+Engines]) but for the sake of argument we can assume that a successful searchlight "lock-on" doubles the ORAT.

Problem: the average chance that a searchlight is successful varies with the range value of the weapon -- i.e. a searchlight will have a positive effect on targets within a range of 6 hexes much more often than on targets out to range 18.

So the impact on point cost is not only variable between ships, but between weapons batteries on the same ship.

I'm thinking it's not worth doing. If you want an effect for "scouts", I would look elsewhere...

Go to forum: Starmada

1,502 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking... you want to vary the number of searchlights per hull point?

Go to forum: Starmada

1,503 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Okay... I'm still hoping there are others out there who can playtest the current version (HINT HINT) but in the meantime, here are some ideas I have in response to Peter's feedback:

1) Eliminate maintenance costs. It's likely I'm the only one who thinks it's a good idea.

2) Remove the "reach XX points to win" victory conditions and instead play for X number of turns, at which point the player with the most VPs wins. (X can either be finite or randomly determined.)

3) To start the game, alternate placing one army on any unoccupied system until ALL are claimed. (Certainly, there can be game variants with open space, but as there is not currently an "exploration" phase, having empty systems seems pointless.)

I'm open to ideas on how to make the combat system more interesting/innovative...

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,504 Reply by mj12games

(24 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

Good idea. I would find it perfect if you go back to a simple streamlined and fast version of Starmada. (best would be even simpler than Version 1)  I would be the first who would buy and play such a game. In fact I am sure that this would be the starmada version I would play the most. I could even introduce such rules to casual gamers which is now hardly possible.

Not sure what you mean by simpler than version 1 -- I'm not sure it can get any simpler than that. smile

Go to forum: Starmada

1,505 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Really? "Fail"? Sheesh...

mundungus wrote:

Someone said there was "nothing innovative" about the game. Another described it as "like slow-motion Risk".

I never claimed to be innovative.

One player said, "I'm not making interesting decisions battle-wise." I know the combat system has been kept simple to make it easier to coordinate with Starmada, but this may make it too bland for a stand-alone board game.

I'm not entirely sure what sort of "interesting" battle decisions your playtesters would want...

The testers wondered if the game should have an inherent clock to ensure that it eventually ends.

Already ahead of you.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I guess it's better to find out now than after publication.

You'll forgive me if I don't give up on it just yet. smile

So -- where do we go from here? I would like to have feedback from some other people before making wholesale changes...

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,506 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Do you have a low-ink version of the sectors lying around?

No, but I'll see what I can do.

cricket wrote:

What do y'all think of the bonus income for opponents' bases?

Interesting -- not clear what the effect will be.

I'm not sure about the effect, either... but I thought it might lead to some interesting situations.

If I were behind, though, I would hole up in a system with another weak player and have both of us build bases. Maybe that's okay, because it would become a huge target...

And the more you do this, the more your fate is intertwined with the other player.

Hmm. Huge targets are always well-defended. Since we have armies, what if bases had no firepower (but could still be taken as casualties)? I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not.

I'd say leave it as is for now.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,507 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

A thought: what about ordering movement by income, rather than by number of systems? This would avoid a redundant counting (once for income, again for order) and probably result in fewer ties.

I don't see why not.

I prefer allowing the primary player (since you've designated one) to allocate all hits among players. Right now, if I have one fleet in a system with ten allied fleets, I'm disinclined to help my ally because one of the first two hit will affect me.

Disinclined or not, you have no choice -- players cannot remain neutral if their units are in a battle hex. I guess you could side with the attacking player... smile

I am not sold on allowing the player to assign hits as desired; I fear it may lead to abuse.

Again, I have a nice playtesting opportunity Thursday night. Would you like me to trot this out?

Sure.

What do y'all think of the bonus income for opponents' bases?

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,508 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Erik M wrote:
cricket wrote:

[FILE REMOVED]

Where did it go?  :shock:

I've been deleting the previous version each time I post an update.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,509 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

New draft for today...

Change log:

* Altered rules to allow players to co-exist in the same hex.

* Added income for opponents' bases.

* Changed activation markers to affect the entire hex, not just the moving stack.

* Removed the Diplomacy Phase (smells like an optional rule).

[FILE REMOVED -- SEE STICKY IN SOVSTARS FORUM]

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,510 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Interesting, but weird. A rich player could shoot their fleet all the way across the galaxy.

Not that weird. Supremacy worked this way.

Yeah, I assumed the latter. Like I said, it allows pinning, which opens up some interesting strategic options.

So I could move one little fleet into your home system, pinning all your reserve fleets and preventing them from attacking the rest of my expeditionary force?

Interesting...

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,511 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

That could work, but then you have to roll dice or something to resolve ties. All other things being equal, I like decisions better than dice. Allowing the attacker to decide also corresponds better to the results of playing out a battle in Starmada, where shots will be taken at particular ships.

Okay.

Casualties are allocated evenly. Excess hits are assigned by the opposing side.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,512 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

1) the attacker (player inflicting the casualties) decide which side takes them, although the target still chooses which units.

2) the first player to declare on each side becomes the leader of that side, and gets to allocate casualties.

(I think I like #1 better.)

Huh. I was going to go with something simple, like "casualties are allocated evenly among the players on each side".

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,513 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

I think those two mechanisms serve different purposes. Activation markers prevent a unit that has moved or fought from moving. (This both prevents double moving and allows pinning.) A charge for movement limits the amount of movement a player can do.

So: I think if there was a charge, you'd still need the activation markers.

Maybe I'm not being clear -- the idea would be that you can move a given unit as many times as you like each turn; but you have to pay each time a stack is moved.

Instead of a charge, how about having admirals as another type of unit?

I like the concept, but more as an optional/advanced rule, rather than another type of "standard" unit.

BTW, you might need a kludge like TI has to allow players to swap forces between systems in one turn. Currently, if I move my forces from system A to (friendly) system B, I've pinned my own system B forces.

Not true -- activation markers apply only to the units in a moved stack, not to all units in the hex where they ended their move.

Although maybe it should be that way -- an activation marker is placed in the destination hex, and no units may move out of a hex with a marker. :?:

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,514 Topic by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Random thought...

What about removing the need for activation markers, instead charging players $1 for each stack moved?

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,515 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Yes. The simplest rule is probably that the intruder declares first, then each of the other players in clockwise order. Each player could declare for either side.

Problem: how are casualties allocated?

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,516 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Maybe the conditions should be:

Not sure I see an improvement on (or even a real change to) the current conditions. :?:

This (or, in fact, the current system) might allow multiple players' units in the same hex. Most games don't allow this, because it makes ownership of a system unclear.

But this interests me...

Control of a system goes to whomever has the most bases in the system. If no bases are present, control goes to whomever has the most armies.

A couple changes would have to be made to the movement process:

1) When a stack enters a hex containing opposing units, the moving player declares if he/she will attack.

2) If the moving player declines to attack, the opposing player declares if he/she will attack.

3) If neither player attacks, the stack may remain in the hex or continue its move.

Question: if two players' units are already in a hex, what happens when a third enters? Do both "defenders" have the option of accepting/declining battle?

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,517 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Erik M wrote:

There's no test to read up on, but this one can be commented on anyhow...  :shock:

I'm not sure what you mean ... the latest draft is available for download. See above.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,518 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

The difference between neutrality and recognition is unclear.

Actually, what I've been wondering about is the difference between neutrality and war.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,519 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

I think in a "conquer the galaxy" game, some logistics/supply rules are also a good thing as there is a time honored tradition in science fiction of flanking a fleet, cutting its supply lines, and forcing it to a halt or possibly even turning it back. Basic book-keeping for such things doesn't make a ridiculous amount of paperwork in a strategic level game and increases the decision making which is what such a game should be all about anyway.

A thought: Maintenance cost is doubled for any units not in the same sector as, or in a sector adjacent to, a friendly base.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,520 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Is there any reason you picked than number rather than six? (Ideally, a group meeting regularly would have an even number of players.)

In games like this, I've always preferred an odd number, but no -- I did not pick five over six for any particular reason.

Do we want the whole galaxy to be revealed at setup time? (I don't have a strong opinion either way.)

I'd say yes for the basic game, where hexes either have a system or don't have a system.

Do you see this as different than the existing Alliance rule?

Only insofar as allies actually get to combine their victory points to win the game.

Ah... I see.

I have no argument with a rule allowing an alliance to declare victory.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,521 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Another reason I like the idea of a maintenance cost:

If players know their empires can only support X number of units, it makes the decision on what to build that much more important. For example, building another base not only costs more money, it also takes away the ability to support an additional fleet or army.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,522 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Is systems-among-blank-hexes the right way to go? It seems like it's going to lead to a lot of wasted table space. This may be inevitable in the tactical game (there might be nearly 1000 hexes on the board, but only a dozen or so occupied), but that's because we're simulating Newtonian space. If the strategic game takes place in hyperspace, might a circles-and-lines approach be better? Put another way, why would anyone ever go to the vacant hexes? The only reasons I can think of are "to get to the other side" or "to provide a blockade"; if a hex is truly vast, blockading it might not be realistic.

1) Players will go to the vacant hexes because they have no other choice. There won't always be another system within three hexes. It is also possible to move into an empty hex that threatens two (or more) systems.

2) I have plans for the empty hexes. wink

Do the sectors have to be hexagonal? Rectangular ones would be easier to manufacture (both for print-and-play and the inevitable deluxe edition).

They don't HAVE to be. But I prefer them.

Why five players?

Why not? (I'm not being contrary -- I don't understand the question.)

Is an exploration component desirable?

Meaning? (Again, I don't understand the question.)

Why is the attacker allowed to retreat with armies he can't carry?

I have no good answer for this -- other than it seemed like a good idea when I wrote it.

Why does a retreat have to include all units? (When integrating with Starmada, I can see some units escaping into hyperspace while others cover their back.)

Ditto.

Interesting. (I realize this has existed in previous versions.) What does this mechanism provide?

Aside from some opportunity for role-playing, this is how trade agreements and formal alliances are accounted for.

The difference between neutrality and recognition is unclear.

Two players who have recognized each other must, in essence, provide notice of any attack by breaking diplomatic ties one turn ahead of time.

One problem in games like this -- even moreso in a campaign that might go on for months -- is that some players might get hopelessly behind. It might be nice to allow players to merge their empires under certain conditions (e.g., when their combined VP would be less than than of any other player).

Do you see this as different than the existing Alliance rule?

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,523 Reply by mj12games

(40 replies, posted in Game Design)

jimbeau wrote:

So whaddya have in mind?

Well, I think it would be good to have two backgrounds, one for fantasy and one for science fiction. (Iron Stars would remain a case unto itself, as would historical games.)

For the record, I'm not suggesting this would eliminate the "generic" nature of the games -- just provide a default background for those who want one.

As far as fantasy goes, I'm partial to what Jim and Noel did for FtM...

Go to forum: Game Design

1,524 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

Updated draft rulebook for January 4, 2010.

Changes:

* Renamed SDFs as "armies".

* Eliminated supply requirement.

* Replaced outpost/space station/starbase progression with "bases".

[FILE REMOVED]

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,525 Reply by mj12games

(24 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

Last week I played a Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures game which is similar in some aspects to Starmada (at least you have single ships and fighter squadrons). It was simple, fun and easy to play. We could learn the rules in 20-30 minutes and we used all of them and not just the basic rules. One game lasted 1,5h and we played 3 of them in a row. This I call a good gaming evening. I doubt that I would have enjoyed the evening as much if the game had more complex rules.

It really sounds like you're looking for a different type of game than Starmada, rather than a simpler version of the existing game -- which, as others have pointed out, is exactly what the "essential" Starmada rules provide.

For what it's worth, I've long wondered what would happen if I went back to an earlier (simpler?) version of Starmada (version 2, perhaps) and redeveloped it along the lines of a game like A&A Naval or the tactical combat system in the Avalanche Press games... maybe one day I'll actually do that.

Go to forum: Starmada