You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → The Sovereign Stars → An update...
Problem: how are casualties allocated?
Two ideas:
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.)
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".
mundungus wrote:1) the attacker (player inflicting the casualties) decide which side takes them, although the target still chooses which units.
Huh. I was going to go with something simple, like "casualties are allocated evenly among the players on each side".
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.
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.
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]
Yeah, it looked as if there was one, but then...
As an early Christmas present, here's the current draft of the rulebook. Let me know what you think.
[FILE REMOVED]
Where did it go? :shock:
cricket wrote:[FILE REMOVED]
Where did it go? :shock:
I've been deleting the previous version each time I post an update.
It just keeps getting better!
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.
In a fancy production version of this, I'd want an income track so that it would be easy to see who's next and who's winning.
One must be careful not to pin down allies while reinforcing them, but that's probably okay.
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.
Again, I have a nice playtesting opportunity Thursday night. Would you like me to trot this out?
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... 
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?
Again, I have a nice playtesting opportunity Thursday night. Would you like me to trot this out?
Sure.
Do you have a low-ink version of the sectors lying around?
What do y'all think of the bonus income for opponents' bases?
Interesting -- not clear what the effect will be.
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...
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.
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.
New draft for today...
[FILE REMOVED -- SEE STICKY IN SOVSTARS FORUM]
Ah, here it was! Sort of. Reading time! (Then got something to do with a double acute otitis media (double ear inflammation?).
I ran the Jan 7 version past some playtesters. It was not a success.
Like me, they did like the way you cut the tiles. If nothing else, it makes manually manufacturing them easier.
They didn't like the last sentence at the end of the "Starting Positions" subsection. It's unsatisfying to say, "This might lead to an unsolvable problem; if that happens, start over."
Handing out money and then immediately taking some back for maintenance seemed overly fiddly.
People kept getting confused by the fact that there was a VP bonus for controlling an entire sector, but not an income bonus.
The bonus for bases in shared systems was not strong enough. If an ally and I share a system, we're going to have to put at least three bases (total) in there before our total income exceeds what we'd get if we didn't share. That takes too much time and money to be worth the effort.
One playtester described the game as "very incremental". Moving three hexes was generally just enough to get from one system to the next. There was no opportunity for surprise attacks and no way for a player who fell behind to catch up.
Ironically, maintenance may have made things more turtly, because people couldn't afford to amass big enough fleets to attack. Players could also not afford to leave fleets in deep space.
Someone said there was "nothing innovative" about the game. Another described it as "like slow-motion Risk".
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.
The testers wondered if the game should have an inherent clock to ensure that it eventually ends. One obvious suggestion is having VP accumulate every turn, although this risks a runaway leader problem.
One asked how long the game was supposed to last. I guessed 90-120 minutes. (We played for an hour before giving up.)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I guess it's better to find out now than after publication.
(If I may be bold, the OoM playtest I did went much better, although even that felt a bit bland.)
I think I say "+1" as to that above. But then again, isn't this the first basic rules we're looking at here?
How did TSS II look?
Anyhow, those systems look just fine, for testing. But! Perhaps the actual interesting hexes could be made without taking a year worth of toner?
Hm... Another thing perhaps worth doing is to make new/changed parts in another colour?
Really? "Fail"? Sheesh...
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.
So -- where do we go from here? I would like to have feedback from some other people before making wholesale changes...
You'll forgive me if I don't give up on it just yet.
Oh, I'm not suggesting you give up, just make radical changes ... and I have no idea what they should be.
As for goals, I think the two biggest things missing are:
1) Surprises. There's currently no way to have sneak attacks or sudden reversals of fortune. Someone pulls slightly ahead in the first couple of moves, then they very slowly pull farther and farther ahead.
2) Decisions of the low-risk-low-reward vs high-risk-high-reward variety. In Risk, I can make a grab for an entire continent; there's a big payoff if I pull it off, but I'll be hopelessly overextended if I don't quite make it. In Go, I can invade enemy territory. In Starmada, I can maneuver my torpedo boat (with its weak shields and powerful, short-ranged weapons) into the middle of the enemy formation, hoping I'll have a target in arc. Here ... not so much.
There's a solid base here. And if that is solid enough, then things can be added to spice things up.
More later, soggy ears...
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...
I'm still hoping there are others out there who can playtest the current version (HINT HINT)
Indeed! The more testing (and the more testers) the better.
as there is not currently an "exploration" phase, having empty systems seems pointless.
IMHO, the non-system hexes are pointless.
<glances meaningfully over at OoM tiles>
In our test, it seemed very rare for a system to be within striking distance of more than two or three enemy systems. This, combined with the move-one-stack-at-a-time rule (which itself is probably a good one) and the time it takes to cross one's own empire, made it difficult to attack. The target had plenty of time to mount a defense.
I'm open to ideas on how to make the combat system more interesting/innovative...
That's a very tough call, especially if you want a battle to have the same result distribution whether it's resolved simply or using Starmada.
My inclination is to leave the combat system alone and have the board game interest derive from movement, victory conditions, etc.
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:
Eh...
Still sounds hideously boring.
Or maybe "heinously boring"...
I guess either one fits. 
There must be an element of the unforeseen.
Also armies shouldn't add to space-battles (unless their assault ship has ½ an influence) and vice versa for spaceships.
Not to much random outside player control. Bad weather is one thing, singular solar flares exterminating one player's system is quite another. But misjumps are ok, they are after a direct result of player action.
Misjumps and failed orders are good things to spice things up.
I really would like a copy of the previous TSS. To see what Daniel is up to here. Easier to help then.
Is it just my browser or have the SS preview files been removed?
It's here: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2292
ah. thank you.
mj12games.com/forum → The Sovereign Stars → An update...
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.