Bryan

Good win,,I hope you had fun.

I did.

DOC

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 07:25 pm: Edit

Final Report sent.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 07:23 am: Edit

By James E. Jarema (Nuke) on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 08:16 am: Edit

Sounds interesting; let's try it.

By Bryan Seminara (Bseminar) on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 11:50 am: Edit

I would say 1/3rd of the players will be eliminated in the first 8 turns of the game.

I think it would work if you also incorporated the Nomadic rules (no Home Office).

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Bryan,
Agreed.

By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Paul,

Revealing all the terrain:

I don't like the idea for the following reasons:

It will shorten the game by a few turns, as perfect knowledge will allow "race" mode to start earlier. This wouldn't be an issue in a DH game, as by turn 15 players (those remaining) are passing maps around anyway.

The level of infomation overload, is immense. You will have the abiliy from the first turn to plan out everything 10-15 turns in advance. Obsesive persons (looks in mirror), would explode as we have to plan out the entire game each turn.

This format would put newer players (and dim ones like me), who don't neccessarily know all the rule/terrain interactions like the back of their hand; and don't have the experience to plan out long term operations, at a serious disadvantage.

It will be very easy for gang up on a few players early, as Bryan noted, alot of people will be out earlier from apparent weakness, if everyone can tell you have a sub-prime home sector, then you are a target. If you have a sum-prime home sector, you'll think your a target and drop.

It removes an element of chance (going across borders), but no longer rewards those who take risks.

Just my 2 ep's

I do agree that a variant might be nice, like an all wild sector timeshift (+5) game.

Also I think you should consider slightly uping victory conditions to 8 sectors/ 100 sites for a standard game. The original VC, was based on 50 players/100 sectors, player density is half that now.

Bryan,
Nomadic - yuck. Do you really want some individual harrassing you for the entire game over some (real or imagined) smack down you laid on them? Imagine your worst enemy with nothing to do but harass you, every turn, for the entire game. No, just like in the zobie movies, when I kill something I want it to stay dead.

By Kirk Petty (Zugzwang) on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 06:55 pm: Edit

I think it would favor both the real strong and the players with a lot of time on their hands. Also I think the idea of increasing the victory conditions is a valid one.
An occaisional Omega game might be fun

By Bryan Seminara (Bseminar) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 01:24 am: Edit

I believe all players like timeshifts (ie. +3 -> +5). I agree that if it was a standard game then the VC should be increased and 8sectors/90sites sounds reasonable at 16 players or less on an 8x8. The randomized corporation numbers versus the HO sector location is a preferred game format (ie. corp # 456 and HO sector is 51) if an option.

On an open maps game.
The nomadic game is not all that bad. If you lose all you WGs then you are out of the game. 8 sectors for victory conditions would be very difficult and it would be more likely that 90 sites would be the victory achieved. In a Nomadic game all sectors could be Wild (including players) and be tournament level Wild.

Just a few more ideas.

By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 10:31 am: Edit

Kirk,

My issues with Omega all boil down to fear of the unknown, since your stuck with a single race (IIRC), you may well end up with a race that doesn't fit your playing style.


Bryan,
Agreed, I can't think of one negative about small (+3->+5) timeshifts.

I'm not sure how useful scambled corp. numbers is? I don't think it would bother me, could you explain the benefit?

RE: nomadic game, I agree with everything you noted, but since it is not too difficult to hide/protect a WG or two (particularly in an all wild sector game, the net effect is that of the undead. Each WG-group become in a sense a mini-corp, except that you have to chase down every last FF/DD/POL to get it to stop operating in your area.

By Bryan Seminara (Bseminar) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Currently corporation numbers match there starting home sector. By turn Y169 I can map about 75% of the known Magellanic Arena via the stock charts, subspace messages, and 1 or 2 friendly players.

With scrambled corporation numbers a small group of players who wish to remain mum can hide in the stars. When a sub-space message appears it is harder to find the origin corporation. When a corporation appears on the stock charts, Top Lists, or you bounce fleets it is more difficult to identifying their home sector.

Why all this. Most strategies are deviced prior to Y170. Known players can be targets. Unknown players can hide until discovered. Really evil players can lie about their whereabouts. All this just to buy a couple of extra turn of time.

In an open map, Nomadic game, wild sectors, and scrambled corporation numbers, who knows who is where? Chaos I tell you. In a game like this it would drive you nuts to try and plan more than two turns ahead and I don't have that much time either. And if you did it might not be accurate when it unfolds.

The player learning curve would go up. But man would you be a subspace-message king by the end of the game.

By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 10:04 am: Edit

Thanks for the explaination.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 08:24 pm: Edit

Other than scrambled corporation numbers, are there any suggestions for the next standard game or Die Hard game.

By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 10:18 am: Edit

Small timeshift (+5yr ???) was mentioned.

You might also look at dfferent ways to arrange 16 players in 64 sectors, here are two examples, I'm sure others can think of some fun ones too:

put players in:
00,11,02,13,04,15,06,17
40,51,42,53,44,55,46,57
(kind of a herring bone pattern, everybody has two nieghbors)

OR

21,31,22,32,61,62,71,72
25,35,26,36,65,66,75,76

(four clusters, do you try and dominate your cluster or stike out into wild sectors, everybody has three neighbors, lots of diplomacy, duplicity, and ah-hem pre-emtive invasions of self defence, trust will be at a premimum)

Right now if I'm in sector 73, I am fairly certain that other players are in 71, 75, 53, and 13 and can set up accordingly. If I don't know what the map is like then I have a lot more variable to work out. Why even the threat of a different map setup is enough.

By Bryan Seminara (Bseminar) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 03:39 am: Edit

I and 3 others are willing to play a Historical game. We of course would need 8 more players to fill the 10 x 3 sector layout.

Buy a monster option and having Timeshift ability would give the player the option of buying a monster on initial builds.

Anonymous Corps (take from game # G45): Players will be anonymous, meaning you won't know who is around you, unless they choose to reveal themselves. PI and CM info removed and PH OFF.
ie. Personal Information, Motto, and Phone #.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 11:20 am: Edit

How about a random sector special for each player Home Office.

John

By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 03:33 pm: Edit

The problem with random sector special is that some of them are "good", while others are "amazingly good".

for example:

good
= corperate spy (gets bonus lists, etc)
= cloak penatrator (improved cloak detection)

Amazingly good
= Ship Broker (first ship can be any year)
= Commando Training Center (no supoort, cheaper cost, more effective commandos)

It would be very hard to balance the "Random" nature, now if we were allowed to pick a SS on turn 2, (after we see the home sector map), that would be more fair.

By Kirk Petty (Zugzwang) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 07:44 pm: Edit

I would like to play another historical scenario.
12 players is great but it can be done with less. Also communication and cooperation are at a premium in that set up If some one will have me, Ill play

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Hi Ken,

Well, you are correct. On the other hand, I've rarely gotten to play with the "very good" ones. Picking one is perhaps better.

I've not done a historical game. I'd be interested.

John

By James E. Jarema (Nuke) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 03:43 pm: Edit

I would also like to play a historical game.

By Bryan Seminara (Bseminar) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 04:39 pm: Edit

That is 7 players so far for a historical game. So far 2 of the 7 have played a historical game before.

By Kirk Petty (Zugzwang) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 05:40 pm: Edit

I have played in them and they are fun. Question
and I know its early but how are we going to divide up the coalition and alliance Are there already oppossing captains?

By Bryan Seminara (Bseminar) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Kirk,
You were one of the two. Tim is the other. I went through some of the old discussion posts for the historical games and found you. No captains have been appointed and no acknowledgement from Paul has been received as of yet. But glad to see the interest. Definitely some agreeable divisions will need to be made. I am hoping more historical veterans will join in support of a new startup. Who knows, maybe we will rewrite history - again.

By James E. Jarema (Nuke) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 09:24 am: Edit

I'd like to request a Klingon-Lyran-Romulan assignment.

By Gene Malin (Privateer) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 12:06 pm: Edit

I would suggest a third position, with 2 pirate players, whose goal would be to amass EPs through any means possible.
They would take the place of any wild sector NPCs and could hold territory, prospect etc, but would only start with a BS and 500 points for ships.
I would volunteer for that.