I have been struggling about the Planetary Expansion and what needs to be a part of the CORE game (First Edition). I kept going back and forth with the design, thinking IF I should add Planetary cards to the original game.
Mission Re-think:
After thinking some more about missions, I have made the following revisions:
- Missions should have a Duration = 1 to 5 turns.
- Each Mission has a reward = 10, 18, 24, 28 and 30 qS.
- Trade routes kick in as BONUSES during banking (Treasurer Role).
This establishes two (2) types of strategic styles:
- Short missions allow you to earn MORE quickSilver - but Planetary bonuses are only available for a short time (1-3 turns).
- Longer missions allow you to earn MORE Bonuses because they last longer (3-5 turns).
NEW nomeclature:
There will be two (2) types of starships: Battleships and Tradeships.
Planetary card bonuses:
Bonus of +1 to +5 qS depending on the Planetary resource. Will have multiple resource per Planetary card (each one with it's own Bonus).
Example: Medicine [+5], Technology [+3] and Food [+2].
This means each time you BANK a Medicine card, you earn +5 qS (for each banked Medicine resource).
There will be 15 Planetary cards, of which ten (10) will have bonuses and five (5) will have none (barren planets: 1 out of 3 will have NO bonus).
Rules changes:
- Tradeships cannot attack while on a mission unless attacked (Counter-attack only).
- Once a mission is complete, a player may choose to KEEP that tradeship is his Space Lane, however it becomes a Battleship (Cannot perform another mission). [TBD: Not certain about this because it may lead to confusion...]
- Tradeships that are on a mission CANNOT defend a Homeworld.
Again this is all just theory - but these are the ideas that I have in my mind - to make sure there are no "kinks" in the game...
I'll post this up and read it again to see if all of this makes sense in a week or so! ;)
Comments
*Planetary* Expansion
Well removing the "random" dice mechanic from the Missions means two important things:
Why is any of this at all important?
Well to be real honest, having a Tradeship in the Space Lane is a TACTICAL advantage during a "Counter-Attack". Aside from earning quickSilver, the First Edition of the game offers a method to earn quickSilver and produces a mechanic which is balanced between quickSilver reward and Firepower.
Let's now talk about the Planetary Expansion:
This expansion will come out - and will add even MORE strategy to the mix. This expansion will introduce again a balancing mechanic between weaker, higher quickSilver earning versus stronger bonus trade routes (more quickSilver when banking).
I think this stands out to be the BEST alternative to the game. It will only mean changing a few mission card values and adding the duration on the cards themselves. Not too bad - the original game is intact and we can also dream about the game's Expansion! :P
Two types of starships = ...
Because there are two (2) distinct types of starships (Battleships & Tradeships), I came to the logical conclusion that scenarios should have unlocking rules for each type of starship.
These will of course vary per scenario - but the thinking is the following:
If early on in the game you could earn MORE quickSilver by conducting missions, why not?!
This adds more value to missions because it allows you to earn more quickSilver early on, when you may only have the right to one Tradeship and zero Battleships.
And the rules, once set in stone, will allow for proper balance between earning a ton of quickSilver or maintaining a "tactical" advantage over your opponents.
Solid changes!
Kris,
The changes make sense...I'll provide feedback, even though we're still awaiting the formal report from the play-testers:
Mission Re-Think: This one is excellent, as the Reward dictates the duration, there y removing unnecessary random elements, while simultaneously providing predictable information to the player for long term planning.
New Nomenclature: Sounds fine...Battle Cruiser also works...
Rule Changes: Generally sound good...may need to tweak the wording.
Planetary Card Bonus: This one will require extensive ay-testing before you decide on the final version.
Cheers,
Joe
Thanks for the thumbs up
I feel these changes are for the better of the game... My argument for higher Firepower (1 to 5) instead of the current Firepower (1 to 3) is more inline with the other upgrade cards. However the clause that a Tradeship CANNOT initiate an attack remains true: it serves a purpose, a mission to be exact, and with the expansion will allow for trade routes with a foreign planet.
Again a choice you have to make between the highest possible Firepower and at most, given a starship with Capacity of 9, a Resistance of 4...
I will restore the second rule change (#2) to:
I went back to the original rule - because it would otherwise create unnecessary confusion (in the rulebook). I FIRMLY believe that these changes are all for the better. And I hope to have a NEW version of the cards ... soon!
Cheers
Firepower change?
Kris,
Please remind me of the change...when I've played, play-tested, and directed the play-testing, the Weapon cards were always 1-5...you're referring to the Mission cards serving as Firepower, right?
Cheers,
Joe
Exactly Joe
Yes - I am referring to Firepower for Mission cards: they used to be lower, 1 to 3 and I am going to change them to be 1 to 5. A minor change that has a serious impact on "counter-attacks".
For example a Tradeship with Capacity of 8 has a Resistance = 3 and a Firepower = 5. What this does is make this type of starship deadly during a counter-attack (because of the 5 Firepower). It can defeat ANY opposing starship...
So opposing player will have to think twice and hope that they do not get an unlucky dice roll!
Possible balance issues
Kris,
Something to consider...if the Tradeships can garner the same level of Firepower of the Fighter/Battleship, then what's the efficacy of having a the latter in your Space Lane? The only thing it allows, from my perspective, is your ability to attack someone else. This means a player can simply ignore attacks and gain Qs, in some of the scenarios, right?
Cheers,
Joe