Game #13 Unification Wars

Folks,

Here is the file for Unification Wars:

http://www.bgdf.com/files/7/0/Unification%20War_Export.doc

So let's get reviewing!

-Darke

A good game, simplistic, but detailed enough to make it enjoyable. There doesn't seem to be anything too unique in the game, but altogether it does have a unique feel to it.

After reading and rereading the rules, most of the rules are very clear. The theme is kept throughout the rules.

There are 4 nagging things that stick out to me.

1. Ship Removal. The ships that are removed during the peace dividend phase; which ones are removed? And why are they removed?

2. Combat. It seems like "I've played that before" (I know this is suppose to be a beer and pretzels game.) I think that some unique way of resolving combat with possibly including the rules you already have would make it an even better game. Also I don't like the fact that you have to hurt the settlement on bombing raids. I would like an option that would increase the likeliness of the settlement surrendering instead of doing damage to it. (You would have to be careful with this, because players will never choose to destroy it if the odds are very good that they can capture it instead.)

3. The Two or more capitols rule. I think that it is good that a capitol will allow a player to stay in a game if he or she loses theirs. But the rules seem pretty vague about how to do it (it does show the example for 2 players.) There should be a general random way to do this for any amount of players. Also the more capitols you have, the more numbers you could roll that you could lose your capitol (i.e. If you have 3 capitols, if you roll a 5 or 6, you lose that capitol; for 4 capitols it would be 4-6, etc.)

4. Colonization. The rules are vague about that also. All players can colonize? What if all 4 players want to colonize the last planet available?

These are minor gripes, because the basics of this game is terrific. I like the theme, and like the way the game can play out.

-Steve

This is a very cool-sounding game. I like the Dyne system a lot. For the record, I didn't have a problem picking it up from the rules alone, but that's just me. :)

Here are my major thoughts...

1) The Dyne system is ultra-cool. This will be a big draw to the game. I like how this makes the game "boardless," because the order the planets are placed on the board is ultimately irrelevant.

2) Simultaneous play. I'm going to have to play Doubting Thomas here, but do you think this system will work? I know you said you had a few successful playtests. Was the simultaneous play a central feature of the game? Or was it something that people had to "play around?"

There's a game I wrote about a few months ago called Time Control that is also a strategy-based game with a simultaneous play mechanism (this is as opposed to a "real-time card game" like Light Speed or Brawl, which is an entirely different animal). When I played this, the mechanism completely baffled me. I had no reason to do anything, because I knew someone would immediately counter it. Why should I move my agents from my board to someone else's, when I know that someone else can counter-attack my weakened board?

It turns out that the game was very poorly received, and reviews seized upon the simultaneous play mechanism as a reason to avoid the game (of course, an abysmally-written manual didn't help). It's a shame; there was obviously a lot of time, money, and love poured into the game. But whatever happened during playtesting, the simultaneous-movement mechanic stayed in the game, to its detriment (IMVHO).

Your simultaneous-play mechanism might not be that bad by itself. In fact, it may work perfectly in your game; I haven't actually played it, so I don't know. I merely raise a warning flag, because I've had a bad experience playing a game with this system, and I don't know of any games with a similar system that are well-received (again, Brawl, Light Speed, Fightball, et al. are exceptions, because they aren't strategy board games with a simultaneous-turn mechanism, but card games with the real-time mechanic as the main feature of the game). If anyone knows of successful strategy board games with a simultaneous turn mechanism, don't hesitate to set me straight.

My point is, when you playtest this game with strangers, be sure to get their thoughts about playing without turns. Does it support the game? Do your testers like it? Do they love it? Will it make them come back? Or do they feel that it's "meh... all right.."

Keep your eyes open for this last possibility. You may have a great theme and a cool Dyne system, but if simultaneous play keeps people from getting into the game, don't hesitate to ditch it.

3) Player elimination. This is a tricky question. The elimination of players during a long strategy game is extremely out-of-vogue these days; however, if your only alternative is to introduce kingmaker situations in your game, then perhaps it is the way to go. Allowing eliminated players to take over neutral systems may not be a bad solution, but will there be a situation where a player may intentionally tank his game to take over a neutral system that's in a better situation to win? Alternatively, if the neutral systems available are very week, will this only prolong the game (and the losing player's misery)?

There are plenty of beloved games out there with player elimination, so I wouldn't ditch it just to be fashionable. Just something to look out for, I suppose.

That's about it. I hope you'll note that I'm not suggesting removing anything from your game, because it may play completely different than how I see it from the rules. All I ask is that you consider my points. :)

Good luck!

I agree with most of the rest, this is a really neat idea.

Questions, thoughts, whatevers...

If I understand things right, the Neutral's aren't a large group of the Neutral Empire (Muwahaaha), but just little independant worlds.. right?

I like the Dyne system and the name.

Some of the mechanics such as 'until all players agree to...' seem to me like you are saying, play until you get bored and everyone decides to not play anymore.

I don't have a problem with the Simultaneos Play thing, just because I don't see where it occurs. The Encounters and Planetary Bombardment stuff has to go in some sort of order. The upgrading, building, and colonizing can easy happen simultaneously since there is really no interaction and has a definite endpoint (when all actions have been finsihed).

'Nominate' sounds funny. 'Declare' I think is the more usual Wargame term. Anyone else know more about Wargames?

Encounter/Bombardment Phase- These are seperate right? So if I win through a system's defenses I can immediately (this turn) attack the planet before another Dyne Phase occurs?

I think someone else mentioned this, but I will question it as well. The only way for players to gain new colonies is to take over Neutral ones? If this is so, think about the following. How about if, before the fleets are scrapped in the Peace Phase, the planets are colonized. If a player has the only fleets in an unsettleed system, they get the planet marker instead of the Neutrals. This way the players have some control over what planets they want, but still would have to defend their fledgling colony.

I wonder if there isn't a way to streamline the successions. If you rolled all the capitols together. (1-# of capitols in dice). Any that came up 6 would indicate that the player would have to sacrifce one capitol of choice. Makes things faster and more strategic than one dice per capitol.

Any thoughts on Pre-War Posisitioning. In the run-up to a war, would all the planets have thier fleets at home? An idea would be to let a player move each fleet to another of their own systems within X number of dyne points before the war. You would have to watch in PLaytest and see if the opening moves of the War phase is this anyway.

The last thing I see missing is something about the advantage to having multiple fleets. If I pull 2 carrier groups into a planet, I expect to be able to use them together rather than two seperate equal entities.

I agree as above that the combat system is about the same as Risk. I think you will get the same sorts of issues from it. A fighter squadron taking down three carrier groups due to lucky-dies. Also, I understand the reason to wipe all the fleets, but it still feels wierd. it almost feels like having to start over every turn.

There is really nothing else in the game to help with the theme. IN that I mean every turn will 'feel' the same. I really need to go find the direct link to the article, but there was a neat article about regulated rewards or something like that. Basically to keep humans happy you need to reward them small things every so often. Since they get bored of the small things, there needs to be either variablity in the small rewards or medium/large rewards to work toward. I don't really see any differences in the rewards here. In that I run a turn and get to recapture the planet that I just had, but at a lower settlement level. Woohoo, then someone takes it from me and I get to run the same thing next turn. I don't know what I would suggest, but my favorite mechanisms are cards. So maybe something like a hand of event cards. Minor things, but interesting. Hyperspace current- move one ship ahead or behind one space onthe dyne track. That sort of thing.

These are really just impressions from READING the rules, it may play fairly different.
I really think it is a neat concept. The Dyne idea is pretty cool, the combat and reward structure just needs some tweaks. Lots of potential though.

Andy

I was bored in class this afternoon and did some statistics.

The rule is Roll 1d6+ Fleet Strength on both sides and compare.
Assuming the lower number loses draws. (I know this is more complicated in your rules, but I wasn't looking at them at the time)
Numbers are the fleet strengths.
For (1 vs 4) there is a 1/12 chance for 1 to win.
For (2 vs 4) and (1 vs 3) there is a 1/6 for the lower one to win.
For (any two sequential numbers) there is a 10/36 chance to win, which is just below 1/3.

This was done in the margins of my notes, but I think the stats are right. This isn't meant as a criticism just as info.

The other thing I was thinking about, there is no way for a system to produce more than one fleet. Which means that if a capitol wants to protect itself it has to either import a fleet from another system or keep it's nice big battle fleet at home. I understand the restrictions for combining, but what if a larger planet could produce several smaller units rather than a big unit. This might add the ability to defend and attack, but at reduced efficiency for both.

And when fleets are removed at the end of the war phase, there isn't a way to get more than 1 fighter wing in a system. Was your example in the last post about several systems?