Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

I played an early draft of Alpha Colony, and it's clear that Mike has put quite a bit of work into it since then.

Mike, taking a look through the rules, everything looks good and seems to be in place. However, here are a few comments that popped into my head:

Under Phase 10, Since there's no equipment list in teh rules themselves, it might be helpful to remind players that they're rolling 1d10.

Under Phase 12, in the case that everyone has been put back to sleep, I feel that a few adjustments are needed.

As it stands, you're eliminated from the running if you DID produce that which the colony was short of, but you're not eliminated if you DID NOT produce that which we were short of. This means that I could conceivably win by shutting down a productive plant (an Oxygen plant, for instance) while everyone else is left holding the bag when we come up short. In terms of gameplay, this worrys me. Thematically, this worrys me more.

You might want to consider something along the lines of eliminating everyone that DID NOT produce any of the deficient material and make the winner the one that produced the most surplus in that deficient material.

--Kevin G. Nunn

This week's game is Alpha Colony, a sci-fi game about humanity's first interplanetary colony.

I hope that's enough of an introduction to whet your appetite! Dig in!

Okay... This is actually a game I got my group to play test (granted only for aprox 20 mins though.. ) ...

And, they liked it... Of course the biggest problem (and I think we all have it, especially at this point in game design) was graphics... they were all complaining that it was another 'cheap ass game' (which they hate due to the graphics.. fun games, boring graphics.. ) But.. after explaining that it was a prototype I was testing for a freind we all settled in....
Our end/problem arose in that I had questions about the rules (which of course we all do, ) and had to refer back to the web site for awnsers, well.. needless to say as I was checking the awnser they proceded to pull out another game that is similar and start it up... So they were interested enough (but just that I didn't have alot to show them of course.)... I think it's a good game, however I think that since there are alot of similar games out there (similar in the 'us against you, gather resourses' type game), that we allready have, and it takes alot of inticement to get us to purchase a new one... But really, I liked it and the concept.. (thought I'm not much of a 'space' gamer myself.. )

Thanks
Satori

I'd especially like to know what rules you had questions with. I seem to have a knack for explaining rules clearly to me and not so clearly to others. :wink:

Yes, the graphics (or lack thereof) is of "proto-quality". I've got some ideas, but not the tools on how to add some bells and whistles.

Oh, and most especially, thanks for playtesting it! :D

No problem, I was trying to be specific, but I couldn't pinpoint anything at the time, however, I will relook at the rules and refresh the night in my mind.. then I'll get back in here and give you some specific (and hopfully useful) feedback... :)

Satori

Hello, and thanks for posting your game! I printed the materials available and looked over the rules last night. Great concept and you have managed to capture the flavor in relatively simple to understand rules!

I like the concept of building the infrastructure (establishing and keeping up the supply of staples) and then developing more grand modules for the big VP at the end.

I have a few comments that go little beyond some fine tuning to clarify the rules. I have looked over the other comments and will try not to duplicate any of them. I am working off of the v2.1 rules (I think that is the most up-to-date version). Here goes:

Great name/theme/flavor! I like what you have accomplished in only 5 pages of rules.

With the game developing more, I would suggest putting more introductory info into your rules: list of component to be included in the game, list of items the players will have to provide (if no VP markers and no money is to be provided, note that players will need to provide paper and pencil to track their own).

On a fiddly note, to give the costs of the game a more NASA scale, have you thought about having them in thousands of dollars instead of just dollars (so that retrieving a crew member from cryo at the 10 level would cost $10,000 instead of $10)? Even if you just put a "k" after the prices (instead of adding all the zeros). Just a thought...

Consistent terminology: I like the illustration of a sample building on page one, but you then go on to call them modules in the rest of the game. Decide what you want to call them and stick to it for the sake of consistency. If you want to clarify that a module is a building, you could put something like "During the game, players will construct modules (buildings for production of various resources)..." Similarly in section 4, you mention the "production" line of a "tile," but you refer to the tiles as modules and the line on the module is actually "Produce." For the sake of consistency, you may want to keep it to "...shown on the "Produce" line of their modules."

The game set up section was very helpful, but you may want to give it a heading of some sort (like Game Set-Up) or its own section number so that it stands out (for those that skip the intro, this is where the game begins...). Also, the second and fourth bullet items could be more clear. It became more clear what you were asking the player to do as I read more of the game, but at this early stage I was confused.

For the second bullet item, maybe something like this: "Fill spaces 1-5 of each of the oxygen, water, and food tracks with markers of the appropriate type (O2 marker for oxygen, water marker for water, food marker for food), placing one marker in each box. Fill all 10 spaces of each of the remaining resource tracks (energy, crew and metal) with markers of the appropriate type." It is wordy, but it is best to appeal to the lowest common denominator and avoid all confusion.

I think the fourth bullet point might be more clear if the Colony Population... track were made more clear. I understand that this chart tracks the total cost of life support for the entire colony. The description of its use in the rules isn't clear. You explained the proper use in an earlier post, but that needs to be made more clear in the layout of the track and the rules. Maybe have a linear track that goes from 1 to 12 from left to right with the appropriate symbols under them. Then a note at the end that if the more population were needed, to start back at 1, but add (3) O2, (3) H20, (3) food and (3) energy to the cost every turn (and a similar note of what to add if the population ever goes beyond 24). Then, when you say to count the costs to the left of the population marker (inclusive), the total cost would be more clear.

2. Player Turns
Turns vs rounds vs phases. I may be the only one, but I equate the word turn with what each player does in their turn. I equate the word round with a series of every player taking one turn. It may just be my interpretation, but I had to reread section 2 a few times to figure out what was going on.

I would suggest including a description at the start of section 2 giving an introduction to your terminology. "A turn is a collection of XX phases. Each player will have a chance to perform the action associated with each phase before play progresses to the next phase of the turn." Thus assuring players that one player does not perform each of the 10 phases in their turn before another player gets to take a turn and perform each of the phases, etc.

Another fiddly point, I would expand your references to make them more clear. Something like "(see section 3)" instead of just "(see 3)." Very fiddly, but every step you can take to avoid confusion is a good step.

I do agree with other posts that the determine starting player may be removed from the phases, just something that the players do at the start of every turn. I do like the idea of having the start player change from phase to phase, but that may be too much to do.

I also like the suggestions to include a player reference chart of what phases are skipped of not allowed at which stage of the game.

3. Starting Player
Since the starting player for the first round is randomly determined, you may want to mention that again in section 3. "The starting player for every turn but the first will be..."

Also a fiddly point, but in the example, I deduced that Mike would go first since he was tied for lowest VP and lowest cash and because he was visually at the LEFT of the page. It was jarring to learn that I hadn't been given the last bit of info and that my assumption was wrong. It's not a big deal, but you may want to include in the setup sentence that either Barb or Debra was the starting player the last turn. Since visually (on the page) Ray is the first name to the left of theirs, it would then be more natural that Ray would be the starting player. I know it's fiddly, but it was jarring!

4. Produce Resources
Under mandatory production, you may want to make it more clear why the MCM may not (after the third turn) go below 5 units of the 4 staples or why the players must restock them.

Also, if the MCM is low on oxygen and more than 1 player has an oxygen producing module, who is responsible for restocking the MCM and who is penalized? You will need to make that clear.

Your wording of the function is a little unclear. You mention that if, at the start of any turn (after the third), specific resources are low, owners of the affected resources would have to operate them NEXT turn. Do you mean in that turn? To refill the resources? Then they are penalized at the end of the turn if the resources aren't filled? If the goal is to have the MCM stocked to a certain level at the end of every turn, then you may want to put this at the END of the turn (since players will read through the turn order for the first few turns, when this doesn't take effect, and they will be aware that it is coming). Then, if players haven't restocked, then there are dire consequences, etc.

5. Trade
It has been said before, but is the trade phase limited in some way or will it be self-governing by the lack of resources to trade? It seems like it may go on for a LONG time with the right group of players (ex-Diplomacy nuts, perhaps?).

7. Allocate Resources
I know that this would never come up, but you may want to indicate that players can't put crew into one of their storage barrels. Yes, it's absurd, but if you don't specify it, SOMEONE will ask about it.

8. Construct Modules
When building a module, is the entire cost lost? I can see the metal and the energy being lost, but the personnel? Maybe the personnel should go back to the MCM, or into that player's pool of personnel (dormitory module??)? Either way that should be made more clear.

9. Sell Excess Resources
Are monies to be tracked on paper? If not, are the costs that are less 10% to be rounded down? You mention VP bonuses for selling to the MCM at certain levels, but the VP bonuses are indicated in the same way (on the MCM chart and in the rules) as VP penalties, you may want to make it clear on the chart that penalties apply to buying resources and bonuses apply to selling. Maybe even include this in the example ("Kevin sells his excess oxygen to the MCM at the number 4 slot, the negative VP listed only affects purchases to he makes $25 less 10%.").

The mandatory sale seems to be connected in some way to mandatory production, but that isn't made explicitly clear. Are the two connected? There seems to be a lot of different requirements between the two for players to track, possibly combine them into one event at the end of the turn (if the MCM level go below XX, then this happens).

10. Resolve Disasters
Since the disaster isn't a certainty, you may want to call this "Determine Disaster and Resolve" or something like that. I like the added tension element, but some of the wording brings up new concepts that aren't explained anywhere else in the rules. "Isolated modules" and "reconnect" aren't clear to me. The rules don't state what this means or how to resolve it. Are the isolated modules actually detached form the MCM? Do they have to be rebuilt? What is the method for reattaching (and in what phase)?

12. Winning the Game
What if the players tied for most VP are also tied for most cash? Is it OK for the game to end in a tie? It is acceptable, but should be stated in the rules.

Whew!! Sorry that went on for so long, I really enjoyed reading the rules and I admire the system you have brought together with such brief rules!! I look forward to trying it out with my playtesting group, I'll give you a full report of how it goes (probably in the next few weeks).

Thanks again for posting your game!

Clearly! But thanks for your enthusiasm and comments, they were great! I'll try to address them below to perhaps clarify what I was trying to accomplish.

Thanks!

Good point. I had only recently started including a component list when writing rules, for a couple of reasons: 1) I just never thought to put one in, and 2) the components to be included will probably ultimately be decided by any publisher. However, there's no reason not to include a list of components necessary to play this particular proto.

I guess one of my pet peeves is when the monetary system of a game is made overly complex: if the lowest cost item is 5 golden widgets and all other costs are divisble by 5, then divide them all by five, for Pete's sake!!! I feel that the lowest denomination of currency should be unity.

That being said, your suggestion of simply adding a "k" following the number would accomplish exactly what you were seeking (a more theme-oriented monetary scale) while maintaining my desire for a simple scale. Great suggestion, consider it implemented (although, I'm not printing out a new deck of money ;) )!

AGREED!! Consistency is a big issue for me (despite what it may look like from this draft :wink: ). It's easy to lose sight of that when you cobble together your rules at different times, fiddle, change, rewrite, etc. Without a doubt this draft was a little rougher than a final version. Sometimes you need to step back and re-read the entirety to double check the consistency, which is something I haven't yet done.

Check.

I'll see if I can reword it to be more clear. Of course, an illustration would probably be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand words...

I think I had originally had a linear track, but found that it was difficult to easily see how many of each commodity was needed to support the colony, which is why I went with the 4-column vertical chart. Again, an illustrative example would probably be very beneficial here (of course, that'll boost the page count!)

Yep. See previous comment regarding consistency. You are spot on, rounds are composed of turns which are composed of phases.

Check.

Easily done.

Whoops, was that the impression I gave? No, I had intended that player order was determined for the round (to use consistent terminology) at the start of the round, and not changed until the next round. Therefore, each phase of one round is conducted in the same order unless simultaneous.

And, as a side note, I'm not sure that the differentiation between "rounds" and "turns" is going to be particularly applicable to this game, since all players complete a phase before moving on to the next. Or, maybe the heirarchy is rounds->phases->turns?

Done.

Also done.

I'll review the example and see if I can make it more clear. Another illustration might be useful.

I had a hard time coming up with the right wording for this section. Obviously, I still have a little work to do. I'm also wondering if these sections are perhaps a little too fiddly? Do they really add enough to the game to justify their incremental complexity?

I've only done 2 (or was it just 1?) playtests of this game, and in both cases/only case trade never lasted inordinately long, mostly because the amount of resources to trade were particularly limited.

Heh, very true. Will do.

Yes, crew goes back to the player's pool. I'll try to clarify that.

Well, if you had read the component list, you would've seen that a deck of money is included. Oh, wait, there was no component list. Heh, I'll make that more clear both in the component list (to be added) and in setup ("give each player $50 and place the rest to the side to form a bank").

Good point. Will do.

Sort of. The intent of both rules were to force players to support the colony when its supply situation became dire. The two-tier system was designed to get progressively more severe as the supply levels continued to drop.

I'll see if I can do that. The problem is that the two required actions occur in different phases of the game. However, I think it was mentioned that it would be useful if there was some indicator that was set at, say, the end of the turn which would show that "mandatory sale" and/or "mandatory production" was in effect for the following turn. I'll see if I can come up with a smoother mechanic for this.

This was a case of this section of the rules not keeping pace with the other sections. I consciously neglected this section while I worked on the rest of the game mechanics, with the intention of coming back to this once the rest of the game was working well.

The idea was that the colony had to be one continuous structure, not a bunch of pieces here and there. All power, communications, etc, were routed through the MCM, so therefore all modules would need to be connected to the MCM to function. An isolated module, therefore, would be one that couldn't trace a path of connected modules back to the MCM. Reconnecting is nothing more than building a new module in such a way that a continuous path can then be traced. It need not be the same type as what had been there previously (and destroyed, thus causing the isolation), nor need it be in the same place as where the destroyed module was. As long as the isolated modules can trace any contiguous path back the MCM, they are considered reconnected.

Okay. My feeling was that if you were that close, you should both win.

Great! I look forward to any feedback you can provide! As I mentioned above, the disaster rules were deliberately neglected, so you might want to consider excluding them from any playtesting you do and just concentrate on the rest of the game. That is, of course, entirely your call!

Placement strategy, and what makes one space preferable to another, is very valid. I had actually anticipated that the preferred arrangement would be a clumping of modules together, as that provides connectivity redundancy - if one module goes out of service for whatever reason, it doesn't isolate another chunk of the colony. However, aside from that, as written there is little to make one arrangement any better than another, and that should probably be addressed.

Well, that would require an MCM tile for each number of players, which, while not by much, does add to the component costs. As it is now, the MCM is a square of dimensions one unit by one unit. Perhaps one of the things I wasn't clear about was that the modules have to be placed orthoganlly and within the "grid" established by the MCM - in other words, a module can't be placed such that it only covers a third of the side of the next tile...it must cover the whole side (unless connecting to one of the larger tiles). I've got some ideas how I could clarify that.

I'm not sure I like the "spoke" idea, as it seems to me to be too restrictive. After all, if we're smart enough to get to another planet, surely we're smart enough to figure out how to branch out?

As do I. I plan to implement this rule, as I think it will make placement have a little greater impact (although it may do nothing more than homogenizing the sections of the colony by player - "Now entering Red Player Zone" kind of thing).

I'm glad you liked it! I appreciate your interest and support! I'll take any and all feedback you're willing to give!

Great, but it might be a little bit. I've got a few other projects lined up ahead of [/i]Alpha Colony[/i], so be patient.

Yes.

In the early game, that can put quite a crimp on your expansion plans.

I suppose the spoke configuration would work if you switched the location to, say, an orbiting space station that is already constructed, albeit "hollow", and the different factions are renting/buying the space inside to construct their various modules.

One of the benefits to filing a d/b/a: self-appointed corporate titles! ;)