Skip to Content
 

Ideas on Cooperative Space Ship Handling

15 replies [Last post]
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 14:33
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I am working on a space empire semi-cooperative board game where each player is a faction in a Galactic Senate. Every turn one player will be elected Consul and has some privileges.

The Senate can go ahead and vote to utilize the navy to defeat foreign invaders, raze a planet and so on.

In the game, there are spaces for systems and fleets can occupy and be moved to different spaces to attack and so on.

The ownership of fleets is the first design issue I am facing: should all fleets be owned by the Senate (as in a typical Sci-Fi space Federation) or should each faction still own its fleets (more like a mutual alliance)?
Even if the ownership design is figured out, it still begs the question of how fleet management should be carried out.

For example, if all the fleets are owned by the Senate, then it would make sense the Consul would be responsible for moving the fleets per the Senate’s orders (X fleets are to attack the Space Amoeba in System Y). If the fleets are scattered over multiple systems then I imagine the Consul would be responsible for choosing which ones to move towards the threat.
One problem I envision in this semi-competitive game, is that the Consul could purposely pick some fleets further away that will take more time to get to the said location, so the other competing player’s system is ravaged prior to help. You could put rules into play such that the Consul must move the closest fleets to engage the enemy and so on, but there may be such situations that force the Consul to move the closest fleet which could be catastrophic (a fleet is moved away from a home system that will be attacked next turn).

In the second option where players own their own fleets, each player would be in a sense their own Consul who would have the same obligation to user their fleets to fulfill the Senate’s orders.

I don’t think this option is necessarily better as the same type of problems would still remain, namely of players dragging their feet to help other players. It seems a player would always choose to move a fleet that favors themselves more than their opponents they are ordered to help out.
Another problem with this options is that there would be possible coordination problems between the players (let’s all put our fleets in this system to build a big force so we can attack all together the adjacent system with the amoeba).
Which option do you like better, the Consul ownership or the faction ownership? How would you sort out the fleet management?

I think the central problem (I guess this arises with all semi-competitive games) is how can one incentivize an individual player to play the game in the best interest of all the players as a whole (the Senate) rather that themselves?

Any ideas or thoughts on how to do this in relation to fleet management and waging of warfare would be greatly appreciated.

Top
Sun, 09/18/2016 - 08:50
#1
Mike Atencio
Offline
Joined: 07/04/2013
I answered this but it didn't show up

You create a tough situation for the players. Gary Gygax created a similar game, AD&D. Players had an overall mission that they had to accomplish as a team and they each had the opportunity to level up, build their items and wealth individually. People are greedy so you have to provide for that or you'll end up with pirate factions.

If I'm reading your summary correctly, I'm assuming that each turn, a new consul will decide to attack what is the closest threat to his/her fleet. If they don't get there in time, the next player gets to attack the threat closest to them... Sounds like a lot of running around and not much actions. Not being a downer. It just comes across that way.

I would make each fleet independent. They can join forces or become enemies. They choose their alignment of dark, neutral or light sides. Sometimes, they'll agree in congress and sometimes they won't. They have to defend their system and to gain power, maybe attack another system, or join forces. No one would know who's allegiance belongs to who if you use a deck with outcomes and allegiance at set up. Then, let them all figure out what the other allegiances are. Who do you trust and who don't you trust. If your fleet gets wiped out, you chose poorly.

Top
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 17:06
#2
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Interesting Thoughts

Mike Atencio wrote:
If I'm reading your summary correctly, I'm assuming that each turn, a new consul will decide to attack what is the closest threat to his/her fleet. If they don't get there in time, the next player gets to attack the threat closest to them... Sounds like a lot of running around and not much actions. Not being a downer. It just comes across that way.

Hi Mike, thanks for your response.

How I envisioned it, is that the Consul does not get the choice to what to attack or the size of the force. Only if the Senate votes to attack a specific place with a certain number of fleets, can the Consul then use the number of fleets to attack only what the Senate authorized.

How the Consul goes about, fulfilling the Senates wishes is up to him. For example, if the Senate authorizes a two fleet attack on System C the Consul can choose to attack with two fleets from System A instead of two fleets from System B or a combination of both.

The Consul is like the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Think of how ancient Roman republic worked.

Mike Atencio wrote:
I would make each fleet independent. They can join forces or become enemies. They choose their alignment of dark, neutral or light sides. Sometimes, they'll agree in congress and sometimes they won't. They have to defend their system and to gain power, maybe attack another system, or join forces. No one would know who's allegiance belongs to who if you use a deck with outcomes and allegiance at set up. Then, let them all figure out what the other allegiances are. Who do you trust and who don't you trust. If your fleet gets wiped out, you chose poorly.

Yes. My communication with others, like you, has found each player owning their own fleets a better option.

Some interesting ideas here with alignment and having allegiances built in cards. Right now I want to minimize the inter-player conflict and promote cooperation. One way I am doing this is by having constant external threats where only if the players work together can they defeat them all.

Maybe at some point, I can add something where this cooperative element can break down so the game devolves around 2 vs 2 or 1 vs the rest (one player trying to take over the Senate and become emperor.

Thanks for the thoughts.

--DarkDream

Top
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 01:10
#3
czarcastic
Offline
Joined: 06/06/2016
Is it feasible to have both

Is it feasible to have both player-controlled home defense fleets and consul-controlled Navies? Home Defense could only move within that player's borders; Navy fleets can go anywhere, which is necessary to beat back the amoeba forces before they're actually invading. Navy units could either be created by a fleet-building vote, or by a player pledging a fleet to the Navy (token swap).
The only time Home Defense actually goes on the offensive is to reclaim lost sectors. Extra political intrigue if a player can liberate their neighbor's lost bordering sector and claim it as there own.

Top
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 01:58
#4
mcobb83
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2016
A thought- what if you had 3

A thought- what if you had 3 game phases as follows:

Voting phase- select a consul; also, each player submits a secret vote as to what/where to attack (this could raise a few mechanical issues, such as how to accomplish the actual voting).

Combat phase- players move their own fleets to the desired destination. This dies not have to be the agreed upon destination. This means that in the voting phase you can all try to come up with a plan, like programmed movement. But in the atrack phase, it may not come out that way.

Economic phase- in this phase players secretly vote on how much of an economic reward to give each other, awarding players who support the common cause more than those who do their own thing. These economic points are used to purchase ships for the next round.

The bonus to being Consul would be something like an extra vote in the first phase and bigger economic rewards in the 3rd phase. The consul would also serve as the moderator for all the votes.

Doing it like this gives players a chance to work together or apart, but it also gives players a chance to penalize each other for not being cooperative, which encourages them to play for the team. There might be incentives to pursue a solo agenda, but I will leave that to you to decide.

Top
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 16:07
#5
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Did not Think of That

czarcastic wrote:
Is it feasible to have both player-controlled home defense fleets and consul-controlled Navies? Home Defense could only move within that player's borders; Navy fleets can go anywhere, which is necessary to beat back the amoeba forces before they're actually invading. Navy units could either be created by a fleet-building vote, or by a player pledging a fleet to the Navy (token swap).

Really interesting suggestion, I did not think about one. So it would be a mixed ownership of fleets.

There would be purely defensive home fleets that would be controlled by each player to just defend its own planets but cannot travel outside the player's owned systems. The Senate fleets would be the only ones that could travel essentially anywhere to perhaps lend aid to a player's planet or intercept a threat that is coming, or totally destroy an other enemy alien System.

I like a navy building vote.

However, the problem still remains with how to incentivize the Consul when voted upon to go ahead and attack a coming threat in an efficient and speedy manner.

I was mulling over awarding the Consul victory points (VP) for participating in the battle and even more VP for actually causing the threats destruction.

Another way to incentivize the Consul would be to *loose* VP for a player's defending home fleet being destroyed with no Senate fleet participating or removing VP when the population on a player's planet is destroyed by a threat.

What do you think?

czarcastic wrote:
The only time Home Defense actually goes on the offensive is to reclaim lost sectors. Extra political intrigue if a player can liberate their neighbor's lost bordering sector and claim it as there own.

Interesting ideas. So only in the case of a lost System can a player's own fleets and other player's be used almost like a Senate fleet.

I was thinking of neighboring player's home fleets also helping to defend instead of needing to call the Senate fleets (who maybe already fighting something else or too far away) regardless if the player(s) are trying to reclaim a system.

Do you like this idea?

Thanks for the input.

--DarkDream

Top
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 16:18
#6
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Really Fascinating.

mcobb83 wrote:
A thought- what if you had 3 game phases as follows:

Voting phase- select a consul; also, each player submits a secret vote as to what/where to attack (this could raise a few mechanical issues, such as how to accomplish the actual voting).

Combat phase- players move their own fleets to the desired destination. This dies not have to be the agreed upon destination. This means that in the voting phase you can all try to come up with a plan, like programmed movement. But in the atrack phase, it may not come out that way.


Just trying to understand your idea here. What is the purpose of the design choice of submitting a vote for where and what to attack? Why secret?

mcobb83 wrote:
Economic phase- in this phase players secretly vote on how much of an economic reward to give each other, awarding players who support the common cause more than those who do their own thing. These economic points are used to purchase ships for the next round.

The bonus to being Consul would be something like an extra vote in the first phase and bigger economic rewards in the 3rd phase. The consul would also serve as the moderator for all the votes.

Trying to follow you here. In the economic phase you mention that players must secretly vote on how much to reward each other. Not clear where are the resources coming from, the individual players themselves?

So if player A is being attacked and player B and player C have no threats, and player A voted for 3 Gold and player B and C voted for no Gold. If either player B and C help out A, they would get 3 Gold?

Thanks for the thoughts. Some really thought provoking suggestions here.

--DarkDream

Top
Thu, 09/22/2016 - 02:30
#7
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
What about letting each

What about letting each player decide how much they are prepared to contribute to the defence against the threat, but reward them accordingly?

In Game of Thrones, there is a blind auction to raise forces against each wildling attack. If enough is contributed, the wildlings are defeated, and whoever contributed the most gets a bonus that is only revealed after the victory. If everyone is lazy and contributes little, everyone suffers a penalty but the greater penalty goes to whoever contributed the least.

For your game, you might have to make modifications based on how hard it was for a fleet to get to the battle, but creating the right incentives and then leaving the players to decide what to do would have more appeal than scripting a solution like "closest must battle".

Top
Thu, 09/22/2016 - 13:36
#8
czarcastic
Offline
Joined: 06/06/2016
DarkDream wrote:czarcastic

DarkDream wrote:
czarcastic wrote:
Is it feasible to have both player-controlled home defense fleets and consul-controlled Navies? Home Defense could only move within that player's borders; Navy fleets can go anywhere, which is necessary to beat back the amoeba forces before they're actually invading. Navy units could either be created by a fleet-building vote, or by a player pledging a fleet to the Navy (token swap).

Really interesting suggestion, I did not think about one. So it would be a mixed ownership of fleets.

There would be purely defensive home fleets that would be controlled by each player to just defend its own planets but cannot travel outside the player's owned systems. The Senate fleets would be the only ones that could travel essentially anywhere to perhaps lend aid to a player's planet or intercept a threat that is coming, or totally destroy an other enemy alien System.

I like a navy building vote.

However, the problem still remains with how to incentivize the Consul when voted upon to go ahead and attack a coming threat in an efficient and speedy manner.

I was mulling over awarding the Consul victory points (VP) for participating in the battle and even more VP for actually causing the threats destruction.

Another way to incentivize the Consul would be to *loose* VP for a player's defending home fleet being destroyed with no Senate fleet participating or removing VP when the population on a player's planet is destroyed by a threat.

What do you think?

Without delving too deeply into your mechanics, I can't really advise specific incentives/penalties for using the navy appropriately. Generally, it should be an extension of the reason players cooperate at all. What negative effect would it have for me if the player on the other side of the galaxy getc eaten? Why would I want to contribute resources to collective defense, rather than channeling into fending off the attackers on my own?

Top
Thu, 09/22/2016 - 14:15
#9
mcobb83
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2016
So to clarify my

So to clarify my thoughts-

There is a single "Senate Fleet", lets call it. All players contribute to the Senate Fleet, and have nothing of their own left. The Senate may deploy the Fleet to one sector per turn to counter threats which must, by their nature, exceed the ability of a solo player to defeat. Otherwise there would be no need for a Senate Fleet.

Players spend Economy points to acquire ships, which may be deployed either at their homeworld or to the senate fleet. It might be worthwhile to create a minimum contribution to the senate fleet. More on economic points in a bit.

Lets say there are 9 systems (arbitrary number, no real significance). At the voting phase each player is given cards numbered 1-9. On the game board there will be threats in certain systems, maybe in the players home system. Players, acting as the Senate, then vote which system to send the fleet to. This is done by placing one card face down and discarding the rest. The face down cards are collected by the Consul and shuffled, creating anonymity. Then they are revealed (obvious problem with 9 systems is there may be no clear vote winner; perhaps have the Consul propose 2 systems to vote between and thats the Senates choice). The system with the most votes gets the fleet.

Its done in secret to allow for politicking. Players can offer economic bribes to each other in order to buy a vote, but they will never know if the person actually voted according to the bribe or not...it creates in game tension and contributes to "semi-cooperative".

After the fleet is deployed and its mission accomplished, the fleet must be discarded and all left over economic points lost. Players then have a deck of economic cards, numbered 1-5, for example. They then award these cards face down to other players based upon what they think the other player should receive. They keep no cards for themselves and discard any unused. This give players points to buy fleets. But once again, because its secret and you don't know who gave you what, you have to trust that your allies have upheld their end of the bargain.

To make it even more interesting, each group in the senate could have their own ships etc...but that might make it a little too complicated. I just feel like the secret aspects make the game far more political that just an alien themed war game.

Top
Wed, 09/28/2016 - 16:07
#10
saluk
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
Two things. This is more of a

Two things.

This is more of a random idea that might not mesh well, but what if all of the ships are "owned" by the senate, but individual players control parts of the fleet? When their area is attacked they can petition for fleet action through a bidding or some other mechanic in order to muster some percentage of the available shared forces.

Secondly, incentives. In your example of a player slowing things down for someone by not sending in forces right away, think about ways to incentivize them to do so rather than punishing them for stalling. The faster they get the fleet there to save the day, the sooner they get that influx of cash that their strapped empire needs. Of course, they do have to consider if helping their potential opponent is worth that risk.

Top
Tue, 11/01/2016 - 07:02
#11
Rory J. Somers
Rory J. Somers's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/28/2016
Late to the game:

I know I'm joining this thread quite late, but I find the idea fascinating and similar in concept to one a friend of mine had.

Personally, I lean towards your original Option 2 - separate fleets that are encouraged to work together.

The "solution" to your issue of actually getting players to work together would be 'Secret Mission Briefing' cards dealt to all players at the beginning of the game, informing of them of a list of thins they have to try and do i.e. prevent any damage to Red Player's Capital Ship (therefore depending on the briefing card and what colours other players pick to play with, the missions would be different most of the time) - players would then score post game on how well they performed THEIR sub/secret mission.

As an idea for Option 1 - if the fleet were made up of both standard and specialized ships (vessels a player wouldn't normally have) i.e. heavy attack, transport, medical, rescue etc. Players could vie for loaning out certain Consul Fleet ships to perform their missions/plans - players who made use of these addition vessels would then have to 'pay' the other players.

Just throwing my two cents in here. I hope development is going well

Top
Wed, 11/02/2016 - 17:24
#12
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Current Thoughts

saluk wrote:

Secondly, incentives. In your example of a player slowing things down for someone by not sending in forces right away, think about ways to incentivize them to do so rather than punishing them for stalling. The faster they get the fleet there to save the day, the sooner they get that influx of cash that their strapped empire needs. Of course, they do have to consider if helping their potential opponent is worth that risk.

Yes. Incentives I think is the key. This general idea helped me with my current thoughts.

Rory J. Somers wrote:
I know I'm joining this thread quite late, but I find the idea fascinating and similar in concept to one a friend of mine had.

Personally, I lean towards your original Option 2 - separate fleets that are encouraged to work together.

The "solution" to your issue of actually getting players to work together would be 'Secret Mission Briefing' cards dealt to all players at the beginning of the game, informing of them of a list of thins they have to try and do i.e. prevent any damage to Red Player's Capital Ship (therefore depending on the briefing card and what colours other players pick to play with, the missions would be different most of the time) - players would then score post game on how well they performed THEIR sub/secret mission.

Never too late to turn up at the party. :)

Using secret mission cards is quite interesting.

What I am now thinking is based on the Game of Thrones board game in relation to the wildlings.

In my game, if a player manages to pass through a motion to defend a planet then each player is obligated to help out.

In the ensuing battle at the planet voted on to defend, should the players win then each player that contributed at least one ship to the battle will get a victory point (VP) with an extra (VP) awarded to the player who contributed the *most* ships. Ties are resolved by the Consul.

Should the battle be lost, then each player will loose a VP with the player that contributed the least in ships will suffer a loss of an extra VP. Again ties are resolved by the Consul.

Need to test it out, but I think this will work.

What you guys think?

--DarkDream

Top
Thu, 11/03/2016 - 00:03
#13
auvillebw
Offline
Joined: 10/12/2008
Senate Interaction Focus?

Have you thought about using a Diplomacy like mechanic to influence how players interact within the Senate?

If players had a chance to interact and ballot vote on where bases are established, what units are at what base, what new units are bought, etc... they then could be shaping the game environment in a pseudo cooperative manner for both group and personal benefit. A limited number of Senate initiatives per round could then be a forcing function to keep some level of competition (i.e. not everyone can get what they want... could force people into committee negotiations). There could be overall set game mechanics that require the group to proceed through or achieve, as well as individual player focused goals like hidden randomly assigned tasks or goals, public tasks or goals, and basic duties to the constituents that are represented.

A way to tie this in then with the rest of the game would be some measure of political currency. The Consul could gain political clout from successfully defending opponents' constituent planets (could lose it if they didn't... this could establish a means of relative political currency among players, and could make for choices of who do I need to defend?), completing offensive operations, having high efficiency ratings, etc... Senate members could gain political clout by meeting constituent requirements by voting for or against initiatives (would imply that not all constituents like the same thing), or by supporting/sponsoring other players initiatives (a you owe me factor).

There would need to be some mechanism for allowing players to cash in their political currency in a way that allows them to shape the Senate's agenda and/or outcomes. The simplest thing that comes to mind is an auction system where the currency is spent to create, push for, or kill initiatives.

Something like this could create a dynamic social environment for the game, and could improve replay-ability. It could also make the game a whole lot longer to play through too

Top
Mon, 11/07/2016 - 16:57
#14
DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Very Intriguing Ideas

auvillebw wrote:
Have you thought about using a Diplomacy like mechanic to influence how players interact within the Senate?

If players had a chance to interact and ballot vote on where bases are established, what units are at what base, what new units are bought, etc... they then could be shaping the game environment in a pseudo cooperative manner for both group and personal benefit. A limited number of Senate initiatives per round could then be a forcing function to keep some level of competition (i.e. not everyone can get what they want... could force people into committee negotiations). There could be overall set game mechanics that require the group to proceed through or achieve, as well as individual player focused goals like hidden randomly assigned tasks or goals, public tasks or goals, and basic duties to the constituents that are represented.

Hey, thanks for the great input. I have never played Diplomacy, but reading the rules indicates in order to attack another player you need to get support from other players thus forcing negotiations.

Not sure how you would tie that in with the Senate. Did you have any concrete ideas in mind?

In this semi-cooperative space 4x game, from a mechanics standpoint, it seems a little difficult to get players to vote for cooperatively building let's say a Senate colony or a Senate fleet versus them getting a colony or building their own fleets.

Right now, how I am getting the Senate part of the game to work is that players are forced to work together to survive against big threats which on their own they would fail.

I think you are indicating that some other incentives to induce cooperation could be based on group and individual player goals that must be met to survive. Thus, for example, a group goal would be to build a Senate navy.

auvillebw wrote:
A way to tie this in then with the rest of the game would be some measure of political currency. The Consul could gain political clout from successfully defending opponents' constituent planets (could lose it if they didn't... this could establish a means of relative political currency among players, and could make for choices of who do I need to defend?), completing offensive operations, having high efficiency ratings, etc... Senate members could gain political clout by meeting constituent requirements by voting for or against initiatives (would imply that not all constituents like the same thing), or by supporting/sponsoring other players initiatives (a you owe me factor).

I have been thinking of using a notion of influence which can act as victory points or even be separate from it. Right now each player has a number of votes equal to the number of planets controlled plus a blind bid of Gold where one Gold equals one vote.

It could be changed so that influence can be gained, like you mentioned, for fulfilling certain personal player objectives or overall duties as a Senator or Consul.

I guess this could be tied into individual player goals and/or role goals: a Senator must protect his home planet, a Consul must protect all player home planets and so on.

auvillebw wrote:
There would need to be some mechanism for allowing players to cash in their political currency in a way that allows them to shape the Senate's agenda and/or outcomes. The simplest thing that comes to mind is an auction system where the currency is spent to create, push for, or kill initiatives.

With the voting mechanic I have now, Gold could be substituted with influence, so the more influence spent increases the vote count. If influence is used as one measure of VPs, it would create interesting decisions on how much political capital to spend to in theory get more influence and thus VPs.

If you have any more concrete ideas on this let me know. I think there is some great ideas here.

Thanks,

--DarkDream

Top
Fri, 12/16/2016 - 03:05
#15
BHFuturist
BHFuturist's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2008
Random Thoughts

It is always hard to jump into a longer thread that has had so many great ideas tossed out, but here are my thoughts...

- Have galactic events last for a set duration of turns or rounds... the event gives a bonus for "completing/defeating" it and a negative if "failed/skipped" this way more than one "leader" has the chance to "work" on the problem... this also lets there be more than one "active" problem to deal with...

Example: The 4 player game lasts 8-9 rounds giving each player two turns as "leader". Each round the leader will draw two "Galactic events" and choose one to "face"(On the first round both events become active with no choice). Each event can have up to a five round duration, based on the difficulty level of the event. This means by turn three, there might be as many as five events active with the current leader being pulled by the other players to work on the one that effects them the most or the one that will "expire" next.

Event One: "Random" System on the edge of Supernova! (3 Rounds)
Event Two: Invasion Fleet in Sector 5! (2 Round)
Event Three: Pirate Base in Sector 7! (4 Rounds)
Event Four: Economic Market Crisis! (1 Round)

Also by having each player the "keeper" of a major galactic resource they are the most effected by events of that type.

Race One: Gorgons (Warrior Race with powerful ships)
Race Two: Geedons (Scientific Race with advanced computers)
Race Three: Gabbs (subterranean miner race rich in Minerals)
Race Four: Gurfens (Bean counter race of accountants)

If you make the resources in the game tied to the races and the events effect only one resource at a time, this will give each player a vested interest in some events and not others...

But this all hinges on what the idea of winning in the co-op part of the game is?

1. "we can all lose but only you can win"
2. "we all win or lose together"
3. "once the alliance/federation collapses who has the most points?"

and so on...

DarkDream wrote:
I think the central problem (I guess this arises with all semi-competitive games) is how can one incentivize an individual player to play the game in the best interest of all the players as a whole (the Senate) rather that themselves?

The short answer if only one player can be the winner is: you mostly can't.

However, if we all lose if the alliance/federation collapses and we all win if we make it to round 8 still unified then your goal is built in and players will always do what is best for the group. Add a "traitor player" and things get dicey.

You might be able to do some sort of...

"If we all lose you loose with us, but if we all win you can be crowned the greatest leader in our history".

This makes everyone want the team to win but also you want to stay king of the hill...

I wish you luck in your design and hope that this "ramble" has been helpful in some way.

See also:
Dark Moon

=====EDIT=====
For the ship control issue that this post started with...

Maybe give each player a number of starting ships (say 10) with a mechanic to gain more somehow. Then when "combats" happen have each player "pledge" ships to the battle (out loud). but when the battle actually happens do this:

1. Place the number of attacking ship tokens in a bag
2. Pass the bag and have each player put in ships from their hidden stash of ships.
3. draw back out of the bag half the number of total ships put in rounded down to an odd number.
4. If the number of "good" ships outnumber the attackers you win.

The thing here is the more you win he more "attackers" are still in the bag for the next combat and... no one knows if you really did put 4 ships in or not...

5. at the end of the game each ship is worth a Victory Point.

This adds several layers to how others see what happens in combat... and you can say "I really did put in 4 ships" you will see next battle when I don't put any ships in and my ships will win the next battle!"

You can also give Victory points to the player that had the most ships pulled out during the battle and or return player ships that "won" back to the players to use again.

I might even use this in a game some day :)

======================

-Eamon

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut