Non-Combat Strategy Win

The merchant fleets sound like an interesting game element, but I'm not sure I understand how they fit into the overall picture.

Here are some questions your post raised:

1) The military can blockade merchant ships but there doesn't appear to be a way for merchant ships to affect the military.
If that's the case, what's the advantage of merchant vessels?
a) Maybe players can establish "neutral zones" via treaty through which military vessels can't pass?
b) Maybe merchant fleets generate net positive income if they remain in play long enough? In that case, are military fleets gimped by comparison?

2) What are the rules for establishing "economic dominance?"
a) Can more than one player establish dominance in a sector? If not, what rules govern who dominates? If so, how do players split VP and income?

Answering these questions will probably answer your question as to whether there "should be" warlike interactions between merchants. Chances are, thinking along these lines will expose areas of competition that require rules for resolution. At that point, you can decide if you want the resolution to be "warlike," "political," or "other."

Looking forward to seeing your solution!

Mark

Hey Blu,

Your reply helped. I still have questions, though, and I think answering my questions will help you answer your own question.

So, the questions:

1) Once a player establishes economic dominance over a sector, can other players contest that dominance? If so, how?

2) If someone tries to dominate my home world, can I resist? If so, does my resistance require the presence of my own fleets, or does my planet have innate defense?

3) Given that military fleets can blockade merchant fleets, can I send in military units to force merchant units out of a contested sector? If so, how many units does it take? Is the number relative to the number of merchant fleets displaced?

4) If Merchant fleets can be driven from a sector, either by opposing military or merchant fleets, what happens to them?

Mark

As it stands, you just have two parallel games taking place - one between the military fleets, and one between the merchants. The merchants are currently the "better" option though. "In-system" they fight just like the military ships, but they can't be engaged when moving between systems. Basically, they do everything that the military does, but with no risk of being intercepted.

This makes me wonder if there's a *reason* to even include the merchants. Why not just assume that the military carries enough non-combatants with it (support personnel, camp followers, etc) to establish economies or colonies on planets/systems that they visit? Players can choose to destroy a planet evil-genius style, or they can colonize it.

From my perspective, you already have a non-combat method for determining the wins. 'Risk', 'Axis and Allies', and other "area control" boardgames are all about non-combat wins, rather than being decided entirely by pitched battles. If I take all game to avoid your fleet and grab up space-colonies, while you doggedly chase me through the void, I'll win the game without firing a shot: I hold more systems.

Most games that rely on a strictly "battlefield" win, are actual battlefield games. Warhammer, Warmachine, Flames of War, Disposable Heroes, Ancient Battles, are all 'combat wins'. You kill off the enemy units and the winner is whoever has more troops left at the end of the game. Units aren't replenished, and objectives are only used to focus the combat onto specific areas (if there are secondary objectives present at all).

I'm not saying that you shouldn't include Merchants in your game - the politicking between merchant cartels will probably be even more intense than the fights between the military fleets, and that would be a huge draw for me. But try to make sure that they are thoroughly integrated into the game, rather than tacked on just to provide an alternate win condition.

I like the idea of having to choose between Merchants and Combat fleets, and also being able to win the game without crushing all your opponents' worlds.

You said that you would make the merchant income less than the colony income. Personally I would try the opposite, where the merchant income is significantly higher, and/or put an upkeep cost on combat fleets. The idea would be that a full-combat player can be starved of income by ruining his economy -- which is one of the real strategies used in many wars throughout history.

You said that a combat fleet can prevent a merchant fleet from moving into a system. By extension, I would say that any system which contains a hostile combat fleet earns no merchant income. This allows for the tactic of sending little fleets to dodge the main combat areas to blockade enemy systems and ruin their income.

Regards,
kos

I feel like I just had a lightbulb moment when I read your reply to my criticisms of the system -

You say that Merchant fleets provide less income than systems held by warships. Why have the system-generated revenue be tied to the fleets at all? Why not just say that each system creates +X resources each turn, but there has to be a merchant fleet present in order to capitalize on that income? Players can upgrade different systems to have better resource generation, but they have to maintain a fleet presence to capitalize on that.
Furthermore, a fleet can't collect from the same system two turns in a row. They don't have to move off-system, but they can only collect for 1 turn. You might have to figure out a way to put markers on systems that have been "harvested" and then remove them during an upkeep when the system has replenished itself though.

In this way, players can put blockades on one another, as well as trade with 'neutral' systems, and even subvert trade by using merchant fleets as smugglers or blockade-runners and harvesting resources from an opposed system. Perhaps after harvesting an opponent's system so many times, the system actually rebels and falls under your control without anyone firing a shot.

This would be far more "realistic" in how economies actually worked in colonial warfare. Modern nations are largely self-sufficient, and it is possible for an army to return home from anywhere on the planet in 24hrs or less to refit and resupply, or for supplies to be sent to the frontline in the same time frame. But when it took months to travel between territories, blockades, privateers, and general mishaps meant that if your colony was at war, your homeland probably wasn't benefiting from the resources there, just through sheer enemy proximity.