|
 Active: B4 & E6, +refugee B3 Next: G1 & G7, +refugee K2 STARVATION None ACTION Tricky, do a communism
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Militarize both on J6. Also, I will be traveling until Sunday so it may take a bit longer than usual for my actions to get posted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Radiation bounces to C4 and E5. Refugee bounces from B3. Tricky, do you want the new refugee at E3, E4, or D5?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Make it D5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
 Active: G1 & G7, +refugee K2 Next: E1 & L5 STARVATION D5 - one refugee starves. ACTION Sinewave, there's not much Antarctica left. You better make sure the drat Ruskies don't get any!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
 G5 MOVE -> H6 H6 ATTACK J5; H6 becomes a shrine to the god of the glow. F2 MOVE -> F3 F3 MOVE BOTH -> F4 G1 radiation creeps to F2 as the nearest empty dirty hex (I think) no decision from me here. G7 radiation creeps to ... I'm not super sure. Normally H6 but it should be dead from the fight, so would it be G5 which is the closest? (It would be closest empty, but there are no closest AND empty)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Correct! But with one extra kicker: Refugee bounces from K2 to H3. Active: E1 & L5 Next: B5 J7 STARVATION G5: Supply depot dies! H3: Civ dies. Assuming Tricky chooses to kill the blue one. J6: Red soldier defects to the unclaimed depot, becoming a neutral civ.  ACTION Tricky, you're both on the ropes! What will you do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
J6 soldier moves x2 to H5. H5 soldier pressgangs the deserter to H5. H5 soldier moves to G4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Radiation: E3 or F3?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Radiation to F3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
 STARVATION L5 dies F4 - one blue civ dies. I think that's checkmate, kids. With only one civ, Sinewave can't pressgang or threaten anymore. And if he militarizes, Tricky will immediately trade in his soldier and win. Congrats, Tricky. Thanks for playing. I'll post a debriefing survey in a couple minutes, and I'm happy to take any comments you have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
On a scale of 1-5, with one being low and five being high: 1) How much did you enjoy the game? 2) How close would you say the game was? 3) How clear were the rules? 4) How much did card/radiation luck decide the results of the game? (How much is this a game of luck?) 5) How much did your choices decide the results of the game? (How much is this a game of skill?) 6) If this game were available at a Pandemic-level price point ($35-$40 MSRP), how likely would you be to purchase it? Please be as brutally honest as you feel. I'd rather have accurate data than polite applause. gutterdaughter fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
And as a second concern: Rules version 0.61 is up, with a lot of revisions based on this game. Among them:
Would either of you be interested in another game, with these revised rules?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
1) How much did you enjoy the game? 3.75 I think the unit placement is kind of a drag, both as a new player (with minimal ideas as to the strategy behind it) and as a PbP. I would say that my enjoyment and engagement were much higher when the game started in earnest. I think I would enjoy the placement phase a lot more having played the game. 2) How close would you say the game was? 5 I honestly thought I would need to concede after the radiation spread last turn. G5 and J6 were both occupied (though admittedly not under the new rules) so if I had lost both soldiers instead of one, that would have been it. 3) How clear were the rules? 4 I think the biggest sticking points for me were treating supply depots as units and placement. I'll freely admit that the latter was almost entirely user error. 4) How much did card/radiation luck decide the results of the game? (How much is this a game of luck?) 4 Being forced to deal with an unknown flip before you can act again can throw a serious wrench in the works and makes a late game militarize really risky. Also, I think the last radiation flips decided the game. 5) How much did your choices decide the results of the game? (How much is this a game of skill?) 4 I think that given the above, there are definite ways to mitigate luck -- like militarizing turn one or two, assuming a beneficial placement phase. I think trying to maintain unit advantage was also very important, so stuff like the early supply depot steal helped mitigate some of the bad luck I experienced or bad decisions I made. 6) If this game were available at a Pandemic-level price point ($35-$40 MSRP), how likely would you be to purchase it? It really depends on the group I'd be playing with. 1v1 games (BattleCON) have been roughly impossible to get to the table, since my group would rather play something like 7 Wonders or Pandemic: Legacy that accommodate everyone who showed up. If I had a reliable way to play it? I'd buy it. Edit: Yeah, I'd be interested in playing again with the new ruleset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
I'd play again for sure! I'll give you a feedback seriouspost, but probably not until Sunday or Monday. (I'm phone posting with a few spare moments, which usually sums up my weekends)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:On a scale of 1-5, with one being low and five being high: 1) 5 - I'd play it again happily, and felt engaged while playing. 2) 5 - very close, felt like every move mattered. 3) 3 - I had the dubious "advantage" of going through them before (dubious because filling in my own blanks wound up biasing my thinking). I thought the rules were well written but there are some nonintuitive parts that just didn't come naturally to me like misunderstanding pressgang (it talks about moving enemy civs which looked like a typo), and for the first little while I needed to read the board like a codebook to figure out terrain type, occupant limit, how many occupants (remembering supply depots count), etc. Like, you have to teach the game's theory before you can teach the game's rules, you know? For a 2-up game like this that's short-ish I don't really want to do that. 4) 2 - Knowing the immediate and next doomsday cards up-front when you begin your turn (i.e. knowing which one happens @ end of your turn and your opponent will resolve, plus what happens on their turn & you will resolve) makes a huge difference. While the very last turn or two comes down pretty tight, my previous decisions / guesses what my opponent will do had by far the most impact on the end game situation. The radiation creep isn't entirely predictable but it's not totally random either (i.e. you know it creeps in on the sides, never from the center, you know which is happening next and the one after, starvation is resolved deterministically, etc.) My "poo poo!" moments were all things I felt I should have seen coming. 5) 5 - I feel that it's a game where it's far more likely to screw yourself up or fail to perceive an opening/vulnerability than it is to get screwed by doomsday draw. 6) 2.5 - I'd pay Patchwork level pricing for it. I'd pay more for a really solid and coherent artistic design that complements the theme and makes it easier to play/teach. I'm a super visual person though, so that kind of thing is important to me. I feel like there is just enough to fit in my head but not 100%, so when I do something right and it pays off I feel smart  I love the way the outcomes of starvation, etc seem very apropos. There is a coherent theme of "it hurts us both but it hurts you more so it helps me", and a robbing-peter-to-pay-paul which comes out through from the gameplay. Repeating myself but I don't like that teaching it feels like it needs a lecture on how to read the matrix / calculate occupancy limits (memorize hex types and support limits, what a dirty hex is and modify by that, modify by support base but only if your alignment, etc) before you can even start to play. In my ideal world, the board has visual cues for occupancy that gets visually modified by radiation tiles / supply bases. So teaching the game becomes more of a "your people can fit in these 'people spots'; and as you can see, the number of spots is increased by being next to these supply depot tiles and reduced by being next to these radiation tiles. If there are ever more people than spots in a hex, they become Starving." I also thought that setup via PBP was a pain. It's interactive and important positioning, I know -- but it also kind of feels like just something you just need to get through before you can play. Side note: there never seemed to be time to move those two mooks in the far west. Maybe in a future game where I'm the US again I'd try using them somehow. Thanks for running this, I don't usually go for territory-type games but Meltwater (like Barony) breaks that mold. I think I also like the aspect of constantly-reducing resources and increasing pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 17:20
|
|