1. I've got a pretty good handle on the rules, but it's been months since I last played (we somehow always get the idea to play at like 10pm on a Sunday or something, which is way too late), so I might need to refresh a little bit, otherwise, I'm good.
2. I think I've played around 4 full games, give or take.
3. I'll be able to commit at least 3 now, and probably 4-5 once exams are over in 2 weeks.
If you can find six without me, let me serve as first alternate/fill-in. I've played twice before (once a 3p learning game/rules refresher for the other players, then a full 6p game using two separate galaxies connected via wormholes), so I have a decent handle on the rules but would need to review some.
Right now I've got some RL stuff I need to get taken care of, but within a few weeks could probably give 4-5 level of commitment.
If you can find six without me, let me serve as first alternate/fill-in. I've played twice before (once a 3p learning game/rules refresher for the other players, then a full 6p game using two separate galaxies connected via wormholes), so I have a decent handle on the rules but would need to review some.
Right now I've got some RL stuff I need to get taken care of, but within a few weeks could probably give 4-5 level of commitment.
When I read that I first thought 12 players. That would have been awesome.
I mentioned it in my PM, but I'll mention it here to see if anybody agrees:
If there are enough people, I think each race might be best played by two or more players, in order to ensure there's someone available to take up the mantle if another player needs a break, or steps away, or is just getting drunk one night.
If you can find six without me, let me serve as first alternate/fill-in. I've played twice before (once a 3p learning game/rules refresher for the other players, then a full 6p game using two separate galaxies connected via wormholes), so I have a decent handle on the rules but would need to review some.
Right now I've got some RL stuff I need to get taken care of, but within a few weeks could probably give 4-5 level of commitment.
When I read that I first thought 12 players. That would have been awesome.
I mentioned it in my PM, but I'll mention it here to see if anybody agrees:
If there are enough people, I think each race might be best played by two or more players, in order to ensure there's someone available to take up the mantle if another player needs a break, or steps away, or is just getting drunk one night.
Clever, with high potential for fisticuffs. I like it.
If you can find six without me, let me serve as first alternate/fill-in. I've played twice before (once a 3p learning game/rules refresher for the other players, then a full 6p game using two separate galaxies connected via wormholes), so I have a decent handle on the rules but would need to review some.
Right now I've got some RL stuff I need to get taken care of, but within a few weeks could probably give 4-5 level of commitment.
When I read that I first thought 12 players. That would have been awesome.
I mentioned it in my PM, but I'll mention it here to see if anybody agrees:
If there are enough people, I think each race might be best played by two or more players, in order to ensure there's someone available to take up the mantle if another player needs a break, or steps away, or is just getting drunk one night.
This is not the worst idea of the thread, by far. I will definitely be considering this. What does everyone else think about such a thing?
So complicated, but so horribly right. I'm not sure you can do a PBP of it without it being horrendously complicated though. The thrill of taking out a fleet with a War Sun head on is pretty awesome though.
From my limited experience, the expansion techs really make the game more balanced - specifically the one that makes the anti-fighter barrage much better.
I don't think I need a tag teamer, but I understand not everyone likes checking back on these things as often as I do. I am open to the idea if an intelligent way of handling this can be reached.
So complicated, but so horribly right. I'm not sure you can do a PBP of it without it being horrendously complicated though. The thrill of taking out a fleet with a War Sun head on is pretty awesome though.
From my limited experience, the expansion techs really make the game more balanced - specifically the one that makes the anti-fighter barrage much better.
When I bought the game I figured I would like it enough so I bought the expansion at the same time. I think we played 1 game with vanilla rules to learn the game, then it's been expansion + most of the rule variants ever since.
There is a cool rule set I really want to try out at some point (and if the pbf stuff works here well I may try to run a game with it at some point) and its called Shattered Ascension. http://www.esnips.com/web/ShatteredAscensionPDFRules/
If you arn't already familar with the game, the changes may not make as much sense. It seems to be awesome, but I have yet to play test it.
If there are enough people, I think each race might be best played by two or more players, in order to ensure there's someone available to take up the mantle if another player needs a break, or steps away, or is just getting drunk one night.
This is not the worst idea of the thread, by far. I will definitely be considering this. What does everyone else think about such a thing?
As a new player, I think this is a great idea. Especially if you end up pairing a newbie with a veteran. It will help someone like me learn how to play and also give me a good grip on the rules and how to strategize and it will also allow people to go on vacation and not have to worry about screwing over the game. From what everyone is saying, it seems that this game is going to be a long term commitment and if one person decides to go on vacation or join the witness protection program, then we got a back up player who is already familliar with what's going on and knows how to play the situation. Plus, if needed, it helps a reserve get in the game faster and get a grip on what's going on without having to read the whole thread. The teammate can just bring them up to speed.
So, Rend, when are you looking at starting the game?
I like the tag team idea, as long as there's some reasonable way of making decisions that doesn't result in one person utterly dominating his/her teammate. You know?
It sounds like it'd add some pretty cool dynamics to the game, though, and having two heads is apparently better than having one -- especially on a practical level.
Well hopefully it doesn't become a problem. The way I see it is that they work together and not one person makes all the decisions. I think that the only time a decision should be made alone is if your teammate isn't there to make the decision and the game needs to move on, you know? I guess we'd have to get it started to see if it's like communism. Looks good on paper, but bad in practice.
I'd say you PM your team-mate with your idea. If he doesn't answer, well you make your move. Just set a time frame for the answering.
Even with a time frame, this seems like it might slow things down a little. I don't have an issue with the tag team idea, but it needs to accomplish what it's intended for: speeding up the game when someone is unable to post.
I'd say you PM your team-mate with your idea. If he doesn't answer, well you make your move. Just set a time frame for the answering.
Even with a time frame, this seems like it might slow things down a little. I don't have an issue with the tag team idea, but it needs to accomplish what it's intended for: speeding up the game when someone is unable to post.
That's pretty much the only issue I'd see, is that if players were in teams of two, each player would need to feel good about making decisions by themselves on the fly, that way it would speed things up instead of slow them down. If everyone is waiting on someone else to play or pass on a secondary strategy ability, it's going to take even longer than it would have before.
So you would go with : first one who can, plays. I could live with that. I suppose we can PM each other on strategies before our turn actually comes around
Yeah, it may slow things down or not. I think it's just something we gotta try out to see what works. For the most part, it seems that most people are on these forums Monday - Friday during the day. Which leads me to believe that they're like me, posting while at work. So I think for the most part it shouldn't be a problem getting both people to get together to get an action posted.
Rend, do you think you can get an interested player list put in the OP? That way we know who is interested and what our number is at.
Then you run into issues where people check the thread a lot and tend to take command on every turn. That's not fair to the second person. =/
I'm not sure the best way to implement this, I'm thinking about it though.
If both teammates get AIM or some other messageing service and leave it on while they are available, communication is instant and the other player knows when someone is available.
Yeah, it may slow things down or not. I think it's just something we gotta try out to see what works. For the most part, it seems that most people are on these forums Monday - Friday during the day. Which leads me to believe that they're like me, posting while at work. So I think for the most part it shouldn't be a problem getting both people to get together to get an action posted.
Rend, do you think you can get an interested player list put in the OP? That way we know who is interested and what our number is at.
The way I see it, if it's your turn, you play immediately. Any strategy has to be agreed upon BEFORE it's your turn. If it's not, do whatever you like.
Then you run into issues where people check the thread a lot and tend to take command on every turn. That's not fair to the second person. =/
I'm not sure the best way to implement this, I'm thinking about it though.
If both teammates get AIM or some other messageing service and leave it on while they are available, communication is instant and the other player knows when someone is available.
Not a bad idea. As this is likely to be a long-term commitment, maybe even phone numbers should be exchanged for texting strategy back and forth. (heresy? fucked if I know)
Then you run into issues where people check the thread a lot and tend to take command on every turn. That's not fair to the second person. =/
I'm not sure the best way to implement this, I'm thinking about it though.
If both teammates get AIM or some other messageing service and leave it on while they are available, communication is instant and the other player knows when someone is available.
Not a bad idea. As this is likely to be a long-term commitment, maybe even phone numbers should be exchanged for texting strategy back and forth. (heresy? fucked if I know)
I was actually thinking of the text messaging myself. But that also depends on the person, cause not everyone has unlimited texts and I doubt anyone wants to pay extra to their phone carrier to get it or pay per text just to play a game. There's also the ability to make a call to your teammate and discuss it too. I think as long as the two teammates discuss multiple ways to contact each other prior to game starting (cell, e-mail, AIM, PMs, etc) then it shouldn't be a problem. If one person has tried all they can to get ahold of their teammate, then they proceed with the action without them.
If the point is to make the game faster, play should be done as soon as one of the players can. It is easy to agree beforehand on a plan, while you wait for the other teams to play. It's up to the two teammates to agree on how to communicate.
If the point is to make the game faster, play should be done as soon as one of the players can. It is easy to agree beforehand on a plan, while you wait for the other teams to play. It's up to the two teammates to agree on how to communicate.
No it isn't, you see, some of us play by the seat of our pants because it's MANLY. Then we go break bricks with our face, because it's MANLY.
Then you run into issues where people check the thread a lot and tend to take command on every turn. That's not fair to the second person. =/
I'm not sure the best way to implement this, I'm thinking about it though.
If both teammates get AIM or some other messageing service and leave it on while they are available, communication is instant and the other player knows when someone is available.
Not a bad idea. As this is likely to be a long-term commitment, maybe even phone numbers should be exchanged for texting strategy back and forth. (heresy? fucked if I know)
I was actually thinking of the text messaging myself. But that also depends on the person, cause not everyone has unlimited texts and I doubt anyone wants to pay extra to their phone carrier to get it or pay per text just to play a game. There's also the ability to make a call to your teammate and discuss it too. I think as long as the two teammates discuss multiple ways to contact each other prior to game starting (cell, e-mail, AIM, PMs, etc) then it shouldn't be a problem. If one person has tried all they can to get ahold of their teammate, then they proceed with the action without them.
I am planning on alerting players when it's time for them to make an action or when it is their turn, or any time they need to make their presence known in the thread, by any means allowable. text messaging, if people have that capability, certainly PMs, AIM (if I'm on my home or work computer), etc etc. Just as reminders so if I happen to check the thread before you, you know you're up.
However, I am also going to great lengths to streamline things such that I will be needed in-thread as little as possible, but helpful as much as possible. So, if it's your turn, you don't need to wait for an update, you can just go, that sort of thing.
As far as how the teams work, Crimsoncoyote makes a good point. I think that if we do something like that, communication will be crucial to the continued enjoyment of the team. Hermenegilde is right on the money, though, about making the game faster. If the teams are able to agree beforehand on their actions, or at least a general course, then it doesn't too much matter who actually posts the order.
I'm going to post a player interest list in the OP, and we will discuss this further as I continue to type the massive deck of action cards.
Then you run into issues where people check the thread a lot and tend to take command on every turn. That's not fair to the second person. =/
I'm not sure the best way to implement this, I'm thinking about it though.
This is what I am worried about, I don't want the extra person to feel like they arn't part of the game. How do you guys feel about just switching off on turns and then if someone has something come up they pm their partner to fill in for however many days worth of actions they have to do stuff.
You can still talk strategy as you go and comment on what they should. shouldn't, or shouldn't have done, but the ultimate turn power lies in that person's hands when it's there turn.
If you have to confer on EVERY action you do (and trust me the new people may either want to do this, or need to have everything explained) then this will take forever. I believe switching off turns is a great way to solve this (obviously with a vet starting the first turn). I also believe galaxy creation should be done by the vets.
The way I am thinking. Get 12 people interested. Pair them off as fairly as possible with skill level. Do skill level on a scale of 1-5, Pair 1's with 5's, 2's with 4's, and 3's with 3's or as close to that as possible. Maybe ask everyone a question about the game mechanics that will gauge for you, their understanding of the game. Vet of the teams build the galaxy. Vet of each team takes the first turn action so the other people can see how it goes (first turn should go smoothly). Alternate turns from there. If someone has to go out of town, or party, or w/e:
pm your partner (you will want to have good communication with this anyway) and pm rend about (until X date or futher notice, Partner Y will be taking all actions).
If someone has to drop from the game for whatever reason, the game can continue until a replacement partner is found.
I disagree with the solely vets doing the creation, that is rather simple, nor do I as a new person feel I need everything explained. The rules, at least to me, seem rather simplistic at their core, only the myriad of options making it seem difficult.
Discussion alone should suffice for ensuring cooperation between the two.
Doesn't solve the speed problem. I say both get something with chat. If one player is there abd the other is not, the one who is there gets to make the move. If both are there, they can discuss it briefly. Alternating turns would be useless. It'd be better to make 2 games...
My understanding is that there is a lot of alternating play in this game + everyone must make decisions on secondary abilities. The point of playing in teams is that there is a better probability of having someone answer fast.
If we're planning regularly scheduled play intervals, phalla style, (every day at midnight or maybe once a day at 3pm then at 11pm), then alternating could be possible, with up to 2 hours before hand, the appropriate player can submit the turn, while after that point in the cruch-time, anybody's actions count.
If we're doing come-as-we-go, and we want to make things go faster, let whoever wants to submit the turn, but, and ultimately this might want to happen anyway, let the players themselves make up the rules for their team. If it's two people that can normally check a lot and check often and get easy communication between the two, then just let whoever submit, but try to talk and strategize ahead of time. If it's a person who's really gung ho, and another person who things it would be fun to have input and participate, but doesn't want to devote a lot of time and effort to it, let the main guy do what he wants, and the secondary guy is mainly around for discussion whenever is convenient, or if the main player decides to go on vacation.
Finally penalize delay. Seriously, you get less monies a turn if you take too long to respond, and more the longer you take. This makes timeliness an aspect of the game, which is unfortunate, but encourages the players to ensure they play adequately. But without it being all-or-nothing. A lot of people are loathe to penalize people for being slow, because it's usually, "fine we skip your turn". The severe nature of that sort of punishment, especially in a game like Twilight Imperium, means that you'll want to give players a huge time window; you can shorten that time limit if penalization is lighter, since a skipped turn in TI could basically lose the game for you. Most of the time, people will still want to conform to the standard.
With the third one, players will simply come up with a ruleset for their team that will maximize their effectiveness in the one above, or expect a regular penalty.
The more important part of this post:
I'm talking way more than I should but I just want to clear something up. What we're looking for is something that A: Moves Fast, B: Can work if one player can't make it. Is this correct? Are there other goals we want? I think it will be easier to come up with a better answer the more we understand the question.
I'm talking way more than I should but I just want to clear something up. What we're looking for is something that A: Moves Fast, B: Can work if one player can't make it. Is this correct?
This is what I understand is the reasoning behind this.
Man, there are a lot of rules. Nothing complex, but a lot of things to remember. Well, how's it coming Rend? I've read all I can on the rules. Looks like something I'll need to put into action in order to actually learn.
Posts
2. I think I've played around 4 full games, give or take.
3. I'll be able to commit at least 3 now, and probably 4-5 once exams are over in 2 weeks.
Right now I've got some RL stuff I need to get taken care of, but within a few weeks could probably give 4-5 level of commitment.
Unfortunately, while I have the interest, I don't really have the time...
Edit:
When I read that I first thought 12 players. That would have been awesome.
I mentioned it in my PM, but I'll mention it here to see if anybody agrees:
If there are enough people, I think each race might be best played by two or more players, in order to ensure there's someone available to take up the mantle if another player needs a break, or steps away, or is just getting drunk one night.
Clever, with high potential for fisticuffs. I like it.
My friends all pressured me to a little bit ago so we could play! We just all loved it so much.
This is not the worst idea of the thread, by far. I will definitely be considering this. What does everyone else think about such a thing?
So complicated, but so horribly right. I'm not sure you can do a PBP of it without it being horrendously complicated though. The thrill of taking out a fleet with a War Sun head on is pretty awesome though.
From my limited experience, the expansion techs really make the game more balanced - specifically the one that makes the anti-fighter barrage much better.
When I bought the game I figured I would like it enough so I bought the expansion at the same time. I think we played 1 game with vanilla rules to learn the game, then it's been expansion + most of the rule variants ever since.
There is a cool rule set I really want to try out at some point (and if the pbf stuff works here well I may try to run a game with it at some point) and its called Shattered Ascension.
http://www.esnips.com/web/ShatteredAscensionPDFRules/
If you arn't already familar with the game, the changes may not make as much sense. It seems to be awesome, but I have yet to play test it.
As a new player, I think this is a great idea. Especially if you end up pairing a newbie with a veteran. It will help someone like me learn how to play and also give me a good grip on the rules and how to strategize and it will also allow people to go on vacation and not have to worry about screwing over the game. From what everyone is saying, it seems that this game is going to be a long term commitment and if one person decides to go on vacation or join the witness protection program, then we got a back up player who is already familliar with what's going on and knows how to play the situation. Plus, if needed, it helps a reserve get in the game faster and get a grip on what's going on without having to read the whole thread. The teammate can just bring them up to speed.
So, Rend, when are you looking at starting the game?
It sounds like it'd add some pretty cool dynamics to the game, though, and having two heads is apparently better than having one -- especially on a practical level.
I'd say you PM your team-mate with your idea. If he doesn't answer, well you make your move. Just set a time frame for the answering.
Even with a time frame, this seems like it might slow things down a little. I don't have an issue with the tag team idea, but it needs to accomplish what it's intended for: speeding up the game when someone is unable to post.
That's pretty much the only issue I'd see, is that if players were in teams of two, each player would need to feel good about making decisions by themselves on the fly, that way it would speed things up instead of slow them down. If everyone is waiting on someone else to play or pass on a secondary strategy ability, it's going to take even longer than it would have before.
Pretty soon after I finish typing all the stuff up. I have only the political and action cards left to do, and to create the map, before I am ready.
I'm not sure the best way to implement this, I'm thinking about it though.
Rend, do you think you can get an interested player list put in the OP? That way we know who is interested and what our number is at.
If both teammates get AIM or some other messageing service and leave it on while they are available, communication is instant and the other player knows when someone is available.
The way I see it, if it's your turn, you play immediately. Any strategy has to be agreed upon BEFORE it's your turn. If it's not, do whatever you like.
Not a bad idea. As this is likely to be a long-term commitment, maybe even phone numbers should be exchanged for texting strategy back and forth. (heresy? fucked if I know)
I was actually thinking of the text messaging myself. But that also depends on the person, cause not everyone has unlimited texts and I doubt anyone wants to pay extra to their phone carrier to get it or pay per text just to play a game. There's also the ability to make a call to your teammate and discuss it too. I think as long as the two teammates discuss multiple ways to contact each other prior to game starting (cell, e-mail, AIM, PMs, etc) then it shouldn't be a problem. If one person has tried all they can to get ahold of their teammate, then they proceed with the action without them.
No it isn't, you see, some of us play by the seat of our pants because it's MANLY. Then we go break bricks with our face, because it's MANLY.
I am planning on alerting players when it's time for them to make an action or when it is their turn, or any time they need to make their presence known in the thread, by any means allowable. text messaging, if people have that capability, certainly PMs, AIM (if I'm on my home or work computer), etc etc. Just as reminders so if I happen to check the thread before you, you know you're up.
However, I am also going to great lengths to streamline things such that I will be needed in-thread as little as possible, but helpful as much as possible. So, if it's your turn, you don't need to wait for an update, you can just go, that sort of thing.
As far as how the teams work, Crimsoncoyote makes a good point. I think that if we do something like that, communication will be crucial to the continued enjoyment of the team. Hermenegilde is right on the money, though, about making the game faster. If the teams are able to agree beforehand on their actions, or at least a general course, then it doesn't too much matter who actually posts the order.
I'm going to post a player interest list in the OP, and we will discuss this further as I continue to type the massive deck of action cards.
This is what I am worried about, I don't want the extra person to feel like they arn't part of the game. How do you guys feel about just switching off on turns and then if someone has something come up they pm their partner to fill in for however many days worth of actions they have to do stuff.
You can still talk strategy as you go and comment on what they should. shouldn't, or shouldn't have done, but the ultimate turn power lies in that person's hands when it's there turn.
If you have to confer on EVERY action you do (and trust me the new people may either want to do this, or need to have everything explained) then this will take forever. I believe switching off turns is a great way to solve this (obviously with a vet starting the first turn). I also believe galaxy creation should be done by the vets.
The way I am thinking. Get 12 people interested. Pair them off as fairly as possible with skill level. Do skill level on a scale of 1-5, Pair 1's with 5's, 2's with 4's, and 3's with 3's or as close to that as possible. Maybe ask everyone a question about the game mechanics that will gauge for you, their understanding of the game. Vet of the teams build the galaxy. Vet of each team takes the first turn action so the other people can see how it goes (first turn should go smoothly). Alternate turns from there. If someone has to go out of town, or party, or w/e:
pm your partner (you will want to have good communication with this anyway) and pm rend about (until X date or futher notice, Partner Y will be taking all actions).
If someone has to drop from the game for whatever reason, the game can continue until a replacement partner is found.
What do you think?
Discussion alone should suffice for ensuring cooperation between the two.
My understanding is that there is a lot of alternating play in this game + everyone must make decisions on secondary abilities. The point of playing in teams is that there is a better probability of having someone answer fast.
2. Alternating turns would just leave us with a game that has more players than it's supposed to.
If we're planning regularly scheduled play intervals, phalla style, (every day at midnight or maybe once a day at 3pm then at 11pm), then alternating could be possible, with up to 2 hours before hand, the appropriate player can submit the turn, while after that point in the cruch-time, anybody's actions count.
If we're doing come-as-we-go, and we want to make things go faster, let whoever wants to submit the turn, but, and ultimately this might want to happen anyway, let the players themselves make up the rules for their team. If it's two people that can normally check a lot and check often and get easy communication between the two, then just let whoever submit, but try to talk and strategize ahead of time. If it's a person who's really gung ho, and another person who things it would be fun to have input and participate, but doesn't want to devote a lot of time and effort to it, let the main guy do what he wants, and the secondary guy is mainly around for discussion whenever is convenient, or if the main player decides to go on vacation.
Finally penalize delay. Seriously, you get less monies a turn if you take too long to respond, and more the longer you take. This makes timeliness an aspect of the game, which is unfortunate, but encourages the players to ensure they play adequately. But without it being all-or-nothing. A lot of people are loathe to penalize people for being slow, because it's usually, "fine we skip your turn". The severe nature of that sort of punishment, especially in a game like Twilight Imperium, means that you'll want to give players a huge time window; you can shorten that time limit if penalization is lighter, since a skipped turn in TI could basically lose the game for you. Most of the time, people will still want to conform to the standard.
With the third one, players will simply come up with a ruleset for their team that will maximize their effectiveness in the one above, or expect a regular penalty.
The more important part of this post:
I'm talking way more than I should but I just want to clear something up. What we're looking for is something that A: Moves Fast, B: Can work if one player can't make it. Is this correct? Are there other goals we want? I think it will be easier to come up with a better answer the more we understand the question.
This is what I understand is the reasoning behind this.
That's true, I wasn't really thinking about that.