Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Interest Check] Twilight Imperium Play-By-Post

124

Posts

  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited July 2009
    I am leaning towards:
    Take out 1 of the "I controlled Mecatol all round"
    Using the Res OR influence cards instead of the 2 individually... this will allow for more diversity in the objectives... this takes care of the stage I problems.

    Since there is a conflict between a 3 vp and 2 vp objective in two places.. .i want that outcome to result in two cards worth 5 vp, rather than 2 cards worth 4 or 6 victory points

    Therefore I would opt for:
    I control the Mecatol Rex system and at least 3 systems adjacent to it. -> i like this objective better
    I control 11 planets outside my Home System. -> to make the total 5 vps between the two.

    Obviously you take 1 imperius rex out.

    [WIN] Domination! vs. [WIN] I have at least 4 (non-Fighter) ships is really up to you guys I think. Would you rather them have to take over the planets in two different home systems (near impossible) or Blockade two home systems (not nearly so impossible, but still difficult)

    edit: Do you see any reason any of the tech objectives should come out?

    Spoiler:
  • Iron WeaselIron Weasel Dillon! You son of a bitch!Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Sign Up

    I've played the base game a few times IRL, but most of my friends are out of town for the summer, so no TI love for me. If there's still room, I'd love to play in PbP.

    Currently Playing:
    Crusader Kings 2, FTL, X-COM: Enemy Within, Various Boardgames
    GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
  • MrBlarneyMrBlarney Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well, my main objection to having larger Objective Decks is that it's harder to predict what will come out, making it harder to plan an overall strategy. Also, unlucky draws may bias the game direction heavily in one direction or another. If you're going for an epic-length game (The Long War variant to 13/14 VPs and 15/14 objectives), I can see the appeal of a larger objective deck base, but for the standard length game, the argument seems a bit weaker. Still, this being the internet, there is a certain amount of flexibility that you can inject into the game that you can't really do in real life without too much trouble.

    In any case, if we're working with a combined deck rather than one or the other, here's my picks.

    Secret Objectives: The expansion rules say to shuffle the new ones in with the old, so there's no arguments to be had there.
    Spoiler:

    Public Objectives - Stage I: Remove the 'flex' resource/influence-spending objectives based on redundancy, remove the plain "I control Mecatol Rex" card. I don't really like the "I have more than one Technology Advance in 3 different colors." card in comparison to the other Technology objectives. I'd also argue to remove the "I now spend 4 Trade Goods, 3 resources, and 3 influence" objective since there's a lot of Spending objectives out there still. That leaves 16 objectives:
    Spoiler:

    Public Objectives - Stage II: Remove the duplicate Imperium Rex. Remove the 'flex' resource/influence-spending objective as with the Stage I deck. Remove "I have at least 4 (non-Fighter) ships in two different opponent’s Home Systems." - if you're gonna have a WIN button, make it one that counts. Keep "I control 10 planets outside my Home System." instead of "I control 11 planets outside my Home System." to match the similar objective in the Stage I deck better. Keep "I control the Mecatol Rex system and all systems adjacent to it." over "I control the Mecatol Rex system and at least 3 systems adjacent to it." to keep another 3VP objective in. That leaves 15 objectives:
    Spoiler:

    I was tempted to remove "All three of my Space Docks are on the board." objective from the Stage I deck, just to make the Stage I and Stage II decks the same size, but decided against it for the lists posted. The presence of more cards in one deck over the other should not make a big difference. Heck, you could even make your own objectives to add to the decks if you wanted to. (Just make sure we know about it first!)

    chirisigtext.png
  • DarianDarian Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Personal preference, but I would prefer the more flexible/diversified objectives over the specialized ones, so I'd say keep the 10 resource OR 10 influence and now spend 4/3/3 over the separate 10 resource, 10 influence, 6 trade objectives.

    This allows for more diversified strategies in the early game and means everyone will hopefully be able to qualify for those, as opposed to our current game, where Jol-Nar has lots of influence and Mentak has lots of resources, but neither of us can qualify for the other focused version.

  • RendRend Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I would say keep all the objectives (except the redundant ones). I mean part of the point of Twilight Imperium is that you don't know which objectives are coming out until they're out- and you may have to change your strategy in mid-swing.

  • crimsoncoyotecrimsoncoyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I don't envy anyone playing a Long War game via PBP.
    That sounds... brutal.

  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Yeah... The most recent one with very few advanced rules has been going for months now. We'd be a year or more with extra rules and extra VPs, I'm sure.

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • crimsoncoyotecrimsoncoyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    El Skid wrote: »
    Yeah... The most recent one with very few advanced rules has been going for months now. We'd be a year or more with extra rules and extra VPs, I'm sure.

    Yup, I think we're creeping up to 3 now. You'd probably have to play most of the variants to keep it interesting for that long, or maybe make it playable without a host so you don't have to wait around for him. And even then, you might have to roleplay it as generals playing galactic Risk (and maybe even actually play a game of Risk to resolve invasions).

    Wait... This could be awesome. :P

  • MrBlarneyMrBlarney Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well, the current game is three months running with more to come. With 8 players, we can expect a four-month game, at least; with a Long War scenario, we can expect about a six-month affair or longer.

    chirisigtext.png
  • crimsoncoyotecrimsoncoyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Damn, 3 months tomorrow...
    Although, I am a bit surprised at how much has gotten done in that time.

    Also, I would totally love to play in the next iteration, but I have no idea how much time I'm going to have when the Fall semester starts.

  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Rend wrote: »
    I would say keep all the objectives (except the redundant ones). I mean part of the point of Twilight Imperium is that you don't know which objectives are coming out until they're out- and you may have to change your strategy in mid-swing.

    Really it just comes down to "do you want the possibility of 3 objectives that are virtually the same thing" to come up, or have a higher chance of diversity.

    I agree with most of what blarney is saying, but am leaning more towards the combination ones versus the specialized.

    Do you want to stick with 10 resources and 10 influence separate, so that two different races in two different positions can't qualify for the same objective or another reason?

    The way I was thinking is that with more options, (i.e. combine those two objectives into one and have a different objective such as the space dock one available), it makes a lot more opportunities for strategy or pigeon hole someone in 10 resources; 10 influence separately.

    Spoiler:
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I AM FULL OF INTEREST!

    DogSig.gif
  • MrBlarneyMrBlarney Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Rend wrote: »
    I would say keep all the objectives (except the redundant ones). I mean part of the point of Twilight Imperium is that you don't know which objectives are coming out until they're out- and you may have to change your strategy in mid-swing.

    Really it just comes down to "do you want the possibility of 3 objectives that are virtually the same thing" to come up, or have a higher chance of diversity.

    I agree with most of what blarney is saying, but am leaning more towards the combination ones versus the specialized.

    Do you want to stick with 10 resources and 10 influence separate, so that two different races in two different positions can't qualify for the same objective or another reason?

    The way I was thinking is that with more options, (i.e. combine those two objectives into one and have a different objective such as the space dock one available), it makes a lot more opportunities for strategy or pigeon hole someone in 10 resources; 10 influence separately.

    Well, when it comes to selecting the cards that will make up the objective pool, the thing that you will want to keep in mind is how you want to balance the types of strategies that can be used. In the base set, there is a higher emphasis on the economic side of expansion, and so there are more distinct ways of spending assets for victory points. In the expansion cards, the focus is more on the direct conflict side of expansion, and so the technology and spending methods of earning victory points are pared down or combined.

    So if you want to use a hybrid or custom deck that mixes these two aspects a bit more, then it's simply up to your own taste to select what cards will comprise the decks that the actual game objectives will be drawn from. I lean towards keeping the separated objectives rather than the combined flex objectives, but it all depends on the type of tone you want to set up pre-game.

    chirisigtext.png
  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited July 2009
    I decided we will be using the full expansion deck for stage I and II, and all the secret objective cards.

    Having now seen the duplicates in the decks, I would rather use a deck I know is balanced then risk a potential unfavorable outcome with victory points.

    I will play test a combined deck more IRL before trying to use it in a pbp.

    That being said, I think all the variants and details are ironed out and it should be good to go as soon as the current game ends.

    I will be using Territorial Distant Suns.

    Spoiler:
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Excitement

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • HermenegildeHermenegilde Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Rend's game has ended :P

    Pick me ! Pick me !

  • DarianDarian Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sign up for universal domination.

  • RendRend Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I wanna play. But we gotta start after pax.

  • Iron WeaselIron Weasel Dillon! You son of a bitch!Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I wish to re-iterate my interest!

    Currently Playing:
    Crusader Kings 2, FTL, X-COM: Enemy Within, Various Boardgames
    GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
  • crimsoncoyotecrimsoncoyote Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I would like to, but I don't think I can hand this again with school going on, so no go for me :(
    Maybe next summer... or maybe I'll even run one next summer. :P

  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited August 2009
    The game will not be starting until after PAX is over.

    Rend you are def. playing.

    The following players have guaranteed spots if they want them:

    Darian (won the last game)
    MrBlarney (made map)
    Rend (ran the first game)

    anyone that has expressed interest in the last couple pages will be pm'd and asked if they are still interested (when pax is over) and the game will start sometime next week after pax.

    edit: That still leaves 5 spots!

    Spoiler:
  • MrBlarneyMrBlarney Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Mm hmm, I'm definitely taking you up on your offer. :D

    chirisigtext.png
  • MegazverMegazver Registered User
    edited August 2009
    !signing up

    Newbie, so a partner would be nice.

    Chief Tyrol. Academician Megazver of the Jol-Nar Universities
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    This guy right here. :)

    If you have trouble garnering interest you can count on me. But I don't mind sitting out and being a reserve should you need someone to fill in for an inactive player. Or you can pair me with someone who needs a partner.

    steam_sig.png
  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited August 2009
    I think what I am going to do is randomize the 5 slots from the list of everyone interested and then ask each of the top 5 if they want a partner (and if they do ill take the partner from top 6,7,8 etc) and anyone not in the game/partnered up will be a list of reserves.

    Spoiler:
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I think what I am going to do is randomize the 5 slots from the list of everyone interested and then ask each of the top 5 if they want a partner (and if they do ill take the partner from top 6,7,8 etc) and anyone not in the game/partnered up will be a list of reserves.
    Don't forget to ask Darian, Blarney, and Rend if they want partners.

    DogSig.gif
  • SpectralSporkSpectralSpork Registered User
    edited August 2009
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Works for me.

    So this is going to be played with the expansion, right? So new planets, races, rules, strategy cards (well ones we played with last game), etc?

    Would someone mind posting a link to the PDF rules so I can try to download them here at work. I can't get to FFG, but may be able to download the PDF.

    steam_sig.png
  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited August 2009
    This will be an 8 player expansion game.

    Tentative Game Options:
    Strategy Cards used: Leadership, Diplomacy II, Assembly, Production, Trade II, Warfare II, Technology II, Bureaucracy (we will be playing to 9 victory points)

    We will be using Distant Suns (domain counters), but we are using the Territorial Distant Suns option, which puts "low risk" tokens on the outer ring and planets adjacent to home words to reduce early devastating loses due to domain counters. (i have played this IRL recently and love it)

    Sabotage Runs will be used.

    We will be using the expansion Objective Decks (more militaristic) and a combination of the old and new secret objectives.

    Race-Specific Technologies will be used.

    Shock Troops will be used.

    Space Mines will be used. (i have played this IRL recently and love it)

    The Wormhole Nexus will be used.

    Tactical Retreats will be used.

    Custodians of Mecatol Rex will be used.

    Options Not used.


    Leaders will not be used

    Artifacts will not be used.

    Facilities will not be used

    Simulated Early Turns will not be used.

    __________________________________________________

    Rend is guaranteed a spot for running the previous game
    MrBlarney is guaranteed a spot for making all the graphics that will be used.
    Darian is guaranteed a spot for being a formidable opponent.

    The other 5 spots will be rng'd. If any of those 5 rng's wishes to have a partner, one will be selected for them from the top 6,7,8 etc slot until everyone is satisfied with their standing. The rest of the players will be placed in order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. Reserve.

    If someone is planning on going on vacation or something they could pick up a reserve (if they don't already have a partner) to play for them while they are gone and when they get back, they will finish the game as a team.

    If someone finds this to be too much of a time commitment, they can withdraw from the game and either be replaced by their partner or by a reserve.
    ______________________________________________________

    When the game starts I want to do galaxy creation in real time in IRC when the game starts. You may have to bare with me as I do the map update for it as we are creating and hosting it on tiny pic so that the next person can add their planet.

    I am throwing around the possibility of doing all battles in IRC if both players wish to do so. The PBP option will still be available for those that would rather do it this way. Contingencies will need to be made in the case of the PBP option.

    All rolling will be done by me and linked from invisible castle, unless we are doing a battle in IRC. I will figure out how to set up a dice bot if this is the case.

    __________________________________________

    To emulate the opportunity for players to communicate IRL during breaks or w/e, the only time communication between players is acceptable is while the assembly strategy card is active (i.e. resolving an agenda) or 12 hours after it is played. You will be required to CC me all out of thread communication.

    ___________________________________________

    Action cards will be played a little differently than the last game, and more akin to what the rules have in mind. Whenever someone wants to play an action card(s), they declare their intent in the thread to do so, and every other player may also declare an intent to play an action card (s). This will mostly be necessary for the space battles since most of the other action cards are "play as an action". We will try to follow this rule as best as possible and see how it works. If it becomes to cumbersome, we will adjust.

    Whenever any action card is played, I will send a message to all players asking if you wish to sabotage it. This will be done even if there are no sabotages in the game currently. Obviously if I am waiting on one inactive player, it could seem obvious that i am waiting on them to decide if they want to sabotage. I don't want to give you extra meta info about that, but this method will ensure that sabotages are always played exactly as intended without extra info (if two action cards were to get played in a row).

    I should be solid on everything I want so far, except one thing. How do you guys want to handle the fact that someone could sabotage an action card played during an IRC battle, but may not want to be there during the battle? It would be unrealistic to expect 8 people to sit in IRC for each battle (although you will certainly be encouraged to do so), but I wanna think of a way we can still have the active battles, and allow for appropriate sabotages (in the rare case that someone not in the conflict would want to waste a valuable sabotage to help one player)

    Spoiler:
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    !sign up

    Oh gods yes, been waiting for Rend's game to end forever

    Not that it wasn't entertaining, but I really want to try the game out :D

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Click on the link here to warp to the list of game options and how play will be, I got a terrible botp

    Spoiler:
  • HermenegildeHermenegilde Registered User
    edited August 2009
    !signup

    I did a while ago, but since everyone is re-signing...

  • JeddicusJeddicus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    If you would take a new poster, I would like to be in. I have played the game before, just never in a forum. I would be fine being in a team as well.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I already signed up, but just letting you know that I'm still interested.

  • LightRiderLightRider __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2009
  • RyadicRyadic Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    When are you going to stop taking sign ups, OS?

    steam_sig.png
  • HermenegildeHermenegilde Registered User
    edited September 2009
  • Orange SodaOrange Soda Registered User
    edited September 2009
    Ryadic wrote: »
    When are you going to stop taking sign ups, OS?

    They will be valid until after PAX :P I don't want Rend to miss out with all the hard work that he put into our game.

    Spoiler:
  • etoychestetoychest Registered User
    edited September 2009
    I'd like to give this a try. I've had this one in my closet unplayed for quite a while now. None of my board game night regulars are willing to break it out given the weighty time sink required.

  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    So hey, one thing I mentioned in the PM that I'm going to go ahead and mention now: Someone should run a Space Empires V PBEM and narrate that. I almost bought it when it was $8, but I realised I wouldn't be able to play with anyone :P

    Also, I might have suggested this before, or I might not have (I disappeared because I fell so far behind that it was hard to catch up, and it got harder to harder, which is the leading cause of apathy; don't let yourself fall behind!): Playing this in PbP form might go smoother if response actions were edited in the game. For example, the removal or editing of sabotage cards--make sure that it's fair (sabotage cards are removed for everyone, and everyone knows ahead of time); or the playing of trade agreements requiring stated approvals in a prior turn (You must state "I will accept a trade agreegment from Terrans and Jol Nar" in the political phase; obviously not a requirement for Emirates).

    Other than a reverence for the game itself, or the gameplay of RL play (which can't really be properly emulated in PbP anyway), I don't see a strong argument for not trimming the fat off the game where it gets in the way.


    Edit: Maybe I should play; my hours are regular, so I can probably put some time in every night now.

Sign In or Register to comment.