Skip to Content
 

Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

20 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

Okay, let's get this show on the road!

This week's game is Alpha Colony, a sci-fi game about humanity's first interplanetary colony. Players take the role of different factions within the mission, vying for the prestige of having made the biggest contribution to the colony's success...assuming it does succeed! Using the limited resources available, players will construct the modules necessary to produce more resources for basic survival, and later expanding into more scientifically-important modules to continue the research that brought them to the planet in the first place. The game uses a free-market economic system where resource costs are directly proportional to resource supply.

The rules are found here. Don't be alarmed by the 10-page length! Included in this file are the rules, various game charts, and the module tiles themselves.

I have deliberately not included a component list, as it hasn't been finalized yet, but for prototyping purposes assume the following:

- Various 1-cm cubes of the following colors: magenta (crew), yellow (energy), green (food), white (oxygen), blue (water), black (metal), and up to 4 other colors to mark player ownership of modules. (Aren't teacher-supply stores wonderful?)

- 1 10-sided die

Admittedly, the disasters section is probably rather rough. I haven't fleshed it out completely, as I've been concentrating on the other mechanics first.

Also, there's probably a whole helluva lot more possibilities on module types: dormitories, commercial, disaster response, etc. I thought I'd start with this basic set, work out the kinks, and then add more to the list. Your suggestions are more than welcome!

Designer's Note: I've envisioned this game as a boardgame cross between the computer games M.U.L.E. and Outpost 2, as these were the two influences I had in mind as I wrote it.

I hope that's enough of an introduction to whet your appetite! Dig in!

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

I played an early draft of Alpha Colony, and it's clear that Mike has put quite a bit of work into it since then.

Mike, taking a look through the rules, everything looks good and seems to be in place. However, here are a few comments that popped into my head:

Under Phase 10, Since there's no equipment list in teh rules themselves, it might be helpful to remind players that they're rolling 1d10.

Under Phase 12, in the case that everyone has been put back to sleep, I feel that a few adjustments are needed.

As it stands, you're eliminated from the running if you DID produce that which the colony was short of, but you're not eliminated if you DID NOT produce that which we were short of. This means that I could conceivably win by shutting down a productive plant (an Oxygen plant, for instance) while everyone else is left holding the bag when we come up short. In terms of gameplay, this worrys me. Thematically, this worrys me more.

You might want to consider something along the lines of eliminating everyone that DID NOT produce any of the deficient material and make the winner the one that produced the most surplus in that deficient material.

--Kevin G. Nunn

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

kgnunn wrote:
As it stands, you're eliminated from the running if you DID produce that which the colony was short of, but you're not eliminated if you DID NOT produce that which we were short of. This means that I could conceivably win by shutting down a productive plant (an Oxygen plant, for instance) while everyone else is left holding the bag when we come up short. In terms of gameplay, this worrys me. Thematically, this worrys me more.

You might want to consider something along the lines of eliminating everyone that DID NOT produce any of the deficient material and make the winner the one that produced the most surplus in that deficient material.

Kevin, I guess I didn't word what my intent was as clearly as I could have. Here's what my intent was:

If, for example, the entire population is put into cryo due to a lack of oxygen, then every player who owns an oxygen plant, whether they operated the plant or not, would automatically lose for failing to keep the colony adequately supplied. This may be a little on the harsh side, as their may be events out of your control, but if you take on the task of producing a certain resource, you damn well be able to produce enough of it!

Think of it this way: victory, as defined in this game, is the faction (player) which contributes most to the success of the colony. This is judged by an inferential population back at Earth. When word gets back that the entire crew is in cryo and needs to be rescued because there wasn't enough oxygen, public opinion will immediately demand, "Who was responsible for making it? Faction XYZ?? Well, they suck!!"

I'll see if I can reword to make the intent more clear.

DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Good Start

Mike,

I think you have a good start for your game.

The things I have noticed:

1) In the rules you state, "Mission Control Module" but when I look at the example modules I see "Mission Command Module". Are they different or the same?
2) A diagram of what the set up looks like would be helpful.
3) You have a total of nine phases for a turn, yet you say each turn has "several phases". Usually several means 2-3.
4) You do not state how the starting player is chosen for the very first turn of the game.

Besides these nit-picking things here are my thoughts on the game.

I think the number of phases in the game is too much. I would settle for 6-7 as the maximum.

The idea of loosing VP may be a bit discouraging for players.

Right now, there is nothing that initially pushes a player to go ahead and try to build one given structure over another. The only thing that will do it, is if there are ample resources of one type left on the MCM forcing a player in a certain direction.

Due to problems of a player being boycotted and being able to get any resources, you force players to go ahead and sell them to the MCM or loose victory points. I think this may aggravate players and make them feel that they are being played by the game. I also think that players will never feel the tension of trying to get a valuable resource. With the MCM always being adequately stocked, players will just rely on the resources being there which may dampen the trading phase of the game.

I think maybe your greatest problem would be allowing players to construct modules when ever and where ever they want with no restrictions. It appears that you can build a module next to an other factions modules. The problem with allowing just a free-for all building fest is that there is real no competition for space which is a common device in games to increase tension and player interaction.

I think the resolve disaster chart could be converted to a deck of cards that players can pick up. I am not so sure if I like the disaster cards so much as then players will be subjected to a lot of randomness, where some players may benefit greatly over others who get hit with the negative effects of the cards.

Right now the game is a way open system in terms of the acquisition and creation of resources. I think the game could really be improved by adding various restrictions to increase competition, tension and friction between players.

Here are some suggestions that may spark some thoughts:

The factions hate each other and if they had their way they would try to constantly kill each other. Besides the MCM, each faction starts off with a different module of the essenential resources (food, water, oxygen and so on). The MCM needs a constant amount of essential resources. If the MCM can not function then *all* factions will experience deaths and problems with the strongest factions getting hurt the worst for a balancing function. There would be a board but a limited amount of spaces for the modules. Factions could gather people and raid another faction's module and try to take it over. I think you get the idea.

The resolve disaster cards would be made in such a manner that they would help to bring the leader down. In other words, an outbreak would get rid of the most people of the faction with the greatest population. A meteor shower would damage more modules for the faction with the greatest modules.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some ideas.

The game looks like a great start, and with some refinement, I think you could make something really neat.

--DarkDream

Anonymous
Re: Good Start

DarkDream wrote:
1) In the rules you state, "Mission Control Module" but when I look at the example modules I see "Mission Command Module". Are they different or the same?

Oops. Sack the proofreader! Yes, they are one and the same. At least the abbreviation didn't change! :wink:
DarkDream wrote:

2) A diagram of what the set up looks like would be helpful.

Well, pretty much the only thing that gets set up is the Current Market Price Track, and I tried to make it clear by outlining the boxes that get a resource widget. However, as pictures are worth a thousand words, an illustration probably would be in order. Time to dust off the ol' art skills!
DarkDream wrote:

4) You do not state how the starting player is chosen for the very first turn of the game.

Aside from stating "randomly", that is correct. For the moment, I leave it to the players to choose whichever method they prefer...dice, fickle finger of fate, last person to visit a NASA facility...
DarkDream wrote:

I think the number of phases in the game is too much. I would settle for 6-7 as the maximum.

By eliminating phases, or combining them? Perhaps "determine start player" shouldn't be a phase, just that the "Start Player" be defined as ?
DarkDream wrote:

The idea of loosing VP may be a bit discouraging for players.

The intent of the losing VPs was to discourage players from purchasing resources that are in short supply. The idea was that the folks back home would be thinking "look at XYZ Corp...burning through the energy like there's no tomorrow when the batteries are almost empty."
DarkDream wrote:

Right now, there is nothing that initially pushes a player to go ahead and try to build one given structure over another. The only thing that will do it, is if there are ample resources of one type left on the MCM forcing a player in a certain direction.

Sort of. Energy is required to build anything, so the first player to build an energy plant will, theoretically, have a leg up. Energy plants consume food, so that becomes the next logical plant to construct. The question, however, is does the energy plant give a first-player advantage? Probably in the very early going, but as soon as the Energy Player pulls ahead of the others monetarily, he's last in the pecking order, which means he sells resources at the lowest price and purchases them at the highest. Hopefully, that will help neutralize any FPA.
DarkDream wrote:

Due to problems of a player being boycotted and being able to get any resources, you force players to go ahead and sell them to the MCM or loose victory points.

They don't lose VPs, they just lose any excess resources they can't store. And, certainly boycotting could be a tactic that comes into play to bring the leader back. But, the way the buying and selling is configured (or attempted to be configured), it will be cheaper to trade than to buy/sell.

An example: say there's 5 oxygen in the MCM. Player O has some, and Player W wants some. If Player W were to buy it outright, it would cost $20. If Player O were to sell his/hers outright, it would net $15. Somewhere in between there O & W could come up with a trade that would benefit both (even if W buys it from O for cash, that's still considered a "trade").

DarkDream wrote:

The problem with allowing just a free-for all building fest is that there is real no competition for space which is a common device in games to increase tension and player interaction.

Hmm...I guess I had envistioned the colony being built on a vast and open plain, where space was plentiful. It's certainly a possibility where the colony is being built in the shelter of a crater, and therefore space would be limited. Let me think on that (perhaps that could be a difficulty adjuster...for an easier game, space is unlimited?).
DarkDream wrote:

I think the resolve disaster chart could be converted to a deck of cards that players can pick up.

That's not a bad idea! But, I already had a 10-sided die in the game (to determine production variability), so I thought from a unit-cost perspective, I might as well use it again. However, that's not to say that the mechanic couldn't be tweaked a little to make it a card-driven game. Hmm...
DarkDream wrote:

The factions hate each other and if they had their way they would try to constantly kill each other.

I had certainly envisioned factional rivalry, but not to that extent! I don't think that would fit in with the theme, however. Would such a volatile coalition actually be assembled for an interplanetary mission?
DarkDream wrote:

Besides the MCM, each faction starts off with a different module of the essenential resources (food, water, oxygen and so on).

I had considered that as a means of jump-starting the game.
DarkDream wrote:

The MCM needs a constant amount of essential resources.

This is what I was trying to accmplish with the Life Support function. The greater the population, the more resources the MCM would consume to support them.
DarkDream wrote:

The resolve disaster cards would be made in such a manner that they would help to bring the leader down. In other words, an outbreak would get rid of the most people of the faction with the greatest population. A meteor shower would damage more modules for the faction with the greatest modules.

Up to a point. If all the disasters bash the leader, then the cat-bird seat simply shifts to second place.
DarkDream wrote:

Anyway, I hope this gives you some ideas.

The game looks like a great start, and with some refinement, I think you could make something really neat.

Thank you, and thanks for your feedback and suggestions! Definitely food for thought! :)

ensor
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2008
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Mike,

I really like the ideas in this game, it seems small enough that I could print out the tiles and try it out. I think it's a good distribution of locations, and the current news on Mars makes it very timely. I also like the feeling I get of cooperation necessary to keep the colony alive, and competition to be the best producing faction.

Here's my thoughts so far,

It would be nice to list what happens different on the first round as opposed to the usual game play. In the first round, it looks like you cannot produce resources, trade, or allocate resources.

Can the starting player change in the middle of a turn? If I overtake someone else by constructing a module, will I go before or after them in selling resources? If it's set at the beginning of a turn, I'd recommend having some markers to help players remember their turn order.

I agree with DarkDream that spatial tension would be helpful, since the placement of tiles is irrelevant right now, except for possible disconnection because of Planetquakes or Meteorites. Perhaps there could be some benefit from placing certain tiles next to others? Or some cost to sell to MCM based on the distance of the player's tiles? I like the different sizes of the tiles, and think you could incorporate these into the decision of where to lay them.

I'm working on a game that has a similar disaster mechanic affecting all players at random; it's nice to see I'm not alone in thinking of it. Many of your disasters affect "next turn's die roll." I would have a hard time remembering which commodity was affected without a marker. Perhaps make the effects of disasters be immediate changes, as in a change on the resource mat, to avoid having to remember the what and when? Also, for Planetquakes and Meteorites destroying a tile, how is this tile randomly chosen? Should it be the lowest VP players perogative instead, or would that be too much power in their hands?

With a limited number of tiles, and needing 100 victory points, could the game be "over" before it's won, where one player has the production and storage necessary to keep chugging out VPs and there's not much others can do to stop it, even though that player has only 55 VPs now? It's something I'd worry about but can't get a feel for without playing the game.

Good luck with the game, it would be fun to playtest,

Mark

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

ensor wrote:
I also like the feeling I get of cooperation necessary to keep the colony alive, and competition to be the best producing faction.

Exactly what I was trying for. I love that aspect of AH's Republic of Rome, where you want to slit your partner's throat, but if you slit it too deeply, all of Rome bleeds to death. So, as a player, how do you balance competition with cooperation? I expect that at some point in the game the colony will be fairly well-established and survival will take on less urgency, but in those early stages, life will be tenuous!
ensor wrote:

It would be nice to list what happens different on the first round as opposed to the usual game play. In the first round, it looks like you cannot produce resources, trade, or allocate resources.

I could list that where I define the sequence of play by putting a parenthetical comment to the effect of "skipped on first turn" or some such. Would that work? (Oh, and yes, you were correct that in those phases, nothing happens on the first turn. Sell Excess Resources also does not occur, as you cannot sell what you just bought, and the only way to get any in turn 1 is to buy them.)
ensor wrote:

Can the starting player change in the middle of a turn? If I overtake someone else by constructing a module, will I go before or after them in selling resources? If it's set at the beginning of a turn, I'd recommend having some markers to help players remember their turn order.

Starting player is determined at the start of the turn and then does not change for that turn. Player turn order markers are a great idea! Something a la Evo would probably work very well.
ensor wrote:

Perhaps there could be some benefit from placing certain tiles next to others? Or some cost to sell to MCM based on the distance of the player's tiles?

What a neat idea! A "transportation fee" of sorts! That would certainly make the spatial positioning of the modules more important than just the possibility of being cut off by disaster.

If I do choose to go with a fixed map as opposed to a free-form expansion, I could possibly incorporate areas that may be more rich in minerals (and more beneficial for smelters), areas that have clear views of the sun (and more beneficial for food growth), etc. That makes it a tad more similar to "M.U.L.E." than it is now, but that might not be a bad thing.

ensor wrote:

Many of your disasters affect "next turn's die roll." I would have a hard time remembering which commodity was affected without a marker.

Good point. Why someone with a nickname "Captain Memory" would write such a rule must be attributed to early-morning editing. What if I moved the disaster resolution to one of the first phases of the game (say, right after figuring out who the start player is)? That way it affects this turn's die rolls? A marker would probably be better, but each time you add a component, you add cost to the game. Perhaps I could just use one of the existing resource markers and have a space to indicate what resource is affected by disasters this turn? Hmm...
ensor wrote:

Perhaps make the effects of disasters be immediate changes, as in a change on the resource mat, to avoid having to remember the what and when?

Also a possibility, although if the MCM doesn't have much/anything in stock, the effect of the disaster is muted/nullified. Of course, that might be more realistic (if anything can be considered "realistic" in a science fiction game!)...
ensor wrote:

Also, for Planetquakes and Meteorites destroying a tile, how is this tile randomly chosen? Should it be the lowest VP players perogative instead, or would that be too much power in their hands?

And this is where we get into what I was saying by the disasters not being fleshed out entirely. I think what I had originally envisioned was the modules being assigned coords, and the die rolled twice to determine which coord got hit, but that mechanic seemed way too fiddly to me. I haven't given as much thought to the disaster resolution as I have the rest of the game, figuring I can always come back to it once the rest is running smoothly (which is not to say that it is running smoothly).
ensor wrote:

With a limited number of tiles, and needing 100 victory points, could the game be "over" before it's won, where one player has the production and storage necessary to keep chugging out VPs and there's not much others can do to stop it, even though that player has only 55 VPs now? It's something I'd worry about but can't get a feel for without playing the game.

Another area I intended to refine after some playtesting. I arbitrarily picked 100 just to have some kind of goal. It might be more like 50, or 30, I don't know yet. I think in playtesting you could play the game until a clear leader emerged and then see what the VP levels are. That would probably give you a good idea for where the victory threshold needs to be. I just haven't gotten to that part of the testing.
ensor wrote:

Good luck with the game, it would be fun to playtest,

Well, if you happen to do so, be sure to give me a detailed session report! I'll probably post the results of any playtests in my Game Journal, if you want to keep tabs. Or would somewhere in the forums be more appropriate?

Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming!

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Very interesting game, there's a lot of stuff going on. The rules were easy to follow and the presentation is great.

First of all, there's a lot of phases. Make sure to include them somewhere than in the rules for easy referring.

Since you randomly choose a starting player at Setup. Do you pass over the Determine starting player for the first turn? If that's not the case, will the player to the left of the randomly chosen starting player be the starting player?

I guess you intended to use the "Less VPs play earlier" as a balance effect. Make sure it's always the case in all phases. From a first look it seems there will be no problem with that but It's always better to look out for that.

Will the player order dynamically change through the phases? Make sure counting the VPs and money doesn't bug down the game.

The mandatory production. Very cool idea. My first reaction was "Ouch!" but then "cool...". There should be a turn marker though. It seems too arbitrary and players might forget it. That turn marker could be used to make sure the game isn't too long or to play with the probabilities of disasters.

Open Trade. Very nice but there's always a problem with that kind of trade (in my group at least)... It never ends!! :) Also, for people who have nothing to trade, it cause a big downtime. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, but maybe a time limit? It isn't clear in the rules if you can give and receive nothing physical in return. Could you say for example, I'll give you an oxygen if you refuse to trade with Mr.X.

Could some of the phases be merged together to make the game a bit quicker? Like 6 and 7. You purchase and immediately allocate them. That way you don't have to check again for the player order.

How can you keep track of what you bought this turn so that you don't sell them the same turn? As a matter of fact, why restrict it at all?

Disasters, 1/10 to happen. How many turn in a game?

Do you really need an owner space on the tiles? Won't you just put them in front of you?

How does the Colony Population and Resource Consumption Track work? If the marker is at 6 Does it mean it cost 2 Oxygen, 2 Water, 1 Food and 1 Energy?

Interesting game, I wonder how the dynamic with all the resources will all work. Keep up!

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

hpox wrote:
Very interesting game, there's a lot of stuff going on. The rules were easy to follow and the presentation is great.

I'm glad to hear that. I've been bitten more than once trying to explain something in writing that I'm very familiar with to someone who isn't and leaving out important details that were obvious to me since I've been working so closely with it for so long. And I have a tendency to write run-on sentences. :wink:
hpox wrote:

First of all, there's a lot of phases. Make sure to include them somewhere than in the rules for easy referring.

Sure. I can include a Sequence of Play on the sheet with the charts (which I should probably give an official name to).
hpox wrote:

Since you randomly choose a starting player at Setup. Do you pass over the Determine starting player for the first turn? If that's not the case, will the player to the left of the randomly chosen starting player be the starting player?

Nice catch. I should probably specify that the start player should be randomly determined in the "Starting Player" section, not the "Setup" section.
hpox wrote:

Will the player order dynamically change through the phases? Make sure counting the VPs and money doesn't bug down the game.

No. Once determined, it remains the same throughout the entire turn.
hpox wrote:

The mandatory production. Very cool idea. My first reaction was "Ouch!" but then "cool...". There should be a turn marker though. It seems too arbitrary and players might forget it. That turn marker could be used to make sure the game isn't too long or to play with the probabilities of disasters.

Was the notion of a turn marker connected to the mandatory production comment? If so, I'm afraid I don't see it. Could you explain a little further?

However, now that you bring it up, there probably does need to be a more clear method of noting that Mandatory Production and Mandatory Sales are in effect. There was mention earlier of using status boxes to note which commodity has been affected by disasters from last turn, I could probably do something similar (although I'm starting to rack up quite a few status boxes...hmm...)

hpox wrote:

Open Trade. Very nice but there's always a problem with that kind of trade (in my group at least)... It never ends!! :) Also, for people who have nothing to trade, it cause a big downtime. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, but maybe a time limit?

Yeah, we had to implement time limits whenever we played Advanced Civilization for that very reason! I'll leave that up to the players to decide if they want a time limit, but I could certainly mention that in the rules as a remedy if the trading sessions are lasting too long.
hpox wrote:

It isn't clear in the rules if you can give and receive nothing physical in return. Could you say for example, I'll give you an oxygen if you refuse to trade with Mr.X.

I don't see why I should restrict such a trade. Basically, you're paying for the other player's cooperation in a trade embargo. Of course, there's nothing that necessarily prevents that player from trading with Mr. X anyway, except the probability of retaliation later and the declaration of his/her untrustworthiness! :)
hpox wrote:

Could some of the phases be merged together to make the game a bit quicker? Like 6 and 7. You purchase and immediately allocate them. That way you don't have to check again for the player order.

Hmm...some might be combinable, although not all purchased resources will be allocated - some will go towards module construction - although perhaps I could reword module construction to phrase it as "allocating resources towards module construction" (as opposed to "allocating resources towards module operation"). "Resolve Disasters" and "Life Support" could probably be combined, and I think I had discussed earlier the possibility of removing "Determine Starting Player" as a phase altogether and simply describe each phase as being "conducted in reverse VP order".
hpox wrote:

How can you keep track of what you bought this turn so that you don't sell them the same turn? As a matter of fact, why restrict it at all?

It's restricted to prevent Player A, who goes first, from buying up all of Resource X and preventing anyone else from buying it, then turning around and selling it back. How to keep track of it, aside from just memory (again, a bad rule from the likes of Captain Memory), is a valid point. I can't think of a non-fiddly mechanism for doing so, can you?
hpox wrote:

Disasters, 1/10 to happen. How many turn in a game?

No idea. :) That's why I gotta playtest it! The frequency may change based on playtesting.
hpox wrote:

Do you really need an owner space on the tiles? Won't you just put them in front of you?

If spatial orientation is irrelevant, then you certainly could do just that, and owner spaces (and markers) would not be needed, but with the idea that some modules could become isolated due to disaster and thus inoperable, their spatial orientation will be necessary. And, if transportation fees as was suggested in an earlier post are incorporated, spatial orientation becomes even more important.
hpox wrote:

How does the Colony Population and Resource Consumption Track work? If the marker is at 6 Does it mean it cost 2 Oxygen, 2 Water, 1 Food and 1 Energy?

Precisely. Should I reword how that works?
hpox wrote:

Interesting game, I wonder how the dynamic with all the resources will all work. Keep up!

Heh, you shoulda seen the earlier versions! I had 2 personnel types (crew and officers), 2 raw ores that had to be mined and smelted into 2 metals (common and rare), for a total of 10 different resources!! 8O And on top of that, to produce metal you first had to mine the ore (one building) and then smelt it into metal (another building). That process proved way too cumbersome, so I just streamlined the whole thing into "metal". The idea behind the two crew types would essentially be differing education levels, with officers being highly trained and specialized and crew being basically unskilled labor (which allowed for another building type: school, and the possibility of two officers meeting, having feelings for each other, and producing a crew). Again, that was rejected in favor of simplicity, although I'm not ruling out a comeback.

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Sorry for replying this late, busy weekend.

MikeDew wrote:
Was the notion of a turn marker connected to the mandatory production comment? If so, I'm afraid I don't see it. Could you explain a little further?

Just that you could have a sort of timeline (turn marker) and an indication on the 3rd turn space for that mandatory production. Nothing really fancy, sorry.

Quote:
Yeah, we had to implement time limits whenever we played Advanced Civilization for that very reason! I'll leave that up to the players to decide if they want a time limit, but I could certainly mention that in the rules as a remedy if the trading sessions are lasting too long.

Yeah, fair enough. I think you're right. It's not really a problem.

Quote:
I don't see why I should restrict such a trade. Basically, you're paying for the other player's cooperation in a trade embargo. Of course, there's nothing that necessarily prevents that player from trading with Mr. X anyway, except the probability of retaliation later and the declaration of his/her untrustworthiness! :)

Of course! :)

Quote:
Hmm...some might be combinable *snip*

I feel this is an important point, to simplify the process of a turn. I'd work on that and the combined phases should be coherent together.

MikeDew wrote:

It's restricted to prevent Player A, who goes first, from buying up all of Resource X and preventing anyone else from buying it, then turning around and selling it back. How to keep track of it, aside from just memory (again, a bad rule from the likes of Captain Memory), is a valid point. I can't think of a non-fiddly mechanism for doing so, can you?

How about if players can only buy one resource at a time (or two, if they have a special building). It goes until nobody wants to buy anything anymore.

MikeDew wrote:

If spatial orientation is irrelevant, then you certainly could do just that, and owner spaces (and markers) would not be needed, but with the idea that some modules could become isolated due to disaster and thus inoperable, their spatial orientation will be necessary. And, if transportation fees as was suggested in an earlier post are incorporated, spatial orientation becomes even more important.

Oh. Ahhh! I didn't see that dimension to the game. I think it could make the game much richer. I say go for it.

Quote:
Precisely. Should I reword how that works?

Nope. I missed the sentence describing that function. It's actually very clear now that I read it.

About your earlier version, Owh. Sounds like a Roads and Boats on crack-cocaine. :)

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

hpox wrote:
Sorry for replying this late, busy weekend.

No sweat, I take feedback anytime!
hpox wrote:

Just that you could have a sort of timeline (turn marker) and an indication on the 3rd turn space for that mandatory production. Nothing really fancy, sorry.

I get it now. I think the problem with a turn track is that the game is designed to be relatively open-ended in that it doesn't end after a certain number of turns. As such, the turn track would either have to "wrap around" or be so long as to catch 99% of games played, ya know? That's not to say you couldn't have, say, a 3-space turn track, with the first space being "Turn 1", second being "Turn 2", and last being "Turn 3+".
hpox wrote:

I feel this is an important point, to simplify the process of a turn. I'd work on that and the combined phases should be coherent together.

Check!
hpox wrote:

How about if players can only buy one resource at a time (or two, if they have a special building). It goes until nobody wants to buy anything anymore.

Interesting! So, Player A buys Resource 1, then Player B buys Resource 3, then Player C buys Resource 2, then Player A buys Resource 2, etc. etc. etc. until all 3 pass. That way if Player A tried to monopolize one market, the other players could conspire to monopolize another market, even if they have to do it jointly. I like that!
hpox wrote:

Oh. Ahhh! I didn't see that dimension to the game. I think it could make the game much richer. I say go for it.

Will do!
hpox wrote:

About your earlier version, Owh. Sounds like a Roads and Boats on crack-cocaine. :)

Unfortunately, I'm unfamiliar with Road and Boats (I shall withhold comment on the latter! :wink: ), so I can't appreciate your comment, but I think with the fewer resources, the game will concentrate more on what I was shooting for, that being trade, economics, and growth. KISS works wonders!

Anonymous
Re: Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

MikeDew wrote:
Okay, let's get this show on the road!

This week's game is Alpha Colony, a sci-fi game about humanity's first interplanetary colony.

I hope that's enough of an introduction to whet your appetite! Dig in!

Okay... This is actually a game I got my group to play test (granted only for aprox 20 mins though.. ) ...

And, they liked it... Of course the biggest problem (and I think we all have it, especially at this point in game design) was graphics... they were all complaining that it was another 'cheap ass game' (which they hate due to the graphics.. fun games, boring graphics.. ) But.. after explaining that it was a prototype I was testing for a freind we all settled in....
Our end/problem arose in that I had questions about the rules (which of course we all do, ) and had to refer back to the web site for awnsers, well.. needless to say as I was checking the awnser they proceded to pull out another game that is similar and start it up... So they were interested enough (but just that I didn't have alot to show them of course.)... I think it's a good game, however I think that since there are alot of similar games out there (similar in the 'us against you, gather resourses' type game), that we allready have, and it takes alot of inticement to get us to purchase a new one... But really, I liked it and the concept.. (thought I'm not much of a 'space' gamer myself.. )

Thanks
Satori

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

I'd be interested in a more detailed report, if you're willing to provide one, either here in the forum or offline via PM.

I'd especially like to know what rules you had questions with. I seem to have a knack for explaining rules clearly to me and not so clearly to others. :wink:

Yes, the graphics (or lack thereof) is of "proto-quality". I've got some ideas, but not the tools on how to add some bells and whistles.

Oh, and most especially, thanks for playtesting it! :D

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

MikeDew wrote:
I'd be interested in a more detailed report, if you're willing to provide one, either here in the forum or offline via PM.

I'd especially like to know what rules you had questions with. I seem to have a knack for explaining rules clearly to me and not so clearly to others. :wink:

Yes, the graphics (or lack thereof) is of "proto-quality". I've got some ideas, but not the tools on how to add some bells and whistles.

Oh, and most especially, thanks for playtesting it! :D

No problem, I was trying to be specific, but I couldn't pinpoint anything at the time, however, I will relook at the rules and refresh the night in my mind.. then I'll get back in here and give you some specific (and hopfully useful) feedback... :)

Satori

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Satori wrote:
MikeDew wrote:
I'd be interested in a more detailed report, if you're willing to provide one, either here in the forum or offline via PM.

I'd especially like to know what rules you had questions with. I seem to have a knack for explaining rules clearly to me and not so clearly to others. :wink:

Yes, the graphics (or lack thereof) is of "proto-quality". I've got some ideas, but not the tools on how to add some bells and whistles.

Oh, and most especially, thanks for playtesting it! :D

No problem, I was trying to be specific, but I couldn't pinpoint anything at the time, however, I will relook at the rules and refresh the night in my mind.. then I'll get back in here and give you some specific (and hopfully useful) feedback... :)

Satori

Okay... now I remember it all.. (just was relooking at the game board/rules)... and there were two things that came up....
1. Can you go into negative VP's... ?
and 2 (and this is were the game collapsed into a similar but different game while I was looking around online... ) Combat... I assume (after rechecking the rules) that there is no interplayer combat and right after the 2nd turn ended (so really it was the 3rd turn) the players realised that there was no way to stomp on each other (directly.. though you could put others 'out of the game' pretty quickly... )...So, once they figured out that they had no 'army' of colonists to control they wanted to play Age of Mythology instead.. (which I think is pretty similar.. just with combat )...

Satori

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Hello, and thanks for posting your game! I printed the materials available and looked over the rules last night. Great concept and you have managed to capture the flavor in relatively simple to understand rules!

I like the concept of building the infrastructure (establishing and keeping up the supply of staples) and then developing more grand modules for the big VP at the end.

I have a few comments that go little beyond some fine tuning to clarify the rules. I have looked over the other comments and will try not to duplicate any of them. I am working off of the v2.1 rules (I think that is the most up-to-date version). Here goes:

Great name/theme/flavor! I like what you have accomplished in only 5 pages of rules.

With the game developing more, I would suggest putting more introductory info into your rules: list of component to be included in the game, list of items the players will have to provide (if no VP markers and no money is to be provided, note that players will need to provide paper and pencil to track their own).

On a fiddly note, to give the costs of the game a more NASA scale, have you thought about having them in thousands of dollars instead of just dollars (so that retrieving a crew member from cryo at the 10 level would cost $10,000 instead of $10)? Even if you just put a "k" after the prices (instead of adding all the zeros). Just a thought...

Consistent terminology: I like the illustration of a sample building on page one, but you then go on to call them modules in the rest of the game. Decide what you want to call them and stick to it for the sake of consistency. If you want to clarify that a module is a building, you could put something like "During the game, players will construct modules (buildings for production of various resources)..." Similarly in section 4, you mention the "production" line of a "tile," but you refer to the tiles as modules and the line on the module is actually "Produce." For the sake of consistency, you may want to keep it to "...shown on the "Produce" line of their modules."

The game set up section was very helpful, but you may want to give it a heading of some sort (like Game Set-Up) or its own section number so that it stands out (for those that skip the intro, this is where the game begins...). Also, the second and fourth bullet items could be more clear. It became more clear what you were asking the player to do as I read more of the game, but at this early stage I was confused.

For the second bullet item, maybe something like this: "Fill spaces 1-5 of each of the oxygen, water, and food tracks with markers of the appropriate type (O2 marker for oxygen, water marker for water, food marker for food), placing one marker in each box. Fill all 10 spaces of each of the remaining resource tracks (energy, crew and metal) with markers of the appropriate type." It is wordy, but it is best to appeal to the lowest common denominator and avoid all confusion.

I think the fourth bullet point might be more clear if the Colony Population... track were made more clear. I understand that this chart tracks the total cost of life support for the entire colony. The description of its use in the rules isn't clear. You explained the proper use in an earlier post, but that needs to be made more clear in the layout of the track and the rules. Maybe have a linear track that goes from 1 to 12 from left to right with the appropriate symbols under them. Then a note at the end that if the more population were needed, to start back at 1, but add (3) O2, (3) H20, (3) food and (3) energy to the cost every turn (and a similar note of what to add if the population ever goes beyond 24). Then, when you say to count the costs to the left of the population marker (inclusive), the total cost would be more clear.

2. Player Turns
Turns vs rounds vs phases. I may be the only one, but I equate the word turn with what each player does in their turn. I equate the word round with a series of every player taking one turn. It may just be my interpretation, but I had to reread section 2 a few times to figure out what was going on.

I would suggest including a description at the start of section 2 giving an introduction to your terminology. "A turn is a collection of XX phases. Each player will have a chance to perform the action associated with each phase before play progresses to the next phase of the turn." Thus assuring players that one player does not perform each of the 10 phases in their turn before another player gets to take a turn and perform each of the phases, etc.

Another fiddly point, I would expand your references to make them more clear. Something like "(see section 3)" instead of just "(see 3)." Very fiddly, but every step you can take to avoid confusion is a good step.

I do agree with other posts that the determine starting player may be removed from the phases, just something that the players do at the start of every turn. I do like the idea of having the start player change from phase to phase, but that may be too much to do.

I also like the suggestions to include a player reference chart of what phases are skipped of not allowed at which stage of the game.

3. Starting Player
Since the starting player for the first round is randomly determined, you may want to mention that again in section 3. "The starting player for every turn but the first will be..."

Also a fiddly point, but in the example, I deduced that Mike would go first since he was tied for lowest VP and lowest cash and because he was visually at the LEFT of the page. It was jarring to learn that I hadn't been given the last bit of info and that my assumption was wrong. It's not a big deal, but you may want to include in the setup sentence that either Barb or Debra was the starting player the last turn. Since visually (on the page) Ray is the first name to the left of theirs, it would then be more natural that Ray would be the starting player. I know it's fiddly, but it was jarring!

4. Produce Resources
Under mandatory production, you may want to make it more clear why the MCM may not (after the third turn) go below 5 units of the 4 staples or why the players must restock them.

Also, if the MCM is low on oxygen and more than 1 player has an oxygen producing module, who is responsible for restocking the MCM and who is penalized? You will need to make that clear.

Your wording of the function is a little unclear. You mention that if, at the start of any turn (after the third), specific resources are low, owners of the affected resources would have to operate them NEXT turn. Do you mean in that turn? To refill the resources? Then they are penalized at the end of the turn if the resources aren't filled? If the goal is to have the MCM stocked to a certain level at the end of every turn, then you may want to put this at the END of the turn (since players will read through the turn order for the first few turns, when this doesn't take effect, and they will be aware that it is coming). Then, if players haven't restocked, then there are dire consequences, etc.

5. Trade
It has been said before, but is the trade phase limited in some way or will it be self-governing by the lack of resources to trade? It seems like it may go on for a LONG time with the right group of players (ex-Diplomacy nuts, perhaps?).

7. Allocate Resources
I know that this would never come up, but you may want to indicate that players can't put crew into one of their storage barrels. Yes, it's absurd, but if you don't specify it, SOMEONE will ask about it.

8. Construct Modules
When building a module, is the entire cost lost? I can see the metal and the energy being lost, but the personnel? Maybe the personnel should go back to the MCM, or into that player's pool of personnel (dormitory module??)? Either way that should be made more clear.

9. Sell Excess Resources
Are monies to be tracked on paper? If not, are the costs that are less 10% to be rounded down? You mention VP bonuses for selling to the MCM at certain levels, but the VP bonuses are indicated in the same way (on the MCM chart and in the rules) as VP penalties, you may want to make it clear on the chart that penalties apply to buying resources and bonuses apply to selling. Maybe even include this in the example ("Kevin sells his excess oxygen to the MCM at the number 4 slot, the negative VP listed only affects purchases to he makes $25 less 10%.").

The mandatory sale seems to be connected in some way to mandatory production, but that isn't made explicitly clear. Are the two connected? There seems to be a lot of different requirements between the two for players to track, possibly combine them into one event at the end of the turn (if the MCM level go below XX, then this happens).

10. Resolve Disasters
Since the disaster isn't a certainty, you may want to call this "Determine Disaster and Resolve" or something like that. I like the added tension element, but some of the wording brings up new concepts that aren't explained anywhere else in the rules. "Isolated modules" and "reconnect" aren't clear to me. The rules don't state what this means or how to resolve it. Are the isolated modules actually detached form the MCM? Do they have to be rebuilt? What is the method for reattaching (and in what phase)?

12. Winning the Game
What if the players tied for most VP are also tied for most cash? Is it OK for the game to end in a tie? It is acceptable, but should be stated in the rules.

Whew!! Sorry that went on for so long, I really enjoyed reading the rules and I admire the system you have brought together with such brief rules!! I look forward to trying it out with my playtesting group, I'll give you a full report of how it goes (probably in the next few weeks).

Thanks again for posting your game!

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Wow, did I really write all that!?!? I didn't even mention my thoughts about module placement!!

I noticed a lot of other comments about making the module placement more meaningful. The rules (v2.1) seem to reflect that (I'm not sure how it was handled in earlier versions), but the placement rules (modules must be touching the MCM or another module that can be traced back to the MCM) seem open ended and there are no other rules to make any placement strategy better than others (why would I place them in one position over another?). My main concern is that you will get a clump of modules with other modules on all sides and crowded into together.

How about using a polygon for the MCM (5 sided if the max number of players is 5, 6 if the max is 6, etc.) and forcing modules to be built from the center of any side outward (like the spokes of a wheel). You could say that the MCM is built with only so many "docks" for connectivity to other modules. Each module could have a "head" and a "tail" such that the head must connect to the MCM's dock or the tail of another module. That would force more linear development (which would cause more havoc if one module and all subsequent modules were disconnected and rendered useless until reconnected).

You could also number the modules so that there would be an assured progression. You could have requirements as to what types of modules can be built onto what. Like having the requirement that an Agridome must immediately follow a water plant, etc. You could even have the larger modules have prerequisites such that certain other modules must precede it in the spoke. For example, the hospital must be on a spoke that already has an oxygen plant and an energy reactor.

Other large modules could have more than 1 "tail" whereby other modules could be built off the sides instead of just the back. For example, a larger agridome could also have room on either side for an oxygen plant (since the plants produce so much excess oxygen), etc.

All this could be worked into a deeper strategy for module placement. I also like the other suggestions for a cost to move resources through someone else's module. There is a benefit to building your own spoke (you don't pay transport fees), but someone could dislocate your first module and put the others off-line until you can fix the damage. If you were to build modules onto someone else's module and they build after yours, they would be less like to affect your module in the case of a disaster!

Of course you will need to include a definition of what exactly it means to be disconnected from the MCM (isolated) and the cost to reconnect (same as cost to build the disconnected module?).

Again, thanks for posting! I have really enjoyed looking over your game and commenting!

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

SiskNY wrote:
I have really enjoyed looking over your game and commenting!

Clearly! But thanks for your enthusiasm and comments, they were great! I'll try to address them below to perhaps clarify what I was trying to accomplish.

SiskNY wrote:
Great name/theme/flavor! I like what you have accomplished in only 5 pages of rules.

Thanks!

SiskNY wrote:
With the game developing more, I would suggest putting more introductory info into your rules: list of component to be included in the game, list of items the players will have to provide (if no VP markers and no money is to be provided, note that players will need to provide paper and pencil to track their own).

Good point. I had only recently started including a component list when writing rules, for a couple of reasons: 1) I just never thought to put one in, and 2) the components to be included will probably ultimately be decided by any publisher. However, there's no reason not to include a list of components necessary to play this particular proto.

SiskNY wrote:
On a fiddly note, to give the costs of the game a more NASA scale, have you thought about having them in thousands of dollars instead of just dollars (so that retrieving a crew member from cryo at the 10 level would cost $10,000 instead of $10)? Even if you just put a "k" after the prices (instead of adding all the zeros). Just a thought...

I guess one of my pet peeves is when the monetary system of a game is made overly complex: if the lowest cost item is 5 golden widgets and all other costs are divisble by 5, then divide them all by five, for Pete's sake!!! I feel that the lowest denomination of currency should be unity.

That being said, your suggestion of simply adding a "k" following the number would accomplish exactly what you were seeking (a more theme-oriented monetary scale) while maintaining my desire for a simple scale. Great suggestion, consider it implemented (although, I'm not printing out a new deck of money ;) )!

SiskNY wrote:
Consistent terminology:

AGREED!! Consistency is a big issue for me (despite what it may look like from this draft :wink: ). It's easy to lose sight of that when you cobble together your rules at different times, fiddle, change, rewrite, etc. Without a doubt this draft was a little rougher than a final version. Sometimes you need to step back and re-read the entirety to double check the consistency, which is something I haven't yet done.

SiskNY wrote:
The game set up section was very helpful, but you may want to give it a heading of some sort (like Game Set-Up) or its own section number so that it stands out (for those that skip the intro, this is where the game begins...).

Check.

SiskNY wrote:
Also, the second and fourth bullet items could be more clear. It became more clear what you were asking the player to do as I read more of the game, but at this early stage I was confused.

I'll see if I can reword it to be more clear. Of course, an illustration would probably be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand words...

SiskNY wrote:
I think the fourth bullet point might be more clear if the Colony Population... track were made more clear.

I think I had originally had a linear track, but found that it was difficult to easily see how many of each commodity was needed to support the colony, which is why I went with the 4-column vertical chart. Again, an illustrative example would probably be very beneficial here (of course, that'll boost the page count!)

SiskNY wrote:
2. Player Turns
Turns vs rounds vs phases.

Yep. See previous comment regarding consistency. You are spot on, rounds are composed of turns which are composed of phases.

SiskNY wrote:
I would suggest including a description at the start of section 2 giving an introduction to your terminology. "A turn is a collection of XX phases. Each player will have a chance to perform the action associated with each phase before play progresses to the next phase of the turn." Thus assuring players that one player does not perform each of the 10 phases in their turn before another player gets to take a turn and perform each of the phases, etc.

Check.

SiskNY wrote:
Another fiddly point, I would expand your references to make them more clear. Something like "(see section 3)" instead of just "(see 3)." Very fiddly, but every step you can take to avoid confusion is a good step.

Easily done.

SiskNY wrote:
I do agree with other posts that the determine starting player may be removed from the phases, just something that the players do at the start of every turn. I do like the idea of having the start player change from phase to phase, but that may be too much to do.

Whoops, was that the impression I gave? No, I had intended that player order was determined for the round (to use consistent terminology) at the start of the round, and not changed until the next round. Therefore, each phase of one round is conducted in the same order unless simultaneous.

And, as a side note, I'm not sure that the differentiation between "rounds" and "turns" is going to be particularly applicable to this game, since all players complete a phase before moving on to the next. Or, maybe the heirarchy is rounds->phases->turns?

SiskNY wrote:
I also like the suggestions to include a player reference chart of what phases are skipped of not allowed at which stage of the game.

Done.

SiskNY wrote:
3. Starting Player
Since the starting player for the first round is randomly determined, you may want to mention that again in section 3. "The starting player for every turn but the first will be..."

Also done.

SiskNY wrote:
Also a fiddly point, but in the example, I deduced that Mike would go first since he was tied for lowest VP and lowest cash and because he was visually at the LEFT of the page. It was jarring to learn that I hadn't been given the last bit of info and that my assumption was wrong. It's not a big deal, but you may want to include in the setup sentence that either Barb or Debra was the starting player the last turn. Since visually (on the page) Ray is the first name to the left of theirs, it would then be more natural that Ray would be the starting player. I know it's fiddly, but it was jarring!

I'll review the example and see if I can make it more clear. Another illustration might be useful.

SiskNY wrote:
4. Produce Resources
Under mandatory production...
Your wording of the function is a little unclear.

I had a hard time coming up with the right wording for this section. Obviously, I still have a little work to do. I'm also wondering if these sections are perhaps a little too fiddly? Do they really add enough to the game to justify their incremental complexity?

SiskNY wrote:
5. Trade
It has been said before, but is the trade phase limited in some way or will it be self-governing by the lack of resources to trade? It seems like it may go on for a LONG time with the right group of players (ex-Diplomacy nuts, perhaps?).

I've only done 2 (or was it just 1?) playtests of this game, and in both cases/only case trade never lasted inordinately long, mostly because the amount of resources to trade were particularly limited.

SiskNY wrote:
7. Allocate Resources
I know that this would never come up, but you may want to indicate that players can't put crew into one of their storage barrels. Yes, it's absurd, but if you don't specify it, SOMEONE will ask about it.

Heh, very true. Will do.

SiskNY wrote:
8. Construct Modules
When building a module, is the entire cost lost? I can see the metal and the energy being lost, but the personnel? Maybe the personnel should go back to the MCM, or into that player's pool of personnel (dormitory module??)? Either way that should be made more clear.

Yes, crew goes back to the player's pool. I'll try to clarify that.

SiskNY wrote:
9. Sell Excess Resources
Are monies to be tracked on paper?

Well, if you had read the component list, you would've seen that a deck of money is included. Oh, wait, there was no component list. Heh, I'll make that more clear both in the component list (to be added) and in setup ("give each player $50 and place the rest to the side to form a bank").

SiskNY wrote:
you may want to make it clear on the chart that penalties apply to buying resources and bonuses apply to selling. Maybe even include this in the example ("Kevin sells his excess oxygen to the MCM at the number 4 slot, the negative VP listed only affects purchases to he makes $25 less 10%.").

Good point. Will do.

SiskNY wrote:
The mandatory sale seems to be connected in some way to mandatory production, but that isn't made explicitly clear. Are the two connected?

Sort of. The intent of both rules were to force players to support the colony when its supply situation became dire. The two-tier system was designed to get progressively more severe as the supply levels continued to drop.

SiskNY wrote:
There seems to be a lot of different requirements between the two for players to track, possibly combine them into one event at the end of the turn (if the MCM level go below XX, then this happens).

I'll see if I can do that. The problem is that the two required actions occur in different phases of the game. However, I think it was mentioned that it would be useful if there was some indicator that was set at, say, the end of the turn which would show that "mandatory sale" and/or "mandatory production" was in effect for the following turn. I'll see if I can come up with a smoother mechanic for this.

SiskNY wrote:
10. Resolve Disasters
Since the disaster isn't a certainty, you may want to call this "Determine Disaster and Resolve" or something like that. I like the added tension element, but some of the wording brings up new concepts that aren't explained anywhere else in the rules.

This was a case of this section of the rules not keeping pace with the other sections. I consciously neglected this section while I worked on the rest of the game mechanics, with the intention of coming back to this once the rest of the game was working well.

SiskNY wrote:
"Isolated modules" and "reconnect" aren't clear to me. The rules don't state what this means or how to resolve it. Are the isolated modules actually detached form the MCM? Do they have to be rebuilt? What is the method for reattaching (and in what phase)?

The idea was that the colony had to be one continuous structure, not a bunch of pieces here and there. All power, communications, etc, were routed through the MCM, so therefore all modules would need to be connected to the MCM to function. An isolated module, therefore, would be one that couldn't trace a path of connected modules back to the MCM. Reconnecting is nothing more than building a new module in such a way that a continuous path can then be traced. It need not be the same type as what had been there previously (and destroyed, thus causing the isolation), nor need it be in the same place as where the destroyed module was. As long as the isolated modules can trace any contiguous path back the MCM, they are considered reconnected.

SiskNY wrote:
12. Winning the Game
What if the players tied for most VP are also tied for most cash? Is it OK for the game to end in a tie? It is acceptable, but should be stated in the rules.

Okay. My feeling was that if you were that close, you should both win.

SiskNY wrote:
I look forward to trying it out with my playtesting group, I'll give you a full report of how it goes (probably in the next few weeks).

Great! I look forward to any feedback you can provide! As I mentioned above, the disaster rules were deliberately neglected, so you might want to consider excluding them from any playtesting you do and just concentrate on the rest of the game. That is, of course, entirely your call!

SiskNY wrote:
I noticed a lot of other comments about making the module placement more meaningful. The rules (v2.1) seem to reflect that (I'm not sure how it was handled in earlier versions), but the placement rules (modules must be touching the MCM or another module that can be traced back to the MCM) seem open ended and there are no other rules to make any placement strategy better than others (why would I place them in one position over another?). My main concern is that you will get a clump of modules with other modules on all sides and crowded into together.

Placement strategy, and what makes one space preferable to another, is very valid. I had actually anticipated that the preferred arrangement would be a clumping of modules together, as that provides connectivity redundancy - if one module goes out of service for whatever reason, it doesn't isolate another chunk of the colony. However, aside from that, as written there is little to make one arrangement any better than another, and that should probably be addressed.

SiskNY wrote:
How about using a polygon for the MCM (5 sided if the max number of players is 5, 6 if the max is 6, etc.) and forcing modules to be built from the center of any side outward (like the spokes of a wheel).

Well, that would require an MCM tile for each number of players, which, while not by much, does add to the component costs. As it is now, the MCM is a square of dimensions one unit by one unit. Perhaps one of the things I wasn't clear about was that the modules have to be placed orthoganlly and within the "grid" established by the MCM - in other words, a module can't be placed such that it only covers a third of the side of the next tile...it must cover the whole side (unless connecting to one of the larger tiles). I've got some ideas how I could clarify that.

I'm not sure I like the "spoke" idea, as it seems to me to be too restrictive. After all, if we're smart enough to get to another planet, surely we're smart enough to figure out how to branch out?

SiskNY wrote:
ll this could be worked into a deeper strategy for module placement. I also like the other suggestions for a cost to move resources through someone else's module.

As do I. I plan to implement this rule, as I think it will make placement have a little greater impact (although it may do nothing more than homogenizing the sections of the colony by player - "Now entering Red Player Zone" kind of thing).

SiskNY wrote:
Again, thanks for posting! I have really enjoyed looking over your game and commenting!

I'm glad you liked it! I appreciate your interest and support! I'll take any and all feedback you're willing to give!

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

I'm looking forward to the updated ruleset!

MikeDew wrote:
I think I had originally had a linear track, but found that it was difficult to easily see how many of each commodity was needed to support the colony, which is why I went with the 4-column vertical chart. Again, an illustrative example would probably be very beneficial here (of course, that'll boost the page count!)

Cool, I think the layout works as it, just more clarification would help make it more intuitive.

Quote:
Or, maybe the hierarchy is rounds->phases->turns?

I'm not sure about others, but that's how I think when I think about game play order (everyone has an intuitive understanding of what it means to take a turn).

Quote:
Well, if you had read the component list, you would've seen that a deck of money is included. Oh, wait, there was no component list.

:lol:

Quote:
I had actually anticipated that the preferred arrangement would be a clumping of modules together, as that provides connectivity redundancy - if one module goes out of service for whatever reason, it doesn't isolate another chunk of the colony.

That's what the rules made it sound like, but then the disasters seemed to imply that a module could be disconnected. Does that mean that it is simply removed from the grid and a space is open for another module to be built in its place? If so, then the effect of a disaster isn't very bad aside from one player losing one module. My thought about the spokes radiating from a central hub (one central MCM tile, all players build out from there) was that one disconnected module would affect all modules that rely on that connectivity to the MCM for their operation. If players build off of each others modules (for protection against that player singling them out for a disaster), then all affected players may be motivated to pool resources to rebuild the affected module. Just a thought, but one that I feel would make the placement strategy more decision oriented.

Again, I'm looking forward to the new rules!! I'm sure your ascension to Supreme Potentate was eminently deserved!

Anonymous
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

SiskNY wrote:
I'm looking forward to the updated ruleset!

Great, but it might be a little bit. I've got a few other projects lined up ahead of [/i]Alpha Colony[/i], so be patient.

SiskNY wrote:
That's what the rules made it sound like, but then the disasters seemed to imply that a module could be disconnected. Does that mean that it is simply removed from the grid and a space is open for another module to be built in its place?

Yes.

SiskNY wrote:
If so, then the effect of a disaster isn't very bad aside from one player losing one module.

In the early game, that can put quite a crimp on your expansion plans.

SiskNY wrote:
My thought about the spokes radiating from a central hub (one central MCM tile, all players build out from there) was that one disconnected module would affect all modules that rely on that connectivity to the MCM for their operation. If players build off of each others modules (for protection against that player singling them out for a disaster), then all affected players may be motivated to pool resources to rebuild the affected module. Just a thought, but one that I feel would make the placement strategy more decision oriented.

I suppose the spoke configuration would work if you switched the location to, say, an orbiting space station that is already constructed, albeit "hollow", and the different factions are renting/buying the space inside to construct their various modules.

SiskNY wrote:
I'm sure your ascension to Supreme Potentate was eminently deserved!

One of the benefits to filing a d/b/a: self-appointed corporate titles! ;)

GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #26: Alpha Colony by MikeDew

Sorry - replied to wrong thread ... my brain hurts ...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut