Intergalactic War Game

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12493/twilight-imperium-third-edi...

This is the game you are looking for...

Joe is right on point. Now that you have an idea of what the game's about, I'd think about the following questions on how the game should play:
- game length
- number of rules pages
- will it work with less than 5 players?

The best 4X space strategy game is Master of Orion 2 period (Yes it's a video game).

Now I tried to search for a board game alternative for many years and never actually found one which is good enough for me.

Most of the time, you will be forced to accept a dumbed down game that makes compromise and focus only on a part of the whole cake. For example: Empires of the void focus more on combat and capturing/liberating planets. Galactic Emperor focus more on resource management. Twilight Imprium focus more on war like axis and allies. Eclipse focus more on development. Space empire 4X is a pure war game. But there is no game out there that has it all.

Normally you have 2 large camp: Twilight imperium which is more americanish, and eclipse which is more euroish. They both have good mechanics on each side, but in the end, I hate both.

In eclipse, conflict between players starts when the game ends, so it becomes only a resource management game. They have a nice ship customization mechanic that looks nice until a player place 2 level 3 engine with only missiles allowing to warp anywhere on the galaxy and wipe any opposition before the first round of battle starts.

Twilight Imperium is completely illogical and manage the map like it was a regular war game map. Allowing planets to have cannons that shot ships in adjacent systems which should be light years away. Since they use the axis and allies combat system, you need to use the Fighter padding technique to protect larger ships. All kind of rules which simply pisses me off.

So I decided to state that there is simply no board game that could replace Master of Orion and just stopped looking for one.

Larriena, I feel similarly about Heroes of Might and Magic pc games.
I think the HOMM series, in particular HOMM3, is the game other fantasy battle board games attempt to be. HOMM3 removes the economic accounting and battle stat tracking from the player's mind so that they can focus on strategy.

larienna,

Thanks for posting here and articulating several of those items which have disappointed you vis-a-vis 4x space games. During the past several months, I researched and reviewed nearly two dozen titles from the genre, and I too felt as though none of the games, even the much adored and epic TI3, hit the mark.

I'm Lead Developer on a 4x space game for an independent designer, who has visited but posted few times out here (I need to encourage him on this area). The game has multiple paths to victory, and while combat is inherent in any good 4x game (hence, eXterminate), it's not any more pronounced than any other, non-martial aspect of the game.

Thanks for the video game reference, as my research failed to take into account the genre in a way which one could incorporate the best elements into a board game.

Cheers,
Joe

Eric,

I'm always searching for reasoned, vitriolic comments. While I've read my share of opinions with no shred of rationale, it's heartening to read comments with substance. Just to share a few of my issues with Eclipse and TI3, despite the numerous fan boys, will prove illustrative.

First, the use of "Victory Points" (VP) has become so ubiquitous, that most designers have failed to even attempt a connection to the theme. In Eclipse, you "discover" values which work ostensibly as VPs in the game, while TI3 allows one to select one if the 10 Roles and earn VPs. As a designer and developer, I cringe at the idea.

Second, and this applies more to Eclipse...the set-up is a nightmare, despite the clever accounting principle which underscores the player's mat. I'm a hex and counter war gamer and if it's in front of me, I own it and I can use it. In Eclipse, you have 40+ cubes, and you're constantly moving them from the board to the "map" - not the best design feature.

Finally, for TI3, it's a function of scope. In its attempt to handle so many 4x activities, it's so unwieldy that it rarely hits the table. I strongly advocate to my designers to shoot for a 90-min to 2-hr time frame. Better a game that is accessible to new and seasoned players than one that causes dread by even veteran gamers.

I do appreciate the reference to the "Orion" game, as I read the wiki in its entirety last night, and found more than 11 different points of similarity with the game currently under development. As I mentioned to you, I'm amenable to extending a play-test invitation later this year. Even after more than three years and 150 hours of play-testing, a critical review is worth more than a dozen play-tests.

It's interesting that despite my initial attraction to BGDF, I've been disappointed with the reception many designers have received here, while a more robust conversation takes place at BGG. This would otherwise make sense as the "go to" site, but I've viewed far to many (0) responses next to members' topics.

That's it for now...I'll check out your other comments on BGG.

Cheers,
Joe

Hey Matt,

Good post.

I think the design has some merit but maybe try a simple version first. Unless you can get a team together it might be difficult.

One thing about the federation. Will their laws only help themselves? I would imagine some players would 'bite the bullet' to vote for a law, so that it also helps themselves.

Personally I think it would be cool if all players could propose new policies, but thats just me.

If you want to focus on the political aspect, it's fine, but simplify other parts of the game. For example, a fleet of ship could be a single token. Again like I said above, you cannot have a game that focus on everything.

For assymetric powers system take a look at: Dune, T.I. Rex, Dune Express, Dune Dice game.

I really liked the way Diplomacy managed the income in the game.

If you want multiple resources you could do something like this:

Have a Red, Blue, and Green resource type.

If you own one of any color you get 1 army or Fleet of ships (whatever you want your military to be)

If a certain factions monopolizes Red resources, when they own 3 Red it will allow them to have 4 standing armies/fleets.

If at the start of a turn you find yourself with more armies/fleets then Resources you start losing armies till they are equal.

This way you dont have to gain paper money only to give it back again as an upkeep cost.

larienna,

The political idea stems, in part, from TI3 as each planet can provide either it's resource or influence level, right? I really liked that idea from TI3, and certainly appreciate your spin on it. We've incorporated Galactic laws which require Political Will to pass through the Senate. Who knows, in time, we may make a 4x game you like... : )

Cheers,
Joe

larienna,

Now, I completely understand your take on the political and military victories in your idea.

I live near Washington D.C., but my colleague for whom I'm serving as his Developer, Kris (or questccg) lives in Montreal. He's the Designer of the game "Tradewars - Homeworld" which has made an appearance here on the forum. I've established several play-tests in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Since he's in Montreal, you should contact him and try out the game.

Cheers,
Joe

larienna,

We would certainly appreciate the feedback on the rules. I need to have the designer visit, post, and get to know the other members of the BGDF community. As to a website, I've only my company's website, which is for our thematic card holders for another game, not this one.. I'll have to talk to the designer about creating a page on BGG...great idea.

As to the art, we've lost an artist due to a family emergency, and as they say, "when one door closes, another opens." We picked-up a new artist, but I'm also soliciting another artist via BGG. Unfortunately, at this stage of development, we don't have any artwork for the game, save hand-drawings by the designer.

As to the rules, which are on the 5th revision...once he's comfortable, I'll reach out and send a copy for your review.

Cheers,
Joe

A graphic designer / user interface designer could be useful later in the prototyping stage, however. Good design can make it easier to grasp all the info on the board and make playtesting smoother.

The upshot of many of these comments is that it's just about impossible to shoehorn all 4 X's into a tabletop game. You need a computer to track some of the stuff. and you're doomed to a very long game.

I tend to focus on the wargame with economic and technological factors when I design a space game. I usually skip the explore in favor of a setup by the players along with variances in the map. I also skip the exploit, because that usually involves a lot of detail that does not, in my mind, contribute to the game when more than one person is involved. (Yes, I played lots of MOO2, but that's a single-player game.)

Some things just don't work well on the tabletop compared to the computer, and I think 4X is one of them. Also my motto is "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)
Another form, about Japanese gardening, is "Your garden is not complete until there is nothing else that you can remove."

Also, 4X has flaws internally: if someone gets lucky in exploration, or if someone gets really good in exploitation, then when the war really gets going that side already has a nearly overwhelming advantage (strategic wars are also economic wars). At worst (in something like Starz, an old computer game), it becomes an economic snowball game - which I dislike.

When I read that there'd be 5 resources, I saw an economic game that could snowball. And that would also be quite complex. Would having 5 resources help make the game more interesting? Perhaps as a puzzle, but not as a game.

I think you pointed out the main problem of 4x games mostly due to the fact that technological progress is proportional to empire size, so if a player is in the lead, it will become eventually a run away leader.

In moo2 you had this situation where battles were sometimes close in early game, but at some point, eiter you started to kick ass or either your ass was getting kicked. And once you reached that point, there was no turning back possible. So the climax curve is really bad.

This is why one of the idea suggested for a Master of mgaic style game is that the wizard progression (equivalent of technology) is not proportional to empire size allowing small and large empire having wizards of same strength. Giving a chance for smaller kingdoms to compete against bigger ones.

I do agree that 4X games might be more suitable as solitaire game. And if I were to make a multi player space game, I would probably skip or thin down the exploration and some other aspects.