Skip to Content

looking for a partner

37 replies [Last post]
gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015

I have figured out a "less hidden information" variant of The Singularity Trap where all fleets are visible to all players (dark fleets are visible and destroyed fleets hang around until builds are processed), sensors give ship damage and fleet details in combat and encounters (no sensors = no details), number of armor/shield units are obvious to all in combat, ships can encounter both moving and stationary ships each move segment, and the hyperspace jump map is a randomly selected pattern with off board destinations meaning a dead jump spot (jump does nothing) on the board.

A physical version could be done using sets of molded plastic trays (fleet/taskforce trays, combat/damaged ship trays, trays for storage of sorted chits and tokens/stands), small stands to hold chits upright, and a great many diecut cardboard chits.

The map would need 2 inch hexes (making it approx 42 x 35 inches).

Combat tables (to convert fractions to percentage roll) and percentage dice. Use of calculator instead of tables would be optional.

Probably some sort of player shields (individual trays could be shielded by putting an empty tray on top of them).

What I need is an experienced production partner interested in splitting designer credit and income on this project.

Anyone interested in taking a look and discussing it further?

below is current rules (hidden info digital version)
http://thesingularitytrap.com/hidden/quickrules.pdf

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
gxnpt wrote:Combat tables

gxnpt wrote:

Combat tables (to convert fractions to percentage roll) and percentage dice. Use of calculator instead of tables would be optional.

Don't want to rain on your parade, but this part above alone is a death sentence to a game in the current market.

Who is your target audience? What other games are they playing that your game will replace?

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
combat odds / tables

Since combat odds to hit are determined as (defender enemy weapons total) / (defender enemy weapons total + attacker enemy weapons total) with that number certainly below 100 but easily in the 50ish range, percentage dice would be rolled - roll needed is target number or less.

Target numbers would be given on a series of tables based on attacker + defender enemies combined values (columns) crossed by defender enemies values (rows). Shading alternate columns in one tint and alternate rows in another tint would aid in using the charts. These tables would use up a few pages at the end of the rulebook.

Since the table target numbers are calculated by dividing the individual value by the combined value, multiplying by 100, and dropping any fractions a calculator could be used instead of looking up in the tables. Entirely up to the player.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I think...

@Arty was saying that maybe you should "re-think" your combat mechanic... At least that is what I understood from the message.

Requiring a calculator or even referring to tables in a rulebook ... is less than optimal. Yes some wargames still use to-hit tables with percentages and the likes... but is that your demographic? Wargamers??

IDK... Casual players won't be interested and hard-core gamers may not like the need to refer to tables or use a calculator. You know hard-core gamers are the toughest critics when it comes to games in general.

So like my previous thought... IDK.

I would personally like "neither": no tables and no calculator. Simplify the combat mechanic with some other dice system or a deterministic stat-based system if you're looking to attract another crowd of gamers.

Best of luck(?!) with your game.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Use a gadget to do the math

If you are set on using division to come up with to-hit numbers, I agree that a lookup table is not going to work well, but there is another option. You can include a well-disguised slide rule to do the division, and mark it so that the result is already multiplied by 100.

The A and B scales run from 1 to 100, while the C and D scales run from 1 to 10. Include only the pair that you need, pick a circular form factor, and festoon it with enough artwork that very few players will recognize what it is.

And they can still use a calculator if they really want to, but suggesting that might blow the slide rule"s cover.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
2 ways to do it different

100%×WD/(WD+WA)

Then using 2 dice to see if it hits?

Something similar would be rolling a die for WD and rolling a die for WA.

If WD×dX > WA×dX
You also have a hit.
There is still calculation. But more or less when it is less certain. But you have only 2 numbers to compare.
X is the number of sides on a die. If you want the accuracy of percentages. You could still use them for both players. But I don't recommend this.

You could even use WDdX and WAdX
Where the WD and WA are the number of dice.
If your numbers WD and WA are high. Make them lower.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
questccg wrote:@Arty was

questccg wrote:
@Arty was saying that maybe you should "re-think" your combat mechanic... At least that is what I understood from the message.

Pretty much that, yes.
Complexity of choice is often great (to an extent). Complexity of calculation, on the other hand, should be avoided in a modern board game, I think.

But the main question was the target audience and competition. You can't publish a game without knowing an answer to that question.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
heavy game, easy to learn rules

The game is actually a combination of wargame and miniature battle concepts with a bit of Diplomacy thrown in and using a simplified area control / resource economic system. It also uses 3 dimensions in the sense that altitudes of -9 to +9 exist and the planets are spaced on various levels.

It would qualify as a heavy game with easy to learn rules.

My first guess for physical components would be (this is most likely more than possibly needed)

Game pieces not done as die cut sheets:

1 board, 1 rulebook

50 of each color fleet stands (300 total) - approx 15mm to 3/4 inch length

150 fleet trays (will nest) - thin plastic

150 ship trays (will nest) - thin plastic

2 fleet id trays (hold sorted pairs of fleet id chits, will nest to make a lid) - thin plastic
2 chit and marker trays (hold sorted chits and markers, nest to make a lid) - thin plastic

A fleet stand will hold 2 chits side by side, each chit 6-8mm or approx 3/8 inch in width and either same in height or slightly taller.

Dual sided chits - neutral color:

Level (altitude) chits : 10 each level plus additional 5 per planet (matching the planet level) 190 + 185 = 375 chits

Fleet ID markers : 200 pairs (sequential numbers) = 400 chits

Single sided (blank on back) oversized chits:

Oversized round markers - Planet (color) markers - 35 each player = 210

Planet (owner) chits - 35 each player = 210

Elongated width ship type chits (neutral color) - 100 terraformer, 150 explorer, 150 scout, 150 warship, 150 basestar

Unit/Damage chits: Armor chits, weapon chits, and drive chits - 200 each type = 600 chits
Terraforming chits = 50
hyperdrive chits = 200
sensor chits = 150
system chits = 200
multifire chits = 200

Economic Point (money) chits - not yet determined for count and denominations.

Exploded component chits to represent damage on the top shelf of ship trays in combat = 300

Movement chits - arrow toward corners (red,yellow,cyan,blue) and arrows toward sides (green,magenta) directions as seen from center - 200 each, up/down arrow chits 200 each, blank chits 400, distance chits 100 each (#1, #2, and #3), Jump chits 100

A Fleet tray displays fleet id chit (matching id chit and altitude chit are together on a fleet stand on the board) with space to place 9 movement chits on the top and on the player side (concealed) multiple places ship id chits plus type chits.

A Taskforce tray is the same except the matching fleet id chit would hold the place of a ship id chit in a Fleet tray instead of having its own fleet stand on the board. A taskforce becomes a fleet (gets its own fleet stand) during movement and taskforces collapse into fleets after combat.

When a ship is damaged or in combat, one of the matching ship id chits will be on a ship tray instead of with its match on a fleet tray.

Ship trays - display ship type and id on top with spaces to place ship component chits. Armor chits always face up, other component chits face down shuffled. On the player side concealed from opponents) are places to put the damaged unit chits (removed from the top) face up.

Players who have one or more scouts or basestars with undamaged sensors are entitled to see any concealed information for ships in that location. This may be done at the beginning of the Economic phase, the Move phase, and each combat round.

Economic phase:

Scrap - ships to be scrapped have id chits removed from fleet/taskforce trays and are placed on an empty ship tray if paired (multiple undamaged ships can share one tray) or on the ship tray already in use if the ship is damaged. An empty tray is used as a lid.

Maintain - money chits placed upside down

Repair - damage chits are placed on top of tray and money chits to pay for repairs on lower section. Trays stacked using an empty as a lid.

Hide - written orders - list of ship ids to hide

Build - written orders - type of ship and planet (might need to name the planets instead of just using map coordinates but would need 37 names)

Processing -
Scrapped ships and maintenance funds are returned to the common pools.
Repair money and damaged component chits are returned to the common pool.
Ships being hidden get a ship tray if needed and get the system component as a damage chit. Ship type marker is turned over to the blank side when a ship is dark/hidden.
New ship id chits and if needed new fleet trays and stands are drawn from common pools and used/positioned.

Where multiple players have fleets in the same locations, enemies must reveal themselves at this time (are you allied with this person, otherwise you are enemies).

Movement - Fleets are arranged into taskforces.

Fleets/Taskforces are ordered to move by placing - face down - direction and altitude arrows (or blanks) with a distance chit for the first vector if it is a slipstream move. All move orders for the taskforce must be able to be followed by all ships in the force. Slipstream cannot be used if any ship is not a cruiser or scout or has a damaged hyperdrive. Jumps can be made by terraformers and explorers only. Basestars cannot move. Etc.

When all move orders are ready the move segments are revealed and then processed one segment at a time. An encounter with an enemy at the end of any move segment will end movement for all involved in the encounter.

A terraformer with drive of 2 may warp (or jump) or stay put in segments 1 and 2 but is stationary in segments 3 and 4. A scout with a drive of 3 using slipstream in the first segment can still use a warp in each of the remaining 3 segments.

During movement placing an altitude marker next to the fleet stand instead of inserting it would make sense - insert the final altitude marker at end of movements.

Once all movement is concluded, combats begin.

Combat - rounds repeat with new odds and number of shots as long as possible combats remain

Enemies are determined/declared according to most recent alliance orders.

Combat takes place off board. (Not sure if an actual combat mat is something we should bother with.) For combat, all ships involved will use a ship tray - undamaged ships will begin with an empty tray holding only the ship id and type chits. Already damaged ships will have damaged component chits face up in the concealed shelf and exploded chits in matching number on the display shelf.

Players involved in combat (are or have enemy targets) total their weapons and shots. Enemies weapons totals are calculated (added together) for each.

Each player will fire all shots available to them, allocating them as desired among available targets. Combat orders are written by all then processed as simultaneous actions (roll to hit for each shot).

For damage allocation, component units are placed face down on the display shelf arranged as desired by the ship owner and then selected by the attacker. These selected chits are then placed face up on the concealed damages shelf and replaced on the upper shelf with an exploded chit. If the system component is damaged the ship goes dark and is out of combat. If all weapon and drive components are damaged the ship is destroyed.

When a ship is destroyed all chits for that ship (on both fleet tray and ship tray) are returned to common pools, as is the ship tray. A dark ship will return the chits on the display shelf (except ship type and id) to the common pool. Ship trays are used only in combat and to track damaged ships outside of combat.

If targets remain, a new combat round (new odds, etc) occurs. Combat continues until all combats in all locations are concluded.

Ecopolitical - planet colors are changed by terraformers and then alliance negotiations are made. Phase is concluded by each player writing desired alliance orders (list of other players each with a yes or a no). When enemies are determined/declared the 2 players involved are enemies if either has the other declared as NO and allies if both declared the other as YES.

When all players have recorded alliance orders a new turn begins with collecting points.

-----------------------------

Note on combat system -- it is possible to have a six-way combat where each player is allied with one or more other players but the alliances do not match up.

(So red might be allied with blue and green but is enemy to all others, blue is allied with red and yellow and cyan, green is allied with red and cyan and magenta, and so forth.)

This is why the enemies totals are used - you attack with all the power of the target's enemies and you defend with all the power of the attacker's enemies.

In virtual, a die with the correct number of sides is used (so if you need 23 of 37 you need 23 or less on a 37 sided die).

The idea of some sort of slide rule vs tables is tempting.

I envision the trays as being of "disposable cup" sort of thickness.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
Have you ever tried it in a

Have you ever tried it in a non-digital form with 6 players? If yes, how long it took? If I had to guess, I imagine TI will be a quick filler in comparison...

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
That is...

That is a LOT of components.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
components

A ton of components, but I expect many would remain unpunched - the huge count is to allow for the overkill.

37 planets all at 5 point level will maintain 185 ships (saved points might build the number higher on a temporary basis but next turn must be maintained or scrapped).

So, I figure that diecut cardboard chits are the way to go to be sure there are always enough at reasonable cost. Nesting (like stacks of plastic picnic cups) trays should also be cost effective.

Timewise, a frequent miniature battles method is to apply average hits or damage instead doing a large number of die rolls. So instead of saying 15 troops hit 12% of the time each the average number of hits is 1.8 or 1 hit automatic and roll for the .8 as another hit or a miss. This game is a blend of miniatures and hexmap wargame, after all. I would want to mention this option in the rules.

Keep in mind that a combat round to hit target percentage applies to all shots that player fires at that particular other player in that combat round.

So, if yellow has 20 enemies value and red has 10, all red shots at yellow are 20/30 = 2/3 and all yellow shots at red are 10/30 or 1/3.
Target numbers would be 33 and 66 for each percentage roll or just take the average for number of shots.

Most combats with unbalanced odds will resolve quickly.

I would like to point out that this will be a physical version of a digital revision of a physical game from way back in 1978.

The digital display limitations and a how far can you see stuff in interstellar space affected the digital version - referee for hidden information and secretary to do the tracking paperwork - but allowed the expansion and revision.

Until I got the trays and chits and stands idea I thought no physical version - even with reduced hidden information - was possible due to overwhelming tracking paperwork and component cost coupled with board size (at 2 inch hexes is still big for most tables, but I am not sure if 1-1/2 in hexes will work out).

Trays and chits should do the tracking quite nicely and each tray has a public and a private section to handle what is still hidden information.

Average game time of the old Hyperwars 1978 thing was about 2-3 hours in a 4 player game. see http://thesingularitytrap.com/hyperwars/index.html

Average time of the the digital version of The Singularity Trap solo tests as 6 players seems to come in at 4-5 hours when tested as pass-and-play using autoreload. examine it at http://thesingularitytrap.com/

I estimate that the proposed physical version would be in the 5-6 hour range at most, depending on alliances and backstabbing.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
Components refined

Component refinement - based on 200 potential ships with 100 ships in combat or damaged (if needed, some chits from destroyed ships could be freed for combat re-use before the scrap phase).

Fleet stands - each approx 1 inch long, will hold 2 chits side by side on edge, 50 each player color for 300 total

(alternate - 150 transparent stands that will also hold a flag and 300 colored flags if that would be cheaper)

Plastic Trays - keep in mind that we are talking of thermoformed plastic the same as used in retail packages - thicker than most that are found in a box of chocolates but not as thick as some found holding headphones, so calling them medium thickness might be appropriate.

Pockets in the trays need to be large enough to easily place and remove chits with enough depth to hold chits in place and allow stacking of trays that contain chits. Covers are just flat pieces of plastic or cardboard that would conceal the private section of the tray - for fleet trays the cover is just moved down an inch to expose move orders during movement.

Otherwise the lids would only be removed to allow a player with sensors in the space to see fleet details at beginning of economic and move phases and ship details at beginning of each combat round.

200 fleet trays with covers and 100 ship trays and covers

Each tray would have a public and a private section - simple cover shields of cardboard or plastic would be used to conceal the private sections. Except for the deep pockets the chits would lay flat in the pocket indentation.

Fleet trays
-- Public section just displays the fleet id chit - these chits are twinned, and the matching chit will EITHER be in a fleet stand on the board OR holding a ship place on another fleet tray
-- Private section is dual purpose - a single row with pockets for 7 movement chits with a main section with pockets for ship chits. Each ship area needs 3 pockets plus a deep "toss in" pocket (twin ship id chits, a shiptype chit, toss in pocket to hold up to 9 component chits if placed upright)

Ship trays are used only in combat - after combat any ships not destroyed or immediately scrapped have the id and damage chits moved to the pocket on the fleet tray after combat. Dark ships place the id chit face down.

Dark ships have one of their ship id chits turned over in the fleet tray. A non-dark ship will have both id chits turned face up - one of the id chits and any damage chits shift to a ship tray for combat.

Assumption: standard chit approx .4 inch or 320 per 8x10 sheet (16 columns x 20 rows) with an 8-1/2x14 sheet giving 17x28=476 -- for initial ballpark estimates are using 400 chits per sheet

Ship trays
-- Public section with spaces for 10 component chits (sitting flat) plus ship id and a ship type token that uses the space of 6 chits on a sheet (3 tall, 2 wide) and will stand upright in one of several narrow slot indents that run sideways - basestar slot leaves all 10 component slots available to the right of it, cruiser slot leaves all but one of them (9) to the right, scout/terraformer leaves 7, and explorer leaves 6
-- Private section - spaces for 9 chits (damaged components)
In combat, one of the ship id chits and any damage chits are moved to a ship tray. Chits for undamaged remaining components are placed in the public area with armor face up (armor is damaged first in combat) and other chits placed face down in any order the player wishes.

Combat damage is tracked by the attacker removing one chit per hit, armor first and then face down chits, and giving them to the owner who places them in the private section.

If all weapon and all drive units are damaged the ship is destroyed and removed from combat. If the system unit is damaged (but at least 1 weapon or drive remains) the ship goes dark and is removed from combat.

Ships going Dark or being destroyed that have any components still undamaged are set aside - the damaged component chits and the ship id return to the fleet tray (for destroyed ships both ship id chits on the fleet tray are turned face down, for dark ships one is face down and the other remains face up) making the ship tray and ship type token and any remaining component chits available for use again.

At the end of a combat all remaining ships return to their fleet trays in the same manner (ships not dark or destroyed have both ship id chits face up).

When combat leaves a fleet with no remaining ships in trays the fleet stand is tipped over - it remains tipped over until after builds are completed at which time it will either stand upright again (if it contains ships) or be removed if empty. Destroyed ships are removed from fleet trays as part of the scrap process.

Ship Tokens (for combat) - printed on both sides: 60? per sheet = 3 sheets total
Explorer 30
Terraformer 20
Scout 40
Cruiser 60
Basestar 20

Ship id chits (pairs) 200 pairs = 400 = 1 sheet
Fleet id chits (pairs) 200 pairs = 400 = 1 sheet

Component chits (3 sheets total)
Armor 300
Weapons 300
Drive 300
multifire 80
sensors 80
Terraforming 40
hyperdrive 100

Altitude, directions, and distance chits make up 5 sheets
Altitude chits 10 per level = 190 plus 10 per planet (same level as planet) = 370 for 560 total
Arrow chits - corners 400, sides 400, altitude up/down 400
Distances - (2-3) 120 each = 240
Jumps - see below

Planet color markers (each uses space of 4 chits, so 100 markers per page) 30 of each player color plus 20 gray = 200 making 2 sheets (or 200 assorted tiddlywink disks, whichever is cheaper)

Orientation markers - at the beginning of the game each player chooses an orientation for left and right board colors that they prefer when giving move orders (possible combos are green-magenta/yellow-blue/red-cyan or the reverse) so that a right arrow is the direction from board center toward the right color, left is toward the left color, and corner arrows are the other 4 board directions. Need 18 total orientation markers to choose from (6 of each paired set).

Top of fleet tray is always up for altitude arrows. Both direction pocket(s) left empty in a segment indicate no movement that segment and a blank (or facedown) chit is used to indicate maneuvers with the taskforce still moving in sync with its mother fleet at that time. If the slipstream (first) segment has a direction but no distance chit (or a blank distance chit) then it has a distance of 1 just like a warp (warp and jumps never use distanc chits).

Each player also needs a Shiptypes and planet values card - these 6 cards and the orientation markers and any other miscellany would all go on 1 sheet.

Planet owner markers (need almost 240) and 160 jump units take up 1 sheet.

---------------------------------------

So, printed both sides, 3 sheets of diepunch cardstock - possibly extra thickness

Printed on 1 side, 14 sheets of diepunch cardstock (or 12 sheets plus 200 assorted tiddlywinks)

200 fleet trays and covers

100 ship trays and covers

1 game board (current estimate is 35x42 inches but might be able to trim that slightly)

300 fleet stands (50 each color) or 150 clear stands with 300 flags

1 pair percentage dice

Rulebook

Box

Optional but desired if will fit cost requirements:

Either a solar powered cheap calculator OR a basic sliderule thing to divide (convert fractions to percent rolls).

3 part dial for hyperspace jump calculations.

Trays with many pockets to store and keep sorted the chits after they are punched out of the cardstock sheets

-------------------------------------------

Does anyone have a crude idea for a cost estimate for any parts of this?

I expect the trays and lids would be slightly more expensive than equivalent sleeves of restaurant type cups and lids plus setup cost.

A cheap solar powered calculator might cost as much as $1.50 US based on my quick research last night.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
gxnpt wrote:Does anyone have

gxnpt wrote:

Does anyone have a crude idea for a cost estimate for any parts of this?

A fortune, most likely.
Punch-boards alone can probably clock somewhere around 15-20$

Print run affects the cost substantially as well. So there's no way to tell how much it will cost exactly, without contacting a manufacturer.
Asking them for a quote costs you nothing, so you can start there.

Try sending your component list to Panda/Wingo games. They'll give you precise figures.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Shop around ... and know what it is you are buying

ElKobold wrote:
...Try sending your component list to Panda/Wingo games. They'll give you precise figures.

From my own publisher (OLG), I have heard that Wingo has upped their prices. So much so that my publisher is looking for more competitive pricing from other Chinese manufacturers. I can't tell whom they will select, they are in the process of contacting about 15 manufacturers ... just because Wingo's prices are too high.

I get that when you have a Kickstarter, you are earning RETAIL dollars on the games. That is why OLG lowered the initial base price of the game and also offered FREE shipping to certain countries with subsidies in others.

But if you ever want to bring a game to the MARKET (eg. Distribution), it would seem that margins are much tighter and pricing following that 5x factor is very important. This includes freight, insurance and other shipping costs of getting the games around the world.

OLG had some of their game boxes sent to HappyShops in Germany and the shipper reported that +50% of the boxes were DAMAGED in transport...

So believe me there are certain risks in getting your own stuff made and properly shipped. Definitely want INSURANCE to cover cost of damaged goods... Otherwise you will be out - should something happen. OLG is not happy about that +50% damaged boxes. No doubt the Factory was not responsible (so Wingo is not to blame) ... but what step of the process is to blame for the defects ... would be wise to know.

Anyhow all I'm saying is that A> Wingo has upped their prices B> There are other quality manufacturers - if you know exactly what you are making.

Do try to get a quote and see if you can meet minimums too... Just consider it for what it is: A QUOTE. Shop around once you know what you want to make... Obviously you pay for quality too... So knowing EXACTLY what you want made down to each finish and quality of paper, cores, etc. is very important.

I'm not trying to dissuade you in any way. Like I said, get a quote ... but remember if it's from Wingo it's on the higher end of pricing. And Panda is even more expensive... But try and see what they give you as a quote...

Sorry ... didn't want to monopolize your thread... Just a "heads-up" about Wingo (and Panda too).

Update: I believe that what makes Panda more "expensive" is their MOQ of 1,500. It's more and more standard of getting 1,000 units made and a successful KS should be around that range.

The other point about the damaged merchandise, is that Wingo has to produce more game boxes to cover the damaged good. While everything is covered by insurance, the problem is the DELAY: 4-5 weeks. So it's backers that need to wait for their games because of this unhappy outcome.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Have you tried a way around

Have you tried a way around that many components?

Or is it possible for players to buy in phases? Lets say, a mini game that still takes an hour or 2. But requires 1/5th or so in components.

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
questccg wrote: Sorry ...

questccg wrote:

Sorry ... didn't want to monopolize your thread... Just a "heads-up" about Wingo (and Panda too).

It's irrelevant, really, which one manufacturer to contact in this case. My guess is that the quote will be enormous.

polyobsessive
polyobsessive's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2015
Playtest!

@gxnpt, from what you have said so far, it sounds like you haven't actually playtested this as you keep talking about expectations, etc.

I think you should take on board the comments that your proposed components list would be *very* expensive to manufacture, regardless of how you do it, and keep that in mind when playtesting and look for ways to reduce the component count as you do so, but otherwise stop worrying about manufacturing until you are sure you have a game that actually works as envisaged.

Apologies if I'm just stating the obvious, but I suggest you make, using whatever skills, materials, and technologies are available to you (even if it is hand writing on bits of cereal packets) the smallest set of components that would allow you to try a part of the game. Then get someone to play it with you, and really pay attention to how it works and what your tester (or testers) says and does. What you do next should depend on how that works.

I'd love to hear how you get on. Good luck!

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
massive components and cost

You can see why I am looking for a design partner on this one - the last time I even thought about taking a game into physical production was back in 1978 (my Alchelemental game will remain just PnP and Vassal unless a game company were to show interest in making it).

My estimates (slightly better in the notes on my website and I will try to keep that part updated - see the Getting Physical link on the main page bottom right) are all based on the idea of having always sufficient/excessive chits in the pools.

Those notes also include more in-depth rules outline with the adjustments from the digital version specified.

I am sure that many things could be reduced. For example, ship and fleet trays could probably be cut by 25% - maybe 50% for ship trays. Component chit count may exceed actual need for "available chits in the pool" and so forth.

If the component count is reduced to "almost always enough" or "enough if everybody will please free up component chits from destroyed ships" and "undamaged untargetted ships do not need a ship tray and component chits and just use a ship marker and id chit" then additional/replacement counter sheets and trays could be made available for purchase as parts.

But, I lack artistic capability, funds, and available in-person playtesters. I am also doing design as a retirement hobby and have limited interest in exerting great effort beyond the design itself. Sharing credit and designer revenue with a partner makes the most sense to me right now.

I want to say thanks - again if I did it already - for the idea of having a slide rule (or circular rule) just using duplicate logarithmic scales to divide aka get combat target number from the fractional parts. Great idea!!

The idea of the ship trays is "assemble your miniatures for combat arena" with each tray being a miniature and the face down component tokens giving the "random element damaged" effect while avoiding "put chits in a bag to draw blindly" each time.

And I am babbling.....

Once again tho, is anyone interested in partnering on this design?

It might be nothing but a waste of our time, but I think it might be possible to make a physical version that would retail within correct price bracket for a large heavy game. If so, we would then consider how to actually get it into production.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
playtest

Re
@gxnpt, from what you have said so far, it sounds like you haven't actually playtested this as you keep talking about expectations, etc.

I lack opponents for in-person play. So far have been unable to gather opponents for distant play.

But, the digital game has been given extensive "single person playing all sides" playtesting and the old 1978 game had extensive playtesting with a group.

What does need some simple playtest not involving me is the move orders process. There may be more.

I am not a good choice for is the interface reasonable.

If I want to convert 17/49 to a percentage roll I know it is 34/98 and if I were to multiply 34 by (1+1/49) the answer will be less than 35 so it is 34 and I call that process simple inspection - punching it into a calculator would slow me down on that one.

In the digital version it took forever for me to admit the "clicking to establish origin and destination to get a result vector" method was really no better than typing in the vector numbers and to replace all that with directional arrows. Adding a "you are here" mark on the map when a ship was selected to move also took a long time but I did finally notice that I was mentally holding a finger on the map at that spot while I was planning directions.

See why I need a partner?

ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
gxnpt wrote: But, I lack

gxnpt wrote:

But, I lack artistic capability, funds, and available in-person playtesters. I am also doing design as a retirement hobby and have limited interest in exerting great effort beyond the design itself.

Then you should contact publishers.

polyobsessive
polyobsessive's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2015
Seriously, playtest on the tabletop

gxnpt wrote:
I lack opponents for in-person play. So far have been unable to gather opponents for distant play.

But, the digital game has been given extensive "single person playing all sides" playtesting and the old 1978 game had extensive playtesting with a group.

Sympathies on the lack of candidates to playtest, it can be one of the biggest challenges any of us face in game development.

BUT you need to find a way to do it. The digital game may work perfectly, but a board game is not the same thing, and something that works well online may be a complete non-starter on a tabletop. You really need to test the game in something close to the form in which you want to publish it, otherwise you risk spending a lot of your time and money on something that might never work.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
playtest on tabletop

I am pretty sure my attempt to find a design partner is an attempt to find a way to do it.

john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
A hand held electrical

A hand held electrical device(calculator) is a "no no" to people that use hand held electrical devices (phones)for everything. Plus phones have built in calculators. weird.

I played many games with a calculator. Its a tool, no big deal. Save money don't include one and recommend its use in the rules.

Fractional CRT's are a quick and easy way to get more granular results.

Charts another quick and easy tool. Lots of combat games have them. They make sense. A quick glace at a reference card is no different then a quick glance at a playing card.

I wasted allot of time trying to work around these two simple tools. Time wasted. Just make the game as it makes sense to you. There is always a market.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
calculator

My personal preference is just recommend use a calculator or ap to divide but include the tables in the rules appendix.

This would satisfy my desire for simplicity (calc/ap) and completeness (tables for those who could not do the math).

But if the cost to make a simple dial type slide rule (a static and a rotating identical log scale) is low enough might add that or replace the tables with that.

Hyperspace jump dial to easily see result of offset values is another nice to have but not actually needed component.

Those are minor considerations. The other components (chits,marker,trays) and finding minimal acceptable count for the availability pools is current primary concern.

Optimizing fleet trays is needed. I am now sure that this can reduce to 120 and I suspect further reduction is possible.

Fleet id chits still need to be twinned but ship id chits do not (in a combat all ships in the location enter the combat arena as a single fleet - taskforces are just a movement phase grouping convenience - so no need to track which bus it rode to get there)

Since combat is a simplified miniature battle format (the only choice to make in combat is how to allocate shots among available targets) the idea there is to take the ship info (id,type,any existing damage) and expand it.

Chits are used to track damage in combat and on surviving ships until repaired. Current numbers are maximum possibly needed for 100 complete ships (just over half the maximum sustainable ship count) so are probably excessive by at least 25%.

I am working on further component count reductions and will update my notes on my website as they evolve.

http://thesingularitytrap.com/physical.txt

----------------------------------

Does anyone have any experience with something where a chit can be pushed into (and later pushed back out of) a hole in a larger item? How long before chip wears and will not hold in place, any methods in use to prevent such wear, or if they really ever hold in the first place?

john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
gxnpt wrote:But if the cost

gxnpt wrote:
But if the cost to make a simple dial type slide rule (a static and a rotating identical log scale) is low enough might add that or replace the tables with that.

How would that work, exactly?

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
How that would work

john smith wrote:
gxnpt wrote:
But if the cost to make a simple dial type slide rule (a static and a rotating identical log scale) is low enough might add that or replace the tables with that.

How would that work, exactly?


The two dials are marked in a logarithmic scale, line up the first number and the second number, and read the first number's dial where the second dial says "1". But I recommend writing the instructions in a way that doesn't make it obvious the player is using a slide rule.

john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
I.O.W. A whizz wheel??

I.O.W. A whizz wheel??

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
Disguise the sliderule

They would know it was dividing since will recommend calculator or app as alternative, but just sticking an arrow where the 1 is does disguise it a bit for those who do not know that it is just subtracting one logarithm from another to divide.

Edit: Going with the "flat mini" or card idea in combat, with component chits sitting on the card once hits are inflicted,

Since notes now include crude prototype concept artwork anyone interested in keeping up should use
http://thesingularitytrap.com/concepts.php

This page displays both images and text file.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
combat/hyperspace wheel, player fleet trays, ship combat cards

It is almost beginning to seem that a physical version might be doable as well as possible in theory.

Combined combat percentage wheel and hyperspace offset wheel with very crude graphics is designed.

Eliminating ship trays - will need 120 cards for combat ship pool - roughly 6-1/2x5 inches - elements to go on cards determined.

18 player fleet trays (each can track 8 fleets of 11 ships each) replace the 120-200 individual fleet trays -- tray layout is designed.

The chits can all be black&white single sided.

Eliminated ship id chits.

Still working on reducing chit count further.

polyobsessive
polyobsessive's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2015
:)

That sounds like great work in rationalising your components. Nice one!

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
looks like approaching end of reduction in components

All rules mods (mechanic-wise) are done. No matter what I do I am going to be stuck with a LOT of chits - but most of them can be single sided black and white and kinda thin.

Amounts flagged with question marks are still under consideration. Some items have amounts determined (no question mark).

Comments and suggestions - especially on really low-end chit sourcing - would be appreciated.

Comments on rules and concept are also welcome.

http://thesingularitytrap.com/concepts.php

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut