Game: Freedom in the Galaxy

Image

mileser — 2008-09-30T17:41:20+00:00

The whole map and nothing but the map!!!

Thread: Re: User Review

richfam — 2008-08-23T04:06:41+00:00

The rules for Nicky Palmer's variant can be found here:

http://grognard.com/variants/freegal.txt

and I also put a copy of them into my reference file:

Galactic Guide II
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/17263

I've never had the opportunity to try this variant (I haven't played FITG for more years than I care to admit) but it looks interesting.

Thread: Re: User Review

Windopaene — 2008-08-23T02:36:51+00:00

Nicky Palmer, (of a Gamer's Guide to Third Reich fame), rote a very long article in the General about FITG, and in that same issue, has the rules for what he calls "the Balanced Variant" which addresses a few of these, (especially the control with a Down PDB issue, which is pretty broken for the Imperials). A FITG fan should definately try to get this General issue.

Thread: Re: User Review

hycanth — 2008-08-23T01:31:31+00:00

cape_royds wrote:
a) With every Game-Turn, the Imperial forces get bigger, especially after he gets to tax Province One in Game Turn #6. With each Resource Phase, more and more units get placed in Orbit, and the Detection Routines get riskier and riskier for the Rebels, even if the PDB is knocked Down. Two Veterans in the Orbit box enable a detection routine with a column shift, even if the PDB is down. Those Fleet Detachment Attacks (asterisks on the tables) can get brutal, especially if a high-value unit is in orbit!

This is pretty much the problem that I saw with the game. I didn't see much of a way to counter the ability of the Imperials to lockdown rebels by using massive orbital fleets. By early midgame, the rebels have no real military and need to move from planet to planet to organize an effective rebellion. I actually thought that I *must* be missing something in the rules, but I guess not...

Thread: Re: PBEM News and Help Needed

liberor13 — 2008-08-19T14:19:32+00:00

Lol, that covers her. But they are bound to ask me about the other races too....

Thread: Re: PBEM News and Help Needed

uweareuter — 2008-08-19T00:03:01+00:00

liberor13 wrote:
The players have been asking me what an "ursi" looks like (and so on!)
Bridne Murcada is an Ursi and I think she looks sexy.

Question answered.

Thread: Re: PBEM News and Help Needed

liberor13 — 2008-08-18T15:32:26+00:00

Thanks for the response!

The players have been asking me what an "ursi" looks like (and so on!)

R

Thread: Check the Player Aids

uweareuter — 2008-08-08T05:32:45+00:00

Really sorry, I only noticed this thread just now.

There is the list of "Irrate Locals" in the Player Aids which shows all Minor Races of the game. Hope that helped, what did you need such a list for?

Have fun with your PBEM version.

Thread: PBEM News and Help Needed

liberor13 — 2008-07-16T13:36:40+00:00

Hi all

I'm currently in the process of setting up a PBEM game of F-GAL which should start running in the next month (or two) The game will be heavilly modified but will support two teams rather than two players. If you fancy lurking (or joining us) then trot over to:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomintheGalaxyunoffi...

Meanwhile, I'm looking for some help from the F-GAL experts! Has anyone got or know of a definitive list of what the minor races are? The likes of the Charkhan and the Ultras et al?

Thanks!

R

Thread: Re: Freedom in the Galaxy 2.0 - the (unfinished) Reuter version

uweareuter — 2008-01-30T16:40:00+00:00

Anything else you meanwhile have more ideas about Francisco?

Myself I have not added terribly much to what is already online here. Mostly just worked more on the Appendices, how infiltration of the Rebel Network should work best and being unsatisfied about some layout and presentation issues.

It is mainly just edit here a bit edit there a bit, but no progress yet beyond Red Tape in the Empire Section.

"Damn Red Tape!"

Thread: Re: Freedom in the Galaxy 2.0 - the (unfinished) Reuter version

colmenarez — 2008-01-30T14:56:44+00:00

Good Solution Uwe, I was about to propose fixed escort values. (I mean if each counter represents a million soldiers, surely a small escort squad can be equipped with standard bodyguard armaments that make the size irrelevant)

I think I like your idea of the wounds better. Cleaner, simpler, faster.

Thread: Re: A Close Cousin?

uweareuter — 2008-01-23T08:50:02+00:00

robf wrote:
I'm intrigued. I really like FitG, despite its length, fiddliness, and other issues. Has anyone else played this downloadable game? If it's a shorter, streamlined version of FitG, it might be worth checking out...though either way, I'm not planning on parting with the original...

Okay, here is a link to the where one can download the rules of Down with the Empire (scroll to the bottom for the free download).

http://www.dvg.com/.sc/ms/dd/ee/14/Down%20with%20the%20Empir...

Nope, it is anything BUT a shorter or streamlined version of the game.

Thread: HQ Rush redone

uweareuter — 2007-09-18T16:36:28+00:00

Back to HQ Rushes Case [12.74] - I went thru all the options for that rule and in the end had to discard them all and come up with a new one. I will go thru them one by one:

Variant 1: Current Version - Squad attacks all Characters

This is the one still posted here on BGG.

I agree with Francisco that it is too much of a liability for Characters who just happen to be in the Character Stack of the same Environ. The main weakness I see is, that a Player could fly into an Environ with an Enemy Unit, destroy it and then directly proceed to have a Squad attack any Enemy Characters right then. This runs totally contrary to the principle that Characters in a Character Stack always get one turn to dodge any newly arriving Units of the other Player.

The above furthermore puts even more of a shaddow on any Units to be Raised for Free, which quite a lot of Encounters do allow. I prefer Players not to bother too much when an Encounter gifts them with a 1-0 Unit.

So the rule as is already fails me on the level of Game Effects.

Variant 2: Squad only attacks Characters of the (destroyed) Military Stack

This way I consider the rule to be too much of a deterrent to put Leaders with a weak Stack of Units. Except for the most pittyful of Stacks (a single 1-0 or so) the other Player usually has to focus quite a number of Ground Strength. Which will usually result in such a strong Squad afterwards that a lone Leader will be Captrured pretty much every time.

Either that or his Player backs the Leader up with other Characters put into the Military Stack. And this may become so costly in terms of Characters committed to one Battle that it remains only a theoretical tactic.

So also this version of the rule fails me on the level of Game Effects.

Variant 3: Player may chose between variants 1 and 2

colmenarez wrote:
That's a good point. I wonder if it would be too much to allow the Player to choose...
I first thought about this too. It would for sure solve the liability problem of variant 1.

What it does not solve though that both variant 1 and 2 are too much of a deterrent to commit leaders to weak or even just medicore Military Stacks. Even in variant 1 Squads easily can turn out so strong that even Characters from the Character Stack will not be of much help anymore.

So also this version does not really satisfy with its Game Effects.

All in all the main problem seems to be that the Squads involved are too strong, which Francisco already pinpointed correctly.

Variant 4: Lower Squad Strength via Escorts

colmenarez wrote:
Ultimately maybe what's really needed is to give leaders escorts in those cases, comprising a last stand bodyguard detail that will try to hold off the attacking squad to allow the leader time to escape, the escorts attributes can be determined by the strength of the units before they were annhilated.
That was also something that came to my mind, but as a sollution it has some problems.

On the 1st level of Game Effects it may work - occasionally. But given the overwhelming force needed to actually annihilate a Stack the Escort may not be much to begin with.

But even if it does the rule fails me when it comes to the second level: simplicity. I strongly dislike to refer back and rely on 'mental' book keeping of that kind. "Which Units were just involved? And on my side? Got to retrace the those Strength differences."

I in general have eliminated any book keeping from the game. Things are represented, indicated or taken track of by a Marker or Counter at all times. I think the only thing left to write down as a reminder on a piece of paper is the position of the Rebel Secret Base.

(On a side note: yesterday I inserted the rule again that Characters which acted as Leaders during their Player Turn can not Heal anymore. That's about as much mental bookkeeping I am willing to burden the Players with ... if that.)

So all in all - variant 4 is just so-so when it comes to Game Effect and then crashes when it comes to simplicity.

Variant 5: 1d6 Wounds (doh!)

In the end I just tossed the whole "get attacked by a Squad" problem out the window and have it that 1d6 is rolled and that many Wounds will be inflicted between the Characters of the annihilated Military Stack. Those knocked out by this get Captured and the rest of them makes it to the Character Stack.

It won't get much more simpler than that, but Game Effect of course comes first.

Most decent Leaders (Leadership 2) have an Endurance of 4. Means a 50:50 chance to escape an HQ Rush. A dicey proposal, which to me sounds just fine as a deterrent.

Players now will of course start to play the odds. Which comes in two options:

One is to use Leaders with higher Endurance. Guys like Agan Rafa or Redjac with their Endurance 6 can live thru any but the most terrible disasters. Girls like Zina Adora will probably not. I actually like this effect because it again adds detail to the Characters. Chances are I will look over the respective Endurance values of all Leaders now to make good use of this effect.

The other way Players can play the odds is to just add another Character to the Military Stack to have more Endurance there to absorb the 1d6 Wounds with. With 7 Wounds around your Leader will for sure survive the HQ Rush and with 8 he AND his buddy will get away for sure. One may argue if a Leader can be made bullet-prove this way the deterrent of a HQ Rush may be too small. I don't see it this way however because committing yet another Character to this Battle just to make the Leader bullet-prove is quite an investment. This "buddy" will not be able to go on Missions while he babysits the Leader and that's pretty much half a Mission Team lost. IF one buddy is really enough that is - Endurance 8 does not really come cheap usually.

All in all, nice game effects, simple rule ... can't really ask for more.

"You failed me for the last time, Case 12.74 (rattle)"

Thread: Friendly Units & Detection

uweareuter — 2007-09-17T06:38:06+00:00

colmenarez wrote:
Gameplay first, fluff second. The fluff can be adjusted.

Actually I handle it as a three step process:

1st: Gameplay (pick the rules which contributes best to the game)
2nd: Simplicity (if both rules work fine, take the simple one)
3rd: Fluff (if both are as simple, take the one more plausible)

Usually gameplay or latest simplicity clearly advocate a certain sollution but with this Friendly Units & Detection for a change neither really do so I actually start to take fluff considerations into account too.

1) Gameplay?

When it comes to gameplay the question "Shall friendly Units turn all Characters of their Side Detected or not?" either version has its pros and cons but they are rather minor:

If Units do NOT turn all Characters Detected then their addition will only have positives. Which is fine because it cuts back on some minor decisions. I am especially talking here about when a Player can Raise Units or free. An Encounter tells you to Raise a 1-0? Always take it, it carries no ill effect.

If Units DO turn all Characters Detected then their addition comes with advantages and drawbacks. They will enable Enemy Searches but at the same time reduce Search Values and Enemy Squad Strength. So adding a Unit becomes a situational decision.

So the choice is between Units being an all around positive thing when it comes to Searches or a situational decision (albeit rather trivial ones I think). That's a rather small issue when it comes to game effects and play balance. It is almost much just a matter of taste: Does one prefer to not be bothered whether to add a free unit or not? Or does one enjoy the little decisions involved more?

Personally I like the positive reinforcement thing. "May Raise a Unit for free because of an Encounter? Sure, go ahead, will only be good for you." But that's so minor I am already reluctant to even call that a "gameplay & play balance issue" anymore.

2) Simplicity?

So without a any clear cut answer dictated by game effects or play balance I then refer to which rule is easier to write to make adecision. The simpler rule then wins out, no need to go for a complicated one if a clearly more simple choice is available.

But when it comes to our "Friendly Units & Detection" none of the choices requires any more rules than the other. One version will ask me to tell Characters turn detected due to Friendly Units, the other version will ask me to tell they do not and both ask me to tell what happens when a Character changes from a Military Stack to a Character Stack and vice versa.

So also rules simplicity does not dictate what I do one way or the other.

3) Fluff?

So everything else being pretty even I then arrive at fluff as a tie breaker. If it does not matter either way rules or simplicity wise then there is no need to alienate players with rules which clearly "look odd" background wise.

One way to look at it is to say "Sure, when Units are around then the enemy will also get the idea there may also be Characters around". Another way to say is "Sure, when Units are around the enemy will not necessarily get the idea to also there may also be Characters around."

When I look at it that way then "Friendly Units turn Characters Detected" sounds a lot more plausible. I put the two versions before my 8 year old son and he was also clearly biased that way. He was of the oppinion that if Characters want to sneak around then they better do so without some army of them around drawing attention.

One of course also could make up some explainations for the other version where Characters may sneak around even when they have an army of their's around. But that's already the point: the other version would aks for some explaination while "Friendly Units turn Characters Detected" kind of goes over as plausible off the bat.

Conclusion:

After all this mulling I see it as a choice between these two:

- Either a rule which gives clear positive reinforement and makes for simpler decisions (Units do NOT turn friendly Characters Detected) but may ask for an explanation fluff wise.

or

- A rule which sounds plausibe right away (Units DO turn Characters of their Side Detected) but may add the occasional decisions.

Right now I again begin to favour the "Friendly Units DO turn Character Detected" version. Can't really fault my son there when he said "Tough luck if you want to go unnoticed with a whole army in tow. Can't have it all." Which is enough of an argument for me to discard the "positive reinforcement" idea without feeling bad about it.

The HQ Rush then is yet another issue. I already have a very simple idea how to deal with HQ Rushes, but no time to adress it right now. I will address it soon, for the time being just tell Hal that you were told in a dream HQ Rushes MUST be used or otherwise a great evil will befall the universe.

Thread: Re: Freedom in the Galaxy 2.0 - the (unfinished) Reuter version

colmenarez — 2007-09-15T04:33:39+00:00

uweareuter wrote:
General background is what I use the Galactic Guide for. And I surely intend to write a line or two about PDBs there.

However, I checked again and only found Case 2.52 to tell what "PDB" stands for. And I agree with you there that this may be a tad too thin. I will think how to pep that up a bit. Several ideas spring to mind:

1) I insert it in Case 1.18. That's where I cover all abbreviations anyhow and it would very early tell what a PBD is. Recently I thought about some changes which will make FRO (fractions rounded off) obsolete so I would even have the room to insert PDB instead.

2) I add a box quote as you suggested and provide just a bit background. Big advantage: I can use that sidebar to generally mention that the Galactic Guide holds all the background information.

3) I add a brief explanatory line in the Glossary. Hardly a lot of work. "PDB: Cases ... A planet wide defense and tracking system ... blablabla"

The last one with the Glossary is an easy thing to do and will most probably be included. 1 and 2 depend a bit if I can squeeze them in. 1 seems likely to fit. The idea with the quote box though I need to test first. I hope I can make room because this general hint over at the Galactic Guide would be a neat thing and using the term PDB to do so would be great.

Sounds good. It's nothing major whatever you think of I'm sure will be cool.

uweareuter wrote:
You mean the line quoted in that Queen song too? "... fire ALL the weapons!"

EXACTLY... you read my mind.

uweareuter wrote:
This is the only one I can not follow.

Sorry, it is rather obscure. It means Paino Bass and Drums. It's a Jazz group. My Dad's into Jazz so... www.pbdtrio.com not sure how these guys play though.

uwereuter wrote:
You may guess though that as always the whole fluff-mongering concerns me a whole big deal less than the liability and game play issue you mentioned.

Chances are I go back to the "Units do not make own Character Stack Detected".

Gameplay first, fluff second. The fluff can be adjusted.

uwereuter wrote:
Look at it this way: without the HQ Rush rule a Leader will have to fight completely on his own against the Squad in a HQ rush. For example, Ly Mantok Leads from the Military Stack and Sidir Ganag, Frun Sentel and Tourag go on Sabotage. The Empire eradicates all Rebel Units. Without the HQ Rush rule Ly Mantok would now have to fight the Squad all alone and Sidir, Frun and Tourag could do nothing about it.

So Ly Mantok is actually better off with the HQ Rush rule than without it. What I now wonder about is: if I change the Detection rules back to what they have been in the original (see above) what to do about HQ Overruns?

That's a good point. I wonder if it would be too much to allow the Rebel Player to choose... Ultimately maybe what's really needed is to give leaders escorts in those cases, comprising a last stand bodyguard detail that will try to hold off the attacking squad to allow the leader time to escape, the escorts attributes can be determined by the strength of the units before they were annhilated.

Another consideration is that maybe the designer/developer intended this effect by giving these leaders that kind of vulnerability, makes you think twice about committing a character to lead military units if they can get stomped on in a bad situation.

OVERRUNS

uwereuter wrote:
That's correct. In the new version you may be better off with one Stack of 4 rather than two Stacks of 2 on the same Planet as the Defender. The whole thing with Overruns is part of the general idea to favour the attacker during the game. Overruns are just one tool I used for that, giving him more Battles (if the conditions lend to it).

Other things I used for that - you may have noticed I also inserted a 3:2 column on the CRT? I.e. less Strength is needed to get to better results. Another thing I did to weaken the defense was to kick Reaction Moves out of the game completely. The defender could pull a lot of schenanigans with those especially when he had a Leader available. Reserves are yet such a rule favoring the attcker. As long as you stay on the offense your cheapo Units can tug along without facing the music.

Well if anything these changes will make for a more offensive type of game which I'm sure lots of people would like (You know the ones, griping about World War I in space...). The interesting thing is that people can selectively plug in this type of stuff into their games as house rules without incorporating your deeper stuff. The new tables and overrun rules and reaction eliminations can easily be incorporated in a regular FITG game. This could allow for some modular playtesting.

I agree that maybe reactions is a game mechanic that may not be worth the drag.

uwereuter wrote:
I guess that covers it all for now, thanks for your help again Francisco.

Sure thing, glad to help. I've finished the preview rules and have jotted some notes down concerning missions and stuff. I'll look at it in the morning, it's rather late for me right now. Just sent my Rebel Province Two turn one to Al Hay. I'm starting to think you're right about the HQ Rush thing and I'm starting to wish I could invoke it hehehe.

Thread: Detection, HQ Rush and Overruns

uweareuter — 2007-09-14T08:43:19+00:00

Will cover it one by one Francisco.

PDB BACKGROUND

colmenarez wrote:
PDB: No commentary on what this represents. While the rules explain some of it and old hands know what you are talking about, maybe you can use a quote boxes to provide general background on it. But that's just a suggestion.

General background is what I use the Galactic Guide for. And I surely intend to write a line or two about PDBs there.

However, I checked again and only found Case 2.52 to tell what "PDB" stands for. And I agree with you there that this may be a tad too thin. I will think how to pep that up a bit. Several ideas spring to mind:

1) I insert it in Case 1.18. That's where I cover all abbreviations anyhow and it would very early tell what a PBD is. Recently I thought about some changes which will make FRO (fractions rounded off) obsolete so I would even have the room to insert PDB instead.

2) I add a box quote as you suggested and provide just a bit background. Big advantage: I can use that sidebar to generally mention that the Galactic Guide holds all the background information.

3) I add a brief explanatory line in the Glossary. Hardly a lot of work. "PDB: Cases ... A planet wide defense and tracking system ... blablabla"

The last one with the Glossary is an easy thing to do and will most probably be included. 1 and 2 depend a bit if I can squeeze them in. 1 seems likely to fit. The idea with the quote box though I need to test first. I hope I can make room because this general hint over at the Galactic Guide would be a neat thing and using the term PDB to do so would be great.

TYPOS!

colmenarez wrote:
Check 10.41 You have a typo there. It says PDBs can conduct a Ranking Attack...against Characters... I had this sudden comical image of massive cannons sticking up from the ground firing into space to shoot down a small ship a la Flash Gordon!

You mean the line quoted in that Queen song too? "... fire ALL the weapons!"

Fine for you, I only had the sudden flashback how this was not the first time that "copy and paste" regularly leads to funny results. :P

Thanks for the hint, fixed it.

colmenarez wrote:
Check 10.3 In several cases you mention PDBs can support searches, you even have a 10.34 that further hammers the point mentioned in all previous cases...it's almost like: "Oh did I mention that PDBs can support searches?"

Did I? I don't know. Okay, in case I forgot: PDBs CAN support Military Searches. Really, they can. You can check. It is there. In the rules. Twice. I maybe should add a third time, what do you think Francisco? Maybe that AND print it somewhere on the Map Board again? Or maybe on the Box. "FitG 2.0 - now with PDBs that CAN assist Searches!" And of course into the FAQ and Clarifications Sheet (that goes without saying).

(P.S.: I put the case reference of 10.34 into 10.31 and then deleted 10.34. The Case reference was the only difference. Thanks for that hint too.)

colmenarez wrote:
You might want to look at the section and see if any clean up is required. On one case you have PDBs can support searches, on another it's Military searches, are these the same? or different?

Different. There are Searches in general, which divide up into two types: Character Searches and Military Searches. 10.31 only applies to Military Searches.

colmenarez wrote:
Check 10.44 there's another typo there. We resolve tracking by rolling on the ... Hyperjump Table?? Naturally jumping to lightspeed is the best way to avoid tracking!! It's common sense dude!!! Actually it's just the title that needs fixing.

"Copy & Paste - Bane of the Galaxy!"

I'll see if I somehow can squeeze a Galactic Event from that :P

HUH!?

colmenarez wrote:
13.32 also contains a typo, the last line tells the player he can use his PBD... Of course! pouring out loud Jazz music can only result in characters howling in pain and cupping their ears in surrender!!

This is the only one I can not follow.

13.32? Last line there reads "If the Enemy Player is entitled to a Military Search by any means then he will at least have a Squad with a Strength of 4*-2 no matter what." I refer there to the last update on BGG here.

DETECTION CHANGES

colmenarez wrote:
I'm intrigued by your change in making characters become detected by the presense of their own military units and other characters even if their not stacked together, this is a change isn't it?

Correct. And you know why I already put it all in red? Because I am not convinced it is a good change and I am thinking of taking it back. Checked and highlighted all relevant passages with red to see how much work that would be.

colmenarez wrote:
IIRC characters could be kept separate from their military stacks, travelling indepedently and hiding out without the units becomming a liability.

Correct. What I then considered annoying though was: when a Leader left his Units to again join Missions HE became a liability to the other Characters. So I thought "okay, I treat the whole bunch the same and everyone gets detected via own Units."

However, recently I also began to bother about the liability issue you mentioned there. Toyed a bit solitair, Rebels got a new 1-0 Unit granted via a Mission Encounter - poof! All detected. It can dampen the joy about that new Unit quite a bit.

So right now I am thinking about: Characters in the Military Stack are Detected ... but when they move over to a Character Stack then they become whatever that Stack is at the moment. May be Undetected, may be Detected - depends what went on over at the Character Stack.

What I am curious about is how fluff-mongers would receive these respective versions.

Will it be: "Gee - how can Characters be Undetected if there is a Unit of their side around. Wouldn't it be logical that the other side is aware of enemy presence then and looks for Characters routinely?"

Or will it be: "Gosh! Why do Units turn all Characters Detected? Just because there are Units around does not mean the enemy also knows he has been also infiltrated by Characters. Wouldn't it be logical that with a Unit around the enemy is too busy to also bother about the eventuality of also Characters sneaking around?"

You may guess though that as always the whole fluff-mongering concerns me a whole big deal less than the liability and game play issue you mentioned.

Chances are I go back to the "Units do not make own Character Stack Detected".

HQ RUSH

colmenarez wrote:
Another change involves the HQ rush. Military units have become another liability in that characters will be attacked even if they weren't stacked with them in the envion during the combat phase.

Correct. But that's only half the story.

Look at it this way: without the HQ Rush rule a Leader will have to fight completely on his own against the Squad in a HQ rush. For example, Ly Mantok Leads from the Military Stack and Sidir Ganag, Frun Sentel and Tourag go on Sabotage. The Empire eradicates all Rebel Units. Without the HQ Rush rule Ly Mantok would now have to fight the Squad all alone and Sidir, Frun and Tourag could do nothing about it.

So Ly Mantok is actually better off with the HQ Rush rule than without it. What I now wonder about is: if I change the Detection rules back to what they have been in the original (see above) what to do about HQ Overruns?

OVERRUNS

colmenarez wrote:
The overrun also allows a big stack to just pulverize light opposition throughout the planet, it's no longer viable to spread your units out and force an enemy player to divide his forces if he wants to clear you and control the planet.

That's correct. In the new version you may be better off with one Stack of 4 rather than two Stacks of 2 on the same Planet as the Defender. The whole thing with Overruns is part of the general idea to favour the attacker during the game. Overruns are just one tool I used for that, giving him more Battles (if the conditions lend to it).

Other things I used for that - you may have noticed I also inserted a 3:2 column on the CRT? I.e. less Strength is needed to get to better results. Another thing I did to weaken the defense was to kick Reaction Moves out of the game completely. The defender could pull a lot of schenanigans with those especially when he had a Leader available. Reserves are yet such a rule favoring the attcker. As long as you stay on the offense your cheapo Units can tug along without facing the music.

I guess that covers it all for now, thanks for your help again Francisco.

Thread: Freedom in the Galaxy 2.0 - More Tidbits

colmenarez — 2007-09-13T18:36:12+00:00

Hi Again Uwe,

I've gone through half of your rules. A lot of stuff sounds neat. Other stuff is simply new and I won't have an opinion one way or another until I try it. Though some suff did jump at me a bit:

* PDB: No commentary on what this represents. While the rules explain some of it and old hands know what you are talking about, maybe you can use a quote boxes to provide general background on it. But that's just a suggestion.

* Check 10.41 You have a typo there. It says PDBs can conduct a Ranking Attack...against Characters... I had this sudden comical image of massive cannons sticking up from the ground firing into space to shoot down a small ship a la Flash Gordon!

* Check 10.3 In several cases you mention PDBs can support searches, you even have a 10.34 that further hammers the point mentioned in all previous cases...it's almost like: "Oh did I mention that PDBs can support searches?" You might want to look at the section and see if any clean up is required. On one case you have PDBs can support searches, on another it's Military searches, are these the same? or different? only one term should be used.

* Check 10.44 there's another typo there. We resolve tracking by rolling on the ... Hyperjump Table?? Naturally jumping to lightspeed is the best way to avoid tracking!! It's common sense dude!!! Actually it's just the title that needs fixing.

* 13.32 also contains a typo, the last line tells the player he can use his PBD... Of course! pouring out loud Jazz music can only result in characters howling in pain and cupping their ears in surrender!!

I'm intrigued by your change in making characters become detected by the presense of their own military units and other characters even if their not stacked together, this is a change isn't it? IIRC characters could be kept separate from their military stacks, travelling indepedently and hiding out without the units becomming a liability.

Another change involves the HQ rush. Military units have become another liability in that characters will be attacked even if they weren't stacked with them in the envion during the combat phase.

I'm curious, what motivated these changes? Ease of play? Avoiding gamey tactics.

The overrun also allows a big stack to just pulverize light opposition throughout the planet, it's no longer viable to spread your units out and force an enemy player to divide his forces if he wants to clear you and control the planet.

Thread: Edit of 8.31 & 8.35

uweareuter — 2007-09-11T07:41:40+00:00

uweareuter wrote:
I'll have fine comb over it and see how an alternative phrasing would read like. Thanks for the hint Francisco.

Went over it and it was not really all that difficult:

after editing he wrote:
[8.31] ... The respective Transport Limits of each Transport are:
• Spaceship: one Character, Prisoner or Companion per Seat (Case ##.##) of the Spaceship but no Character Owning yet an-other Spaceship.
• Military Units: any number of Characters, including any Spaceships Owned by these Characters. In addition to that a Mobile Unit may also Transport one Immobile Unit.
• System Haulers: any number of Characters in a Group but no Character Owning a Spaceship.
...

With that I then could delete [8.35]. Thanks for the attention to detail Francisco.

Thread: "Box in a box" redundance

uweareuter — 2007-09-09T12:23:52+00:00

colmenarez wrote:
A question concerning transports, can you say that only Mobile military units function as transports?

No, also Spaceships function as Transports. Furthermore even Immobile Units can Transport something: a Damaged Spaceship from one Environ to the next.

I admit, sounds kind of improbable for that to happen. You'd need a Damaged Spaceship AND a lousy Pilot for that AND the need to go from one Environ to the other. I don't see that happen in a long time.

But on the other hand: you may bet that IF the situation occurs the repsective Player will (justly as I think) complain if his 1-0 Unit would lack the manpower to drag a simple Spaceship along.

colmenarez wrote:
Since they can only transport Immobile units 8.35 might then not be needed.

8.35 prohibits the "box within a box" kind of Transport. In particular it shall prevent that one Spaceship Transports another Spaceship.

But on the other hand if I phrase the Transport Limits of 8.31 correctly this maybe really becomes redundant. I'll have fine comb over it and see how an alternative phrasing would read like.

Thread: Re: Freedom in the Galaxy 2.0 - the (unfinished) Reuter version

colmenarez — 2007-09-08T15:19:14+00:00

Uwe,

I'm going through your rules. A question concerning transports, can you say that only Mobile military units function as transports? Since they can only transport Immobile units 8.35 might then not be needed. Of course I say this a bit off the cuff, haven't read through the whole thing yet.

Francisco.

Thread: Sections 6, 7 and 8 added, Appendix D finished

uweareuter — 2007-09-05T07:36:54+00:00

BGG posted the latest update of my overhaul, again rather fast if I may add. You can find the latest material here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=26424

Status Report

The Rules now also cover Sections 6-8 completely:

Section 6) Mobilization Rules
Section 7) Galactic Interlude
Section 8) Galactography

Section 9 (The Empire) already has the rules for Red Tape finished, the same thing which tied down the Empire already during the original game.

The Appendices now also include Appendix D) Planet Encounters.

The Map now also has all Tracks and Charts ... or at least as many as I could fit in. When it comes to size - the Map is 5 times 2 DIN A4 pages, which is about as big as the map of Civilization when played with its western extension map.

There is still nothing included for the Galactic Guide, Player Aid Sheets or a Cyberbox.

As always I am very interested in feedback and like to answer any questions regarding my overhaul.

Uwe A. Reuter

True Ruler of the Galaxy

Thread: Ideas for Random Events?

uweareuter — 2007-08-29T06:53:35+00:00

I could need some ideas and themes for new Random Events and like to ask here for a bit input.

As a reminder: Galactic Events were these random events which occur at the start of every game turn in the original game. They were one shot occurences, lasting at most the turn they were drawn.

Right now I am interested in getting thematic ideas, inspirations and random thoughts for more of these events from you. No need to bother too much on your part about the game effects of your idea, I will worry about these myself. All I need are just some more themes.

Any ideas?

Thread: Freedom in the Galaxy 2.0 - the (unfinished) Reuter version

uweareuter — 2007-07-30T10:35:31+00:00

Much to my surprise I just today saw BGG has already posted my unfinished overhaul for Freedom in the Galaxy.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=25425
(last update: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=26424)

That was a lot faster than I expected given the copyright concerns I had.

Teaser

I am overhauling FitG with the aim of creating a cyberboard version of my overhaul.

What you will find at the link above are not merely house rules and some ammendments referring back to the original game. It is a complete overhaul, i.e. the rules of the original brushed up, rearranged and redesigned as a stand alone set of rules.

Once the thing is finished that is.

Status Report

But so far the thing is only a draft. Not finished entirely but those parts which ARE finished are in a state I want to see them in a prototype for the cyberbox version I envision. The rest is at best filled with notes scribbled down by me. But for anyone who is curious about how things look before I polish them ... take a look and have a laugh.

The Rules already cover Sections 1-5 completely:

Section 1) Game Materials
Section 3) Sequence of Play
Section 2) Counter Usage
Section 4) Operation Rules
Section 5) Mission Rules

Section 6 (Mobilization Rules) is only finished halfway.

The Appendices so far cover Appendix A-C completely:

Appendix A) Mission Encounters
Appendix B) Creature Encounters
Appendix C) People Envounters.

The Map has all Planets, Provinces and Jumplines finished, but most of the Tracks, Holding Boxes or Charts are still missing.

I as yet have nothing to show for the Galactic Guide or the Player Aid Sheets. A Cyberbox I can only start after I got most of the other stuff reasonably worked out.

慢慢来 as they say in China.

Reading Suggestion

Those of you who know the original game can probably pretty much skip Section 1: Game Materials and head right to Section 2: Sequence of Play. Game materials did not change and terminology only cosmetically. Like Rebel Camps are now called Rebel Cells for instance.

Those who just want to wet their appetite a bit I can recommend the Appendices to. They are full of little Encounters which serve to make the Galaxy a colourful place.

So - have fun with my draft. Any feedback is appreciated already now. I am always open to answer questions regarding my overhaul.

May the Force ... no wait, that was a different movie.

Uwe A. Reuter

True Ruler of the Galaxy

Thread: "Initial scans revealed that ..."

uweareuter — 2007-06-12T19:30:19+00:00

No I did not download this game (yet) but go to the link at Jonathan's page and you can have a look at an earlier draft by Charles Duke. How much of that made it into "Down with the Empire" I can not tell you, but you will have an idea what Charles did several years ago.

The version I work on (and mine really is only a version of FitG, not a new game) I am maybe just half way thru with all I want to do before it could even be considered for playtesting. And I may run out of time pretty soon again and the project be put on the back burner for who knows how long.

If you are interested I of course can send you what I did so far. But as said: what I have is still a work in progress. What Charles arleady had several years ago was if not a polished game yet then at least a prototype.

Thread: Re: A Close Cousin?

robf — 2007-06-12T14:18:26+00:00

I'm intrigued. I really like FitG, despite its length, fiddliness, and other issues. Has anyone else played this downloadable game? If it's a shorter, streamlined version of FitG, it might be worth checking out...though either way, I'm not planning on parting with the original...

Thread: On two drawing boards in a Galaxy far far away ...

uweareuter — 2007-06-12T07:43:04+00:00

The work of Charles Duke was definitely inspired by FitG. As mentioned already: "The game system is inspired in the old Freedom in the Galaxy game from SPI"

Years ago Charles and I both were writing house rules for FitG independently of each other. Motivations were pretty similar, we both liked the theme of the game but the problems of the original rules were all too obvious.

Eventually all this writing got us into contact online via consimworld. You may also have a look at what each of us did back then on this page here where Jonathan Arnold kindly posted our old versions:

http://www.thewargamer.com/FreedomInTheGalaxy.html

Beware though, the versions there are pretty old. My own work has progressed a lot since then and I assume Charles' has done too.

If you take a look at the page you will see the the different approaches we took when reworking the game. My own work really is just an overhaul of the old game, I just streamlined and fixed what was already there but kept all basic mechanics.

Charles work however is a completely new animal. Especially when one looks at the Operations Segment this becomes very obvious. In my view Charles scrapped so much of the original mechanics there and rebuilt the game from scratch that "Down With The Empire" can be called a genuine creation of him. Something I would be very reluctant to say about my own overhaul of FitG.

In my oppinion Charles was quite daring to take such a big leap from the original design. But then: nothing ventured, nothing gained. I for sure wish him all the best luck with his endeavor.

Thread: Re: A Close Cousin?

UnluckyNumber — 2007-06-03T15:14:06+00:00

Wow. That does look similar. Don't know that I could ever bring myself to replace Freedom in the Galaxy though.

That picture of king "Janidel" looks like it was heavily 'inspired' by Hugo Weaving/Elrond from the Lord of the Rings movies. Or maybe it's just me.

Thread: A Close Cousin?

liberor13 — 2007-06-02T17:41:44+00:00

Not sure if anyone has seen this but this looks VERY familiar:

http://www.wargamedownloads.com/item.php?item=475&pics=

Just to clarify btw, I understand this game is "inspired" by my beloved FGAL and this post is to point out its existence to fellow FGAL fans.

Thread: Re: The Next Generation

Shane Sather — 2007-03-25T08:52:32+00:00

Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of...Rebellion is *incredibly* similar in scope/idea, I wouldn't be surprised if the creators of rebellion were influenced by FitG.

Thread: Re: User Review

cape_royds — 2007-03-16T09:53:42+00:00

The cheesy Star-Wars ripoff aside, Freedom in the Galaxy is a very fun and very involving game. It succeeds in combining the drama of individual characters on missions, with massive armies and fleets clashing.

The star system and province games are just warm-ups for the Galactic Game, which is by far the most interesting. However, the Galactic Game is very long to play and it has a lot of rules. However, the game can be learned quite quickly by playing.

Freedom in the Galaxy does have some problems:

1. Play-balance is quite poor, as I find the Imperial player defeats the Rebels four times out of five. In other words, the Rebel requires considerable good luck to win. Nevertheless, this isn't that bad a problem, since almost everyone always wants the play the Rebels anyhow! The Rebel side is more interesting to play, allows more choices, and when things come together, it's a thing of beauty.

If you still need to adjust play-balance, it's a simple matter to agree on changing the number of victory points needed for a Rebel win.

2. The large space combats can be surprisingly static and attritional, since the Combat Results table inflicts absolute, not relative, losses. This isn't so much a problem with the game--it's an important part of strategy--but it does disappoint the part of us that wants to see decisive, fast-moving starfleet battles.

3. Some of the components and game procedures are fatiguing to use over the course of a long game. The board can be hard to read at a glance, and the data for the Irate Locals and Creatures are listed in separate places. I see some people have already made rearrangements. Myself, I made a d30 table for the Action Cards, scribbling on a scrap of paper those already selected. Having to re-roll is annoying but otherwise my Action Deck would have already worn to shreds, since it has to be shuffled more than a hundred times in each game!

Strategy and Tactics:

1. A big problem for the Rebels is that while they typically want to build gradually towards a series of simultaneous rebellions, in practice it is hard for them to do so because:

a) With every Game-Turn, the Imperial forces get bigger, especially after he gets to tax Province One in Game Turn #6. With each Resource Phase, more and more units get placed in Orbit, and the Detection Routines get riskier and riskier for the Rebels, even if the PDB is knocked Down. Two Veterans in the Orbit box enable a detection routine with a column shift, even if the PDB is down. Those Fleet Detachment Attacks (asterisks on the tables) can get brutal, especially if a high-value unit is in orbit!

b) If the Rebel player wants to work on a bunch of planets, he has to do more moving from planet to planet. Also, if he has more mission teams moving around, some of those teams have to be on the less-maneuverable ships (e.g. Star Cruiser, Interstellar Sloop). You can see the vicious circle developing here, with reference to point (a), above.

c) Unless the Rebel has his timing worked out very nicely indeed, a province being worked on often comes up for taxation. As Imperial player, taxation is an opportunity less to raise funds than to shift Loyalties.

2. I find that the Rebels need a bit of "hurry-up" offense in addition to the recommended "gradual" approach.

The Imperials will stomp on the early Rebellions (typically on some Piorad worlds), but by challenging the Imperial early, the Rebels might get him out of sync, e.g. get some units stuck in the wrong province and unavailable for a few turns, out of the Imperial Strategic Assignment cycle. Or an Imperial character might end up vulnerable if he leads units in an unfavourable environ. If the Imperials overreact, they might make a blunder and open up other opportunities.

The Rebels need to create some chaos, and to do so they have to be a bit irrational and unpredictable, even to the point of pursuing a sub-optimal strategy themselves.

3. As Imperial, I find it best, on initial deployment, to not spend to the max on PDB's, but emphasize the purchase of Patrols, since these can be put in Orbit to get those sweet little asterisks on the Detection Chart. PDB levels can be built up later.

(b) Veterans (3-4) are excellent value throughout the game. They move fast, hit hard, and cost no maintenance.

(c) While it has the drawback of being predictable, I still find it worthwhile to coordinate the Strategic Assignments with the taxation cycle. For example, if taxing Province Two, and having a Province Two to Five Assignment, means that a newly purchased unit could be in one of three provinces that turn: it could be initially placed in Province Two or Province One. If starting in Two, it could move to Five.

n.b. Province One, even if not named on the Assignment, is still easy to move around in, since four out of six systems have a capital, throne, or homeworld.

(d) It's often better to deploy more heavily in the non-home, non-capital worlds, since under any Assignment, one can always move to a planet is a home or capital system. That puts the rebels in a dilemma: if he goes to a minor world, he runs into at least a few of your units waiting there. But if he goes for the apparently undergarrisoned high-value worlds, you can come buzzing in from all directions, trapping him there.

4. Tactical notes for Rebels:

(a) Never use Agan Rafa on an Assassination Mission, or in any situation where he's likely to get captured. Rafa is too stupid to keep secrets, and he's too tough to get killed by torture! Once I saw Rafa get captured on Turn Two when the Rebel thought he had a good shot at whacking Senator Dermond. Unfortunately, Jon Kidu tortured Rafa nonstop, getting a Secret every Player-Turn until by Turn Eight, the Imperials knew the location of the Secret Base. The Rescue mission foundered in a size-Two environ occupied by two Elite Armies led by Telmen (after all, the Question Prisoner Mission doesn't base its draws on environ size). Ouch.

(b) One not-bad tactic is to land a pair of characters on Orlog on Game Turn One, and then abandon their ship. Characters can become undetected simply by walking from one environ to another, and Orlog has three environs. Orlog also has fairly weak creatures and locals, making it more survivable for a small group. Remember a Down PDB with one subverted unit could result in the Imperials not having control, even if the Loyalty is still Patriotic. The Imperial player cannot ever afford to lose control of the Throne world, so even a small Rebel team on Orlog can tie down disproportionate Imperial forces. Any time the Rebels can get the Imperials to over-insure against the unlikely, it's a small victory.

(c) Another little tactic is to send Prof. Mareg and a pilot, in a lousy tub like the Galactic Freighter, scouting Planet Secrets. Mareg can reveal Secrets from Orbit, i.e. without risk. And just going into Orbit doesn't demand a Detection Routine, so it's a safe way to use the slowest boat.

(d) Rebel Camp is an essential mission. Camps are the best for Diplomacy in Wild Environs, since they don't get aborted by events. Wild is also the best environ for establishing Camps.

(e) In my experience, aside from ships and pilots, it's usually not worthwhile to try too hard to get the optimal character and possession matchups. Don't waste time! When good combos are possible without having to divert much, then get them together. Remember that in many cases Action Events will make it impossible to get your maximum bonus draws anyhow.

The exceptions to this rule are Assassination and Spaceship Quest. With those, do whatever you can to get the maximum draws.

(f) Make sure you watch out for the Vrialta, Frost Mist, and Gadhars!

Image

bbhanson — 2007-01-10T17:30:44+00:00

SPI version countersheet 1

Image

bbhanson — 2007-01-10T17:09:29+00:00

SPI version countersheet 2

Thread: Re: User Review

Danny from Tower — 2006-12-13T15:35:24+00:00

I don't think the analysis can have been that good since I know for a fact I have performed many missions that succeeded excellently. I also know for a fact that as the rebel player my long term strategy worked very well. Lay low, build up dissent but don't kick over to rebellion too early or you get stomped on. Split your characters with the best possible skills going where needed. Choose the best environments and planets for the tasks. Minimise unnecessary interplanetary movement or bzzzzt ping fizz the PDBs will get you. If your team has an unfortunate encounter and is leaving a trail of smoke (blasters cauterize wounds) then don't push it. Lay low, get better and then try agan.

"Analysis lacks vision" The Book of Power, Purpose and Principle

Image

nybba — 2006-11-27T22:04:02+00:00

Thread: Re: User Review

dipdragon — 2006-11-13T16:37:09+00:00

Having played this game several times and thoroughly enjoyed it, I find the "analysis" above flawed. I have seen both sides win several times. Therefore the game can be won be either side, so "optimal" play or not, you can play this game, have a blast doing it, and always have a chance of winning.

The fact is that the Rebel has a very tough time winning the game, but that is as it's meant to be - the Rebellion have almost no forces, so it's bound to be tough to win, but it can be done.

It's a game of two halves - the Imperial player is all about moving armies and military might, the Rebellion is all about diplomacy with a few key people. Different styles, different strategies, but on the same board.

If offered a chance to play this game, take it, you won't regret it.

Image

thomcat — 2006-10-06T06:33:00+00:00

Issue of the General with Freedom in the Galaxy articles

Thread: Re: Galactic Guide II

liberor13 — 2006-06-05T18:11:48+00:00

Thanks for that. I'm a grog (but I love Euro's too) but I often find Consim a bit too hard to figure out. But I'll nip on over and see what I can see.

Thread: Re: Galactic Guide II

richfam — 2006-06-01T03:30:23+00:00

Truthfully, there seems to be a lot more interest in FITG over on ConsimWorld than here on BGG. Over the past year or so there have been a lot of interesting posts there concerning this game.

And if your interest is in variants, you'll find a treasure trove of ideas in those posts!

You can read the forums on CSW for free without paying the membership fee. Look for:

ConsimWorld Forum | Boardgaming | Individual Game or Series Discussion | Era: Fantasy-Sci Fi, Other | Freedom in the Galaxy

Thread: Re: Galactic Guide II

liberor13 — 2006-05-31T19:54:26+00:00

Hey

I'm a big fan of FGAL and I've been working over the whole year so far on some variants to it but your Galaxy Guide should come in handy. Thanks for making it available!

Its nice to know that there is still interest in this old (and misunderstood) gem

Thread: Galactic Guide II

richfam — 2006-05-31T19:18:29+00:00

Posted in the FILES section is a FITG player aid I put together back in the early 1990's. (I've finally gotten around to digging the old DOS files out of my archives, updating them to modern software, cleaning up a few things, and making a PDF...)

File name: Galactic_Guide_II.pdf

This is NOT a variant; if anything in here does not match the original game, then it is an error... and I'd appreciate a note so that I can fix it!

The original Galactic Guide that came with the game wasn't much of a play aid, so I made up my own "improved" version. The main portion of this new version features a single page for each planet in the galaxy, listing everything you need to know when planning or conducting operations on that planet: races present, domino effect links, combat values for irate locals and creatures, presence of sovereigns and coup opportunities, characters with home planet status, characters with royalty status, etc.

Also included are useful reference charts (some of which were originally published in Nicky Palmer's extensive article in the old Avalon Hill magazine, The GENERAL), the rules for the "balanced variant" from Palmer's article, and a slightly reorganized presentation of the various combat tables.

I was lazy and did not include the historical background, or the descriptions of the characters and possessions... but none of these are necessary to play the game, either. There was, of course, no way to distribute something like this back then, so it was designed strictly for my own use, and specifically to print well on my printer at that time: a low-resolution black & white laser printer. So there is no use of color, little use of shading, and lots of boxes and lines. If I were to redo this today from scratch, I'd change many things, but I think it will still be useful even if it is a bit old-fashioned.

Thread: Re: User Review

Pistoolkip — 2006-02-14T14:27:43+00:00

ralphreinert wrote:
Yes, but did you like the game? ;-)

well, I know for a fact he didn't win it

Thread: Re: User Review

ralphreinert — 2006-01-03T23:30:40+00:00

Yes, but did you like the game? ;-)

Thread: Re: Personal starship weapons

ralphreinert — 2005-12-15T01:45:28+00:00

Sheltem wrote:
Hi,

when is the personal starship weapon vale used?
Is it anywhere mentioned in the rules if a personal starship can intercept?
If so, I missed it. Just curious.

By "Personal starship", I assume you mean a "Character spaceship." I do not believe the rules use the term "starship" anywhere.

A personal spaceship's cannons are used in only one circumstance: When conducting a Spaceship Quest mission. Bonus draws for a Spaceship Quest mission are the sum of the evasion value of the pilot and spaceship (see rule 14.52) and the spaceship's cannon rating.

As a personal note, in my dozens of games of FitG, I have very rarly conducted any Spaceship Quests.

As for character spaceships being used to intercept, only military units can intercept or be intercepted. (See rules 20.0 and 20.2)

Of course, just because a personal spaceship can't be intercepted does not mean it is safe. Personal spaceships can be detected and attacked by PDB's and/or enemy military units.

I hope this helps.

Thread: Personal starship weapons

Sheltem — 2005-12-13T10:22:14+00:00

Hi,

when is the personal starship weapon vale used?
Is it anywhere mentioned in the rules if a personal starship can intercept?
If so, I missed it. Just curious.

Image

maxac — 2005-12-12T22:18:57+00:00

Image

maxac — 2005-12-12T22:18:57+00:00

Image

maxac — 2005-12-12T22:18:57+00:00

Image

maxac — 2005-12-12T22:18:55+00:00

Thread: Re: User Review

ststrat — 2005-06-05T08:07:48+00:00

Star Wars:Rebellion and Freedom In The Galaxy do certainly have much in common.
They are both the most horrible examples of their kind. They both negate any potential strategy with pure luck-based outcomes, and reward total idiocy with the same every-outcome-is-wildly-random mechanic.
In one game of Rebellion I played the Empire and Death Starred every single planet except one, which Luke Skywalker was "hiding" on, so, as per the rules, you are not allowed to blast it to powder. And no, I'm not kidding, it is possible to do this in the game. Of course, I spent the next 3 hours searching for and trying to capture the troublesome young Jedi. To call the designer brain-damaged is an insult to the unfortunately handicapped community. I hate the people who produced this game with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Going supernova. At the galactic core. However, in comparison to Freedom In The Galaxy, this description makes Rebellion a winning masterpiece of genius.
What to say about FitG? Well, after a first playing, we were convinced we didn't understand the game. So my friend left the game with me to analyze. As an ASL grognard, it's no big deal to analyze the components and design of a game and come up with a handy list of charts and tables to describe the various probabilities of game outcomes. I thoroughly analyzed the game, took only optimal actions in the game, and guess what? Every mission ended without success, or with minimal succes, which was almost immediately reversed by some other random event. Did I say we thought we didn't understand the game after the first playing? We were wrong. We had understood it all too well.
Freedom In The Galaxy is the most disgusting form of bilious excrement ever to plague gamerkind. This utter waste of paper and ink should be shredded, then reassembled, then burned, then reconstituted and fired into the local stellar primary with all possible speed. The designer and producers should be drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, and fed still living to rabid coyotes on live television (Fox, I'm looking at you), for they should know all pain and humiliation possible for a human being to experience. If you see this thing, or waste any time on it, you will regret the resulting psychic wound that will result from your awareness of its existence. Exit from its presence with all due haste.
RUN, YOU FOOLS, RUN!

Thread: Re: The Next Generation

Richard_Huzzey — 2005-05-22T08:32:52+00:00

Definitely. The similarities are too much to be coincidence.

Thread: Action Card Program for Windows

richfam — 2005-04-30T00:12:29+00:00

Posted in the "Files" section is a Windows program that shuffles and draws the Action Cards which are used to resolve missions. This frees the players from having to constantly shuffle the Action Card deck, which should speed up the game somewhat. The program also includes a mini-spreadsheet for easily calculating Imperial Taxation.

This is a very old program, originally written for Windows 3.1 - it will run in Win 3.1, Win95, Win98, and WinXP (I haven't had much opportunity to test it in XP... if you have any problems, set your compatibility to Win 3.1).

More information is in the README.TXT file. Full source code for Visual Basic 2.0/3.0 is included, so feel free to tinker with the code or move it to a more modern environment.

Thread: Re:User Review

tandleheart — 2005-04-02T06:25:56+00:00

Richard_Huzzey (#25054),

When I played "Rebellion", I immediately thought of this game-- especially the mechanics of Rebellion that has to do with performing missions and mission groups, leaders, and searching for characters. So as much as this game "borrowed" from Star Wars, I wonder if Star Wars decided to "borrow" something back.

Knowing how Freedom in the Galaxy worked really helped me enjoy Rebellion more. I didn't hate Rebellion like most people did, but a big part of this is because I sort of "understood" or emphasized with how Rebellion worked after knowing how Freedom worked.

Cheers!

Image

Gangrel — 2005-01-30T15:30:58+00:00

Japanese edition rules

Thread: Re:The Next Generation

nyhotep — 2005-01-24T15:10:42+00:00

JohnC (#69241),

You should have a look at "Star Wars Supremacy" (aka "Star Wars rebellion") which has definate similarities to FITG.

Thread: Re:The Next Generation

JohnC — 2004-12-06T04:51:11+00:00

Ron Smith (#68933),

The real 'next generation' possibility for this game would seem to be development as a computer game.

I have often thought that the imperial side in this game has to move very accurately and pedantically, and does not have a lot of fun -- it would seem the perfect role to assign to a computer player, who could be challenged by a human rebel player.

At the same time, there are the following possible advantages:

*a certain amount of randomization of the galaxy could be introduced -- we would not have to have the same star systems with the same planets and starfaring races each time

*It would be possible to have a 'difficulty level' selection option, so worries about whether the game was truly balanced would evaporate.

*It may even be possible to provide the option of real time 'shoot them down' action with creature attacks and irate locals, squads, and perhaps even military combat, as an alternative to 'think it through' tactical combat.

But I have probably already said about as much as I can without risking banishment from boardgamegeek to computergamefreak, which would not be my scene!

Thread: Re:The Next Generation

The Jakster — 2004-12-04T11:35:58+00:00

Ron Smith (#68933),

hmm, Star Wars maybe?

Thread: The Next Generation

Ron Smith — 2004-12-03T21:18:55+00:00

When I came home from work yesterday, my daughter (8 years old) greeted me at the door by saying "Let's play Freedom in the Galaxy, Daddy!".
I've been teaching her to play, using slightly simplified house rules. She obviously is quite taken by the game.
I assume Hasbro now has the rights to this. Seems to me they are missing a great opportunity by not comming out with a new (simplified) edition of it. Maybe they could even get a licence from some movie to do a theme tie-in. I don't know what movie, but I'm sure there must be one out there somewhere that would fit.

Thread: Re:User Review

Richard_Huzzey — 2004-01-05T22:36:43+00:00

Yoder (#3376),

Interesting to read about this game. A number of years ago I played a Star Wars computer game called Supremacy (published as "Rebellion" in the US) which was very similar in theme: you had units and starships on either side plus characters going on Diplomacy, Assasination and Sabotage missions.

Richard.

Thread: Re:Beginners' Notes

JohnC — 2003-05-10T11:35:35+00:00

uweareuter (#3602),

These beginners' notes are clear and excellently written. I have a completely different view of the game to yours. I do not think it is more nor less valid, but rather a different approach.

I can see that what you have done is to become familiar with playing the game through, found it interesting but unbalanced, and made some significant modifications to improve the balance and the game play. As you did so, you cast the game more firmly into the style with which you approached it.

I have a completely different view of FITG strategy ("standard" game). I think too that given good imperial play, the rebels are unlikely to win. Because of this, I think about how they can win, and come up with a totally different approach.

My advice would be that in the first five turns (up to the large taxation income for the empire at the start of turn 6), the rebel should go all out to cause as much mayhem as possible. The important things to do are to move as many diplomacy markers as possible, particularly by getting in on coups before the imperial player can. Look particularly at planets with more than one starfaring race, or in large star systems. Get linking planets, especially the outlying Rhones' planets off patriotic, so that there is the potential for domino effects to link up. It is more important, for example to work on 231 Pronox and get it off patriotic (killing Ascaill as part of this operation), than to bother with missions on 232 Lysenda. Limit the imperial taxation receipts to slow his build-up. On average, if you are trying 5 diplomacy or coup missions a player turn in carefully chosen environs, you will have half a reversal, 2 or 3 successes and half a domino effect each time. 6 strength points per mission group is enough -- 8 is playing too safe. If you lose a bunch of characters, you will probably lose the game. But the odds of that are below even money, and if you are not prepared to take risks you will certainly lose the game anyway. The whole key is in choosing planets for your operations to maximize the chances and likely extent of success, and to minimize the danger.
By the end of five turns, your aim is to have at least 3 or 4 planets in rebellion, at least half a dozen more "on the brink", and the imperial player well short of a full complement of mobile military units on the gameboard. It is unlikely that you will be able to get any planet (except possibly "Living Planet" ) into Rebel Control by this time.

In Province 2, for example, the rebel player might aim to get 231 Pronox to Neutral by the end of turn 1, so that the imperial player cannot return it to patriotic, even by foregoing taxes. 232 Lysenda is equally, or even more important in the overall scheme of things. It also has 2 starfaring races and rich environs. But it is less important for immediate operations because it starts at loyal, and cannot be put to patriotic in the taxation phase of turn 2. If a major domino effect can later be triggered with the fall of the Piorads' worlds, it can be transmitted via these two planets from the Piorads to the Rhones, Segundens, and/or Yesters.

If the rebel plays like this, then, as you have said, Imperial strategy has to be reactive. The main diplomatic task for the empire then becomes returning as many loyalty markers as possible to patriotic, in order to disconnect possible domino cascades. This is more important, and has better chances of success, than "band-aid missions" on worlds that are already well on the way to falling.

The whole point about this approach that I adopt is that the rebel strategy is a little bit of a "long shot", and the rebel will probably lose a few more games than he wins, and look very stupid doing so. But in the long run, I believe that he will win more games this way than with the conservative "build-up" strategy. I also think it much more likely that this sort of strategy will lead to an imperial blunder, and create unexpected openings.

Thread: Session Report

JohnC — 2003-05-08T11:29:04+00:00

This ?session report? relates not to a current session, but to a pbm game a couple of years old. I have drafted it to throw some light on some of the difficulties and misconceptions about Freedom in the Galaxy, and questions people are still asking. I am a FITG devotee.
Empire player: brians; Rebel player: JohnC
Standard rule variant: The empire can only move military units to an inactive planet in rebellion from the capital of the same province (not from any capital). He can move in from any capital to a planet in rebel control.

On the initial set-up, the imperial player limited expenditure on PDBs to get the most and strongest mobile military units possible. No PDB was raised above level 0; 15 of the 50 were left down, mostly in the active provinces 1 & 4 for turn 1. Other features were fairly standard, with Redjac on 222 for solo missions there.
The rebel got a good set of characters and possessions, though, as usual, there was one group without a diplomat. In the first turn the rebel got one planet into rebel control (a fluke, resulting from early revelation of ?living planet?), and made major progress on 523 and 323. The imperial player, with help from a galactic event card, made the whole 22 system patriotic, limited the damage on 231 to a single marker move, and got 312 from dissent to loyal. He also gained a new character.

The first phase of the 2nd rebel turn was a major success, thanks mainly to the discovery of Casino Galactica. One diplomacy domino on 323, and a total of 3 new characters and 4 new possessions. Although the empire got some favourable marker moves, the rebel was able to consolidate, and start rebellions on 323 and 523 in the second phase. The empire was able in the second phase to prevent immediate rebel control on either of these planets, but several others were hovering near the brink! Meanwhile 141 had been dragged to Loyal, and the rebel monarch assassinated.

In the first phase of turn 3, rebellion missions succeeded on 231 and 421, taking 142 to Unrest. This is almost a clean sweep of the outlying Rhone worlds, and a bit hard for the empire to defend. It was compounded later in the turn when the imperial player failed to prevent 421 from falling to rebel control. Good work he had done in stopping the rebellion on 523, and getting its marker back to dissent, was partly neutralized. 142 went into rebellion with the domino effect, and 232, 521 and 523 hovered on the brink, with the prospect of a disastrous escalation into Piorad territory.

Turn 4 started with a bad phase for the rebels, with the only diplomacy move putting 521 back into safer territory, and no extra leverage being applied on the disputed planets being held from rebel control. At the end of the turn 232 had been put into rebellion and the empire had suffered some military reverses there, but the 52 system remained in imperial control, which was consolidated in the next taxation phase.

In turn 5, successful rebellion missions on 342, 432, and 433 put the Piorad planets and the 523 system back into the melting pot by the end of the second rebel phase. By this stage the military and political contingencies had become extremely complicated. The game was far from decided, but well in the rebels? favour ? as it ought to have been , because that is the way the luck of the missions had generally been flowing. The imperial player conceded, having no means of preventing 342 from falling to rebel control, and a poor chance of preventing 433 from falling. 432 and 323 could have been held, but only with difficulty, and by spreading military resources very thin. The active provinces in this turn were 1 & 2.
Around the map, assuming that 342 and 433 would have fallen, but not 432 and 323, the game board at the end of turn 5 would have looked like:
Rebel Control : 331(living), 342, 433, 441, 442, 431, 421, 523 ? 8 planets
Rebellion: 142, 141, 231, 232, 521, 432 ? 7 planets
Unrest: 522 ? 1 planet
Dissent: 322, 541 ? 2 planets.

Had I been the imperial player, I would have gone on a move or two longer at least. (I think Brian would have too, but for outside considerations). The rebellion was on track and ahead of schedule, but had not yet been consolidated onto major planets. The rebel was about to have to start again, almost from scratch, to make inroads into a batch of Patriotic planets. And the diplomatic luck that had been following the rebel had been matched by almost equally bad luck in the few military encounters. Nearly all of the rebel military units had been effectively mopped up as soon as they had arrived, though they had taken some imperial units with them. The unrevealed base was on 342 ? good for the rebel because this planet was already in his control. If province 3 was to be inactive in turn 6, and the Galactic event was suitable, this may have been a good time to reveal the base, and start the serious military contest, or it may have been a turn or two too early.