Game: StarCraft: The Board Game

Thread: Re: Zerg vs Capital ships

Lusankya — 2008-05-14T11:15:57+00:00

If Terran players hav BCs, then they usually have Science Vessels as well and these Science Vessels tend to have the Defense Matrix, so all BCs may have 11 Health! And Defense Matrix is not a support card, so they usually use Radiation as well. As Zerg I hate to fight vs BCs and SVs. :cry:

Thread: Re: Unit Strategy/Balance

Lusankya — 2008-05-14T11:11:30+00:00

kroen wrote:
You're wrong; Templars, IMO, are the best assist units in the game. Even without the Archons (wich realy gives them the edge), they costs 1 gas, and has what is probably the best tech card in the game- Psionic Storm. It gives +2 attack, detector, and ground/flying splash damage. Halucination is one HELL of a card as well as it cancel's the opponent's probably best card for the skirmish: a punch in the stomach indeed. All that, combined with the ability to spawn the deadliest unit in the game gives them the throne- Best Assist Unit in the Game.
Just mt 2 cents.
Well they are good, but not against Terran with Science Vessels (which every Terran should have). The EMP Shockwave card renders all the fantastic HT cards useless.

Thread: Re: Cloaking....how i think it should've been

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-14T10:23:46+00:00

i like the idea, but think of it this way, remember that ghost's and wraiths had energy, which would run out, so they had to run away if they were going to "uncloak" themselves, or they would die. and for protoss and zerg, detectoers would eventually come, explaing their run away. but i will try your idea!

Thread: Re: The D4 addition and others

big__rhino — 2008-05-14T05:43:56+00:00

you have to work around the cards you draw if you get bad cards or take measures to increase your card drawing rate

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it possible to be holding like 95% of your combat cards in your hand? there is absolutely zero luck in this game.

as it stands now this slight power bonus is often enough of an edge to give the Protoss a fair chance if played right

Slight is all you need when an 9 beats an 8. Their power bonus is massive. I play protoss regularly because nobody likes to play them in my group. this "slight" power bonus means i win...a lot. I've defended areas that looked impossible through creative play and those power bonuses. The D4 addition doesn't change that power bonus at all, it just makes the outcome uncertain. In real combat, no force ever goes into combat with a 100% chance of victory and in starcraft a player could manufacture 100% chances of victory. we just wanted a bit of realism in our fights. sometimes no matter how well planned your strategy is, you still lose. now when playing starcraft one has to come up with plan B. what will you do if you lose this battle? As a protoss player, i find those questions to be a lot of fun.

And don't even get me started on the Zerg, who could spit out one cheap unit after another and just wait for good rolls to come up...

You could do this in the game before. do you know how to beat the protoss? attack them repeatedly. drain them of all their cards. Zerg players are at the most advantage, for completing this strategy. mass up a whole bunch of cheap units and then attack, attack, attack the same area repeatedly. the opposing player will run out of cards and be forced to play stuff that doesn't match up. Adding the D4 doesn't change this idea one bit.

second because it actually hurts, possibly even destroys the balance...

I'm not really sure how this destroys the balance of the game. Everyone is getting an equal chance. if everything was equal before and i add an equal roll, how did i ruin the balance?

Its a simple algebra problem here, 1=1, now its 1+1=1+1. i didn't change the balance at all.

if my protoss attack is 9 and your defense is 8 and we both roll one d4 the fight is still completely balanced. There is just a greater range of outcomes now.

also consider the fact that having a +1 to a D4 roll is a huge bonus. It means you win in ties and with higher rolls. look at this combat in reverse. Protoss has defense 8 and is getting attack by a 7. both roll a 4, protoss wins, protoss rolls a 3 and enemy rolls a 4, protoss lives to fight another day (arguably what happens most of the time because its a slight power bonus). So 50% of the rolled outcomes are already known in a common situation. If you added some defense bonuses you'd have an even higher chance of a favorable outcome. really, the only time you'll lose, and shouldn't have, is in extreme situations.

Personally I feel that the more quiet rush of watching your opponent, trying to read him, choosing the perfect card for the opportunity and then hoping that you've chosen right is far more satisfying

You can still have this satifaction. But imagine this. there's a quiet rush, you've read your opponent and placed your cards, now you reveal your cards and make one final roll...There's a rush of excitement as you realize you could taste your well planned victory or slump into defeat.

Here's another scenario. the protoss have managed to build a grand army and your hopelessly outnumbered. You play your best cards, knowing that your going to die anyway, but miraculously you've pulled out a draw and saved one of your units.

I see the die roll as adding the one aspect of the videogame that wasn't present before, player and AI control. remember how easy it was to exploit the AI or do funky little things to win. Maybe a crushing defeat on the die roll meant you were lured away from your position and killed. that was a very common strategy in both starcraft and warcraft. you zoom up and run, the active units give chase and are killed no matter how cool they are. Or how bout crushing the nood (me) who couldn't manage hot keys. The guy new all the same tech stuff as you he just wasn't as good at implementing them. the D4 can represent those in game strategies.

first because it's just not my taste

your entitled to your tastes, and this addition is probably not for you, but i really don't believe it unbalances the game at all.

Thread: Re: Brood War units suggestions in detail [long read]

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-14T12:23:37+00:00

i am sure that FFG wil have a lot of trouble getting mind control to work. i THINK i have gotten a great idea for it, how bout this: "if your assist ubit is a dark archon, steal the support strenght of this scermish, and 1 support unit dies" this way, you get to mind control the units, but they die cause the rest of the army kills them, making it true to the pc. Another thing that would be cool if they gave technologies that they took out like leg enhancements for zealots, where they get extra attack, or my favorite marine upgrade: "U238-SHELLS!" they could be like,m add 1 health and attack to a marine in this skermish if fighting a zealot, ultralisk, firebat, zergling, or mutalisk's. (these units cause they had to run quite to get the marine, anfd muta's cause they have awful range.)

Thread: Re: StarCraft: The Board Game - A PC Gamer's Perspective

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-14T12:13:55+00:00

1ST comment yeah! k now that that is done, i really like this reveiw, it speaks out to us that have loved the video game, and ou gave nice examples of that. Yeah this game has never been boring, even when i lose i still have a blast!!!

Thread: StarCraft: The Board Game - A PC Gamer's Perspective

Allos — 2008-05-13T10:10:46+00:00

I’ve had StarCraft: The Board Game since its initial release in late October, 2007. Since that time, it has become the clear champion of my humble board game collection. Before I get to the review itself however, here’s a little background on my gaming history.

I initially got into boardgaming because of Fantasy Flight’s adaptation of DOOM back in 2004. My friends and I, longtime DOOM fans, were amazed at how much we enjoyed the adaptation. We then tried various other board game adaptations of board games we liked to varying results. Shortly after, my group began playing games that had not been translated from a video game origin and we decided that we should officially be labeled as board gamers (regardless of the fact that much of our experience has been limited to Fantasy Flight’s lineup). Upon hearing that Fantasy Flight would be releasing an adaptation of our group favorite video game, StarCraft, my group began counting down the days until its release.

We were not disappointed in what we received.

OVERVIEW

StarCraft: The Board Game is a sci-fi conquest game in which each player assumes the role of a commander of one of three races: the Terran (advanced spacefaring humans), the Protoss (super-advanced religious humanoid aliens), or the Zerg (mutating insect-like alien collective). The overall goal of the game is to achieve victory through accumulation of Conquest Points, meeting your Special Victory requirements, or eliminating the other players. Players spend their time building new units and buildings for their race, researching new technologies and combat abilities, and mobilizing their forces to battlefield victory.

RULES / RULEBOOK

The rules of the game may seem daunting at first but after about an hour’s worth of playtime, most players should be able to grasp them easily. The rulebook is well layed-out and contains examples of nearly everything talked about and there is an index at the end of it (which comes in handy). My only complaint with the rulebook is that there are certain unique situations in the game that may arise that the rulebook does not cover, though most of these situations are addressed online in the official FAQ at the Fantasy Flight webpage.

The game is broken down into three phases:

-Planning- The phase in which players place order tokens that dictate what the players will do over the course of each game turn. The mechanics that run this phase are quite well designed, as players must take into account that the first order token they place may be the last they get to execute. Players may also attempt to “obstruct” each other’s orders during this phase in order to prevent each other from using their orders until it’s too late.

-Execution- The phase in which players execute the orders they’ve placed one-by-one.

-Regrouping- The phase in which players destroy enemy bases and transports, check for victory conditions, gain conquest points, and play event cards.

As far as teaching the rules goes, I’ve found that it’s much easier to teach the game to players of the StarCraft PC game. It might be the fact that these players are familiar with the terminologies the game uses or simply because they know how the military units work. This is not to say that players who have not played the PC version before have not taken to the game. I’ve taught the game to four non-players so far and all of them have caught on rather quickly, two going so far as buying the now aging PC game because they had so much fun with the board game version.

COMBAT

Combat in StarCraft: The Board Game is driven by battle cards. Each player receives a deck of battle cards specific to their race and faction at the beginning of the game. Some of these cards are technology cards, or cards that must be purchased through research order tokens to receive their benefits. Combat cards contain two sets of numbers, red numbers indicating the card’s attack value and green numbers indicating the card’s defense value. In order to kill an enemy unit, a player’s unit’s attack value must equal or exceed that of his opponents health defense value. There are also two attack/defense values on each combat card in different font sizes; the player only gets to use the larger font numbers if his/her military unit is pictured on the combat card being used. There are, of course, numerous modifiers that can emerge to bolster the numbers present on each card.

The combat card-based fighting system is my personal favorite aspect of StarCraft: The Board Game. The lack of dice present leads to a far less luck-based system and allows players to analyze their opponent’s strategy without much difficulty, very similarly to the PC game.

COMPONENTS

As with every other Fantasy Flight product I’ve played, StarCraft: The Board Game’s components are expertly crafted and support the theme of the game amazingly. The card stock that the board pieces come on is of extremely high quality and is obviously manufactured to last over countless plays. The cards themselves, pivotal to the mechanics of the game, are finished with a protective coating to ensure durability and constant player handling, a finishing touch that could’ve have been left out but one that definitely suits the needs of most players and reflects the commitment Fantasy Flight has to their products.

The reference cards and faction sheets for each player are easy to read and are also highly durable and meant to last. There is a typo on the reference sheets concerning the Queen of Blades Special Victory condition (though this may have changed in later prints of the game), but it’s not a major foul on the quality of the game.

The crown jewel of the game’s components is of course, the miniatures. They’ve all been sculpted incredibly well and look absolutely stunning. The miniatures are part of the reason that my group and I love this game as much as we do, because their superb crafting reinforces the idea that we’re actually playing StarCraft so well. Flying units are represented by miniatures being held up in the air by transparent bases, another touch Fantasy Flight added that compliments the game very well. It should be noted that many players open their copies of StarCraft to discover one or more flying units with broken bases (I had two), but an email to Fantasy Flight can provide you with replacements free of charge.

THEME

The theme of StarCraft: The Board Game is presented extremely well by Fantasy Flight Games. The combination of the components of the game mixed with the rules and variable levels of player interaction lead to a board game experience that I feel simulates the PC game experience incredibly well. I’ve played as all three races on many occasions, and each race feels exactly like it does in the PC version. The Protoss are expensive and few in number but are incredibly powerful, the Zerg are cheap and relatively weak but their numbers can swell very easily, and the Terran are middle of the road in regards to the other two. It should be noted here that the game allows players to practice almost every strategy that was present in the PC game (almost meaning you can’t rush opponents with worker units like SCVs), another factor that makes the game fun to PC players. Initially I was disappointed with the fact that the game took a far larger approach to the StarCraft license (meaning, I didn’t like how players were taking over planets instead of a battlefield map like the PC game). Now however, I can’t see how the game would have worked if the developers hadn’t taken this approach.

CONCLUSION

In the end, I’d give this game a 10 out of 10 as long as all of the players know the rules ahead of time, if not, then 9.5/10. The only real criticism I have with the game is that it tends to lead many players into analysis paralysis during the planning phase of the game, but this doesn’t happen too often and it can be cured with a time limit on each player’s order placement. Every game of StarCraft that I’ve played has been a close game with all players having a chance at victory (minus the few that have been eliminated) and every game has played out differently. I really can’t emphasize enough how much my group and I love this game. I’ve never had a game in which I didn’t have fun (and that’s including the game in which my ghost managed to Nuke two carriers and I was then brought to the brink of elimination). StarCraft: The Board Game is an amazing translation of the PC game, and I guarantee that player’s of the PC version will love it.

And that’s my first review on the Geek. Hope it helps!

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

big__rhino — 2008-05-13T12:49:01+00:00

The OP's question was if he was playing the game wrong. My answer: YES. And I've followed my responses with some suggestions for altering the way the game was played using the current rules. Other's responses have essentially been either complaints about having the same problem, or suggesting a change of the rules, rather than a change in the style of play. Neither of those responses answer the OP's question, and neither of them were really helpful.

AH, I see were we differ. your answer to "am i playing wrong?" is yes. Our answer is no (technically he's not because he's following the rule correctly), but we can still help because we feel his pain. hence the rule change suggestions.

Also we are of two different schools of thought my friend. You are of the opinion that we should change to match the game. I'm of the opinion that the game should match me. Thats why i don't roll dice before i make a purchase. I choose games that match me and see no need in reinventing my wheel for the game.

The truth of the matter is that games are very much like the ideas presented in the movie the matrix. "there is no spoon" While the spoon very much existed in that world, it was what the robots chose it to be. The protagonist had to be told that it didn't exist so that he could make the spoon what he wanted.

Boardgames are the same way, "there is no starcraft boardgame." its only what we make it. I can bend and reshape the "Spoon" as i see fit. Most of the rules surrounding the spoon stay the same, its silver, its end is flat and rounded, it has a handle. But, the protagonist chose only to replace the rule, its straight and cannot be bent. Thats what's happening here. The rules are fine as the robots (ffg) presented them, i'm just bending the spoon a bit.

I disagree with rhino here though in that I do not think this is one of those cases, since it won't necessarily fix the player's experience of the game.

and, actually, If his only problem is the end game, then it will indeed fix the problem. In fact i would go so far as to say that, assuming no other problems with the game exist, a rule change will fix the problem 100% of the time. why change your style throughout the entire game so that the end feels better? that is throwing out the baby with the bath water. because, as i said before, the key theme is fun and changing your whole style may just ruin the rest of the game and still leave you feeling unsatified in the end.

oh! and i may try out that speed boat racing catan game :P

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

ScottMcChesney — 2008-05-12T08:42:44+00:00

MScrivner wrote:

If you wanna tinker with Starcraft and add house rules... that's cool. You're right, you bought the game, and you can choose with your game group what rules to change and what not. But if we approach every game from this standpoint, why have rules at all? Why not have a box of cool pieces and some suggestions about what players might choose to do? I want to be clear, I am not a rules lawyer, but I do think that so often the fixes suggested here of "add this house rule" are an act of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Using more rhetoric to explain what you obscured by using rhetoric isn’t a good idea. No one is saying get rid of rules or that if you crack open a copy of Settlers and don’t like a game about acquiring and trading resources turn it into a game about speed boat racing.

What people are saying is that Starcraft is a good game but the special victory conditions feel like they cut several other game mechanics short why not just tweak the rules to even them out.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

MScrivner — 2008-05-12T08:32:08+00:00

Ok, so, the rhetoric I used in my previous post was rich with hyperbole to prove a point. I want to state that I absolutely agree with the above two posts. House rules are great, and sometimes necessary.

I disagree with rhino here though in that I do not think this is one of those cases, since it won't necessarily fix the player's experience of the game.

The OP's question was if he was playing the game wrong. My answer: YES. And I've followed my responses with some suggestions for altering the way the game was played using the current rules. Other's responses have essentially been either complaints about having the same problem, or suggesting a change of the rules, rather than a change in the style of play. Neither of those responses answer the OP's question, and neither of them were really helpful.

If you wanna tinker with Starcraft and add house rules... that's cool. You're right, you bought the game, and you can choose with your game group what rules to change and what not. But if we approach every game from this standpoint, why have rules at all? Why not have a box of cool pieces and some suggestions about what players might choose to do? I want to be clear, I am not a rules lawyer, but I do think that so often the fixes suggested here of "add this house rule" are an act of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Peteloaf — 2008-05-12T08:25:22+00:00

MScrivner wrote:

After eight plays, you should know that the game will end sooner than you'd like. Why, after the first two or three games when you realized that this was part of it, did you not adjust your manner of play accordingly?

I believe that I do adjust my play according to the situation to come out a winner. But that still does not mean that the game leaves me wanting more than it delivers.

What specifically?
- I love the journey up the tech tree. It seems that this portion of the game is really emasculated since the game ends before you get a chance to use your new weapons. Do you ever get to the top of more than 1 of the types of tech?

- Games are so short that winners are sometimes generated on another portion of the map that you can not get to before time runs out.

- The game is not a video game - yes i get that. But why model it after a game if you are going to drop the big drama from the original.

- I really do love this game and I just want it to be great. I have trouble getting people to play it because the game has left a bad taste in their mouth and they would rather play something else.

FF did a good job of giving many improvements and options in the Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition - Shattered Empire expansion. I hope that this game gets the same attention over time.

Thread: Re: Firebat tips

Fortuna — 2008-05-12T08:23:43+00:00

Justin,

In the computer game, if the Zerg has ultralisks under a dark swarm, firebats won't save the Terran player. They do 25% damage against large units. And of course they can't even hit mutalisks. Who cares if they survive an extra hit if they can't shoot back?

I'm not saying your strats won't work in the board game. I haven't played the board game yet. I'm just saying that the unit interaction you describe is completely different from how it works in the original--except for the part about firebats killing zealots and zerglings. That's what firebats are for.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

big__rhino — 2008-05-12T08:19:13+00:00

I do not understand why so many players try to change the rules to fit their style of play, rather than understanding that the whole point of rules is to dictate play style.

I think your looking at the point of rules a bit narrow-mindedly. Rules are much like a constitution. they govern the actions that may be taken within a certain frame. And like a constitution it may go through many amendments during its life time. we all adopt the constitution that FFG has suggested and we may find that certain aspects of that constitution may require ammendments to fit within our communities. there is nothing wrong with this practice in real life and there is nothing wrong with this practice in a board game.

If you haven't changed a few things you dislike about a game here and there then you are missing out on a great aspect of our collective hobby. When you watch your favorite movie more than a couple times you start to wish that there was more or something different happening. With boardgames you get to change your favorite movie after you've watched it a few times. For example, In my group we love the chance that dice bring. its exciting to know that your best laid plans could flop. so we added a D4 roll to the attack and defense in this game. Most people cry foul, but we felt it added a bit more finality to a kinda boring combat system and a bit of excitement knowing we could totally lose or pull out an awesome vicory. For us a small ammendment meant a lot more fun.

Wraith 428 is clearly not enjoying the game as suggested by FFG. Wraith 428 owns the game, not FFG. He SHOULD change everything in this game he needs too, in order to extract the maximum fun out of his game.

I would also suggest playing with the change that makes special victory conditions add points instead. We used it a couple times just so that we could use all those awesome cards that never even get looked at. We also felt like the game was about to have an awesome climax and never did when special victory conditions are met. Also, some victory conditions seem easier than others.

Another suggestion that i would make, is try setting the same special victory condition for everyone. example, the first player to control six resources in the third phase wins.

Toss around a couple ideas with your friends and see what they like best. The Goal of starcraft is just like very other game on the geek, HAVE FUN!

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

ScottMcChesney — 2008-05-12T07:42:07+00:00

MScrivner wrote:

I do not understand why so many players try to change the rules to fit their style of play, rather than understanding that the whole point of rules is to dictate play style.

Rules do dictate play style but the issue with Starcraft is that 99.9% of the game matches the play style these people want while the other part doesn't. So they are changing that one part to better fit what they like.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying I like a game except for this one rule so around my table we do it differently. If we aren’t supposed to do things like that to make a game more enjoyable then why do we even have the term “house rules”?

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

MScrivner — 2008-05-12T07:11:49+00:00

Peteloaf wrote:
I have played the game about 8 times and I find the pre-mature ending to be a big let-down. I have played the computer game many times and that one ends with gigantic battles and total destruction. The FF version seems to end just when the game is getting going.

We have tried a few home made variants but have yet to find one that makes the game feel right.

Again it sounds to me that people are missing the point. This is NOT a video game, and the only thing video game about it is the theme.

I agree that the drama of the video game was huge climatic battles, but the drama of the boardgame comes from a very different type of tension.

The tension of the boardgame is each player's knowledge of that inevitable conclusion looming in the distance. In other words, it's that rush toward finality that gives it the drama--it's out of your control that the game will end rapidly, but what *IS* in your control (relatively speaking) is how close you and your opponents get to victory conditions at that end.

After eight plays, you should know that the game will end sooner than you'd like. Why, after the first two or three games when you realized that this was part of it, did you not adjust your manner of play accordingly?

I do not understand why so many players try to change the rules to fit their style of play, rather than understanding that the whole point of rules is to dictate play style.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

MScrivner — 2008-05-12T06:59:40+00:00

MasterDinadan wrote:
The fact that the CP underdog still has a chance to win a special victory is what makes this game climactic. The fact that as soon as stage III hits, everyone has to be on their toes, battling intensely for those territories that are valuable both to them and to their CP superiors. A single mistake can cost you the game.

That seems a lot more fun to me than realizing that you can't possibly catch someone who's 5 points ahead of you, and just giving up.

EXACTLY. And that's why I think that OP was not playing correctly.

Once the players in my gaming group figured out that this was the case, we have seen almost no special victories occur - they almost always come down to who hits the 15 (or 20 with Aldaris) CP's first.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Peteloaf — 2008-05-12T06:25:19+00:00

I have played the game about 8 times and I find the pre-mature ending to be a big let-down. I have played the computer game many times and that one ends with gigantic battles and total destruction. The FF version seems to end just when the game is getting going.

We have tried a few home made variants but have yet to find one that makes the game feel right.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Windopaene — 2008-05-12T05:55:27+00:00

Yes, it is a bit, I agree. However, once you are all aware of it, it's just one more thing you need to consider.

Image

macdude22 — 2008-05-12T05:54:45+00:00

Our first game of starcraft in Grinnell.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

ScottMcChesney — 2008-05-12T05:10:10+00:00

MScrivner wrote:
It sounds to me like in the games you've described the winning players are players winning specifically by achieving their special victory conditions, is that correct?

If so, it means you HAVE been playing the game wrong.

That doesn't mean you've missed a rule, just that one of the primary sources of conflict in the game is the drive to stop the other players from achieving victory conditions. Remember, Starcraft is *NOT* a Eurogame. You are *not* supposed to sit there minding your own business and managing your little economy. It sounds to me like if victory has come as an abrupt surprise, that's exactly what you have been doing.

Strategy in Starcraft is as much about you preventing others from winning as it is you trying to win yourself. That means at least once a round you gotta be checking and double-checking what those special victory conditions are, and how close your opponents are from achieving them and when they are edging closer, you *MUST* do everything in your power to prevent it.

Thus, the game becomes as much about the metagame as the game. Alliances will form and shatter from one round to the next as players join forces to crush someone who looks too strong in the vp or special victory area, or who is starting to build up a force of units that will soon become unstoppable (think Archons--it's wise to gangbang that Protoss player before he gets Archons. And GAWD FERBID the Zerg player can get Defilers and start using Dark Swarm.)

I agree that in the early games, it's a challenge to just keep the damn rules straight, and as great as Fantasy Flight is, they don't help matters with a convoluted rulebook. Print out some of the player aids, drag your friends back to the table, and tell them that this game of Starcraft needs to be played like Hitler on Red Bull.

I think you'll find that as the end game approaches, it won't be abrupt. Instead it will be an intense competition for supremacy that will climax in some surprising ways.

While I do think this is true, it is still somewhat anti-climatic. Often I find we have games where the great battle of our huge armies that will happen next turn doesn't because a special victory slips past us. Now that is our fault for not noticing the state of the board. But this game can have up to six players each with four ways to win the game, it can be rather a lot to keep track of.

From my experiences I think Chris has the right idea of changing the special victory from automatic win to a bonus of victory points. This would make the game a little longer but I think a lot more enjoyable at my table. Your mileage may vary.

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

XGDragon — 2008-05-12T04:27:37+00:00

Yes, you should always know your priorities, if you want to build or research or attack. I can generally only research in the first round and being able to research gets harder as we all devise a very cunning plan. I've recently used the Weasely Retrogade, it was so awesome. I needed to defend planet C, and my forces were spread out (Protoss vs Protoss).

The bulk of them being at planet A, I attacked a scout and put a zealot up front, with 2 dragoons and an archon backing him up. I 'lost', retreated to planet B and attacked with everything I had on to defend planet C. It was Helios, so I had the two unitlimit areas filled with Archon/Dragoon and the four unitlimit area was filled with zealots and one dragoon. I had a turret on my base. He couldn't penetrate my defense without losing all his attackers aswell (mutual defeat, region empty). So he lost; I was Aldaris and he was Tassadar. I won by end draws near cards.

Thread: Re: Brood War units suggestions in detail [long read]

Aarontu — 2008-05-12T03:28:10+00:00

Very cool stuff. :thumbsup:
I only wish there was an easy way to use these in the game.
Looks like a good way to impliment the Devourer.

Mind control would be difficult to pull off. Replacing it with a protoss unit is a pretty good solution, though it does result in oddities because the races are so different. If I had to make a list of unit equivalences, I would probably change:
Marine, Firebat, Ghost -> Zealot
Vulture, Goliath -> Dragoon
Siege Tank -> Reaver
Queen -> Arbiter

Maybe it would work better if any mind controlled unit that costs less than 2 resources is immediatley killed (mind controlling a zergling or marine was quite useless in the PC game, anyway). Or, maybe instead of getting a new unit, mind controlling can let you draw extra combat cards, to represent a small boost to your army's strength. Like draw 1 card for each mineral/gas the MC'd unit costs. (draw 1 for a marine, but 5 for a battlecruiser)

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

JesterKnot — 2008-05-12T03:00:32+00:00

Agreed about AGoT. Another with similar mechanics is [GAMEID=22038], although you get random cards during battles, instead of controlling your deck.

I have played this game four times. My theory is that you get to do exactly half of the things that are possible to do (upgrades & such) - have you found this to be true? With new players, the surprise ending is not understanding this and the timing of the ending of the game. I made this reference: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/27848 so that new folks (including me) could wrap their brains around the multiplicity of options available and have some chance against guys like you!

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Aarontu — 2008-05-12T01:52:26+00:00

With new players, the game can often end in a lame and anticlimactic way like that, but if people are paying attention to other people's SVCs and are trying to stop them while trying to win at the same time, the game is awesome and tense to the end.

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

mwdalrymple — 2008-05-12T01:41:45+00:00

You will probably like FFG's AGoT (A Game Of Thrones) series if you like Starcraft. It is another diceless area control/wargame that is simply just elegant. It uses orders (similar to starcraft). I feel that much of the mechanics from Starcraft were evolved from AGoT.

Go and pick up a copy of it. You will probably enjoy it!

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Chaz Donnell — 2008-05-12T12:55:35+00:00

The group I game with has about ten games in total and its been split between VP wins and SC wins. Usually, VP wins come from agressive play which garners VPs and prevents others from getting their SC. If no one plays agressively then I'd expect every game to end with someone getting their SC to win the game.

Thread: Re: Brood War units suggestions in detail [long read]

MasterDinadan — 2008-05-12T06:22:18+00:00

Nice ideas.
You've got a card featuring only the Dark Templar, and then text that says "If your front line unit is a Dark Templar..." That's kind of redundant seeing as how the text is only applied if the unit is pictured, and Dark Templar is the only unit pictured. Just print the modified attack value and add the cloaking keyword.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

MasterDinadan — 2008-05-12T06:16:59+00:00

Chipacabra wrote:
After five or six games, the conclusion I've come to is that the SV conditions are too easy. It's not so much that they're easier to achieve than simply getting the victory points, actually. The problem as I see it is that each SV, for the most part, requires control of two systems. That means there's enough territory around for everyone to reach their goal. I think the balance would be a little better if they required a faction to have MORE than their fair share of territory in order to achieve it.

As it is, too many games have been in a situation where several factions either have reached their conditions, or will when they gang up on the leader, leading to a fairly anti-climactic ending.

And I suppose a game where the leader is easily determined several turns before the game's end is somehow more climactic? The fact that the CP underdog still has a chance to win a special victory is what makes this game climactic. The fact that as soon as stage III hits, everyone has to be on their toes, battling intensely for those territories that are valuable both to them and to their CP superiors. A single mistake can cost you the game.

That seems a lot more fun to me than realizing that you can't possibly catch someone who's 5 points ahead of you, and just giving up.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Chipacabra — 2008-05-12T05:19:35+00:00

After five or six games, the conclusion I've come to is that the SV conditions are too easy. It's not so much that they're easier to achieve than simply getting the victory points, actually. The problem as I see it is that each SV, for the most part, requires control of two systems. That means there's enough territory around for everyone to reach their goal. I think the balance would be a little better if they required a faction to have MORE than their fair share of territory in order to achieve it.

As it is, too many games have been in a situation where several factions either have reached their conditions, or will when they gang up on the leader, leading to a fairly anti-climactic ending.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

MScrivner — 2008-05-12T04:24:02+00:00

wraith428 wrote:
No one has ever even come close to winning on victory points?

I reread this and realized you might also have a rule wrong, since by the time phase three hits, usually players should all be at 10-12 vps. Remember, vp's are scored cumulatively. So if you control a portion of a planet worth 1 VP, it scores that 1 VP during the scoring phase EACH ROUND. By the fifth round, if you've started out with a home planet with 1VP, assuming you haven't lost the planet, you should have accumulated 5VP's from that area alone.

Again, if you aren't twiddling your thumbs and sitting in your corner turtling, than by round five, you should control at least two or three more areas worth VP's so by round six, seven or eight, you should be close to th 15 (or 20 if Aldaris is playing) needed for regular victory.

If you play in such a way as to stop other players from achieving Special Victories AT ALL COSTS, and in the majority of the games, victory will go to the player who manages to eke out the 15 vps.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

Balthus_Dire — 2008-05-12T04:20:25+00:00

Wow, Hitler on Red Bull...nice image, that'll stay with me for a while.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

MScrivner — 2008-05-12T04:17:29+00:00

It sounds to me like in the games you've described the winning players are players winning specifically by achieving their special victory conditions, is that correct?

If so, it means you HAVE been playing the game wrong.

That doesn't mean you've missed a rule, just that one of the primary sources of conflict in the game is the drive to stop the other players from achieving victory conditions. Remember, Starcraft is *NOT* a Eurogame. You are *not* supposed to sit there minding your own business and managing your little economy. It sounds to me like if victory has come as an abrupt surprise, that's exactly what you have been doing.

Strategy in Starcraft is as much about you preventing others from winning as it is you trying to win yourself. That means at least once a round you gotta be checking and double-checking what those special victory conditions are, and how close your opponents are from achieving them and when they are edging closer, you *MUST* do everything in your power to prevent it.

Thus, the game becomes as much about the metagame as the game. Alliances will form and shatter from one round to the next as players join forces to crush someone who looks too strong in the vp or special victory area, or who is starting to build up a force of units that will soon become unstoppable (think Archons--it's wise to gangbang that Protoss player before he gets Archons. And GAWD FERBID the Zerg player can get Defilers and start using Dark Swarm.)

I agree that in the early games, it's a challenge to just keep the damn rules straight, and as great as Fantasy Flight is, they don't help matters with a convoluted rulebook. Print out some of the player aids, drag your friends back to the table, and tell them that this game of Starcraft needs to be played like Hitler on Red Bull.

I think you'll find that as the end game approaches, it won't be abrupt. Instead it will be an intense competition for supremacy that will climax in some surprising ways.

Thread: Re: Game End Seems Abrupt

angelkurisu — 2008-05-12T03:59:06+00:00

I found the same issues, and have had similar trouble getting people to play again. One fix that we used to somewhat blunt the end-game issues was to change the Special Victory Conditions from "You win" to "You gain +2 CP".

Thread: Game End Seems Abrupt

wraith428 — 2008-05-12T03:28:02+00:00

Hello,

I'm having trouble liking this game and feel I must be doing something wrong.

1st - Only played it twice but both times left me with the same sour feeling.

2nd - No one I've played with is really familiar with the rules or intricacies of the game right now cause we haven't played it enough... still the desire to play it just isn't there.

Why you ask? Because both games have ended exactly the same way. End of the first turn where the 3rd level event cards come out we find out that somebody has won and they weren't even trying?

No one has ever even come close to winning on victory points?

So what are we doing wrong?

Thanks,

Wraith428

Thread: Re: 4 players - 3 special victory conditions at hand, only 1 to take the prize

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-11T07:57:35+00:00

good game, gotta give it to ya for blocking aldaris, hard to block reavers, exspecially when you got weak zerg units (no offense to them, but they are weakest race in strength). waiting for next reveiw!:).

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-11T07:50:23+00:00

awesome review:) yeah, games with dice make those of us with great strategies at the dice's mercy. i don't think it's a downside about forseeing battles and units, just think of it as you are sending a scout to see what they are up to (think like observer or a ghost). oh, and how bout making some sessions of you 30+ battle? bet that would be a good read:)

Thread: Re: Brood War units suggestions in detail [long read]

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-11T05:42:39+00:00

these are really good suggestions! but... i really don't like the mind control idea to much, it would be equal. for example, if you control a marine, your getting a stronger unit that has no range, mc units stay the same, they don't morph into protoss units, mabey you can make a marker or token to put under the mind controlled unit? that way it can stay as yours, but what about it's cards?

Thread: Re: Zerg Power

angra_mainyu — 2008-05-10T05:39:37+00:00

like every race, they have problems and weaknesses, first zerglings are awful, (card wise) they can't kill much, and the metabolic boost isn't that useful if you can't kill anything stronger than a marine (even thats debateable). hydra's can get a strong card, but the marine, whos cheaper can kill them eaiser, and zealots will take many tries to kill with the right cards( better with their plus 1 health cards) despite the awesome power of the ultralisk, it will fall to an air unit, a million ultra's won't even be able to kill a single wraith, and they have like, what 3normal cards and 2 resaerch ones? and yes, queens do have great cards, but they will suck up your time with research orders, and their are always other techs from other races, like emp, that cancels queens, or psiconic storm, where even a ground only zewalot can kill them, along with the original zerg unit it was aiming at. zerg are not overpowered at all. oh, and it's impossable to hold off any race, cause this game makes turtling impossable:)

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

Kingdaddy — 2008-05-10T03:06:03+00:00

Good review, especially since you add the insights from playing the game a lot of times. Look forward to any future reviews you post here to BGG.

Thread: Brood War units suggestions in detail [long read]

XGDragon — 2008-05-10T08:14:20+00:00

Hi, this is going to be a huge post on how I think the new expansion units should be like, in detail.
I've tried to get it as balanced as possible while getting all the Brood War units in it anyway, please post feedback and balancing thoughts. Enjoy.
* means that is usable when unit is supporting (the radar icon on some tech. cards)

I have posted this before on the old forums and I thought it's worthy of being on the new ones aswell.

All races gain two more normal combat cards. (so instead of 1/18, it's 1/20)

[size=18]Zerg[/size]

Changes Air tech tree:
Spire level 1: Can build Scourge, Mutalisk
Spire level 2: Can build Guardian, Devourer

Lurker
Requires Research 'Evolve Lurker'. (Costs 1 gas) 1x
Requires 1 Hydralisk
Cost 1 mineral + 1 gas = Hydralisk, +1 gas to evolve.
Ground unit, ground attack only
Assist +1
Average values: 7 - 7, 1

Replace the card with one hydralisk (#6) with this new card:

6 [size=7]2 4[/size] 6
Hydralisk / Lurker
If your front-line unit is a
Lurker, gain Cloaking
and +1 attack.

Replace card number #14 â€“ 16 with:

8 [size=7]3 4[/size] 7
Lurker / Mutalisk
If your front-line unit
is a Lurker, gain Cloaking.
Ground Splash Damage
This splash damage can
only destroy a Marine,
Zealot, or Zergling unit.

7 [size=8]3 4[/size] 8
Lurker / Mutalisk
If your front-line unit
is a Lurker, gain Cloaking
Ground Splash Damage
This splash damage can
only destroy a Marine,
Zealot, or Zergling unit.

7 [size=8]3 4[/size] 7
Lurker / Mutalisk
If your front-line unit
is a Lurker, gain Cloaking
Ground Splash Damage
This splash damage can
only destroy a Marine,
Zealot, or Zergling unit.
_____________________________________________

Devourer
Requires Spire level 2
Requires 1 Mutalisk
Cost 2 minerals + 1 gas = Mutalisk, 1 minerals to evolve.
Air unit, Air attack only
Assist +2
Average values: 5 - 9, 1

Add two cards:

5 [size=8]5 2[/size] 9
Devourer
For every friendly unit in the battle
capable of attacking flying, except Scourge
add +1 attack.
Flying Splash Damage

5 [size=8]5 3[/size] 9
Devourer
For every friendly unit in the battle
capable of attacking flying, except Scourge
add +1 attack.
Flying Splash Damage
_____________________________________________

[size=18]Terran[/size]

Medic
Requires Barracks level 3 (updated Barracks level 3 token)
Cost 1 mineral, 1 gas
Assist unit
Average values: Assist, 3

Has many technologies:
Heal 1x
Any
Cost 1 Mineral

After purchasing,
place in your play area
When you have a medic
supporting, add +1 health
if a Marine, Firebat, Ghost
or Medic is the frontline unit.
Does not work when the
Bunker card is played.

Restoration 2x
Medic *
Cost 1 Mineral, 1 Gas
(+) Supporting combat card

Cancel Lockdown, Optical Flare,
Irradiate, Devourerâ€™s special ability,
Plague and Ensnare in the skirmish.

Optical Flare 2x
Medic *
Cost 1 Mineral, 1 Gas
(+) Supporting combat card

When defending, if the
enemy frontline unit
has no supporting units,
it's attack rating drops to 0.
When attacking, if the enemy
only has one defending unit,
it's attack rating drops to 0.
_____________________________________________

Valkyrie
Requires Starport level 2 (updated Starport level 2 & 3 token art)
Cost 2 mineral + 2 gas
Air unit, Air attack only
Assist +2
Average values: 8 - 8, 0

Replace cards #13 and 14

8 [size=8]5 2[/size] 8
Valkyrie / Battlecruiser / Siege Tank
If your front-line unit
is a Battlecruiser, gain
+1 attack.
If your front-line unit
is a Valkyrie, gain
Flying Splash Damage

7 [size=8]5 2[/size] 8
Valkyrie / Battlecruiser / Siege Tank
If your front-line unit
is a Battlecruiser, gain
+1 attack.
If your front-line unit
is a Valkyrie, gain
Flying Splash Damage

Add two cards:

8 [size=8]5 3[/size] 9
Valkyrie
If your front-line unit
is a Valkyrie, gain
Flying Splash Damage

8 [size=8]5 4 [/size] 8
Valkyrie
If your front-line unit
is a Valkyrie, gain
Flying Splash Damage
_____________________________________________

[size=18]Protoss[/size]

Dark Templar
Requires Gateway level 3 (updated Starport level 3 token art)
Cost 2 mineral + 1 gas
Ground unit, Ground attack only
Assist +1
Average values: 8 - 6, 0

Add one card:

8 [size=9]1 6[/size] 6
Dark Templar
Gain Cloaking

Replace cards #2 and #3 with:

5 [size=8]2 5[/size] 6
Dark Templar / Zealot
If your front-line unit is
a Dark Templar, gain +3
attack and gain Cloaking

7 [size=8]2 5[/size] 5
Dark Templar / Zealot
If your front-line unit is
a Dark Templar, gain +2
attack and gain Cloaking
______________________________________________

Dark Archon
Requires Research 'Summon Dark Archon. (Costs 1 gas) 1x
Requires 2 Dark Templar
Cost 4 mineral + 2 gas = 2x Dark Templar, +0 gas to evolve.
Assist unit
Average values: Assist, 4

Has many technologies:
Feedback2x
Dark Archon *
Cost 2 Minerals
(+) Supporting combat card

Destroys any assist unit in the
skirmish and cancel any researchable
combat card or Reinforcement card.

Maelstrom 2x
Dark Archon *
Cost 1 Mineral, 2 Gas
(+) Supporting combat card

If the opposing front-line unit is a
Marine, Firebat, Medic, Ghost,
Zealot, High Templar, Dark Templar
or Zerg unit, it loses attack capability.

Mind Control 1x
Dark Archon
Cost 1 Mineral, 2 Gas
Normal combat card

0 [size=8]2 7[/size] 1
Dark Archon
The opposing front-line unit's attack
value is 0. If the Dark Archon does
not die, destroy the opposing front-line unit.
You may now replace it with a friendly
unit (see table) and place it on an
empty or friendly area of the planet.
Units in excess will be destroyed.

(So a mindcontrolled Hydralisk would give you a free Dragoon, also the Dark Archon can still die due to assist attack ratings, so it is best to not use it when defending)
Here's a table on what your mind controlling and what you get from it:
Marine -> Zealot
Firebat -> Dragoon
Ghost -> Dark Templar
Medic -> High Templar
Vulture -> Dragoon
Goliath -> Reaver
Siege Tank -> Archon
Wraith -> Scout
Science Vessel -> Arbiter
Valkyrie -> Corsair
Battlecruiser -> Carrier
Zergling -> Zealot
Hydralisk -> Dragoon
Lurker -> Dark Templar
Ultralisk -> Archon
Queen -> High Templar
Defiler -> Dark Archon
Scourge -> Nothing
Mutalisk -> Scout
Devourer -> Corsair
Guardian -> Carrier

_____________________________________________

Corsair
Requires Stargate level 2 (updated Stargate level 2 & 3 token art)
Cost 1 mineral + 1 gas
Air unit, Air attack only
Assist +1
Average values: 6 - 7, 1

Add one card:

6 [size=8]6 3[/size] 7
Corsair
Flying Splash Damage

Replace card #5 with:

6 [size=8]1 6[/size] 6
Corsair / Zealot / Dragoon
If your front-line unit is a Dragoon
or Corsair, gain +1 attack vs. a
flying unit.
If your front-line unit is a Corsair,
also gain Flying Splash Damage

Replace card #1 with:

6 [size=8]2 5[/size] 7
Corsair / Zealot
If your front-line unit
is a Corsair, gain
Flying Splash Damage

To explain the Splash Damage..
Extremely quick and agile, the Corsair is an essential part of any Protoss air fleet. Their Neutron Flares don't deal much damage per shot (5 base points of explosive damage), however, their rapid fire more than makes up for the difference. The Neutron Flares also causes 1/2 splash damage to units within a 50 pixel radius around the target and 1/4 splash damage within 100 pixels. All this combines to make the Corsair a very real threat to packs of enemy aerial units.
Also, this splash damage does not destroy Carriers or Battlecruisers, as with the known 'archon bug'.

Disruption Web 2x
Corsair *
Cost 1 Mineral, 1 Gas
(+) Supporting combat card

All enemy ground units and a
friendly Corsair in this skirmish
lose attack capability except
Firebats, Zerglings,
Ultralisks, Zealots, and
Dark Templar

Also check my review of the game here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/312377

Comments on any of these are more than welcome!

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

KingCroc — 2008-05-10T04:58:43+00:00

Put me in the Starcraft board game gan club too. I really like this game for most of the reasons you mentioned. I don't mind dice in my game, but the combat card systems is great and unique. Not just because it lowers the luck factor but because it adds a new element to managing your forces. In most games of this type, whoever has the biggest army wins. The end. But in this game, the cards could be seen to represent logistics and organization, essential to running an extended campaign.

I love also that the game isn't on rails. The random layout of planets and the system along with the multiple development paths available to all factions means there's a lot of variation in strategy. I've played games where scant resources meant mostly marines and zerglings battling it out. And others that developed into control for air superiority. Even if both players are playing the same race, they don't have to play the same game.

Starcraft is a great game, innovative and creative. A worthy addition to my own game library.

Thread: Re: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

KingPut — 2008-05-10T02:20:51+00:00

Nice review Stan. My favorite part of StarCraft is the turn order. I love doing the the double build or the double mobilize move. 2 stars for the how they handled turn order. -1 star for missing a major rule on the easy reference sheet on the back page. I have the StarCraft rated a 9.0 after 6 plays.

Thread: Addicting game; a review after 30 games of SCBG

XGDragon — 2008-05-09T07:10:24+00:00

This review is for those who know the rules of the game, however if your unsure of buying the game, the explanations on the stars might shed some light on things what you find is good or bad. Just read along with a smile.

This is my first review and I generally do not play huge boardgames so much because noone around me plays that as far as I know, however I did get to buy SCBG after having played it at a boardgame convention that my friend dragged me to and I really think it is AWESOME. However, this review is completely neutral and will sway in a positive or negative direction when I feel it is logical.

I am not an experienced boardgamer (save the Stratego and Monopoly games) however I do want to say I am a seasoned SCBG'er and I plan to keep playing this for many days to come. I have played it about 30 times with different people and they were mostly 1on1's and everyone that came by to play it found it amusing. So it speaks to the general public (read: people who barely can figure out what someone would mean with 'unplugged').

This review is structured in the order that you find the aspects of the game as you open the box.

[size=18]Packaging/Rulebook[/size]
[IMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic297116_t.jpg[/IMG]

I think it is safe to say that the packaging could have been done better. Sure as soon are you opened it it's all in there, but where to put it when it's all organized and everything? My box is lifted somewhat because I couldn't place the planets somewhere else but on top of it all. I think all they had to do is make the inside of the box plastic. A lot more room for your stuff to fit in in a pre-determined way, are you always see it with the more simple boardgames. I actually had to fashion some thing from cardboard to keep things separated.

The rulebook is a great read. That is all there is to say though. A great read, once you need it for referencing I think if I were a betting man I'd safely say that I can go finish cooking dinner before the other guy found the answer. The index in the back is a good way to trick people. It's like hiding someones jeans. Why would you?

:star: :star: :halfstar: :nostar: :nostar:

1 star for the good reference sheets you DO get
1 star for the good read in the rulebook
0.5 star for everything being well organized when you first open the box
0.5 no star because 50 pages could have been made a bit shorter.
1 no star because I had to make things for the pieces to fit
1 no star because it's hard to reference stuff in the rulebook (note: I did sometimes find what I was looking for quite fast for a few times so it's not all bad, do not be lulled into the thought that it's all a nightmare.)

[size=18]Pieces[/size]
[IMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic297121_md.jpg[/IMG]

I love Starcraft and therefore I loved having lots of tiny statues of my favorite units! I think nothing here is useless because the amount of everything you got was just right, there was no lack or surplus of things. If you had a broken piece, you could just mail FFG for a replacement free of charge - I didn't even have to prove that I had the game.

:star: :star: :star:

3 stars for good quantity(1), quality(1) and no useless parts(1)!

[size=18]Strategy and Luck[/size]
[IMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic327326_md.jpg[/IMG]

Here's where it gets juicy. Every time I thought up a different strategy because sometimes A doesn't work aswell as B does. I don't mind playing any race, and I've been throwing dice lately to determine who I am to pick because I love it all. Make no mistake, they are all different from each other.

If you were to say to yourself that your going 'mass Mutalisks' is saying to yourself that you going 'to die'. You need variety and you need to adapt to what the opponent is taking. You need to think ALOT about what your going to build and ofcourse where your orders are going to be placed. This one time, I played a perfect game. Guess what happened? The opponent had no chance and he, who beat me a few times before, got slaughtered. The more perfect your game is, the better your chances at winning. Whoever has the best strategy and skills wins. Awesome, this is how a game should be played.

Something I hate with all my life is dice and luck. A game with chance is a game not worth playing. I hate it. It's simply a designer saying 'oh, I have no idea how to implement tactics on this feature, so I guess I'll fall back to the most easy method'. I hate Risk.

This gets me to the next point, but first:

:star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

two stars for the awesome order feature
one star for there being so little luck involved, it's not worth mentioning
two stars for the fact that whoever is the most strategic, wins
one star for the need of variety

PS: I'd like to add that the event cards ARE based on luck HOWEVER it's a win/win situation, it will nearly always be useful somehow. Last time I'm repeating it, but I've played over 30 games and never have I thought an event card is completely useless. Sure it's sometimes not the best, but your not at a big disadvantage, ever.

[size=18]Combat[/size]
[IMG]http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic287466_md.jpg[/IMG]

So this is where it all is about. Combat. If this feature fails, the game fails. Luckily it didn't. There are cards you have to draw. Oh no. But there are 18 in total and 6 of them is what you get at start and you can generally draw 3 of them when battling. 9 out of 18 cards where the chances you'll get atleast one card with what you need is more than 95%.

Combat is simple, intuitive and when you know the game well, risk-free. You know what the other has if your good at the game, and you know what you need to win. If you don't, you lose. Since a few games, not many battles have been played with cards I did not expect. The battles are in my hands now. There is no luck, if I tech'ed the right cards I will win. No luck.

:star: :star: :star: :halfstar: :nostar:

one star for the no luck involved
one star for the ability to forsee battles and make the chance to lose smaller by knowing what the opponent has
one star for how battles are setup, I love this feature!
halfstar for the lack of being afraid to lose assist units (assist as in science vessel)
no star because some cards are a bit overpowered and some balancing issues, but they do not arise much

[size=18]Winning and losing[/size]
[IMG]http://www.storiesofwisdom.com/images/winner-win.jpg[/IMG]

This is neat. When you lose, you feel like a loser because you could have played better but you didn't so your a true loser. Don't get me wrong, it's not in an insulting manner. Even at the end there's a big chance you might win if everyone played fairly well. You can win because of victory points, by a special victory, by elimination or by drawing too many event cards. Victory points are important, but you never win solely because of them. That's what is great, you can't focus on a certain type of win, because if two people get their specials at the same time, the VP is the answer as to who truly won. Winning and losing is just around the corner at endgame because they're all so easy to complete (the specials) so what you need is the head start to be the first around the corner. Awesome.

:star: :star: :star: :star:

one star for the many types of winning
one star for the interesting concept of making winning EASY.. for everyone!
one star for the need to have a little of both
one star for the chance to win when it seems like your on the losing hand; I've seen this happen time upon time again. Want to read some reports on surprising wins? The Sessions forums are full of them. This doesn't mean he didn't deserve to win.

Overall score:
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: :halfstar: :nostar: :nostar: (8.12 to be exact, but I want to give it an edge :))

Thanks for reading!

Thread: Re: Making a tactical game using star craft components

unixrevolution — 2008-05-09T04:40:27+00:00

bungeeboy wrote:
To answer your question, terrain was mostly non-existant in the PC game. You could climb up onto an elevated area sometimes, but that just allowed you to shoot at melee units. There were water areas, though, which only flying units could cross. One multiplayer map is basically two areas separated by a long river, so players had to build transports to send the bulk of their units.

There was also rough/lava terrain that you couldn't build on, but you could move on it no problem.

Thread: Re: Making a tactical game using star craft components

bungeeboy — 2008-05-09T04:31:28+00:00

To answer your question, terrain was mostly non-existant in the PC game. You could climb up onto an elevated area sometimes, but that just allowed you to shoot at melee units. There were water areas, though, which only flying units could cross. One multiplayer map is basically two areas separated by a long river, so players had to build transports to send the bulk of their units.