It was one of the best two or three Grand strategy games I have designed and run over the last 20 years, but there is still room for improvement! My take on the intiial feedback is below, more comments are always welcomed.
Most of Saturday was spent in preparation, while the maps were easily set up cutting out and stuffing the trade cards into sleeves was a very time consuming process ~4 hours. One extra player was easily incorporated, giving a final total of 30 players, 6 GMs, one volunteer helping the GMs and a photographer. The game started on time, finished around 11pm, and managed to get through 10 complete turns (against a maximum target of 12 turns).
A lot of people said they had fun, so I walked away feeling really happy about it.
Distributing game info a week earlier was useful. Many players had plans, and most of the teams came in team colours (red/blue sashes). We had name tags too this year.
Combat cards worked pretty well mechanically. Trade cards did not, there were too few to met the demand, so being able to harvest them became a matter of luck. Emperor succession worked fairly well. The politics game worked better than in Colossus of Atlantis, so that was a win for making the political process unbreakable for players. The outcomes were still unbalanced, two of the five princes ended up not gaining a steady share of the dividends of state, and quickly fell behind.
What broke the game, was the Pirate players deciding to ignore their victory conditions and all cooperate to take the Imperial Capital, combined with the House players choosing to (mostly) ignore the Pirates. This also revealed that the Prince players were too embedded in the politics game to effectively defend their territories. So, the emergent play was cool on one level, but also demonstrated that I did not have the balance of incentives right for directing player action.
I got feedback forms from 25 of the participants. Thank you to everyone who took the time to fill them out.
What was the best moment of the game for you?
- scaring people away from my fleet
- when a pirate became Emperor
- taking the Imperial Capital
- causing a civil war via a tied vote just when Mark thought he’d become Emperor once again
- the whole game was great. I really liked passing bills that supported my [House?]
- successful negotiations with pirates for significant gain. I had fun
- recapturing my sector after having lost to pirates
- marrying a pirate, establishing a trade outpost and having others think this was a good idea
- trading and diplomacy
- Winning against 17 dreadnoughts, 2 Maulers, 1 Logistic Ship and 68 Cruisers with 2 Raiders and the Prince having nowhere to retreat
- trading, fast and furious
- Josh the invincible most sublime Padishah ruler of the universe
- Hyperspacing between systems and wiping out whole fleets
- combat cards better than dice. overall I had fun. Mutual negotiations with pirates for benefit both parties. Bluffing totally superior forces away from a Capital with false promises
- Capturing a capital with a single raider that I had gained through a pirate attack
- being voted Emperor again and again
- stealing the territory later in the game with 20 cruisers and 6 dreadnoughts
- plotting as a group
- manipulating the Senate
Which mechanic did you least enjoy, and why?
- not enough time to do everything
- Senate seemed ineffectual
- Raider units only being built by Pirates, too powerful once they joined forces
- Senate Bills – loud and dominated by shouting, disorganised (common complaint)
- Unable to get votes if not on the Apparatus Committee, Apparatus Committee created a power oligarchy among the princes
- combat was too random
- Pirates able to collaborate. It caused pirates to be too powerful and make game boring
- the excessive pirate factions. The unit sanctioning mechanic limiting House
- Board play – not many options available for Houses
- the queue mechanic was very intimidating. It prevents teamwork, discussing tactics, trading, diplomacy. I found it isolating.
- battle and harvest, not designed very fairly
- raiders were too strong (a common complaint)
- Queue mechanic
- no point in the Princes taking back the [Imperial] Capital
- harvesting – quickly became almost useless
- only one capital attack a turn – makes retaking the capital difficult, allowing one person to establish a secure position
- the special units and giving pirates to Dreadnoughts
- card trading – not really relevant to my faction
Which mechanic did you most enjoy, and why?
- Combat cards, small forces could win
- Combat was interesting
- Combat cards were good, if not so random, very simple, elegant and quick
- the randomness in battle
- That because they couldn’t retreat the victor got everything
- Trading cards, trading, it encourages working with others – allowed alternate ways to get resources
- trading and diplomacy
- Voting system, secret ballot/blind vote for Emperor, vote forms
- more refined queueing system
- no action tokens for map queues, like previous grand strategy games
- I liked making sets of cards
- simple resource generation
What one change could we do to make the game more fun for you?
- more trade tokens/cards, adjust set requirements (a common point)
- better recycling of trade tokens
- more economics
- allow for more fun when unforseen consequences occur
- fewer turns, it got tedious at the end
- make the Senate more ordered, allow each Senator to draft and submit one Bill per turn
- Combat system that doesn’t allow your entire Fleet to be destroyed by an unknown Fleet while not present in the room
- enforce time limits at tables – make having multiple, foolishly large, Fleets a disadvantage
- put all Princes on the Apparatus Committee
- a little more integration so you understand if your team is doing well
- being able to interact with team more
- no more queues
- Being able to give actions [proxy control] to team mates
- everyone starting off on a more even footing and less rush
- a little more power for the Senate, but less for the Emperor
- penalty for House and Princes if capital is taken
- limit combat results so 2 cannot destroy 50
- prevent people jamming at the front door, enforce the 30 second rule
- minimise the voting system, allow a mechanic for executive control of the politics
- the GMs didn’t seem very aware of some of the rules/what the policies were
Analysis of Feedback
It’s really striking how the same mechanics appear on both the least liked and most liked lists. I do agree with the complaints that:
- there were not enough trade cards
- that the Senate was disorganised
- that Pirates were too powerful
- that combat was a little too destructive/random.
Okay, now for some detailed comment from me on how the mechanics all worked out.
Player Response to Victory Point Objectives
Towards the end of the design process, I decided not to give each player role a long list of unique victory conditions, focusing on common scoring systems (territory, votes, power) and one unique flavour buff for each role. I failed to anticipate one group of players (the Pirates) ignoring their objectives to concentrate on a goal (the Imperial Capital) which really was not all that valuable to them. This also made clear that I had got one element of the “Byzantium in Space” strategic environment wrong. Istanbul had the strongest fortifications in the world in its heyday, but the Imperial Capital in Sun and Starship was weakly defended. I note here Emperor Gerald’s decision to divert the bulk of the Imperial Capital defence forces to protecting his personal estates on another map table.
So, a new design maxim for me: “Always expect a player to try to break the game”.
It is important to always be able to determine the game state. It must always be clear who controls what. I think I made a mistake by having the big control markers, and at having player control markers be mostly white space and coloured lines. I should have made the colours bolder and cover more of the counters. I might have been better to give everyone one-two more flagship markers and no control markers.
I now feel that gifting of ships was too easy, although that was not something mentioned in player feedback.
Easy control was also diminished by the large number of ship tokens on each flagship counter.
Imperial Warlord Status
This did not work as intended, in large part because very little information flowed from the game map to the Senate, or vice versa. So we had Warlords in the Senate room asking for, and getting, imperial resources, and then going back to the map and doing whatever they liked with them (which was intended) without the Princes finding out (which was not intended).
Despite being worth VP, Atomic Power was not present much in the game, being largely converted into Dreadnoughts. Part of this may be tied to the fact that many players did not harvest, unless trade cards were available, so less atomic power was generated than intended. Once the Pirates had the Imperial Capital, that also reduced a flow of 30+ atomic power into the game per turn down to zero.
I now think it was a mistake to allow Pirates to build Raiders while in Imperial space. I should have made Raider builds possible only while in Deep Space. While they would still be powerful in combat, attrition would reduce any Raiders in Pirate forces operating in Imperial space over time.
Building special units did not work well. The Princes did not know what the map looked like, or what the sector names were. I also noticed that players always built all their special units in one place rather than splitting them between different players. This had suboptimal consequences as it allowed the Pirates to frequently capture large numbers of special units. A better solution would have been a bill that enabled a player to build one on the map when and where they chose to do so.
The lack of any limit on build actions allowed a few players to build a lot of units very quickly. That was probably a mistake. Grand Strategy games work better with a smaller number of significant units to make choices with, rather than trying to shuffle around 100 counters in two minutes.
I did not see a lot of map movement, so I don’t know if the four moves a Scout had was actually useful, or if hyper-space movement helped or hindered the game. A few players complained about other players going over time – another sign that there were too many counters on the table. Another way of doing the Scouts might be to have them increase their stacks movement by +1.
I think the maps themselves worked pretty well, although I could have had more colour on them to indicate home territory for each of the great Houses. The Imperial Capital map was too small, making it too hard to retreat.
Movement between tables was better than last year, but still too fuzzy for my liking. I think I need to prohibit movement between maps except between game turns.
This was largely working as intended. A few mistakes were made by GMs (one handed out combat cards as trade cards, another interpreted the one ship captured rule as all ships captured) but it was faster than previous combat systems and easier to do when tired.
I think the retreat rules were more unbalanced than the fact that small forces could beat large forces, as having large fleets captured was more catastrophic than having them destroyed. That is something that can be fixed. While the Raiders did well overall, if the flow of special units to Imperial fleets improved, then that would be self-correcting.
Counting ships is always slow … so I was thinking that on a map table the flagships could be used to represent nominal fleet locations, with all the ships being held in a reference box by the side of the table (one box per faction). It does remove an element of tactical control, as the relative strategic balance between a faction would become more important (although I could add static on-map defence only units). It would make it clearer who is stronger/weaker.
Worked better than the Athenian democracy in Colossus of Atlantis, but needs further refinement. Mechanics dominated by loud voices make some players uncomfortable. I probably need to go with a strict one player, one vote systems, otherwise as soon as one triumvirate can award themselves an unassailable vote lead, they usually do so.
Perhaps what I could have is roughly ten senate positions, and Bills that distribute five favours at a time. So to pass a Bill, at least one voter is doing it for a future favour promise. I like the one Bill per turn per player suggestion as well.
Information flows between the Senate were week, and Princes were largely unable to do Map movement or trade cards. One idea I have here, is to make the Emperor and elected military leader, so they become responsible for leading the Imperial Fleet that turn, only returning to the Senate for a casting vote on tied votes.
Imperial elections were fun, but there was some ambiguity about where votes were directed when sitting around a long rectangular table. It might possibly be better just to use a secret paper ballot.
Bills need some tweaking for clarity and bullet proofing against player writing illegibility. More tick boxes! Someone also needs responsibility for taking Bills to where they can be executed/resolved. Perhaps bills could create Sinecures, where a player is given a card with the rules for their new power (e.g. the ability to make a special unit) and they keep the card and its associated power until the Senate assigns it to a different player.
While players enjoyed trade, feeling hampered by the flow of trade cards, I think this mechanic needs a major overhaul. Watching people sitting on the ground sorting stacks of cards does not look like fun (although it may well be fun for those doing it). As a GM, making the cards was time consuming and required a lot of printing. Ideally, I will come up with a trade mechanic that allows deal making and negotiations, but without requiring a large number of game tokens.
I kept tripping up on the distinction between Capital area and [Imperial] Capital Sector. Maps also needed province/quadrant names.
I am tending towards regarding this as a valiant failure. It makes players focus too much on the map, and the map state of your own forces, and not on the other players and their forces. In a way its reducing the amount of strategy in the game over the furious execution of tactical moves. As such, I am leaning back towards the Holistic Action Token system (i.e. drawing faction names out of a H.A.T. to see who moves next).
Another possibility is to have an “exhaustion” combat result for attackers, indicating that a Flagship cannot move again in that game turn (unless perhaps a logistics ship is removed to resupply the force). This could create interesting possibilities for counter-attacks by fresh forces.
I like the sound of an exhaustion mechanic-that might increase the ammount of strategy. While I didn’t put it on my feedback form, a later post-mortem with my team indicated that there were dfeinitely too many fiddly counters. Might the ‘use a paperclip to indicate strength’ option from colossus work better?
Paperclips could be a bit fiddly at times. It depends a lot on how much information about a unit I want to pack into the game: unity type, strength and movement are usually the minimum. Going further and having morale/experience/etc starts complicating things.
I would agree with some kind of turn restriction at the map boards, whether that is a fatigue option or each team gets a number of action tokens at the start of each turn. I know that some members really enjoy the political game and would be happy to gift their team members their actions on the board.
(Unlimited build actions meant that if you weren’t in the line 100% of the time, you were losing production).
I may not understand your idea of not having the pieces on the board but as a big fan of games like Risk, I like the strategy involved in moving and being able to see forces.
I thought your units were good this time, maybe reduced numbers would make it clearer, reducing the number of builds each turn would do this. Would a whiteboard marker written on laminated ships work? Ie One token for each unit type – with the amount of units written on it. (Some basic addition subtraction required but far less tokens to mess around with).
Sorting the trade cards was a bit of a mission and you seemed to receive too many on a harvest action (if available), ie one trade card for each capital would have seemed about right to me, with trade options of 3, 5 or 10 (or some lesser number) with fewer different types.
The control markers were unnecessary and confusing in my opinion, an extra flagship would have been better or allowing control makers to hold territory with stationary items (like the space station.)
Hyperspace rules were a little unclear, but seemed to make the strategy of map control moot if enemies can just jump in wherever they like
Regarding combat – perhaps a limit on the number of forces you can destroy based on how many you control. Ie a raider victory, destroying “all” dreadnoughts would be capped at the number of raiders, ie 10 raiders could destroy ten dreadnoughts.
Being able to see the table before you got to the front of the line worked well. Actions you could take was clear. Turns at our table were fast (it cost a 30 second turn to tidy and count your own pieces).
Knowing your team colours ahead of time would be nice, for organisation (we just picked a colour at random). It was really cool seeing people in costume and colours.
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I should have made a better attempt to inform/coordinate team colours.
I would lessen the number of trade cards to 1/sector and lessen the requirements for trading them in too.
I like the idea of exhaustion too.
If atomic power was worth more VP than a dreadnaught, it might have been force keeping as AP. As it was, if you format shifted, at least the VP could defend itself.
I still think that the best way to deal with pirates is to have them unable to fight regular units. They steal unguarded resources, take unguarded planets, but run when confronted with the massed forces of a regular navy. I guess you see pirates as “Barbarian invaders” (like the Huns and Alans) rather than bandit raiders (like the Isaurians and Idumaeans).
Perhaps station ships that don’t bear VPs in the imperial capital for defence, or add a special ‘capital’ rule?