TGWB First Playtest

2017-11-26 12.44.45

Map at set up. Next time I will start the players with more starbases, and vary the number of loyalty markers. Each area started with three loyalty markers, which made the Govern action useless. Next time it will be 1-2 loyalty markers.

The playtest had a few main goals:

  • was there enough to keep all of the map players engaged and busy?
  • how did the budget corruption mechanic work?
  • how much time did it take to complete a game turn?

The first cycle of turns took about an hour to walk through. Part of this was the usual time to learn a game, but another part was on identifying ambiguous wording and offering up some alternatives for refining the game. We then got through 2/3 of a second cycle in 20 minutes. So a general conclusion there is that the number of actions can be trimmed down by about one-third. With five map players per table, trying to process 45 actions in 20 minutes only gives 25-30 seconds of time per action for resolution. The players did raise a concern about the proposed trade mechanic of drawing Jenga blocks, and that people might be too slow. This is something I think Control can manage during the game.

The map itself needs a little more clarity and explanation at the start so that everyone knows how the hyperlanes work (think of them as a really skinny and very long map area) and how starbases connect (the starbases on hyperlanes and sector borders are adjacent to everything) to the map.

Sketch1

This is the A4 sheet the players were planning their turns on. I was asked why trade was not being tracked here, and I do not think there is enough space. The trade tracks will go on a different A4 that all the players share – and this make it obvious when the benefit cards need to change hands. With the budget there are two numbers the players need to track, their current power total, and their permanent budget level. In the playtest only one player had really suffered hits on the budget by the second cycle of turns, but the cards had been skewed towards Clubs/Spades. I will number label the order of actions, and put an arrow going from left to right.

The playtest identified that the first action can just be focused on buying/selling Megapower rather than buy, sell or use. The next two actions are then where the player has more choice, and can now have an action with megapower option, which will even make wording the card text easier, so that is a double win. The bonus action is something that just one player at the table will get.

A suggestion from the playtesters was to make the learning curve easier by reducing the number of action cards players have at the start of the game. During play the players can then expand their action cards, changing the menu of strategies open to them. This can also make the initial difference between Admirals and Governors stronger so that players have to cooperate with their different mix of govern/build and move/battle cards for effective defence of the empire.

The playtesters also asked for more to engage with on the map. I will be doing a pass through the faction game and adding some elements to the map that players can interact with. For example, I will add some alien symbols to indicate the presence of alien enclaves within the Galactic Empire, which will be of interest to the Alien Lives Matter faction. The Imperial Capital game will also create things like Monuments that players will need to defend against pirates. I did have some map bonuses for things like “longest controlled hyperlane” and “most starbases” (a bit of obvious inspiration from Settlers of Cattan) and they worked well.

We had some discussion around what happens if players or game tokens move between maps. My thought is that this needs to be following the play of a one use action card gained from the Imperial Capital, so that it is an exception to regular play and has some definite opportunity cost attached to it. As an end game option, a player who has reached “autonomous” government could lead a wagon train across the stars and migrate to another map table. Another option is to make it cost a lot of Megapower – say one per player already at the table.

One mechanic I borrowed from the COIN games was the distinction between Movement, Patrol and Battle. Battle could only be against units that were revealed, and for Pirates or Warlords in deep space away from the Hyperlanes this meant someone had to spend on action of Patrolling to reveal the enemy. This then allowed another player to initiate the battle action, gaining all the glory themselves. The COIN games tend to be optimised for four players, often working in teams of two. So this mechanic is a bit fiddly in this megagame and will probably be dropped. It also requires me making a mark on all of the game tokens so that the hidden/revealed status is clear at a glance from players.

2017-11-26 15.40.16

Many Warlords have spawned in the bottom left hand side, while there have been battles with pirates in three places on the hyperlanes (top left, top right, and lower mid left).

Some last specific feedback on this map – the hyperlanes need some connecting “bridges” on this map, which will be easy enough to do at the points where they connect closely. I can also make the border the same colour pattern as the hyperlanes, to indicate that off-map travel can loop around. Its possible for a region to get crowded – I will have some overflow/breakout boxes, so you can pick the tokens up and put them down elsewhere.

Overall, it feels good for the first playtest. The next playtest will test out the Imperial capital game.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: