Conquerors of the Paellos Sector Rules/OC Discussion

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

The Paellos Sector is an oddity; a collection of disparate worlds pulled together by a black hole known as the Inkwell.  Only a few centuries before could it be reasonably called a sector; a few centuries from now it will cease to exist.  Aspiring warlords, archeologists and Imperial expeditions roam from world to world, seeking resources, artifacts and new technology.  Alien races are thrust into conflict with new neighbors and would-be conquerors alike.  Chaos reigns, and amidst it, the opportunity for power and the discovery of wonders.

CPS is a turn-based strategy game for 6-12 players.  Each takes the role of a factional leader, building and commanding forces while conquering worlds.  Victory is achieved when a player controls more than half the sector or when all remaining players acknowledge one player's supremacy.

With the revisions discussed below, rules will be the same as @LTD's rule for Warlords of the F'tarq Sector, found here:

 https://daveswargames.blogspot.com/2019/04/conquerors-of-paellos-sector.html

The map will contain nearly 50 planets.  These worlds contain knowledge, relics and other advantages in addition to credit production and industrial capacity.  Take care not to grow comfortable in a stable position; it may not remain stable for long.  Speaking of unstable, you may notice some red hyperlanes.  Upon using them, 1 D6 is rolled.  On a 1-2, 10% of the traveling force is destroyed.

Joined: Matt3412, BiggsIRL, idjmv, LTD, Fortyinred, GNIPs

6 to play, 12 to fill.

@clontroper5

@Ardaedhel

@GhostofNobodyInParticular

@Matt3412

@idjmv

@FortyInRed

@BiggsIRL

@LTD

@Lord Preyer

@Bertie Wooster

@One-Eyed Emperor

Edited April 12, 2019 by The Jabbawookie

[Matt3412 486]

##IN 

 

😉

Edited April 9, 2019 by Matt3412

[BiggsIRL 6,717]

LET'S DO THIS.

[idjmv 183]

Im in

 

[LTD 2,241]

I'd uh... like to uh... endorse... this uh... particular game.

 

#in

[LTD 2,241]

I very much like the map - particularly the multiple planets with the same letter in a system - good solution!

There is no hyperlane to A? So you cannot travel there?

And no name on the one below Q? 

Where do you want me to put questions about the rules / reforms I have thought of?

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

1 minute ago, LTD said:

I very much like the map - particularly the multiple planets with the same letter in a system - good solution!

There is no hyperlane to A? So you cannot travel there?

And no name on the one below Q? 

Where do you want me to put questions about the rules / reforms I have thought of?

All good questions, but only the last one will be addressed. 😉  Right here is good for revisions.

[LTD 2,241]

For a start, I'd like to eliminate credits and Industrial values altogether - eliminate some bookkeeping. Give each planet a value (new credits? industry? energy? some kind of name), and make it that these things cannot be stored from turn to turn.

Let's call them CREDS for now.

It still costs CREDS to jump ships (I like 1 for ships, 2 for flotillas, but that is optional).

CREDS also represent the production of each planet - a planet can build ships / GF equal to TWICE (or THRICE? discuss) its CRED value (unless it is blockaded, in which case it can only build equal to its CRED value).

For example: Planet G1 has 10 CREDS. Planet G2 has 30 CREDS. Both are controlled by the same player. The player can spent 20 CREDS building at G1, or 40 CREDS building at G2, or a combination at both that doesn't exceed 40. Of course, if the side is also JUMPING ships then the CREDS spent on units is also reduced.

CREDS not spent at the end of the turn are lost.

 

Why do this?

1. Less bookwork - no keeping track of credits and industrial capacity over multiple turns
2. Less need for trade with other players (I have excess IC, you have excess credits, let's swap ships...)
3. More flexibility in where to build units.

 

You could encourage Trade between players in a different way, where you can form a trade pact with another player, and each gains CREDS equal to one third (or quarter? fifth?) of the other player's total CRED production.

 

Another alternative would be to have "Shipyards" where all units are produced, regardless of the credit production of the planet.

 

 

I have other thoughts on some clarifications that came up during the game, but this CRED reform is the most dramatic change I would make.

Edited April 9, 2019 by LTD

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

1 hour ago, LTD said:

For a start, I'd like to eliminate credits and Industrial values altogether - eliminate some bookkeeping. Give each planet a value (new credits? industry? energy? some kind of name), and make it that these things cannot be stored from turn to turn.

Let's call them CREDS for now.

It still costs CREDS to jump ships (I like 1 for ships, 2 for flotillas, but that is optional).

CREDS also represent the production of each planet - a planet can build ships / GF equal to TWICE (or THRICE? discuss) its CRED value (unless it is blockaded, in which case it can only build equal to its CRED value).

For example: Planet G1 has 10 CREDS. Planet G2 has 30 CREDS. Both are controlled by the same player. The player can spent 20 CREDS building at G1, or 40 CREDS building at G2, or a combination at both that doesn't exceed 40. Of course, if the side is also JUMPING ships then the CREDS spent on units is also reduced.

CREDS not spent at the end of the turn are lost.

 

Why do this?

1. Less bookwork - no keeping track of credits and industrial capacity over multiple turns
2. Less need for trade with other players (I have excess IC, you have excess credits, let's swap ships...)
3. More flexibility in where to build units.

 

You could encourage Trade between players in a different way, where you can form a trade pact with another player, and each gains CREDS equal to one third (or quarter? fifth?) of the other player's total CRED production.

 

Another alternative would be to have "Shipyards" where all units are produced, regardless of the credit production of the planet.

 

 

I have other thoughts on some clarifications that came up during the game, but this CRED reform is the most dramatic change I would make.

Quite interesting.  I have mixed feelings about it; one the one hand it's less bookkeeping, and unspent credits are more of an opportunity cost.  On the other hand it's equally complex, but, I imagine, with a less intuitive physical record: i.e. potentially more errors and difficulty fixing them.

What do the rest of you think?  You all have a voice here.

[Matt3412 486]

I quite like the reform, Master Meatbag 

[idjmv 183]

49 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Quite interesting.  I have mixed feelings about it; one the one hand it's less bookkeeping, and unspent credits are more of an opportunity cost.  On the other hand it's equally complex, but, I imagine, with a less intuitive physical record: i.e. potentially more errors and difficulty fixing them.

What do the rest of you think?  You all have a voice here.

Im still a bit lost, and i like the old system better. But im sure i will understand it soon. Either way works for me.

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

Well, I’m happy to run it.  At a 1:1 credit to production ratio, for balance reasons.

[FortyInRed 380]

I'm in. 

@The Jabbawookie and @LTD - weighing in, I think it's easier to have each planet generate a single commodity (CREDS) that is used for building, jumping, and general in-game bartering. 

While I don't think credits/IC were that hard to keep track of in the previous game, I don't see the clear advantage to maintaining two "currencies", beyond that one can be rolled over and the other cannot. As someone who pretty much always found myself swimming in credits, without any obvious use for them, I don't see the benefit to being able to roll them over.

I'd rather just have a fixed quantity of widgets each planets produces, and any unspent widgets are lost. Clean, simple. 

I do like the "you can upgrade your widget production" ability, and think that 10 widgets to increase your production by 1 is fair. It's steep, but fair.

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

Other misc rule changes:

• Can we please add an element of randomness to ground assaults? 
  • One approach is just using Risk rules for attacking/defending. Easy, well-understood, and there are tons of calculators available. 
  • Another approach would be rolling (Armada?) dice.
    • Attackers roll red, defendres roll blue. 
    • Crits count as two hits, hits count as one, accuracy counts as a "block"
• Can we take into account ship size when jumping?
  • Use the ship's command value. 

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

Also, I've had a chance to review everyone's spreadsheets and have some observations:

• I'm the only one (as far as I can tell) that copied forward my spreadsheet from turn to turn. I did this mostly to keep myself honest.
• The fewer things we have to track per-planet, the better. Might I suggest limiting it to:
  • This planet's income
  • What the income was spent on
    • Items completed
    • items in-progress
  • Units
    • In orbit (with point totals)
    • On planet
  • Departing units
  • Arriving units

 

Frankly, I don't think anything else is relevant. So if we can limit each planet to only keeping track of 7 or 8 things, we can make the spreadsheets pretty simple. 

Each row can be a planet, each column can be an attribute:

Planet (Income)	Spent	Items Completed	Items In Progress	Units in Orbit	Units on Ground	Departing (cost)	Arriving
Alpha (25)	25	GFx2 (20)	MC80CC (5/106)	CRB 1 AF2B  1 X-Wing1 Y-Wing 1	7 GF	CRB1 (1)
Beta (18)	18	GR75 (18)		HHTC1 HHTC2 Z-95 1	4 GF		CRB1
Gamma (22)	18	GR75 (18)		MC80CC 2 Pelta Command 1	3 GF
Total income	65
Total spent on industry	61
Spent on jumps	1
Remaining	3

thoughts? 

 

Edit: because I can never be happy with my original post. I do like the different objectives we had. I don't like "control x% to win". I worry that this will lead to gridlock with no clear victor emerging.

I do really like the objectives because they push each of us in different ways. It also means you can be stealthy and win, not just brute force it.

For example, Bertie won last game and controlled only a fraction of the map.

Edited April 10, 2019 by FortyInRed

[LTD 2,241]

The trick with the spreadsheet is just to ensure that it is clear where everything is at any given moment - we'll see how Jabba keeps an eye on this. I was happy for everyone's sheet to look different (and they do!). I think only Bertie ran his spreadsheet as per the instructions - that's why he won.

I will plan to add in my suggestions on clarifications on the rules.

20 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Well, I’m happy to run it.  At a 1:1 credit to production ratio, for balance reasons.

Ok, so each planet can only build units to the value of its CRED / WIDGET / JABBABUCKS rating? Interesting...

I will add this into my revised rules... in the next few hours I guess.

[Bertie Wooster 1,857]

I like the CRED system better. In the last game, I had a +1 Economy bonus, but then most of my planets had more Credits than IC. GNIP had a +1 Industry bonus, but then his planets had more IC than Credits. So giving yourself a bonus to Economy or Industry felt like kind of a gamble, since you don't know what planets you'll end up with.

But then in this game, giving yourself a boost to CRED capacity is probably a REALLY good idea...

Not sure that I can join this one though. My wife and I are having a baby in July (Yay!) and life is only going to get busier from now on. And if the game doesn't end until someone controls half the sector...

Edited April 10, 2019 by Bertie Wooster

[Bertie Wooster 1,857]

14 minutes ago, LTD said:

The trick with the spreadsheet is just to ensure that it is clear where everything is at any given moment - we'll see how Jabba keeps an eye on this. I was happy for everyone's sheet to look different (and they do!). I think only Bertie ran his spreadsheet as per the instructions - that's why he won.

Your system made sense to me; I saw no reason to innovate.

I do like @FortyInRed's idea of keeping each turn on a separate tab though. Seems more simple than looking through past revisions to view previous turns, which is what I had to do.

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

55 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

While I don't think credits/IC were that hard to keep track of in the previous game, I don't see the clear advantage to maintaining two "currencies", beyond that one can be rolled over and the other cannot. As someone who pretty much always found myself swimming in credits, without any obvious use for them, I don't see the benefit to being able to roll them over.

I'd rather just have a fixed quantity of widgets each planets produces, and any unspent widgets are lost. Clean, simple. 

I do like the "you can upgrade your widget production" ability, and think that 10 widgets to increase your production by 1 is fair. It's steep, but fair.

Yep, 100% agreement.  I think we've found a currency system.  And we're totally calling them

38 minutes ago, LTD said:

JABBABUCKS.

(Or "credits," if you want to be an uncultured swine.)

 

55 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

I do like the different objectives we had. I don't like "control x% to win". I worry that this will lead to gridlock with no clear victor emerging.

I do really like the objectives because they push each of us in different ways. It also means you can be stealthy and win, not just brute force it.

For example, Bertie won last game and controlled only a fraction of the map. 

Parts of it I liked and parts I didn't.  This is an experiment to see if gridlock can be averted through both surprise factors and the threat of surprise factors.  I'm not above setting secret individual goals, just not full-on victory conditions.  Risk rules will be used for ground combat.  However many dice for each force, highest to highest, next to next, ties go to the defender, etc.   Although I agree lorewise taking size into account for jumps makes sense, here it's generally more effective to produce a larger number of small ships anyway (better flexibility, more carrying capacity, you gain forces more quickly, etc.)  Having large ships be more fuel-efficient seems like an appropriate perk for spending 3-5 turns making one (along with resiliency.)

32 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Not sure that I can join this one though. My wife and I are having a baby in July (Yay!)

Congratulations!

Edited April 10, 2019 by The Jabbawookie

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

Everyone, when you are ready please PM me your top three sets of three starting locations (so nine distinct planets total.)  They do not need to be adjacent.  All planets in the A system are off-limits.

I expect everyone to be able to respond to a mod message within 24 hours of receiving it.  Life gets busy, so don't hesitate to ask for extra time when needed.

Edited April 10, 2019 by The Jabbawookie

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

All modifications to the standard rules are to be found here.  Subject to edits.

Ground assaults: the risk system.  Each attacker and defender contributes one die, to a maximum of three attack dice vs two defense dice.  The highest attack die is pitted against the highest defense die, etc.  Tied pairs of dice go to the defender.  This is repeated until one side is wiped out, because it's impractical to PM the attacker with the choice to retreat with each roll result for a major ground battle.

Win condition: control more than half the sector.

Modifiers and capitals: none.

Unstable hyperlanes: when a fleet uses a red hyperlane a D6 is rolled.  On a 1 or 2, 10% of the traveling force is destroyed or scarred.

Credits: each world generates credits.  These may be used to build ships or ground forces on that world, or for jumps (1 per ship, 2 per flotilla.)  All unused credits vanish at the end of the turn.  As before, multi-turn construction is entirely allowed, as is increasing future credit production for 10 credits per credit increase.

Edited April 10, 2019 by The Jabbawookie

[One-Eyed Emperor 2]

I'm in.

 

[LTD 2,241]

5 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Not sure that I can join this one though. My wife and I are having a baby in July (Yay!) and life is only going to get busier from now on. And if the game doesn't end until someone controls half the sector...

You can hold a baby and a bottle in one hand  and type with the other.

I testify to this reality.

[LTD 2,241]

1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Ground assaults: the risk system.  Each attacker and defender contributes one die.  The highest attack die is pitted against the highest defense die, etc.  Tied pairs of dice go to the defender.

When you say "the risk system" do you mean the attacker gets a maximum of 3 dice, and the defender a maximum of 2 dice? 

This gives a slight advantage to the attacker.

If you mean "each attacker and defender contributes one die" then you have a sizable defender advantage.

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

Just now, LTD said:

When you say "the risk system" do you mean the attacker gets a maximum of 3 dice, and the defender a maximum of 2 dice? 

This gives a slight advantage to the attacker.

If you mean "each attacker and defender contributes one die" then you have a sizable defender advantage.

Each attacker and defender contributes one.  Both the ability to bombard and, eventually, the 14 GF cap on-world should compensate.

[LTD 2,241]

10 GF. There are no capitals.

[The Jabbawookie 5,610]

Just now, LTD said:

10 GF. There are no capitals.

Good point, even better.