Theoretical Community CCG Project

[Cyrus]

The only argument against the War and Peace thing is that it is all going to take place in the rules, which is something you (we) wanted to avoid...
I suppose maybe only cards (perhaps agendas?) can change your stance? If we used what I was talking about (agendas can be completed by anyone) then it might work. So until a nation shows its intention to complete a military objective, the galaxy is at peace. As soon as any player plays a military based agenda, however, all players will have the option to move to the War stance. Moving back to peace, like you said, should be more difficult, and maybe require an agenda as well to trigger it.

Also, should attacking a peaceful nation cost more? It's hard to say without cards (obviously) whether remaining peaceful would be worth it once war springs up. I guess the cards will be the judge (which isn't bad)!

I'm a big fan of both of your "*IDEA"s there Malagar! It should cost resources to pretty much do anything, as any good empire building game should really just come down to a resource management game (with lots of pretty pictures and cool words, of course).

Seems like we're coming up with lots of different ways decks can work, which is really cool. I could see any of the attributes being a pretty decent start for a deck foundation, as well as focusing on other mechanics such as exploring a bunch of planets (mana ramp!).

That's my thought-splosion for tonight, cheers!

[r0cknes]

Wow ascent there are some really good ideas in there! I certainly think we can have some action cards that only certain fleets could use. Say fighters for example. I think thatmost of these actions would be restricted by the factions though.

The only problem I would have with paying you fleet to perform actions is that you will end up using some ships to defend and attack on the same turn. I know that location have been rightfully taken out of this game, but common sense tells me that if I want to go attack then I shouldn't be able to defend with the same ship.

[BrotherM]

@Ascent:

I didn't respond to your first post because I didn't really understand it.  I have re-read it and your subsequent posts, and I am really trying, but I just don't get the gist of what you are saying.  It really sounds to me like you want to just restrict card play to certain planets based on where you have placed a "fleet" card.  Once that is at a planet, then you can build other stuff there and play instants there.  And somehow, both sides build up, and then have a showdown at some point.  Is that about right?  Cause if so, it really just sounds like a geographic restriction on cardplay (ie the "funnel" concept).  Geography has generally been decided to be abstract i believe, so it's not too useful for this particular project.

Another issue I have with it is that it leads to a runaway leader problem.  So, I have 3 planets and you have 2.  I am gaining more resources than you, so I attack one of yours and you ultimately can't defend it.  Now I have 4 and you have 1.  The same process happens and now I have 5 and you have 0.  That's not a very compelling game narrative for either side.  Or is there a catch-up mechanic in there somewhere I missed?

If I'm misunderstanding this, please help me understand how.

Later on, you mentioned "back-and-forth style of card play, rather than turn structures".  I believe you mean: I play a card then you play a card, etc vs Mtg-style turn structures.  If that's the case, I kind of agree with you on this point.  Really I think the turn structure should be similar to Power Grid or Through the Ages (for those familiar with boardgames):

1. Draw phase - everyone simultaneously draws according their faction or whatever
2. Resource phase - everyone collects their resources simultaneously (either getting physical markers or untapping their cards, however that's decided)
3. Action phase - everyone takes turns performing one action:
- play a card
- activate a card
- attack someone
- etc
Continue until everyone passes.  The turn order for the next turn is based on who passes first (so if i am the first to pass, i will be first player next turn)
4. Agenda phase - everyone simultaneously looks to see if they have completed any Agendas.  Any that have been completed are discarded, then players may play new ones if they wish.

This is just a basic idea, but I like this structure for this sort of game- way less downtime and lots of strategy in timing your actions.

@Malagar:

I'm still not sold on psionics either, but you are the boss here and if you really want it, I can live with that.   I think we just need to make it flavorful to the setting and it will be ok.

I like the "new" resource system better of those two, but my preference would be a modified version of it:
Everything costs neutral solaris, and you have to have the matching icons for the card, but the matching icons don't have to appear on the particular resource card you are tapping.  You just have to have it somewhere.

RE: your idea of "paying" your fleet to perform actions:
I ultimately think it's too fiddly.  That term is a little vague, but I mean it as: there would be too much physical manipulation of bits that wastes time and effort without including interesting decisions.  Counting out 12-15 or however many resources you might have late in the game, just to divvy them up and put them back in the supply takes a lot longer than just tapping/untapping cards.  It doesn't add enough flavor to make up for that, I don't think.

@Malagar and Cyrus:
I'm down with the war/peace thing.  I really like Cyrus's idea of that status being impacted by agendas.  Making someone declare their hostile intentions is cool.  And yeah, reverting back to peace should be difficult and probably include some sort of strong diplomatic push or sacrifice of resources.  Maybe rather than everything being tapped/untapped to represent it, just your faction card could be.  Or maybe the faction card is double-sided, one for wartime and one for peacetime?  Then you could represent changing your resource production etc as you gear up for war!

---
PHEW!  Lots of good stuff here guys.  This is honestly a blast.  Thanks to everyone for letting me play along!

[Malagar]

Wow - i come home and see this thread almost cooking!

@BrotherM

PSI: Okay lets trash psionics (for now). I just wanted to mention it.

Resources: Good and already on its way into the rulebook. I was thinking about that already - its just stupid when the icons are tied to the planets, because then we could have different resources instead. So resource icons are "global" so to say. much simpler, faster, easier - neat.

Paying fleets: Was just an idea. lets trash it. because r0cknes also mentioned the problem with defending fleets. i guess there is no way around tapping here.

War/Peace: That double sided faction card is absolutely my flavor. There could be different icons/income on the cards depending on their state. also the nation card could have different abilities on both sides, even different built-in agendas. Thats perfect idea!

Regarding your answer to Ascent, simultanous turns:

We have to test it. but i also like the idea how you listed the phases and actions. it really removes downtime - especially in multiplayer games. we should get this working right.

...

Im trying to update the rulebook within the next few days, but there is so much stuff going on here (changes on a daily base) it could take longer. again - i add to the rules what and how i see fit. once we got the "skeleton" of our "golem" ready, we can discuss the details again.

can't wait to see the first cards/factions in action!

[Ascent]

Wow, this thread is ablaze!

@Cyrus

Thats me and Cyrus for the new resource sytem, anyone else? any complains?

Resources: Good and already on its way into the rulebook. I was thinking about that already - its just stupid when the icons are tied to the planets, because then we could have different resources instead. So resource icons are "global" so to say. much simpler, faster, easier - neat.

I'm kind of lost on what resource system was decided upon. I can't be sure what's being agreed upon. Can someone post the resource system or give me a link to the post?

Since you've already come to conclude not to use Psi, I won't bother with my objections to Psi in a game of galactic conquest.

@Ascent

to sum it all up - i think we are on the right road to make the fleets more like "hubs" (in our style) and this list of possibities and drawbacks demonstrates it very well (i think):

* Fleets can attack other fleets
* Fleets can explore new planets
* Fleets can capture enemy planets (semi-new idea)
* Fleets can participate in certain Agendas
* Fleets can produce special effects written on the cards

* Without fleets you cannot defend your resources (planets and other permanent cards)
* Without fleets you cannot explore planets
* Without fleets you cannot capture enemy planets
* Without fleets you cannot participate in certain Agendas
* Without fleets you cannot produce special effects

Planets are like the energy and vitamin production facilities in the human body. while the fleet is the arm, that does various actions like grabbing, hitting, pushing, pulling by spending vitamins and energy. the planets define the type of energy, the arm uses that energy to perform certain actions.

I was hoping to avoid the attack/defend, unit vs. unit aspect, as war, as mentioned by someone here, is about resource management. And being a fleet, there is no specific point of strike and strike back, because it's all over the place.

* IDEA: we could remove tapping to certain degree. during your "income phase" a player would instead put as many solaris tokens on his planets as their income states. the player can use theese tokens to pay for various cards or "fleet maneuvers". at the end of the turn, the remaining tokens are lost and removed.

* IDEA: fleets also do not tap to certain degree. instead you spend the solaris tokens on planets to "pay" your fleets for performing maneuvers. you pay x solaris to make a fleet card attack, explore a new planet, participate in agendas or produce special effects.

Finally: I really want to stick to that "We are at war" and "We are peaceful" nation-card state thing by tapping. It sounds so good and we could make card that can only be played during "peace" or "war". But, i would say that a player cannot switch back to "peace" so easily.

"Paying" for things, when you have so many resources can get confusing. That's why I proposed the trickle system. (See below for more details on that.)

@Ascent:

I didn't respond to your first post because I didn't really understand it.  I have re-read it and your subsequent posts, and I am really trying, but I just don't get the gist of what you are saying.  It really sounds to me like you want to just restrict card play to certain planets based on where you have placed a "fleet" card.  Once that is at a planet, then you can build other stuff there and play instants there.  And somehow, both sides build up, and then have a showdown at some point.  Is that about right?  Cause if so, it really just sounds like a geographic restriction on cardplay (ie the "funnel" concept).  Geography has generally been decided to be abstract i believe, so it's not too useful for this particular project.

While my idea is geographically restrictive, I think you misunderstood how the resource distribution takes place. There is a "peace time", in which you're fleet is not at your opponent's planet. Any time your fleet is at your opponent's planet it is "war time". Different things take place and different cards are allowed or disallowed based upon whether it is "peace time" or "war time". Geographically focusing it is meant to let players address a specific issue, rather than counting it as a galaxy-wide problem. It represents invasions or police actions.

Another issue I have with it is that it leads to a runaway leader problem.  So, I have 3 planets and you have 2.  I am gaining more resources than you, so I attack one of yours and you ultimately can't defend it.  Now I have 4 and you have 1.  The same process happens and now I have 5 and you have 0.  That's not a very compelling game narrative for either side.  Or is there a catch-up mechanic in there somewhere I missed?

I believe such issues can be addressed after the basic mechanics are formed. The idea is to give a means of addressing whoever has the unfair advantage, which is usually the starting player.

Later on, you mentioned "back-and-forth style of card play, rather than turn structures".  I believe you mean: I play a card then you play a card, etc vs Mtg-style turn structures.  If that's the case, I kind of agree with you on this point.  Really I think the turn structure should be similar to Power Grid or Through the Ages (for those familiar with boardgames):

1. Draw phase - everyone simultaneously draws according their faction or whatever
2. Resource phase - everyone collects their resources simultaneously (either getting physical markers or untapping their cards, however that's decided)
3. Action phase - everyone takes turns performing one action:
- play a card
- activate a card
- attack someone
- etc
Continue until everyone passes.  The turn order for the next turn is based on who passes first (so if i am the first to pass, i will be first player next turn)
4. Agenda phase - everyone simultaneously looks to see if they have completed any Agendas.  Any that have been completed are discarded, then players may play new ones if they wish.

This is just a basic idea, but I like this structure for this sort of game- way less downtime and lots of strategy in timing your actions.

Well, that's still the structure I was hoping to avoid. I was going for the player using resources on the fly using the trickle system. So in structured games, you compile all your resources at once and at some point lose certain resources. I'm talking about not having a set point to gain resources, but simply using a trickle of resources. That is, you can play a card based upon how much of a particular resource you have. So if your technology resource is 3, then you can play 1 card on your turn to play a card worth 3 or less. Because things are back-and-forth, there is a limit on the number of cards you can play, namely 1 (unless you play some sort of reactionary instants, such as "interference" or "trap" cards). So how expensive that card is is based upon the trickle number of the resource. This way you do not have to keep track of how many resource points you have with counters, gaining and spending. It is assumed that the resource is self-sustaining based upon how big the resource is. So using the resource doesn't drain it. The resource number simply limits what you can play. Your comments to Malagar would be resolved with this sort of resource system.

Paying fleets: Was just an idea. lets trash it. because r0cknes also mentioned the problem with defending fleets. i guess there is no way around tapping here.

Actually there is. If they have a resource cost associated, using the back-and-forth system and trickle system I proposed, then you only need to worry about whether you have a large enough resource number to play it, and you wouldn't have to track resources or tap.

War/Peace: That double sided faction card is absolutely my flavor. There could be different icons/income on the cards depending on their state. also the nation card could have different abilities on both sides, even different built-in agendas. Thats perfect idea!

I'm not sure who suggested it, but that sounds pretty cool.

If you say you want to use the gain and spend model of resource management, I won't mention the trickle resource management again.

[r0cknes]

ATTENTION: About Resources and Income
A few posts earlier we decided to simplify the income/resource system and i really would like your final thoughts on this because i want to go on with the next rulebook chapters. So please tell me in short if you prefer the new or the old resource system (i prefer the new although its a bit complicated at first sight):

OLD: Tapping resource cards provides you with one or more of five different resources. These resources are equal to the attributes. to play a card you have to pay the necessary resources in quantity and matching type. this equals the mana system of magic: the gathering.

NEW: Tapping resource cards provides you with Solaris (the interstellar currency). To play a card you just have to pay its cost in solaris. But: Cards also feature attributes and to bring a card into play, the resource card wich provides the solaris must also feature the matching attribute icons.

Example: You want to bring a cost 3 enhancement card into play that features both Intrigue and Military attributes. So you have to tap a resource that not only provides at least 3 solaris, but also features both intrigue and military icons. This equals a single-currency system with color-coded cards.

I think the decision was to go with the second. I personally could go with either one. I am also ok with ascent's resource mechanic. I don't think it is a bad mechanic by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't like it for this game. If another game came out with it I would gladly play it. My preference is the new resource mechanic of the choices given. I do very much like the old one though. It is much like ascent's, except ascent's doesn't have tapping. I like tapping... can you tell

I like the turn structure that was stated. I would be sure to add a refresh phase at the end to ready all exhausted cards though.

I also like the war peace idea. Double faced is the way to go I think.

[Ascent]

By "double-sided", I was thinking what was meant was a kings and queens style, in which half of the card is for peace time and half is for war time, joining at the middle. I strongly caution against cards with one thing on one side and another on the flip-side, as randomization vs. cheating becomes more problematic.

[Malagar]

Rulebook was updated (a bit), here is the link (i also added a permanent link to my sig):

http://www.zockergilde.net/files/galaxian-rulebook.txt

A new rule was added, called SPOTTING - because its needed to correctly explain the new resource system. its not my idea - the same rule is used in the HACK CCG as well as the newer LOTR CCG:

SPOTTING
================================================================
Certain effects require that the player SPOTs other cards, attribute icons or card types in play in
order to resolve. To SPOT or SPOTTING means that you have to locate the stated card, attribute icon
or card type among all cards in play, your cards in play or your opponents cards in play.

EXAMPLE: The card "Traitor" states that you have to SPOT two intrigue icons among the cards of your
opponent in order to resolve its effects. So you have to visually locate two cards featuring one
intrigue icon or one card with two intrigue icons on it.


I reply to your posts later!

[BrotherM]

I think it will be easier to go item by item, rather than by poster:

Resources:  So if i understand it right, the rule is: To play a card, you must pay its cost in neutral resources AND have icons matching its icons somewhere among your permanents.

Regarding Ascent's idea, I see there was a key element I was missing.  Thanks for the further explanation.   I think it is a very interesting idea actually- the costs are really just a threshold, rather than a payment.  It would work really well with a game focused on developing an empire- maybe like a Civilization game where you move through eras.  I don't think that is the plan for this game, but that's unclear to me still.  I think we are simulating a relatively short time period here, not hundreds of generations of growth.

Actually, maybe it would be good to incorporate this "threshold" idea somewhere, like maybe for Technology costs? I like that different card types are being brought into play in different ways: planets and fleets are already much different.

Spotting: So is that an attempt to give a name to our current resource mechanic?  If so, I like it.  I hadn't thought of requiring icons on the opponent's tableau, but that is a clever idea too and opens up a lot more design space.

War/Peace: I'm glad you got the gist of my idea with the double-sided cards.  Having much different faction bonuses based on the War/Peace status would be really fun, I think.  And as long as they are restricted to a single card per player per game, which starts the game in play, we don't have to worry about shuffling them into decks so there is no issue with that.

Turn Structure: Yeah I think there will need to be some modifications to my suggestion, but I'm glad you guys are down with the basic idea.  I pretty much only play multiplayer games, so I always stress minimizing downtime as much as possible.

Psi: Are we going to replace it with anything?  Four attributes is not a bad number, but 5 is better.

Rulebook:  Don't sweat it too much yet.  There's still a lot to be sorted out before that's really necessary.  And everything is documented in this thread for now.  But go for it if it helps you.

[Malagar]

@BrotherM:

@Resources: Exactly, but maybe not all permanents - only "resource" card type permanents.

@Civ-era-idea: In the very beginning of this thread i thought we would base this game on Civilisation like empire building with eras and technology levels. But the current state is simulating a much shorter time period. We took this "generation-thing" completely out, and i would say we save it for another game - this is also true for most of Ascents ideas, as we already got a very good base for this game.

@Treshold: Maybe you can explain that in detail. Also i have to re-read Ascents post again.

@Spotting: Exactly, its a mechanic that explains how the "have matching resources in play" part of the resource system works. But the mechanic can also be used for special abilities and card effects. Regarding opponents icons: this would only apply to special abilities and not bringing cards into play.

So you can read every cards cost something like a code:

* pay 3 Solaris and spot 3 Science icons among your cards
* pay 2 Solaris and spot 2 Military and 1 Diplomacy icon among your cards
* pay 5 Solaris and spot 3 Military, 2 Science and 1 Diplomacy icon among your cards

@War/Peace: Yep, like it very much. Double Sided or Split Cards, i dont care - the idea is the same. Very good extension to the original War/Peace State Tapping Nation Card idea.

@Turn Structure: Right now its like all phases are simultanous but not the main phase of the game, wich slows the game down at its main bottleneck. but the idea is good, maybe we get a few more ideas later on. I could also imagine going further and turning the main phase also simultanous with some kind of "initative betting system" to see who is going first.

PS: like the idea of "who passes first - goes first next turn". good!

@Psi: Don't know, i really like to have 5 with the possibility to expand it to 7 in the future (maybe in a expansion or new core-set). I was thinking about dividing Science and Commerce again - we now have the space to do so (and im really looking forward designing some merchant guild factions with suitable special rules and cards :-)

@Rulebook: Yeah i know, for now i try to maintain the rulebook to keep a documentation besides this thread. And i proclaimed to be the "project leader", so i just have to do something extra - or not?

---

@All

1. I thought about distributing some actual work to the people who are into this project. I dont want to command people, so this is absolutely voluntary. the target is to give the game a more appealing look to get more people interested. some things i thought about are possible even without 100% of the rules being finished:

* template design (is xchokeholdx still online? he is good at templates)
* faction design (any ideas? we could already compile a list of houses/alien races)
* background story / history (a bit about the universe where our game takes place)

if anyone is interested, i would be glad to know your ideas - you can do very much without knowing the rules. the most of us are currently busy with the base rules, so a little help with templating and story elements would be really a godsend!

2. I guess we still need something special to add to the game. right now we keep most of the rules to the cards, with a few exceptions being basic rules and how the different card types are played. but most CCGS feature some core mechanic that makes them different. i dont want to bend physics too much here - but a single, simple, but really suitable mechanic would do wonders for the whole project.

I have seen betting systems in other ccgs, as well as the Burden and twilight pool in the newer LOTR game. in L5R there is the imperial favor. maybe something like that.

*IDEA: maybe our game universe is ruled from behind the scenes by a galactic council who favors a single nation and grants a special advantage. certain cards could gain or loose the councils favor (this is pretty much the same as in L5R, but just an idea).

3. *BIG IDEA: okay this is crazy, unrealistic and quirky - anyways:

building on my "we need something special idea", i thought about adding a real galactic council to the game. right now the personalities lack uniqueness and are somewhat underpowered compared to the other card types. what if, we enable them to promote to become galactic council members during the game? (galactic council = GC from now on)

in the beginning, the GC is empty and has no effect. once there are personalities in it, they are able to perform special global actions like granting a player to draw an additonal card or whatever. there could be 2-3 GC special actions in the rulebook. the rest would be written on a new card type called "laws", every player can bring laws into play - even without membes in the GC. but - the GC has to "Vote" for or against a "law" brought into play, only laws voted "for" enter play.

this voting process is done by tapping GC members or not. every player can tap his personalities in the GC to either support a "law" card or decline. also, members of the GC loose all their abilities and attribute ratings and cannot be used for normal actions anymore.

theese "law" cards could add various global game effects or even bend the core rules to some degree. this would force players to either add personalities as soon as possible to the GC or murder/blackmail/buy GC members to prevent "laws" from happening. it would also empower the personalities we have so far much, much more - giving them a real reason to "be in the game".

* "player x wants to draw an additonal card - is the GC for or against this?"
* "player x wants to go first next turn - is the GC for or against this"?
* "player x wants to explore a new planet without a fleet - is the GC for or against this?"
* "player x wants to bring a new law card into play - is the GC for or against this?"

background story snippet: the GC could be the responsible force that initated the "war for ascendancy" among the races of the universe. for the GC, the galactic fight is like a game - they play chess with living things. its a shadow cabinet that pulls the strings of all major forces of the galaxy, bending and breaking rules as they fit to position the nations of their liking on the galactic throne. a microscope council of elders compound of all races in the universe - trying to rule a macroscope galactic universe from within.

uahh - my brain - enough for today!

Still powering a 80-reply strong thread - Malagar out (for today)!

[r0cknes]

@Malagar

That is for sure a different idea. I don't know if I like it. I will have to sleep on it. What happens in a 2 player game where one of the players has the majority of GC leaders. I can foresee that being a disaster. I like the idea of a council in the background "playing with" the different races, but the voting could get out of hand I am afraid. Maybe we could work it in without the voting. I don't have any thoughts right now, but I will think about it tomorrow.

I was just going to ask if we have any artists among us. I certainly am not. I wish I could help with the templates, but I am not much of a help there. Once I get more of a feel for this project I would be willing to work on a faction though.

[Malagar]

@r0cknes

Just a crazy idea!

Rulebook was updated to 0.1.1 alpha - thats all for today (tired)

http://www.zockergilde.net/files/galaxian-rulebook.txt

[Dragoon]

I can help with templates (if nescessary) and I can build a MSE plugin.

Vote system will be hell in a two player game O.o

[yudencow]

I think instead of a council we could have a cult of galactus/unicron like being which will pretty much enslave and murder us all because it is so powerful. Players can decide to help the cult and thus gaining dark powers at a cost of turning their men into fanatics or fight against it along side the GC (which will be the good guys).  As you advance in either way (and you can't both), you become more powerful. It dosen't mean players aligning themselves with the cult or the GC can't fight each other, just that they can coordinate attack with each other against the other side for bonuses from the respective group.

Here is a solution without votes.

I still think there should be only 3 attributes and each one has 3 sub-attributes. That makes it so people can more focus on a certain build then others. Sorry to tell you but the of five, sevens, nines or any number other number is worthless. I can name from the top of my head a bunch of trilogies, and barely 1 pentology. Meaning intrigue is a sub-attribute of politics and science is a sub-attribute of military and so on.

I understand agendas rule now, and we could have it that certain agendas allow you to gain reputation to either group and thus accessing more power. I will like it if it will work like WoWTcg quests, but some become permanents once completed. I really see no reason for some players complete other players agendas if everyone can search for them in the beginning of the turn if you don't have an active one (which is an awesome idea). I see ways people hinder others to complete the agenda. For example, military agenda: destroy 3 fleet cards to increase your Military rating by 1. Another player has an efefct from a certain card which said, pay 4 solariom, destroy this card -> remove all progress from all agendas of all players but yourself and any other players you wish. That effect also causes interaction and real-life intrigue you like so much, Malagar.

[Ascent]

I got an idea: how about no council and no Galactus.