Anonymous user
Talk:Homejinks: Difference between revisions
→Improved Dice?
imported>Cuc (→Playtests: Added point 4.of the strategy notes.) |
imported>Cuc |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Name Change ==
I propose the name: "Mini Homeworlds" as it is played with just 3 trios. It's amazing how rich the game is for so few pieces. But it's important to play the correct variant (see below). Homejinks with its original rule and dice is kind of boring and seems less balanced. [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 00:13, 4 November 2020 (PST)
== Terminology ==
* Global Stash -> Bank
* "Each player receives a single small pyramid" -> add: "from the Bank".
* "Play proceeds counterclockwise" -> clockwise (this is standard in most games).
* "(Idea) Perhaps the attacker must control more than the value of the target in that system, along with the size constraint." This condition only comes into play when the attacking ship is of equal size as the attacked ship. So, it could read: "If you attack a ship of equal size as your largest ship, you must own one more ship in that system." But this restriction makes it even more difficult to overtake a Large when you're behind. Why was this rule suggested?
[[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 13:58, 4 December 2020 (PST)
== Rule Clarifications, Please ==
Line 7 ⟶ 18:
['''EDIT.''' I noticed some terms are clarified at the END of the article under Terms. Great! As a result, there are only few questions left. See Setup point 2., Overpopulation, variant without dice.]
* Materials. Of course you could use ANY color of pyramids for the Bank. You could even use different colors, but treat them all the same. If played with more than 2 people, it does not state how many trios to use, but I suggest 1 more trios than the number of players.
* Setup. OK, so star systems are marked by the presence of one or more ships (from either player) and no other markers. '''Suggestion.''' If desired, a location can be marked with a poker chip or a playing card facing down.
*
▲* Setup. OK, so star systems are marked by the presence of one or more ships (from either player) and no other markers. '''Suggestion.''' If desired, a location can be marked with a poker chip or a playing card facing down. '''Note.''' I use poker chips with letters. This enables notation of the game state.
* Order of Play. During playtesting, I noticed the following. Do you roll the die and THEN decide whether or not to sacrifice? This is suggested by the rules (and explains the word "and" in part 3.). If you do, then the first roll can be judged for usefulness. If not useful, then you could still decide to sacrifice and roll again for the number of pips. HOWEVER, as a variant, it's possible to say explicitly: "On your turn, decide if you want one regular action or if you want to sacrifice a ship. If you roll, you need to use this action (you can not then sacrifice a ship)." And under "Sacrifice": If you decide to sacrifice, first return one of your ships to the Bank. You earn as many actions as pips on the sacrificed ship. For each action, roll the dice to determine the action. You can perform the action in any system you occupy after the sacrifice."
▲* Therefore, Setup point 2. is confusing by mentioning the "homeship". Why is this concept introduced? I don't think that the ship is special in any way, because there is no "homeworld" to defend. It's only about ships. A game state consists of a collection of star systems that contain ships.
* Overpopulation. OK, so Terms clarifies that an overpopulation exists when ''all 3'' ships of a size appear in a star system. Still, if you play with 3 people, would you increase the Bank with an extra trio? Does this affect overpopulations to ''all 4'' ships?
Line 23 ⟶ 36:
* What about the variant to this game that is played without dice, but where every action is according to your preference? Does this work?
* I'm curious. Was this game playtested? (There is indication that it was, because of the N.B. with the Yellow action.) I'll give it a try and get back with findings. I see it is in development phase (label), but on the other hand it's complete (version V1.0) . . . It seems that with 3 trios, only 9 ships in the game, isn't the game rather trivial despite the different actions? In any case, I don't think the game can be very complex and after a few games, it's clear how to get ahead and win. If that is true, what would be the optimal supply instead? With too many ships, perhaps the game won't ever end? I really don't know yet. Can anybody share their experience with this game? That would be appreciated. I will be back on this subject myself.
** The Bank seems about right for 2 persons. All playtested games were with 3 trios (see below). The games were NOT trivial, but wanting. I'm going to try a slightly larger Bank in another playtest. [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 03:35, 3 November 2020 (PST)
[[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 17:34, 1 November 2020 (PST). Revised [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 23:02, 1 November 2020 (PST). 2nd Revision [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 03:24, 3 November 2020 (PST). 3rd revision [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (PST)
== Playtests ==
Line 46 ⟶ 59:
| III || R/B || Y/G || This game is most balanced. The Y/G prevents passes / Overpopulations: if you'd create a Catastrophe with Green, you can use Yellow to spread out. We had great fun. It has reversal of fortune (you can win, even when you seem lost).
|}
'''Table 1.''' "Two-Two" Combos.
* On my way home I considered that, indeed, one could even assign 2 allowed actions to any throw of a D6 as follows:
Line 66 ⟶ 79:
| 6 || Y/G
|}
'''Table 2.''' "Half-Half". All C(4,2) = 6 color combo's appear with equal probability.
I playtested this game, and it was delightful. Complete with what we have started to call "reversal of fortune" (see above). This game has the most intriguing scenarios of all the above variants; it is perfectly balanced. For each turn, a particular action has a probability of 1/2, but it's paired with one of the others at random. It works particularly well. Please, give it a try.
Line 81 ⟶ 94:
[[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 03:25, 3 November 2020 (PST). Revised [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 23:55, 3 November 2020 (PST). Revised (added point 4.) [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 22:03, 3 December 2020 (PST)
== Improved Dice? ==
Previously, I made an error in counting and thought that some combos have a different probability to appear. But it's clear that any combo (say Red or Green) has a probability of 5/6 to appear, because only ONE combo doesn't have either color (in this case, Yellow and Blue). We do not need a different dice. But some probabilities may be lower by removing some colors (but which one?). I had a design of a dice that featured the probability of 4/6 for the combos (R or G) and (G or B). We can remove G from the Y/G combo to achieve this.
A dice that provides these probabilities is:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! N !! Color Combo
|-
| 1 || R/B
|-
| 2 || Y
|-
| 3 || R/G
|-
| 4 || Y/B
|-
| 5 || R/Y
|-
| 6 || G/B
|}
'''Table.''' Improved Dice?
Note that one throw has ONLY Yellow.
I will playtest this and report back.
Perhaps, additionally, you should be allowed to throw again until you get another number, if you throw G/B and the Bank is empty.
--
I considered that two combos that do not share a color, should be on opposite sides of the dice, and perhaps that there isn't a color that adds to 6 (1+2+3) or 15 (4+5+6), but this is impossible. However, we'd like the combos Y+R and G+B to be as close to the expected 5 x 3.5 = 17.5 as possible. The following dice delivers:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! N !! Color Combo
|-
| 1 || R/B
|-
| 2 || Y/B
|-
| 3 || G/B
|-
| 4 || R/Y
|-
| 5 || R/G
|-
| 6 || Y/G
|}
'''Table.''' Improved Dice?
I'm sure that in practice, this dice performs equal to any other dice that has the combos distributed in a different way, but this design appeals to my sense of aesthetics. R+Y has expected sum 18, while G+B has expected sum 17.
[[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 15:58, 16 May 2021 (PDT)
| |||