| |
I wouldn't go with the draft idea, unless it was minimal. If anything, I'd say
class minus three inches. This would make big ships use boats, but allow cutters
to pull right up next to the islands. Ports would of course be deep enough for
anything up to a class 8 to pull up alongside.
We could consider giving some players a merchant ship plus an Imperial cutter as
an escort craft. This would get the merchants in the game. The escort craft
wouldn't be tradable; the merchants ship would earn money by travelling between
the major ports without getting robbed. Since it would be undergunned and
undermanned, it would still be balanced, IMO, to have that player control it and
a cutter, since the cutter's crew and cannon are basically what the merchant
would be missing, anyway.
>
> As far as modifying the ships to allow more cannon or something: I just
> don't see this type of rule as necessary. The goal is to get money and buy a
> bigger ship with more cannon. As I have refined my game play, we are seeing
> upgrades more often.
I have a class 7 with 3 broadside cannon, 2 chasers on the bow on turntables, 2
turntable cannon on the poop, and 2 open cannon spots for the rear hull
openings. I've taken them and one side of the broadsides away in order to get to
the seven cannons allowed. It does seem like somewhat of a waste that there are
five open spots designed for a cannon on my ship (ISS Adventure)...however if
one were to make adding cannon available by 100g purchases from the sutler, I
suspect things could get out of hand, or at least potentially unbalanced. But, I
could see allowing a cap on cannons at class+1 for narrow-hull ships and class+2
for wide-hull ships.
This brings up another question: What about double-decker ships like the
Agamemnon?
> On simplification and options: One of the game theories that I have been
> developing is that for a game to be interesting, you must be making
> meaningful choices. If the rules make one course of action too obvious, that
> reduces choices. If the game eliminates too many choices, that doesn't work
> either. If the game becomes so complex that your choices actually aren't
> that meaningful (Which path do I take through this 50 step flowchart? The
> one that ultimately gives me a 51% chance of hitting, or the one that
> ultimately gives me a 52% chance of hitting, but has a 1% chance of
> backfire? That's not a meaningful choice, and we've burned a lot of time on
> it). In fact, you need to be making meaningful choices at some reasonable
> rate (say at least 1 per 10-15 minutes of play) in order for the game to be
> interesting.
I agree completely.
> All of this is not to dismiss discussion of the rules. There is room for
> improvement in the game. I encourage people to play the game and tell us
> what frustrated you about the game. Be careful of suggesting rules changes
> before even playing (I know, I want to do that all the time, but experience
> has taught me to go slow with rules changes, and really make an effort to
> try the rules as written first as much as possible [other than flavor
> choices like deciding to use a 4 stud LEGO inch instead of an Imperial
> inch]).
Although I haven't played yet, I can already see some things that will come up
when I run the game, due the the composition of my collection:
1) Most of my cannon shoot. I put the non-shooting ones in the broadsides and
try to make every turnable cannon a shooting one. Most of my ships carry large
amounts of cannonballs, too. Players will probably be given the option of
actually shooting if they'd like.
2) I have a large number of Imperials. Some players will probably play them and
try to hunt the pirates down/play escort/go on patrol/go explore
islands/treasure hunt.
3) I don't have enough weapons for my pirates. Pirates won't come with them, and
I'll make some basic fistfight rules (KO on a 6?).
4) Most of my Imperial ships (and even some of the larger pirates) have surgeons
onboard. These figs carry briefcases (presumably filled with medical supplies)
and the chrome silver knives (closest thing to a scapel). Saving throws against
death? In the rules, all hits are kills. I think I might come up with something
simple for injured people. Injured pirates would have no actions and would be
unable to move unless assisted by two other pirates. They would no be able to
hold anything (to include weapons) and would have to stay lying down on the
deck. A medic would have to attend to them for say, 3 to 5 turns for them to
recover, maybe rolling for recovery.
>
> One of my next improvements is going to be to replace the treasure rolling
> with a draw from a deck of cards, which will reduce the GM involvement (just
> declare what you're searching and draw). I'll have to decide if I still want
> to benefit larger search parties, and how. What would be nice is if the
> regular treasure chests had studs inside, one of my thoughts would be to set
> up a coding system so after drawing your card, you pull an appropriate chest
> from the treasure pile - I may just go with coding on the cover of the
> chest, but it's nice to be able to use those studs for pirates to stand on
> or to stack the chests. Another way would be a 1x3 plate with the code on it
> to be put inside the chest (I originally collected a huge amount of gold
> coins to use with the game, but I realized I don't want to deal with all the
> small parts so the ideal would be for the chests to be a single piece).
I just bought more than half the gold coins on Bricklink. If not gold or gems in
the chests, I would use the little paper tickets, rolled or folded up, inside
the chest and barrels. The 1x3 idea is interesting, but I think it'd be simpler
and give more variety to just print stuff out.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: ESPG Rule Mod?
|
| (...) I'm sorry, that sounded really arrogant. What I meant is that I just bought a TON of gold for the pirate game, and that it seems like a waste not to use it. Frank, do you make everyone empty their pockets after a game ends? Just curious. (...) (20 years ago, 1-May-04, to lugnet.gaming, lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: ESPG Rule Mod?
|
| (...) I really like the idea of using draught as a quality--it would slow down the really "big" ships in and amongst the islands, and allow maneuverability to mean something. But it also would give the cutters an advantage in getting to the treasure (...) (20 years ago, 1-May-04, to lugnet.gaming, lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: ESPG Rule Mod?
|
| (...) I'd think it would actually skew things in favor of the merchants. Not only would they be controlling the same number of guns, but they'd have more carrying capacity where the escort's cannon would have been, and they'd have the advantage of (...) (20 years ago, 1-May-04, to lugnet.gaming, lugnet.pirates)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: ESPG Rule Mod?
|
| Several responses on this thread... As far as draft: As Larry mentions, at least in the games I run, the seas are crowded with islands, so having shallow water extend out several inches would really be a hassle. Also, without actually marking the (...) (20 years ago, 29-Apr-04, to lugnet.gaming)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
