Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Failbird105]

Yeah, and I'm going to need that help since I have minimal familiarity with MtG.

I'm afraid I may have to retract my offer.

Against good interest, I launched Insurrection.

Well I mean, the idea was kinda to wait until after you had launched your game anyway. Y'know, so I have an example to work with.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Heads up for people here.  United Forenia on Remnant has reached the point where the prototypes are submitted for the Grand Finale.  Here's a link if you want to submit something for it.

[Kashyyk]

Ever thought your team in Arms Race would be winning if they actually followed your suggestions? Ever felt that one guy is actively opposing you because he wants to be a tool? Ever wanted to prove that you really are the better engineer?

As I am a masochist, I have been thinking about a free-for-all style arms race, and how to run it in such a way that the GM doesn't immediately burn out. This originated from my observation of various arms races and how some people get very, very passionate in their discussions about what the best course of action is. The general premise would be each player running their own nation, Arms Race style. Designing new weapons and reaping the rewards. However, this could very quickly turn into a swamp for the GM, who would have to process at least one design per player every turn, and multiple fronts per player. As the number of players go up, their workload increases exponentially and it will quickly become a herculean task to manage.

Hence I'm coming to you all for suggestions on how to design this game in such a way that the GM doesn't want to top himself before Year 3. Here are my current thoughts:

Instead of being the classic "nations with an eternal enmity matched only by their manpower" game style, instead the players manage mercenary companies in some alternate universe where national militaries are banned. Each turn, the players' companies are hired to duke it out across a pre-defined battlefield, and they must prepare by designing equipment for the situation and then fielding units. The two sides will then hire the players in such a way that they are as miraculously equal as possible, and then the companies duke it out like any other Arms Race battle. This means only one battle has to be processed each turn, but there's no satisfying conclusion involving one nation annihilating all opposition.

The other option would have each player managing a city-state of sorts, and they'd all be brawling with the other players until only one is left standing. This has the issues mentioned above, but I've put some thought into how to handle it. If the players choose their production (like in Cinder Spires or Planetary arms Race) then he would also not have to think about expense levels or which equipment the armies use. Players could also be tasked with choosing which fronts to push, which will reduce the number of battles the GM will have to process, it would also allow players to follow cease-fires, or work together against common enemies. Finally, claiming a city-state's capital could give the player additional design dice, production, manpower, attacks or other such "resources" to help facilitate their conquest.

So, do you guys have any suggestions on how to make this less of a burn-fest?

[Shadowclaw777]

The main reason problem with Arm Races with multiple factions as stated many times in the Discord, is that it creates a strategy of ganging up on one nation, and eventually evening out to a single faction against another after all of the other factions are dead, I say it adds a strategy element but it seems like the other people of the Discord don’t add to the value of the game. You can always add a separation of Military command and the combat designers so that the Players can’t create these gang-ups, but then it probably removes a strategic element of the Arms game 

As for the mercenary company game, it reminds of another Arms Race, on ehich the players played as weapon designer company in trying to sell their equipment. I’d imagine if you go route #1, you should have player decided on turn 0, and not having them switch sides as a possibility, so multiple mercenary companies per the two factions, but they can’t interchange

[Doomblade187]

Uh, maybe two GMs? Each takes half the companies. Beyond that, have a very structured design format.

Name: Big Fly
Category: Plane
Differences from current tech: Has a pinwheel on the front
New Tech Details: Polka Dots

This way if you use a difficulty system it's easier to interpret.

[10ebbor10]

Instead of being the classic "nations with an eternal enmity matched only by their manpower" game style, instead the players manage mercenary companies in some alternate universe where national militaries are banned. Each turn, the players' companies are hired to duke it out across a pre-defined battlefield, and they must prepare by designing equipment for the situation and then fielding units. The two sides will then hire the players in such a way that they are as miraculously equal as possible, and then the companies duke it out like any other Arms Race battle. This means only one battle has to be processed each turn, but there's no satisfying conclusion involving one nation annihilating all opposition.

I don't really see how this would result in a workload reduction. Unlike traditional arms races, the fact that you're reshuffling the compagnies every turn is that every turn you need reconsider every single bit of equipment. For example, one turn Player A's machine gun could be cooperating with Player B's helicopter, and the next it could be trying to fight it.

[Happerry]

If you went the City State path, I'd make a map with them all and make sure that you couldn't have, say, six people allied against one person at the start just because their wouldn't be enough active connections. While actually just putting them on a grid with four connections per city always and forever might be a bit unsubtle, as long as the alliances have to remain small, local, and at risk of one of the other players attacking them in the back while they're distracted and thus being the easiest target, and as long as 'growing bigger' means 'growing my borders so now more players border me and might attack me' it might be workable... maybe? And Alliances could also be complicated by making sure that each 'city spot' can only be owned by a single player.

[RoseHeart]

Had an idea inspired slightly be cat vs dog.

DK Industries vs Wily Labs

[Tack]

Wanted to post a thing but got distracted by Draignean's ode to the ogre faced spider.

In other news: I'm beginning to think that 'tiered tech' arms races need some kind of side-counter in order to force tech allocation to up-tiering.
For instance each side having a passive research gain (non-dice-based) which they can allocate towards tiering up their tech and unlocking better stuff.

Might give a better sense of progression whilst also making the 'safe choice' racers still get some forward progress.

[Draignean]

Wanted to post a thing but got distracted by Draignean's ode to the ogre faced spider.

Wait, the thing I posted back in January?

In other news: I'm beginning to think that 'tiered tech' arms races need some kind of side-counter in order to force tech allocation to up-tiering.
For instance each side having a passive research gain (non-dice-based) which they can allocate towards tiering up their tech and unlocking better stuff.

It would work better in games where the tech tiers are more or less known before they happen, such as the games centered in a fictional historical setting without any large alteration to science or convention. However, in other cases, where the tech tree blooms more less at the player's discretion, I think it's a lot harder to label tiers to technology.

Although, on the subject of research gain, I was thinking about a similarly named system for poor dice rolls. They say that science is built on failure, not success, and so each roll gives 6-X points of [SCIENCE!]*, which you can spend back on +1s at a 5:1 rate. Probably have to put some caps on it to prevent it from being hoarded and used for impossible projects, but it was a fun idea that pinged around my head briefly.

*[SCIENCE!] Is not the final name of the product.

[RAM]

*[SCIENCE!] Is not the final name of the product.

Well obviously! You missed out the second exclamation mark...

[NAV]

maybe not hard caps, maybe just each additional +1 to a project costs more Science! than the last.

[Tack]

Maybe. I assume it exists in order to offset a morbidly unlucky run, so a soft cap could be leaned on harder and harder (but also their final SVIRNCE score would be an interesting way to see the metric

[Kashyyk]

What if the GM rolled one die, and used the result for both team's actions that turn? That way it is purely down to how well the players used the same die roll.

[Failbird105]

I'd like to try something like that.