itch.io

So 1 Action that gives 2 Movement Points is actually "a Move Action" with 2 Movement Points, I see now. What confused me was "+2 Movement Points" notation, akin to extending the movement rate (that I could not find on the counters or elsewhere in the rules).

Thank You! 

It seems that in the bot section ranges are incorrect. As in - should it be 1-3 for War and 4-6 for Trade? As written, it's 5-6 for Trade, so what happens if 4 is rolled?

The same issue applies to Blackmail and Assassinate, Treaty and Exchange.

How does Movement work - is it a single Action (out of five)? Probably not, if adding two Movement Points is an Action. Does a player move all their units and uses up 5 Actions and then the game transfer to the other player?

Thank You for the comments! They do help in improving the postcard.

To place a counter on the map, on the construction side, a player needs to spend a card with a value higher than what is on the "built" side. To finish the construction (flip the counter), either the counter needs to survive to the reorganization phase or the player plays a second card with the value higher than structural value on a construction side. It is more expensive to start the construction than to finish it. The phrasing is confusing, I think I will try to color code the costs or use symbols on the counter (3A - 1B, for example, to give the notion that first one needs to pay 4+ and then 2+).

Good catch - yes, one builds in an occupied space. I will add this in the next edition of the rules.

Massilian damaged walls counters: I have decided to include only one, because the second damaged wall concludes the game with a Caesarian win. Can it be added to the postcard? It can, but this would require some layout changes... and I would rather concentrate for now on the clarity of rules. Once they are more solid and error-proof, I will know how much space I have for additional counters.

2 ramps and one brick ramp or 3 ramps. Historical narratives/ maps for the siege underline only two approaches/ ramp locations that have been used by Caesarians. In other words, I made a decision for the players to decide which way they want to go. Brick ramp will only enter play once at least one regular ramp has been destroyed - there won't be three approaches available to the Caesarians at any single time.
(Gallic Gate received "weaker" -4 modifier in contrast to other Walls having -5 modifier; it seems that Caesarians concentrated here, maybe because of elevation differences being potentially smaller than with two other parts of the walls).

Massilian movement in Solo - offiicially does not exist. Massilians in Solo do not follow the regular sequence of play - they only get x attacks/fights depending on Caesarians' activity. I have not tested it extensively - in my games I was not able to eliminate a single die (because of the modifiers). Slow trickle of losses, sure... so I have never ended up with a situation where Massilian move was crucial. Theoretically, advancing to the weakest target may end up in a move (into adjacent space to the target)... but this would need to be stated in the postcard more clearly.

All of this may be problematic in solo mode - but at least for now, I do not have anything better as an answer.

Same amount of pips for Massilians in Solitaire. I have not written anything about it on the postcard... but possibly even division would work the best for solitaire game: so all Massilian dice end up on 4 pips (12 pips total) and one Albicii die also have 4 pips. Question: where to place Albicii in solitaire variant? They could start with Fleet, they could start in Reserve (where during my solo tests I liked to place them).

Could be randomized... or maybe I will think of some ways of writing those additional details onto the postcard. Space is a tricky thing... I even started considering the two-player version of the postcard and a single player of the postcard... but, at the moment, this is the last resort (though it would give me the chance to flesh out more ambiguous elements - for example, are Massilians AI doing anything doing the reorganization?

Assigning dice pips to the Fleet space = my mistake. During setup, Massilians should divide their 12 Massilian pips and 4 Albicii pips between Wall spaces, Reserve space and Fleet Space = 5 spaces total for 5 dice that they have. So, the Fleet is "populated" during the setup and, later in the game, it can be changed during the Reorganization segments.

I will mark this as the correction that needs to be added to the setup procedure for Massilians. I won't ammend the files immediately, I will leave this for few days - there may be other things that we will find out. (I know, for example, that Massilians could have clearly stated opportunity to re-Build damaged Walls... but the rules as written currently are silent on this)

Thanks everyone for joining this curious designing adventure! (where not everything is set in stone yet :P )

It was not my priority. I want to create the Polish version of the game first - should take me few days to complete. After that, I can throw both versions into TTS system and make the module available.

Thank You for the wishes! I hope to bring the project to some publishing home eventually - though there is still some work to do.
Pleasure to meet You, as well!

In one of my games, unless I have misunderstood rules, I have generated Casualties next to Japanese unit. They got eliminated in the next move (another card draw activated that Japanese unit). I have lost because my protagonist could only move one square at a time and he was simply too far from the Casualties.

Rules question: 

Can Doss move one hex and then rescue adjacent 'Medic!' counter? Or does he have to 'move onto the hex' occupied by the 'Medic!'?

Also, what do the numbers on the front page next to '... survivors' markers mean? A-3, 4-6, 7-9?

Thanks in advance!

It is, indeed. Player(s) control the defending force and implement the movement/ resolve combat for the 'artificial attackers' that try to enter the central star zones.

I did not put any basic information onto the postcard about number of players and whether it is solitaire or not... for space reasons. Your comments allow me to revisit the game and see what I can improve - so thank You for Your interest in this little design. If You will have any questions, let me know - I will do my best to answer.

Hello!

Is the final version within the '28 June' file? I have seen this devlog post and I wanted to make sure that I have the right version within the TableTop Simulator module present.

Thanks in advance,
Ryszard T.

I have played few times solo the 0.01 version on TTS. Below few comments of mine:

a) the rules do not explain what is what on the cards. This made me look more than twice in search for the 'burst value' that is mentioned in the rules before the reader is provided with some explanation what 'burst value' is (within combat section).

b) the components available in 0.01 version do not make it easy to mark the Air Frame / hit points after the damage is being done to a plane - mostly because both players can modify the damage by adding cards. If both target and firer modifies somewhat the initial damage value, how am I supposed to denote the ultimate damage that is inflicted upon the target? Especially, if the ultimate damage value is different than initial or as stated on any one of 'modifiying cards'? 

What is fun and fine about the game? Combinations of planes and pilots, decision how to use one's cards (there is actually some planning/ thinking involved :) and players can set up various situations for themselves and their opponents). Dogfights play quick and it is very easy to envision this game being played in a campaign mode.

I am well aware that this is not the final version of the game - nevertheless point 'b' is the thing that I needed :P to state.

Thank You very much for Your kind words. I do not know yet what long-term future holds for this design but I hope to improve the current iteration alongside with rules.

May it bring some fun to the players!

Oh, it's just an alpha - the work is far from over :) and I still want to make another game, too...

Thank You, makes sense :)

Thanks!

This design looks impressive but there is so much information on both sides that I never have managed to play this game with confidence. I cannot even say if this is a two player game or a solitaire. I do not know what exactly a Treasury is. Are the chess pieces being moved or white and black dice between the spaces? Probably both.

Some additional tutorial or a video would be helpful, as there is a lot to this game and the interplay between various parts seems very interesting. 

Pdf files seem to be unfinished/ there are minor issues with them. On the back there is a filler text in the history section, while on the front counters overlap the last line of text. Is this intended for the final version?

There are eight resource tokens but there are six spaces on all the boundaries in the game. Do we randomly place 6 out of 8 at the beginning of the game or do we put in some places more than one resource token?

What happens when active player rolls numbers on both dice that do not belong to their mice?

Other than this little thing, it's a charming game. Victory conditions require a double glance, as they enable players to strategize and plan maneuvers... and the possibility of flinging mice into space is... fun.

I will just assign mining duty to one of my rodents and the flinging duty to another :)

Unless I'm mistaken, the most recent Front version does not have Red Sector marked on Earth. There is only Blue visible.

Just a remark.

The rules lack information about the bases - can they move, do they have HP? Are they important for victory?

There are also no tokens to denote loss of HPs... nor it is easy to tell if General can inflate HPs of the adjacent units infinitely or only to their maximum (or even one above the maximum?).

The rules are easy enough for me to make up for the lacking detail... but those details should be provided, hence my lowered score in the 'playability' section.

One thing that kept confusing me in my solo games was the meaning of "a round" and "a turn". In the rules, those two are introduced in a section 'round structure' and it starts with:

"On their turn, the player chooses a card..."

I had to reread this few times and keep reading about the subsequent usages of 'a round' (a card can be used only once per a turn and per a round, nukes are claimed at the end of a round, not a turn).

Part of it is my own grasp of language: I always thought that 'a turn' is a longer unit than 'a round' - that players take rounds in a single turn of the game.

The designers managed to create a game where a lot of depends on decisions of players - which unit to send, when and which way. I'd like assymetrical sides with different ratings/ special abilities but this design works. It is simple - it certainly serves as a teaser for the "bigger game" that is in the works :)

Re: blocking and some of my thoughts

And Your idea is the same as I read it initially... but then I thought of a possibility of 'freezing'/locking up enemy units with the best defensive unit (or units) - not to eliminate them... but to keep them fixed in place. Time limit of 4 rounds may mean that if the units get stuck on the hill-side or valley-side, they may not be available to the player where it counts.
Also, You have arranged the defensive values in such a way that every unit is able to defeat every unit, so this tactic may simply not work with certain.

It is, however, interesting/ puzzling (in a positive sense) that the attacker can only achieve 'no effect' or 'enemy eliminated' result... there is no way to hurt yourself with a bad die roll :)

Side note:
Is there a significance to the fact that unit symbols on the KIA side are reverted? Take a look at red infantry counter with a city skill - it looks like the symbol ended up rotated 180 grades :) 

Thursday/ Friday I hope to have more questions. I like the lore and that this is the original setting.

Do players alternate playing their cards or do they play all of them, one after another... and then the game switches to the other side?

There are no 'stacking limits', right? In one space there may be more than one unit of each side?

Also, just to clarify - does 'blocking' mean that units cannot move away from the area occupied by enemy ('stuck')?

I was wondering whether that 120 minutes included reading the rules and watching the YT video... but then again, it can be different when the players learn the game by themselves, when the designer is not "behind Your shoulder" etc. It may be also a sign that my rules are not clear or that they convey the wrong message.

In Your game, did You exhaust the draw pile (and all the reshuffles, as well)? I don't think that I have stated this in the rules explicitly... but my intention was that at some point, the players will run out of the cards to play... and after the last reshuffle (adding the "last face cards") - the cards that are played/ discarded are out.

I may need to add to the rules a remark that if all cards are 'used up''/ if the last card is used up, the game is over, probably in a sort of a tie.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2973525699

This is really a quick and dirty module - I have not looked for Your module earlier (I did not notice it on itch page for the design). Mine is very similar to Yours... only uglier :) ... and I added a marker for "Attack/ Evade" (with a reminder which one involves 'adding' and which one is about 'subtracting').

No scripting. Preparing the TTS module for solo game would require really creating rules for a "bot" side - or sides - and I am not ready for that. I simply wanted to have Your game in a digital format and be able to move pieces and play it... playing both sides to the best of my ability.

Thanks for the feedback!

I can use it to improve the rules/ phrasing, to clarify the uncertainties and correct the faulty phrasings. The new version of the postcard should be uploaded before the end of this week.

What exactly were the players doing that the game took 120 minutes? In my "internal testing" (showing the game to myself and also three other people that are not me :) ), this has never occurred. I am guessing that players made an attack - maybe with a shield bash, maybe not, and then moved 'backwards' to rest and reduce the fatigue. In short, I think that in your game players were making different decisions than it did happen in the games that I've seen. (This is not a complaint, just a public realization that this design never received more intensive, "external" testing). 

My meager tests always ended with one side receiving the second hit before drawing the very last card of a deck. Sometimes the game was even over before the first "reshuffle". My idea was that if the one player plays aggressively, they may end up overwhelming the other... or be rebuffed and effectively countered (and KO'd). From Your description, if the principle behind the player's decisions were to be sure (99% and more) of success, then yes - the game lasts longer.

Thank You for Your interest and time dedicated to the game!

Thank You for the answers!

I can only return the compliments with a question and a short discussion. I have been crafting a TTS module for Your game (I wanted to give my printer some respite). Would You be interested in the module? Nothing fancy there but it allows me to play two sides by myself.

You are certainly right about 'soloing' this game. The counters, cards in the hand of Narco player - this makes it very difficult to craft a solo mode for Your game... while retaining postcard-size space for the rules. For now, I am simply playing two sides by myself.

At a glance, however, it does look like Policia side is somewhat easier to "automate", as their actions depend on Budget/ Public Support values and victory conditions (breaking the routes, with some additional capabilities for Plane landing) - all of which is 'public knowledge' and therefore can be used in crafting 'algorithms' or decision trees.

I am trying to learn the game and I do not fully understand the rules. I will be grateful for any help :)

1) Build Pista/ Land action: Can there be only one card face down at any time? Or is it possible to perform multiple 'Build Pista' actions, to place there all the possible suits (and later go for 'Land')?

2) Deploy Policia action: Where exactly an undeployed Policia can be placed? Cities? Villages? It looks like a symbol is missing.

3) What happens to discarded cards in a single playthrough? Are they "used up" and do not return? Maybe, given that FAST victory relies on Narcos not being able to draw any... but - Operation procedure, step 2, mentions shuffling cards into a face down stack. Which cards exactly? All cards, including discards, that have not been taken as Intel yet? Shuffle (once again, after the setup) the 'draw deck' only?

4) FAST drawing intel and Narco cards. Does 'draw 1 intel' means to take a card from 'draw deck'? Does 'draw Narco cards equal to...' means to take a card from Narco hand?

5) Operation resolution. FAST rolls a FAST die. Step 4 mentions that 'dice' (multiple) are added or subtracted. Does it mean that value of Policia die is added or subtracted to/from the value of a FAST die?

6) Interdict action: Discarding 2 intel cards "teleports" a deployed Policia no matter the distance, right?

Thanks in advance! The game is interesting and looks great - it is not easy to 'solo' it :) probably because it is a good two player game. The concise rules are not quite clear in few places - I am not sure how exactly the deck operates. Nevertheless, You both achieved a marvel: being able to use effectively the postcard' size of space to provide map, counters and instructions for a set of procedures.

You have used white background and red (or black) font. Would it be possible to increase the size of the font, by 1 or 0.5? Alternatively, a different font that has different typeset (uppercase/"capitals"). Similarly with the spades/clubs symbols. 

They read fine on a screen but on postcard sized paper, particularly with artificial light (late in the evening), I had some problems 'reading quickly'. Red helped, yet black font was the main troublemaker :)

The mechanics of move and combat feel distinct from other submissions in this jam.  I like very much the variable strength of the final fortress.

What I find difficult for myself is legibility of movement costs on the hexes. I have a laser printer but its' overall quality is far from commercial. Spade and clubs symbols also required a double take to make sure that I am reading them right.

Those, however, are visuals - I like the game and how it 'moves' :)

What I like the most about this game - the front lines marker that are moved this or that way, depending on the player exploits. It is a simple thing but I have a fondness for games that show me the impact of my "input" within "the game world" :)

Thank You for Your submission :) It was and still is a very interesting experience - to see and enjoy that many diverse designs.

You may have heard of Consim Game Jam, organized by Fred Serval. Not organized on itch. There were two editions so far and the third has not been announced yet.

This maybe slightly different jam from this one - participants are expected to turn in a playable (not perfect) prototype within a single weekend. It is fun, it sure can be tense.

Because The Kinner 'Double Aught' unit has KP Inflicted/ Hit value listed as 0 (zero), can it even inflict any damage? When I'm reading Gunfire procedures, this KP Inflicted/ Value does not seem to matter at all.

Is it correct to assume that 'KP Inflicted/ Hit' value is about Special Actions (Rocket Fire, Undercut Fire, Bombing)?

Thanks for the game with nice visuals!

May creative pursuits bring You joy and satisfaction, as well! It is sort of magic - to create something physical and tangible just out of ideas in one's head.

Happy Gaming!