Re: [piecepack] Re: piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow

["Mike Schoessow" <mikeschoessow@...>]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the great feedback on the game. See below for my comments.

  >----- Original Message ----- 
  >From: Mark Goadrich 
  >To: piecepack@yahoogroups.com 
  >Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:30 PM
  >Subject: [piecepack] Re: piecepack design workshop #2: Stations v1.2 by Michael Schoessow


  >I finally got a game of Stations in on Monday, after reading through
  >the comments already made to make sure I had the up-to-date version. 
  >Counting the corners around a tile as spaces made sense, I'm glad the
  >change was made. There's definitely some details to wrap your head
  >around with the negative space of network connections, I'll have to
  >play it again to see how different strategies work out; somehow Brett
  >scored about 30 points, while I was at 120...

  >I think it would be helpful to have a picture showing how there could
  >be two disconnected networks.  From the starting board position, it
  >wasn't immediately obvious to us, only near the end of the game when
  >we could seal off a pocket of roads in the middle due to earlier
  >shifts did this rule make sense.

  You do understand that a move that splits the network into two separate sections is not allowed, right? I assume your comment reflects the fact that, during much of the game, there are no opportunities to make a such a move, even if it was legal.


  >It seemed as though a first-player advantage would be mitigated by the
  >second player making the last move, which could be devastating (as in
  >our game making every path doubled for me) with the first player not
  >having a chance to respond and repair their network.

  Yes, I am a bit worried about a first player advantage, but as you note, there can also be a last player advantage. The way the rules are presently written, each player takes an equal number of turns in a game, so the player who went second does always get the last move. 
  How do you feel about the number of "slide only" moves in the end game? Did three seem a good number to you? Do you have an opinion on number of end-game moves versus the powerfulness of the last move? Perhaps I could add a rule concerning what can be accomplished on the final slide, although I generally hate rules that are obvious "fixes", especially if it's not yet clear that anything needs fixing.


  >It felt like I should be trying to bluff somewhat, since I was putting
  >my coins face-down, but that didn't enter into our game at all. But if
  >we had put them face up, we wouldn't know who actually played which
  >coin.  Maybe each player could use one set of coins for the numbers,
  >and another set for marking their suit, so a move is placing two coins
  >on a tile, one faceup with a number, one facedown for your suit. 


  I thought of that during the design process but felt that the two coins per play idea was potentially confusing with so many coins being allowed on a tile. It became a case of designing within the limitations of the piecepack system, and BTW, this limitation, although sometimes frustrating, has inspired some of my better ideas I feel, including aspects of the Alien City rules which were based on a stand-alone game of mine called San Jose.



  >I didn't try any variants, but I would be in favor of having the
  >standard game be the old Variant 2, where all coins are worth 1, and
  >plan to try that version out next.

  If you do try that I would be extremely interested in how you thought it compared to the version you tried, since I haven't yet decided for sure which version I want to make the standard version.


  >Thanks for the intriguing game, Mike, hope these comments are helpful,

  >Mark

  Very helpful indeed. Thanks Mark!

  -Mike