Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Companies, Prospecting and Squatters Rights

Expand Messages
  • jlhilal
    Hi. I ve been lurking here for a long time (surfacing occasionally). I am out of town periodically and have not been able to keep up with the
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      <Lurk mode off>

      Hi. I've been lurking here for a long time (surfacing occasionally).
      I am out of town periodically and have not been able to keep up with
      the large increase in postings, but I have decided that if I wait
      until I am caught up, it'll never happen :) Please forgive me if I
      say something that has been said recently, I'm about 2 weeks behind in
      the posts.

      I've played on and off since the late 1980's, so I think I have a good
      grounding. There are a lot of things to cover, so I will try to break
      them up into different threads.

      CAPS are for emphasis, not volume.

      First: Companies, Prospecting and Squatters Rights.

      There are a several issues here that have been brought up. Firstly, a
      number of things about the way that people prospect in their
      individual group. There has been talk about numbers of cards and the
      possibility of looking through the entire deck to find a resource,
      also the possibility of directed prospecting (i.e. looking for a
      company in a specific territory), the number of times a player can
      prospect per turn and finally about whether the players other than the
      one prospecting are entitled to see the cards as they are turned over.

      Several things need to be kept in mind. First, in the basic/Mega
      rules, when prospecting normally, there are several ways in which the
      prospecting is halted and the player pays money without getting a
      company. If the player comes upon a company of the type for which he
      is looking that is in a territory occupied by an opponent or one that
      is in a nuked territory, he stops prospecting and pays, but returns
      the card to the deck.

      Additionally, from the Field Marshal's hand book, there is the option
      of counting the "Supremacy" card (the one with the Supremacy Logo) as
      an "industrial accident". This also causes the player to stop
      prospecting, pay, and pass the deck to the next player.


      Directed Prospecting

      If you have a house rule that you can look for a card in a specific
      territory, then several of these possible stopping points are
      eliminated (specifically opponent occupied territories and nuked
      territories). This makes it more likely that the player will be
      successful. Therefore, the cost should not be reduced as some people
      in previous posts suggested (that directed prospecting should be
      $100M instead of $200M per card). The extra cost makes up for
      reducing the chance of a failed prospect.

      A sub-category of this is the proposed "Pillage and Plunder"; allowing
      prospecting in a newly conquered territory. The CLMM expansion
      allowed buying resources in the attack and move stages, so there is a
      precedent. However, in this precedent, the cost (for the merchant
      ships) is much higher than normal. So, I would accept a "Pillage and
      Plunder" rule, but would make the cost for this crash prospecting
      $500M per card instead of the normal $200M (PSB excuse: hazard duty
      pay for the surveyors and engineers makes it more expensive).


      Secret Prospecting

      Some have talked about only the one prospecting gets to see the cards
      turned over, as implied in the FMH. This is a prime place for
      temptation to cheat. Imagine: you are looking for Oil and have turned
      over 10 cards (costing you $2 Billion). The next card is an Oil-1.
      If no one will see that it is an Oil, you may be tempted to place it
      (face down) on the discard pile and continue prospecting. Or, you turn
      over an Oil in an occupied (or Nuked) territory. Temptation again.

      Also remember that if you are playing on the MegaMap, then as Nukes
      accumulate, some Companies decrease in value: for each City in a given
      Territory that is Nuked, each and every Company in that Territory is
      reduced by one (1) production unit. So a single nuked city makes a
      resource-1 company useless and two nuked cities do the same for a
      resource-2 company. Higher resource companies are reduced in value,
      and also keep in mind that the territory is easier to eliminate
      altogether, as some cities are already destroyed.

      With this in mind, there is additional temptation to cheat if
      performing secret prospecting. Would you rather keep a resource-4
      card in a territory with two nuked cities (effective production of 2
      and increased risk of total destruction) or continue hoping for
      something elsewhere. In this case, a resource-2 card in an undamaged
      territory might be more valuable.


      Squatters Rights

      Several points. 1) In the MegaSupremacy book, it says that you MAY
      take the card, not that you have to. We often allow another player
      (perhaps an Ally, or someone that we are trying to make an Ally) to
      keep a pre-existing company in a territory that we occupy, for terms
      to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Often that means that for
      companies of production-3 or more, owning player A gives occupying
      player B one (1)of the produced units as a Drop-shipment on Stage 2
      each turn that the company is opperated or pay a cash payment like a
      warlord territory in Stage 1. Additionally, we allow declared Allies
      (i.e. Alliance Accord) to keep newly prospected cards in territories
      occupied by an Ally (real world example: US, Canadian, Australian and
      UK companies often operate in territories and protectorates of the
      other nations).

      Point 2) we interpret the Q&A at the bottom of pg. 20 of FMH thus:
      A player may only take a company that is OPEN.
      A player may close a company at any time EXCEPT during the
      Conventional Battle Drill. So you may close a company before an
      attack is declared or between attacks, but not after the attack is
      declared.
      Special exception: We added a defender response of "Emergency
      Shut-Down": a company can be closed after an attack is declared but
      before the dice are rolled (as a defender response instead of the
      "Demolition Directive") at a cost of 1d6 x $100M.

      Additionally, we charge 1d6 x $100M to re-open a company that was
      closed at any time (instead of the flat $200M). The first time a
      company is opened is still free.

      From the Warlords Expansion and included in the MegaSupremacy rules
      (pg. 66 "Ally Counterattacks")
      "If a player attacks a warlord or pirate in a zone where other players
      have resource cards, those players may counterattack. If two or more
      players are able to counterattack, they roll a die to see who
      counterattacks first."

      We have expanded this to:
      "If a player attacks a TERRITORY OR ZONE where other players have
      resource cards BUT NOT OCCUPYING FORCES, those players may
      counterattack. If two or more players are able to counterattack, they
      roll a die to see who counterattacks first."
      This allows player C to counterattack an attack by player A on player
      B in territory X if player C has a company in territory X.

      J
    • SC
      ... I don t play this way, but I disagree with leaving the cost at $200 million per card. Since I am not sure of the specific nature of searching for a card
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Directed Prospecting
        >
        > If you have a house rule that you can look for a card in a specific
        > territory, then several of these possible stopping points are
        > eliminated (specifically opponent occupied territories and nuked
        > territories). This makes it more likely that the player will be
        > successful. Therefore, the cost should not be reduced as some people
        > in previous posts suggested (that directed prospecting should be
        > $100M instead of $200M per card). The extra cost makes up for
        > reducing the chance of a failed prospect.

        I don't play this way, but I disagree with leaving the cost at $200 million per card. Since I
        am not sure of the specific nature of searching for a card in a territory, I will give a
        couple of examples. The odds of finding "oil" vs. "a card in Saudia Arabia" vs. "oil in
        Saudia Arabia" are quite different. The follwing assumes that no one else has the card(s)
        and that no prospecting has yet taken place. If using a full deck then the odds of finding
        "oil" are a little more than 1 in 3. The odds of finding "oil in Saudia Arabia" or "a
        resource card in Saudia Arabia" (since there is only one SA card between both decks)
        range between less than about 1 in 53 (in a two player game using one standard deck)
        and 1 in 82 (in an eight player game using both decks). In an eight player game using
        one deck the odds are dramatically different again since of the 65 cards in the resource
        deck, 48 have been dealt out to other players at the start of the game. This makes the
        odds in the above example about 1 in 17. This is still significantly higher than about 1
        in 3 odds of finding just "oil". It may be argued that all that extra money you spend
        doing the targeted search is money you would have spent seting up for and attacking a
        neutral territory that has the "oil" card that you got. So, maybe it is somewhat of a
        revenue neutral rule change in some cases. However, if you did do a search and SA oil
        was the 50th card out of a deck of 82, that prospect would have cost you $10 billion at
        $200 million per card. Even $100 million per card sounds expensive given these
        particular odds.

        I am using an extreme example above because Saudia Arabia only has one card between
        the two decks. There are other territories that would have better odds.



        > Secret Prospecting
        >
        > Some have talked about only the one prospecting gets to see the cards
        > turned over, as implied in the FMH. This is a prime place for
        > temptation to cheat. Imagine: you are looking for Oil and have turned
        > over 10 cards (costing you $2 Billion). The next card is an Oil-1.
        > If no one will see that it is an Oil, you may be tempted to place it
        > (face down) on the discard pile and continue prospecting. Or, you turn
        > over an Oil in an occupied (or Nuked) territory. Temptation again.

        This is why at the very least the oil symbol should be shown to the other players. It
        takes more time, but that's probably the best way to do it.


        > Squatters Rights
        >
        > Several points. 1) In the MegaSupremacy book, it says that you MAY
        > take the card, not that you have to. We often allow another player
        > (perhaps an Ally, or someone that we are trying to make an Ally) to
        > keep a pre-existing company in a territory that we occupy, for terms
        > to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Often that means that for
        > companies of production-3 or more, owning player A gives occupying
        > player B one (1)of the produced units as a Drop-shipment on Stage 2
        > each turn that the company is opperated or pay a cash payment like a
        > warlord territory in Stage 1. Additionally, we allow declared Allies
        > (i.e. Alliance Accord) to keep newly prospected cards in territories
        > occupied by an Ally (real world example: US, Canadian, Australian and
        > UK companies often operate in territories and protectorates of the
        > other nations).

        I see that now that you've pointed it out, and I agree. When player with Warlords and
        Pirates players can operate a company in their territory just by paying more money
        during the first stage, so it makes sense that another player might be allowed to keep
        the company with the permission of the occupier. However, WHEN USING THE
        STANDARD v3.0 RULES, the occupier has the right to those cards immediately upon
        taking the territory, if they choose to allow the card holder to keep that card, that is fine
        by me.


        > From the Warlords Expansion and included in the MegaSupremacy rules
        > (pg. 66 "Ally Counterattacks")
        > "If a player attacks a warlord or pirate in a zone where other players
        > have resource cards, those players may counterattack. If two or more
        > players are able to counterattack, they roll a die to see who
        > counterattacks first."

        Right. Upon reading this again, it almost seems that just the act of attacking (not just
        occupying) gives the players holding resource cards in that territory the right to counter-
        attack. Interesting.


        > We have expanded this to:
        > "If a player attacks a TERRITORY OR ZONE where other players have
        > resource cards BUT NOT OCCUPYING FORCES, those players may
        > counterattack. If two or more players are able to counterattack, they
        > roll a die to see who counterattacks first."
        > This allows player C to counterattack an attack by player A on player
        > B in territory X if player C has a company in territory X.

        A attacks B in X where C has a company.
        C is allowed a counter-attack against A.

        Meaning that B and C have some kind of an alliance. Makes sense.

        SC
      • jlhilal
        ... specific ... You have to consider not just the cost of a single prospecting attempt, but the cost of: A) possible
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "SC" <sfc1970@y...> wrote:
          > > Directed Prospecting
          > >
          > > If you have a house rule that you can look for a card in a
          specific
          > > territory, then several of these possible stopping points are
          > > eliminated (specifically opponent occupied territories and nuked
          > > territories). This makes it more likely that the player will be
          > > successful. Therefore, the cost should not be reduced as some
          > > people in previous posts suggested (that directed prospecting
          > > should be $100M instead of $200M per card). The extra cost makes
          > > up for reducing the chance of a failed prospect.
          >

          < snip example of oil in Arabia >

          You have to consider not just the cost of a single prospecting
          attempt, but the cost of:
          A) possible multiple prospecting to get cards in other territories of
          equal value, e.g. an Oil-2 + an Oil-3 or some other combination of
          multiple cards
          B) possible failed prospecting attempts (due to occupied or home
          territory cards, nuked territories, or industrial accidents)
          C) how many times would you have to prospect to get the specific card
          for which you are searching without Directed Prospecting.

          There are two added points. First, $200M is a standard value for all
          endeavors that involve turning over cards in search of a specific card
          or one of a number of cards. Adding a variety of values then raises
          the question of the validity of the other set values E.g. the US
          Manhattan Project only cost the US about $1B 1940-45 dollars, but the
          SDI program has cost many 10's of billions of dollars, so maybe
          L-Stars and K-sats should be more expensive. BTW I do not advocate
          this, it is just an example.

          Second, if you need a PSB reason, perhaps the cost of searching the
          deserts of Arabia (for example) until you find something (which may
          not even be there, depending on how you play) is higher than simply
          exploiting the first tiny (oil-1) pool that you find.

          These cumulative factors make the $200M value a reasonable figure to
          me.
          >
          > > Secret Prospecting
          > >

          < snip >

          >
          > This is why at the very least the oil symbol should be shown to the
          > other players. It takes more time, but that's probably the best
          way
          > to do it.

          Agreed, but I just hadn't seen anyone specify that they showed the
          type of resource on each and every card to the other players. It
          sounded like they didn't show any part of any of the cards until the
          success. As long as everyone sees the type of resource then it is
          fine.

          BTW it still requires a level of trust between players. From the
          descriptions I have read of some of the players out there, I wouldn't
          put it past them to keep cards from, for example, someone else's home
          territory (never opened, no one knows it's there) just to deny it to
          the other player.

          >
          > > Squatters Rights

          < snip >

          >
          > I see that now that you've pointed it out, and I agree. When
          player
          > with Warlords and Pirates players can operate a company in their
          > territory just by paying more money during the first stage, so it
          > makes sense that another player might be allowed to keep the
          company
          > with the permission of the occupier. However, WHEN USING THE
          > STANDARD v3.0 RULES, the occupier has the right to those cards
          > immediately upon taking the territory, if they choose to allow the
          > card holder to keep that card, that is fine by me.

          In MS, you still have the right to take the card immediately, you just
          are not REQUIRED to. It allows more options. Also, having a specific
          house house rule about open and closed companies resolves all of the
          problems discussed about someone recon-by-fire (i.e. attack, demand
          card, attack, demand card, etc.). It also gives (defending) players
          choices to make and risk-cost decisions; e.g. close the company and
          pay later to reopen it if the defense is successful or leave it open
          and hope you win.

          > > From the Warlords Expansion and included in the MegaSupremacy
          rules
          > > (pg. 66 "Ally Counterattacks")

          < snip >

          > Right. Upon reading this again, it almost seems that just the act
          of
          > attacking (not just occupying) gives the players holding resource
          > cards in that territory the right to counter-attack. Interesting.

          That is the way we interpret it. So attack and destroy some troops
          (but not all), then counterattacks, the next attack, etc., just like
          any other counterattack.

          < snip>

          > A attacks B in X where C has a company.
          > C is allowed a counter-attack against A.
          >
          > Meaning that B and C have some kind of an alliance. Makes sense.

          Exactly. The re-wording is just to make it general, instead of
          specific to Warlords.

          J
        • SC
          ... Right. I previously made (at least a mental) note of points B and C, but not A. I suppose that I would have to play this out to see how it works. I m
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > You have to consider not just the cost of a single prospecting
            > attempt, but the cost of:
            > A) possible multiple prospecting to get cards in other territories of
            > equal value, e.g. an Oil-2 + an Oil-3 or some other combination of
            > multiple cards
            > B) possible failed prospecting attempts (due to occupied or home
            > territory cards, nuked territories, or industrial accidents)
            > C) how many times would you have to prospect to get the specific card
            > for which you are searching without Directed Prospecting.

            Right. I previously made (at least a mental) note of points B and C, but not A. I
            suppose that I would have to play this out to see how it works. I'm assuming you
            have quite a bit? Is this correct? I find that new rules or modifications require a
            significant amount of game play before they can be determined to be adequate or
            desirable. How much have you used this modification? Specifically, the $200 mil per
            card prospect?


            > BTW it still requires a level of trust between players. From the
            > descriptions I have read of some of the players out there, I wouldn't
            > put it past them to keep cards from, for example, someone else's home
            > territory (never opened, no one knows it's there) just to deny it to
            > the other player.

            Yes, we've discussed cheating previously. Some players prefer to use the honour
            system (and in fact do honour it!), others prefer to edit the rules to eliminate the
            possibility of cheating.

            SC
          • jlhilal
            ... Nope, just throwing out my knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that Directed Prospecting be cheaper on a per-card basis than the general kind. ... I
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "SC" <sfc1970@y...> wrote:
              > I'm assuming you have [playtested this] quite a bit? Is this
              > correct?

              Nope, just throwing out my knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that
              "Directed Prospecting" be cheaper on a per-card basis than the general
              kind.

              > I find that new rules or modifications require a significant
              > amount of game play before they can be determined to be adequate
              > or desirable. How much have you used this modification?
              > Specifically, the $200 mil > per card prospect?

              I just think that it should be tested at "full price", i.e. $200M,
              before it is lowered. The "Directed Prospecting" is itself enough of
              a change to warrent testing before deciding if the cost needs to be
              lowered.

              < snip comments on trust/honor system >

              Our problem mostly revolves around skilled shufflers and deck stackers
              (damn Magic players), taken care of with a good cut of the deck before
              each prospect/R&D. Otherwise we don't have much problem with
              cheating.

              J
            • SC
              re: cheating ... We usually have the person who just prospected shuffle, and then hand the deck to the next prospecter to be shuffled again before they start
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                re: cheating

                > Our problem mostly revolves around skilled shufflers and deck stackers
                > (damn Magic players), taken care of with a good cut of the deck before
                > each prospect/R&D. Otherwise we don't have much problem with
                > cheating.

                We usually have the person who just prospected shuffle, and then hand the deck to
                the next prospecter to be shuffled again before they start to draw. This doesn't work
                if only one person is prospecting.

                SC
              • aka_tom_w
                Hi :-) ! Thanks for Posting Scott is mostly correct. The players in our group have always wanted to prospect in a specific territory you occupy. Our game and
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi :-) !

                  Thanks for Posting

                  Scott is mostly correct.

                  The players in our group have
                  always wanted to prospect
                  in a specific territory you occupy.

                  Our game and out house rules
                  don't have any nukes or L-stars in
                  the deck ( there is instead a 3 turn
                  production cycle). So no stopping there.

                  We are using the no poaching rule
                  so when a player prospects he must
                  take the first card of the resource
                  he declared he was looking for
                  vacant or not does not matter now.

                  In directed prospecting we have
                  one spoiler card in every 5 dot
                  resource rich territory. In Arabia
                  there is a 1 dot Grain card
                  (home made) from the supremacy
                  trade mark card (just to keep it
                  interesting, so in that case
                  there is a 50/50 chance
                  (if both cards are in the deck)
                  that you will NOT get the 5 dot oil.)

                  we are using a one third split limited
                  deck for 6 players so after the first
                  turn set up and all players have 6 cards
                  there are about 90 cards left in the deck.
                  From that we take away EVERY THIRD card.
                  so it is now a one third limited deck and we
                  seal the other third away out of play.

                  so the odds of a card in all 5 dot territories
                  is 2 or 3 in about 60 cards.

                  and there is NO stopping, we will be removing
                  nuked cards from the deck and if the prospecting
                  player needs to got through 50 - 60 cards
                  only to find out the card he wants is not inthe
                  deck he is free to spend that kind of money
                  That about $5 Billion or $6 Billion in the worst
                  case to prospect for ONE card. I think that
                  is fair.


                  any qustions?

                  :-)

                  -tom w


                  --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "SC" <sfc1970@y...> wrote:
                  > > Directed Prospecting
                  > >
                  > > If you have a house rule that you can look for a card in a specific
                  > > territory, then several of these possible stopping points are
                  > > eliminated (specifically opponent occupied territories and nuked
                  > > territories). This makes it more likely that the player will be
                  > > successful. Therefore, the cost should not be reduced as some people
                  > > in previous posts suggested (that directed prospecting should be
                  > > $100M instead of $200M per card). The extra cost makes up for
                  > > reducing the chance of a failed prospect.
                  >
                  > I don't play this way, but I disagree with leaving the cost at $200 million per card. Since I
                  > am not sure of the specific nature of searching for a card in a territory, I will give a
                  > couple of examples. The odds of finding "oil" vs. "a card in Saudia Arabia" vs. "oil in
                  > Saudia Arabia" are quite different. The follwing assumes that no one else has the card(s)
                  > and that no prospecting has yet taken place. If using a full deck then the odds of finding
                  > "oil" are a little more than 1 in 3. The odds of finding "oil in Saudia Arabia" or "a
                  > resource card in Saudia Arabia" (since there is only one SA card between both decks)
                  > range between less than about 1 in 53 (in a two player game using one standard deck)
                  > and 1 in 82 (in an eight player game using both decks). In an eight player game using
                  > one deck the odds are dramatically different again since of the 65 cards in the resource
                  > deck, 48 have been dealt out to other players at the start of the game. This makes the
                  > odds in the above example about 1 in 17. This is still significantly higher than about 1
                  > in 3 odds of finding just "oil". It may be argued that all that extra money you spend
                  > doing the targeted search is money you would have spent seting up for and attacking a
                  > neutral territory that has the "oil" card that you got. So, maybe it is somewhat of a
                  > revenue neutral rule change in some cases. However, if you did do a search and SA oil
                  > was the 50th card out of a deck of 82, that prospect would have cost you $10 billion at
                  > $200 million per card. Even $100 million per card sounds expensive given these
                  > particular odds.
                  >
                  > I am using an extreme example above because Saudia Arabia only has one card between
                  > the two decks. There are other territories that would have better odds.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > Secret Prospecting
                  > >
                  > > Some have talked about only the one prospecting gets to see the cards
                  > > turned over, as implied in the FMH. This is a prime place for
                  > > temptation to cheat. Imagine: you are looking for Oil and have turned
                  > > over 10 cards (costing you $2 Billion). The next card is an Oil-1.
                  > > If no one will see that it is an Oil, you may be tempted to place it
                  > > (face down) on the discard pile and continue prospecting. Or, you turn
                  > > over an Oil in an occupied (or Nuked) territory. Temptation again.
                  >
                  > This is why at the very least the oil symbol should be shown to the other players. It
                  > takes more time, but that's probably the best way to do it.
                  >
                  >
                  > > Squatters Rights
                  > >
                  > > Several points. 1) In the MegaSupremacy book, it says that you MAY
                  > > take the card, not that you have to. We often allow another player
                  > > (perhaps an Ally, or someone that we are trying to make an Ally) to
                  > > keep a pre-existing company in a territory that we occupy, for terms
                  > > to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Often that means that for
                  > > companies of production-3 or more, owning player A gives occupying
                  > > player B one (1)of the produced units as a Drop-shipment on Stage 2
                  > > each turn that the company is opperated or pay a cash payment like a
                  > > warlord territory in Stage 1. Additionally, we allow declared Allies
                  > > (i.e. Alliance Accord) to keep newly prospected cards in territories
                  > > occupied by an Ally (real world example: US, Canadian, Australian and
                  > > UK companies often operate in territories and protectorates of the
                  > > other nations).
                  >
                  > I see that now that you've pointed it out, and I agree. When player with Warlords and
                  > Pirates players can operate a company in their territory just by paying more money
                  > during the first stage, so it makes sense that another player might be allowed to keep
                  > the company with the permission of the occupier. However, WHEN USING THE
                  > STANDARD v3.0 RULES, the occupier has the right to those cards immediately upon
                  > taking the territory, if they choose to allow the card holder to keep that card, that is fine
                  > by me.
                  >
                  >
                  > > From the Warlords Expansion and included in the MegaSupremacy rules
                  > > (pg. 66 "Ally Counterattacks")
                  > > "If a player attacks a warlord or pirate in a zone where other players
                  > > have resource cards, those players may counterattack. If two or more
                  > > players are able to counterattack, they roll a die to see who
                  > > counterattacks first."
                  >
                  > Right. Upon reading this again, it almost seems that just the act of attacking (not just
                  > occupying) gives the players holding resource cards in that territory the right to counter-
                  > attack. Interesting.
                  >
                  >
                  > > We have expanded this to:
                  > > "If a player attacks a TERRITORY OR ZONE where other players have
                  > > resource cards BUT NOT OCCUPYING FORCES, those players may
                  > > counterattack. If two or more players are able to counterattack, they
                  > > roll a die to see who counterattacks first."
                  > > This allows player C to counterattack an attack by player A on player
                  > > B in territory X if player C has a company in territory X.
                  >
                  > A attacks B in X where C has a company.
                  > C is allowed a counter-attack against A.
                  >
                  > Meaning that B and C have some kind of an alliance. Makes sense.
                  >
                  > SC
                • jlhilal
                  ... We let the person doing the prospecting/R&D shuffle the deck, but then the person to their left cuts the deck. J
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "SC" <sfc1970@y...> wrote:
                    > re: cheating
                    >
                    > We usually have the person who just prospected shuffle, and then hand
                    > the deck to the next prospecter to be shuffled again before they start
                    > to draw. This doesn't work if only one person is prospecting.


                    We let the person doing the prospecting/R&D shuffle the deck, but then
                    the person to their left cuts the deck.

                    J
                  • jlhilal
                    ... I didn t mean it that way. In both the basic and MS rules versions, if you come across a resource card from a territory that has been nuked, then you pay
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 7, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "aka_tom_w" <tcw@m...> wrote:
                      >
                      > The players in our group have always wanted to prospect in a
                      > specific territory you occupy.
                      >
                      > Our game and out house rules don't have any nukes or L-stars in
                      > the deck ( there is instead a 3 turn production cycle). So no
                      > stopping there.

                      I didn't mean it that way. In both the basic and MS rules versions,
                      if you come across a resource card from a territory that has been
                      nuked, then you pay for all of the cards turned over and end your turn
                      with no
                      card to show for your expenditure.

                      > We are using the no poaching rule so when a player prospects he
                      > must take the first card of the resource he declared he was
                      > looking for vacant or not does not matter now.

                      In the unmodified rules, you also stop prospecting at the first card
                      of the approriate type that you come across, but there are certain
                      circumstances where you do not keep the card, namely a card in a
                      territory occupied by another player and a card in a territory that
                      has been nuked.

                      > In directed prospecting we have one spoiler card in every 5 dot
                      > resource rich territory. In Arabia there is a 1 dot Grain card
                      > (home made) from the supremacy trade mark card (just to keep it
                      > interesting, so in that case there is a 50/50 chance
                      > (if both cards are in the deck) that you will NOT get the 5 dot
                      oil.)

                      Since you no longer have a Supremacy logo card, you can't use the
                      "Industrial Accident" option from FMH, unless you use the Nuke/LS
                      cards.

                      J

                      P.S.
                      You do not have to leave all of the previous messages of the thread
                      quoted at the end of your message. You just need to quote the
                      relevent parts. Members recieving the digest will thank you. :)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.