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

Re: seeking help fixing the game

Expand Messages
  • fahbs2000
    Just to clarify, I m using as few add on rules as possible. The only one I m dabbling with at the moment is missile silos. Frankly all the add on rules make
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Just to clarify, I'm using as few add on rules as possible. The only
      one I'm dabbling with at the moment is missile silos. Frankly all
      the add on rules make the game far more complicated than what me and
      the other players are looking for.


      > >I've owned Supremacy for about 10 years and have just recently
      tried
      > >to pick it back up. I've always WANTED to like it, the premise and
      > >setup are cool, but frankly I and everyone else who's played it
      have
      > >found it to be broken.
      > >
      > >Every game I've played usually goes something like this:
      > >
      > >1. Everyone gets nukes and L-stars ASAP because without them
      you're
      > >dead. Getting enough nukes to overwhelm peoples' L-star screen is
      > >easy, and nuking someone is a million times easier than invading
      > >them with armies. Even if they do manage to build up a
      conventional
      > >invasion force, just nuke it. Every game I've ever played is won
      by
      > >nukes alone or just ends in nuclear winter.
      >
      >
      > Yes, nukes are much easier than invasion, but invasion has other
      > benefits. In any case, if the other players cooperate to stop the
      nuker,
      > and they have L-stars, it's very difficult to penetrate the
      screen, and
      > almost impossible to get a nuclear winter. Mind you, L-stars are
      probably
      > horribly overpowered, given that they also give an advantage in
      > conventional combat.

      Yeah there's benefits from capturing resource centers and getting
      the spoils of war, but it's impossible to keep up a conventional
      invasion and maintain any sort of economy from selling resources.
      I'd need at least 10 armies to invade and withstand counterattacks.
      In order to do that I'd have to have max resources stored up,
      succeed in a single attack, then spend 10 grain or oil to just move
      into the newly captures spot. And that's EVERY time I attack a new
      territory. There's no way you can keep that up without crippling
      yourself while everyone else saves resources and sells them.

      I have yet to play a game where's it's impossible to get nuclear
      winter. Since they cost half as much, it's extremely easy to
      outproduce l-stars with nukes. Nobody hardly ever builds up to max l-
      stars since laser clashes always whittle them down before then, or
      the person with a lot of nukes but little l-stars just launches a
      space blast. Cooperation is also never too likely. In the early
      stages of the game where no one has a huge advantage why would you
      NOT want to see two other players rivals nuking each other? By the
      later stages of the game not enough people are left alive to
      guarentee their combined l-star screen can stop 12 nukes. Players
      also frequently "hold the earth hostage" where, if they start
      losing, launch all their nukes in an attempt to deliberately cause
      nuclear winter.

      Maybe the people you play with are just too nice and trusting
      compared to my crowd?

      > >2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone
      starts
      > >going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
      >
      >
      > So...why doesn't someone take advantage by buying a bunch of
      resources,
      > using them, and then cashing in the next turn by selling on the
      market? Or
      > even letting someone else cash in and then jump them after they
      choose Buy
      > rather than Attack?

      I'm not sure what you're saying here. How do you sell resources that
      you've already used? Also, depending on how many people there are,
      the chances of you getting to cash in before someone else are less
      than 50%. There's also the fact that the market crashes because no
      one is buying, so spending a bid point on the buy phase is hurting
      the guy trying to buy the market back up and put him at a
      disadvantage, no one wants to make that sacrifice "for the good of
      the team" when the object is to kill everyone else. And how exactly
      would you jump someone? It's not like the first turn where someone
      who cashes out is extremely vulnerable, and how much damage could
      you inflict on them with invasion in a single turn? You'll be broke
      and they won't.

      > >And here are the problems I find that contribute to the above:
      > >
      > >1. Logistics make it too hard to invade. It takes tons of
      resources
      > >to get a large army in position to invade your opponent, while all
      > >he has to do is get a bunch of armies and have them sit in his
      home
      > >territories. He can have just 10 sit there, meaning I'll need
      > >something like 15 (at least) to invade him, which takes an ungodly
      > >amount of resources to move and if I try then my resources will be
      > >depleted and I'll go bankrupt.
      >
      >
      > Yes, this true. The High-tech Edge for Conventional Forces will
      fix this,
      > but I'd advise agisnt using the Tech Transfer to Industry rule,
      and the
      > interation with neutrals is problematic: you want to have a way
      to
      > transfer tech to the neutrals, or they get too wimpy, but you
      can't just
      > sell stuff forever to them, or high-tech is free money. Probably
      the best
      > thing is to allow tech transfer to the neutrals, but not to allow
      the
      > players to make money off it.

      See I'm never going to use those warlords rules because it just
      complicates the game too much. I considered the high-tech edge
      rules, but they seemed to be too radical and too powerful. What if
      someone manages to draw level 5 the first time? The game would be
      basically over, wouldn't it? The resource saving also seems to go a
      little too far. Is there really no way to correct this using the
      basic rules? I really want to like this game, but it seems like it
      was hardly playtested, or it was and they just didn't care that
      every game just turned into a nuke fest.

      > >2. Armies and navies cost too much compared to nukes. Armies and
      > >navies cost $100 million and a set of resources each, yet a nuke
      > >only costs $500 million and one mineral? This further makes
      > >conventional invasions impossible. Any large conventional force
      you
      > >build up can just be wiped out with a nuke and the nuker comes out
      > >ahead in cost as long as your force was over 4-5 armies in size,
      > >which any respectable invasion force will be.
      >
      >
      > But you can only use the nuke once, and if you have L-stars to
      shoot down
      > the nuke, they also give you a conventional advantage....

      Well, the armies dissapear along with the nuke too. And yeah L-stars
      give the conventional edge, but it still takes far too many
      resources to mount a large invasion so that doesn't really solve the
      problem. What it really does is further encourage you to build
      nothing but strategic weapons.

      > >3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out
      fine
      > >for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people
      prospect
      > >and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
      > >yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
      > >everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
      > >causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell
      more
      > >just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon
      the
      > >market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
      > >salaries.
      >
      >
      > >So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the
      rules
      > >should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo
      rule
      > >looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
      > >just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
      > >expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
      > >conventional forces.
      > >
      > >And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
      > >wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to
      send
      > >it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that
      risk.
      > >Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds
      of
      > >you getting to sell first aren't the greatest.
      >
      >
      > Form a cartel with someone else (or two other people) and if one
      of you
      > gets to sell first, you split the profits.
      >
      > Also, under the most recent rules, only one person can sell at a
      time--so
      > if you buy up all three resources, your chances of being able to
      sell at
      > least _one_ of them the next turn are very good.
      >

      Well, the games we play are rather cut throat and trust is pretty
      tentative. I'm not sure people would trust the others enough to
      split all those billions. Plus there's the fact that at some point
      alliances have to break down when it gets down to a couple people
      and only one of them can win.

      As far as raising the price on all three resources to guarentee
      selling at least on the next turn, that's an even bigger bullet to
      bite for the buyer. It's a situation where everyone says, "Yeah
      that's a good idea and would benefit everyone....you first."


      So anyways I'm thinking of going with the missile silo rule and
      further modifying it so that you can only build one in each
      territory. The aim of this is to force people to expand
      conventionally if they want to mount a large nuke force. This may
      make it too hard to get them through the l-star screen though, I'm
      not sure. I'm not too keen on the spaceport rule since I think too
      many nukes and not enough l-stars is the problem, and it would seem
      to mean that an unlucky laser clash would irreversibly doom a
      player, not to mention the havoc a space blast would inflict.

      Then there's the decreased max/increased minimum market rule I was
      thinking about, along with "two resources bought/sold to move the
      price". How do the veterans think this would work out?
    • Scott David Orr
      ... The game is broken without Pirates and Warlords. Use it. :) You also really, really want to use Resource Deck Two with a random shuffle--if the resource
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:40 AM 3/1/05 +0000, fahbs2000 wrote:



        >Just to clarify, I'm using as few add on rules as possible. The only
        >one I'm dabbling with at the moment is missile silos. Frankly all
        >the add on rules make the game far more complicated than what me and
        >the other players are looking for.


        The game is broken without Pirates and Warlords. Use it. :) You also
        really, really want to use Resource Deck Two with a random shuffle--if the
        resource locations are known ahead of time, it's way too easy to grab what
        you need.



        >Yeah there's benefits from capturing resource centers and getting
        >the spoils of war, but it's impossible to keep up a conventional
        >invasion and maintain any sort of economy from selling resources.
        >I'd need at least 10 armies to invade and withstand counterattacks.
        >In order to do that I'd have to have max resources stored up,
        >succeed in a single attack, then spend 10 grain or oil to just move
        >into the newly captures spot. And that's EVERY time I attack a new
        >territory. There's no way you can keep that up without crippling
        >yourself while everyone else saves resources and sells them.


        I've seen it done, but it takes two or three turns, and a couple of the
        opponent's home territories usually end up getting nuked. If you can
        manage to blockage him, though, he can't really fight back.


        >I have yet to play a game where's it's impossible to get nuclear
        >winter. Since they cost half as much, it's extremely easy to
        >outproduce l-stars with nukes.


        It's simple math: if one person tries to nuke and there's a real danger of
        nuclear winter, everyone shoots down his nukes. In a four-player game,
        that's one nuker vs. three shooters, and so even if L-stars cost twice as
        much, you have 1.5 times as many L-stars as nukes.


        >Nobody hardly ever builds up to max l-stars since laser clashes always
        >whittle them down before then....


        Why would you waste them in L-star clashes before the nukes come
        out? There's usually far more attrition of nukes than L-stars (nukes are
        after all single-use).

        [Snip.]


        >Maybe the people you play with are just too nice and trusting
        >compared to my crowd?


        No, they just realize that unless everyone gangs up on the nuker, they're
        all gonna die. It's pretty simple enlightened self-interest.


        > > >2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone
        >starts
        > > >going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
        > >
        > >
        > > So...why doesn't someone take advantage by buying a bunch of
        >resources,
        > > using them, and then cashing in the next turn by selling on the
        >market? Or
        > > even letting someone else cash in and then jump them after they
        >choose Buy
        > > rather than Attack?
        >
        >I'm not sure what you're saying here. How do you sell resources that
        >you've already used? Also, depending on how many people there are,
        >the chances of you getting to cash in before someone else are less
        >than 50%.


        It's usually greater than 50%, even under the old rules, because a) you
        don't do it unless you've got a better than normal chance of going first
        that turn (different factors can lead to this, such as strategic position
        or willingness to bid high when using bidding rules), and then on top of
        that you can form a cartel.

        With the current rules, where you can only buy one commodity before passing
        to the next player, it's very nearly a lead-pipe cinch you're going to cash
        in at least some.


        >There's also the fact that the market crashes because no
        >one is buying, so spending a bid point on the buy phase is hurting
        >the guy trying to buy the market back up and put him at a
        >disadvantage, no one wants to make that sacrifice "for the good of
        >the team" when the object is to kill everyone else.


        Generally the person who does it actually needs to buy at least a little of
        one resource, so the extra cost is minimal.


        >And how exactly would you jump someone?


        Someone who doesn't play Attack can only counterattack if you attack
        him. On the other hand, suckering osmeone into selling on the market is
        also a great way to delay an attack on YOU for one turn.


        >It's not like the first turn where someone
        >who cashes out is extremely vulnerable, and how much damage could
        >you inflict on them with invasion in a single turn? You'll be broke
        >and they won't.


        Being broke isn't the end of the world--you can borrow money and cash in
        next turn.




        >See I'm never going to use those warlords rules because it just
        >complicates the game too much.


        Not really, no. They're the simplest expansion to use. They only get icky
        if you use the High-tech rules.


        >I considered the high-tech edge
        >rules, but they seemed to be too radical and too powerful. What if
        >someone manages to draw level 5 the first time?


        You're obviously using the original High-tech rules, not the revised ones
        (which were the ones reprinted in Mega-supremacy)--you go up the chain one
        at a time, from 1 to 5.

        Yes, the original High-tech rules were broken--I never even tried playing
        them as written.


        >The game would be
        >basically over, wouldn't it? The resource saving also seems to go a
        >little too far. Is there really no way to correct this using the
        >basic rules? I really want to like this game, but it seems like it
        >was hardly playtested, or it was and they just didn't care that
        >every game just turned into a nuke fest.


        It works fine with the revised rules, so long as you use both strategic and
        conventional High-tech--otherwise it's easy for one person to get ahead in
        all areas.


        > >
        > > But you can only use the nuke once, and if you have L-stars to
        >shoot down
        > > the nuke, they also give you a conventional advantage....
        >
        >Well, the armies dissapear along with the nuke too. And yeah L-stars
        >give the conventional edge, but it still takes far too many
        >resources to mount a large invasion so that doesn't really solve the
        >problem. What it really does is further encourage you to build
        >nothing but strategic weapons.


        If you do that, someone is going to air-drop or amphib you into
        oblivion--even losing one or two home territorites can cripple you. But
        yes, the resource costs are too high.


        > > >And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
        > > >wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to
        >send
        > > >it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that
        >risk.
        > > >Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds
        >of
        > > >you getting to sell first aren't the greatest.
        > >
        > >
        > > Form a cartel with someone else (or two other people) and if one
        >of you
        > > gets to sell first, you split the profits.
        > >
        > > Also, under the most recent rules, only one person can sell at a
        >time--so
        > > if you buy up all three resources, your chances of being able to
        >sell at
        > > least _one_ of them the next turn are very good.
        > >
        >
        >Well, the games we play are rather cut throat and trust is pretty
        >tentative. I'm not sure people would trust the others enough to
        >split all those billions.


        It's not a high degree of trust--the deal need only last five minutes, and
        if someone breaks it, you target him immediately.



        >Plus there's the fact that at some point
        >alliances have to break down when it gets down to a couple people
        >and only one of them can win.


        And that's a reason not to have an alliance in the first place? If two
        people ally and no one else does, one of those two people is going to win,
        so it's 50/50 vs. 0. Sounds like a good risk to me.


        >As far as raising the price on all three resources to guarentee
        >selling at least on the next turn, that's an even bigger bullet to
        >bite for the buyer. It's a situation where everyone says, "Yeah
        >that's a good idea and would benefit everyone....you first."


        If the market is in the bull pit, it's not a bullet at all, a $1 million
        per, esp. if you acutaly need a resource. (If nothing else, you can close
        your companies next turn and save some money on salaries.)


        >So anyways I'm thinking of going with the missile silo rule and
        >further modifying it so that you can only build one in each
        >territory. The aim of this is to force people to expand
        >conventionally if they want to mount a large nuke force. This may
        >make it too hard to get them through the l-star screen though, I'm
        >not sure. I'm not too keen on the spaceport rule since I think too
        >many nukes and not enough l-stars is the problem, and it would seem
        >to mean that an unlucky laser clash would irreversibly doom a
        >player, not to mention the havoc a space blast would inflict.


        Well, I think that rule is kinda silly and artificial, but anyway it
        wouldn't have nearly as much impact as using Warlords and Pirates...and
        just plain playing better, taking advantage of what's already there.

        [Snip.]

        Scott Orr
      • Lannigan, Steve
        Hi, I play mega-supremacy so whilst I sympathise that some things may be a little broken with the basic game I think that you will need to get your hands on
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          I play mega-supremacy so whilst I sympathise that some things may be a little 'broken' with the basic game I think that you will need to get your hands on a couple of the expansions in order to make Supremacy into the game that I think you may want it to be.

          As I think Scott already mentioned, Warlords & Pirates is a great expansion that will add a bit of beef to your game. Also, you may find that the Colonial & Merchants expansion solves a lot of the market problems that your suffering (although whether the basic board is big enough to hold all the pieces is probably another matter).

          As is mentioned the radom resouce cards are extreamly helpful should you need to mix it up a bit and you should also be using the radom opening proceedure that has been laid out with Mega Supremacy (where each player secretly votes for turn order).

          However, Supremacy is not really just a game that you can pick up and play - much like Risk and a few others in that category. Dealing with Nukes always generates a doctor evil somewhere and it's really down the rest of the players to gang up and deal with insane despots (much like in real life).

          Steve

          -----Original Message-----
          From: fahbs2000 [mailto:fahbs2000@...]
          Sent: 01 March 2005 07:41
          To: Supremacy@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Supremacy] Re: seeking help fixing the game




          Just to clarify, I'm using as few add on rules as possible. The only
          one I'm dabbling with at the moment is missile silos. Frankly all
          the add on rules make the game far more complicated than what me and
          the other players are looking for.


          > >I've owned Supremacy for about 10 years and have just recently
          tried
          > >to pick it back up. I've always WANTED to like it, the premise and
          > >setup are cool, but frankly I and everyone else who's played it
          have
          > >found it to be broken.
          > >
          > >Every game I've played usually goes something like this:
          > >
          > >1. Everyone gets nukes and L-stars ASAP because without them
          you're
          > >dead. Getting enough nukes to overwhelm peoples' L-star screen is
          > >easy, and nuking someone is a million times easier than invading
          > >them with armies. Even if they do manage to build up a
          conventional
          > >invasion force, just nuke it. Every game I've ever played is won
          by
          > >nukes alone or just ends in nuclear winter.
          >
          >
          > Yes, nukes are much easier than invasion, but invasion has other
          > benefits. In any case, if the other players cooperate to stop the
          nuker,
          > and they have L-stars, it's very difficult to penetrate the
          screen, and
          > almost impossible to get a nuclear winter. Mind you, L-stars are
          probably
          > horribly overpowered, given that they also give an advantage in
          > conventional combat.

          Yeah there's benefits from capturing resource centers and getting
          the spoils of war, but it's impossible to keep up a conventional
          invasion and maintain any sort of economy from selling resources.
          I'd need at least 10 armies to invade and withstand counterattacks.
          In order to do that I'd have to have max resources stored up,
          succeed in a single attack, then spend 10 grain or oil to just move
          into the newly captures spot. And that's EVERY time I attack a new
          territory. There's no way you can keep that up without crippling
          yourself while everyone else saves resources and sells them.

          I have yet to play a game where's it's impossible to get nuclear
          winter. Since they cost half as much, it's extremely easy to
          outproduce l-stars with nukes. Nobody hardly ever builds up to max l-
          stars since laser clashes always whittle them down before then, or
          the person with a lot of nukes but little l-stars just launches a
          space blast. Cooperation is also never too likely. In the early
          stages of the game where no one has a huge advantage why would you
          NOT want to see two other players rivals nuking each other? By the
          later stages of the game not enough people are left alive to
          guarentee their combined l-star screen can stop 12 nukes. Players
          also frequently "hold the earth hostage" where, if they start
          losing, launch all their nukes in an attempt to deliberately cause
          nuclear winter.

          Maybe the people you play with are just too nice and trusting
          compared to my crowd?

          > >2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone
          starts
          > >going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
          >
          >
          > So...why doesn't someone take advantage by buying a bunch of
          resources,
          > using them, and then cashing in the next turn by selling on the
          market? Or
          > even letting someone else cash in and then jump them after they
          choose Buy
          > rather than Attack?

          I'm not sure what you're saying here. How do you sell resources that
          you've already used? Also, depending on how many people there are,
          the chances of you getting to cash in before someone else are less
          than 50%. There's also the fact that the market crashes because no
          one is buying, so spending a bid point on the buy phase is hurting
          the guy trying to buy the market back up and put him at a
          disadvantage, no one wants to make that sacrifice "for the good of
          the team" when the object is to kill everyone else. And how exactly
          would you jump someone? It's not like the first turn where someone
          who cashes out is extremely vulnerable, and how much damage could
          you inflict on them with invasion in a single turn? You'll be broke
          and they won't.

          > >And here are the problems I find that contribute to the above:
          > >
          > >1. Logistics make it too hard to invade. It takes tons of
          resources
          > >to get a large army in position to invade your opponent, while all
          > >he has to do is get a bunch of armies and have them sit in his
          home
          > >territories. He can have just 10 sit there, meaning I'll need
          > >something like 15 (at least) to invade him, which takes an ungodly
          > >amount of resources to move and if I try then my resources will be
          > >depleted and I'll go bankrupt.
          >
          >
          > Yes, this true. The High-tech Edge for Conventional Forces will
          fix this,
          > but I'd advise agisnt using the Tech Transfer to Industry rule,
          and the
          > interation with neutrals is problematic: you want to have a way
          to
          > transfer tech to the neutrals, or they get too wimpy, but you
          can't just
          > sell stuff forever to them, or high-tech is free money. Probably
          the best
          > thing is to allow tech transfer to the neutrals, but not to allow
          the
          > players to make money off it.

          See I'm never going to use those warlords rules because it just
          complicates the game too much. I considered the high-tech edge
          rules, but they seemed to be too radical and too powerful. What if
          someone manages to draw level 5 the first time? The game would be
          basically over, wouldn't it? The resource saving also seems to go a
          little too far. Is there really no way to correct this using the
          basic rules? I really want to like this game, but it seems like it
          was hardly playtested, or it was and they just didn't care that
          every game just turned into a nuke fest.

          > >2. Armies and navies cost too much compared to nukes. Armies and
          > >navies cost $100 million and a set of resources each, yet a nuke
          > >only costs $500 million and one mineral? This further makes
          > >conventional invasions impossible. Any large conventional force
          you
          > >build up can just be wiped out with a nuke and the nuker comes out
          > >ahead in cost as long as your force was over 4-5 armies in size,
          > >which any respectable invasion force will be.
          >
          >
          > But you can only use the nuke once, and if you have L-stars to
          shoot down
          > the nuke, they also give you a conventional advantage....

          Well, the armies dissapear along with the nuke too. And yeah L-stars
          give the conventional edge, but it still takes far too many
          resources to mount a large invasion so that doesn't really solve the
          problem. What it really does is further encourage you to build
          nothing but strategic weapons.

          > >3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out
          fine
          > >for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people
          prospect
          > >and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
          > >yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
          > >everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
          > >causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell
          more
          > >just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon
          the
          > >market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
          > >salaries.
          >
          >
          > >So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the
          rules
          > >should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo
          rule
          > >looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
          > >just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
          > >expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
          > >conventional forces.
          > >
          > >And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
          > >wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to
          send
          > >it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that
          risk.
          > >Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds
          of
          > >you getting to sell first aren't the greatest.
          >
          >
          > Form a cartel with someone else (or two other people) and if one
          of you
          > gets to sell first, you split the profits.
          >
          > Also, under the most recent rules, only one person can sell at a
          time--so
          > if you buy up all three resources, your chances of being able to
          sell at
          > least _one_ of them the next turn are very good.
          >

          Well, the games we play are rather cut throat and trust is pretty
          tentative. I'm not sure people would trust the others enough to
          split all those billions. Plus there's the fact that at some point
          alliances have to break down when it gets down to a couple people
          and only one of them can win.

          As far as raising the price on all three resources to guarentee
          selling at least on the next turn, that's an even bigger bullet to
          bite for the buyer. It's a situation where everyone says, "Yeah
          that's a good idea and would benefit everyone....you first."


          So anyways I'm thinking of going with the missile silo rule and
          further modifying it so that you can only build one in each
          territory. The aim of this is to force people to expand
          conventionally if they want to mount a large nuke force. This may
          make it too hard to get them through the l-star screen though, I'm
          not sure. I'm not too keen on the spaceport rule since I think too
          many nukes and not enough l-stars is the problem, and it would seem
          to mean that an unlucky laser clash would irreversibly doom a
          player, not to mention the havoc a space blast would inflict.

          Then there's the decreased max/increased minimum market rule I was
          thinking about, along with "two resources bought/sold to move the
          price". How do the veterans think this would work out?








          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

          ADVERTISEMENT
          <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129j9le7k/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705052896:HM/EXP=1109765856/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here
          <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2593423/rand=831357601>


          _____

          Yahoo! Groups Links


          * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supremacy/


          * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          Supremacy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Supremacy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


          * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




          **********************************************************************
          The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
          privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and access to this
          e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised.

          If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
          or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited
          and may be unlawful.

          At present the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed
          and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. Therefore we
          will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of
          this medium to transmit messages by or to the Scottish Life International
          group of companies.

          The Scottish Life International group of companies is owned by Royal London.

          Scottish Life International Investment Group who provides marketing services is a Royal London company which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for UK investment business and only promotes the investment, life assurance and pensions products of the Royal London marketing group.
          Registered Office: 19 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 1YE, United Kingdom.
          Registered in Scotland No. 166387.

          Scottish Life International Insurance Company Limited, a Royal London company, is the Isle of Man based product provider of life assurance and investment products of the Royal London marketing group. Scottish Life International Insurance Company Limited is authorised by the Isle of Man Government Insurance and Pensions Authority. A member of the Association of International Life Offices. Registered in the Isle of Man Number 076981C. Registered Office: Clarendon House, Victoria Street, Douglas,
          Isle of Man IM1 2LN, British Isles.

          Scottish International Fund Managers Limited, a Royal London company, is licensed to conduct investment business as a Category 3(a) licenceholder by the Isle of Man Financial Supervision Commission under the Investment Business Act 1991. Registered in the Isle of Man number 89411C. Registered address: Clarendon House, Victoria Street, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2LN, British Isles.

          **********************************************************************



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • aka_tom_w
          there is a GREAT nuclear Autum rule here that is EASY to use and will fix many of your problems. try this Effects of Nuclear Autumn The game does NOT end (play
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            there is a GREAT nuclear Autum rule here that is EASY
            to use and will fix many of your problems.

            try this

            Effects of Nuclear Autumn
            The game does NOT end (play on boys!). Instead, ALL grain companies in play are
            immediately removed from all players. (Player's units stored in storage depots are
            unaffected). Those grain companies removed are NOT returned to the deck for the
            remainder of the game. In order to open any new grain companies, they will have to be
            prospected for at double the usual rate (i.e. $400 million per card). Only two grain
            company prospects can be kept per turn.

            Rules:

            Nuclear Autumn

            After 10 mushroom clouds have been placed on the board, the following rule applies:

            When the 11th nuke has landed on the board and caused the 11th mushroom cloud to be
            placed the player who fired the last nuke must roll one die. If he rolls a six, Nuclear
            Autumn occurs. When the 12th mushroom cloud is placed on the board, the player who
            fired the last nuke must roll one die. If he rolls a five or six, Nuclear Autumn occurs, (and
            so on see the chart below). In addition after the 11th mushroom cloud has been placed on
            the board, ALL grain producing company's grain production is reduced by one production
            point in addition to any other reductions or penalties on a per territory basis (due to nukes
            in the cities in the territory) AND after 14 mushroom clouds have been placed a 2 point
            reduction penalty is applied to ALL grain producing companies as per the chart below.


            Nuked Cities Grain production penalty chart.

            1-10 Cities Nuked Grain Production Normal (No penalty)
            11-13 = 1 Grain unit OFF all Grain producers -1 production value (4 dots = 3 dots)
            14-16 = 2 Grain units OFF all Grain producers -2 production value (4 dots = 2 dots)

            The following table shows how this rule continues until Nuclear Autumn sets in.

            Number of Nukes Landed Die Roll
            For Nuclear Autumn

            11 6

            12 5 or 6

            13 4, 5 or 6

            14 3, 4, 5 or 6

            15 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6

            16 Nuclear Autumn

            Effects of Nuclear Autumn
            The game does NOT end (play on boys!). Instead, ALL grain companies in play are
            immediately removed from all players. (Player's units stored in storage depots are
            unaffected). Those grain companies removed are NOT returned to the deck for the
            remainder of the game. In order to open any new grain companies, they will have to be
            prospected for at double the usual rate (i.e. $400 million per card). Only two grain
            company prospects can be kept per turn.

            Nuked Cities Grain production penalty chart.

            1-10 Cities Nuked Grain Production Normal (No penalty)
            11-13 = 1 Grain unit OFF all Grain producers
            14-16 = 2 Grain units OFF all Grain producers

            Neutron bombs do not count for the Nuclear Autumn rule.


            I have lots of other rules that might help
            but this is a BIG one to keep the Nuke Happy Hal
            and the Sore Loser Sully from wrecking the game
            on purpose.

            -tom w

            --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "fahbs2000" <fahbs2000@y...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I've owned Supremacy for about 10 years and have just recently tried
            > to pick it back up. I've always WANTED to like it, the premise and
            > setup are cool, but frankly I and everyone else who's played it have
            > found it to be broken.
            >
            > Every game I've played usually goes something like this:
            >
            > 1. Everyone gets nukes and L-stars ASAP because without them you're
            > dead. Getting enough nukes to overwhelm peoples' L-star screen is
            > easy, and nuking someone is a million times easier than invading
            > them with armies. Even if they do manage to build up a conventional
            > invasion force, just nuke it. Every game I've ever played is won by
            > nukes alone or just ends in nuclear winter.
            >
            > 2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone starts
            > going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
            >
            >
            > And here are the problems I find that contribute to the above:
            >
            > 1. Logistics make it too hard to invade. It takes tons of resources
            > to get a large army in position to invade your opponent, while all
            > he has to do is get a bunch of armies and have them sit in his home
            > territories. He can have just 10 sit there, meaning I'll need
            > something like 15 (at least) to invade him, which takes an ungodly
            > amount of resources to move and if I try then my resources will be
            > depleted and I'll go bankrupt.
            >
            > 2. Armies and navies cost too much compared to nukes. Armies and
            > navies cost $100 million and a set of resources each, yet a nuke
            > only costs $500 million and one mineral? This further makes
            > conventional invasions impossible. Any large conventional force you
            > build up can just be wiped out with a nuke and the nuker comes out
            > ahead in cost as long as your force was over 4-5 armies in size,
            > which any respectable invasion force will be.
            >
            > 3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out fine
            > for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people prospect
            > and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
            > yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
            > everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
            > causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell more
            > just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon the
            > market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
            > salaries.
            >
            >
            > So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the rules
            > should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo rule
            > looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
            > just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
            > expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
            > conventional forces.
            >
            > And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
            > wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to send
            > it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that risk.
            > Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds of
            > you getting to sell first aren't the greatest. If someone does take
            > the risk, then the person who gets to sell first and cash in will
            > pretty much automatically win right there, which is boring. Not only
            > do I see bankrupcy as a problem, I see the extremely volatile market
            > prices as another problem. Sell for $1 billion, then buy at $1-100
            > million the very same turn? One solution I've been milling around
            > with is to increase the minimum market price (to something like $50
            > million) and decreasing the maximum price (about $300-500 million),
            > and/or making prices fluctuate slower by making it so the marker
            > moves at every TWO resources bought or sold instead of one. I
            > haven't test these though.
            >
            > So, any advice?
          • Lannigan, Steve
            Tom, Nice, but do you really think this will stop Doctor Evil from world terrorism? I hardly think a player hell bent on world destruction is going to care too
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Tom,

              Nice, but do you really think this will stop Doctor Evil from world terrorism? I hardly think a player hell bent on world destruction is going to care too much about grain production plus I think the nuclear winter rule is important because it is needed to bond the other players against a nuclear happy one ie the reason versus madness argument.

              Nuclear destruction & winter is an essetial part of the Supremacy Philosophy I believe.

              Steve

              -----Original Message-----
              From: aka_tom_w [mailto:tcw@...]
              Sent: 01 March 2005 15:54
              To: Supremacy@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Supremacy] Re: seeking help fixing the game



              there is a GREAT nuclear Autum rule here that is EASY
              to use and will fix many of your problems.

              try this

              Effects of Nuclear Autumn
              The game does NOT end (play on boys!). Instead, ALL grain companies in play are
              immediately removed from all players. (Player's units stored in storage depots are
              unaffected). Those grain companies removed are NOT returned to the deck for the
              remainder of the game. In order to open any new grain companies, they will have to be
              prospected for at double the usual rate (i.e. $400 million per card). Only two grain
              company prospects can be kept per turn.

              Rules:

              Nuclear Autumn

              After 10 mushroom clouds have been placed on the board, the following rule applies:

              When the 11th nuke has landed on the board and caused the 11th mushroom cloud to be
              placed the player who fired the last nuke must roll one die. If he rolls a six, Nuclear
              Autumn occurs. When the 12th mushroom cloud is placed on the board, the player who
              fired the last nuke must roll one die. If he rolls a five or six, Nuclear Autumn occurs, (and
              so on see the chart below). In addition after the 11th mushroom cloud has been placed on
              the board, ALL grain producing company's grain production is reduced by one production
              point in addition to any other reductions or penalties on a per territory basis (due to nukes
              in the cities in the territory) AND after 14 mushroom clouds have been placed a 2 point
              reduction penalty is applied to ALL grain producing companies as per the chart below.


              Nuked Cities Grain production penalty chart.

              1-10 Cities Nuked Grain Production Normal (No penalty)
              11-13 = 1 Grain unit OFF all Grain producers -1 production value (4 dots = 3 dots)
              14-16 = 2 Grain units OFF all Grain producers -2 production value (4 dots = 2 dots)

              The following table shows how this rule continues until Nuclear Autumn sets in.

              Number of Nukes Landed Die Roll
              For Nuclear Autumn

              11 6

              12 5 or 6

              13 4, 5 or 6

              14 3, 4, 5 or 6

              15 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6

              16 Nuclear Autumn

              Effects of Nuclear Autumn
              The game does NOT end (play on boys!). Instead, ALL grain companies in play are
              immediately removed from all players. (Player's units stored in storage depots are
              unaffected). Those grain companies removed are NOT returned to the deck for the
              remainder of the game. In order to open any new grain companies, they will have to be
              prospected for at double the usual rate (i.e. $400 million per card). Only two grain
              company prospects can be kept per turn.

              Nuked Cities Grain production penalty chart.

              1-10 Cities Nuked Grain Production Normal (No penalty)
              11-13 = 1 Grain unit OFF all Grain producers
              14-16 = 2 Grain units OFF all Grain producers

              Neutron bombs do not count for the Nuclear Autumn rule.


              I have lots of other rules that might help
              but this is a BIG one to keep the Nuke Happy Hal
              and the Sore Loser Sully from wrecking the game
              on purpose.

              -tom w

              --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "fahbs2000" <fahbs2000@y...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > I've owned Supremacy for about 10 years and have just recently tried
              > to pick it back up. I've always WANTED to like it, the premise and
              > setup are cool, but frankly I and everyone else who's played it have
              > found it to be broken.
              >
              > Every game I've played usually goes something like this:
              >
              > 1. Everyone gets nukes and L-stars ASAP because without them you're
              > dead. Getting enough nukes to overwhelm peoples' L-star screen is
              > easy, and nuking someone is a million times easier than invading
              > them with armies. Even if they do manage to build up a conventional
              > invasion force, just nuke it. Every game I've ever played is won by
              > nukes alone or just ends in nuclear winter.
              >
              > 2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone starts
              > going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
              >
              >
              > And here are the problems I find that contribute to the above:
              >
              > 1. Logistics make it too hard to invade. It takes tons of resources
              > to get a large army in position to invade your opponent, while all
              > he has to do is get a bunch of armies and have them sit in his home
              > territories. He can have just 10 sit there, meaning I'll need
              > something like 15 (at least) to invade him, which takes an ungodly
              > amount of resources to move and if I try then my resources will be
              > depleted and I'll go bankrupt.
              >
              > 2. Armies and navies cost too much compared to nukes. Armies and
              > navies cost $100 million and a set of resources each, yet a nuke
              > only costs $500 million and one mineral? This further makes
              > conventional invasions impossible. Any large conventional force you
              > build up can just be wiped out with a nuke and the nuker comes out
              > ahead in cost as long as your force was over 4-5 armies in size,
              > which any respectable invasion force will be.
              >
              > 3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out fine
              > for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people prospect
              > and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
              > yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
              > everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
              > causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell more
              > just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon the
              > market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
              > salaries.
              >
              >
              > So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the rules
              > should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo rule
              > looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
              > just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
              > expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
              > conventional forces.
              >
              > And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
              > wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to send
              > it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that risk.
              > Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds of
              > you getting to sell first aren't the greatest. If someone does take
              > the risk, then the person who gets to sell first and cash in will
              > pretty much automatically win right there, which is boring. Not only
              > do I see bankrupcy as a problem, I see the extremely volatile market
              > prices as another problem. Sell for $1 billion, then buy at $1-100
              > million the very same turn? One solution I've been milling around
              > with is to increase the minimum market price (to something like $50
              > million) and decreasing the maximum price (about $300-500 million),
              > and/or making prices fluctuate slower by making it so the marker
              > moves at every TWO resources bought or sold instead of one. I
              > haven't test these though.
              >
              > So, any advice?





              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

              ADVERTISEMENT
              <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129u026oa/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1705052896:HM/EXP=1109778877/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here
              <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2593423/rand=464838398>


              _____

              Yahoo! Groups Links


              * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supremacy/


              * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              Supremacy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Supremacy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


              * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




              **********************************************************************
              The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
              privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and access to this
              e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised.

              If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
              or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited
              and may be unlawful.

              At present the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed
              and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. Therefore we
              will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of
              this medium to transmit messages by or to the Scottish Life International
              group of companies.

              The Scottish Life International group of companies is owned by Royal London.

              Scottish Life International Investment Group who provides marketing services is a Royal London company which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority for UK investment business and only promotes the investment, life assurance and pensions products of the Royal London marketing group.
              Registered Office: 19 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 1YE, United Kingdom.
              Registered in Scotland No. 166387.

              Scottish Life International Insurance Company Limited, a Royal London company, is the Isle of Man based product provider of life assurance and investment products of the Royal London marketing group. Scottish Life International Insurance Company Limited is authorised by the Isle of Man Government Insurance and Pensions Authority. A member of the Association of International Life Offices. Registered in the Isle of Man Number 076981C. Registered Office: Clarendon House, Victoria Street, Douglas,
              Isle of Man IM1 2LN, British Isles.

              Scottish International Fund Managers Limited, a Royal London company, is licensed to conduct investment business as a Category 3(a) licenceholder by the Isle of Man Financial Supervision Commission under the Investment Business Act 1991. Registered in the Isle of Man number 89411C. Registered address: Clarendon House, Victoria Street, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2LN, British Isles.

              **********************************************************************



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Christopher Congdon
              ... I know you said you didn t want to use expansions because of complexity, but I highly suggest Fortuna. Fortuna places EXTERNAL influences on the market.
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                >3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out fine
                >for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people prospect
                >and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
                >yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
                >everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
                >causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell more
                >just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon the
                >market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
                >salaries.

                I know you said you didn't want to use expansions because of complexity, but
                I highly suggest Fortuna. Fortuna places EXTERNAL influences on the market.
                For example, you might see a card like 'Mining Strike in Argentina, Roll 1d6
                and move the Mineral Price up that many spots' Doubly fun is that if someone
                actually owns the company the produces the resources in the stated
                territory, they have to pay to clean up the mess. I agree, the market is
                broke in basic Supremacy, but I thought Fortuna did one hell of a job of
                correcting that. I love seeing a player sell all of his minerals to the
                market, getting a bunch of cash, assuming he'll be able to buy those
                minerals back next turn, only to have Fortuna bump the mineral price up 2d6.

                Seriously, expansions make the game more playable, albeit more complex.
              • aka_tom_w
                I am not sure if you have the time or interest but most of this stuff has been discussed here before. If you look back over the past messages you can see some
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am not sure if you have the time or interest
                  but most of this stuff has been discussed here
                  before.

                  If you look back over the past messages you
                  can see some discussions about the Blind
                  cash Bid system to determine turn order.

                  Try this in its simplest form
                  each player has a sealed envelope
                  they must place CASH in the envelope
                  to BID on buy and sell turn order.
                  ALL the cash goes into the bank
                  the Highest bidder gets to buy or
                  sell as many units of any one resource
                  he wants.

                  Next highest bidder sells or buys next
                  and so on.

                  I have played this way and it will add
                  a NEW dimension to the game.

                  You should also use Bonds to provide
                  a source of income.
                  you know bonds you can buy from the
                  bank that generate $100 per $1000 per
                  turn. The game REALLY needs bonds
                  to work IMHO.

                  Hope that helps

                  -tom w


                  --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "fahbs2000" <fahbs2000@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > I've owned Supremacy for about 10 years and have just recently tried
                  > to pick it back up. I've always WANTED to like it, the premise and
                  > setup are cool, but frankly I and everyone else who's played it have
                  > found it to be broken.
                  >
                  > Every game I've played usually goes something like this:
                  >
                  > 1. Everyone gets nukes and L-stars ASAP because without them you're
                  > dead. Getting enough nukes to overwhelm peoples' L-star screen is
                  > easy, and nuking someone is a million times easier than invading
                  > them with armies. Even if they do manage to build up a conventional
                  > invasion force, just nuke it. Every game I've ever played is won by
                  > nukes alone or just ends in nuclear winter.
                  >
                  > 2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone starts
                  > going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
                  >
                  >
                  > And here are the problems I find that contribute to the above:
                  >
                  > 1. Logistics make it too hard to invade. It takes tons of resources
                  > to get a large army in position to invade your opponent, while all
                  > he has to do is get a bunch of armies and have them sit in his home
                  > territories. He can have just 10 sit there, meaning I'll need
                  > something like 15 (at least) to invade him, which takes an ungodly
                  > amount of resources to move and if I try then my resources will be
                  > depleted and I'll go bankrupt.
                  >
                  > 2. Armies and navies cost too much compared to nukes. Armies and
                  > navies cost $100 million and a set of resources each, yet a nuke
                  > only costs $500 million and one mineral? This further makes
                  > conventional invasions impossible. Any large conventional force you
                  > build up can just be wiped out with a nuke and the nuker comes out
                  > ahead in cost as long as your force was over 4-5 armies in size,
                  > which any respectable invasion force will be.
                  >
                  > 3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out fine
                  > for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people prospect
                  > and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
                  > yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
                  > everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
                  > causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell more
                  > just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon the
                  > market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
                  > salaries.
                  >
                  >
                  > So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the rules
                  > should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo rule
                  > looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
                  > just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
                  > expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
                  > conventional forces.
                  >
                  > And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
                  > wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to send
                  > it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that risk.
                  > Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds of
                  > you getting to sell first aren't the greatest. If someone does take
                  > the risk, then the person who gets to sell first and cash in will
                  > pretty much automatically win right there, which is boring. Not only
                  > do I see bankrupcy as a problem, I see the extremely volatile market
                  > prices as another problem. Sell for $1 billion, then buy at $1-100
                  > million the very same turn? One solution I've been milling around
                  > with is to increase the minimum market price (to something like $50
                  > million) and decreasing the maximum price (about $300-500 million),
                  > and/or making prices fluctuate slower by making it so the marker
                  > moves at every TWO resources bought or sold instead of one. I
                  > haven't test these though.
                  >
                  > So, any advice?
                • aka_tom_w
                  I agree on ONE thing for sure.... The game is broken as it is. NO doubt about that in my mind. ONE easy thing to do is you use the Rocket Technology varient
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I agree on ONE thing for sure....

                    The game is broken as it is.

                    NO doubt about that in my mind.

                    ONE easy thing to do is you use the
                    "Rocket Technology" varient add on
                    rule as a prerequisite for Nukes or L-stars.

                    Its in the Field Marshall's Hand book.
                    The rule is simple you have to prospect
                    through the deck FIRST for the "right card"
                    can't remember which one to perfect
                    the R&D for Rocket Technology which
                    you must have before you can get nukes.

                    This however really only delays the enivitable
                    by about one or two game turns....

                    -tom w

                    --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "fahbs2000" <fahbs2000@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > I've owned Supremacy for about 10 years and have just recently tried
                    > to pick it back up. I've always WANTED to like it, the premise and
                    > setup are cool, but frankly I and everyone else who's played it have
                    > found it to be broken.
                    >
                    > Every game I've played usually goes something like this:
                    >
                    > 1. Everyone gets nukes and L-stars ASAP because without them you're
                    > dead. Getting enough nukes to overwhelm peoples' L-star screen is
                    > easy, and nuking someone is a million times easier than invading
                    > them with armies. Even if they do manage to build up a conventional
                    > invasion force, just nuke it. Every game I've ever played is won by
                    > nukes alone or just ends in nuclear winter.
                    >
                    > 2. If people are still alive after a couple rounds, everyone starts
                    > going bankrupt due to crashing market prices.
                    >
                    >
                    > And here are the problems I find that contribute to the above:
                    >
                    > 1. Logistics make it too hard to invade. It takes tons of resources
                    > to get a large army in position to invade your opponent, while all
                    > he has to do is get a bunch of armies and have them sit in his home
                    > territories. He can have just 10 sit there, meaning I'll need
                    > something like 15 (at least) to invade him, which takes an ungodly
                    > amount of resources to move and if I try then my resources will be
                    > depleted and I'll go bankrupt.
                    >
                    > 2. Armies and navies cost too much compared to nukes. Armies and
                    > navies cost $100 million and a set of resources each, yet a nuke
                    > only costs $500 million and one mineral? This further makes
                    > conventional invasions impossible. Any large conventional force you
                    > build up can just be wiped out with a nuke and the nuker comes out
                    > ahead in cost as long as your force was over 4-5 armies in size,
                    > which any respectable invasion force will be.
                    >
                    > 3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out fine
                    > for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people prospect
                    > and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
                    > yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
                    > everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
                    > causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell more
                    > just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon the
                    > market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
                    > salaries.
                    >
                    >
                    > So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the rules
                    > should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo rule
                    > looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
                    > just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
                    > expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
                    > conventional forces.
                    >
                    > And what about the bankrupcy problem? The only real solution is to
                    > wait until the market price hits $1 million then buy enough to send
                    > it right up to $1 billion, but no one ever wants to take that risk.
                    > Once that happens everyone is going to try and sell, and the odds of
                    > you getting to sell first aren't the greatest. If someone does take
                    > the risk, then the person who gets to sell first and cash in will
                    > pretty much automatically win right there, which is boring. Not only
                    > do I see bankrupcy as a problem, I see the extremely volatile market
                    > prices as another problem. Sell for $1 billion, then buy at $1-100
                    > million the very same turn? One solution I've been milling around
                    > with is to increase the minimum market price (to something like $50
                    > million) and decreasing the maximum price (about $300-500 million),
                    > and/or making prices fluctuate slower by making it so the marker
                    > moves at every TWO resources bought or sold instead of one. I
                    > haven't test these though.
                    >
                    > So, any advice?
                  • fahbs2000
                    ... I came up with my own resource randomizing rule that doesn t require extra cards. You prospect normally until you hit the resource you were looking for,
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >As is mentioned the radom resouce cards are extreamly helpful
                      >should you need to mix it up a bit and you should also be using the
                      >radom opening proceedure that has been laid out with Mega Supremacy
                      >(where each player secretly votes for turn order).

                      I came up with my own resource randomizing rule that doesn't require
                      extra cards. You prospect normally until you hit the resource you
                      were looking for, then you pick the next territory card in the pile
                      and THAT location is where the resource company is. Just write the
                      location on a tiny piece of paper and keep it with the card to
                      remember. It still doesn't solve the problem of the couple of
                      territories with no resources whatsoever (no oil in the middle east?
                      O_o), but it definately helps randomize things.

                      > However, Supremacy is not really just a game that you can pick up
                      >and play - much like Risk and a few others in that
                      category. .Dealing >with Nukes always generates a doctor evil
                      somewhere and >it's really >down the rest of the players to gang up
                      and deal with insane despots (much like in real life).
                      >

                      Well, Axis & Allies or Shogun is about our limit in game complexity
                      before our heads start to hurt. Are there really people who play
                      with all of those expansion packs? Good lord that's almost Star
                      Fleet Battles complex.



                      Can anyone point me to the "fixed" tech edge rules? The official
                      ones on the megasupremacy page seem to be the "broken" ones where
                      tech levels are random. I was also just thinking of forgoing tech
                      levels and just have resource movement costs cut in half (rounding
                      up) for everyone from the start, because frankly tech level 5
                      reduced costs look like they go too far and would make resources
                      useless for anything but selling. Anyone think that my little half
                      rule would go too far?
                    • Scott David Orr
                      ... I think Fortuna is fun, but I don t think it fundamentally changes the way the market works--it just makes a difference at the margins. Scott Orr
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 1, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 03:22 PM 3/1/05 -0500, Christopher Congdon wrote:



                        > >3. Market is the only way to make money. The market starts out fine
                        > >for making money, but soon irreversibly crashes. As people prospect
                        > >and start getting more resource cards, the need to buy decreases,
                        > >yet the need to sell stays the same (or even increases since
                        > >everyone needs to build those expensive nukes and l-stars). This
                        > >causes the market price to plummet, which causes people to sell more
                        > >just to make money, which causes prices to fall even more. Soon the
                        > >market hits bull and people can't even get money to pay their
                        > >salaries.
                        >
                        >I know you said you didn't want to use expansions because of complexity, but
                        >I highly suggest Fortuna. Fortuna places EXTERNAL influences on the market.
                        >For example, you might see a card like 'Mining Strike in Argentina, Roll 1d6
                        >and move the Mineral Price up that many spots' Doubly fun is that if someone
                        >actually owns the company the produces the resources in the stated
                        >territory, they have to pay to clean up the mess. I agree, the market is
                        >broke in basic Supremacy, but I thought Fortuna did one hell of a job of
                        >correcting that. I love seeing a player sell all of his minerals to the
                        >market, getting a bunch of cash, assuming he'll be able to buy those
                        >minerals back next turn, only to have Fortuna bump the mineral price up 2d6.
                        >
                        >Seriously, expansions make the game more playable, albeit more complex.
                        >


                        I think Fortuna is fun, but I don't think it fundamentally changes the way
                        the market works--it just makes a difference at the margins.

                        Scott Orr
                      • Scott David Orr
                        ... You just prospect until you get the next level above the one you have already. Scott Orr
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 2, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 01:03 AM 3/2/05 +0000, fahbs2000 wrote:

                          >Can anyone point me to the "fixed" tech edge rules? The official
                          >ones on the megasupremacy page seem to be the "broken" ones where
                          >tech levels are random. I was also just thinking of forgoing tech
                          >levels and just have resource movement costs cut in half (rounding
                          >up) for everyone from the start, because frankly tech level 5
                          >reduced costs look like they go too far and would make resources
                          >useless for anything but selling. Anyone think that my little half
                          >rule would go too far?
                          >


                          You just prospect until you get the next level above the one you have already.

                          Scott Orr







                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Jim Boyd
                          ... From: fahbs2000 [mailto:fahbs2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:04 PM To: Supremacy@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Supremacy] Re: seeking help
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 2, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: fahbs2000 [mailto:fahbs2000@...]
                            Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:04 PM
                            To: Supremacy@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [Supremacy] Re: seeking help fixing the game



                            <snip> Are there really people who play
                            with all of those expansion packs? Good lord that's almost Star
                            Fleet Battles complex.


                            It the only way that Supremacy becomes an enjoyable and challenging board
                            game. Supremacy has never been a game to just drop down for a quick game
                            this afternoon. It is a very well rounded and complete simulation game of
                            Geo-politics. Have yet to see a board game come close to matching it.

                            You will find that most that own it have actually added more to it to fill
                            the gaps left by the designers when they stopped production of the game.


                            Jim Boyd
                          • Scott David Orr
                            ... I don t think you need to play with _all_ the expansions--but Warlords and Pirates and Resource Deck Two are necessities. Incidentally, Supremacy may be a
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 2, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 07:37 AM 3/2/05 -0500, Jim Boyd wrote:



                              >-----Original Message-----
                              >From: fahbs2000 [mailto:fahbs2000@...]
                              >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:04 PM
                              >To: Supremacy@yahoogroups.com
                              >Subject: [Supremacy] Re: seeking help fixing the game
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              ><snip> Are there really people who play
                              >with all of those expansion packs? Good lord that's almost Star
                              >Fleet Battles complex.
                              >
                              >
                              >It the only way that Supremacy becomes an enjoyable and challenging board
                              >game. Supremacy has never been a game to just drop down for a quick game
                              >this afternoon. It is a very well rounded and complete simulation game of
                              >Geo-politics. Have yet to see a board game come close to matching it.
                              >
                              >You will find that most that own it have actually added more to it to fill
                              >the gaps left by the designers when they stopped production of the game.


                              I don't think you need to play with _all_ the expansions--but Warlords and
                              Pirates and Resource Deck Two are necessities.

                              Incidentally, Supremacy may be a lot of things, including a great game, but
                              it's not a "simulation" of reality. :)

                              Scott Orr
                            • Christopher Congdon
                              Hahaha, not quite :-) I ve got both games, and I m pretty sure Supremacy does NOT fill multiple ring binders! ;) I will admit though that the almost full rules
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 3, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hahaha, not quite :-) I've got both games, and I'm pretty sure Supremacy
                                does NOT fill multiple ring binders! ;)



                                I will admit though that the almost full rules set game I played last (No Hi
                                Tech Strategic or Colonial Marines sets.) with just 2 players took a number
                                of hours to play.



                                But that's the problem, the basic game is broken.in a big way. You have to
                                trade off complexity against how well you want the game to work. You could
                                just strip the basic game of the broken rules, but face it, at that point,
                                you may as well dig out Risk, because that's all you'll really be playing at
                                that point.



                                _____

                                From: fahbs2000 [mailto:fahbs2000@...]
                                Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 20:04
                                To: Supremacy@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [Supremacy] Re: seeking help fixing the game






                                Well, Axis & Allies or Shogun is about our limit in game complexity
                                before our heads start to hurt. Are there really people who play
                                with all of those expansion packs? Good lord that's almost Star
                                Fleet Battles complex.







                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Christopher Congdon
                                No, I agree, it does not change *how* the market works, but it provides an external influence on the market prices that does not involve what the players are
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 3, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  No, I agree, it does not change *how* the market works, but it provides an
                                  external influence on the market prices that does not involve what the
                                  players are doing. Fortuna was the first expansion I ever bought and I
                                  thought it made the game way more playable.

                                  >I think Fortuna is fun, but I don't think it fundamentally changes the way
                                  >the market works--it just makes a difference at the margins.
                                  >
                                  >Scott Orr
                                • p_d_thomas
                                  ... game, but ... You mean I can t just wipe out Western USA in reality? Damn...
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Mar 3, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, Scott David Orr <sdorr@i...> wrote:
                                    > At 07:37 AM 3/2/05 -0500, Jim Boyd wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Incidentally, Supremacy may be a lot of things, including a great
                                    game, but
                                    > it's not a "simulation" of reality. :)
                                    >
                                    > Scott Orr

                                    You mean I can't just wipe out Western USA in reality?

                                    Damn...
                                  • Brian E Williams
                                    Hey! I *live* there, man! Pick on somebody else... like Alaska! p_d_thomas wrote: ... You mean I can t just wipe out Western USA in
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Mar 3, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hey! I *live* there, man! Pick on somebody else... like Alaska!

                                      p_d_thomas <p_d_thomas@...> wrote:
                                      <sdorr@i...> wrote:
                                      > At 07:37 AM 3/2/05 -0500, Jim Boyd wrote:
                                      > Incidentally, Supremacy may be a lot of things, including a greatgame, but
                                      > it's not a "simulation" of reality. :)
                                      >
                                      > Scott Orr

                                      You mean I can't just wipe out Western USA in reality?

                                      Damn...



                                      The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of
                                      tolerance comes when we are in the majority.
                                      -- Ralph W. Sockman


                                      I�A�A�M�O�A�C

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Scott David Orr
                                      ... And without your public protesting it at all, or affecting corporate investment in your own country, to boot. :) Scott Orr
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Mar 3, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 08:29 PM 3/3/05 +0000, p_d_thomas wrote:


                                        >--- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, Scott David Orr <sdorr@i...> wrote:
                                        > > At 07:37 AM 3/2/05 -0500, Jim Boyd wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Incidentally, Supremacy may be a lot of things, including a great
                                        >game, but
                                        > > it's not a "simulation" of reality. :)
                                        >
                                        >You mean I can't just wipe out Western USA in reality?
                                        >
                                        >Damn...


                                        And without your public protesting it at all, or affecting corporate
                                        investment in your own country, to boot. :)

                                        Scott Orr
                                      • jlhilal
                                        ... One step toward fixing the nuke problem is to play on the mega-map. Nukes are now directed at cities rather than territories, each territory has at least 3
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Mar 9, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In Supremacy@yahoogroups.com, "fahbs2000" <fahbs2000@y...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > So, my question is, what optional rules or alterations to the rules
                                          > should I apply in order to fix these problems? The missile silo rule
                                          > looked promising, but in the couple test game I've tried it in it
                                          > just kind of delays nuclear armageddon. It's still far too
                                          > expensive, risky, and slow to invade home territories with
                                          > conventional forces.

                                          One step toward fixing the nuke problem is to play on the mega-map.
                                          Nukes are now directed at cities rather than territories, each
                                          territory has at least 3 cities, and the number of territories is
                                          still the controlling factor in Nuclear Winter (so minimum 36 nukes
                                          have to LAND). Add'l option: change it to "All of the cities in a
                                          territory have to be nuked to count the territory as nuked".

                                          See also my house rules for using Tactical Nukes against armies/navies
                                          in the Conventional Battle Drill in the Files section under "J's
                                          Files" if you want help clearing out those pesky defenders :)

                                          See also my post about an alternative Nuclear Autumn:
                                          http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supremacy/message/1724


                                          For the Market problem:
                                          1) Fortuna

                                          2) I have made some previous posts about restricting market supply and
                                          demand
                                          http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Supremacy/message/2555

                                          3) you can also add fixed market shifts based on game events
                                          e.g.:
                                          a) Every time a resource is prospected, market moves up or down in
                                          speculation
                                          b) when a company is opened, shift market down a number of places
                                          equal to number of dots on card (more supply).
                                          c) when a company is closed, shift market up a number of places equal
                                          to number of dots (less supply).
                                          d) every time any territory is attacked, shift all 3 resources up 1
                                          (nervous speculators)
                                          e) if the attacked territory has a resource card, shift that resource
                                          up 1d6 rather than 1. (really nervous speculators)
                                          f) every time nukes or neutron bombs are used, shift market up 1d6
                                          each resource in addition to 1/territory. (really, really nervous
                                          speculators)


                                          J
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.