Laika

End of Game Statements

Andy York I'm not sure why I got the early lead, and then maintained it through the end. I was just waiting for the explosion, spacewalk failure or something else fatal to put a stop to things and run a critical program back to the beginning. That's why, in the latter turns, I was saving cash - so that I could ramp up research quickly while not being hit too badly by the drop in income. Interesting variant, thanks for putting it together Chris!

Feedback:

I'd already given you some, but here's more thoughts:

• I'd been concerned at the beginning that funds would hamper later research and investment. However, it turned out that wasn't the case at all. I had more money than I knew what to do with. Possibly, have budgets cut by percentages rather than fixed amounts. A 20MB drop in your budget can kill you at 100MB (20%); while at 250MB (8%) it is just inconvenient. Or, move to percentage drops once a certain budget level is reached (150MB or 200MB?).
• cash on hand above a certain amount or budget level should have a negative effect on your budget (i.e., -10% to budget for each 50MB above 150MB on hand "or" if you have over 150MB on hand, a die is rolled (x10) and that amount is removed (i.e., you have 160MB, the die roll is 4, so you lose 40MB). With this, I'd allow incremental investment towards program start-ups (50% this turn, 50% next turn).
• no Astronauts retired (that I can remember), I'd bump up the retirement rate with an added bonus after 10 years on the job. Or, as many of the early recruits (in real life) were older and there could be a bonus towards retirement for them. This would encourage on-going recruitment and training of the newer classes.
• again, looking at aging and/or refitting of launch sites. Maybe, when technology changes, you have to refit/refurbish the pads. For instance, the shuttles use different launch equipment than the Saturn V pads. Or, have "types of pads": 1 & 2 Stage Rockets, 3 Stage Rockets, Small Shuttle, Large Shuttle. The type of pad would be declared at construction and only those launch vehicles that match the pad can launch from there (optionally, 1 & 2 stage rockets can fire from a 3 stage rocket pad - you start with only 1 & 2 stage rocket pads). So, you've the choice of building different pads for different launch vehicles (max 6) or paying a "conversion/refit" cost (say 5 or 10MB) so that it can launch another type. However, if you want to move back, pay again. This will have the benefit of folks needing to plan a bit more or having to pay the conversion/refit cost each time. As for the refit, a flat charge of $5MB (or ??) every 5, 7 or 10 years to keep the pad on-line.
• additional thought on the water landing versus land landing (required for emergency capsules on space stations) for capsules. Yes, it would be more difficult to have two lines of capsules to research. So, here's another way to implement (and I don't have the rules in front of me, so I'm grabbing numbers out of the air) - when you start your capsule program you declare whether your going for water landing or land landing. Start-up costs are the same for each 1-person program, with water landing costing 3MB for each research roll starting at 10% with a flat charge of $2MB per capsule recovery (to cover naval deployment, search and recovery). Land landing would cost 6MB for each research roll. To upgrade water capsule to land capsule would cost 4MB per research die roll. Showing the capsules safety factors would be xx%/xx% (water/land landing percentages). This allows someone to plan long term (you'll need land landing capsules eventually), while those racing into space could but it would cost for each launch and extra to convert. Options - you can choose one type of landing for each capsule type (i.e., the safety factor would be xx%L or xx%W). Then, if you have one type of landing and choose another type of landing for the next capsule, there is a -20% to the initial capsule safety factor. Or, as above, but allow folks to buy the other type of capsule from another player (they pass $$ between them) and, after a $10MB adaptation fee and a year, you can produce the other type of capsule.

Basically, I'm trying to come up with a way to handicap an early leader. Maybe there should be some rules to encourage other players to do more together by sharing technology, combined/multi-nation long term projects, co-investments, etc. That way, if someone takes and early lead, two or more folks could join together to "catch-up" or surpass the other person. After all, once they caught up, they could each go their own way or decide that a co-win is better than a loss.

Thanks again, it was fun!

Cary Nichols Contragulations to Andy! I enjoyed this Mars variant very much. Sometimes I was unsure about exact requirements for a few programs, but that was probably just me. Overall, the game works fine in this longer format.

Bill Scharf Bill Scharf Well, I got to the moon first, there is a "best" route on getting there, and so that was relatively easy to reach.

As for Mars, I spent too much time assembling the materials for my Mars mission....I wasn't clear on exactly what needed to be done to put the craft together and I suspect that cost me the game....oh well.

I'm not sure if there is a "best" route to Mars, it looks like solar sail is the way to go, but it will take a few games to test things out....hope you run it again.