MARCH 14/2014
2 Person Playtest: 2 hours
My Dad (who hates sci fi games but he played anyways) and I played FFH last night using the latest rules, mats, cards, and counters. The game played smoothly, rules clicked, and strategies and tactics employed. It was a great game. 2 problems my Dad encountered and I with which I concur are the imbalances between the two Capital Ship special weapons and a small rule regarding fighter movement and attacks after being retaken from the control of the infiltrator frigate. Rules state that ships can't move or attack again in the same turn. But if I retake my fighters, or the Frigate takes my fighters, then I or he could use them during his turn. This should be reworded to read that ships cannot move move or attack again in the same "round". The exception would be during retaliation, which always occurs with a roll of 1.
All is all it was a great match and I look forward to playing it again tomorrow...
My Dad (who hates sci fi games but he played anyways) and I played FFH last night using the latest rules, mats, cards, and counters. The game played smoothly, rules clicked, and strategies and tactics employed. It was a great game. 2 problems my Dad encountered and I with which I concur are the imbalances between the two Capital Ship special weapons and a small rule regarding fighter movement and attacks after being retaken from the control of the infiltrator frigate. Rules state that ships can't move or attack again in the same turn. But if I retake my fighters, or the Frigate takes my fighters, then I or he could use them during his turn. This should be reworded to read that ships cannot move move or attack again in the same "round". The exception would be during retaliation, which always occurs with a roll of 1.
All is all it was a great match and I look forward to playing it again tomorrow...
MARCH 09/2014
2 Person Playtest: 1 hour
My son (8 years old) and I played a game of Far From Home. It took me about 5 minutes to explain the rules to him and about 2 turns for him to grasp the mechanics and how they relate to one another. He loved blowing up my ships (a victory followed by some dancing and banter). In the end I won. My bombers took out his Frigates pretty quickly (no mercy from Dad!). He did end up destroying my Frigate and hitting my Capital Ship's shields before I utterly destroyed him. The Mayflower and her passengers did not survive the attack.
My son (8 years old) and I played a game of Far From Home. It took me about 5 minutes to explain the rules to him and about 2 turns for him to grasp the mechanics and how they relate to one another. He loved blowing up my ships (a victory followed by some dancing and banter). In the end I won. My bombers took out his Frigates pretty quickly (no mercy from Dad!). He did end up destroying my Frigate and hitting my Capital Ship's shields before I utterly destroyed him. The Mayflower and her passengers did not survive the attack.
FEBRUARY 28/2014
Below is the link to the new rule book.
FEBRUARY 26/2014
Solo playtest: 1 hour
Focus: turning the map shortways (Capital Ships are closer together).
Immediately, the Mayflower began attacking the Andromeda with the Ion Cannon, and in two turns had reduced the Andromeda's hull to 5. Within those two turns the Andromeda was able to get some ships out quickly and start bombarding the Mayflower without hesitation (fighters, not bombers). Both ships took a beating within the first 3 turns. The Mayflower then begain heading for the other end of the map, using ships as a wall between it and enemy fighters. In the end it was all over for the Mayflower as it simply could not outrun the enemy bombers or repair it's hull fast enough to make it to safety.
My immediate reaction was that this was a completely different turn on the game as both players (I was both players) had no time to strategically deploy their forces and begain engaging in total war from the first round. The Andromeda surviving the first two hits of the Ion Cannon and it's early deployment of ships (it ended up with more on the board) allowed it victory.
One problem I do see is that since both Capital Ships are open knowledge, both players will see what the other players are doing and react to the placement of their EP. A shield may be necessary to conceal EP Allocation creating surprise in the game.
Focus: turning the map shortways (Capital Ships are closer together).
Immediately, the Mayflower began attacking the Andromeda with the Ion Cannon, and in two turns had reduced the Andromeda's hull to 5. Within those two turns the Andromeda was able to get some ships out quickly and start bombarding the Mayflower without hesitation (fighters, not bombers). Both ships took a beating within the first 3 turns. The Mayflower then begain heading for the other end of the map, using ships as a wall between it and enemy fighters. In the end it was all over for the Mayflower as it simply could not outrun the enemy bombers or repair it's hull fast enough to make it to safety.
My immediate reaction was that this was a completely different turn on the game as both players (I was both players) had no time to strategically deploy their forces and begain engaging in total war from the first round. The Andromeda surviving the first two hits of the Ion Cannon and it's early deployment of ships (it ended up with more on the board) allowed it victory.
One problem I do see is that since both Capital Ships are open knowledge, both players will see what the other players are doing and react to the placement of their EP. A shield may be necessary to conceal EP Allocation creating surprise in the game.
FEBRUARY 19/2014
Solo playtest: 1 hour
Focus: Ion Bomb, Asymmetryical Objectives, New Prototype counters
The Mayflower's objective was to either destroy the Andromeda and survive or to make it to the opposite end of the board and to jump to FTL. The Andromeda's objective is to destroy the Mayflower.
The Andromeda deployed 4 Ion Bombs throughout the game. The neat thing about the Ion Bomb is they serve as a moving mine. No one on either side wants to touch it (explodes on impact) and will move out of its way. The other neat thing was its strategic capability to harm either player. The Andromeda deployed the Ion Bomb. The during the Blue turn a Corvette blew it up which destroyed it along with some Red Corvette's adjacent to it.
The Mayflower somehow found its way to the opposite end of the board. It invested all its EP into an FTL jump and Ion Cannon, which left its hull wide open to attack against the enemy (no shields). The Red player could not destroy the Mayflower with its remaining ships (Mayflower Hull reached 6). The Mayflower attempted a jump to FTL for the win but failed the die roll. The Mayflower then shot it's Ion Cannon at the Andromeda and shaved 3 EP off the shield (The Andromeda invested heavily in shields) which reduced it shield count to 3 and a hull strength of 7. The Blue player then flew in 3 corvettes which had the Torpedo upgrade and hit the Andromeda hull for 9 points obliterating the ship.
My analysis after the solo play test was that the Mayflower played a safer game (although it should be noted that the blue player's frigates were eliminated early on in the game) and kept the Mayflower to the edge of the board and deployed ships as a defensive perimited as it moved toward the opposite end.
The Andromeda played more offensively and deployed all its Ion Bombs early on (3 of the 4 missed their targets). The Andromeda also failed to utilize it's infiltrator frigate early on which could have earned it extra ships. The Andromeda also failed to utilize it's Corvettes properly which, as a defensive perimiter, could have protected it from direct conflict.
Fun game. Can't wait to get this into the hands of more players.
Focus: Ion Bomb, Asymmetryical Objectives, New Prototype counters
The Mayflower's objective was to either destroy the Andromeda and survive or to make it to the opposite end of the board and to jump to FTL. The Andromeda's objective is to destroy the Mayflower.
The Andromeda deployed 4 Ion Bombs throughout the game. The neat thing about the Ion Bomb is they serve as a moving mine. No one on either side wants to touch it (explodes on impact) and will move out of its way. The other neat thing was its strategic capability to harm either player. The Andromeda deployed the Ion Bomb. The during the Blue turn a Corvette blew it up which destroyed it along with some Red Corvette's adjacent to it.
The Mayflower somehow found its way to the opposite end of the board. It invested all its EP into an FTL jump and Ion Cannon, which left its hull wide open to attack against the enemy (no shields). The Red player could not destroy the Mayflower with its remaining ships (Mayflower Hull reached 6). The Mayflower attempted a jump to FTL for the win but failed the die roll. The Mayflower then shot it's Ion Cannon at the Andromeda and shaved 3 EP off the shield (The Andromeda invested heavily in shields) which reduced it shield count to 3 and a hull strength of 7. The Blue player then flew in 3 corvettes which had the Torpedo upgrade and hit the Andromeda hull for 9 points obliterating the ship.
My analysis after the solo play test was that the Mayflower played a safer game (although it should be noted that the blue player's frigates were eliminated early on in the game) and kept the Mayflower to the edge of the board and deployed ships as a defensive perimited as it moved toward the opposite end.
The Andromeda played more offensively and deployed all its Ion Bombs early on (3 of the 4 missed their targets). The Andromeda also failed to utilize it's infiltrator frigate early on which could have earned it extra ships. The Andromeda also failed to utilize it's Corvettes properly which, as a defensive perimiter, could have protected it from direct conflict.
Fun game. Can't wait to get this into the hands of more players.
FEBRUARY 13/2014
Above is the link to a rough draft of the new rule book. It is still missing a glossary, images, and some details on rules (The individual Ship Cards and Capital Ship Mats).
FEBRUARY 10/2014
I need to playtest Asymmetrical objectives.
Andromeda: Destroy the Mayflower at any cost, even the loss of your own ship.
Mayflower: Make it to the other side of the board and successfully initiate a FTL jump, or destroy the Andromeda with 1 Hull Point remaining.
The reason for the differing objectives would be more thematic and also add replay value.
I have also made it so the board can be rotated in either direction. I need to playtest this as well, but theoretically it should work and infact provide a completely different tactical style for both players.
Just an idea...
Andromeda: Destroy the Mayflower at any cost, even the loss of your own ship.
Mayflower: Make it to the other side of the board and successfully initiate a FTL jump, or destroy the Andromeda with 1 Hull Point remaining.
The reason for the differing objectives would be more thematic and also add replay value.
I have also made it so the board can be rotated in either direction. I need to playtest this as well, but theoretically it should work and infact provide a completely different tactical style for both players.
Just an idea...
February 4 2014
IDEA in promoting asymmetry betwen Fleets: Instead of an Ion Cannon for both Capital Ships, have one ship possess the technology Ion Bomb. Rule:
Deploy Bomb. Bomb moves always forward in the same direction every turn, 1 space per turn. Bomb detonates when it comes into contact with any ship (lands on a hex occupied by any ship). All ships within the hex of the explosion incure a-2 to it's hull/shields. All ships in adjacent hexes receive -1 to their hulls/shields. Player may invest EP into the bombs strength, ie. explosion within the hex incures -3 to any ship witin that same hex, adjacent hex receive -2.
Deploy Bomb. Bomb moves always forward in the same direction every turn, 1 space per turn. Bomb detonates when it comes into contact with any ship (lands on a hex occupied by any ship). All ships within the hex of the explosion incure a-2 to it's hull/shields. All ships in adjacent hexes receive -1 to their hulls/shields. Player may invest EP into the bombs strength, ie. explosion within the hex incures -3 to any ship witin that same hex, adjacent hex receive -2.
FEBRUARY 1 2014
Solo Play test: 1 hour
Focus: Worker Placement system, Ion Cannon, Red fleet ships, Defensive vs. Offensive tactics.
The right side of my brain battled against the left side of my brain for survival. The right side won.
In this test I wanted to see if the new worker placement mechanics worked. It did! Both sides started off with 10 EP. The Red fleet immediately started moving his Capital Ship toward the opposing fleet. The Blue fleet started moving in his frigates toward the center of the board (Frigates now begin on the board instead of waiting for deployment)and began deploying as many fighters and corvettes around the Capital Ship as he could (limit 3 fighters and 2 corvettes per turn max). As the Capital Ship got closer, he began deploying fighters and corvettes. By turn 5, the Red Fleet committed 5 EP to the Ion Cannon and 2 EP to it's range of 6 Hexes. The Red Capital Ship Destroyed the Blue fleet Defense Field Frigate quickly (Blue player forgot to commit some EP to it's shield). What ensued was a bloody brawl between the flak frigate (eventually destroyed by the Ion Cannon as well) and the rest of the fighters and bombers. The last two turns are what made the game awesome. The Andromeda (Red Fleet Capital Ship) rammed a corvette and a fighter in order to bring it within range of the Mayflower (resulting in -3 to it's hull). It fired the Ion Cannon at the Mayflower, but the Blue player had committed 6 EP to it's shield. The Red player rolled a 4, which hit the Mayflower's shields and resulted in the permanent loss of 4 blue EP. The Mayflower's hull remained untouched. The next turn ended it for the Andromeda. 3 torpedo attacks from blue corvettes removed the 4 shield from the Andromeda, and 2 blue bombers eventually found their way adjacent to the Andromeda and had two direct hits for a total of 8. The Andromeda's hull blue wide open and all it's dead inhabitants floated into space.
Focus: Worker Placement system, Ion Cannon, Red fleet ships, Defensive vs. Offensive tactics.
The right side of my brain battled against the left side of my brain for survival. The right side won.
In this test I wanted to see if the new worker placement mechanics worked. It did! Both sides started off with 10 EP. The Red fleet immediately started moving his Capital Ship toward the opposing fleet. The Blue fleet started moving in his frigates toward the center of the board (Frigates now begin on the board instead of waiting for deployment)and began deploying as many fighters and corvettes around the Capital Ship as he could (limit 3 fighters and 2 corvettes per turn max). As the Capital Ship got closer, he began deploying fighters and corvettes. By turn 5, the Red Fleet committed 5 EP to the Ion Cannon and 2 EP to it's range of 6 Hexes. The Red Capital Ship Destroyed the Blue fleet Defense Field Frigate quickly (Blue player forgot to commit some EP to it's shield). What ensued was a bloody brawl between the flak frigate (eventually destroyed by the Ion Cannon as well) and the rest of the fighters and bombers. The last two turns are what made the game awesome. The Andromeda (Red Fleet Capital Ship) rammed a corvette and a fighter in order to bring it within range of the Mayflower (resulting in -3 to it's hull). It fired the Ion Cannon at the Mayflower, but the Blue player had committed 6 EP to it's shield. The Red player rolled a 4, which hit the Mayflower's shields and resulted in the permanent loss of 4 blue EP. The Mayflower's hull remained untouched. The next turn ended it for the Andromeda. 3 torpedo attacks from blue corvettes removed the 4 shield from the Andromeda, and 2 blue bombers eventually found their way adjacent to the Andromeda and had two direct hits for a total of 8. The Andromeda's hull blue wide open and all it's dead inhabitants floated into space.
In the photo to the left, you can see how the worker placement system works. Each action has an EP requirement. In order to perform that action during the Action Phase, you must plan and commit EP to that action. Each Action requires a predetermined amount of EP. For example: It requires 1 Ep to deploy 1 fighter, but the total number of fighters that can be deployed are 3. To move the Capital Ship, 2 EP must be committed to the engines, 2 engines max (for a total move count of 2 per turn). The Blue player to the left had committed 6 EP to the shield, 1 EP to the Ion Cannon, 3 EP to Fighter deployment, and 3 EP to Corvette Weapon technology (not pictured here).
Next playtest will focus on balance between fleets, the introduction of an asymmetrical corvette for the Red fleet, an asymmetrical frigate for the Red fleet, and EP reward count for destroying enemy ships.
Rules I implemented during this play test and plan to keep are as follows:
Retaliate: If an attacking ship roles a 1 against a Gunship, the Gunship will only roll one die.
The Capital Ship can move in any direction it likes (no more forward/backward trajectory).
Rules that need reworking: Any EP that is destroyed while shielding against the ION CANNON is removed from the fleet. (maybe roll a die and divide by 2 = # of EP removed).
Below is a complete layout of the current prototype at the end of the game. You can see that the Andromeda has 3 bombers and a command corvette left in the hangar. The Mayflower had 1 bomber and 3 fighters left in its hangar.
Next playtest will focus on balance between fleets, the introduction of an asymmetrical corvette for the Red fleet, an asymmetrical frigate for the Red fleet, and EP reward count for destroying enemy ships.
Rules I implemented during this play test and plan to keep are as follows:
Retaliate: If an attacking ship roles a 1 against a Gunship, the Gunship will only roll one die.
The Capital Ship can move in any direction it likes (no more forward/backward trajectory).
Rules that need reworking: Any EP that is destroyed while shielding against the ION CANNON is removed from the fleet. (maybe roll a die and divide by 2 = # of EP removed).
Below is a complete layout of the current prototype at the end of the game. You can see that the Andromeda has 3 bombers and a command corvette left in the hangar. The Mayflower had 1 bomber and 3 fighters left in its hangar.
JANUARY 31 2014
Two person Play test: 3 hours
Focus: Transition from Action Point system to Worker Placement system, Blue Fleet balance, Red fleet ships.
My playtester Erick Cortez had a great idea. Instead of using EP as a renewable resource, we removed EP from the game entirely and instead used the blue and red blocks originally used as Upgrade Tokens and gave them a role as "Crew Members" of the fleet and woul be considered a non-renewable resource (almost).
Each fleet would begin with a predetermined crew size (10 cubes) and would allocate the crew to different functions of the fleet:
Deployment, Upgrades, shields, repair, engines, Ion Cannon, guns...
Your limited crew size forced us to think wisely about how we allocated our resources before going into battle mode. At the beginning of a player's turn, the player can re-allocate his resources. This played very well during testing and gave the game a fresh dimension.
As a result, Frigate hulls were reduced to 2 (with a shield strength of 6), only 3 fighters and 2 corvetts canbe deployed per turn, the defense field frigate reduces accuracy from all enemy ships by only -1 for free (so long as you allocate the crew to do so), and the marine frigate can control up to 3 fighters and 2 corvettes (so long as you allocate the crew to do so).
Each turn, a fleet can earn a max of 7 crew points by destroying fighters (max 1 CP), corvettes (max 2 CP), and frigates (max 3 CP). Newly acquired crew points remain with the fleet.
I have an idea to make available a way to permanently destroy crew points throug the use of the ion cannon (such as if you allocate crew points to shielding against the ion cannon, any shield lost during the attack results in the permanent removal of your crew points equal to lost shields).
More playtesting will be done with this new mechanic, but I see great things happening with it.
I am currently designing a new player mat for the capital ship. I will post it when I am done.
Focus: Transition from Action Point system to Worker Placement system, Blue Fleet balance, Red fleet ships.
My playtester Erick Cortez had a great idea. Instead of using EP as a renewable resource, we removed EP from the game entirely and instead used the blue and red blocks originally used as Upgrade Tokens and gave them a role as "Crew Members" of the fleet and woul be considered a non-renewable resource (almost).
Each fleet would begin with a predetermined crew size (10 cubes) and would allocate the crew to different functions of the fleet:
Deployment, Upgrades, shields, repair, engines, Ion Cannon, guns...
Your limited crew size forced us to think wisely about how we allocated our resources before going into battle mode. At the beginning of a player's turn, the player can re-allocate his resources. This played very well during testing and gave the game a fresh dimension.
As a result, Frigate hulls were reduced to 2 (with a shield strength of 6), only 3 fighters and 2 corvetts canbe deployed per turn, the defense field frigate reduces accuracy from all enemy ships by only -1 for free (so long as you allocate the crew to do so), and the marine frigate can control up to 3 fighters and 2 corvettes (so long as you allocate the crew to do so).
Each turn, a fleet can earn a max of 7 crew points by destroying fighters (max 1 CP), corvettes (max 2 CP), and frigates (max 3 CP). Newly acquired crew points remain with the fleet.
I have an idea to make available a way to permanently destroy crew points throug the use of the ion cannon (such as if you allocate crew points to shielding against the ion cannon, any shield lost during the attack results in the permanent removal of your crew points equal to lost shields).
More playtesting will be done with this new mechanic, but I see great things happening with it.
I am currently designing a new player mat for the capital ship. I will post it when I am done.
JANUARY 16 2014
Two person Play test: 2 hours
Focus: Turtling, EP cost, Movement speed, fighter and bomber numbers limits, Deployment cost.
I finally encountered the problem with turtling and the rich-get-richer issue. The problem is that the Fleet that sticks to a defensive stance (not moving ships after deployment) will end up with lots of EP, while the player that is more offensive has to move his fleet across the board to attack. About half way through the game I decided to remove the EP cost for moving (restricting it to deployment, hull repair, and Tech upgrades). At 3 EP a turn, either side would end up with lots of money (fighters and Corvetts are still relatively cheap). I decided to restrict end of turn EP to 1 EP per turn, which hurt the player not destorying enemy ships. I am on the right track though by removing EP cost for ship movement (I will still require 2 EP to move the Capital Ship).
I was happy overall with movement speed. The fighters and bombers moved fast. The Corvett's were powerfull (almost too powerful). The Frigates were slow but fearsom (the flak frigate took down 7 corvettes before it was destroyed).
I added hull repair option for all frigates (1 EP cost for each hull level).
I had no restriction on the number of fighters or corvetts allowed to deploy on map. It wasnt bad space wise (fighters were combined into wings). The Red Fleet had a defense perimiter of Corvetts about 2 hexes thick.
I made frigates 10 EP to deploy.
Tonight is my first playtest with the new mechanics and ships with another person and I am looking forward to the feedback.
In the end the Blue Fleet ran out of money. The Capital Ship rammed the Marine Frigate at a cost of 6 EP to it's hull. Fighters rapped up the job pretty quickly and the Blue Team lost.
Focus: Turtling, EP cost, Movement speed, fighter and bomber numbers limits, Deployment cost.
I finally encountered the problem with turtling and the rich-get-richer issue. The problem is that the Fleet that sticks to a defensive stance (not moving ships after deployment) will end up with lots of EP, while the player that is more offensive has to move his fleet across the board to attack. About half way through the game I decided to remove the EP cost for moving (restricting it to deployment, hull repair, and Tech upgrades). At 3 EP a turn, either side would end up with lots of money (fighters and Corvetts are still relatively cheap). I decided to restrict end of turn EP to 1 EP per turn, which hurt the player not destorying enemy ships. I am on the right track though by removing EP cost for ship movement (I will still require 2 EP to move the Capital Ship).
I was happy overall with movement speed. The fighters and bombers moved fast. The Corvett's were powerfull (almost too powerful). The Frigates were slow but fearsom (the flak frigate took down 7 corvettes before it was destroyed).
I added hull repair option for all frigates (1 EP cost for each hull level).
I had no restriction on the number of fighters or corvetts allowed to deploy on map. It wasnt bad space wise (fighters were combined into wings). The Red Fleet had a defense perimiter of Corvetts about 2 hexes thick.
I made frigates 10 EP to deploy.
Tonight is my first playtest with the new mechanics and ships with another person and I am looking forward to the feedback.
In the end the Blue Fleet ran out of money. The Capital Ship rammed the Marine Frigate at a cost of 6 EP to it's hull. Fighters rapped up the job pretty quickly and the Blue Team lost.
JANUARY 15 2014
Playtest: 1 hour
Playtested Flak Frigates, Fighters, Bombers, Gunships, and a Command Corvette last night along with both Capital Ships in play. So far everything appears balanced. I did not use any upgraded technologies. I did use a bigger 11x17 map with smaller hexes. This allowed much more room for maneuvering. Frigate cost was 10EP. Command Corvette improved my fighter accuracy to 5 (roll 6-2 to hit) which helped in blowing open the opposition's defense. The Blue Capital Ship did fire its ION CANNON twice on the advancing Frigate. I was worried I was going to have to ram my Capital Ship into the Frigate (I would have lost 6 points to my Hull) to destroy it.
I will be doing a playtest with a friend tomorrow night and I look forward to someone else's opinion about the changes and not being able to predict my own movements.
Problems: Was running out of money on both sides.
Playtested Flak Frigates, Fighters, Bombers, Gunships, and a Command Corvette last night along with both Capital Ships in play. So far everything appears balanced. I did not use any upgraded technologies. I did use a bigger 11x17 map with smaller hexes. This allowed much more room for maneuvering. Frigate cost was 10EP. Command Corvette improved my fighter accuracy to 5 (roll 6-2 to hit) which helped in blowing open the opposition's defense. The Blue Capital Ship did fire its ION CANNON twice on the advancing Frigate. I was worried I was going to have to ram my Capital Ship into the Frigate (I would have lost 6 points to my Hull) to destroy it.
I will be doing a playtest with a friend tomorrow night and I look forward to someone else's opinion about the changes and not being able to predict my own movements.
Problems: Was running out of money on both sides.
JANUARY 14 2014
I did some focused play testing with only fighters and the Flak Frgiate and settled on some stats for both along with special rules for both:
Flak Frigate, Frigate Class:
Attack: 1
Move: 1
Hull: 6
Guns: 4-6
Accuracy: Special
Weapon Type: Flak Gun.
Special Rule: Roll X die, each die representing a gun. Each die attacks all ships within any and as many enemy controlled adjacent hexes. (It does not attack individual ships) Apply results of roll as follows: If roll 1-2: destroy 1 ship. If roll 3-4: destroy 2 ships. If roll 5-6: destroy 3 ships. The flak frigate will always kill at least 1 fighter.
Weapon Upgrade: Level 1 (free) 4 guns. Level 2 (upgrade cost 5): 5 guns. Level 3 (upgrade cost 5): 6 guns.
Interceptor, FighterClass:
Attack: 1
Move: 3
Hull: 1
Guns: 1
Accuracy: 2 (Roll 5-6 to hit)
Weapon Type: Laser
Roll 1 die.
Special Rule: Up to 3 fighters can occupy 1 hex.
Special Attack: Unit Formation: 1 ship alone has an accuracy of level of 1 (roll 5-6 to hit). For every additional fighter within a shared HEX, add 1 to the accuracy level of all ships; ie, 2 fighters = accuracy level of 2 (roll 4-6 to hit), 3 fighters = accuracy level of 3 (roll 3-6 to hit).
The reason I added the special rule to either ship is to add more realism and create better balance. Fighters are weak against Flak Frigates, hence the easy kill with Flak guns. Fighters are small ships and 3 of them ought to fill a hex easily.
1 small rule change I want to play test: "Your ships can move through any enemy ships. You ships can never stop within the same hex as an enemy ship". This should add more realism in the sence that Space is a 3d playing field with an X,Y, and Z axis. It should b e probable that a ship can go above or below another ship. This rule should not complicate things too much, but I wont find out until I test it.
Now it's on to Bombers and Corvettes to test how they react to the Interceptor and Flak Frigate rules.
Flak Frigate, Frigate Class:
Attack: 1
Move: 1
Hull: 6
Guns: 4-6
Accuracy: Special
Weapon Type: Flak Gun.
Special Rule: Roll X die, each die representing a gun. Each die attacks all ships within any and as many enemy controlled adjacent hexes. (It does not attack individual ships) Apply results of roll as follows: If roll 1-2: destroy 1 ship. If roll 3-4: destroy 2 ships. If roll 5-6: destroy 3 ships. The flak frigate will always kill at least 1 fighter.
Weapon Upgrade: Level 1 (free) 4 guns. Level 2 (upgrade cost 5): 5 guns. Level 3 (upgrade cost 5): 6 guns.
Interceptor, FighterClass:
Attack: 1
Move: 3
Hull: 1
Guns: 1
Accuracy: 2 (Roll 5-6 to hit)
Weapon Type: Laser
Roll 1 die.
Special Rule: Up to 3 fighters can occupy 1 hex.
Special Attack: Unit Formation: 1 ship alone has an accuracy of level of 1 (roll 5-6 to hit). For every additional fighter within a shared HEX, add 1 to the accuracy level of all ships; ie, 2 fighters = accuracy level of 2 (roll 4-6 to hit), 3 fighters = accuracy level of 3 (roll 3-6 to hit).
The reason I added the special rule to either ship is to add more realism and create better balance. Fighters are weak against Flak Frigates, hence the easy kill with Flak guns. Fighters are small ships and 3 of them ought to fill a hex easily.
1 small rule change I want to play test: "Your ships can move through any enemy ships. You ships can never stop within the same hex as an enemy ship". This should add more realism in the sence that Space is a 3d playing field with an X,Y, and Z axis. It should b e probable that a ship can go above or below another ship. This rule should not complicate things too much, but I wont find out until I test it.
Now it's on to Bombers and Corvettes to test how they react to the Interceptor and Flak Frigate rules.
January 8 2014
The holiday season is over and it's back to development time. Looking back at the big changes I had mentioned in the last post, I am able to appreciate simplicity and ease from which the game began. However, there are a few things I will take from those big changes and incorporate them anyways.
1. More ships. Example: Instead of 1 fighter doing 3 different things (bombs, missiles, lasers) I will be looking at how 3 different ships can each do a specific thing. This will also apply to corvettes and the new Frigates. Positives: Variety in fleet management. Negatives, Complicates fleet management.
2. Removal of Defense Coordinator in liue of Frigates: Defense Frigate, Flak Frigate, Heavy Frigate, Marine Frigate. Each frigate will have a deployment cost of 3EP, a move cost of 1 EP per 1 space, a Defense of 4, and be susceptible to the Capital Ship's Ion Cannon.
3. Reduce movement cost and increase movement space: Capital Ship: 2 EP to move 1 space. Frigates: 1 EP to move 1 space. Corvettes: 1 EP to move 2 spaces. Fighters: 1 EP to move 3 spaces.
4. More hexes. I plan on adding a few rows of hexes in order to compensate for the increase range of movement by all ships. I am not a fan of a larger map (I did play with it and it took up too much space for my taste). I may decrease hex size to add more hexes onto an 11 x 17 board.
5. EP Penalty for NOT spending EP. For every turn in which you do not spend EP, your received EP at the end of your round will decrease by 1 (minimum of zero). This mechanic is designed to stop turtling.
6. Asymmetry. Both Teams will have ships that do different things. The biggest issue will be to find a weapon for team B that is as powerful as the ION CANNON of team A, unless I decide that both teams should keep the ION CANNON. One idea I had was for Team B's capital ship to use a REPULSE MAGNETIC CHARGE that would push all adjacent ships 1 space in any direction. The cost would remain 7 EP. No Die role would be required.
Another thing that would add asymmetry would be fleet size. I am thinking that because team B's ships are more supporting roll, allowing more fighters, corvette's, and frigates on the board.
Today's notes on asymmetrical ships include the following:
TEAM BLUE:
Capital Ship: Ion Cannon (cost 7 EP), 1 die, attk power 1-6; 2EP to move 1 space, Upgrade Ion Cannon Range
Defense Frigate: Situational Awareness will reduce enemy attk accuracy, 1 EP to move 1 space; upgrade number of protectable ships and and reduce enemy attk accuracy by 1 (4-6, 5-6, 6), Def of 4. Deploy cost is 3
Flak Frigate: Flak Guns, roll 3 die and apply successful hit to any and and as many adjacent enemy ships, roll 3-6, attk power 1. Def of 4. 1 EP to move 1 space. Deploy cost is 3. Upgrade number of guns (total of 6 guns, 6 die)
Gun Ship (Corvette): Roll 2 dice to hit 1 ship, attk power of 1.Deploy cost of 2, move 2 for 1 EP. Upgrade Accuracy and lasers to missiles
Assault Fighter: 1 gun, attk power of 1, 1 EP to move 3 spaces. Upgrade Accuracy
Bomber (Fighter): 1 gun, attk power of 3, upgrade accuracy. move 3 spaces for 1 EP. Upgrade accuracy against certain craft (at beginning: 3-6 against Capital Ship, 4-6 against Frigate, 5-6 against corvette, 6 against fighters)
TEAM RED:
Capital Ship: Repulse Magnetic Charge (1 EP per adjacent ship), no attack, 2 EP to move 1 space, upgrade number of ships it can repulse at once.
Heavy Frigate: Roll 3 dice, attk 1, Deploy cost is 4 EP. Move 1 space for 1 EP. Upgrade attk power (max attk 4)
Marine Firgate: HACK: Take control of enemy ships. At beginning, take control of 1 adjacent enemy ship for 1 turn. Upgrade to permanent control of enemy ships: 1 AP for fighters, 2 AP for Corvettes, 4 AP for frigates). 5 Deploy cost. 1 EP to move 1 space. Defense of 4.
Attack Coordinator: Improve attack strength and accuracy of adjacent ships. 2 EP cost to deploy. 1 EP to move 2 spaces. Upgrade accuracy improvement and attack strength of adjacent ships.
Assault Fighter: Roll 1 die, attk 1, deploy 1, move 3 for 1 EP. Upgrade accuracy
Lance Fighter: Roll 1 die. spend EP equal to number of attacks no maximum. . Upgrade accuracy. move 3 1 EP. Deploy 1.
Bomber: Attk 3, 1 die. move 3 for 1 EP. Deploy 1. Defense 1.
It is messy but it's for my notes anyways. I am also thinking about technology trees that will affect entire ship types instead of individual ships: Frigates, Corvettes, Fighters.
I will be playtesting many of these new ideas tonight.
One suggestion was adding a mechanic that would prevent runaway games from occurring by adding a -1 EP for every 2 deployed ship (Not Capital Ship) on the board. This would mean that the larger the fleet the less EP earned at the end of turn. I would call it an upkeep cost. I will play with this tonight also.
I will need to design new ship cards with new upgrade cost/use cost and instructions. My wife has some 3x5 cards.
Good Night...
1. More ships. Example: Instead of 1 fighter doing 3 different things (bombs, missiles, lasers) I will be looking at how 3 different ships can each do a specific thing. This will also apply to corvettes and the new Frigates. Positives: Variety in fleet management. Negatives, Complicates fleet management.
2. Removal of Defense Coordinator in liue of Frigates: Defense Frigate, Flak Frigate, Heavy Frigate, Marine Frigate. Each frigate will have a deployment cost of 3EP, a move cost of 1 EP per 1 space, a Defense of 4, and be susceptible to the Capital Ship's Ion Cannon.
3. Reduce movement cost and increase movement space: Capital Ship: 2 EP to move 1 space. Frigates: 1 EP to move 1 space. Corvettes: 1 EP to move 2 spaces. Fighters: 1 EP to move 3 spaces.
4. More hexes. I plan on adding a few rows of hexes in order to compensate for the increase range of movement by all ships. I am not a fan of a larger map (I did play with it and it took up too much space for my taste). I may decrease hex size to add more hexes onto an 11 x 17 board.
5. EP Penalty for NOT spending EP. For every turn in which you do not spend EP, your received EP at the end of your round will decrease by 1 (minimum of zero). This mechanic is designed to stop turtling.
6. Asymmetry. Both Teams will have ships that do different things. The biggest issue will be to find a weapon for team B that is as powerful as the ION CANNON of team A, unless I decide that both teams should keep the ION CANNON. One idea I had was for Team B's capital ship to use a REPULSE MAGNETIC CHARGE that would push all adjacent ships 1 space in any direction. The cost would remain 7 EP. No Die role would be required.
Another thing that would add asymmetry would be fleet size. I am thinking that because team B's ships are more supporting roll, allowing more fighters, corvette's, and frigates on the board.
Today's notes on asymmetrical ships include the following:
TEAM BLUE:
Capital Ship: Ion Cannon (cost 7 EP), 1 die, attk power 1-6; 2EP to move 1 space, Upgrade Ion Cannon Range
Defense Frigate: Situational Awareness will reduce enemy attk accuracy, 1 EP to move 1 space; upgrade number of protectable ships and and reduce enemy attk accuracy by 1 (4-6, 5-6, 6), Def of 4. Deploy cost is 3
Flak Frigate: Flak Guns, roll 3 die and apply successful hit to any and and as many adjacent enemy ships, roll 3-6, attk power 1. Def of 4. 1 EP to move 1 space. Deploy cost is 3. Upgrade number of guns (total of 6 guns, 6 die)
Gun Ship (Corvette): Roll 2 dice to hit 1 ship, attk power of 1.Deploy cost of 2, move 2 for 1 EP. Upgrade Accuracy and lasers to missiles
Assault Fighter: 1 gun, attk power of 1, 1 EP to move 3 spaces. Upgrade Accuracy
Bomber (Fighter): 1 gun, attk power of 3, upgrade accuracy. move 3 spaces for 1 EP. Upgrade accuracy against certain craft (at beginning: 3-6 against Capital Ship, 4-6 against Frigate, 5-6 against corvette, 6 against fighters)
TEAM RED:
Capital Ship: Repulse Magnetic Charge (1 EP per adjacent ship), no attack, 2 EP to move 1 space, upgrade number of ships it can repulse at once.
Heavy Frigate: Roll 3 dice, attk 1, Deploy cost is 4 EP. Move 1 space for 1 EP. Upgrade attk power (max attk 4)
Marine Firgate: HACK: Take control of enemy ships. At beginning, take control of 1 adjacent enemy ship for 1 turn. Upgrade to permanent control of enemy ships: 1 AP for fighters, 2 AP for Corvettes, 4 AP for frigates). 5 Deploy cost. 1 EP to move 1 space. Defense of 4.
Attack Coordinator: Improve attack strength and accuracy of adjacent ships. 2 EP cost to deploy. 1 EP to move 2 spaces. Upgrade accuracy improvement and attack strength of adjacent ships.
Assault Fighter: Roll 1 die, attk 1, deploy 1, move 3 for 1 EP. Upgrade accuracy
Lance Fighter: Roll 1 die. spend EP equal to number of attacks no maximum. . Upgrade accuracy. move 3 1 EP. Deploy 1.
Bomber: Attk 3, 1 die. move 3 for 1 EP. Deploy 1. Defense 1.
It is messy but it's for my notes anyways. I am also thinking about technology trees that will affect entire ship types instead of individual ships: Frigates, Corvettes, Fighters.
I will be playtesting many of these new ideas tonight.
One suggestion was adding a mechanic that would prevent runaway games from occurring by adding a -1 EP for every 2 deployed ship (Not Capital Ship) on the board. This would mean that the larger the fleet the less EP earned at the end of turn. I would call it an upkeep cost. I will play with this tonight also.
I will need to design new ship cards with new upgrade cost/use cost and instructions. My wife has some 3x5 cards.
Good Night...
September 13 2013
I have been working on a larger game of Far From Home which includes more ships, a card management system, and a slightly different take on the upgrade tree. Even though I ended up with a bigger game with more ships, it came at the cost of elegance and simplicity. Ship management (use of cards for ships on the board) was a mess. It was a struggle to keep the right card with the right ship. It also felt useless. The majority of the ships (corvettes and fighters) don't need to be managed. The mechanic Far From Home uses is very simple and easy to use. For the larger ships (Frigates) management was required, but sluggish. I would rather push around ships than manage their hit points.
The size of the board will also need to be expanded. The fighters can move 3 spaced per AP and can cross a short 14 x 8 hex board in 1 turn. Hardly fair if you are going first.
Although simple, I love Far from Home the way it is now (I still need to put up the new tech tree for the Capital Ship and Corvette).
The illustrations for the counters are complete. I just need to simplify ship management.
The size of the board will also need to be expanded. The fighters can move 3 spaced per AP and can cross a short 14 x 8 hex board in 1 turn. Hardly fair if you are going first.
Although simple, I love Far from Home the way it is now (I still need to put up the new tech tree for the Capital Ship and Corvette).
The illustrations for the counters are complete. I just need to simplify ship management.
August 2 2013
Some changes I made to the Ships upgrade trees, which appear to address the turtling problem.
Capital Ship: Situational Awareness replaced with Missilex2 (2 dice equals 2 missiles at 2 different adjacent ships)
Corvette: Removed Torpedo and replaced it with Bomb (hit 4) and placed as a base technology Laserx2 (2 dice equals 2 laser attacks at 2 different adjacent ships). This increases your chances of a hit and forcing enemy to use 2 EP to protect 2 ships.
I am also playing around with increasing the number of hexes on the board and increasing move distance to:
Fighters: 3
Corvettes: 2
Defense Coordinator:1
All movement will cost only 1 EP.
I conducted my first solo playtest of the new rules and tech tree today. So far so good. Rolling 2 dice mean more chances to roll that 6 against a defended fighter.
Capital Ship: Situational Awareness replaced with Missilex2 (2 dice equals 2 missiles at 2 different adjacent ships)
Corvette: Removed Torpedo and replaced it with Bomb (hit 4) and placed as a base technology Laserx2 (2 dice equals 2 laser attacks at 2 different adjacent ships). This increases your chances of a hit and forcing enemy to use 2 EP to protect 2 ships.
I am also playing around with increasing the number of hexes on the board and increasing move distance to:
Fighters: 3
Corvettes: 2
Defense Coordinator:1
All movement will cost only 1 EP.
I conducted my first solo playtest of the new rules and tech tree today. So far so good. Rolling 2 dice mean more chances to roll that 6 against a defended fighter.
JULY 30 2013
Got more feedback from another successful blind playtest done by my friends at the Game Lab at the University of Shizuoka.
Here is a video of the playtest: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6064636/FarFromHomeVideo2ndPlaytest
Below is their synopsis:
The Blue team tried the defensive strategy you mentioned in your forum message (but lost the Defensive Coordinator early). Actually, both teams tried various defensive and offensive strategies. There were waves of attacking/defending in the game.
If the defensive team hadn't moved the “fighter shield," they might have won because the other team had to save a lot of money and they must use that money to move forward. A defender who puts the Capital Ship in the corner has to worry about protecting the Ship on one main side if it has the Defensive Coordinator. The Blue team ultimately moved their Fighter shield because the other team was just saving money and they were a little frustrated about the time the game takes. If a team upgrades the Capital Ship's Situational Awareness, a turtling strategy might be perfect.
Here are some of our comments after playing the game again:
- If we are really serious about this game, we might not move anywhere and just save EP.
- It might be good to regulate how many coins we can use on a turn to make people spend EP.
- One more ship with a ranged attack would be fun. It would add more strategy (and complexity, of course) to the game.
- For some of us, the Ion Cannon system was exciting but disappointing and frustrating. It might be better to base it on EP spending instead of dice rolling (and have a higher upgrade cost)? For some of us, the Ion Cannon system was fine.
- It still seems like the game suffers a little from one team having to wait for another team to attack. - Having more money at the beginning might solve that problem. But just giving the players money might not work – it might be good to place EP randomly in the middle to encourage fighting or movement. A time limit might help as well.
There were times that one team thought they were losing, but then they starting winning. There were fun turn-abouts! After players figure out the rules, it is a fun strategy game. We will keep playing it better. Many strategies exist in the game, which we like (and we could stand to have even more rules and systems included in it). We liked it more than before, but it still did take quite a long time to play. The limits of the number of ships make the ships more special because they are not replaceable.
One of us called you a "genius" for designing the game. Thank you for connecting with us. You were so nice to us. The experience of playtesting your game hopefully has made us better testers as well. Keep making nice games! It has been great playtesting "Far From Home" and we hope it is published soon!
I have been working on an update to the rule book that address the turtling issue with the Capital Ship. I am also trying out a new rules in which all ships can move 1 free space before spending EP on moving. The goal is to prevent attrition and initiate combat.
The Ion Cannon rule works as it is supposed to, regardless of people's frustration.
I will continue to update this site regarding my findings.
Here is a video of the playtest: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6064636/FarFromHomeVideo2ndPlaytest
Below is their synopsis:
The Blue team tried the defensive strategy you mentioned in your forum message (but lost the Defensive Coordinator early). Actually, both teams tried various defensive and offensive strategies. There were waves of attacking/defending in the game.
If the defensive team hadn't moved the “fighter shield," they might have won because the other team had to save a lot of money and they must use that money to move forward. A defender who puts the Capital Ship in the corner has to worry about protecting the Ship on one main side if it has the Defensive Coordinator. The Blue team ultimately moved their Fighter shield because the other team was just saving money and they were a little frustrated about the time the game takes. If a team upgrades the Capital Ship's Situational Awareness, a turtling strategy might be perfect.
Here are some of our comments after playing the game again:
- If we are really serious about this game, we might not move anywhere and just save EP.
- It might be good to regulate how many coins we can use on a turn to make people spend EP.
- One more ship with a ranged attack would be fun. It would add more strategy (and complexity, of course) to the game.
- For some of us, the Ion Cannon system was exciting but disappointing and frustrating. It might be better to base it on EP spending instead of dice rolling (and have a higher upgrade cost)? For some of us, the Ion Cannon system was fine.
- It still seems like the game suffers a little from one team having to wait for another team to attack. - Having more money at the beginning might solve that problem. But just giving the players money might not work – it might be good to place EP randomly in the middle to encourage fighting or movement. A time limit might help as well.
There were times that one team thought they were losing, but then they starting winning. There were fun turn-abouts! After players figure out the rules, it is a fun strategy game. We will keep playing it better. Many strategies exist in the game, which we like (and we could stand to have even more rules and systems included in it). We liked it more than before, but it still did take quite a long time to play. The limits of the number of ships make the ships more special because they are not replaceable.
One of us called you a "genius" for designing the game. Thank you for connecting with us. You were so nice to us. The experience of playtesting your game hopefully has made us better testers as well. Keep making nice games! It has been great playtesting "Far From Home" and we hope it is published soon!
I have been working on an update to the rule book that address the turtling issue with the Capital Ship. I am also trying out a new rules in which all ships can move 1 free space before spending EP on moving. The goal is to prevent attrition and initiate combat.
The Ion Cannon rule works as it is supposed to, regardless of people's frustration.
I will continue to update this site regarding my findings.
july 23 2013
My first interview has been posted on gamedesignerchronicles.com by Roger Hicks. You can find it below.
http://gamedesignerchronicles.com/silas-molino-far-from-home/
I am currently independently developing a design that will work with Far From Home as a miniatures war game. The design will retain the same HEX and COUNTER system the game employed but will redevelop the upgrade tree to accomodate more ship types which will fit under Fighter, Corvette, and Frigate class ships. It is in it's youth but it looks great. I am currently using Homeworld PC as a jumping point as far as designing goes. The balance between the different types of ships was spot on and I hope to acheive that same balance in this new update.
http://gamedesignerchronicles.com/silas-molino-far-from-home/
I am currently independently developing a design that will work with Far From Home as a miniatures war game. The design will retain the same HEX and COUNTER system the game employed but will redevelop the upgrade tree to accomodate more ship types which will fit under Fighter, Corvette, and Frigate class ships. It is in it's youth but it looks great. I am currently using Homeworld PC as a jumping point as far as designing goes. The balance between the different types of ships was spot on and I hope to acheive that same balance in this new update.
JULY 12 2013
Got more feed back form another playtest. The good thing is that the rules are readable.
Turtling was a problem with this one. Player one could not penetrate player 2's defense (Defense Coordinator). There was also an issue with the Ion Cannon which neither player liked. The last issue was how easy it was for one player to acquire a large amount of EP from destroying lots of ships.
One solution was to diminish the EP earned per kill. This would slow the game down a little (which I am a little apprehensive to do).
Another solution was to look at the Ion Cannon again and see where I could tweek it.
With turtling, I need to perhaps weaken the defense coordinator a little.
I'm looking forward to more feedback from playtesters.
Turtling was a problem with this one. Player one could not penetrate player 2's defense (Defense Coordinator). There was also an issue with the Ion Cannon which neither player liked. The last issue was how easy it was for one player to acquire a large amount of EP from destroying lots of ships.
One solution was to diminish the EP earned per kill. This would slow the game down a little (which I am a little apprehensive to do).
Another solution was to look at the Ion Cannon again and see where I could tweek it.
With turtling, I need to perhaps weaken the defense coordinator a little.
I'm looking forward to more feedback from playtesters.
JULY 11 2013
I'm still tweaking a few mechanics and rules (I'm still coming up with neat ideas for the game). Here is what I have so far:
1) Adding a method of acquiring resources through collection/mining of nearby asteroids (randomly distributed on the map). This would replace the automatic 3 EP acquired at the end of every turn. Players would still acquire EP for destroying enemy ships.
2) Allowing 1 free move per ship, per turn; sans the Capital Ship which will still require EP to move.
3) Adding more ships: Resource Collector, Frigates.
4) Adapting the Defense Coordinator into a Frigate.
5. Enlarg the map
6. Scenarios! (This should have been in there at the beginning. However, I always viewed FFH as a scenario in and of itself: destory the enemy Capital Ship). This would include: harvest X EP in X turns. Move your Capital Ship off the board (other side of the board). Repair Capital Ship from a hull strength of X... These Scenarios would contain pre-determined fleet count and type, or allow the player to outfit his fleet with X number of ships.
1) Adding a method of acquiring resources through collection/mining of nearby asteroids (randomly distributed on the map). This would replace the automatic 3 EP acquired at the end of every turn. Players would still acquire EP for destroying enemy ships.
2) Allowing 1 free move per ship, per turn; sans the Capital Ship which will still require EP to move.
3) Adding more ships: Resource Collector, Frigates.
4) Adapting the Defense Coordinator into a Frigate.
5. Enlarg the map
6. Scenarios! (This should have been in there at the beginning. However, I always viewed FFH as a scenario in and of itself: destory the enemy Capital Ship). This would include: harvest X EP in X turns. Move your Capital Ship off the board (other side of the board). Repair Capital Ship from a hull strength of X... These Scenarios would contain pre-determined fleet count and type, or allow the player to outfit his fleet with X number of ships.
july 7 2013
Got a pleasant surprise this evening when I checked my BGDF account. It appears that Game Lab at the University of Shizuoka play tested my game. The feedback was for the most part positive. I will attempt to find a way to post the feed back here on this site as it comes in.
My main concern was that they played the old PNP version of the game. From the video they made (quite a pleasant surprise seeing someone else play the game other than myself) it appears as if they had the latest posted version of the game from this site. This spurred me to link all PNP related material in the PNP READY section of the site. You can go there and print all the required files to play the game yourself.
My main concern was that they played the old PNP version of the game. From the video they made (quite a pleasant surprise seeing someone else play the game other than myself) it appears as if they had the latest posted version of the game from this site. This spurred me to link all PNP related material in the PNP READY section of the site. You can go there and print all the required files to play the game yourself.
July 2 2013
It's been a full month since I submitted the protoype to the publsiher and playtested it with them. I am still waiting for feedback. Apparently summer is a busy month because of all the conventions that occur. I also think that due to the publisher's current line of Sci Fi games, my game may not be a priority.
Since submission I have had the opportunity to be interviewed about this game and the process I took in designing it. One of the questions was: What is my favorite game I have not designed. I took this question to mean: What is my favorite game idea that I have not designed yet? That answer is simple, and Far from Home is a subconsious projection of that answer: A board game based on Homeworld for the PC.
I imagine a huge board of space, the Higaraa in one corner with the Taidan Mother Ship in the other. I imagine astroids clustered precariously off center of the map, waiting for Collectors and Controllers to mine it for resources. Imagine fleet formations that have rulesets all their own. Imagine upgrades for all ships. Imagine campaigns and sorties. Imagine playing the game with a friend. Imagine minis for the game.
The biggest problem I will have will be getting the permission to use the art, designs, and names directly from the game. Gearbox Softaware owns them now. What is more problematic will be to establish myself as a designer that will 1. make gearbox money, and 2. do the franshise right with a good game. This will require me to a good reputation for making great games. I have alot of work ahead of me if I want to accomplish this.
Since submission I have had the opportunity to be interviewed about this game and the process I took in designing it. One of the questions was: What is my favorite game I have not designed. I took this question to mean: What is my favorite game idea that I have not designed yet? That answer is simple, and Far from Home is a subconsious projection of that answer: A board game based on Homeworld for the PC.
I imagine a huge board of space, the Higaraa in one corner with the Taidan Mother Ship in the other. I imagine astroids clustered precariously off center of the map, waiting for Collectors and Controllers to mine it for resources. Imagine fleet formations that have rulesets all their own. Imagine upgrades for all ships. Imagine campaigns and sorties. Imagine playing the game with a friend. Imagine minis for the game.
The biggest problem I will have will be getting the permission to use the art, designs, and names directly from the game. Gearbox Softaware owns them now. What is more problematic will be to establish myself as a designer that will 1. make gearbox money, and 2. do the franshise right with a good game. This will require me to a good reputation for making great games. I have alot of work ahead of me if I want to accomplish this.
MAY 31 2013
The game is packaged and nearly ready to go. All I need are 50 shiney pennies and I'm good to go tomorrow. Tomorrow I will be playtesting the game with a publisher in hopes of sparking his interest in the game. My initial thoughts of the gamre are: It's simple, fun, and interactive.
Relatively speaking it didn't take me long to design it (6 months for physical production and a month of thinking it out in my head). It is an easy consept: spend Action Points to perform certain actions. Roll a die when you want to attack. Go for the Capital Ship. I love how quick it is. My favorite mechanic is the Ion Cannon attack and Retaliation. Both involve die rolls. There is nothing more satisfying than blowing your opponent to smitherines. And there is nothing more exciting than taking advantage of your opponent's bad roll.
I hope the publisher has as much fun playing it as I did making it.
Relatively speaking it didn't take me long to design it (6 months for physical production and a month of thinking it out in my head). It is an easy consept: spend Action Points to perform certain actions. Roll a die when you want to attack. Go for the Capital Ship. I love how quick it is. My favorite mechanic is the Ion Cannon attack and Retaliation. Both involve die rolls. There is nothing more satisfying than blowing your opponent to smitherines. And there is nothing more exciting than taking advantage of your opponent's bad roll.
I hope the publisher has as much fun playing it as I did making it.
MAY 24 2013
Action Points are now Energy Points. I once again tweaked the rule book. Logos are coming along. We finalized the box art the potential publishers are going to see. My artist is also making a "process" book as sort of a resume. He wants in on this job and so do I. Dustin's vectors for the Capital Ships are spot on. I didnt ask him to but I hope he does the fighters, corvettes and Defense Coordinators.
Next Monday and Tuesday I will be getting prints done for the map and more pieces at 11 x 17. I also need to get professional prints of the rule book and figure out a way to print out the story also. Perhaps I could have Dustin do that as well.
Next Monday and Tuesday I will be getting prints done for the map and more pieces at 11 x 17. I also need to get professional prints of the rule book and figure out a way to print out the story also. Perhaps I could have Dustin do that as well.
MAY 2O 2013
Just when I thought I could call it done on the rule book, I get some great feed back that puts me right back into its editing. There were some minor spelling errors (hangar instead of hangar) and some confusing written paragraphs for the rules which could use some simplifying and clarifying. I also need to look at soft talk versus hard talk when explaining the rules. I started the editing on Sunday and will continue with it throughout the week.
I gave the game box to the artist yesterday. He wants to be done with submittable art by the 24th. He will create vectors I can use on the board itself.
I applied two coats of Krylon Acrylic Spray to the map which added some needed friction to the board. The pieces no longer slide all over the place. I don't like the feel of the board now.
I have the die, blocks, pieces mounted and cut. All that's left is to mount the board, Print the screens, and print the rules. I will need to get 50 shinny pennies also (AP).
I gave the game box to the artist yesterday. He wants to be done with submittable art by the 24th. He will create vectors I can use on the board itself.
I applied two coats of Krylon Acrylic Spray to the map which added some needed friction to the board. The pieces no longer slide all over the place. I don't like the feel of the board now.
I have the die, blocks, pieces mounted and cut. All that's left is to mount the board, Print the screens, and print the rules. I will need to get 50 shinny pennies also (AP).
MAY 16 2013
The art for the game is coming along. You can check out teh design page. I am tweeking the rule book for clarity and readability. The story I wrote for the game isnt being too well received, mainly because of its length. I need to print a booklet to figure out size and thickness. The artist has a deadline of May 24th to get me the box with a log and cover. I am nearing the end.
May 12 2013
I made some 11 x 17 prints for the game and realized that the map will not fit into the mailing box I have to ship it in. I now need to figure out how to get the map onto two separate chip boards and then bind them into something that is fordable.
With that said, I did redesign the tech tree for the ships.
The story is pretty much fleshed out also. I love the back story I have created for this game. One friend said it plays out as a tragedy and may disconnect or repel the red player from wanting the destroy the blue player, but I am interested in seeing what type of feedback there will be.
Dustin emailed me some designs of ships that may be used in the game. Those can be found under Concept Art at the top of this page. One of my goals is to get him hired on as the artist for the game.
With that said, I did redesign the tech tree for the ships.
The story is pretty much fleshed out also. I love the back story I have created for this game. One friend said it plays out as a tragedy and may disconnect or repel the red player from wanting the destroy the blue player, but I am interested in seeing what type of feedback there will be.
Dustin emailed me some designs of ships that may be used in the game. Those can be found under Concept Art at the top of this page. One of my goals is to get him hired on as the artist for the game.
MAY 6 2013
The new rule book is done with some lite editing for spelling errors (I'm sure a few slipped through). It reads well and has alot of examples of play for clarity. I have also finished the rewrite of the back story for the game placing the protagonists into the Kuiper Belt which will justify the name Far From Home.
I incorporated into the rules a mechanic which may result in dog fights between ships. If you roll a one during your attack, your opponent may attack you simply by spending 1 AP point. Simple yet effective. It makes the game that much more fun. I'm worried though that I am bogging the game down by adding more rules. To think this game was once a small postcard game. The rules would hardly fit on a post card, that's for sure.
I incorporated into the rules a mechanic which may result in dog fights between ships. If you roll a one during your attack, your opponent may attack you simply by spending 1 AP point. Simple yet effective. It makes the game that much more fun. I'm worried though that I am bogging the game down by adding more rules. To think this game was once a small postcard game. The rules would hardly fit on a post card, that's for sure.
April 30 2013
I just finished the first draft to the back story of the board game. This story was originally a two paragraph set up to the game to give the players a reason to care about the ships they controlled. The story is now 5044 word short story which sets up the game very nicely. I need to find someone to edit it for grammar, continuity, and spelling.
April 28 2013
The game is becoming very tight. Everything is working together, and the more playtesting I do, the better it gets. Thanks to my Dad, I've figured out a retaliate mechanic that allows an attacked ship ship to attack the attacker if the attacker rolls a one and the attacked has 1 AP to spend.
I've got screens for the personal AP pool.
I need to print up another prototype. Everything ready for shipping at the end of May.
I've got screens for the personal AP pool.
I need to print up another prototype. Everything ready for shipping at the end of May.
4/21/2013
Play test with wife complete. We used the new Tech tree. We actually used it and it actually made a difference in the game. I did not use the defense coordinator (although I did deploy it). I did not move my Capital Ship toward the enemy. It cost me a total of 12 AP to move it half way across the board. My wife did win (constant barrage of lasers from fighters). We both expended all our fighters first. We then started deploying our corvettes toward the final 10 minutes of the game. She got off a couple of lucky shots. She had a bad run of unlucky shots as well.
What I liked: the new Tech Tree works! The ships start off so weak, you are compelled to upgrade before getting into any real skirmishes. The Fighter upgrade tree is balanced. The first upgrade for the Corvette make sense (you would never upgrade the second or third tech unless you were within striking distance of the capital ship). The Def Coor tech upgrade hex Situational Awareness works also. Tech Jamming (the ability to jam 1 enemy tech per turn) I did not use and probably never will, unless capital ship tech involves photon torpedo in some way (previously known as laser canon). The cloaking device I never used (Def Coor ultimate tech) which prevents any attack by enemy ships (but also makes it so your ships cannot attack). The Capital Ship has no tech tree at this stage.
Problems:
Hidden AP. My wife did NOT like the fact that I could see her AP. Perhaps a card to hide your AP would be in order (it would also make for cool artwork). I knew when she was performing her Capital Ship attack every time and prepared accordingly.
Capital Ship movement. It would be nice to move the Capital Ship forward AND turn it for a cost of only 4 AP. Not spend 3 AP to turn it 60 degrees and then move it forward for 4 additional AP. Perhaps decreasing the cost of movement will make it worth it. I don't know. It's a Capital Ship so it's supposed to be bulky and difficult to maneuver.
Capital Ship Attack: That's the first thing people want to do is attack directly the enemy ship with the massive Cannon for 7 AP. To mitigate this habit, I feel that distance should be incorporated into it's upgrade cost: Photon Canon 0: Attack within 5 hexes, 1: Attack within 6 hexes, 2: Attack within 7 hexes. This rule will also force the players to move their capital ships closer to engage in such a battle; and woe be to the player who failed to upgrade this tech.
Those are the three big issues. I need to make screens for the AP. I need to decrease cost of Capital ship movement (2 to turn 60 degrees, 3 to move forward). And I need to further develop tech trees for the Corvette, Def Coor, and Capital Ship. This will of course require me to rewrite the rule book.
What I liked: the new Tech Tree works! The ships start off so weak, you are compelled to upgrade before getting into any real skirmishes. The Fighter upgrade tree is balanced. The first upgrade for the Corvette make sense (you would never upgrade the second or third tech unless you were within striking distance of the capital ship). The Def Coor tech upgrade hex Situational Awareness works also. Tech Jamming (the ability to jam 1 enemy tech per turn) I did not use and probably never will, unless capital ship tech involves photon torpedo in some way (previously known as laser canon). The cloaking device I never used (Def Coor ultimate tech) which prevents any attack by enemy ships (but also makes it so your ships cannot attack). The Capital Ship has no tech tree at this stage.
Problems:
Hidden AP. My wife did NOT like the fact that I could see her AP. Perhaps a card to hide your AP would be in order (it would also make for cool artwork). I knew when she was performing her Capital Ship attack every time and prepared accordingly.
Capital Ship movement. It would be nice to move the Capital Ship forward AND turn it for a cost of only 4 AP. Not spend 3 AP to turn it 60 degrees and then move it forward for 4 additional AP. Perhaps decreasing the cost of movement will make it worth it. I don't know. It's a Capital Ship so it's supposed to be bulky and difficult to maneuver.
Capital Ship Attack: That's the first thing people want to do is attack directly the enemy ship with the massive Cannon for 7 AP. To mitigate this habit, I feel that distance should be incorporated into it's upgrade cost: Photon Canon 0: Attack within 5 hexes, 1: Attack within 6 hexes, 2: Attack within 7 hexes. This rule will also force the players to move their capital ships closer to engage in such a battle; and woe be to the player who failed to upgrade this tech.
Those are the three big issues. I need to make screens for the AP. I need to decrease cost of Capital ship movement (2 to turn 60 degrees, 3 to move forward). And I need to further develop tech trees for the Corvette, Def Coor, and Capital Ship. This will of course require me to rewrite the rule book.
4/19/2013
The updated rule book is can now be found in a link under rule book. It has plenty of errors, I'm sure and will need to be proof read. This is not the newest version. I have a newer copy on my hard drive with a few fixes along with all example type set in italics and re-sized.
I have three appointments for play testing: tonight with a friend, Sunday with my wife, and Thursday with my Dad. I will be focusing on the tech tree and determining if it needs to be redesigned.
I am getting this beast ready to for publishing. The mechanics work. The game is fun. The theme and back story are interesting. Everything else is gravy.
I have three appointments for play testing: tonight with a friend, Sunday with my wife, and Thursday with my Dad. I will be focusing on the tech tree and determining if it needs to be redesigned.
I am getting this beast ready to for publishing. The mechanics work. The game is fun. The theme and back story are interesting. Everything else is gravy.
3/31/2013
I've made it to page 5 of the rule book. The outlay and design of the rule book is much more coherent and easier on the eyes. It helps to stay away from the "wall of text" issues of the previous version of the rule book.
I have a friend from church who has interest in another play test. He was the first play tester outside of family so it will be interesting to see his take on it after further development.
I have a friend from church who has interest in another play test. He was the first play tester outside of family so it will be interesting to see his take on it after further development.
3/29/2013
Another successful play test was conducted last night with some great friends. I received excellent feedback that will help tighten the rules. The play test also revealed some holes in the game play such as: Can a Defense Coordinator defend a Capital Ship? There was also concern that the Tech Tree was getting in the way of the game play. At the end of play, this was less of a concern. That player was using the tech tree later in the game.
3/24/2013
I'm editing very heavily the rule book. I posted it on BGG and got some great feedback on what can be done to improve it. The end result will be a rule book with more pages, but it will be much clearer. I will post it here as I update it.
3/15/2013
Ships and Tech Tree can be downloaded below along with the map. Everything fits onto an 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of paper.
3/13/2013
I am currently editing the Rule Book for clarity (I am always editing the rule book). I am also working on the Print and Play edition of the game to be more Print and Assemble "friendly". I would like to have the Print and Play PDF files ready for playtesting within the week. These will be posted to the BGG page when ready.
TECH TREE AND NOTES
The Tech Tree at end game. Notice that the Blue player spend AP upgrading his fighters tech. This lead to stellar attack power which eventually overpowered the Red player. The Red player upgraded only his capital ship attack strength to Atk 1. It was never used.
The penciled in sections are notes.
Here are a list of the potential changes:
-Retaliation Tech: Cost: 10, USE: 2. this tech allows any attacked fighter to roll a retaliatory attack against the the attacking ship.
"Fighters cannot defeat the Defense Coordinator"... I was perturbed that 1 fighter took out my Defense Coordinator in two blows. Perhaps the Defense Coordinator can have shield defense much like the Capital Ship in that AP can be spent on its defense against attacking ships.
"Dock and Repair ships": Allow ships such as the Defense Coordinator and the corvette to dock with capital ship (1 AP) and repair ship (1 AP), and then spend deployment cost to get are strong ship out fighting again.
Give Capital Ship tech ability (Cost: 13 AP, Use: 1 AP) to act as a large Defense Coordinator, in that, attacks against all ships adjacent to capital ship are modified: 1-4 is a miss, 5-6 is Atk 1 only.
The penciled in sections are notes.
Here are a list of the potential changes:
-Retaliation Tech: Cost: 10, USE: 2. this tech allows any attacked fighter to roll a retaliatory attack against the the attacking ship.
"Fighters cannot defeat the Defense Coordinator"... I was perturbed that 1 fighter took out my Defense Coordinator in two blows. Perhaps the Defense Coordinator can have shield defense much like the Capital Ship in that AP can be spent on its defense against attacking ships.
"Dock and Repair ships": Allow ships such as the Defense Coordinator and the corvette to dock with capital ship (1 AP) and repair ship (1 AP), and then spend deployment cost to get are strong ship out fighting again.
Give Capital Ship tech ability (Cost: 13 AP, Use: 1 AP) to act as a large Defense Coordinator, in that, attacks against all ships adjacent to capital ship are modified: 1-4 is a miss, 5-6 is Atk 1 only.
3/11/2013 Play Test
Red's strategy was to move in as close as safely possible and then deploy ships. Red's strategy was working and was earning alot of AP (10 AP after destruction) but there were two problems: first, red lost it's Defense Coordinator earlier in the game; second, blue was upgrading his options, AKA the tech tree. Blue had acquired the almighty Atk x 2 which allows all fighters to spend 2 AP to attack twice in one turn. Blue had also acquired Atk 3 for its Corvette's which significantly harmed the capital ship. This ultimately led to Red player's downfall. Blue player quickly decimated all fighters surrounding the red player.
Red player made a last ditch effort with 15 AP. Red moved his capital ship 3 spaces into enemy territory, destroying a corvette and the blue defense coordinator. In doing so, red lost 2 Capital Hull points and was now at 4 hull points.
As you can see in this picture, all four ships attacked the red capital ship. The first corvette attack missed. The second corvette attack connected with an Atk 3, reducing red capital hull to 1. the first blue fighter attacked twice and missed both times. But there was one fighter which made its way forward. The first attack missed. The red capital ship was nearly in the clear. The red player had 10 AP: 3 from destroying the corvette, 4 from destroying the Defense Coordinator, and 3 from ending his last turn. but the blue ship had 2 AP and spent in on a second attack.
Blue attacked the red capital ship with Atk 1. Blue rolled a three and ended the game for the red team. Red Capital Hull was reduced to 0 and was reduced to space debris.
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD THE ATTACK FAILED?
As you can see in the picture, blue still had a hull strength of 7. But with only 2 AP left, and the 3 AP blue would have acquired at the end of his turn, blue would have been at the mercy of Red's attacks. With 10 AP, Red would have immediately spent 7 and used his capital lasers. This would have struck fear into blue and would have probably forced him to use all 5 AP to defend against the attack. The red would have had to bolster his Capital Hull, 3 AP spend to improve Capital Hull to 4. 3 AP would have then been collected at the end of Red turn. With the Blue player at 0 AP, the Red player would have had a good chance.
Red player made a last ditch effort with 15 AP. Red moved his capital ship 3 spaces into enemy territory, destroying a corvette and the blue defense coordinator. In doing so, red lost 2 Capital Hull points and was now at 4 hull points.
As you can see in this picture, all four ships attacked the red capital ship. The first corvette attack missed. The second corvette attack connected with an Atk 3, reducing red capital hull to 1. the first blue fighter attacked twice and missed both times. But there was one fighter which made its way forward. The first attack missed. The red capital ship was nearly in the clear. The red player had 10 AP: 3 from destroying the corvette, 4 from destroying the Defense Coordinator, and 3 from ending his last turn. but the blue ship had 2 AP and spent in on a second attack.
Blue attacked the red capital ship with Atk 1. Blue rolled a three and ended the game for the red team. Red Capital Hull was reduced to 0 and was reduced to space debris.
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD THE ATTACK FAILED?
As you can see in the picture, blue still had a hull strength of 7. But with only 2 AP left, and the 3 AP blue would have acquired at the end of his turn, blue would have been at the mercy of Red's attacks. With 10 AP, Red would have immediately spent 7 and used his capital lasers. This would have struck fear into blue and would have probably forced him to use all 5 AP to defend against the attack. The red would have had to bolster his Capital Hull, 3 AP spend to improve Capital Hull to 4. 3 AP would have then been collected at the end of Red turn. With the Blue player at 0 AP, the Red player would have had a good chance.
3/11/2013
Added 2 more Tech upgrades to the fighter (1) and corvette (2).
I also moved the "attack twice in one turn" tech to the top most part making it more expensive in the long run ( you can decimate an opponent with this attack).
I also moved the "attack twice in one turn" tech to the top most part making it more expensive in the long run ( you can decimate an opponent with this attack).
3/7/2013
I am current fleshing out the tech tree. The difficulty is in justifying its existence. The few upgrades there really compliment the game and provide important opportunities when deciding where to spend precious resources. The upgrades can do great good to your overall attack strength. The problem is that there are only 6 upgrades spread across the four ship types.
My next step in game development is to stress test the tech tree and see if some technologies can be modified or add upon to justify the spending of action points.
My next step in game development is to stress test the tech tree and see if some technologies can be modified or add upon to justify the spending of action points.