I like the thoughts you guys have here. My group and I are in love with this game and we''ve been playing it for about a year. We took a month or so break from it but this is the game everyone wants to play during every game night.
That said, I'm looking for ways for us to improve. We can get through all white missions somewhat consistently (but we always seem to die when energy cloud come up!), but as soon as we start adding yellows in we do pretty abysmally. I'm sure there are people out there who can do yellow and red alerts (and campaigns and double actions :O !) and I wondered what their secrets are. One thought is the different responsibilities (and this may not even be an exhaustive list). 1) Making sure that external threats are understood (especially their effects on other threats or damage they might cause to a zone!) and that someone has taken responsibility for destroying each one. (tactical officer) 2) Making sure that internal threats are understood (especially their effects on other threats or damage they might cause to a zone!) and that someone has taken responsibility for destroying each one. (chief of security) 3) Making sure the mouse is wiggled during each phase (science officer) 4) Making sure that people are moving their pawns and the energy/ rockets they are using (chief engineer) 5) Making sure that everyone is playing cards/has something to do (lieutenant) 6) Making sure that alerts in the soundtrack are heard and understood (communications officer) There are obviously more roles than responsibilities. Typically, chief engineer and chief of security are hard enough that the person who has one of these doesn't have any others. Tactical officer is another one we try not to double up.. Captain will usually be the lieutenant as well. Science officer and comm officer are usually the same person (both relatively easy.) It's good to have someone assigned to something even as simple as wiggling the mouse, since it can be so easy to overlook. Another though I have is risk assessment. That is, when do you decide that the damage that you will sustain from a threat is not enough to warrant the resources spent in defeating it. How often do you decide to just let a threat go? We frequently do this for early internal threats on a short track, but the damage counters often bite us later when trying to deal with other threats in the same zone (especially damaged elevators. One opening I've been working that I like is the following (uses three players) 1 right, B, down, B 2. B, C , down, B 3. left, B, down B This gives you full shields in all three zones, full red and blue reactors, and three energy in white reactor. The other two players are available to deal with threats that come up in the first couple of turns (however, one will need to be available in top middle to perform computer maintenance unless you have a data analyst). Works well when no big external threats come up in the first couple of turns. One of the other players can go to upper blue or red on turn four for coordinated fire on turn 5. This opening is good for when there are no strong threats in phase one. Another opening I like for a strong external threat on one side (again with three players) 1 C, left, B 2 left, down, B 3 B, down, B Strong central threat on 1 1.B down B 2 A A A Strong central threat on 2 1.B down B 2 C A A Strong central threat on 3 1 C B A 2.down C B C in the first round if the threat shows up on Gives you full shields and reactor on one side, a full central reactor, with both players on the side ready to fire together three times in a row. Players one can join in with pulse cannon, of have another player shift to pulse cannon and player one shift to fire a rocket for massive damage on turn 6 (or a rocketeer can do this.) Other two players are free to deal with other threats (player 1 is available to go back up and wiggle the mouse as well.) This opening works well if you only have one big threat on one of the sides (and you kind of wait til the end of the first phase to see is anything else big is going to come out. Working out different openings (and memorizing them like plays) might reduce mistakes (and having a variety of "plays" that deal with different situations would make this more useful in the opening.) Probably wouldn't want a play to involve more than 3 people (so the other one or two can handle other minor threats that come up.) I think the biggest benefit would be not having to spend so much time figuring out if energy is where it needs to be at the right time. As far as internal threats go, we don't really have a system/strategy for getting them straight. Either I or Josh (we're the best players) handle these and pretty much pay attention to nothing else until we have them figured out (and we still make plenty of mistakes miscounting things.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en.
