I played for the first time on Saturday with only 3 players and Ill say I really like the game. We played without the expansion and all of us were new to the game.

We couldnt complete the game but were not really interested in completing the entire game anyway as much as working out the mechanics and observing the subtlties of the game.

My questions are not neccissarily rules based but mostly about gameplay itself.

What number of players gives the best game feel without making the game too long. I suspect that 4-5 is a good number to make a very enjoyable game

What optional rules (we didnt play with any) do you suggest as kind of a standard for the game (ie enhances rather than detracts from the whole experience)

Timing of space battles seems to be key in this game not allowing a fleet a retreat because they have no activated system in range seem especially brutal. Is this typical?

Any other suggestions would be helpfull thanks.

aammondd said:

I've always been partial to big games, so I say the more the merrier! I also don't pull this beast out unless I have most of a day to commit to it. =P

aammondd said:

My standard group refuses to play without Distant Suns, which is fine by me. Some people like it and some people don't, but I've always been partial. I'm not sure of any other optional rules that we use on a regular basis (for the base game, that is.) We definitely like some of the new rules from the expansion, such as the alternate SCs and so on.

Leaders sound cool on the surface, but in my experience they're mostly pointless. Most players will leave their leaders on the homeworld(s) for fear of them being killed or captured, and as a result they don't end up doing very much at all.

aammondd said:

Being unable to retreat due to no activated systems is indeed brutal. We've always used the optional rule for tactical retreats to soften that blow (not sure if that rule is from the base game or the expansion.) Also, remember that if you're planning a major offensive you can activate a random system and then not do anything there, leaving the token around for a future retreat. Eventually this will become an obvious prelude to attack, so you'll want to use it wisely and/or blow a token on a "fake attack" every now and then. Like I said, we prefer the tactical retreats.

Tactical retreats is from the Expansion. Note, however, that it is only applicable to the DEFENDER; the attacker cannot use the rule. Part of that is because the Attacker CAN previously activate the neighboring system preparing for an attack; the Defender may not always get that chance (especially if attacked before they even get a turn).

I'd strongly recommend using Tactical Retreats.

Steve-O said:

I suppose it depends on the group. On the other side of the coin, my group loves Leaders, and they always get plenty of action. Admirals and Generals leading space battles and invasions, strategically placing Dipolmates and Scientists to strengthen key planets, and infiltrating space docks and capturing enemy leaders wth Agents. We do use Shattered Ascension rules for Agents though; Their ability to counter Action cards is limited to the system they're in, but countering the Action card doesn't sacrifice them. Before then, they worked similar to your group. They just sat back on the homeworld, waiting for the opportune moment to counter a card. But with that rule in place, they now see just as much action as any other type of leader.

aammondd said:

1. I strongly believe that six players is the ideal number for the game:

(1) the game setup is the most strait forward and the most fair to all players.

(2) Objectives are balanced best for the six player map otherwise some objectives become much easier and others much harder. Objectives that require proximity or occupation of home systems become harder as players are spread apart, objectives that come at great cost become easier as resources become more abundant.

(3) Races are the most balanced at 6 player, as some races have early advantages and advantages that don't scale as galaxies get bigger. Races who are blanaced with larger starting fleets, richer home systems, and better trade agreements take no advantage from the better wealth to player ratio offered by a more sparcely populated galaxy.

(4) Ships are the most balanced, this is especially true for war suns and Drednaughts who's cost stops being an issue if each player's share of planets gets to be too great. Similarly does a map with shorter distance between each player's home systems make the Drednaught and Carrier speed limit become less significant.

2. I'm a very big fan of the Optional strategy cards:

The older Imperial strategy card, in my opinion is a broken mechanic in that it overemphasizes the importance of the Imperial card in winning the game. Much of the game in this situation turns into jockying for possession of the Imperial card whose possesion may have a bigger impact on winning the game than the actual play of the players. The Imperial II card fixes most of this but I still prefer the way Bureaucracy works the best.

We also enjoy playing with a cribbed optional rule that as an option b. when playing beauracracy the active player can take an additional command counter instead of claiming an objective.

Further most players seem to like the card balance and function of the variant strategy cards over that of the original cards.

Shock troopers are a fun addition as well, one of the neatest things about them in my opinion is that they simulate the effect of overwhelming force: You can while invading an enemy planet bring a large number of forces to increase the likelyhood that one rolls a natural 10 and becomes a shock trooper after the combat thus capturing enemy equipment. This also creates an interesting option for players who are considering bombardment but would like to capture theplanet's dock or PDS.

3. Obviously all strategy games are about timing. Any optimized plan that a player executes will leave him exposed at some point, and the careful tactician will always defend first himself before thinking to strike. Sun Tzu can better explain these principles.

1- Generally I agree that six players is the ideal number, it simplify the set-up and made the game a little more balanced.

2- I haven't tested all the optionals so far, but I think that the best are:

• Optional strategy card: the Imperial 2 work a lot better that Imprial 1 and, generally, the alternative set is a great improvement to the game
• Tactical retreat, makes fleeing a battle a more viable option
• Minelayers: they are a little difficult to use at first, but with the right angle they works very well

There are other rules that are highly dependant on the players and/or the inclusion of some HR modification

• Distant suns can be fun and add an element of uncertainty, but they slow down the initial phase too much unless the player are a little reckless, plus they can imbalance the game
• Shock troopers are good, but I don't like the "reverting back" mechanic
• The Leaders can add some spice to the game, but as Steve-O said, htey are a little pointless if you simply keep them rooting on your home system
• The artifacts can be fun but, like many other Shatter Empire options, they force going into battle a little too convenient

1. My Group prefers four players. Every round all strats get picked pushing the game closer to Imperium Rex faster.

2. For optionals we use the Custodians of Mecatol, Racial Techs, Tactical Retreats and the set of Strats from SE.

We have used every other option and discarded them for various reasons. Mines we dumped because there already is plenty of incentive to turtle. Leaders we dumped because there is always one dummy in the group that never makes it clear what ship a leader is on. Distant Suns because they can ruin a game for a player if he gets nothing but crap, we played one game where a guy had only one green DS token on six planets near him and it was a no effects one.

3. Before Tactical Retreats, unless a Naalu fleet is on the board we rarely see retreats for that very reason.