Here's our setup rule, borrowed from a game called Magic Realm (published before most of you were born)

WARNING: This may cause min-maxers in your group to go into a catatonic state and/or begin babbling incoherently about fairness, which may result in injury. I take no responsibility for any resulting injury, and gamers should consult with a professional before trying this rule.

1) choose races

2) put the requisite number of tiles in a box face down, along w/the home systems face down. Rotate around the board, with each player first deciding where to place a tile (must touch 2 other tiles if possible) - then he picks the tile, and places it without turning it face up. If it is a home system, you wont know whose it is. After all tiles are placed, they get turned over.

3) any optional tokens (artefacts, wormholes) are placed randomly by die roll after board is revealed

Every game is then different, and inequalities are usually offset by the old multi player rule that says "If you are winning we are more likely to kill you, and if you are losing we are more lijkely to leave you alone."

Using this setup, you can throw away old conceptions of what techs, races, action cards, laws, strategy cards etc are good and which are good. Because EVERYTHING will be different every game. Techs, races, and cards that you always thought sucked suddenly become gold on this map with these races in these positions.

Makes strategy MUCH more crucial because you have to be able to adapt to a new style of play each game. It's also just sooo much fun when you turn over the tiles and find the new galaxy arrayed before you

Also, to add: many people don't understand statistics, and believe that by eliminating more and more variables, ie making a perfectly symmetrical map, making house rules to even out things, etc, that they make the game more balanced. It actually has the opposite effect. Roll 100 dice and you are much more likely to have a combined total close to average than you would if you rolled 3 dice. So making this whacky map, keeping dreadnoughts as they are, and not modifying those unfair techs and races, actually serves to HELP balance the game.

Think of it this way - remove enough variables and you are left with whoever goes first winning. Add a bunch of chaos and unfairness and the players who can best respond to new situations and who have the best head for strategy will probably win.

Of course in a multi player game the very fact that you are the best player is what will make you least likely to win, since everyone will see you as a threat. So at the end of the day just use rules that are the most fun, and I would submit that a free setup board is DEFINITELY more fun

shoak1 said:

How does keeping DNs the way there are balance the game? Don't get me wrong I agree with some of your points, just don't understand that one.

Bill

shoak1 said:

Why go around the table? If all the tiles are being placed without looking, one player can just set them all up while the other players set up other things and shuffle the various decks. Ends up the same, goes faster.

shoak1 said:

What you say about rolling dice is true, however, it is a false analogy to compare a completely random set up to a completely non-random set up and quote statistics as your defense. In this metaphor, a completely non-random map set up would be akin to fixing the value of the end result; ie: you're rolling zero dice, not 3, and picking your end result non-randomly. 100 dice may be closer to the average than 3, but simply picking the average as your fixed value will ALWAYS be the closest possible result. Statistics only count if you're still randomly generating anything during set up.

Also, you may have time to play 100 games of TI3 per year and can therefore be satisfied that the odds will even out in the long run. Most of us are closer to the 3 games per year mark, realistically speaking, and we'd like to make sure the few games we do play aren't statistical outliers.

I really like the idea about starting everything at random, but I have a feeling that some races starting with their Homesystems next to each other can spell the doom for one player in turn one. how do you prevent this?

I agree there is a certain amount of gentleman play in a boardgame with friends, but if I can wipe an opponent from the game immediatly I would be a fool for not doing it, since I just gained a juicy system(in most cases). of coarse it would suck for the guy who showed up to have the game end in the first turn, but honestly it could cost me the game later on if I let him live.

How would this be handled if the two races starting next to each other both have the (flee from combat) promisory note in the beginning of the game? making a defacto non-aggression pact between the two. Maybe even give them more promisory notes to encourage coorporation between two races who by location alone would have an interest in staying on good terms with each other(because the alternative could be player elimination in turn one, which from a social gathering standpoint is not really acceptable). A way for two races to share an allied victory could also give and incentive to stay allied throughout the game.

I know this is something you somewhat addressed in the OP but have you encountered this happening?

The reason I ask is because I have always felt it could be really fun to make the galaxy more chaotic, but I'm a bit afraid of how this scenario would go down and turning people away from this game is not something I want to do.

Oh and I suppose my gaming group are somewhat a mixed bunch with opportunists, warmongers, peaceful builders and diplomatic players. and in many ways their neighbours and galaxy setup tends to form the way players act, and being the most experienced player I can surely vouch for the get-the-veteran!!!! mentality

Sorry about the many question but I have been intrigued by this setup for a long time but, as mentioned, have found some stumbling blocks keeping me away from trying this out.

That's kind of how I do it, place all tiles face down, including home tiles, then just flip them up, and place all the Distant suns and Final Frontier counters in the appropriate types, then play. Tis great fun, and the galaxy is like a box of choclates, you never know what u gonna get. Oops, sorry! wrong movie.

Racso said:

He didn't explicitly say this, but I'm assuming you are still required to put home systems in the normal starting positions, you just do so without looking at which one it is. It's easy enough to do this since the home systems have a different back. He also didn't say Mecatol Rex should be fixed in the center of the galaxy, but since the tile is double-sided, it would be difficult to place it truly "at random." I'm guessing MR still goes in the center and the rest of the tiles are distributed randomly.

If you fix the map setup, it means certain races weak for that setup will ALWAYS be weak, ditto techs, ditto cards, ditto unit types (dreadnoughts). Having a variable map allows strong possibilities ALL of them can shine with at least one of the players. So by taking the "average" result of a setup, ie fixing the setup, you ENSURE other imbalances, while only POTENTIALLY reducing more imbalance.

Now remember - you are playing a game in which you are rolling 1d10 for combat results - not 2d6 which would give you a nice bell shaped curve of results. So it strikes me as odd that players would go through so much trouble sterilizing one aspect of the game in an effort to make things more balanced. It just limits fun and causes other variables to become more important.

To answer the question re the variable setup, the reason we have players rotate placement of tiles during setup is because more conservative players like more conservative map shapes. Others like more dramatic shapes....I like constructing a map w/a hole in the middle lol. I LIKE some player being on the edge of the map - others will panic at the thought and start dropping tiles around it. It basically just gives everyone a chance to influence the map.

A variation of this was that you turn over the home tiles immediately after they are each played. That adds a lot of startegy and tension.

To answer the question of what happens if two races start next to each other, I would say it depends on a lot of factors. Are they away from the rest of the players and do they therefore have a lot of room to expand peacefully? If so, thats going to almost always be the best strategy for them both. A non agression pact w/someone right next to you is a potent thing, as it reduces your front by 1/2 - and certainly starting in close proximity increases the chances of such a pact. Who are the races? Is one the Ghosts? Are there wormholes nearby? What strategy tiles are you playing with? Diplomacy 1 would pretty much make the agressive neighbor look elsewhere. Is there some player that is a clear (at least clear in perception) threat that causes the 2 players to decide to get along?

But the biggest, most crucial part of determining balance in such a situation is the player personalities. If your group is largely min maxers who shy away from diplomacy and negotiation and just want to all build in peace then fight it out, in as mathematically sterile environment as possible, the fixed setup is probably a better choice. Or if your group doesn't pay attention/care/have the capacity to know if some player is "winning" or in the catbird seat, then the fixed setup is good for you also.

But for thoughtful/careful players that do not ignore the multi player/social/diplomatic aspects inherent in a multi-player game, percieved imbalances will be dealt with using these tools - " Get him !! He's winning!!" or "We need to work together - look at our starting position - we are screwed otherwise". Within such a group, starting in a nice corner all by yourself can be a curse as well as a blessing - you will be a big fat target. In my group, people sometimes have to intentionally play less than optimally to avoid being the target, while secretly concocting a stealth plan to victory. So is there really an advantage in one starting position vs another?

We have played several times with this setup, and I wont say I didn't got a pang of fear when I setup one game right next to someone. But very quickly we both decided we didn't want to go home early, and enacted a rock solid non agression pact, which ultimately worked to our advantage. He ended up winning, and I came in 2nd. And the guy with the "prime" setup came in in the middle of the pack.

No, the home systems are not place in fixed spots. Let me give you an example, with me as player 1.

After picking races randomly, I pick a tile at random w/o looking at it, and place it face down in the center of the board. I note from the back it is not a home system, but thats just for my information. Then player two takes a tile at random after saying where he will place it (the only available spots are adjacent to the first tile), then places it down (again, always face down). Then player 3 says where he will place his tile (it must be adjacent to two tiles if possible, so in this case there will be two possible spots for player 3 to place his tile), and then picks one at random face down and places it. It hyappens to be a home tile, which is immediately apparent to all because of the distinctive back - again, this is just for informational purposes, and no one knows whose home tile it is).. Then player 4 states where he will place a tile, draws one at random, etc , etc, etc. After all tiles are placed, turn over all tiles and randomly place whatever map items you use, like artefacts, domain counters, etc.

The players will thereby create a board which may be really wierd shaped (if they like that kind of board) , or maybe hexagonal shaped (if the players are very conservative), or something in between. Home systems will be scattered willy nilly, and theoretically you may have several home systems immediately adjacent to each other.

People who THOUGHT they knew the optimum races, techs, objectives, etc will quickly become disoriented and have to forego all their old assumptions if they hope to find a winning strategy....

shoak1 said:

That's true for any single static set up. Of course, you could always pick races first and then use a static setup that allows them all to have relatively even starting positions compared to their initial set up, if you really care that much about it. Using a fixed set up doesn't mean you're force to use the SAME static set up for every game. There are more than one pre-made map available.

shoak1 said:

For someone who claims to understand statistics, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that ANY polygonal die will show an average that approaches a bell curve as the number of rolls approaches infinity.

You talk a big game about the theory, but you ignore the practical application. IN THEORY randomizing everything about set up will lead to a more homogenous play experience, which is fine if you intend to play thousands of games in sequence and then evaluate the play experience as a whole. However, IN PRACTICE, if you only play one game at a time and then evaluate how well it went, you will see some wildly imbalanced set ups by randomizing everything (including, apparently, starting positions and possibly Mecatol Rex's position.)

Have you done any kind of math at all on how likely any SINGLE repetition of this set up procedure is to produce a fair and balanced map? If you have any formulae to share, I'd very much like to see them. If the odds are even close to 50%, I'll eat my hat.

PS: By "my hat," I am, of course, referring to this delicious cupcake with chocolate frosting which I have perched on my head for the duration of this post. =P

PPS: The odds are pretty good that I'll eat "my hat" anyway. No promises.

Lets at least see if you agree with these fundamental, logical, and indisputable points:

1) any fixed setup GUARANTEES that certain races, techs, and cards will be at a disadvantage. This means that instead of having 17 "good" races, maybe there are really only 15, or instead of 30 techs, only 22 are worth anything, etc. So you lose options - which just sucks

2) many of these races, techs, and cards will be disadvantaged regardless of what shape the board is IF IT IS NOT IRREGULARLY SHAPED

3) playing 100 games always being 4 spaces away from each enemy, and always having the exact same number of neighbors, always having the same general shape, etc is less interesting than having variable setup

3) whether you argue my setup makes it less or more balanced, the minute differences caused by setup as compared to things like rolling d10s for combat lol and drawing random cards are hardly worth serious consideration, especially given that in a multi player game between regular people is going to lead to those w/percieved advantages being more a target than those with a "bad" starting position.

its kind of like playing World of Warcraft with only Paladin classes. Boring. Some would say that would help balance things, making everyone start equally. But all it really does is ensures that those who get certain drops are going to for sure be more dominant. It gives PERCIEVED balance only. In the first dungeon the 5 beginning pallys go in, whoever gets the epic drop will be at an advantage. Now if instead they all had separate classes, that drop may or may not make the person awarded it more dominant. And of course since everyone has pallys, everyone will go for the same gear, and cloth, leather, etc will all be useless, So there are less options, less of the things included in the game than what will actually be used.

Why stop at the board being uniform? Why not even out the races, or better yet, not have different races. And why roll a d10? Why not just assign hits based on probability. Why not even out all the cards and other aspects. Why? Because if we keep eliminating variables, we just push the randomness down the chain - it doesnt ever leave. If you make everything equal, then whoever goes first (or last depending on what your uniform board is) will win. It's the last variable, and you have made it increasingly important by eliminating all the other variables. So you have not achieved balance - you HAVE however eliminated the fun in the game.