Grupos	Búsqueda avanzada de Grupos    Preferencias

>I would like to know: 
>Please reply by email.  I hardly have time to keep up with this group.

Actually, it would be nice if people replied in this group, since I'm sure
others will be interested (I, for example).  Of course, you could post
a summary to the group, but your posting did not sound as if you would.

I'm not an expert, but I've played both a few times.
The two are completely different in character; Merchant of Venus is a trading
game which has options for combat, so you can blow people out of the way if
they're getting too rich, Stellar Conquest is a classic empire-building 
game with some interesting twists (like research).  Merchant of Venus would
be a game you could get non-wargamers interested in.  I'd assume it's best
with more than 2, but should get slow with more than 4.  I haven't tried
Stellar Conquest with more than 2 players yet.  3 is a bit problematic because of 
the board shape (note that Merchant of Venus has no problem with odd numbers 
of players).

I'd say Merchant of Venus is more for pure fun, and Stellar Conquest is more like
a real wargame (i.e., bent on conflict and annihilation towards the end. Also,
more work - or more chance for strategy and planning, if you like).  Kind of
like a board version of some computer strategic space game (and therefore preferrable
to, say, Starweb, if you see gameplay as social activity, even if this means
a bit more bookkeeping).  Merchant of Venus has a solitaire variant built in, 
and there was one published in the General for Stellar Conquest.  In the General,
there have also been Merchant of Venus variants for trading agents, multiple ships
per player, and mercenaries.
---
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst

mst@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
> the board shape (note that Merchant of Venus has no problem with odd numbers 
> of players).

It has a problem with more than 3 players.  Basically, whoever goes
first (almost, barring rolling hideously) gets to land on a planet
first (for those of you who haven't played, there is a large reward
for being the first person to land on a planet).  The second player
also gets to a system, as does the third.  Rarely one of the first 3
will not make it to a system on their first turn, so the fourth player
will be able to (there are only 3 systems within easy reach from the
start position).  Well, in a five player game it's likely that the
last 2 people will just wind up hosed after the first turn.  Since the
first 3 players land on a system, collect their IOU, buy something,
and next turn they take off, if the players who went 4th and 5th
continue on past the initial systems to try to win the race to later
systems, they have some chance of beating the first 3 players there,
but not a great one since the first 3 players still have a half turn
lead on them.  To make a long story short going 1st, 2nd, or 3rd is
just a bit too important in this game.  So we (like all good gamers
:-) created a new set of start rules.

Everyone is given some amount of cash (larger than what they suggest,
I think it was enough to buy a yellow drive and a clipper if you
wanted it, counting trade in for your ship), and you use this starting
money to purchase equipment at start (anything you want), AND to bid
for position.  It doesn't really matter what bidding method you use,
we bid out starting positions in order (first, second, third...).  So
you can go last and have better equipment, or you can go first and
give up that yellow drive.  This made the game much more enjoyable for
our group, and eliminated the hose of "well, I went last AND I rolled
low.  anyone want to take over a doomed position for me?".  For the
first few turns, collecting IOU's (and relics) is what the game's
about (in general), so I'd strongly advise using some sort of system
other than sheer luck to see who goes first.

 joe

Joseph E. Beck writes:
| [Merchant of Venus] has a problem with more than 3 players.
| ... in a five player game it's likely that the
| last 2 people will just wind up hosed after the first turn.  Since the
| first 3 players land on a system, collect their IOU, buy something,
| and next turn they take off, if the players who went 4th and 5th
| continue on past the initial systems to try to win the race to later
| systems, they have some chance of beating the first 3 players there,
| but not a great one since the first 3 players still have a half turn
| lead on them.

Though I think the idea of bidding for starting position does have merit,
and I may try it sometime, my gaming group came up with a different rules
change (of course :-).

First off, though, I'll note that the problem isn't really as bad as Beck
makes it out to be.  If one of the first three players has claimed the
Cloud system, he only went 3 pips, so he really doesn't have much of a
lead on someone who decides to race past him.  Plus the Cloud offers many
possible destinations, depending on the "pilot number" (one of the movement
dice that the player chooses to determine which direction he goes at
certain junctions).  So it's quite possible for three or even four people
to dive into the cloud and all reach different systems.  Not to mention that
some of them may stop short to claim a Relic if they stumble across one.

But still, we do agree that going first is an advantage.  Our startup doesn't
necessarily eliminate the advantage, but we give more options of things to
do on the first turn, so there's more likely to be good choices left for
later players even though the first player still gets the widest choice.

The startup rule we use is that any Relics that aren't placed on the board
during setup, are instead placed at Base.  (We do this in a way that keeps
us from knowing what the other unplaced asteroid chits are.  Details at the
end of this post.)  They can be purchased at face value.  Usually this
happens after someone has gone out and made some money (or picked up a Fare
to Base); when they come back to Base, buying the Relic counts as their "one purchase", so they can't also upgrade their ship (or buy more than one Relic)
unless they spend a full turn at Base.  But in a large game, people start out
with enough money to buy some Relics immediately, so a player may seriously
consider spending his first turn sitting at Base and buying a Relic.

We also play the rules mod suggested in the General, where you don't put out
all the goods at their respective systems at the start, but instead dump them
all in a bowl with the Demands and pull 20 chits out to start, plus another
4 each time a system is "Discovered".  Thus there may also be Fares waiting
at Base at the start.  We've ruled that you can pick up only one such Fare
on your first turn.

Algorithm for putting undistributed Relics at Base:

Draw 11 chits.  Pretend that these were to be the undistributed chits.
Extract the Relics from those 11 and put the Relics at Base.  Find the
remaining Relics and set them aside, face down.  Put all 26 non-Relics
face down.  If there were N Relics placed at Base, select (11-N) non-
Relics and set them aside without looking at them.  Mix the remaining
non-Relics with the Relics not at Base, and distribute them around the
board.

-- 
-- -- Don Woods.    [*** Generic Disclaimer ***]
--        ...!sun!woods.eng -or- Woods@Eng.Sun.com