Alan Moon's game of intergalactic trade empires...

...test your fate against the Cosmic Hockey Puck!

last update: November 30, 2004

Originally intended for release by White Wind Games, this odd cross between a family game and a "gamer's" game ended up in the hands of Abacusspiele, who released it with a beautiful board and the standard set of tiny wooden cubes for markers. Initial response to the game was mixed, with many gamer-types focusing on what they called "wild fluctuations in luck" and "trading junk for junk."

Interestingly enough, I'm inclined to believe that most of the poor opinions of this game are based on groupthink. In other words, when all players approach this game with a "shake early, shake often" kind of mentality, the game is as random as, say, Chutes & Ladders. However, when players try different strategies and trade not only to advance their hand but to also hurt others, the game takes on a whole new level.

What follows is a bit of strategy along with a variety of variants that have been suggested for Andromeda. I'll let you know at the start that we here at Game Central Station only use the initial start rule suggested by Jonathan Degann, and otherwise play the game "straight".

Player Order Variants

Thanks to the crusty but lovable Jonathan Degann, we've incorporated the following variant rule into the game.

Following the initial random placement, player order is determined so as to handicap those players who have pieces on higher scoring planets.

Each player adds together the minimum values of the planet for each piece a player had drawn from the cards. So if he had two pieces on a 4 point planet, three pieces on 6 point planets, one piece on an 8 point planet, and three pieces on the 10 point planet, he'd have a handicap value of 62. Whoever had the lowest handicap value would go first, etc., requiring the players to reorder their places around the table.

A Couple of Notes From Jonathan about his variant:

Now, I'm going to smack anyone who comes back and says, for example, that a single piece on a 10 point planet is less valuable than if it had joined two of its buddies on an 8 point planet, and so the system doesn't really handicap effectively. This is a game with a ton of luck, and this handicap system just HELPS alleviate that luck. If someone has a better system, use it.

BTW, as can easily be seen, you can value the planets based on the lowest scores, the highest scores, the (highest score - 8), or any linear system. It's all the same. I just recommend the lowest score because the math is easiest.

Again, we've used this variant and been very pleased with the results, especially in 5 player games.

In high "gamer" mode, Richard Heli suggests that "turn order be re-calculated each turn as in Vino, lowest points going first. Force wild cards to be public if necessary."

I'm not sure I understand this... would that mean players in last place would get to be start player more times?! While I have great respect for Rick, I just don't think this would work.

Moving Station Variant

Thanks once again to the crusty but lovable Jonathan Degann, here's a nother simple but helpful variant to add to your Andromeda games.

After following a rather long & convoluted argument about whether it's better to move or shake and/or move & shake... (sounds like a hula class), Jonathan suggested that you always round UP when going from Earth to planet. "This gives new value to sets of three which now enable you to move two cubes onto a planet, over a single shake."

Basic Strategy Hints

A very basic thought from mathematical gamer, George Michaels:

The way I figure it is that if you just shake, that is not good especially if you figure you might have at least 3 shakes throughout the game. If you have three or more, at least one should be a transport. One transport followed by two shakes yields slightly better results than three shakes.

In the case of five shakes, the best case is two transports followed by 4 shakes, but this is only SLIGHTLY better than 1 transport followed by four shakes. 5 shakes is much worse and 3 transports followed by 2 shakes is a little worse.

I think what I have learned... is to stop looking at who is dominating the planet and instead look at my expected returns.

OK, space campers... that's point number one: maximize personal returns. It doesn't matter how much you hose out the other players if you don't do well yourself.

From: Peter Sarrett <peter@wolfenet.com>

Our group very rarely uses sets to ship more tokens to a planet. We'll use our 2 shipping cards that way, but sets are used to shake. Some chance of scoring is better than no immediate chance of scoring, I suppose.

Here's a more radical suggestion, completely untested and representing a fairly major shift in the game dynamic:

What if you were only allowed to shake at a planet with a set of 4 or more cards? Gaining the final tech advancement would also allow you to shake with 3 cards.

I'm wondering if such a change would result in more shipping, or just sets of 3 getting held until they become sets of 4.

From: "Mik" <dryland@get2net.dk>

I am also against the randomness of the card distribution: Some players receive a good hand and therefore can cash in big sets of cards very easily, other players must spend HALF THEIR TURN on exchanging a couple of cards, which of course will be of a wrong color anyway.

I have suggested my group that we should try and play the game with a free optional action of exchanging cards before you take your normal action. After the upgrade, you can freely exchange up to 3 cards.

ROGER SMITH

All the game mechanics seem to be based around increasing your likelihood of success in your ventures when you are the active player. So, although there is a reasonable luck element in the game, you have many different methods at your disposal to improve your odds. Most of these mechanisms are very effective, particularly the technology track and the space ship track.

These, in effect, let you personally tailor certain game rules and, in the case of the technology track, give you VP bonuses. There is a cost to using these devices, both in cards, and in actions per turn, such that you maybe need to decide early on whether you will pursue this strategy (as you would decide to use a third beanfield in Bohnanza). The trading mechanism is also well thought out in that it accomplishes more than the simple exchange of cards. With the technological advance that lets you trade four cards, you can really start to strip your opponents' hands of the cards that they may have been relying on for the turn. I was forced to give up a valuable wild card at one stage. And, although trading is silent, the same mechanism lets you strip the dross out of your hand, and, by preventing opponents offering cards matching your dross, increases your chance of a beneficial trade. This is particularly important given that trading is mandatory.

The mechanism that Mik doesn't like is where, as the result of an unsuccessful attempt to move a station to a satellite, you end up sending another player's station back to earth. I think this is a great mechanism from the active player's point of view. It helps reduce the luck component for the active player by increasing their chances of future successful station establishment after every unsuccessful attempt. Unfortunately this will randomly impact a non-active player--this may be what Mik is objecting to. I need to play more before I can say how crippling this impact is. However, it DOES seem hard to get blocks from Earth to the planets. Both times I did this it was by using my transport cards.

Rules Clarification

From: CafeJay@aol.com

Q: There seems to be an error in the Tip under Establish an Economic Center: "For example, a player has 2 stations on a planet and each of his three opponents has 1. He uses a transport card as his first action to add 2 stations to the planet, giving him 4. As his next action, he plays 7 cards for the planet and gets 4 attempts (he is at technology level 4), to establish an economic center, thus guaranteeing success". Now as I read the rules, transport cards are used in the Transport Phase, not the Action Phase. A transport card therefore can't be used as the first action. Is this correct?

A: You are correct. The player would use the transport move in the transport phase and then use an action to establish a center in the action phase. Nice catch.

JOHNATHAN DEGANN

A) When you discard as an action, you get to reject any replacements that equalled your discards. So if you discarded a single-ring planet and redraw one, you can bury it back in the deck and redraw until you get something entirely new.

I think that having to use one of two actions just to replace two cards is bad enough. Redrawing the same sucky ones really hurts. This alleviates that.

More proposed rule changes (not tried):

C) Trading. Change it all around. Conduct a three minute free for all.

That would make trading more effective. Might really alter the game in a negative way, but worth a shot.

E) Varying card distribution. More stinky planet cards, fewer good planet cards. This would make it harder to collect lots of cards on that 14 point planet for an "assured" base, and easier to score on that ugly asteroid.

I'm sure that the inventor figured that game play would even itself out, with more competition for cards/cubes/bases on the higher scoring planets. In fact, there is little enough trading that a player basically has to go with whatever he has the cards for.

From: "Alan M. Newman" <amn@earthlink.net>

David RAPP wrote:

> I'm

> >wondering if you couldn't reverse the order in which the bases are

> t>aken on the planets. I think it's kind of anti-climatic to have the

> >high-point bases go first. Certainly I can understand why Mr Moon

> >chose the way he did, otherwise there's not enough incentive to

> >shake the cup early. But those early lucky shakes are devastating.

>

> I had the same idea right after the first time I played it. I'm going to

> have to give this a try.

This is a *very* interesting fix possibility and definitely worth a try. I can't

wait. This should offer much more of a tactical tug-of-war.

> I'm not sure why people think this is more luck-based than, say,

> rolling dice. Like Gold Connection and Can't Stop, the point of the

> game is to work the probabilities. Placing cubes on planets allows

> you to change probabilities in your favor, while also reducing your

> opponents' likelihood of nailing the satellite planets. Lucky shakes

> are certainly devastating, but so are lucky dice rolls in games

> requiring dice (say Settlers), or lucky card draws (like in many trick

> taking games).

Well said, Dr. Rapp.

Jonathan responds

There are two aspects in which luck is more irritating in Andromeda than in other games. One is the scope of the game - it's a "full bodied" strategic style game, unlike say, "Can't Stop" which is a closer and all about luck. The other is that a single lucky or unlucky shake typically will define the winner. That shake can easily be worth, say, ten points, which is well within the margin of victory. I've seen the game too often go to the guy who took a wild chance and had it pay off, or slip away from a well played game with a bad shake. Settlers, for me, largely evens out. Yeah, maybe you'll get that key commodity at the right time, but it's not as though a settlement hits or misses on every die roll.

From: Derk Solko <derks@altavista.com>

I had another idea, unrelated to Jonathan's theory. Now take this with a grain of salt, because I haven't played the game for a better part of a month, and I'm basing this on that one playing. I'm wondering if you couldn't reverse the order in which the bases are taken on the planets. I think it's kind of anti-climatic to have the high-point bases go first. Certainly I can understand why Mr Moon chose the way he did, otherwise there's not enough incentive to shake the cup early. But those early lucky shakes are devastating.

Another thing I thought was to separate the planets into two groups (high-point and low-point) and the high-point group gets filled low-to-high, while the low-point group get filled high-to-low. There's a lot to like about this game, and I hate to disregard it simply on a 'too lucky' basis...

DEGANN

I think that there might even be merit to another, more "violent" rule, in which the subsequent bases on a planet are worth one less rather than two less. This would discourage "lucky" shakes of the ashtray a little. But that has it's own problems (makes the powerful planets more so) and I don't know that I'd monkey with that particular aspect.

derk.

I've always thought that a worthy variant for Andromeda would be one that deals with the trading phase. Sure there's setup issue, but if you start to the dealers' left, then you're gonna have very few decent trades at the beginning of the game where early melds are very important. I wonder if perhaps the trading were changed to a Nicht die Bohne-type of scenario where the picked player then takes a turn. Otherwise there's little reason to appeal toanyone, 'cept the first-player.