Talk:Homejinks

Name Change

I propose the name: "Mini Homeworlds" as it is played with just 3 trios. It's amazing how rich the game is for so few pieces. But it's important to play the correct variant (see below). Homejinks with its original rule and dice is kind of boring and seems less balanced. Cuc (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2020 (PST)

Rule Clarifications, Please

This seems to be an enjoyable tiny version of Homeworlds. However, some rules need clarification.

[EDIT. I noticed some terms are clarified at the END of the article under Terms. Great! As a result, there are only few questions left. See Setup point 2., Overpopulation, variant without dice.]

• Setup. OK, so star systems are marked by the presence of one or more ships (from either player) and no other markers. Suggestion. If desired, a location can be marked with a poker chip or a playing card facing down.

• Therefore, Setup point 2. is confusing by mentioning the "homeship". Why is this concept introduced? I don't think that the ship is special in any way, because there is no "homeworld" to defend. It's only about ships. A game state consists of a collection of star systems that contain ships.

• Overpopulation. OK, so Terms clarify that an overpopulation exists when all 3 ships of a size appear in a star system. Still, if you play with 3 people, would you increase the Bank with an extra trio? Does this affect overpopulations to 4 ships? Note. of course you could use ANY color of pyramids for the Bank. You could even use different colors, but treat them all the same.

• Catastrophe. Perhaps the rule can be adjusted slightly. By now, considering the appearance of Pyramid Quartet Homeworlds and its adjusted rules, it feels more natural to have the freedom to call Catastrophe at any time during your turn.

• Red Recapture. Because of the dice, recapture most likely will not result in draw, even in a 2-player game, because other options may become available, such as construct, move or trade. (But if desired, no-recapture can be introduced.) Because of the randomizer dice, I don't think the game is draw-prone.

• I'd propose the term "Upgrade" for the Blue action. And in conformity with current rules: Build for Green, and Conquer for Red.

• What about the variant to this game that is played without dice, but where every action is according to your preference? Does this work?

• I'm curious. Was this game playtested? I'll give it a try and get back with findings. I see it is in development phase (label), but on the other hand it's complete (version V1.0) . . . It seems that with 3 trios, only 9 ships in the game, isn't the game rather trivial despite the different actions? In any case, I don't think the game can be very complex and after a few games, it's clear how to get ahead and win. If that is true, what would be the optimal supply instead? With too many ships, perhaps the game won't ever end? I really don't know yet. Can anybody share their experience with this game? That would be appreciated. I will be back on this subject myself.
  • The Bank seems about right for 2 persons. All playtested games were with 3 trios (see below). The games were not trivial, but wanting. I'm going to try a slightly larger Bank in another playtest. Cuc (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2020 (PST)

Cuc (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2020 (PST). Revised Cuc (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2020 (PST). 2nd Revision Cuc (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2020 (PST)

Playtests

I playtested the game, and it was fun to try. However, we found the game wanting and was not as fun because of the Black forced pass. We tried to come up with a different way of using the dice. We tried the following:

• No dice. This definitely doesn't work. First player wins a rather short game. After both players do: Upgrade, Upgrade, Build, Upgrade, the first player will sac the Medium, move over to the Large and capture. Now, the first player has two Larges and the other player will not be able to catch up any more. The second player can choose to spread out, for example Upgrade, Build, Upgrade, Move (now they have two Mediums), but it won't matter.
• throw a D6. If it's 1-3, then you are forced to pass; if it's 4-6 you get an action of your choice. This game is a bit more fun, but the amount of passes is too harsh.
• throw a D6. If it's 1-2, then you are forced to pass; if it's 3-6 you get an action of your choice. This game is much more fun and isn't trivial. We still weren't satisfied with the forced pass.

We considered that it would be fun if you can ALWAYS have an action, but that the number of actions are limited somehow. My game buddy Forest suggested that we should give 2 actions for 1-3 and the other 2 actions for 4-6. This gives 3 games:

Combo	1-3	4-6	Description
I	R/Y	G/B	At first it seemed a good idea to have G/B together, but it didn't work that well.
II	R/G	Y/B	This game works better, but the R/G combo is frustrating: if building would cause an Overpopulation, you're forced to pass.
III	R/B	Y/G	This game is most balanced. The Y/G prevents passes / Overpopulations: if you'd create a Catastrophe with Green, you can use Yellow to spread out. We had great fun. It has reversal of fortune (you can win, even when you seem lost).

Table. "Two-Two" Combos.

• On my way home I considered that, indeed, one could even assign 2 allowed actions to any throw of a D6 as follows:

N	Color Combo
1	R/Y
2	G/B
3	Y/B
4	R/G
5	R/B
6	Y/G

Table. "Half-Half". All C(4,2) = 6 color combo's appear with equal probability.

I playtested this game, and it was delightful. Complete with what we have started to call "reversal of fortune" (see above). This game has the most intriguing scenarios of all the above variants; it is perfectly balanced. For each turn, a particular action has a probability of 1/2, but it's paired with one of the others at random. It works particularly well. Please, give it a try.

We noticed several patterns related to strategy:

1. the player who gets first to own all three Larges is winner. It's a matter of time. So, the other player should resign as a courtesy. But there's nothing wrong to see why and play the first game out to the end. The stronger player will gain traction but only slowly. Nevertheless, there will be a time they own the 3 Larges and the 3 Mediums. That's when finally a Large can be sacrificed without the risk of losing it to the opponent if at the same time there's a Small in the Bank.

2. If a player has the largest possible size for their ships, they are more prone to have to pass. But the weaker player only needs to pass when they are practically lost, and that may happen after more than 40 moves! Passing may happen but for the stronger player is some kind of "luxury problem". But beware not to lose your advantage.

3. The game is about the timing of the sacrifice. If you have only 3 ships and you want to sac a Large, it is not certain you will be able to get your Large back. But it depends on the Bank and the game state. Perhaps it's too early to sac. If you do it too early, your plan can backfire and may leave you very vulnerable to a counter attack. To assess whether it's too early, envision what would happen if your plan meets an obstacle (the dice). If you are too weak to be able to withstand a counter attack, reconsider and aim for a build or upgrade first.

Cuc (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2020 (PST). Revised Cuc (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2020 (PST)