Bug ? Federation building
-
You don't need the mine in sector 9 to get up to 14 pts.
2x TS = 4
3x space station = 3
1x mine = 1
2x big building = 6 -
I learned in a private message that this is not a bug. The implementation has been made as : trace a path with the least number satellites, and when on the way you encounter a quicker path with other planets than those you want to use, using some of your selected planets is not allowed.
Personally, I think this a mistake in the implementation, but I am still happy to learn that it is not an unintentional bug.
-
Oelepetoetje is the Xenon, without the tile that makes big buildings worth one more. White blocks should be the correct methode of making the Federation.
-
-
@oelepetoetje that's the actual rules as confirmed by the game designers themselves on the BGG forums
-
@Aillas Gleen, not Xenon
-
@Babbuc49 I don't doubt that this site was made according to the best available info. Just thought at first it might be a bug.
And, with respect to the authors : this satellite rule could be so simple. Just point to some planets that fulfill the minimum condition for a federation, and connect them with the minimum number of sat.
-
I don't want to drag this out, and so I will be ok to not get an answer to this. I am extremely appreciative of this website and all the work that has gone into it, it is near perfect.
But I will just note that the (Hadsch Halla) example I am attaching now has me thinking again that my previous (Gleen) example was a bug after all.
In the Hadsch Halla example the big federation to the right has just been formed. If the federation forming had worked as in the Gleen example, I should not have been able to make a fed with so many sattelites, since by using the planet in the top middle of the map, a more logical fed could have been formed that uses 3 sats less. (And by using the blue planet halfway, a fed could have been formed that uses 2 sats less). It seems very arbitrary that I was able to make the longer fed, connecting the planet in the lower right instead. However, when I read the game rules, this is exactly how I would expect it to work : choosing which planets will make up 7 is arbitrary, only connecting those with the smallest number of sats is mandated.
So in summary, I think the Hadsch Halla example I posted does not follow the same rules as the Gleen example, and the Gleen example is a bug.
-
There is no bug in these examples. You can first choose any buildings that add up to 7 or more (that are not already in a federation), no matter how far they are from each other. Then you have to connect those buildings with the least amount of satellites possible, even if that means that you might have to include a building that you didn't choose in you initial choice of buildings. And then you have to check if you could still have made a federation with leaving out at least one building and one satellite.
So in your HH-example, the buildings you've chosen add up to 7, there is no way to connect those building with less than 8 satellites, and you cannot leave out one building and a satellite, so this federation is valid.
In your Gleens example, the buildings add up to 7, but you connect them using 7 satellites. However, if you would use the cluster of buildings in sector 6, you could use 5 satellites, hence your proposed federation is not valid.
Whether this set of rules is ideal is another discussion, but the website implements the official rules. I believe these rules where chosen as to not give an unfair advantage to certain factions when it comes to satellite or buildings in federations scoring.
See also https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2120375/official-federation-faq
-
Q: The path with the fewest satellites to link my chosen planets will touch a planet that I did not wish to include in my federation, can I choose the shortest path that skips this planet?
A: No, If the "extra" planet cluster is not already a part of a federation, then you must choose the path with the fewest satellites to link your planets, even if it includes extra planetsUnderstood, this supports the implementation exactly.
Whether this set of rules is ideal is another discussion
Also agreed