QE sounds kinda like a mashup of High Society and Ponzi Scheme, both of which I love. So I definitely backed it, even though I think I'm already at or past auction game saturation point in my collection.
Interesting game up on KS called QE. It's a bidding game where you can bid literally any amount you want. The catch is that whoever spends the most cash at the end of the game flat-out loses. Only two people each round know how much that round's winning bid was (unless the auctioneer wins with their opening, non-secret bid); everyone else just knows it was more than theirs.
I played this at a local game day! Guy brought in a copy that appeared to be hand-made, with wooden components.
It was a very good game. I got the impression it was an old game, not a new Kickstarter thing, though?
EDIT: Actually looked at the KS, looks like all copies are hand-made with wooden components, lol. And it seemed like an old game because it's a limited run kind of situation.
WACriminal on
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I might have asked before, but how are the various Tiny Epic games?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Shut up and Sit Down has a recommendation video up for 15 best games to be played over the holidays with your family and friends. Some pretty interesting ones! I just ordered One Night Ultimate Werewolf and I'm going to try to find Monikers at my local game store.
I recommend some pencils, a pad of paper, and a bowl. It’s also basically the same thing.
True, but it's fun when there's a card no one is familiar with except the person who chose it, and then they get that card to act out or explain. Or maybe that's just the crazy way my group plays it.
I like to think that the base Monikers set is tuned to have enough close cards to add a bit of extra fun. Eg. Jesus Christ (the religious figure) and Jesus Christ (the bowler) are in it. The kind of thing that leads to misunderstandings and double ups.
You can make your own version by getting people to put names in a hat. You won't get names that cross over in that way, but you'll have names that are more personal.
Same thing with Codenames, I've run versions that use random words from the dictionary, but it isn't quite as refined and some words end up being a bit easy to guess.
Gvzbgul on
+1
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Shut up and Sit Down has a recommendation video up for 15 best games to be played over the holidays with your family and friends. Some pretty interesting ones! I just ordered One Night Ultimate Werewolf and I'm going to try to find Monikers at my local game store.
I was looking to answer just this question but that list has failed to excite me.
Boo.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
Custom SpecialI know I am, I'm sure I am,I'm Sounders 'til I die!Registered Userregular
Arkham 3E was played, and we sent the first elder god back from whence he was summoned. Had a grand old time; at one point we thought we had
gone to close a ritual portal...turns out that was just half of what we needed to do and partly a distraction, kind of a neat twist. We were then able to close the portal a couple turns later and finish the scenario, while the town around us was starting to get rather infested with otherworldy things.
5 players, all generally pretty new to the game (and it's ilk), game took 3+ hours. We eventually got the hang of the turn sequence and were able to get it done quickly later, we could probably get it under 3 hours if we tried (scenario allowing).
Arkham 3E was played, and we sent the first elder god back from whence he was summoned. Had a grand old time; at one point we thought we had
gone to close a ritual portal...turns out that was just half of what we needed to do and partly a distraction, kind of a neat twist. We were then able to close the portal a couple turns later and finish the scenario, while the town around us was starting to get rather infested with otherworldy things.
5 players, all generally pretty new to the game (and it's ilk), game took 3+ hours. We eventually got the hang of the turn sequence and were able to get it done quickly later, we could probably get it under 3 hours if we tried (scenario allowing).
Does anyone know if it has the card game's weakness in replayability? In the card game, not only was the sense of mystery gone in subsequent playthroughs, but the difficulty was cut to a fraction because it was very easy to "game" the scenario knowing what was coming.
Example from base game campaign
The 2nd core scenario gives you the impression that running around collecting clues to uncover the most cultists was the best move. This turns out to not be the case. The best strategy was to group up, stand still to spend all your actions on building up until the hunter showed up to quickly take him out and then hunt down the other cultists with any time you had left. You were better off in the 3rd scenario with just the hunter out of the way than if you had taken out 2 or even 3 other cultists.
Welp, I think I'm finally done with Twilight Struggle.
I went from thinking it was a brilliant game, to a decent game with some flaws, to a decent idea with flaws large enough to sour the whole thing, to flaws so huge that it's not worth the time anymore.
It is a long, involved game. There's the well known problems of bad first turn draws and the die rolls. Too often all the time investment is undone by a bad first turn draw or single bad die roll (to the point where I dare say that, player skill and luck being equal, the game is mostly decided by the Soviet player's first coup roll or early war event roll).
But lately I've been running into another thing that ruins all the whole thing: unavoidable DEFCON suicide. You have a card with an event that lets your opponent perform an ops action, it is game over if that card gets played at DEFCON 2 and you have a single point of influence in any battleground nation in the Americas or Africa. It's not difficult to run into situations where you're forced to play that card, and the majority of the time the DEFCON is going to be at 2 after the Soviet's first action.
The most common cards that cause this (off the top of my head) are CIA Created and Lone Gunman. Both are 1 point cards and hence cannot be dumped on the space race or Quagmire/Bear Trap. Your only option to avoid playing them is keeping them as an unused card in your hand at the end of the turn. If you don't start a turn with the China Card, you can only avoid playing one card in your hand per turn. That means if an event forces you to discard, you're then forced to play every card in your hand that turn.
So in one game, I was US in a winning position. I was up 10 VP, it was late war, and I had most of the regions locked up in domination. Then what happens? I get dealt Lone Gunman, my Soviet opponent draws the infamous Aldritch + Terrorism combo. He also has the China Card.
And just like that, I have automatically lost the entire game. Absolutely nothing I can do to prevent it (barring me having "Ask Not" or "UN Intervention"). The Soviet takes advantage of going first to do a coup action while the DEFCON is 3, as usual. He plays the Aldritch and Terrorism event at any point in the turn and I am now forced to eventually play Lone Gunman, giving him the chance to coup a battleground and force me into DEFCON suicide.
There was nothing I could have done, and it's not an instance you can plan for. 2 1/2 hours of game time all for that.
It doesn't happen that often, but the chance is large enough to make me groan at the thought of ever committing to a game again. I'm done with Twilight Struggle. The Cold War is over.
MrBody on
+2
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
In those situations, you have to headline Lone Gunman. That isn't foolproof of course -- you'll still lose if the USSR plays a headline that allows them to lower Defcon. But that's the only possible play in that situation.
This is the part where deck knowledge is so crucial: if the US draws Lone Gunmen in the Late War, there are too many possible forced discards to hold it past the Headline phase, unless the US is also holding a guaranteed way of raising Defcon to 4+. And the US player has to know that, or they'll be find themselves trapped in the same way you were. That's my biggest beef with TS: there are just too many cards that have to be memorized to play it even remotely well.
That's the thing though. You're forced to decide between the chance that his headline will DEFCON suicide you or the chance that he force discards you. Either way can result in an instant loss regardless of the board state and how well anyone has played up until that point.
Card memorization aside, Twilight Struggle feels like you're playing a version of Go where you periodically roll dice and if you ever roll snakeyes, you instantly lose. (or one player getting to roll a die in the first few turns with a 50/50 chance he gets to flip 1-3 pieces for free)
MrBody on
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
edited December 2018
I was pretty sure I was going to disagree after the first few lines but you won me over
Those are p muted criticisms and they're totally fair. I have played a bunch against the AI which takes a quarter as long and I had my third human v human game ever on Wednesday and it was hard fought down to the wire for for hours with nobody scoring ten until year ten. Even after a great game I'm sort of like man why did I spend so long on this
I just watched the SUSD review of Root and the fundamental criticism really struck home for me
In a lot of these big, complex area control games, the factions have this interdependent relationship that you have to struggle to grasp, forming an ecosystem that players are trying to control, but... what that boils down to is whoever is doing okay and gets attacked the least will win.
It's rare that it's a clever long-term strategy that earns you the win. Usually there are correct plays in the short term and long term, but if everyone's doing roughly equal, it's just who teams up on whom.
So you could say all these games are actually just Diplomacy, except... the complexity of board states distracts players from negotiation, and makes it seem like the game isn't about negotiation. Or the mechanics actually limit interaction with geography and distance so that there's actually not that much negotiating to do and it boils down to kingmaking.
This makes me feel that these games can be kind of hollow and fake despite being so rich with mechanics and systems. I've been feeling this way about some of my favourite games.
+5
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I just watched the SUSD review of Root and the fundamental criticism really struck home for me
In a lot of these big, complex area control games, the factions have this interdependent relationship that you have to struggle to grasp, forming an ecosystem that players are trying to control, but... what that boils down to is whoever is doing okay and gets attacked the least will win.
It's rare that it's a clever long-term strategy that earns you the win. Usually there are correct plays in the short term and long term, but if everyone's doing roughly equal, it's just who teams up on whom.
So you could say all these games are actually just Diplomacy, except... the complexity of board states distracts players from negotiation, and makes it seem like the game isn't about negotiation. Or the mechanics actually limit interaction with geography and distance so that there's actually not that much negotiating to do and it boils down to kingmaking.
This makes me feel that these games can be kind of hollow and fake despite being so rich with mechanics and systems. I've been feeling this way about some of my favourite games.
I just watched the SUSD review of Root and the fundamental criticism really struck home for me
In a lot of these big, complex area control games, the factions have this interdependent relationship that you have to struggle to grasp, forming an ecosystem that players are trying to control, but... what that boils down to is whoever is doing okay and gets attacked the least will win.
It's rare that it's a clever long-term strategy that earns you the win. Usually there are correct plays in the short term and long term, but if everyone's doing roughly equal, it's just who teams up on whom.
So you could say all these games are actually just Diplomacy, except... the complexity of board states distracts players from negotiation, and makes it seem like the game isn't about negotiation. Or the mechanics actually limit interaction with geography and distance so that there's actually not that much negotiating to do and it boils down to kingmaking.
This makes me feel that these games can be kind of hollow and fake despite being so rich with mechanics and systems. I've been feeling this way about some of my favourite games.
That's why I think it's important in these sorts of games to have the ability to have allied wins. The tension between bashing the leading or tying your fate to the leader is delicious.
So I got to play "Master of Respect" today in the PAXU First Look area, and it's a really interesting action economy game of rival dojos competing for respect and students.
Unfortunately, it's a Japanese Kickstarter from earlier this year that comes with English rules in the box and that rulebook was a MESS. *in English. Maybe they're better in Japanese. We got so much wrong, and skipped over whole concepts that would have probably dramatically changed the way we played the game, but the bones were excellent and I really want to play it again.
So basic concept: You are a master running a dojo. You start with one or two beginner students (still not sure). Each master has a different set of 3 action cards that are double sided. So you lock yourself out of some actions by choosing others. Each student can perform one action each round. There are three resources: money, sake, and respect. Respect can be used like in Tiny Epic Galaxies to "follow" another player's action to do more each round. However, spending respect this way gives it to that player you're following. Each one is worth 0.5 points at the end of the game, and, each student may have a special ability if they're respected that will give that player even more resources.
After all actions are completed in rounds two through five, you're right-most student competes based on their skill and skill bonus based on whatever action they performed. Rewards are given from 1st to 3rd place, then the next round begins.
Having the "follow" action give your opponent victory points is an interesting mechanic I don't remember seeing before.
Also played Cytosis, which is a worker placement game based on the cellular processes. Really amazing and want to try their other games.
Tired and looking forward to tomorrow and sad it's the last day.
But on the other end of that you have Cosmic Encounter, a game where I have never seen any other win but an anti-climatic, "base for a base?" allied win.
I would only ever play Cosmic again if a betting system was used to discourage that. Everyone ponies up X dollars into a pot, which is split at the end among all the winners. Encourage last minute betrayal and solo glory grabs for big buck$!!!
(also Rex, with the added requirement that Lazax and Xxcha have to pay double the buy in)
But on the other end of that you have Cosmic Encounter, a game where I have never seen any other win but an anti-climatic, "base for a base?" allied win.
I would only ever play Cosmic again if a betting system was used to discourage that. Everyone ponies up X dollars into a pot, which is split at the end among all the winners. Encourage last minute betrayal and solo glory grabs for big buck$!!!
I'm trying to think of a less dickish way to say play with more exciting players, but... man that sounds dull. People in my group are always weighing if they can sneak a solo win instead of an allied win for the raw glory of it (and the fun of it).
I think cosmic's system is fine for cosmic. But for longer games that are focused on balance I think what is better are alliance systems that you can not drop into and out of willy-nilly, but have some kind of constraints on when you can enter and how you can exit alliances. Examples are Dune and Fief.
How are alliances in Dune done? I have Fief so familiar with that one.
Alliances can only be made and broken when a Worm card is drawn from the Spice deck. You draw one spice card a turn, but the distribution of the Worm cards is random. So, you never really know how long you are committing to that Alliance for.
I never saw any instances where you'd break alliances in Dune/Rex. The only time is if the new team had enough strongholds to win right there, but otherwise the stronger alliance wouldn't want to risk breaking up their stranglehold, and the weaker alliance dare not split themselves to get even weaker.
Although it was worse in Rex since Lazax/Xxcha/whatever was so much more powerful than Hacan/whatever/whatever that there was never a point to breaking anything.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I like this discussion. Getting down in the dirt a bit is good.
It's interesting because I'm definitely hard pressed to think of an alliance system that stands out as "good" at all. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I just haven't played a game that had one I enjoyed (a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps). But I can sure point to the ones I've hated, and top of the list was Eclipse. Both the base game's "exchange diplomats" and the expansion's full alliances felt atrocious to me.
A friend had talked to me at length about a game that fits into this discussion very well, but the name currently eludes me, so I messaged him about it. Will report back when he gets back to me. From what I recall, it used an interesting system where every round everyone bids to pick the alliances for the round. Making them a more integrated, necessary part of the gameplay (even if it shakes up at regular intervals) seems like a decent avenue to explore.
We loved Rex until we stumbled into an alliance that could run the table on weapons and shields (money donater guy and auction profit guy)
One guy at our table said "I'll play again if somebody can explain how that combo won't win the same way as last time" and nobody ever could
That combo isn’t an auto win in Dune but FFG tweaked enough with Rex that I can’t speak to if that is still true.
Edit: In Dune at least, you can happily let that combo fill up their hands with cards and still crush them in combat with far fewer cards using BG (Xxcha) Voice or Atreides (Jol-Nar I think?) Prescience. Does that not work in Rex?
Inquisitor on
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
We loved Rex until we stumbled into an alliance that could run the table on weapons and shields (money donater guy and auction profit guy)
One guy at our table said "I'll play again if somebody can explain how that combo won't win the same way as last time" and nobody ever could
That combo isn’t an auto win in Dune but FFG tweaked enough with Rex that I can’t speak to if that is still true.
Edit: In Dune at least, you can happily let that combo fill up their hands with cards and still crush them in combat with far fewer cards using BG (Xxcha) Voice or Atreides (Jol-Nar I think?) Prescience. Does that not work in Rex?
It's been years so I don't remember much. I think you can always ditch a card after combat so it's really easy to get all cards every round without filling up your hands? You can force them to miss one by bidding up to like 5x value and then they have to let you win that one or they wouldn't have enough to outbid you for the others, but it's super expensive and you only get one card
Do you get to pick a gun and a shield both in offense? Then Prescience lets you view theirs and change yours after they're locked, and voice lets you pick theirs? Are those usable every fight?
We loved Rex until we stumbled into an alliance that could run the table on weapons and shields (money donater guy and auction profit guy)
One guy at our table said "I'll play again if somebody can explain how that combo won't win the same way as last time" and nobody ever could
That combo isn’t an auto win in Dune but FFG tweaked enough with Rex that I can’t speak to if that is still true.
Edit: In Dune at least, you can happily let that combo fill up their hands with cards and still crush them in combat with far fewer cards using BG (Xxcha) Voice or Atreides (Jol-Nar I think?) Prescience. Does that not work in Rex?
It's been years so I don't remember much. I think you can always ditch a card after combat so it's really easy to get all cards every round without filling up your hands? You can force them to miss one by bidding up to like 5x value and then they have to let you win that one or they wouldn't have enough to outbid you for the others, but it's super expensive and you only get one card
Do you get to pick a gun and a shield both in offense? Then Prescience lets you view theirs and change yours after they're locked, and voice lets you pick theirs? Are those usable every fight?
With the caveat that this may be different in Rex than in Dune:
Atreides(Jol Nar) knows every card before it is bid on so should know every card in every hand in the game relatively quickly (with the exception of Harkonnen because of their double draw power). On top of that they (or their allies) have Prescience and can force one element of the battle plan to be revealed. They get to use this every single battle.
BG (Xxcha) Voice lets them (or an ally) force an opponent to play a specific treachery card (if they have it). They can do this every single fight. And they Atreides player should happily give or sell the best Voice information possible to the BG player if an Emperor/Harkonnen alliance is currently a big threat.
So, while the Emperor and allies can try to lock down the bidding phase, the single correct card in the right hands can dismantle them anyway.
Also of the Emperor is using their power this way it means they aren't actually bringing new money into the alliance. (They only get increased income if other people win the cards.) Assuming the Fremen player is keeping the economic stranglehold on the Spice that they should be, consistent harassment raids can really keep their coffers low.
But again, this is mostly for Dune. Rex changed a lot.
I like this discussion. Getting down in the dirt a bit is good.
It's interesting because I'm definitely hard pressed to think of an alliance system that stands out as "good" at all. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I just haven't played a game that had one I enjoyed (a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps). But I can sure point to the ones I've hated, and top of the list was Eclipse. Both the base game's "exchange diplomats" and the expansion's full alliances felt atrocious to me.
A friend had talked to me at length about a game that fits into this discussion very well, but the name currently eludes me, so I messaged him about it. Will report back when he gets back to me. From what I recall, it used an interesting system where every round everyone bids to pick the alliances for the round. Making them a more integrated, necessary part of the gameplay (even if it shakes up at regular intervals) seems like a decent avenue to explore.
Out of interest, what didn’t you like about the base Eclipse alliance system? Seemed good to me but I’ll freely admit we don’t get into the weeds of deep strategy with these games. A small but significant benefit from the alliance to be weighed against the possible advantages of breaking it. And I like the single traitor card encouraging you to get your betrayal in early and then turning your role into official intergalactic shit stirrer to try and encourage others to take it from you.
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I wasn't talking about an emperor harkonnen alliance. The game breaking alliance was between somebody whose power involved free transfer of funds somehow, and the guy who gets paid when other people buy cards. The broken combo was emperor funds being given away, used to buy cards, and thus going back to the emperor.
Sounds like there's nothing like that in the original?
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I wasn't talking about an emperor harkonnen alliance. The game breaking alliance was between somebody whose power involved free transfer of funds somehow, and the guy who gets paid when other people buy cards. The broken combo was emperor funds being given away, used to buy cards, and thus going back to the emperor.
Sounds like there's nothing like that in the original?
In the original every faction combos with the Emperor like that.
I like this discussion. Getting down in the dirt a bit is good.
It's interesting because I'm definitely hard pressed to think of an alliance system that stands out as "good" at all. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I just haven't played a game that had one I enjoyed (a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps). But I can sure point to the ones I've hated, and top of the list was Eclipse. Both the base game's "exchange diplomats" and the expansion's full alliances felt atrocious to me.
A friend had talked to me at length about a game that fits into this discussion very well, but the name currently eludes me, so I messaged him about it. Will report back when he gets back to me. From what I recall, it used an interesting system where every round everyone bids to pick the alliances for the round. Making them a more integrated, necessary part of the gameplay (even if it shakes up at regular intervals) seems like a decent avenue to explore.
Out of interest, what didn’t you like about the base Eclipse alliance system? Seemed good to me but I’ll freely admit we don’t get into the weeds of deep strategy with these games. A small but significant benefit from the alliance to be weighed against the possible advantages of breaking it. And I like the single traitor card encouraging you to get your betrayal in early and then turning your role into official intergalactic shit stirrer to try and encourage others to take it from you.
Grain of salt - I really don't enjoy Eclipse in any particular way. That said,t he thing I really didn't like about the diplomats is that they seem misrepresentative. You're establishing trade with a neighbor, and you're fixed to a single exchange (which makes sense for some reasons, but also would maybe make the game more interesting if people could exchange more than one for additional penalty if you break the deal), but this is getting off topic. What I don't like is that it gives you no other "allied" options. You break your alliance if you want to move through their territory - even if you don't stop there - and given the nature of the way the board gets built you might literally have no alternatives. I believe this has been changed in either 2nd edition or one of the expansions, but it's a bit late for me to care. It was really badly designed and really boring.
Posts
I played this at a local game day! Guy brought in a copy that appeared to be hand-made, with wooden components.
It was a very good game. I got the impression it was an old game, not a new Kickstarter thing, though?
EDIT: Actually looked at the KS, looks like all copies are hand-made with wooden components, lol. And it seemed like an old game because it's a limited run kind of situation.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Galaxies has been the most fun, Kingdom and Quest were interesting, and Western has some interesting mechanics. Haven't played the others.
Big fan of Quest, but mostly for the cosmetics.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
True, but it's fun when there's a card no one is familiar with except the person who chose it, and then they get that card to act out or explain. Or maybe that's just the crazy way my group plays it.
You can make your own version by getting people to put names in a hat. You won't get names that cross over in that way, but you'll have names that are more personal.
Same thing with Codenames, I've run versions that use random words from the dictionary, but it isn't quite as refined and some words end up being a bit easy to guess.
I was looking to answer just this question but that list has failed to excite me.
Boo.
Does anyone know if it has the card game's weakness in replayability? In the card game, not only was the sense of mystery gone in subsequent playthroughs, but the difficulty was cut to a fraction because it was very easy to "game" the scenario knowing what was coming.
Example from base game campaign
I went from thinking it was a brilliant game, to a decent game with some flaws, to a decent idea with flaws large enough to sour the whole thing, to flaws so huge that it's not worth the time anymore.
It is a long, involved game. There's the well known problems of bad first turn draws and the die rolls. Too often all the time investment is undone by a bad first turn draw or single bad die roll (to the point where I dare say that, player skill and luck being equal, the game is mostly decided by the Soviet player's first coup roll or early war event roll).
But lately I've been running into another thing that ruins all the whole thing: unavoidable DEFCON suicide. You have a card with an event that lets your opponent perform an ops action, it is game over if that card gets played at DEFCON 2 and you have a single point of influence in any battleground nation in the Americas or Africa. It's not difficult to run into situations where you're forced to play that card, and the majority of the time the DEFCON is going to be at 2 after the Soviet's first action.
The most common cards that cause this (off the top of my head) are CIA Created and Lone Gunman. Both are 1 point cards and hence cannot be dumped on the space race or Quagmire/Bear Trap. Your only option to avoid playing them is keeping them as an unused card in your hand at the end of the turn. If you don't start a turn with the China Card, you can only avoid playing one card in your hand per turn. That means if an event forces you to discard, you're then forced to play every card in your hand that turn.
So in one game, I was US in a winning position. I was up 10 VP, it was late war, and I had most of the regions locked up in domination. Then what happens? I get dealt Lone Gunman, my Soviet opponent draws the infamous Aldritch + Terrorism combo. He also has the China Card.
And just like that, I have automatically lost the entire game. Absolutely nothing I can do to prevent it (barring me having "Ask Not" or "UN Intervention"). The Soviet takes advantage of going first to do a coup action while the DEFCON is 3, as usual. He plays the Aldritch and Terrorism event at any point in the turn and I am now forced to eventually play Lone Gunman, giving him the chance to coup a battleground and force me into DEFCON suicide.
There was nothing I could have done, and it's not an instance you can plan for. 2 1/2 hours of game time all for that.
It doesn't happen that often, but the chance is large enough to make me groan at the thought of ever committing to a game again. I'm done with Twilight Struggle. The Cold War is over.
This is the part where deck knowledge is so crucial: if the US draws Lone Gunmen in the Late War, there are too many possible forced discards to hold it past the Headline phase, unless the US is also holding a guaranteed way of raising Defcon to 4+. And the US player has to know that, or they'll be find themselves trapped in the same way you were. That's my biggest beef with TS: there are just too many cards that have to be memorized to play it even remotely well.
Card memorization aside, Twilight Struggle feels like you're playing a version of Go where you periodically roll dice and if you ever roll snakeyes, you instantly lose. (or one player getting to roll a die in the first few turns with a 50/50 chance he gets to flip 1-3 pieces for free)
Those are p muted criticisms and they're totally fair. I have played a bunch against the AI which takes a quarter as long and I had my third human v human game ever on Wednesday and it was hard fought down to the wire for for hours with nobody scoring ten until year ten. Even after a great game I'm sort of like man why did I spend so long on this
In a lot of these big, complex area control games, the factions have this interdependent relationship that you have to struggle to grasp, forming an ecosystem that players are trying to control, but... what that boils down to is whoever is doing okay and gets attacked the least will win.
It's rare that it's a clever long-term strategy that earns you the win. Usually there are correct plays in the short term and long term, but if everyone's doing roughly equal, it's just who teams up on whom.
So you could say all these games are actually just Diplomacy, except... the complexity of board states distracts players from negotiation, and makes it seem like the game isn't about negotiation. Or the mechanics actually limit interaction with geography and distance so that there's actually not that much negotiating to do and it boils down to kingmaking.
This makes me feel that these games can be kind of hollow and fake despite being so rich with mechanics and systems. I've been feeling this way about some of my favourite games.
How do you feel about TI
but i'm pretty sure it's too long and bloated
That's why I think it's important in these sorts of games to have the ability to have allied wins. The tension between bashing the leading or tying your fate to the leader is delicious.
Unfortunately, it's a Japanese Kickstarter from earlier this year that comes with English rules in the box and that rulebook was a MESS. *in English. Maybe they're better in Japanese. We got so much wrong, and skipped over whole concepts that would have probably dramatically changed the way we played the game, but the bones were excellent and I really want to play it again.
So basic concept: You are a master running a dojo. You start with one or two beginner students (still not sure). Each master has a different set of 3 action cards that are double sided. So you lock yourself out of some actions by choosing others. Each student can perform one action each round. There are three resources: money, sake, and respect. Respect can be used like in Tiny Epic Galaxies to "follow" another player's action to do more each round. However, spending respect this way gives it to that player you're following. Each one is worth 0.5 points at the end of the game, and, each student may have a special ability if they're respected that will give that player even more resources.
After all actions are completed in rounds two through five, you're right-most student competes based on their skill and skill bonus based on whatever action they performed. Rewards are given from 1st to 3rd place, then the next round begins.
Having the "follow" action give your opponent victory points is an interesting mechanic I don't remember seeing before.
Also played Cytosis, which is a worker placement game based on the cellular processes. Really amazing and want to try their other games.
Tired and looking forward to tomorrow and sad it's the last day.
I would only ever play Cosmic again if a betting system was used to discourage that. Everyone ponies up X dollars into a pot, which is split at the end among all the winners. Encourage last minute betrayal and solo glory grabs for big buck$!!!
(also Rex, with the added requirement that Lazax and Xxcha have to pay double the buy in)
I'm trying to think of a less dickish way to say play with more exciting players, but... man that sounds dull. People in my group are always weighing if they can sneak a solo win instead of an allied win for the raw glory of it (and the fun of it).
I think cosmic's system is fine for cosmic. But for longer games that are focused on balance I think what is better are alliance systems that you can not drop into and out of willy-nilly, but have some kind of constraints on when you can enter and how you can exit alliances. Examples are Dune and Fief.
Alliances can only be made and broken when a Worm card is drawn from the Spice deck. You draw one spice card a turn, but the distribution of the Worm cards is random. So, you never really know how long you are committing to that Alliance for.
Although it was worse in Rex since Lazax/Xxcha/whatever was so much more powerful than Hacan/whatever/whatever that there was never a point to breaking anything.
It's interesting because I'm definitely hard pressed to think of an alliance system that stands out as "good" at all. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I just haven't played a game that had one I enjoyed (a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps). But I can sure point to the ones I've hated, and top of the list was Eclipse. Both the base game's "exchange diplomats" and the expansion's full alliances felt atrocious to me.
A friend had talked to me at length about a game that fits into this discussion very well, but the name currently eludes me, so I messaged him about it. Will report back when he gets back to me. From what I recall, it used an interesting system where every round everyone bids to pick the alliances for the round. Making them a more integrated, necessary part of the gameplay (even if it shakes up at regular intervals) seems like a decent avenue to explore.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
One guy at our table said "I'll play again if somebody can explain how that combo won't win the same way as last time" and nobody ever could
That combo isn’t an auto win in Dune but FFG tweaked enough with Rex that I can’t speak to if that is still true.
Edit: In Dune at least, you can happily let that combo fill up their hands with cards and still crush them in combat with far fewer cards using BG (Xxcha) Voice or Atreides (Jol-Nar I think?) Prescience. Does that not work in Rex?
It's been years so I don't remember much. I think you can always ditch a card after combat so it's really easy to get all cards every round without filling up your hands? You can force them to miss one by bidding up to like 5x value and then they have to let you win that one or they wouldn't have enough to outbid you for the others, but it's super expensive and you only get one card
Do you get to pick a gun and a shield both in offense? Then Prescience lets you view theirs and change yours after they're locked, and voice lets you pick theirs? Are those usable every fight?
With the caveat that this may be different in Rex than in Dune:
Atreides(Jol Nar) knows every card before it is bid on so should know every card in every hand in the game relatively quickly (with the exception of Harkonnen because of their double draw power). On top of that they (or their allies) have Prescience and can force one element of the battle plan to be revealed. They get to use this every single battle.
BG (Xxcha) Voice lets them (or an ally) force an opponent to play a specific treachery card (if they have it). They can do this every single fight. And they Atreides player should happily give or sell the best Voice information possible to the BG player if an Emperor/Harkonnen alliance is currently a big threat.
So, while the Emperor and allies can try to lock down the bidding phase, the single correct card in the right hands can dismantle them anyway.
Also of the Emperor is using their power this way it means they aren't actually bringing new money into the alliance. (They only get increased income if other people win the cards.) Assuming the Fremen player is keeping the economic stranglehold on the Spice that they should be, consistent harassment raids can really keep their coffers low.
But again, this is mostly for Dune. Rex changed a lot.
Out of interest, what didn’t you like about the base Eclipse alliance system? Seemed good to me but I’ll freely admit we don’t get into the weeds of deep strategy with these games. A small but significant benefit from the alliance to be weighed against the possible advantages of breaking it. And I like the single traitor card encouraging you to get your betrayal in early and then turning your role into official intergalactic shit stirrer to try and encourage others to take it from you.
Sounds like there's nothing like that in the original?
In the original every faction combos with the Emperor like that.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?