$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 133.19

7,793 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
49.1% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

51st State: Master Set» Forums » General

Subject: Can it be played peacefully? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Morro Bay
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
1. What exactly are the "attacks" available in this game? I'm aware of razing your opponent's buildings. And one can do a bit of "hate drafting" when gaining cards at the start of each round. I believe you could send a worker to someone's building that they were counting on using, to deny them. Are there any other ways to mess with each other?

2. If the players agreed not to raze each others' buildings, or otherwise "attack" each other, would the game still work? Would there be balance problems because a strong early engine would run unchecked?

3. If one player refused to attack or otherwise be aggressive, but the other player was very willing to do whatever it took to win, would the aggressive player have a substantial advantage?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Monk
United States
Leesburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmb
Post-apocalyptic peaceniks doesn't fit the theme at all.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathaniel Chambers
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
1. What exactly are the "attacks" available in this game? I'm aware of razing your opponent's buildings. And one can do a bit of "hate drafting" when gaining cards at the start of each round. I believe you could send a worker to someone's building that they were counting on using, to deny them. Are there any other ways to mess with each other?

2. If the players agreed not to raze each others' buildings, or otherwise "attack" each other, would the game still work? Would there be balance problems because a strong early engine would run unchecked?

3. If one player refused to attack or otherwise be aggressive, but the other player was very willing to do whatever it took to win, would the aggressive player have a substantial advantage?


I'm not a fan of aggressive games, and it really doesn't bug me that much in this one, especially in a 2 player game. If someone attacks my building, they are giving up a good bit of income they could be getting by razing their own cards. They are also giving me some stuff I might be able to use, so it's helpful. I don't lose a vp really, since I can still build over it. And it makes building over it more easy, so it opens up some options.

1. The attacks are, with the points they could spend to get the red of their own cards, they can spend a lot more to destroy your cards. It is very inefficient and should only be done because: they have excess tokens and don't want to raze their own cards. Or because they need a particular resource and you happen to have it. Or because whatever you have is so powerful they it's worth the loss of potential actions to them (because they would get a lot more doing it to their own cards)

2. yes. Sure. Badly IMHO. The threat of attack is pretty important. It keeps you on your toes. Also some cards offer shields, so those would be wasted and unbalanced.

3. Only in the way that if you don't play to win, you won't win. But being aggressive in this game is usually at a loss. So in theory you'd be better off not being aggressive, unless they happen to need something you want very very badly.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chef Kevin
United States
Lafayette
Indiana
flag msg tools
Yes, that's me in the latte!
mbmbmbmbmb
I think one of the expansion decks in the box is more "attack" oriented than just the base cards. I've only played 3 games with just the base cards and to us it didn't feel "take that" at all.

As the poster said above, attacking comes at an expense, but also helps the victim construct any building super easy, and they still get a victory point still (as long as they build).

I have been super impressed with this game. I've only played imperial settlers once, but I think I like this slightly better. It actually feels like less conflict than imperial settlers, which is odd because of the theme.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathaniel Chambers
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Chefarista wrote:
I think one of the expansion decks in the box is more "attack" oriented than just the base cards. I've only played 3 games with just the base cards and to us it didn't feel "take that" at all.

As the poster said above, attacking comes at an expense, but also helps the victim construct any building super easy, and they still get a victory point still (as long as they build).

I have been super impressed with this game. I've only played imperial settlers once, but I think I like this slightly better. It actually feels like less conflict than imperial settlers, which is odd because of the theme.



Good point, I played with the Winter deck, which doesn't have any rewards for 'take that'. I did peak (and forgot about) the other optional expansion deck, which does reward take that elements. While they seem neat, playing with that would just not be my kind of game at all.

I too feel like Imperial Settlers is more conflict oriented. I think in large part it's because it seems less at home with the theme. But I also think it's because all your cards are open to attack, you never feel like 'but I was going to do something with that'. There's sort of an interesting psychological effect that because in this setting it's more expected, it's less shocking when it happens maybe. I remember being really frustrated when my buildings were attacked in IS, but in this game I often looked at it as an opportunity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris D
Italy
Muggiò
MB
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
I believe you could send a worker to someone's building that they were counting on using, to deny them.


Just to be clear, when you send a worker to an opponent's open production location, you don't deny the location's owner the possibility to use it (they will have already taken the goods in the production phase, and you can't send workers to your own locations). In a 2 players game, noone is denied anything, in a 3+, you deny other players beside you and the location's owner.

Anyway I don't think razing opponents' location is such a great deal, honestly. Yes, you might need to raze a vp card if a really strong combo is going on, but otherwise it's not that necessary, and it's not like it always happens. At least without using the New Era expansion that is focused on razing, I haven't tried that one yet though.

Another side effect of playing peacefully is that the Mutants probably become a bit less powerful.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Morro Bay
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
No_Frets wrote:
peakhope wrote:
I believe you could send a worker to someone's building that they were counting on using, to deny them.

Just to be clear, when you send a worker to an opponent's open production location, you don't deny the location's owner the possibility to use it (they will have already taken the goods in the production phase, and you can't send workers to your own locations). In a 2 players game, noone is denied anything, in a 3+, you deny other players beside you and the location's owner.

Ah, thanks for that clarification. I thought it had been changed such that the building owner and other players were competing for the same worker space. I'm glad to hear that it hasn't changed that dramatically.

Quote:
Anyway I don't think razing opponents' location is such a great deal, honestly. Yes, you might need to raze a vp card if a really strong combo is going on, but otherwise it's not that necessary, and it's not like it always happens.

The necessity to threaten to raze, and then to actually do it sometimes, seems to mean that playing peacefully would upset the balance of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damien Cosgrove
United Kingdom
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought I'd just add, that in my 2p, 3p & 4p plays so far, I've found the game to be interactive but not full of attacking at all. It's very fast, rarely going into the 5th round, so both hate drafting and "destroying a building I'd worked so hard to get into play" really don;t occur, at least for us so far.

I think we've played one game where the winner was allowed to keep a VP engine for too long before the others destroyed it (it was me!), but generally the resource cost to destroy someone else's building is high and the ruins that these provide gives the opponent a very easy upgrade path for placing a new expensive location onto the ruins of a cheap one, so it's often not the best choice.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Guttag
United States
West Chester
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey Kevin,

As others have noted, Razing ("attacking") other's buildings is rarely done, especially in the games I've played. I would use Razing sparingly to remove a building that is important to that other players "engine." Razing requires spending at least 3 red tokens and as many as 5 red tokens. The Mutant Faction might be able to generate that many red tokens, but not the other Factions. As others have also noted, the other player gets the Deal value from the Razing, as well as a location that can be Developed without matching icons which means that other player only needs a brick piece to put another card in play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.