Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
My review of Twilight Imperium,
aka: My rant, or the post that will likely incite a flamewar against me.
**************
Well, I dont know what to say. I dont think this is a very good game at all, and I've played it 3 times now this week, and really, really wanted to like it.
And yet still, while I now feel no desire to ever play it again, I want to give it yet another chance...maybe someone can convince me of why it is good ,and make me want to try it again.
Coming against the flood of 10 ratings that have propelled this game to a current #4 on the rating scale, I expect this to elicit a lot of defensive posts, explaining the greatness of this game, or how I dont get it.
I know how that is. I've written many similar posts defending a game, for War of the Ring for example, among others. And so for someone who tends to like these highly anticipated (even hyped) games, and often finds them to deserve their hype, I am surprised that I dont like it.
I'm not discuccing mechanics in this ,or teaching you how to play....this review is about what I feel about the game.
The first problem, as I see it, is simply a lack of excitement (except, in most cases, if people play crazily, in a way thats detrimental to their long term position). I've simply found that, once people build up fleets of any significant size, say midgame or later, that if you attack someone, even if you crush them, you will tend to take enough casualties doing it (and as a result of their subsequent ire), that someone else will be able to come in and roll over you, and you wont be able to stop them. Really, if you are attacking someone (except mabe for some tiny border conflict that isnt worth defending, so its not that exciting after all), they will use all their resources in an attempt to stop you, and defend their home. If they use all their resources to defend, you cannot beat them if you use, say, only half your resources. You will simply be outclassed, even with superior production. To crush them, you need to put all your energy into it, and have some advantage or luck. In doing so, you will suffer losses, which will weaken your power. Further, most of your military force will have to move into their area, away from the defense of your home. You cant simultaneously make an attack big enough to matter, in the mid to late game, and also defend yourself. Thus, if you attack, you leave your backside completely exposed to another player, who can easily walk through and take your stuff, WITHOUT taking much losses, or having to commit all their troops. IN essence, a combat between two players creates a kind of power void, a hole of military strength into which all the fleets on the board will tend to move, to claim the undefendable land. Usually, fighting someone just means your other neighbor will be able ot move over and steal some of your planets (or even your home), as you wont be able to both leave adequate defenses and bring adequate offense to your attack.
This leads the game to devolve into an excercise in turtling, where players grab the land near them and then defend it fiercely, each player not being willing to make a move, but each ready to pounce on a moment of weakness (i.e. two others fighting). Its possible that some crazy final turn stab for a location necessary for a bonus victory condition will occur, but even then, its 6 hours of buildup for one event.
Early in the game, with a militaristic race, or enough luck/right cards, you might be able to make a crippling attakc on someone, and not suffer a return attack, or walk away with your fleet almost intact. Still, in this case, while it can be exciting, some player is just getting DESTROYED, simply because they happened to be next to you, and this player must sit there for HOURS in a hopeless position, waiting for the misery to end. Both outcomes and not particularly pleasing. One is boring, one is very painful for some of the players.
There desperately needs to be some impetus for combat in the midgame, and by that I mean some reason why combat is necessary and NOT self destructive to the winner. Due to the attrition nature of the combats, fighting a battle, winning but losing a significant amount of your guys, which will almost always happen in any significant battle in the mid to late game, causes attackin to almost never be the good move. The game should be more interesting if people play WELL, not if they play really poorly. Essentially, the entire combat system has a serious flaw, in that its a multiplayer attrition game, but not only that, there isnt a large reward for your conquests, unless you really wipe someone all the way out, which is very hard (and then, the player elimination-but-they-suffer-for-hours thing).
Because the game favors quantitiy of troops so much in combat, and combat causes significant losses even for the winner, almost all victories are pyrrhic, that is, they cost you much more than they gain.
The resulting turling/defensive/stall game, with various players afraid to attakc, and just sitting their near their home worlds, collecting resources, building, getting tech, and fulfilling various non-military victory point conditions, tend to be quite boring and unfulfilling, for its length. I could go play some german game for this, in an hour, and not have to play a game that takes 30-45 minutes per game turn, and around 6 hours to finish, to just sit there and build stuff and reach certain goals and never have much excitement or combat.
As an example of a multiplayer war game with a great, non-attrition based combat system I would give the example of A Game of Thrones (or, say, Diplomacy). People arent scared to attack in those...you dont sit there and turtle, because winning combats is GREAT for you, it doesnt destroy you...
The second flaw in the game, in my opinion, is the dryness of most of the victory conditions, and the brokenness (or mandatoryness) of the imperial card. Its cool that they tried to improve the victory condition system from TI2, but the new system just isnt very exciting. Essentially, you'll fulfill a few one point, fairly easy conditions as they come up over the course of the game, take imperial one or maybe two times, and maybe fulfill your secret objective or some bigger condition late in the game. Military conquest is not a factor in the vast majority of the point scoring. You could attack that guy and take his planets, but who really cares, after all, it wouldnt score you any points, and it'll destroy your military and leave you open. Or maybe you take his home world and screw him, and just maybe you have a card that scores points for that. Well, now the game TOLD me "you must go crush this guy". Too bad for that guy, who sat next to the player drawing that card. At least in TI2, you needed a number of planets to advance along the vicory chart, so you had to try and steal them from each other. Fighting that big battle to take those 2 planets might be the game right there! But now? Ok, you get another 2 resources and 3 influence a turn for the last couple turns of the game. Wow. The only reason to attack is because you have a card that tells you: go attack this spot. And even then, it could be self destructive, or you'll just wait for a final turn stab for it, and the game is 6 hours of preparing for one event.
The role choice mechanic looks really cool....and yet, Imperial gives you TWO POINTS. Its not just that its 20% of the way to a win. Its that its easy to get around 5-6 or so points from various easy conditions that come up over the course of the game, and really HARD to get a few more than that (without taking Imperial). You can spend your whole GAME working to achieve your secret victory points condition, and thats worth 2. Or just, 'oh my God, I got to take Imperial one more time than you, thus I get 2 more points and win'. Really, since about 6, or certainly 4, points will come relatively easily over the course of the game, getting Imperial once is really either a third or even HALF of the rest of the points you need to turn that into a win. If you let yourself be skipped in a round of everyone else taking Imperial, you are now 2 points behind everyone. You need your secret objective just to make up for that. Was that 3 trade goods or 3 cards or 4 coutners or even a tech worth as much as ALL THE EFFORT to achieve your secret victory condition!? I doubt it...
Not only that, but the first guy to pick the imperial for the second time needs only 6 points from other conditions, to have a win. At that point, it woud take someone else hitting 8 other points (a far, far harder task), to steal it. SO essentially, the first (and if he fails, the second) guy to take Imperial for the second time, will have a tremendous chance of winning the game, and anyone not taking it, and being skipped in the pass around of it is almost completely screwed.
Thus, if the guy to your right is speaker, and takes imperial, and you take anything other than initiative, then someone takes initiative behind you and then imperial the next turn, and you are skipped. SO you MUST take initiative. Thus, its a role choice mechanic, but the first player MUST pick Imperial or be screwed, and the second guy MUST pick Initiative or be screwed. Of the remaining choices, Technology is usually by far the best, and is picked third most of the time (though not always). Thus, you often have a full three roles just locked in, rotating around the table one space at a time. The only choice is in the bottom of the order. This just makes the role choice mechanic FAR less exciting.
Not that just changing Imperial to 1 point still causes problems...you need to decrease the win condition probably, to 8 or 9. Or else the game is much longer. I like the idea of the thing forcing the end of the game, acting as a clock, but this implementation is just so disappointing. So essentially, I feel that Imperial needs ot be changed, and the VP system also overhauled.
In addition, the secret victory conditions are significantly different in terms of difficulty, and often, a certain card will vary wildly in difficulty based on the board setup and locatin of the player. A card that is easy for someone almost hands them the game. A card thats impossible pretty much knocks you out of contention...because SOMEONE will get it and reace yo uto 10. Unless you are that guy who is lucky and gets Imperial an extra time than the others.
My third issue with the game is the ship types. They just seem imbalanced. Fighters are insanely powerful, in mass, and possibly in cojunction with a few bigger ships. Just the ability to take a lot of hits without losing important ships, and to be easily replacable for cheap, makes them indispensable. If you bring 5 dreadnaughts (25 resources) in agianst 3 carriers with 18 fighters (18 resources), you'll kill several on round 1, and a couple round 2, while they just tear you to pieces in about 2 rounds. You'll kill maybe 3 resources worth of fighter ships. This is about the only way to fight, and not taking expensive attrition losses. And yet, if they do it too, then you end up losing your fighter haord against their fighter hoard, and you get crushed by someone ELSES 20 fighters.
The bigger ships (dreadnaughts, cruisers), just seem extremely worthless (overcosted) in comparison. The only real disadvantage of the fighters is its hard to build enough of them, but then, thats what having 3 space docks is for. At least, you can AFFORD to build a ton of them. Destroyers at least get free shots against fighters, though you'll quickly face fleet limit problems. Essentially, I think that the bigger units need to cost less, or be better. Probably, some other bonus to the Cruiser, and Dreadnoughts costing 4 and getting +1 to their current attack. THe big dreadnought ability is supposed to be that it takes a hit for free without dying ,thus saving you casualties. Well, then why did they make a card (of which there are not a terribly uncommon number in the deck), that kills a dreadnaught/war sun that you just did one hit to? This makes the dreadnaughts a big gamble. You spend 5 on it, take your first hit on it to use its ability and save something else, and they play the card and you just lost a big ship as your first casualty...that couldve been a fighter at 1/10 the cost.
Another solution might be to have a limited number of fighters (like all the other ships), but as it is, you can essentially fight with 24 fighters, plus more if you have war suns.
Defensively, PDS are just incredible with deep space cannon, especially with the reroll tech. You drop 4 of them in one double planet system, and 2 in an adjacent system, in the middle of your cluster of planets, and you get SIX free shots, that reroll misses and hit 50% of the time (75% after reroll), against anyone attacking you. This further fuels the turtling strategy, and the lack of attacks against others in the mid to late game.
I just see so many problems with the combat system...
Moving on to the board setup. First of all, the planets seem to be balanced such that a resource and an influence are roughly equal, or the production is BARELY better. In reality, production is far FAR better than influence. You need a significant amount of production to both get techs and build a fleet ot defend yourself (let alone do anything to anyone else). Influence gets you a few more strategy, fleet, etc counters, for 3 each. Most of the laws are reasonably innocuous, and when something critical DOES come up, if it was going to go against you anyway, because they decided to screw you with it, then it doesnt matter than you have 15 votes and they have 9, they can easily gang up and vote you to be screwed. Occasionally it will gain you some cool advantage, due to a lead in influence, but this is far less than the benefit you'd get from having that 6 point influence lead be in industry instead. With production, you could get a fleet significantly larger than their, and either be able to make some attack and maybe hold enough defenses at home to hope to scare off potential attackers, or you can really crush someone. This tends to happen when a player gets high produciton planets next to one who gets low ones. The guy with double the production, because he got lucky and drew better planets at the start, just can crush the other one. And oh goodie, that guy had 6 more influence.
It gets worse from the fact that when you spend planets, use lose the votes that turn, so you can end up not even getting the influence benefit anyway. And you cant spend for both resources and influence (except of course, for a vote early, before oyu spend the planets). Thus, a bunch of 1/1 and 1/2 and stuff like that planets, is far, far worse than several 2/0 and 3/0s, and maybe one or two 0/3s, just to buy more counters.
Also, the way the board setup works, it will tend to leave certain players with severe shortages of industry planets, while others are abundant and have a significant advantage. If you have a bunch of blank tiles, its really hard to get enough planets near you, and you sit there trying to screw people. With a ton of planets, you get abundant resources near you. Generally SOMEONE will get screwed and SOMEONE will get lucky, and you'll start the game with severe differences in the power of the starting positions.
My next issue with the game is just the sheer length of time required to get anything accomplished. Generally, to get some attack going, you'll have to spend time getting the ships built, getting them together and moved out, and then attacking. This takes several game turns. And since each game turn is like 30-45 minutes, it can take you HOURS to get an attack going. Thats a lot of time to wait around to get something to happen. You'll generally spend 6 hours playing, and you spend most of the time building these cool little ship miniatures nad moving them around, and very, very little time actually using them to do ANYTHING.
The technology tree is my next source of discontent. There is all this cool stuff, but the game just doesnt last enough turns for you to relaly get any of it. And certainly, not long enough to get any of the higher level ones and really USE them before the game ends (except if you are Jol Nar).
Also, there are really only a couple good 'branches' of good techs, like the fighter path, the PDS path, the economy path, and you pretty much just have to follow one of them. Maybe I am being unrealistic in my expectations, but I always feel the desire to have more of the cool techs come into play, and soon enough in the game to maybe matter, but it just seems like you barely touch something really cool and everyone is at 9 points already.
I can just go on about things I dont like or want to fix. The action cards have a rediculously wide variation of strengths. Some do insane things like a trade good per planet outside your home, a ground toop per planet, force no one to be able to take initiative so you can take Imperial again next turn, etc. Or they just can screw you really hard, like steal half and destroy half of your trade goods, or blow up your space dock. While others are just WORTHLESS. Wow, my War Sun can do this bombardment thing. Who HAS a War Sun?
Anyway, in the end, I think the game carries a tremendous amount of baggage from the second edition, and a lot of problems are just carried over and not dealt with. The game length is still terribly long for how much GAME you get to do, how many things you get to accomplish. I feel that maybe some combination of changes might some of these things, but you would be hard pressed to make it so that the best strategy most of the time is to turtle for most of the game until the very end.
The one major overhaul they did do, the role selection mechanic and VP system, is mostly wrecked by the Imperial card and the forced selection of Imperial for pick 1 and Initiative for pick 2, makes it less than impressive.
I really wish I could like this game, but it really just felt painfully slow and boring to me while playing it, and I always felt that I couldnt attack or I would get destroyed, and that attacking really didnt get me anything anyway, I just needed to do the latest little victory thing like get 3 tech of the same color or spend 6 trade goods, and score my 2 points from Imperial as it rolls around to me.
Anyway, I expect this to get low ratings, becasue I dont like the game, and there seem to be a bunch of ravenous TI maniacs giving it entirely 10s, for what reason I cant relaly tell, but thats how I feel....
Comments, flames? 
-
Jack Wraith
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
I rated it a '4'. Am I a 'non-believer/fanatic/whatever'? No. I haven't bought the game yet and I never played TI2, but I always enjoyed watching the latter and, after reading the rules, and pages of testimony here and on FFG, I'm pretty sure that I am going to buy it and likely enjoy it.
You mention the various problems with the combat system: the easy access to powerful PDS, the seeming superiority of fighter-based fleets vs. capital ship-based, the problem in massive fleet combats wiping out both players, etc. All of those add up to the same thing: move faster.
I'm not saying that to be flippant but to present what I have referred to in the last couple years as the 'Warcraft 3' answer to turtling: move faster. When Blizzard designed WC3, they did it with a few express intentions, one of which was to prevent turtling and the mass army slugfests and endless games that were Starcraft's only major weakness. Thus, in WC3, if you turtle, you die, because you're spending your limited initial resources on defense while your opponent is raiding you with 2 or 3 units and hampering the production of those defenses. Meanwhile, he's also gathering more resources to really put the hammer down in the later game. The analogy is far from perfect for a number of reasons, but the basic truth remains the same: you must move and engage the other players, whether diplomatically or militarily. If you don't, everyone will sit back and tech and turtle and the game will be decided by who gets the Imperial card most often.
Oddly enough, you (and many others) complain about the 'game playing you' phenomenon in that the game seems to encourage the static routine of strategy card selection. However, you turn right about and seem to want the game to 'force' you into combat earlier to prevent that mid-game turtling slowdown. The funny thing is that there's nothing preventing you from going after other players on your own recognizance. You don't need the game to tell you to do it. And reports seem to be growing of people playing games wherein the most frequent selector of Imperial does not win, because choosing other roles allowed people to achieve those difficult secret and public objectives. And, to be honest, I found myself a little surprised that you want a combat encouragement mechanic when the overall tone of your review seems to be that you're most interested in a combat-oriented game, which TI3 apparently CAN be, but is not limited to that.
As a player of Game of Thrones, I submit that attacking certainly CAN be devastating to the attacker, depending upon what cards are played. One bad attack can set in motion a chain of events that finds you reeling backwards. The saving grace? The fact that you can recover in later turns. I'm a long-time (and rather hardcore) GW and especially 40K player. There are many times when I've attacked and felt the sting of defeat and felt like my strategy was unraveling. Why? Because I can't get those points back in a game of 40K. You play with what you brought and if you lose a 500-point unit, it's gone. There are no turns to recover. In TI3, as in Game of Thrones, recovery should be a distinct possibility, so long as you did not wait until the turtling phase and then drop all your eggs in one basket. A turn through the Logistics or Diplomacy card should buy you enough time and/or resources to resist your opponent even if you lose a system to the inevitable counter-attack (of course, waiting to attack until an opponent has passed isn't such a bad idea, either.)
I agree that Fighters may be slightly overpowered, especially with Tech advances, and that Dreadnoughts may be slightly underpowered, especially given the Direct Hit cards, and that PDS may be slightly overpowered with the right races. However, all of those are quirks that can be addressed by house rules if people choose. They also may be the result of this being a very recent release and people not having experience with the game. There may be a proper use for Dreads and/or a proper counter-measure to Fighter build-up that simply hasn't been explored. This happens every time a new army gets released for 40K. The cries begin immediately: "It's cheesy!" "Overpowered!" "GW has no idea what they've unleashed!" A few months later, the silence becomes deafening, as people learned the army and started to find the weaknesses in it. Even more appropriately, sometimes a unit initially dismissed out of hand becomes workable. I play Necrons in 40K and started immediately upon release. Through my first few games, although I liked Wraiths, I dismissed them as 'too specialized' for about a year. Then, as the local grand tournament approached, I decided to take that army and felt firm about the idea that I would learn to use Wraiths. I put the onus on ME, rather than the GAME, to see if I could teach myself something while I 'trained' intensively with my Necrons. The result? They performed spectacularly. I didn't learn anything 'new' about them, but I simply learned HOW to use them better. The same MAY be true for Dreads and against PDS and Fighters. We'll have to see.
You also must realize that even though dead areas on the board hamper the development of that player, it also protects them from overt aggression by most of the other players. I've already read at least one account of someone winning the game with the Naalu without ever having engaged in a battle. If I read your tone appropriately, and you ARE looking for a combat-exclusive game, that may not be what you want to hear. But it's certainly within the realm of the game, and intentionally so, I believe.
As for the length: well, it's an epic game. Another game that you cite positively (War of the Ring) can also be quite lengthy and can also be one where it takes longer than it seems it 'should' to accomplish certain goals, based on the results of the dice (I remember sitting through three straight turns without a Muster result, desperately wanting to move my Shadow nations to war and being stymied.) For all that people complain about TI3s length, I'm amazed that they didn't realize what they were in for based simply on the size of the thing and all the possibilities inherent in its basic function. Yes, it's going to be an epic game and one that should be remembered; a lot like playing Talisman with all the expansions and 6 players. If you don't like epic games, well, this is probably not for you.
As I said, I rated your review as a '4' because I think it raised some salient points. But I think most of those points have ready answers; the primary one being that if your group is not the aggressive type, or likes to be on inestimably sure footing before venturing against each other, you might want to try either including your own house rules that somehow make people move more quickly or try to encourage your group to interact more on a communicative/diplomatic level (e.g. Diplomacy.)
-
Carl de Visser
New Zealand
Lower Hutt
Wellington
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
The main issue you have with the imperial strategy is that it is overvalued compared to other victory point sources. Instead of trying to mess with the imperial stratey VP (which isn't granular enough to mess with anyway), it might be possible to mess with other vp sources.
If each objective was worth 1 more point, then they are more worthwhile. You might need to play to 11, but this reduces the imperial strategy a little, but doesn't completely nerf it.
The issue with imperial strategy seems to come up more with 5-6 players (I haven't got my copy yet, this is all from reading BGG), with 4 it seems tempered by having less control over the speaker token.
If none of that works then I'd be tempted to play that taking the capitol is always worth 1 VP, and holding it at the beginning of a turn is also worth 1vp. That should cause some carnage.
-
Jim R
United States
California
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
Much of your review sounds like the issues I had with second edition (except of course the role selection and VP stuff which werent in that edition).
Turtling was a common complaint for TI2, and can be a problem in many multiplayer free-for-all wargames: combat that weakens the participants and lets other untouched players swoop in for victory. I was hoping that the new VP objectives would solve some of that, and hoped mid-game combat would be encouraged because of objectives. But from your review, it sounds like the objective cards might have a few balance issues. It sounds like the VP amounts on some of them might need to be increased? But I dont have the game yet and havent seen the cards personally.
A balanced board was also a problem in TI2-- it seemed that so much of the game outcome depended on whether you got a lot of good planets near your home system. If the board setup procedure hasnt changed, then I expect that still to be an issue. We adopted rules to give a more balanced map.
I was hoping that TI3 would emphasize voting and influence more, since it seemed weak in TI2, and the voting rounds are one of the most fun parts of the game. Political cards maybe should have more consequence. From your review, it sounds like politics may not have been emphasized in TI3 to the extent I was hoping.
I thought the tech tree in TI2 needed some help-- some techs seemed far more valuable than others. And it took far too long to get any of the later techs (techs were too expensive). It sounds like there may still be some problems in TI3 about getting to higher techs. I was going to adopt a house rule in TI2 that each player starts the game with X free techs so that some of the later ones could be bought and experienced, but we feared that this would advantage some races too much.
Well, I have already ordered TI3, and will have to experience for myself whether there are too many leftover problems from TI2. I suppose many issues can be corrected with house rules, but playtesting house rules for balance can be a hassle. The Age of Empire variant in the TI3 rules might also be interesting to try.
-
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
-
Re:User Review
First let me say I've only played TI1.
Alexfrog wrote,
Quote: once people build up fleets of any significant size, say midgame or later, that if you attack someone, even if you crush them, you will tend to take enough casualties doing it (and as a result of their subsequent ire), that someone else will be able to come in and roll over you, and you wont be able to stop them What this is telling me is that late in the game combat doesn't work if each player is out for themselves, but how does it play if alliances are in use? Can a player set up an ally for a win by doing this?
Where I'm going with all this is strong player interaction rarely works in any combat game with more than two sides -- If the play style of a group of players is "everyone tries to win on their own" in particular. Does the game have any team win scenarios? How about alliance rules to keep a player safe while they fight a war on one front? If not then I think its going to work for some groups and fail for others. Its up to the diplomatic maturity of the players involved to play the game in such a way to get through this (and in todays anti-kingmaker age there are few groups that know how to do this).
Whatever happened to the games that use to include a strategy rules section on how to handle diplomacy in the game? IMO, the greater the interactive nature the greater the need for a formal set of alliance rules. I miss Pax Britannica sometimes.
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
Jackwraith wrote:
Oddly enough, you (and many others) complain about the 'game playing you' phenomenon in that the game seems to encourage the static routine of strategy card selection. However, you turn right about and seem to want the game to 'force' you into combat earlier to prevent that mid-game turtling slowdown.
Hmm. I guess that its just that I find the conquest aspect of the game to be the only one thats actually very interesting. The VP system is far more basic and less intesting than those from a ton of different german style games, which all take far less time. What I see TI as being about is being a 4x game in boardgame form....you expand, work your way up a tech tree, and try to conquer people. Thats whats cool. Thus I feel that conquest should be important to winning the game, whereas I find that usually it is not, and in fact, is often detrimental to one's own success.
The funny thing is that there's nothing preventing you from going after other players on your own recognizance.
There is. I could attack you, but it would cost me much of my fleet and leave myself open for anyone to walk in and take my stuff. Even if I 'won' the combat with you, it would probably harm me. If its almost never strategically correct to engage in combat, then when played well (which is what I care about), it wont happen much, and then its boring.
And, to be honest, I found myself a little surprised that you want a combat encouragement mechanic when the overall tone of your review seems to be that you're most interested in a combat-oriented game, which TI3 apparently CAN be, but is not limited to that.
Again, I think the tactics and combat is the interesting part of the game. But whenever I play anything, I want to play it well. I dont want to make a stupid move that looks more fun. Thus, I want the game to be such that playing good moves leads to interesting games, and not that the only way to get an interesting game is for some bad moves to be played.
As a player of Game of Thrones, I submit that attacking certainly CAN be devastating to the attacker, depending upon what cards are played. One bad attack can set in motion a chain of events that finds you reeling backwards.
Yes, if you LOSE. But attacking and winning the battles is nearly always excellent for you. Thats how it should be. Winning battles should be beneficial. Thus you are trying to position such that you can win battles.
As for the length: well, it's an epic game. Another game that you cite positively (War of the Ring) can also be quite lengthy
90 minutes for War of the Ring (the average time it takes me to play a game now), doesnt really compare to 6 hours. Maybe you could get TI down to 4 with really experienced players, but thats still a completely different ballpark. Plus, overall I feel that a lot of things happen in that War of the Ring game, and quite a few combats, stuff with the fellowship, etc. Whereas in TI, it takes several times as long and it feels much longer between big, interesting events.
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
wtrollkin2000 wrote:
What this is telling me is that late in the game combat doesn't work if each player is out for themselves, but how does it play if alliances are in use? Can a player set up an ally for a win by doing this?
They probably could. I proposed a teams TI variant in a thread, which I think might fix most of my problems with the game.
As it is, there are no rules for winning as a team, or for alliances.
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
CarldeV wrote:
The issue with imperial strategy seems to come up more with 5-6 players (I haven't got my copy yet, this is all from reading BGG), with 4 it seems tempered by having less control over the speaker token.
I've played twice with 4. It was definitely the same.
If someone wants to claim that the Imperial strategy (take it first if possible, if not, take initiative if possible to take it later), is not essential, to having a chance at winning, then I propose they take this test:
Try to be the one guy who doesnt take imperial/initiative. Take whatever other thing you think is ever better than these. See if you have a hope of reaching 10vps to win the game before the others. I predict that you will have approximately zero chance of winning.
Secondly, if your group DOESNT take imperial/initiative every time they can, be the guy that always takes imperial if possible, and if not that, then initive if possible to get it next time. If you end up getting it more than your fair share of the time, in this way, see if you have a large %age chance of winning. (Essentially, I think all you'd need to do is defend your home world and right next to it, and score a few 1vp objectives, plus take imperial several times).
-
Jack Wraith
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Re:User Review
Hmm. I guess that its just that I find the conquest aspect of the game to be the only one thats actually very interesting.
OK. Well, there's part of our answer: you do want a 'wargame' in essence, but generally more interactive than the standard grognard games. Nothing wrong with that. It might just be that TI3 is not it for you.
Thus I feel that conquest should be important to winning the game, whereas I find that usually it is not, and in fact, is often detrimental to one's own success.
At this point, the only thing I can say is that this flies in the face of all the posts about wins by the Sardakk N'Orr and even military wins by the Jol-Nar. But, of course, every group is different, and if your group is more cut-and-dried in their approach to combat (and winning) there might not be a suitable answer.
There is. I could attack you, but it would cost me much of my fleet and leave myself open for anyone to walk in and take my stuff.
But that's the risk you take in any game of combat, even Game of Thrones. If you win a battle and take King's Landing but the opponent played a card with sufficient Swords to leave you with one unit, you now have to decide: Do I take KL or stay in Harrenhal? That's part of the beauty of the planning orders in that you have to rely on what MIGHT happen, and if you plan your March orders properly, you CAN reinforce. However, if you don't or if another player now attacks one of your weakened reinforcing territories, you may suffer (That's why I prefer the Raven out of the 3 tokens.) TI3 seems to be the same way with its 'system activation' procedure. I've seen more than one report about the Xxcha sweeping in and conquering a system and then turning about and exercising the primary ability on the Diplomacy card and preventing the recently-conquered from coming back at them. The same could be done against anyone who was in position to threaten them.
Also, I was suggesting that you go out BEFORE everyone builds up huge fleets. If you break through with 2 Cruisers and a Destroyer, good news. If you don't, you've probably lost the Destroyer but can withdraw and Destroyers are cheap. If you go into every fight with the 'win at all costs' mindset, you will get frustrated. There's nothing like a strategic retreat.
But whenever I play anything, I want to play it well. I dont want to make a stupid move that looks more fun.
Well, here's the old conundrum: Do you play games to have fun, or to win? If you only play to win, then my guess is that you might be better served by the aforementioned 'grognard' games (aka Squad Leader, et al.) In most of those the parameters are very closely controlled, randomness is at a minimum, and the possibility exists that there is only one 'good move'. I have a hard time believing that in your case, given that you say that you enjoy WotR and the possible moves and outcomes in that game on a turn-by-turn basis, given random dice, cards, and board movement is considerable, even if the eventual goals are always the same.
Thus, I want the game to be such that playing good moves leads to interesting games, and not that the only way to get an interesting game is for some bad moves to be played.
In decades of playing games, and much of that time playing dice-based miniatures games, I've always found that a)I learn far more about myself and the game from a loss; and, b) many of my losses have been very interesting games (my last game at the aforementioned 40K GT was my only loss but the best of the weekend) and some of those losses have come from my taking risks; sometimes extreme risks that everyone around me shakes their head over. But when it pays off...
Again, I'm not trying to sell you on TI. If you don't like it, you don't like it. My best suggestion at this point would be to find another group of people willing to play the game and see how it turns out with a new mix of people who may not turtle, may be willing to take risks, and may not be as concerned with winning as you. In my experience, it's good to have people who want to win in order to 'have fun', but it's good to have a few people that just want to play, as well.
-
Jonathan Fried
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
Well, I really appreciate the dialogue on here, and I would be sorry to see it deteriorate into flames because I find it very helpful. I never played TI or TI2. I recently got TI3 and have not yet played it, but I am looking forward to it immensely.
I guess, out of complete ignorance, I had the following thoughts Alex's arguments:
Isn't it inconsistent to say attacking leaves you over exposed, but at the same time the PDF system is overstrong and further encourages turtling?
I follow your points about someone having a VP leg up with the Imperial strategy -- but it's not just that passing on Imperial means you are "behind" in victory points, shouldn't you be in a position to smack the Imperial player too? That's just my sense. And as Jackwraith intimated, isn't this somewhat cured through diplomacy? I.e. if someone is sprinting out in VPs taking Imperial, isn't he painting a big bullseye on himself? I mean, there are elements of this dynamic in AGoT, Mare Nostrum, etc. -- and to my mind, it gets cured with bash-the-leader diplomacy. Are you saying the other strategies don't let the players compensate/retaliate?
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
Jackwraith wrote:
But that's the risk you take in any game of combat, even Game of Thrones. If you win a battle and take King's Landing but the opponent played a card with sufficient Swords to leave you with one unit, you now have to decide: Do I take KL or stay in Harrenhal?
In game of thrones, you never lose units when you win the battle....any swords (lose a unit) effects on the opponents card do nothing. If that wasnt the case, then game of thrones owuld have the same problem, and I would complain about it in that game too.
Also, I was suggesting that you go out BEFORE everyone builds up huge fleets. If you break through with 2 Cruisers and a Destroyer, good news. If you don't, you've probably lost the Destroyer but can withdraw and Destroyers are cheap. If you go into every fight with the 'win at all costs' mindset, you will get frustrated. There's nothing like a strategic retreat.
Yeah, I think this is essential. If youre going to attack someone, you better do it while fleets are still tiny, so that you might walk away wihtout losing much at all.
Well, here's the old conundrum: Do you play games to have fun, or to win?
I want to play a game that is fun to play, in a way that gives you a good chance of winning. And, it should be fun wether you win or lose (though most people have more fun when they win).
I'll stick with my favorite Reiner Knizia quote: "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning".
The purpose of playing the game is to achieve the goal of the game. The process of achieving that goal, or at least attempting to, should be fun. The person who best achieves that goal then 'wins'. Winning or losing is then a measure of how successfully you achieved the goal of the game. Additional enjoyment then comes from achieving the goal successfully, or from learning how to do so (often from a loss that tought you things).
Essentially, for TI, I find the process to go about achieving the goal of the game (10vps) to be kindof boring. The thing in the game that I find most interesting (conquest) is something which I personally find to not help all that much in achieveing the goal of the game, most of the time. Obviously SOMETIMES it does. But not nearly often enough, imo. And so often it is detrimental, due to the attrition nature of combat.
-
Michael Evans
United States
Unspecified
Indiana
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85957),
I would argue that losing a few ships early on in this game, is far more detrimental to a fledgeling empire than losing a fleet when you have 2 or 3 others just like it sitting around.
Furthermore, the fact that war is attrition based in this game is exactly WHY I love it. It forces you to think very carefully and use cooperation to accomplish your military goals. It is possible, but very difficult, to shrug off attacks from two players simultaneously. It's virtually impossible to fend off three other players. The players who team up can commit less to the conflict and still watch their backs, and will suffer fewer casualties than the player who is being doubleteamed. Some of the objectives do simply require you to do something fairly boring (spend 10 resources or 6 trade goods), true. Some may be impossible to achieve unless you take a planet (or three) from other players. Holding those planets isn't as important as achieving your objective, then getting the heck out of Dodge before you get punished for it!
This game is about exploration, sure. It's about combat, ok. But mostly, in my opinion, this game is about wheeling and dealing. You accomplish many goals by cooperation or backstabbing.
I have won this game without firing a shot. I have won as Jol Nar with a military victory. It was not perfect technical execution that won me these victories. I talked my way into them. If that's not your kind of game, it's not your kind of game.
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
Jonbone wrote:
Alexfrog (#85205),
Isn't it inconsistent to say attacking leaves you over exposed, but at the same time the PDF system is overstrong and further encourages turtling?
I should explain that more, yes.
If one builds up the PDS systems with the appropriate technology, it can get 4 to 6 free attacks at start of combat against any fleet attacking you, with rerolls on misses. This can get 4-5 hits on average. This makes attacking the player with the PDS defenses nearly impossible, if he maintains his fleet in his area.
If you attempt to attack someone, you will tend to need your entire or almost your entire fleet, in order to be successful. (And a part of that fleet will need to be several carriers full of fighters, if your in the mid to late game). If one then takes their entire fleet for an attack, their remaing defenses will not be sufficient to hold off someone, even if they do have PDS.
I believe this to be true, though maybe I'm wrong. Its just my experience that that is how it works once large fleets get built up.
but it's not just that passing on Imperial means you are "behind" in victory points, shouldn't you be in a position to smack the Imperial player too? That's just my sense. And as Jackwraith intimated, isn't this somewhat cured through diplomacy? I.e. if someone is sprinting out in VPs taking Imperial, isn't he painting a big bullseye on himself?
Yes, BUT, gaining the rest of the points is relatively easy, if you get imperial several times. If you get imperial 3 times, you hsould have no trouble winning unless your homeworld is taken (so that you cant score points). Thus, they dont just have to beat you down a bit, they have to DESTROY you. If you focus everything you have on defense, and then take imperial a couple extra times, you have a large chance of winning. No its not certain, its just that doing the imperial thing greatly, greatly increases your chances, versus those who dont do it. Also, the other players wont want to be the first one to attack you, as that first guy who attacks you is going to lose his fleet to your defenses, and will be open to being crushed by the player on his other side. Its the second guy who attacks you who reaps all the benefits, so how do you decide who has to bite the bullet and attack you first?
When you have a lot of points due to having taken imperial extra times than your fair share, if you lose several fringe planets, you might not even care, so long as you cna still make it to 10vps. This is different from TI 2, where you need a certain number of planets to win, and thus to stop you they could take your border worlds and then you couldnt win. Now, its HARDER to stop you, since those points are permanent, and many are achievable for doing cery simple things that you can do with only a few planets left, or by just taking Imperial.
I mean, there are elements of this dynamic in AGoT, Mare Nostrum, etc. -- and to my mind, it gets cured with bash-the-leader diplomacy. Are you saying the other strategies don't let the players compensate/retaliate?
Again, in AGoT, victory is 7 cities. They can take your cities to put you farther from it. Mare Nostrum is 3 wonders, and wonders cost sets of 9. They can reduce you to less than 9 production, so you cant get another one.
But in TI3, they pretty much have to take your home to stop you from scoring more points, and they cant take your points away from you once you get them. Some of the conditions are really easy (most 1 pointers), and some are hard (the 2+ pointers). You will tend to be able to do some of the 1 pointers even if they have partially beaten you down. And those plus taking imperial 3 times is a win. If nothing else, you could just wait several turns and have imperial come around to you again...
-
Jonathan Fried
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
Here's an ISC variant from someone who has not yet played, so I offer it with the biggest grain of salt.
If the problem is that the ISC simply aggregates 2 vps each turn which no one can touch, why not play that the card doesn't give 2 VPs, but removes 2 VPs from each other player? The relative effect of the ISC player vis-a-vis the other players is unchanged (except for players with 1 or 0 VPs, but that seems unobjectionable). This way, the ISC strategy can NEVER result in a win by itself, but it has the same effect relative to other players. I guess it defeats the clock aspect of this card. So, maybe you change it so that the ISC gives 1 VP and removes 1 VP from everyone else. Again, the same relative effect, but not in a way that moves someone 60% of the way to victory after 3 turns of ISC.
Just a thought.
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
Jonbone (#85976),
Here's an ISC variant from someone who has not yet played, so I offer it with the biggest grain of salt.
Yeah, if you want the game to take as long to play in real life, as the amount of time being represented in the game! Lets see, each turn you take Imperial to cost everyone 2 points, and then you try to score 1-2 points on the turn. Is it, anyone who ends up with a positive score after X turns wins?
-
Steve Malczak
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85971),
You are 100% correct in your evaluation of the ISC and its implications on victory. Thankfully, there are few things you can do about it:
1) Play with the ISC giving only 1 point. This is soon to be an official Variant anyways.
2) Remove it altogether. From there simply flip up an objective card every turn or play the Age of Empire option and have the objectives face up.
Either of those will remove the problem with the first not even being a 'house rule' (I know a lot people gripe at having to use house rules to 'fix' a game that they paid money for).
As far as conflicts:
Part of the problem is stemming from the ISC and lack of direction from objectives. Again, try Age of Empire. That puts out a fair number of harder to accomplish objectives that tend to require conflict to accomplish.
Learning to attack successfully in this game is difficult. You have to do something to achieve superiority at the conflict point. You can do this by:
1) Having appropriate Action Cards
2) Picking the Warfare Strat. This alone can ensure bringing more to point of attack by allowing a build/move of the same system or allowing a 2 part attack.
3) Picking the Logistic Strat. Drop all 4 in Fleet Supply and merge two fleets into one huge attack force, preferably on the enemy!
4) Making a deal with the neighbor on the other side to allow you to concentrate on one side only. This is easier in this edition with the Trade Contracts and can even be enforced with the Diplomacy Strat.
None of these is a magic wand that will make you win the combats, but used judiciously any or all will increase the chances of victory.
This game is supposed to give the feeling of epic combat and empire building. War between great empires are probably going to involve some attrition combat. The most satisfying attacks are the 'decapitation strikes' that can occasionally be pulled off by good planning and some luck. But barring that, you have pit your econ management and strategic skills against those of your opponent.
As mentioned above, the goal for your war usually does not have to be total annihilation your of your neighbor. Often occupying a few worlds or destroying a few Space Docks is what you need to accomplish an objective. The whole point of the war should be to gain points, not wipe out the enemy. You win with the points, so take what you need and get out unless you think you can hold on to it all.
All of these types of games are about balance of power. Everyone is trying to accomplish essentially the same things. It often just requires a clever power play here or there to pull off the win.
Hope it helps!
-
Jim Patching
United Kingdom
Cardiff
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
I kinda agree with a lot of what you've said here. I bought this last week and have only had a chance to play it once (which is why I haven't rated it yet)but I have to say I was a little disappointed. The main reason for this disappointment is that we played for 5 or 6 hours and nothing particularly significant seemed to happen. That's not to say my group disliked it - it was more a case of after 5 hours everyone's interest was starting to flag and it felt as though the game hadn't really got going (even though several players were a fair way up the victory point chart by this time).
Having said that, I'm still hopeful this is a game I can grow to love. There was a lot about it I liked and I feel that once we get to know the system a little better and our games run more smoothly it'll be a more satisfying experience. Like a few other people have said, I think the key is to move quickly and indulge in lots of early border skirmishes. If you're going to try an all-out war with another player, don't do it on your own - build a coalition. The whole player interaction aspect of this game seems to me to be its primary strength.
-
Alex Rockwell
United States
Bothell
Washington
-
Re:User Review
panzer-attack (#85993),
One thing I have noted regarding early bordser skirmishes. First of all, they seem like they could work, and you might not lose their fleet.
However, almost everyone in my groups reaction to someone trying to crush them early is: "If you hit me this early, and knock me down so that I have almost no chance of winning, I promise that I'll spend the rest of the game trying to screw you in every possible way, to get back at you".
This can then be followed by a listing of several immediate negative effects that will occur, often due to action cards, such as: "you will lose X spacedock, you will lose Y ground troop on that planet, costing you the colony, I will steal your trade goods, at a time you build up a number of them, I will bribe people with my trade goods to vote against you at a time when it will really screw you, plus I'll play this card for 10 votes to make it work for sure", and so on...
When someone looks quite threatening to me, or is going to hit me with something which really screws me, I just list off every thing I can immediately do to screw them, and say: 'these are added costs of your making that decision, do you REALLY want to?'.
Game 1 that I played, the player to my right (player A) quickly attacked the player 2 spots to my right (player B), and really screwed him (wiped his fleet (there was a no-retreat law in play)), took his good system, and he (player B) didnt have much of any ships left. Player A had a strong position. Player B then spent the entire game trying to screw that guy who had attacked him, even foregoing trying to score points (had he tried to score points after that, he still had almost no chance, so he wasnt exactly giving up anything). I helped player B out by attacking and taking some of the planets of the player A, and when they fought, I helped player B in combat by playing sabotage on player A's combat bonus card, then playing Direct hit on him when he took a hit on his dreadnaught (it doesnt say you cant play it in others battles).
The attacker successfully made an early attack against a neighbor, and was rewarded by ending the game with 1 planet left, as by attacking he both: 1) earned the ire of the player he attacked, and thus that player devoted his entire game to screwing him and also: 2) left himself completely open for me to invade with a small force, and conquer 4 of his planets. (He had nothing in the area to defend, and then when he got something, player B went and attacked it and mutually annihilated it and his fleet).
Following that, we have had two games where all players were so scared to death to attack, that no combat happened until the final turn of the game (and many of those were just 'what the heck, I dont care anymore', type of combats).
So you have to ask before you attack, are you going to be able to really take that guy out? Or will he live and then just spend his game trying to remove any chance of my winning?
If someone were to screw me really bad with an early attack, such that I have no chance, I WILL devote the entire game to preventing them from winning, (possibly involving giving everything else I have to my other neighbor, on purpose, while using everything I have left to screw that first guy who screwed me). (If they attack me when I am ahead, and it just knocks me back to the pack, of course, thats completely different. As is a small attack that doesnt knock me out, but just gives them some advantage. But if they change me from having a reasonable chance of winning, to having basically no chance, then I devote all effort to preventing their win).
The most exciting of the three games by far was the first (and even then, the other half of the board was pretty dull). And that excitement was caused by someone making an attack which resulted in their complete annihilation. So the excitement was caused by someone making a bad strategic move.
-
Dead Eye Dick
United States
San Francisco
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85205),
Without getting into a whole diatribe myself, I will say this:
1) The game is not for everyone - and that's fine. TI3 brings a particular experience to the table (though it can be modified by the use of variants and house rules to a degree) - and that isn't going to appeal to everyone (and thankfully, it shouldn't). So yeah, maybe it isn't your cup of coffee.
2) The game is ALL about timing. From the selection of strategy cards to when you commit forces to attack, it all boils down to when you do something. This is incredibly strategic - and I think a lot of people miss this reality.
Attacking can be incredibly beneficial to you - in such a wide variety of ways - even perhaps when you lose a bulk of your forces. What really determines the viability of a maneuver (including the selection of the strategy cards) is WHEN it occurs.
And that timing is informed by:
1) Your choice of strategy card, (which itself is informed by the cards desirabilities and your relation to the speaker that turn).
2) When you elect to make a given maneuver - in direct relationship to your opponents/allies ability to respond. This extends from when you elect to play the strategy card you have (maybe you choose to play the Politics card such that most of the other players have already exhausted their political capital to ensure you control the agenda) to when you activate a system.
I guess my point is this: you have to be incredibly aware of what's on the table, what you have and what your opponents/allies are capable of doing & specifically when they could do it - and then make a timely decision to optimize your abilities and choices.
So - yeah, somepeople might consider this limitation of time as being "the game playing you" - but I see it as a framework by which your actions and decisions are governed. Every game has a framework that you play within. I wouldn't call TI3's restrictive in any sense, but it does have certain limitations that enforce these timing considerations.
-
Steve Malczak
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85999),
I should think that any game of this type that your group plays will result in the same problems. Any multiplayer game where there is conflict and diplomacy is open to the same issues.
Part of the problem that you are probably seeing is a result of the new turn sequence and integrated play. It makes it kind of hard to surprise someone and land the death blow. They can see your build up or movement and often react.
But as I said above, you HAVE to take some measure to secure your other border. Did he offer you anything not to attack him? Trade Goods? A planet? Votes in the next election? Anything? If not, its his own fault.
If he DID offer you something, now you have at least some advantage over the player on your other side and its also obvious that you no longer need to worry about the first guy. That leave YOU available to go attack. If he in turn gives concessions to the player on his other side that frees THAT guy up to attack. If he cant, then he failed in the diplomacy where YOU succeeded. Thats what this game really is...
If there is no effective diplomacy between the players, a game of this type is never going to work. You seem like you really understand the game mechanics, so I cant imagine that this point is lost on you. Is your group really just that uncooperative?
-
Mark Roberts
United States
Sunnyvale
California
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85999),
I have just purchased the game after reading a lot of great reviews and now after reading the article have become a little discouraged.
I have never played any version of TI.
What drew me to this game was the idea of German mechanics fusing with good ol' American strategy games.
So I will be playing this extensively at "Dundracon" ( www.dundracon.com) this weekend for those of you who would like to join I will be in the "open gaming" area.
Now, my idea on the turtling problem:
We could steal a strategy from the CCG games like "Magic the Gathering" where one of my favorite game types was "5 way collapsible"
With five players the game is a "free for all" but when the first player is killed the game collapses into two teams.
The politics get very interesting when players try to make themselves look stronger and hence a better partner to their opponents.
So like a pack of hungry wolves people look for the weak link and try to kill them off.
I know this sounds cruel.. but hey this is war man!
And then there are variants such as the "Emperor" where its a team of three on three but the middle player is the "emperor"
The emperor could hand off units for his "generals" to control and spend resources on political influence.
Like I said, I haven't played the game yet so I'll give you my full report next week.
-Mark
-
Andy B
United States
Unspecified
Ohio
-
Re:User Review
I will never understand what people have against "turtle-ing". It's a legitimate stratagy that needs to be countered when encountered. Have none of the turtle ninnies ever watched bicycle racing before? Now there one can see turtle-ing in action. I say get over it already! If you're that smart and that good then you should be able to win no matter what the strategy thrown at you.
-
Lorenzo Mele
Italy
Milano
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
A possible solution to the advantage being first and then being able to exploit more the 2VP bonus role:
Randomly draw as many races as players, and let the players to choose them starting with the player who will be last in the first turn, followed by the others in reversed turn order. The player going first will have the race left.
-
Paul Ollenberger
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
-
Re:User Review
Alexfrog (#85999),
You need some new players. My group is more about the "mega-alliances" were it usually ends up like how you describe "team-TI". The 3 players not touching each other form and alliance verses the other 3 not touching each other and each alliance will usually bend over backwards for their members because if someone goes down it will be 3 on 2, and then innevitably 3 on 1. So even if you get attacked early in our games you know that someone will at least give you some money to help rebuild.
The dual alliance also works all right when two players beside each other deside to make a mutually beneficial boarder and only concentrate on the players on the other side...but if they get too big they'll face a 4 on 2 situation.
You need to diplomasize your group a bit more it seems.
-
Jim Campbell
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Markybooo wrote:
What drew me to this game was the idea of German mechanics fusing with good ol' American strategy games.
The designers clearly knew some mechanics from the German school of game design, and had seen some elegant and effective design before. That's obviously what they were aspiring toward in many of their decisions. Unfortunately, they've failed to include any fully-realized examples of such in this game. For example:
1. At some point in the design process, they almost certainly had given the larger ship types more damage capacity. Later on, someone thought "we can get rid of these fiddly damage counters by simply making all damage capacities either 1 or 2". That simplification works if one actually re-balances the ship costs and capabilities to account for it, but they don't appear to have bothered with that.
2. Letting every ship move once works OK, but then you must mark within each space which ships have moved/not moved. Someone decided to simplify that with this command counter concept. It has advantages, but since marking a system also builds in that system and "moves" all the existing units in that system, trying to optimize multi-stage moves is a train wreck. It's common for players to spend several minutes trying to figure out how to optimize simple tasks. As in #1, they reduced the physical fiddliness of the game, but also made it a lot less fun to play.
3. The whole interaction between the tech tree and the costs/benefits of the ship types seems to have been tweaked and tweaked without actually fixing it. In a fleet system with several ship types, there should be obvious advantages to launching mixed forces. Actually, I'll go further and say that a decent fleet system should make it essential to do so. TI3 does not accomplish that.
-
|
|
