Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
-
I just became aware of Terra Nova. I read everything I could find about it, ordered it yesterday, and I'm really excited about playing it once it arrives. What I was *not* able to find (and was kinda surprised and disappointed with) is that there does not seem to be an online implementation of this game ANYWHERE. The three Euro-games I've heard Terra Nova most compared to all have online homes (which I've played and enjoyed): "Hey! That's My Fish" is at Yucata.de; "Through the Desert" is at Ludagora.net; and "Clans" is at Marquand.net.
Terra Nova really deserves to have a place for gamers to square off. Does anyone know where this can be played online?
Thanks,
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
It's a cool game, but be sure to read the forum threads about the great confusion surrounding the game end condition.
-
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
-
Yeah, I read about the end of game controversy. A too-simple solution I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is to require each player to play at least one pioneer in each of the 8 terrain types.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
qswanger wrote: Yeah, I read about the end of game controversy. A too-simple solution I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is to require each player to play at least one pioneer in each of the 8 terrain types.
That could mean the game "hangs", technically unable to finish ... a type of terrain could be cut off from one (or theoretically even all) players.
-
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "hangs". Can you elaborate? But to address the issue of terrain being "cut off" from one or all players (and this is a problem how?), in my proposed, essentially variant setup rule, everybody would have at least one pioneer in every terrain type. If someone gets cutoff, then it is their own doing.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
By "hang" I meant never reach a termination condition (like a computer program that hangs and never gracefully terminates).
But I was confused and thought you meant the game end condition would be all players having a piece in each terrain type, whereas I think now you meant to start with all players having a piece in each terrain type. (Right?) But I fail to see what that has to do with game end conditions, then...? Confusion within confusion!
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/299609/warning-there-is-a-3r...
is the main thread about ending conditions, btw.
-
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
-
Ah, okay, well let me try and explain my rationale for my proposed starting condition in the context of avoiding the "clumping-all-my-dudes-into-one small-corner-and-seal-them-off-to-score-and-then-quickly-end-the-game" condition, which is what I read and assumed the problem (or possible broken-ness) with the endgame was. Quite simply, having my setup rule, I think, would make the aforementioned, cheesy and overly-hyphenated early endgame strategy a non-factor since a player would not be able to get all his dudes into a clump to prematurely end the game without doing some major maneuvering, which if allowed to happen, the players would deserve whatever outcome happens as a consequence.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
OK, I see what you mean.
I was thinking also of the bigger picture "meta" issue that different versions of the rules disagree on the endgame and there was confusion surrounding it.
The question of cheesiness of the game ending when one player has no more pieces is interesting. I.e. is it really cheesy to end the game early that way? Why/how? And if so, why does the game even have that as a possible end condition in the first place, if it's considered undesirable for people to end the game that way?
-
|
|
