Joseph Ellis
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
In Mission: Red Planet, 3 to 5 players are colonizing and exploiting the natural resources of Mars, with Steam Punk Victorian artwork.
Each round, players add their astronauts to a set of spaceships. The only thing that differentiates these ships from each other is how many astronauts each holds and their destination--one of the ten regions of Mars.
After adding astronauts, each FULL ship takes its astronauts to its targeted region on Mars and drops the astronauts off. Spaceships that took off are replaced by new ones with new destinations and a new round begins.
The game lasts exactly 10 rounds. At the end of the 5th, 8th, and 10th rounds, each of Mars' 10 regions pays out resource tokens to the person who has the most astronauts in that region. In case of a tie, the resources are divided up evenly, with leftovers being given out during the next payout phase.
There are three kinds of resources: ice, worth 1 point; sylvanite, worth 2 points; and celerium, worth 3 points. Each region pays out one of the three. At the end of the game, the person with the most ice gets a 9-point bonus, and otherwise, the player with the most points wins.
If that all sounds simple, it is. The real flavor and strategy of the game is all about HOW you add your astronauts to the spaceships.
Each player has a deck of nine role cards: the Recruiter, the Femme Fatale, the Soldier, the Travel Agent, etc. Everyone's decks are identical. Each round, you choose one of the roles secretly.
Each role has three characteristics:
1) A number, which determines WHEN you will place astronauts. For example, the Recruiter always places an astronaut first, while the Explorer always places 2nd, etc. The roles are called out in that order, and whoever chose that role that round reveals their role card and places their astronauts. If no one chose a particular role, that role is skipped.
2) Specifics about placing astronauts. Some roles only place 1 astronaut. Some can place two, but they must be placed on two different ships. The Travel Agent places 3, but they must be all on the same ship, and if that's not possible, then none get placed. (This is notable because the Travel Agent is 7th in turn order.)
3) A special power. For example, the soldier gets to destroy an astronaut already on mars. The Pilot gets to change a destination of one of the spaceships. The explorer gets to move their astronatus on Mars to other regions. The Secret Agent can launch a spaceship that isn't full yet. Each role has a special power.
One role, the Scientist, lets you draw a card that only you see. That card either (a) gives you a goal to accomplish in order to earn points (for example, get at least one astronaut in 5 certain regions and earn 8 points) or (b) makes a change to a region of your choice, for example, having that region pay out a different resource at the end of the game than it otherwise would.
You only get to use each role card once; it is then unavailable to you in future rounds. However, there is one role, the Recruiter, whose special power is to give you back all your previously played role cards to be able to play them again.
The game only takes about an hour, and the rules are easy to catch onto. The game is fun.
Here are the problems I have with Mission: Red Planet:
First and most importantly, it's too hard to tell which region a spaceship is going to. Many of the names are hard to pronounce and sound alike: Mare Serpentis and Mare Tyrrhenum, Tritonis Sinus and Sinus Sabeus, Vasistas Borealis and Valles Marineris, etc. Visually, only the names distinguish each region from the others, and astronauts start to cover that name right away, both on Mars and on each spaceship. Therefore, it's hard to remember where each region is and we continually had to look back and forth between the spaceships and the planet to figure out where our astronauts might be going.
They could have had a separate "launch pad" for each ship instead of one board, and that way you could put the launchpad for a ship near the Mars region it is going to. Even easier, they could have just come up with short, easy to remember names for the regions. For example, two of the regions are named "Hellas" and "Utopia" and we always had an easier time remembering where those two regions were. Especially Hellas. ("This astronaut is going straight to Hellas!")
My second problem are the bonus point cards, the ones the Scientist lets you take. (Also, each player gets one at the beginning of the game.) They're not worth enough for most players to really organize a strategy around them. For example, there is a card that gives you one point for each of your astronauts that is killed during the game. But that number is only likely to be between 4 and 10, while the resource payouts are going to give you between 20 and 40 points. So you can never actually try to have an astronaut killed because each astronaut is too important for resource mining. These goal cards will always be secondary to your attempt to have the most astronauts in each region.
My last problem has to do with control. I feel like the path from my actions to my victory is rather indirect in Mission: Red Planet. Changing where spaceships are headed, stopping other astronauts from joining me on a spaceship, etc., these useful strategies are only available to you once or twice per game in the form of special role powers. The rest of the time, what other players do has a much greater effect on me than what I do. The strategies are just a bit too subtle for my tastes.
For example, the Recruiter goes first, gives you your role cards back and allows you to place one astronaut. But will you ever, EVER know, when you place that astronaut, that it's going to make one lick of difference, even if we're in a payoff round? No. There's too much chaos around you. This is an extreme example but all the roles feel this way to a great degree.
Reasons to play:
If you like Citadels but hate the downtime, this game solves that problem. (Although despite the downtime I still prefer Citadels.) If you like all these ideas about roles and area majority, this game executes them quite nicely. If you need something that's about an hour, this fits that niche since it has a very set structure of 10 rounds. And it is a fun game, it really is.
All three of my complaints would fade with more play time as everyone comprehends the deeper strategies. So if you always play games with the same people and can see yourself getting this game to the table a dozen or more times, it's a great choice.
Reasons to pass:
The problem with the region names/locations is almost enough to keep me from playing this game all by itself. Luckily, the easy fix is to make markers, 1 through 5, that I can put in the regions to indicate that the ships are scheduled to land on them. But it will always be at least a small annoyance.
Otherwise, this game is tough for me because I am always playing with new gamers and am always having to teach rules. Although this game is easy to understand and teach, the fuzzy strategy and loose control of this game is tough on new players. To a first- or second-time player of Mission: Red Planet, the results of their actions can seem almost random. It's a similar feel to Puerto Rico in that way, which I know people on this site love.
-
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
-
Pacific ocean and Atlantic ocean?
B>
-
Mike Adams
United States
Brigham City
Utah
-
joepinion wrote: First and most importantly, it's too hard to tell which region a spaceship is going to. Many of the names are hard to pronounce and sound alike: Mare Serpentis and Mare Tyrrhenum, Tritonis Sinus and Sinus Sabeus, Vasistas Borealis and Valles Marineris, etc. Visually, only the names distinguish each region from the others, and astronauts start to cover that name right away, both on Mars and on each spaceship. Therefore, it's hard to remember where each region is and we continually had to look back and forth between the spaceships and the planet to figure out where our astronauts might be going.
Not exactly. Each ship also has the region it is going to highlighted in the window of the ship. The round window is a tiny reproduction of the board with the destination region in a different color. It's really useful to see where the region is at a glance, then look at the name to verify.
I think it works well. I'm also colorblind, so making all the regions different colors wouldn't necessarily help me. The way it is fits the theme well.
-
Joseph Ellis
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
You're right; thanks for the correction. I forgot about that. However, I didn't find those small indicators to be very helpful, especially since they're not even on every ship, and since if you change the location, they become inaccurate.
-
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
-
First of all, the names used in the game are the actual names for regions on Mars, so I don't think that's a really reasonable argument against it. And whether on the ships or on the cards, you always have that little map of Mars with the regions highlighted, like Mike A said.
I actually like Mission: Red Planet a lot, but would just love it if the Event cards could be fixed. I don't really see them as being inconsequential (like you do), but rather I think that they are just too unbalanced (where some are good and some totally suck) and their affect on the game is too random.
I've even proposed some possible tweaks on how to use the differently, if you're interested in checking out my thoughts and giving your opinions...
-
Joseph Ellis
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
I don't care if they're the real names. They're very hard to keep straight. Since when did this become a simulation? And as I responded, those little maps don't help when the rocket has no initial destination or when the destination changes.
It's not that I think the cards are inconsequential. I just think that it's not worth putting many resources toward them to the detriment of your other aims, and so it ends up being luck as to whether you can easily complete them.
-
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
-
But, if you're not going to use the real names for Martian regions, then why say that it's Mars at all? They should have just called it "Mission to Another Planet" and called the regions "A" and "B" and "C", or "Billy Bob's Region" and "Clem's Region" and "Hoyt's Region".
If you're going to have the theme, you need to at least play it out a little, and I think that the region names do that pretty well.
But as for the cards, we apparently feel the same way, then. Because whoever gets dealt (or later draws) an 8-point Bonus card they can easilt complete is going to have a significant boost on someone who gets stuck with the Ice Block bonus or Pretty Rock discovery cards.
But I think that the role selection and (as you put it) "indirect" influence on the board are absolutely glorious. I think that it's cool how you have to make some guesses and other manipulations in order to get the planet to look like you want it to. If you could just stick cubes (okay, "astronauts") on there all willy-nilly, it's be a lot more boring.
-
Joseph Ellis
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
Yes, the "indirect" influence is definitely a personal preference thing. It's not that I want completely direct control, just a little more, and a little more immediately (with less playthrus).
-
ackmondual
United States
Virginia
-
Mike A wrote: joepinion wrote: First and most importantly, it's too hard to tell which region a spaceship is going to. Many of the names are hard to pronounce and sound alike: Mare Serpentis and Mare Tyrrhenum, Tritonis Sinus and Sinus Sabeus, Vasistas Borealis and Valles Marineris, etc. Visually, only the names distinguish each region from the others, and astronauts start to cover that name right away, both on Mars and on each spaceship. Therefore, it's hard to remember where each region is and we continually had to look back and forth between the spaceships and the planet to figure out where our astronauts might be going.
Not exactly. Each ship also has the region it is going to highlighted in the window of the ship. The round window is a tiny reproduction of the board with the destination region in a different color. It's really useful to see where the region is at a glance, then look at the name to verify. I think it works well. I'm also colorblind, so making all the regions different colors wouldn't necessarily help me. The way it is fits the theme well.
One type the Bonus cards could've been better about this. Specifically, the "north/south/east/west" ones.... "indicated zones" should've been explicitly stated as "the red ones" (although now it's been mentioned, don't know if this would work for certain types of color blindnesses out there).
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/39435/item/861719#item8617...
-
Daniel W.
United States
Portland
OR
-
[q="kilroy_locke"]But, if you're not going to use the real names for Martian regions, then why say that it's Mars at all? They should have just called it "Mission to Another Planet" and called the regions "A" and "B" and "C", or "Billy Bob's Region" and "Clem's Region" and "Hoyt's Region". [q] Or you can name them after classic science fiction authors. I actually am grateful for the reviewers analysis. I already have the main mechanics in this game with Citadels and Alien Frontiers, so I think I will pass and look for a game with completely new mechanics for my collection.
-
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
-
oeste wrote: kilroy_locke wrote: But, if you're not going to use the real names for Martian regions, then why say that it's Mars at all? They should have just called it "Mission to Another Planet" and called the regions "A" and "B" and "C", or "Billy Bob's Region" and "Clem's Region" and "Hoyt's Region". Or you can name them after classic science fiction authors. I actually am grateful for the reviewers analysis. I already have the main mechanics in this game with Citadels and Alien Frontiers, so I think I will pass and look for a game with completely new mechanics for my collection.
Of course they could. But with the whole steampunky, rocketship sci-fi theme going on, you pretty much had to either be going to Mars or the Moon. And if you're going to Mars, I just don't see how you can fault the designers and producers for naming the regions after actual regions on the planet.
With a generic, unnamed planet (like Alien Frontiers, which you mentioned), it makes sense to name the regions after authors or whatever else you wanted to do.
And speaking of Alien Frontiers, I really don't get any sort of similar vibe from it and Mission: Red Planet. There's a little bit of area-majority going on in AF, but it's very simple and totally dominated by the dice placement. Mission: Red Planet feels a lot more like Citadels crossed with El Grande, which has a lot more depth and intricacy in the area-majority component.
-
Yours Truly,
United States
Gainesville
Florida
-
I would also say that the role selection/powers mechanism feels different enough from Citadels that it merits at least playing if not owning. Rather than all choosing sequentially from the same pool of characters, you have your own set, and pick a different one every time (until you get them back by choosing the "reset" character). It does have that nasty take-that Citadels feel, but to me the strategy involved in when to cycle through your characters feels completely different than the communal Citadels selection.
Sometimes I think "Citadels meets El Grande in space," while a convenient one-sentence summary that people can relate to, can actually do M:RP a disservice, b/c it really is its own unique beast that doesn't feel at all redundant on the shelves of my collection.
-
Joseph Ellis
United States
Columbus
Ohio
-
kilroy_locke wrote: oeste wrote: kilroy_locke wrote: But, if you're not going to use the real names for Martian regions, then why say that it's Mars at all? They should have just called it "Mission to Another Planet" and called the regions "A" and "B" and "C", or "Billy Bob's Region" and "Clem's Region" and "Hoyt's Region". Or you can name them after classic science fiction authors. I actually am grateful for the reviewers analysis. I already have the main mechanics in this game with Citadels and Alien Frontiers, so I think I will pass and look for a game with completely new mechanics for my collection. Of course they could. But with the whole steampunky, rocketship sci-fi theme going on, you pretty much had to either be going to Mars or the Moon. And if you're going to Mars, I just don't see how you can fault the designers and producers for naming the regions after actual regions on the planet. With a generic, unnamed planet (like Alien Frontiers, which you mentioned), it makes sense to name the regions after authors or whatever else you wanted to do. And speaking of Alien Frontiers, I really don't get any sort of similar vibe from it and Mission: Red Planet. There's a little bit of area-majority going on in AF, but it's very simple and totally dominated by the dice placement. Mission: Red Planet feels a lot more like Citadels crossed with El Grande, which has a lot more depth and intricacy in the area-majority component.
As I said, another solution could have been having 5 launch pads that you can move to be near where they're going... Changing the names was just one suggestion. And anyway, yes I sure can fault the designers for that if I want. I think it makes the game a pain to play. That's my opinion. I'm not into astronomy or anything, so most of the names might as well be a jumble of letters to me.
Sometimes, theme gets in the way of good gameplay, and it's a problem. This is one of those times. Anyway, I listed the confusing names straight out in the review, so the reader can decide for him/herself. It's not like I misled.
-
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
-
JohnnyDollar wrote: I would also say that the role selection/powers mechanism feels different enough from Citadels that it merits at least playing if not owning. Rather than all choosing sequentially from the same pool of characters, you have your own set, and pick a different one every time (until you get them back by choosing the "reset" character). It does have that nasty take-that Citadels feel, but to me the strategy involved in when to cycle through your characters feels completely different than the communal Citadels selection.
Sometimes I think "Citadels meets El Grande in space," while a convenient one-sentence summary that people can relate to, can actually do M:RP a disservice, b/c it really is its own unique beast that doesn't feel at all redundant on the shelves of my collection. I totally agree, but all I was saying is that if you're gonna make a one-sentence summary of the game anyway, that one's more accurate than comparing it with Alien Frontiers.
The fact that you've got your own set of cards also adds in sort of a resource-management element (in how you use them) and a timing piece (in when you use them and when you decide to play the Recruiter to get them all back).
And that "indirect" manipulation of the board mentioned above is a lot different than El Grande (except for the Castille, I suppose), and adds a whole different feel to the game.
I also think that it's different and interesting enough to have on the shelf along with Citadels, El Grande, and Alien Fronters for that matter.
-
Yours Truly,
United States
Gainesville
Florida
-
kilroy_locke wrote: JohnnyDollar wrote: I would also say that the role selection/powers mechanism feels different enough from Citadels that it merits at least playing if not owning. Rather than all choosing sequentially from the same pool of characters, you have your own set, and pick a different one every time (until you get them back by choosing the "reset" character). It does have that nasty take-that Citadels feel, but to me the strategy involved in when to cycle through your characters feels completely different than the communal Citadels selection.
Sometimes I think "Citadels meets El Grande in space," while a convenient one-sentence summary that people can relate to, can actually do M:RP a disservice, b/c it really is its own unique beast that doesn't feel at all redundant on the shelves of my collection. I totally agree, but all I was saying is that if you're gonna make a one-sentence summary of the game anyway, that one's more accurate than comparing it with Alien Frontiers. The fact that you've got your own set of cards also adds in sort of a resource-management element (in how you use them) and a timing piece (in when you use them and when you decide to play the Recruiter to get them all back). And that "indirect" manipulation of the board mentioned above is a lot different than El Grande (except for the Castille, I suppose), and adds a whole different feel to the game. I also think that it's different and interesting enough to have on the shelf along with Citadels, El Grande, and Alien Fronters for that matter.
I was more replying to this post
oeste wrote: I already have the main mechanics in this game with Citadels and Alien Frontiers, so I think I will pass and look for a game with completely new mechanics for my collection.
which I think is probably somewhat in response to all those like you (and me included!) who tend to sum up M:RP in that one sentence summary and how similar it is to Citadels. 
My rec to those who haven't played is that if you like Citadels there's a good chance you'll like this, but just b/c you own Citadels doesn't mean this will feel boringly similar.
-
Andrew Brown
United States
Lawrenceville
New Jersey
-
I have yet to get this game to the table but really hope to soon.
I was intrigued that you decided the chaos factor would be a turn off to new players. I had it in my head that this might be a game I could introduce novice gamers to. I always thought that the chaos would help close the gap between the experienced and inexperienced. It is good to get a different perspective. I need to think carefully about the type of person I introduce this too, as someone who would be frustrated if they felt like they had no control may not like this one.
-
rekz karz
United States
El Cerrito
California
-
Played for first time on Sunday, was a hit.
The 'where is the ship going' dilemma was exacerbated b/c the launchpad was upside down from where I sat, so I agree it was difficult. I don't think movable launchpads would help, but color coding might've helped the 'target regions', or a symbol, etc.
That said, I like that the actual names are used (was part of the humor, esp the "Sinus" areas -- wouldn't have minded a pronunciation guide), and I enjoyed almost all the game.
I felt the event/bonus were lackluster more than anything. They are just not that exciting -- but they could be a lot more fun.
Also, why are there not enough score chits? That seems like a bit of a faulty planning.
Another mechanic which I question is the 'game balancing' Recruiter role -- rather than add to the game excitement, this artificial 'limiter' role was frustrating & it seemed to make the game far less predictable. Perhaps a different 'limiting' mechanic, like -- after turn 5 everyone gets their roles refreshed.
-
Yours Truly,
United States
Gainesville
Florida
-
rekzkarz wrote:
Another mechanic which I question is the 'game balancing' Recruiter role -- rather than add to the game excitement, this artificial 'limiter' role was frustrating & it seemed to make the game far less predictable. Perhaps a different 'limiting' mechanic, like -- after turn 5 everyone gets their roles refreshed.
Funny, I wouldn't equate "predictable" with "excitement"
I never thought of the recruiter role as a "game balancer" but rather I see the different roles as a "resource" that you have to use carefully. I think the recruiter role is key in strategic planning, in when and how you use your roles.
In fact, I would say without the recruiter, the game would be even LESS predictable because your opponents' possible plays would seem to become even less predictable.
-
|
|
