Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Recommendations

Subject: Is Nations necessary? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brian Schwartz
United States
Holbrook
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey all,

I own Through the Ages, as well as Clash of Culture. I've also played Civilization the Board Game, and I've been eying Nations for a while now. Besides the steep price tag, I'm wondering if its worth buying.

I dont' get to play Through the Ages often. In fact, its been over a year since I've played it, mainly because of its length, and the vast amount of rules for ME to remember, let alone for me to teach. Should I buy Nations and keep TtA? or buy Nations and sell TtA.

I do like Clash of Cultures as well, but I don't want to sell it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Royal
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WittyreaderLI wrote:
Hey all,

I own Through the Ages, as well as Clash of Culture. I've also played Civilization the Board Game, and I've been eying Nations for a while now. Besides the steep price tag, I'm wondering if its worth buying.

I dont' get to play Through the Ages often. In fact, its been over a year since I've played it, mainly because of its length, and the vast amount of rules for ME to remember, let alone for me to teach. Should I buy Nations and keep TtA? or buy Nations and sell TtA.

I do like Clash of Cultures as well, but I don't want to sell it.


Buy Nations. Sell TTA if you have to. Keep Clash of Cultures.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nations is a good game in it's own right. If you want my personal preference, I would rank them thus:

1. Through the Ages
2. Clash of Cultures
3. Nations

Sid Meier's Civilization I enjoy as well, and it would be fighting for number 3 with nations, but it's been a while since I played it, so I couldn't tell you right now if I like it better than Nations.

Through the Ages is the most elegent of these 4 games, and Clash of Cultures has the most raw Fun for me.

Nations is solid and fun, but I have no "Wow" factor when I play it. I own all 4 of these, as well as Advanced Civilization, and I'm thinking of picking up the old 2002 Sid Meier Civilization, which I've played but don't own, so I guess I'm a bit of a collector, but I try not to buy any games I haven't played first.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nations is a pretty good game. I don't find it anywhere near the caliber as Through the Ages. I think if you own Through the Ages and love it, there is no real reason to have both on the shelves...unless you just want both. I own both. I like both, but nine times out of ten I will rather play TTA if given the choice.

Nations doesn't "streamline" things vs. Through the Ages THAT much. So really if time savings is what you're after, I think playing both over time, you'll find one doesn't play that much longer than the other.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Nations is a more elegant version of TTA. Note that this doesn't mean it is better necessarily. It is slightly shorter and has rules that are easier to remember, so if those are your primary concerns with TTA, go for it. I go back and forth on which one I actually like better. They are probably more similar to one another than Clash of Cultures and Civilization are to each other (assuming you mean the newer Civ).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Royal
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I dunno. I think teaching Nations is much easier to grasp for potential players than TTA. Length wise may not be too radically different, but I have much much better success introducing Nations than TTA.

If you haven't put TTA on the table in a year, and the reasons are that it takes a long time and it has a bunch of rules to re-familiarize yourself with, you'll find Nations to be advantageous in both regards (Nations does *not* have the type of rules that TTA does, with its three variations (only one of which is actually worth playing.. the Advanced rules)).

Really, you can play TTA online at boardgaming-online.com if you want to get in some more TTA matches than just one a year. It's in fact a great resource that i use often. Otherwise, I too would never get more than a game a year (at best) of TTA in.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael F
United States
Albany
OR
flag msg tools
My job is not the day shift or the night shift, it's the always shift!
badge
I will chop your head off!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As soon as I bought and played Nations, I got rid of Through the Ages. I still like Through the Ages, and I would happily play it, but for me it's just too long, and I think it's starting to show its age a bit. I could see someone keeping both games, but for my purposes, I prefer Nations far more.

First off, I can knock out a 2p game in an hour, maybe a little more. The rules are much easier to grasp, but the gameplay is just as deep as Through the Ages. I would actually argue that on higher difficulties Nations becomes much more of a brain-burner than Through the Ages as well. Plus there's the fact that you're not going to see every card come up from game to game (You may not even see some cards for a few games in a row), and this becomes much more about how you can handle the situation given rather than knowing what every card that comes up will be. It also comes with a really neat solo mode, and there is an expansion in the works.

I haven't played Clash of Cultures, but between Sid Meier's Civilization, Through the Ages, and Nations, Nations is my Civ game of choice for these reasons.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have Nations, Clash of Cultures, and Through the Ages (just got it today). They are all different games.

Nations and TTA definitely share similarities--the designers of Nations credit Vlaada as inspiration and purportedly consulted him. However, I think they're different beasts, and Clash of Cultures is entirely different.

Nations is MUCH shorter. We can knock out a 4 player game of Nations in 2-2.5 hours, as long as no one has extreme AP. What's a 4 player game of Nations take? 5+ hours?

Nations is simultaneously more simplified and more complex relative to Nations. For example, the concept of war and aggression is greatly simplified. On the other hand, you're balancing 4 resources rather than 2 and you also have to take into account stability (though, TTA does have happiness, which is analogous but not really).

I would also say that the flow of a game and rounds of Nations are a bit more streamlined than TTA. Downtime seems to be much lower. Nations is much more tactical and dealing with what happens turn-to-turn/round-to-round. It's more random, although I wouldn't say more luck-based. TTA is about grand, epic strategy.

There is room for both (well, all three) in a collection. I can't speak to Sid Meier's Civilization.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane Larsen
United States
Salt Lake City
UT
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CyanideNow wrote:
I think Nations is a more elegant version of TTA.

I just cringe when I see this. Let me clarify: Nations is NOT a more elegant version of TtA. This is a major injustice to both games, because they are very different beasts.

Yes, they both involve civ-building as a theme. Yes, Nations drew inspiration from TtA. And yes, they both utilize a card-row mechanic. And yes...wait, I think I just ran out of similarities.

TtA is a long-term, grand-strategy, civilization-building game. Nations is a round-to-round, adjust-to-events and cards, tactical-maneuvering game.

In TtA, a player who knows the deck has a major advantage because he can plan and strategize accordingly. In Nations, knowing the deck is a ridiculous idea, because in any given game, there's a large portion of the deck that doesn't even appear in each age. And it's the same with the events. In TtA, events are seeded by the players (except the first wave of events, which are all positive, btw). In Nations, there are a bunch of different events, all are random, and most of them impact your decisions in dramatic ways (for better or for worse) that if you don't adjust your "civ" accordingly, you'll suffer, and eventually lose. So you might build up a huge army in one turn, just to purchase a certain card (war or territory), then break it all down in one following turn and start building up other buildings.

It's silly to say that one is actually any kind of "version" of the other.

I own both, and plan to keep both. But if I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of Nations. My reason isn't because I like TtA more (I do like TtA more, btw), because that would be like saying I'm going to sell my oranges because I like have apples and like them more. But rather, because I think Peloponnes does what Nations does in a shorter, less-fiddly way.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Royal
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CyanideNow wrote:
I think Nations is a more elegant version of TTA. Note that this doesn't mean it is better necessarily. It is slightly shorter and has rules that are easier to remember, so if those are your primary concerns with TTA, go for it. I go back and forth on which one I actually like better. They are probably more similar to one another than Clash of Cultures and Civilization are to each other (assuming you mean the newer Civ).


Well said. TTA and Nations scratch a similar itch for me, though not identically (but enough so that a reasonable individual who enjoyed civilization building style games would transition between the two with relative ease).


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
atomheartmother wrote:


Nations is MUCH shorter. We can knock out a 4 player game of Nations in 2-2.5 hours, as long as no one has extreme AP. What's a 4 player game of Through the Ages take? 5+ hours?


4 experienced non-ap players? 2-2.5 hours. We do it all the time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Thompson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Valar Morghulis
badge
Valar Dohaeris
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thedacker wrote:
CyanideNow wrote:
I think Nations is a more elegant version of TTA.

I just cringe when I see this. Let me clarify: Nations is NOT a more elegant version of TtA. This is a major injustice to both games, because they are very different beasts.

Yes, they both involve civ-building as a theme. Yes, Nations drew inspiration from TtA. And yes, they both utilize a card-row mechanic. And yes...wait, I think I just ran out of similarities.

TtA is a long-term, grand-strategy, civilization-building game. Nations is a round-to-round, adjust-to-events and cards, tactical-maneuvering game.

In TtA, a player who knows the deck has a major advantage because he can plan and strategize accordingly. In Nations, knowing the deck is a ridiculous idea, because in any given game, there's a large portion of the deck that doesn't even appear in each age. And it's the same with the events. In TtA, events are seeded by the players (except the first wave of events, which are all positive, btw). In Nations, there are a bunch of different events, all are random, and most of them impact your decisions in dramatic ways (for better or for worse) that if you don't adjust your "civ" accordingly, you'll suffer, and eventually lose. So you might build up a huge army in one turn, just to purchase a certain card (war or territory), then break it all down in one following turn and start building up other buildings.

It's silly to say that one is actually any kind of "version" of the other.

I own both, and plan to keep both. But if I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of Nations. My reason isn't because I like TtA more (I do like TtA more, btw), because that would be like saying I'm going to sell my oranges because I like have apples and like them more. But rather, because I think Peloponnes does what Nations does in a shorter, less-fiddly way.


I very much like both games and do not plan to eliminate either from my collection. They are different, but still very similar and is kind of silly to say they are not. They are about as similar as, say, Brass and Age of Industry, which SEEM very similar if you don;t know them well, but actually have many important differences in gameplay. Age of Indistry, is, however, a more elegant version of Brass, even though they play differently and I enjoy both. They are probably less similar than, say, Le Havre and Ora et Labora, which don't initially appear the same, but have many similarities in gameplay.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan
United States
Bountiful
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Elegent" is the buzz word of the civ games, it looks like. Guess we would have to define it to understand each other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schwartz
United States
Holbrook
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You guys convinced me. I purchased Nations, and I'm keeping TtA for now, (as long as I can get it played sometime this year!)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thanee
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have all four of those, and don't see a reason to get rid of any of them.

Bye
Thanee
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.