Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization» Forums » General

Subject: My impression of the game after 10 games. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alexandr Didenko
Ukraine
Donetsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Played the game for 2 and 3 players, I can say that I will only play duel option.
When you play 3 players game: the game encourages the strongest players together attack the weakest player, causing him to become even weaker.
Even at the end of the game the strongest players profitable attack the weakest and not each other.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane Larsen
United States
Salt Lake City
UT
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SOU9 wrote:
Even at the end of the game the strongest players profitable attack the weakest and not each other.

I have not seen this to be the case every time one player gets behind the other two.

Also, do not forget the rule of Leaving the Game Honorably. If you push too hard on the player that is clearly behind, he might resign, and you will have completely wasted that political action, the military actions utilized for that political action, and any other resources and civil actions you might have spent on building up an army in the case of having declared a war.

In this case, it would clearly not be ideal to keep picking on a player who's completely out of the game.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruno Libonati Rocha
Brazil
Curitiba
ParanĂ¡
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my opinion, attack the weakest player isn't the better option always.

I prefer to attack the 2nd weakest player to avoid him to reach my strength and sometimes brake his advance in other areas of the game to build strength again or run after more strength. And if the 2nd weakest player never get strength enough to attack the weakest you avoid him to enjoy this weakness to get aggressions and wars' benefits from the weakest player.

ofcourse I always play that last war over culture or holy war against the weakest player, but this game has a delicate equilibrium.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
teasel bonne
msg tools
honestly i think 3p game are more interessing... in a 2p game if a player gains the military lead, the other player is screwed and is bound to suffer a massive point loss because of culture wars,negative events and those aggression card that steal 7 culture at pops

but in a 3p game the military player has to divide his attention between his 2 other opponent assuming they are both going for similiar culture rating and the 2 player can also cooperate against the bully using pacts and stealing all the military tech card

that said gandhi was made exactly for the situation in which a player screws his military really really badly...

too bad civilization v gandhi isn't a card
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Newcastle Upon Tyne
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SOU9 wrote:
When you play 3 players game: the game encourages the strongest players together attack the weakest player, causing him to become even weaker.


That sounds like it's the weaker player, rather than the game, encouraging the others to attack, because s/he has got so far behind?

If one player does get significantly left behind, s/he will almost certainly be attacked by the others (if cards allow) and that applies to 2p, 3p and 4p. In fact, in my experience (600+ games) I find the 2p game an all out war game and almost always a race to get Napoleon - not that he always wins, but he almost always has to be taken.

You seem to be describing 3p games where one player has become significantly weaker than the other 2. This can happen due to bad luck (no good Tactic arrives) and sometimes due to sub-optimal play (not getting enough Mil Actions to draw a good Tactic, paying over the odds for colonies, building a culture engine before securing military, etc.)

What often happens in 3p is not that one player gets left far behind militarily, but that one player gets far ahead of the other 2. As pointed out above, he then has the problem of deciding which of the two to attack.

Ideally, players should not allow themselves to get too far behind. The classic advice is to remain within 1 Defence Bonus card of the Military leader. Of course, this is not always possible - but even so, other measures are at hand. There's Gandhi, Churchill, Joan, Pacts. And remember that when the strong players are attacking, they are expending MAs which means they are that little bit less likely to be able to draw more aggressions/wars in the future.

I must say, I love the 3p and 4p game - the 2p game I'm a bit less keen on - I find that bad luck in the 2p is more difficult to recover from.

Anyway, thanks for the post Alexander - I hope you're enjoying the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree completely. The nature of the "war" cards encourages this because they factor in the difference between the winner and loser.

2-player is much more balanced.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Phillips
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Two-player isn't more balanced. The balance is just simpler. And the price you pay for 2p is that TTA becomes an all-out wargame instead of a civ game with a heavy military component.

If you're playing with people who understand that they have to keep up militarily, and know how to do it, the situation described by the OP doesn't happen very often.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quite often in 3 or 4 player games, the player who goes heavy military will be able to knock one of the other players out of the game but will lose to another player who invested in generating culture/science. As others have said, in a 2 player game victory is almost certainly assured if you build a large military lead. That is not true at all in 3 or 4 player games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Skerasco Veraii
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah nail hit on head this game encourages stronger army to beat up the little guy, forget honour and all that garbage the more ruthless you are the better for you PERIOD. T That's the ethics of the game, and why it is a heavily flawed game, it encourages a kind of bullying gaming experience which only appropriately-minded gamers enjoy. For a better game, play Nations, it gets rid of all that silliness and makes confrontation manageable by the weaker military through other ways which give it more fluidity and ways out to be imaginative and creative. AVOID THIS GAME if you are tired of games which likes to kick a person when he's down, totally overrated and a joke for a number 2 position IMO.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david landes
United States
oak hill
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After 10 games, you have a lot of exploration left to do.

While what you observe certainly happens, it is by no means a rule of thumb.. and with better players, there are balancing factors in 3 and 4 person games that make this optimal only in some subset of cases.

Still, whether, 2, 3, or 4 players are involved, getting substantively behind militarily is always a very risky proposition and if you choose to play that way.. you "have it coming"

Cheers
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark C
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
kaneAAA wrote:
Yeah nail hit on head this game encourages stronger army to beat up the little guy, forget honour and all that garbage the more ruthless you are the better for you PERIOD. T That's the ethics of the game, and why it is a heavily flawed game, it encourages a kind of bullying gaming experience which only appropriately-minded gamers enjoy. For a better game, play Nations, it gets rid of all that silliness and makes confrontation manageable by the weaker military through other ways which give it more fluidity and ways out to be imaginative and creative. AVOID THIS GAME if you are tired of games which likes to kick a person when he's down, totally overrated and a joke for a number 2 position IMO.


Pretty sure the game says right on the box that only bullies can enjoy it. It's right under the warning about being heavily flawed and silly, etc..
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Arnold
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kaneAAA wrote:
Yeah nail hit on head this game encourages stronger army to beat up the little guy, forget honour and all that garbage the more ruthless you are the better for you PERIOD. T That's the ethics of the game, and why it is a heavily flawed game, it encourages a kind of bullying gaming experience which only appropriately-minded gamers enjoy. For a better game, play Nations, it gets rid of all that silliness and makes confrontation manageable by the weaker military through other ways which give it more fluidity and ways out to be imaginative and creative. AVOID THIS GAME if you are tired of games which likes to kick a person when he's down, totally overrated and a joke for a number 2 position IMO.


Huh, I tried Nations and liked it, but didn't think it replaced TtA in my collection. You need to cover your bases and not just sit there with no military. If you let someone run away with military, you probably deserve to get smacked around a little.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garry Rice
United States
Perkasie
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I feel Nations pretty much plays itself and is somewhat scripted. I much prefer the options TtA presents...but I can see why different people prefer one over the other
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dmitry Volevodz
Russia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Nations does not provide direct results as TTA. I get more laboratories I get more science. In nations you build 20 different buildings that produce all resources simultaneously and they hardly matter.

About balance and TTA - the biggest offender is Napoleon. You either take him as soon as possible or get steamrolled (unless opposing player is very weak).
Or if you agree to remove/don't take him, but this is kind of weak.
 
 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.