Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Nations» Forums » Variants

Subject: Limited worker placement variant rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant
United States
Cuyahoga Falls
Ohio
flag msg tools
One of the best gaming weekends in Ohio since 2010. Search facebook for "BOGA Weekend Retreat" for more info!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to change the game mechanics of a meticulously balanced and intricate game just to improve a perceived thematic issue.

Since Rustan already stated, in the posts you alluded to, that playing like this unbalances game, I guess that pretty much puts that to bed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Clegg
United States
Escondido
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Haven't tried it. Don't see the motivation. Not "worker placement."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Dieckmann
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why is a civilization pushing towards one goal unrealistic? During WW2 America dedicated almost all of it's efforts to production capability to military and look at the results? Similarly in the 90-3 and 2000's it was set for financial gains to the detriment of other parts of the nations well being.

Seems pretty thematic, also you should probably play the game as design a large number of times before you go around fiddling with the basic rules...

Just sayin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to change the game mechanics of a meticulously balanced and intricate game just to improve a perceived thematic issue.

Since Rustan already stated, in the posts you alluded to, that playing like this unbalances game, I guess that pretty much puts that to bed.


Rustan has claimed that this unbalances the game. I don't see how that is true. In fact, I would argue the reverse. His one sentence claim certainly doesn't 'put that to bed' anymore then my claim that it doesn't unbalance anything 'puts it to bed'. Let him demonstrate how it unbalances the game.

As to balance, I don't think this game is balanced. Rome is too strong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Chrisxny wrote:
Why is a civilization pushing towards one goal unrealistic? During WW2 America dedicated almost all of it's efforts to production capability to military and look at the results? Similarly in the 90-3 and 2000's it was set for financial gains to the detriment of other parts of the nations well being.

Seems pretty thematic, also you should probably play the game as design a large number of times before you go around fiddling with the basic rules...

Just sayin


My thematic argument is that as you focus resources more and more on a single goal, that goal becomes increasing hard to gain on the margin. For example, let's say you can pump 5 barrels of oil a day by going after the easy wells and pumping below max rate. If you want to go to 10 you either have to develop less desirable wells, upgrade your equipment, or do something similar. Your marginal cost increases. That is nowhere present in this game, but if you limit the amount of workers you can place on any given resource it does become present. Buying cards essentially represents investment towards a goal, with part of the payoff being an increase in capacity.

We did play the game a few times with original rules but the consensus was that it was unaesthetic to have people exploit the rules by concentrating workers and ignoring a lot of buildings. We thought forcing people to more broadly utilize their cards and not ignore weak points was better.

If someone can make a balance argument against this I'm all ears but otherwise I like the thematic change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Fiedler
Australia
Colebee
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting idea.

My concern would be that in begin, you could only place 1 worker per building. Then what happens when the progress board draw reveals only a couple of buildings and you are 3rd or 4th in player order?
What happens when this happens for 2-3 rounds in a row? You are effectively out of the game.
Add to that the events, by which time you'll have no chance in competing, and therefore suffer more penalties creating a further fall behind.

It's an interesting concept, one I would gladly try, if the progress board randomness was not an issue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
You can't handle the truth?
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Rustan has claimed that this unbalances the game. I don't see how that is true. In fact, I would argue the reverse. His one sentence claim certainly doesn't 'put that to bed' anymore then my claim that it doesn't unbalance anything 'puts it to bed'. Let him demonstrate how it unbalances the game.

As to balance, I don't think this game is balanced. Rome is too strong.
I don't understand your logic at all.

You claim that Rome is too strong, and you want to limit everyone else's ability to stack units on top of Rome, thus ensuring that Rome is always the strongest with your version?

I prefer the normal way where everyone gets to build their nation as they need to, with no false limits.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Fuerst-Brunner
Germany
Neuching
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:

Thoughts anyone?


Yeah, i think this idea is b.s.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
Rise and fall of Anvalor, designed by me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see a bunch of effects from a change like this, the most obvious is the drastic increase of importance for early upgraded buildings and military. If such a card is available you would have to take it, reducing choice. Another effect would be the need to totally rework all nation boards.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant
United States
Cuyahoga Falls
Ohio
flag msg tools
One of the best gaming weekends in Ohio since 2010. Search facebook for "BOGA Weekend Retreat" for more info!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to change the game mechanics of a meticulously balanced and intricate game just to improve a perceived thematic issue.

Since Rustan already stated, in the posts you alluded to, that playing like this unbalances game, I guess that pretty much puts that to bed.


Rustan has claimed that this unbalances the game. I don't see how that is true. In fact, I would argue the reverse. His one sentence claim certainly doesn't 'put that to bed' anymore then my claim that it doesn't unbalance anything 'puts it to bed'. Let him demonstrate how it unbalances the game.

As to balance, I don't think this game is balanced. Rome is too strong.

I assume you'll excuse me if I don't think your opinion on the game caries the same weight as the designer's. zombie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aron D
United States
Erie
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to change the game mechanics of a meticulously balanced and intricate game just to improve a perceived thematic issue.

Since Rustan already stated, in the posts you alluded to, that playing like this unbalances game, I guess that pretty much puts that to bed.


Rustan has claimed that this unbalances the game. I don't see how that is true. In fact, I would argue the reverse. His one sentence claim certainly doesn't 'put that to bed' anymore then my claim that it doesn't unbalance anything 'puts it to bed'. Let him demonstrate how it unbalances the game.

As to balance, I don't think this game is balanced. Rome is too strong.


I think the fact that the game has been out for a year and there haven't been consistent claims of imbalance is at least some evidence that there is balance. Especially for a game that has shot up the rankings and thus gotten a lot of exposure.

Also you can't claim that your variant balances the game and then in the same breath claim that Rome is too strong (given that your experience is with your variant). The logic doesn't seem to hold.

As to your actual variant, as Rustan alluded to in the other thread, one of the main strategies in this game is to throw a bunch of workers on Military to get something (like a colony) and then move them to something else before the end of turn so that you don't have to pay the upkeep. Taking this away would remove one of the major strategic plays and thus make the game a lot less dynamic. Also I find that move extremely thematic. All throughout history there are stories of civilizations rounding up the common folk to go to war and then when the war is over, sending them back to fields to work.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to change the game mechanics of a meticulously balanced and intricate game just to improve a perceived thematic issue.

Since Rustan already stated, in the posts you alluded to, that playing like this unbalances game, I guess that pretty much puts that to bed.


Rustan has claimed that this unbalances the game. I don't see how that is true. In fact, I would argue the reverse. His one sentence claim certainly doesn't 'put that to bed' anymore then my claim that it doesn't unbalance anything 'puts it to bed'. Let him demonstrate how it unbalances the game.

As to balance, I don't think this game is balanced. Rome is too strong.

I assume you'll excuse me if I don't think your opinion on the game caries the same weight as the designer's. zombie


I've posted this elsewhere but this is really naive. The designer has an enormous bias to argue in favor of the game. I don't. I personally wouldn't trust anything a designer has to say about game balance or the existence of flaws. It doesn't even have to be a conscious deception, I'm sure the designer believes he has done the best possible job. Otherwise he'd have fixed it.

See Halifax Hammer for prevalent bias.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
airdog4evr wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
grant5 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Has anyone tried limiting worker placement to the number of workers indicated on a card? My group adopted this as we thought it was much better thematically (there was a limited worker capacity for each activity) and it avoided other unthematic situations (Everyone to ore this turn! Now buy that great gold card and move everyone to gold! Etc.) and made the game 'tighter' as you had to make sure all of your cards were at least decent. I don't think this variant changes the balance in the game although it does make it harder.

Thoughts anyone?

Rustan - thanks for your replies to my other posts (and in advance for replies to this one), this seems like the right section for this idea to be.

I can't wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to change the game mechanics of a meticulously balanced and intricate game just to improve a perceived thematic issue.

Since Rustan already stated, in the posts you alluded to, that playing like this unbalances game, I guess that pretty much puts that to bed.


Rustan has claimed that this unbalances the game. I don't see how that is true. In fact, I would argue the reverse. His one sentence claim certainly doesn't 'put that to bed' anymore then my claim that it doesn't unbalance anything 'puts it to bed'. Let him demonstrate how it unbalances the game.

As to balance, I don't think this game is balanced. Rome is too strong.


I think the fact that the game has been out for a year and there haven't been consistent claims of imbalance is at least some evidence that there is balance. Especially for a game that has shot up the rankings and thus gotten a lot of exposure.

Also you can't claim that your variant balances the game and then in the same breath claim that Rome is too strong (given that your experience is with your variant). The logic doesn't seem to hold.

As to your actual variant, as Rustan alluded to in the other thread, one of the main strategies in this game is to throw a bunch of workers on Military to get something (like a colony) and then move them to something else before the end of turn so that you don't have to pay the upkeep. Taking this away would remove one of the major strategic plays and thus make the game a lot less dynamic. Also I find that move extremely thematic. All throughout history there are stories of civilizations rounding up the common folk to go to war and then when the war is over, sending them back to fields to work.


Except that I don't argue that my variant improves the balance. It obviously doesn't. I don't think it affects the balance. I just find my variant more appealing thematically and from the perspective of game tightness.

I'm not surprised Nations is highly rated. I like it a lot. I just think that military is a very strong strategy when the player count gets low and that Rome, in two player, has a dominant advantage a result. There's nothing wrong with either of those issues particularly as the game is aimed at higher player counts and the special abilities are meant to be somewhat historical which they are. I actually really like the special abilities thematically, I just don't think they are balanced, particularly at low player counts.

You can argue that you think the game is better thematically as is and I won't dispute your opinion - you'll have yours and I'll have mine. Given the time scales involved either thematic view seems reasonable. I happen to like forcing people to eliminate weak cards as well - with full placement that becomes less relevant.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pap

After reading through your last 3 threads it has become apparent that:

1. Nobody else seems to agree with you concerning Rome imbalance and the restricted meeple placement. Many have stated their reasonings for doing so. If anything, the suggested course of action if your group is locked into thinking that Rome is imbalanced (in 2p in particular according to your posts) then stop using Rome.

2. You will not listen to anybody.

So it seems to me that you have confirmation bias, that is you are only looking for evidence that will support your own conclusion. Anything else must be wrong.

Attacking your fellow BGGers and the designer of the game for disagreeing with you will not help your argument. So please can everybody be respectful and courteous in these discussions in the future. I don't want BGG to end up as a flame war posting board.

Thanks.

-Not the Management
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Wario83 wrote:
Pap

After reading through your last 3 threads it has become apparent that:

1. Nobody else seems to agree with you concerning Rome imbalance and the restricted meeple placement. Many have stated their reasonings for doing so. If anything, the suggested course of action if your group is locked into thinking that Rome is imbalanced (in 2p in particular according to your posts) then stop using Rome.

2. You will not listen to anybody.

So it seems to me that you have confirmation bias, that is you are only looking for evidence that will support your own conclusion. Anything else must be wrong.

Attacking your fellow BGGers and the designer of the game for disagreeing with you will not help your argument. So please can everybody be respectful and courteous in these discussions in the future. I don't want BGG to end up as a flame war posting board.

Thanks.

-Not the Management


Wario-

It's interesting how everyone seems to think they are right. have you also seen the posts where a number of people have said that Rome is a very strong 2P pick? And thank you for letting me know that your conclusion is right and anything else must be wrong. That's very open minded of you! Or maybe that's exactly what you've accused me of? How ironic!

I strongly encourage you to refute my contention - that Rome is overpowered in 2P - and when you do please ignore my variant. It's true by the original rules as well. I was hoping someone would provide a cogent argument that my contention was wrong but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that. Seems like a reasonable way to avoid group think, no? If you believe a refutation has been posted, plase feel free to repost what you think was the most convincing argument.

---Not the management
Pap
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Balotti
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As said by many users, that variant just can't work... with that, you just limit game strategies (and you break the balance)... and the game is already "hard" enough without the "help" of this variant.
Rome is strong? Yes... is the better Nation... if you see "just" the military part of the game... however, isn't just that part... and that isn't totally true: Persia, for example, dosen't have any particular advantage for military... but 3 Colonies spaces on the board mean that, usually, go military for get colonies could be an interesting strategy, in particular during the mid-late game phase, where Roma can have just 2 Colonies.
But one of the good thing about Nations is the randomness: you can have also a destructive +40 of Military Power... but if the war dosen't come up during a turn or there aren't colonies... well, you must be ready to change the cards on your board and would be really difficult if you want/need/must to focus just on Military... you must think 360, looking for the best every single turn... and for that, you need to move your meeples without any block... resources are already a big issue to think about.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Wario83 wrote:
Pap

After reading through your last 3 threads it has become apparent that:

1. Nobody else seems to agree with you concerning Rome imbalance and the restricted meeple placement. Many have stated their reasonings for doing so. If anything, the suggested course of action if your group is locked into thinking that Rome is imbalanced (in 2p in particular according to your posts) then stop using Rome.

2. You will not listen to anybody.

So it seems to me that you have confirmation bias, that is you are only looking for evidence that will support your own conclusion. Anything else must be wrong.

Attacking your fellow BGGers and the designer of the game for disagreeing with you will not help your argument. So please can everybody be respectful and courteous in these discussions in the future. I don't want BGG to end up as a flame war posting board.

Thanks.

-Not the Management


Wario-

It's interesting how everyone seems to think they are right. have you also seen the posts where a number of people have said that Rome is a very strong 2P pick? And thank you for letting me know that your conclusion is right and anything else must be wrong. That's very open minded of you! Or maybe that's exactly what you've accused me of? How ironic!

I strongly encourage you to refute my contention - that Rome is overpowered in 2P - and when you do please ignore my variant. It's true by the original rules as well. I was hoping someone would provide a cogent argument that my contention was wrong but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that. Seems like a reasonable way to avoid group think, no? If you believe a refutation has been posted, plase feel free to repost what you think was the most convincing argument.

---Not the management
Pap


Pap I really don't get the hate and vitriol that seems to be in your posts concerning this topic. As previously stated, many have said that they have not experienced Rome being overpowered in 2p though some have agreed Rome is a strong contender.

However, it is clear you have no intention of listening to anybody and will only attack those who disagree with you (even those who are completely civil as I was) so I will not be contributing to this discussion any more. I just hope the Nations board becomes a little friendlier in time when these posts drop off.

-Still Not the Management
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Chilavert 82 IT wrote:
As said by many users, that variant just can't work... with that, you just limit game strategies (and you break the balance)... and the game is already "hard" enough without the "help" of this variant.
Rome is strong? Yes... is the better Nation... if you see "just" the military part of the game... however, isn't just that part... and that isn't totally true: Persia, for example, dosen't have any particular advantage for military... but 3 Colonies spaces on the board mean that, usually, go military for get colonies could be an interesting strategy, in particular during the mid-late game phase, where Roma can have just 2 Colonies.

But one of the good thing about Nations is the randomness: you can have also a destructive +40 of Military Power... but if the war dosen't come up during a turn or there aren't colonies... well, you must be ready to change the cards on your board and would be really difficult if you want/need/must to focus just on Military... you must think 360, looking for the best every single turn... and for that, you need to move your meeples without any block... resources are already a big issue to think about.


My variant definitely makes the game harder. It constricts game play and enforces more discipline and efficiency in actions but I would definitely still say that it is workable. I happen to like it in part for those reasons. The game is looser when you can ignore a bad building or throw resources around with more freedom.

I've yet to see a good argument that it breaks balance so I'll provide one myself - Rome seeks (in part) to deny resources to the opp and can access cheap resources through colonies. The variant, by restricting resources, increases the effectiveness of the strategy. True? Maybe. Now that I've posted it maybe someone will tell me (without explanation of course!) that that's wrong as well.

But let's forget the variant as I still think Rome is unbalanced 2P under original rules, primarily because as player # goes down fighting is more important due to events, turn order, colony procurement and wars being more binary. In 2P, there isn't much room to hide and spite and denial have a greater reward. I frankly think Rome's advantage is strong in 5P let alone 2P.

Can I pick your brain on the Persia? I do like Persia but I think Persia / Rome is a very tough match up for Persia. Persia can definitely go stability, which heads off war and wins events, but the extra colony is likely to be worth very little as Rome will have the advantage in securing early colonies. Persia will probably never reach 3, and if it does it will be late. And Persia is going to have a food problem which limits population (assume stability is reserved as war defense). So it looks like a reasonably even matchup except that Rome get +2 fighting for free, will win the race for colonies, generally splits the event, and is better able to grow. Persia may, in time, get a third colony, but it probably won't get more than a round or two of production so its really just +1VP (the VP of the early colony which would have been replaced without the 3rd slot). I like Rome in that one.

Is Nations Random? Absolutely! Does an auction draft mitigate imbalance? Yes! However, I still think Rome has a jump out of the gate and picking first every round in the auction until at least mid game is pretty powerful.

I think you may have incorrectly understood my thesis (with help from other posters). It's not 'maxing out military always wins' but rather 'Rome is very strong in 2P because the military bonus is very important early in the game and continues to be valuable throughout and an early lead will generally result in victory'. Rome is very efficient for 2P and has a lot of things that can go right. They don't have to crush it in military, they just have to pace the opp.

It also seems obvious to me that the designers should have included measures to adjust balancing with player count as I think 2P under the original rules simply doesn't work very well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant
United States
Cuyahoga Falls
Ohio
flag msg tools
One of the best gaming weekends in Ohio since 2010. Search facebook for "BOGA Weekend Retreat" for more info!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
p1q0 wrote:
Chilavert 82 IT wrote:
As said by many users, that variant just can't work... with that, you just limit game strategies (and you break the balance)... and the game is already "hard" enough without the "help" of this variant.
Rome is strong? Yes... is the better Nation... if you see "just" the military part of the game... however, isn't just that part... and that isn't totally true: Persia, for example, dosen't have any particular advantage for military... but 3 Colonies spaces on the board mean that, usually, go military for get colonies could be an interesting strategy, in particular during the mid-late game phase, where Roma can have just 2 Colonies.

But one of the good thing about Nations is the randomness: you can have also a destructive +40 of Military Power... but if the war dosen't come up during a turn or there aren't colonies... well, you must be ready to change the cards on your board and would be really difficult if you want/need/must to focus just on Military... you must think 360, looking for the best every single turn... and for that, you need to move your meeples without any block... resources are already a big issue to think about.


"I'm right and you're wrong"

Hey, another post about how you're right and everyone else is wrong! You really threw us a curve ball there!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Balotti
Italy
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:


My variant definitely makes the game harder. It constricts game play and enforces more discipline and efficiency in actions but I would definitely still say that it is workable. I happen to like it in part for those reasons. The game is looser when you can ignore a bad building or throw resources around with more freedom.

I've yet to see a good argument that it breaks balance so I'll provide one myself - Rome seeks (in part) to deny resources to the opp and can access cheap resources through colonies. The variant, by restricting resources, increases the effectiveness of the strategy. True? Maybe. Now that I've posted it maybe someone will tell me (without explanation of course!) that that's wrong as well.

But let's forget the variant as I still think Rome is unbalanced 2P under original rules, primarily because as player # goes down fighting is more important due to events, turn order, colony procurement and wars being more binary. In 2P, there isn't much room to hide and spite and denial have a greater reward. I frankly think Rome's advantage is strong in 5P let alone 2P.

Can I pick your brain on the Persia? I do like Persia but I think Persia / Rome is a very tough match up for Persia. Persia can definitely go stability, which heads off war and wins events, but the extra colony is likely to be worth very little as Rome will have the advantage in securing early colonies. Persia will probably never reach 3, and if it does it will be late. And Persia is going to have a food problem which limits population (assume stability is reserved as war defense). So it looks like a reasonably even matchup except that Rome get +2 fighting for free, will win the race for colonies, generally splits the event, and is better able to grow. Persia may, in time, get a third colony, but it probably won't get more than a round or two of production so its really just +1VP (the VP of the early colony which would have been replaced without the 3rd slot). I like Rome in that one.

Is Nations Random? Absolutely! Does an auction draft mitigate imbalance? Yes! However, I still think Rome has a jump out of the gate and picking first every round in the auction until at least mid game is pretty powerful.

I think you may have incorrectly understood my thesis (with help from other posters). It's not 'maxing out military always wins' but rather 'Rome is very strong in 2P because the military bonus is very important early in the game and continues to be valuable throughout and an early lead will generally result in victory'. Rome is very efficient for 2P and has a lot of things that can go right. They don't have to crush it in military, they just have to pace the opp.

It also seems obvious to me that the designers should have included measures to adjust balancing with player count as I think 2P under the original rules simply doesn't work very well.


And ALL this... with just a +2 Bonus? Man, must be really strong that +2.
Choose first is nice, but dosen't mean a 100% victory... sometimes Rome could choose a card (war, military unit, whatever) and get countered by the second pick... you know, go first is nice, but isn't always the best thing... also in Nations.
If you know what "counter" is, I'm sure that you can agree that many cards counters a huge Military advance... Great Wall it's just an example: if on a turn, on the board, there is that wonder AND a strong military unit... what Rome would choose? Go for Great Wall and you must "waste" time in a wonder that you can't really use... choose Military? Your enemy dosen't bother about your Military Power anymore, particular strong in a 2P game... a lot more OP than that +2 on Military Power.
And I could add the same example with the more common pair war/military unit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
Wario83 wrote:
p1q0 wrote:
Wario83 wrote:
Pap

After reading through your last 3 threads it has become apparent that:

1. Nobody else seems to agree with you concerning Rome imbalance and the restricted meeple placement. Many have stated their reasonings for doing so. If anything, the suggested course of action if your group is locked into thinking that Rome is imbalanced (in 2p in particular according to your posts) then stop using Rome.

2. You will not listen to anybody.

So it seems to me that you have confirmation bias, that is you are only looking for evidence that will support your own conclusion. Anything else must be wrong.

Attacking your fellow BGGers and the designer of the game for disagreeing with you will not help your argument. So please can everybody be respectful and courteous in these discussions in the future. I don't want BGG to end up as a flame war posting board.

Thanks.

-Not the Management


Wario-

It's interesting how everyone seems to think they are right. have you also seen the posts where a number of people have said that Rome is a very strong 2P pick? And thank you for letting me know that your conclusion is right and anything else must be wrong. That's very open minded of you! Or maybe that's exactly what you've accused me of? How ironic!

I strongly encourage you to refute my contention - that Rome is overpowered in 2P - and when you do please ignore my variant. It's true by the original rules as well. I was hoping someone would provide a cogent argument that my contention was wrong but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that. Seems like a reasonable way to avoid group think, no? If you believe a refutation has been posted, plase feel free to repost what you think was the most convincing argument.

---Not the management
Pap


Pap I really don't get the hate and vitriol that seems to be in your posts concerning this topic. As previously stated, many have said that they have not experienced Rome being overpowered in 2p though some have agreed Rome is a strong contender.

However, it is clear you have no intention of listening to anybody and will only attack those who disagree with you (even those who are completely civil as I was) so I will not be contributing to this discussion any more. I just hope the Nations board becomes a little friendlier in time when these posts drop off.

-Still Not the Management


Wario, Wario. Is it better to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous posters or by opposing end them? I'm sure your role of etiquette police is a difficult. demanding, and frequently thankless one, and while I would certainly would never presume to know your mind nor be so mercurial as to mind you minding my manners, might I trouble you to train your laser like focus onto this post, which may help inform you as to the purpose of this board:

Riku Riekkinen wrote:

That being said I must say that I agree with the original poster on the strengths of Rome in 2er, if Nations is played competitively with B sides as 2er. I'm baffled that people voted for Persia to be strongest in 2er.

Anyway the subject has sparkled a good strategy discussion and thanks for that.


and then to these which might not - dare I say - meet your exacting standards of civility. I wait with baited breath for you to thrust your enormous will on these rabblerousers.

Cyberian wrote:
Yeah, i think this idea is b.s.


grant5 wrote:
Hey, another post about how you're right and everyone else is wrong! You really threw us a curve ball there!


Iago71 wrote:
Forgive me but you are really annoying...


---Never, ever, the management ... ever
Pap
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
RustanR wrote:
I see a bunch of effects from a change like this, the most obvious is the drastic increase of importance for early upgraded buildings and military. If such a card is available you would have to take it, reducing choice. Another effect would be the need to totally rework all nation boards.


I'd say those were important already. There's certainly no question that the variant forces you to be more efficient and disciplined in your decisions, which some players will like and others understandably will not. I find it considerably more thematic to encourage players to eliminate their worst properties and restrict willy nilly unit transfers which allow you to gain the benefit of a unit without incurring its full cost, but of course that it just a matter of opinion.

As a side question, can you elaborate on the decision not to adjust rules based on player count? I've found its common in most game with a preferred # of players (nations for me is best at 4 or 5) to create special rules to allow reduced player play as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pap Qaq
United States
Park City
Utah
flag msg tools
[q="Chilavert 82 IT"]
Quote:

And ALL this... with just a +2 Bonus? Man, must be really strong that +2.
Choose first is nice, but dosen't mean a 100% victory... sometimes Rome could choose a card (war, military unit, whatever) and get countered by the second pick... you know, go first is nice, but isn't always the best thing... also in Nations.
If you know what "counter" is, I'm sure that you can agree that many cards counters a huge Military advance... Great Wall it's just an example: if on a turn, on the board, there is that wonder AND a strong military unit... what Rome would choose? Go for Great Wall and you must "waste" time in a wonder that you can't really use... choose Military? Your enemy dosen't bother about your Military Power anymore, particular strong in a 2P game... a lot more OP than that +2 on Military Power.
And I could add the same example with the more common pair war/military unit.


+2 is a big deal in Age 1, it doesn't cost me in assignment or upkeep, and leads tend to grow in nations. Great wall doesn't prevent resource denial and it comes a little late. My advantage will be biggest Age 1. I don't see it as all that strong although it is cheap.

I think the card you wanted to name was Colleseum, which is a card that I do not want to see if I am Rome. If it show I probably waste an action to take it to preserve my fighting advantage but I don't develop it immediately. Of course that hurts my flexibility and wastes an action. Fortunately for me as Rome its expensive and won't show up that often.

The reason I like Rome 2P is that I will probably get 2 colonies by the end of Age 2 (while you get none or the worst of the three), I can expand my population, I will hit you with wars or force you to pay gold and action to avoid them, I will win war events, I may even win stability events and I get to choose first. In order to accomplish all of that I don't have to give up much because my engine is very efficient. Since its all on my home board I don't 'need' any cards and can draft either for my strength or to preserve your weakness.

Its pretty hard to counter a lot of that. You can solve war through stability (somewhat) and build stability to take those events (sometimes, although I'll be building it too), but Rome will get the rest. And the nation with the best stability engine (persia) has its special bonus (extra colony) neutered by the fact that I get there first.

Rome starts with +2 fighting for free, a nice 3 production building (aqueduct) and a +3 unit that gels very well with that building. Can you point to a better collection on another board when matched against Rome?
 
 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.