Recommend
42 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Through the Ages: A New Story of Civilization» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Strategy thoughts new version rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
M Van Der Werf
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The new version of the game has a lot of changes but in terms of strategy the changes are mostly subtle. TTA is by it's nature a very tactical game, it's important to be open to many options depending on how cheaply and quickly you can acquire the cards. Especially with a much improved card balance in this version almost any card has a use and often you want to go into what's flowing for you. Later on in the game picking cards for more and sticking to a strategy is more important though.

In terms of overall strategy the most crucial change is the difference in military. It's a bit weaker overall and especially the early game is much more passive because it's so much easier to defend. Lategame is only slightly less passive though because of no more sacrificing. Lategame is often still about massing military but getting culture is more important all around because games without much if any aggression are much more common. Especially the copy rule and some weakened strats like napo+classic army make big differences in military MUCH less frequent lategame. The result: culture production matters more as it's less likely one player will squash the other in military.
Especially early on getting some economy techs going is crucial, in the old version getting pyramids and irrigation and boosting military maximally for the rest was good. Now you often want a bit more economy going first.

I played the new version about 10 times now and want to give my opinion on the cards so far going over by category. This is mostly with 2 player games in mind, most things stay mostly the same with more players but a few cards do change significantly.

Economy cards:
(all the cards that you can put workers on that aren't military)

Irrigation
Selective breeding
Mechanized agriculture

Irrigation is a key tech, it's just the most efficient upgrade in the game. Only 3 science to research and 2 to upgrade makes this ideal. With columbus and fertile/vast territory being weaker now it's also more crucial to get this usually. Selective breeding is fine too but the fact it can come late and 4 food production is typically plenty anyway make irrigation preferred. Other options to fix extra population are columbus + territories and Ocean liner but these aren't as ideal.

Iron
Coal
Oil

Iron is a hot discussion always in TTA. Many new players love it or find it essential but most veterans know it's overpriced. 5 science and 3 for every upgrade is pretty bad compared to other options, for example alchemy. 3 bronze mines and yellow cards here and there is just plenty production and you are better off upgrading something else. However plenty of games something else does not come up early and you just go with iron because in the new TTA you do want to get some economic tech going early usually. Early aggression is nearly impossible most games so fairly often Iron will just have to do, the rich land cards being useable for upgrades benefits it too. Coal was only decent because of the interaction with Transcontinental but that was nerfed (for no reason) so going that route is rarely worth it anymore.
Oil is just the worst tech in the game now.

Alchemy
Scientific method
Computers

Alchemy is tricky. In the old version it was really good, if you got away with it. It nicely helped your science and later on it provided nice options for culture with Computers, the later science leaders (sid meier/einstein/gates) and first space flight. Aggressive opponents could make it to risky to go into alchemy though. Now it's much safer to go into alchemy but the route with computers and endgame options are a bit weaker. Computers and FSP were slightly nerfed, although gates was buffed, overall the path is weaker though especially as other lategame culture options got better. I play it more now because I upgrade much more in general in the new TTA but I think other options actually got more attractive. Scientific method is a bit better by the way as it still works nicely with most science leaders later but wasn't raised in price like Computers.

Printing press
Journalism
Multimedia

In terms of cost these seem pretty good, they are as expensive as similar ones in the Alchemy techs and provide better benefit, the culture is definately worth more than the extra science. The problem however is that you start the game with 1 philosophy. It's simply much better to be able to upgrade into a tech. A printing press is good but you use it you are usually delaying your second philosophy. Printing press is fairly good though if you get it really early and make 2 of them. These techs are nice and there are some good payoffs (shakespeare can be good for example if you had a printing press) but they are hard to transition into so only take these if the transition into them is easy.

Bread & Circuses
Team sports
Professional sports

These are quite cost efficient ways to fix the happiness problem, more efficient than temple techs now. However I don't end up playing them much because there are better ways to fix happiness often, with wonders or Operas and Bach. Also the temple event happens fairly often which makes temple techs more attractive. But if you don't have any of those things this is these are the preferred way to fix happiness.

Theology
Organized Religion

Arena techs surpassed these in cost effectiveness now but because on an age A event or wanting to avoid corruption you often have a temple already. And then upgrading that instead of starting arena is better so these, especially org. religion get played a fair amount. But I vastly prefer fixing happiness with wonders or theater techs now.

Drama
Opera
Movies

Boy did these improve. Cheaper to get and better interactions with leaders and wonders plus a less aggressive game really made these much better. Drama is still pretty bad though, it's too little of an upgrade over a temple to get typically, nor is it great with leaders. For shakespeare you prefer printing press into opera for example.
Opera however is really great in conjunction with Bach now. Bach got much better because you can upgrade away unneeded philosophy late in age 2 and it's just quite an effective culture engine lategame. Lategame chaplin + hollywood is really good after some Opera's for example.
Movies is also alright but I prefer Opera's as you can start them a bit earlier and help out in happiness.

Military cards
Swordsman
Knights

Riflemen
Cavalrymen
Cannon

Airforces
Rockets/tanks/modern infantry:

Military in the current game didn't change much in terms of cards. It's still by far most efficient to go with swordsman/knights and try and get a good age II tactic with potentially airforce later. It's harder however to get an age II tactic yourself (less in the deck) but there is less chance that it matters as your opponent doesn't get one either or you can copy it. Knights got relatively more important though, before swordsman was the more crucial option as defensive army was a decent option. With only 1 instead of 2 in the deck it's too risky to gamble for most of the time and you want to set up for conquistadors/napoleonic/classic/mobile army.
If you have to choose between the two swordsman are more important in 2p, because there is only 1 riflemen and modern infantry, which are both expensive as well. In 3p or 4p knights is quite a bit more important though as having them will practically garantee you access to a good tactic at some point and you can grab riflemen later (hatedrafting is not really a thing in 3p/4p).
Cannons as usual are still somthing you just get only when needed. And age III tactics and age II/III units are more useless than before, they were a hail mary tactic before when you couldn't get an age II tactic. Now if you can't get an age II tactic you try to copy the one from your opponent (or if he hasn't played one, copy his unit setup so you can follow).

From a design point of view this was the biggest letdown of the new version, it would have been more intersting if age II/III units were better and more balanced.

Wonders:
Many wonders got changed and more of them are good now. Especially early on I like to build more wonders now delaying my military for that. Later wonders are a little less interesting I find, partly because I tend to have more wonders already early on.

Pyramids
Library of alexandria
Hanging gardens
Colussus

Pyramids is still the best age A wonder and virtually always solid. Library of alexandria was boosted a lot though, it's cheaper to build as you need a turn less and the higher hand limit can be very useful for defending now as any card is +1 defense(especiall in 3 or 4p if multiple players attack you). Library of alexandria also competed with alchemy/computers a bit because both improved science but with me liking the alchemy route less now I prefer library a bit more now which for example transitions very nicely into Bach+Opera while upgrading your philosophies away.
Also I prefer it over hanging gardens now because hanging gardens lost some ground I think, hanging gardens makes getting a age I wonder harder often (because you want to finish gardens late ideally when happiness problems kick in) and doesn't work well with homer. Plus gardens synergizes less with St peter now. Colussus is still terrible, perhaps even more so than before.

St. Peter
Universitas
Great wall
Taj Mahal

St. Peter is fantastic now. The 1 extra happiness is really sweet, basically it just does what hanging gardens does often but better. If you finish it somewhat early it helps fix happiness just when those problems arise, especially as stuff like Homer and the temple event can give you good sources to double. The combo with hanging gardens and michelangelo is about the same strength still.
Universitas is just Library+ and better than it if you can get it early but often I don't want to risk skipping an age A wonder so the window of oppurtunity for Universitas to shine passes. If you see it show early consider taking this first though, even over pyramids perhaps.
Great wall is still good but the military it provides is a little harder to put to use now as by the time this is at it's strongest the defense rule still mitigates aggressions a fair bit. The big problem with great wall now is that going for defensive army is too big a gamble now, you are very unlikely to be able to copy it from someone. Especially in 3p or 4p great wall loses power because of it, for example assume one player on great wall and legion and the others on medieval army. In the old version everyone had to try and get tactics themselves and you had solid chances to get defensive army or perhaps classic as good transition. Now the players with Knights practically garantee eachother to get a decent tactic, whereas the great wall player has a big chance to get shafted.
Taj mahal is fairly nice now, its the epitome of a card you should oppurtunistically take but if you can get this for 0 CA that's a sweet deal. If you don't get the discount this is still crap of course.

Eiffel tower
Kremlin
Ocean liner
Transcontinental

All the age II wonders are a bit mediocre now. None of them are useless but none are great either. Eiffel tower is still the best and a good outlet for unexpected surplus resources. It suffers from some oppurtunity cost though as it's easier to just fully commit to something like Opera now which gives more culture. Kremlin is very mediocre still, though you can often suffer the 1 unhappiness the payout is just too small. 1 CA+MA that late is not so great anymore and 2 culture is too little. At 3 culture this would have been good.
Ocean liner improved quite a bit but it's still lackluster. The problem is that irrigation and some yellow cards is just a better way to get population. If you do go with this you often need to get a third farm at some point to pay the upkeep. And usually it just comes online too late to really make enough workers. If you missed out on irrigation or this comes really early it can be nice though.
Transcontinental is quite weak now. It's a combo with Coal, and to a lesser extent Iron, of course but you should rather just avoid that. The payout isn't enough.

Hollywood
Fast food chains
First space flight
Internet

These are all solid and much easier to get in the new version with less hurtful wars later on. Fast food chains for example is not such a liability anymore without Holy war or sacrificing, it used to have a big risk as your opponent could just make sure you wouldn't score big on it by starting a war which they didn't even have to win. First space flight was nerfed a little bit, also indirectly with computers and the increased science cost on a few techs like swordsman but it's still good. Hollywood however is the big winner here and very solid. I mentioned it several times already throughout but Bach + Opera into Chaplin + Hollywood was buffed immensely which made all those cards see more play. Chaplin + 3 opera's lets Hollywood give you 24 culture for example which is really solid, more than FSP typically gives and easier to get.


Leaders
The leader rule doesn't change the game all too much. You just want to make even more sure you get a leader every age. Also waiting till the end of an age for a specific leader is a little worse, you lose out on the CA then.

Homer
Aristotle
Moses
Hammurabi
Alexander
Caesar

The age A leaders are the ones i'm least certain about yet. Homer and Alexander improved quite a bit as their 'dying' action is quite strong. But I find it hard to compare to Aristotle/moses. Homer for example gives a permanent happy face and 1-3 resources now typically. On the other hand Aristotle improved a bit too as you can pick up more useful techs early so tends to give ~6 science. Not sure yet which I value more, I think homer is the strongest now but have to test a bit more especially as Homer is good when replaced quickly unlike Aristole/Moses. Homer also interacts nicely with St peter or Michelangelo. I'm unsure yet what the ruling is between Homer and Ravages of time which matters a fair bit. What especially makes Homer so great is the direct happy face you get off him, being able to use the worker that is otherwise discontent quickly is a good option, it makes using the warrior event much easier and you can more comfortably go for some economical openings.
Aristotle is better than Moses now I think but both are really close. With Moses I need to test 4 mine or even 3 farm openings a bit more, corruption is easier to manage now and they could be good.
Hammurabi is quite solid now, the biggest buff to him was the absent of earlygame agression and less need for MA in age 1, which make the tradeoff between MA and CA MUCH better. Also the bonus on replacing him is really quite nice, which makes him very versatile, even if you replace him after 3 turns he did well but he's fine to keep 6 turns too. He gains bonus points for being good with revolution, revolution into monarchy is pretty good now and hammurabi enables this really well. You can revolution, grab a leader for free, replace for a MA and get a CA, and then play something else. This makes the revolution very smooth and you can avoid corruption easily or avoid missing out on a crucial card the turn you wanted to revolution.
After more testing I found alexander mediocre, the problem with him is that his ability favors using him right away but his passive strength wants you to hold him. So usually you just cash him in for the yellow token quickly to let it help you save food, but it costs you a CA (since you can't replace alexander anymore) and a potential seeding oppurtunity. Alexander really wants a quick age I leader to arrive you want early like leonardo+alchemy/printing press or barbarossa. Most age I leaders aren't that great to use early though so you want an age A leader that sticks around a bit longer.
Finally Caesar is weak now, his power was (threatening) aggression and digging better for tactics and colonies. Those are less relevant to draw now and rarely will caesar do a succesful aggression now. I only need to know the ruling still if doing a double aggression in one turn means the other player can play defense cards twice equal to their MA or just once? If the latter Caesar is a little better but still unexciting.

Columbus
Leonardo
Barbarossa
Michelangelo
Genghis khan
Joan of Arc

Leonardo and Columbus are really close now. Columbus was nerfed a fair bit and leonardo is much safer to play now thus better. I still prefer Columbus slightly but I really want the good territory in hand now whereas in the old TTA i also just gambled it. Leonardo is sweet and seeing him early is a very good reason to go Alchemy. Barbarossa is also quite nice now, before using a CA instead of a CA + MA for making military was often not much of a saving. Now he saves crucial CA's in age I potentially and is really good to get early, especially sweet as quick followup to a Homer or Alexander. Michelangelo is also a little better, the classic combo of hanging gardens + st peter is still alright but other combinations like pyramids homer into michelangelo + st peter with a temple also give 5 happiness now and are really good.
Genghis khan finally is a bit odd. His ability would make you think to skip knights entirely but still get a great tactic going. That works quite nice and gives you culture even. The problem is the followup, going without knights makes getting a good age II tactic very risky and thus I prefer to make knights anyway usually. If you could rely on defensive army it would be really strong to go great wall + genghis + heavy cavalry. Now it's really strong for a few turns and then you are likely to be screwed as genghis goes away because you have no good tactic left. It's high reward but too risky for me.
Joan or arc just stinks. Early aggressions and wars are very unlikely to happen in the new TTA so you don't need her. And she only synergizes with theocracy which stinks.

Bach
Cook
Robespierre
Newton
Napoleon
Shakespeare

These leaders are all situational and good in their own right now which is sweet. Bach is the new all-star of them though I feel. Converting philosophies which you don't need anymore into Opera's or Movies lategame is just sweet. Especially the fact the followup with Hollywood is better and Napo/Cook aren't as dominant anymore matter.
Cook is still alright if you got the colonies going. Just less culture now for it and harder to win those colonies with him making me not like this tactic as much anymore.
Robespierre is still a pretty straightfoward two-card combo with republic, which is 1 science less now and 3 culture more. Not bad but not exciting. Especially with monarchy being sweet now you should usually go for monarchy or CM.
Newton is fine and one that benefits from the replacement CA a lot I think. Before with a science strat i'd typically just go Leonardo into Einstein keeping myself open for (denying) Napo/Cook in age II. Now I care less about those and I don';t want to skip Newton. Plus Newton goes nicely into Gates which I prefer now as science leader.
Napoleon is not a shadow of his former self anymore. Still if he shows early and you got medieval army he can be worth it if he allows aggressions, otherwise just don't bother.
Shakespeare finally is potentially good. He is just too niche often. I still don't like theaters or libraries in age I and starting them both in age II is too troublesome. And he's best if you have a printing press opening to go into Opera/movies later but he's hardly better than Bach then unless you can afford 2 libraries AND 2 opera's which even in the more passive game now is too much.

Churchill
Gates
Einstein
Sid meier
Chaplin
Gandhi

Churchill is really good now, even if you just get him for culture, 3 culture per turn without any effort can be good. And having the option to go aggressive or defensive with him is fantastic. He fits almost any tactic and others hardly outperform him much.
Gates/Einstein/Sid meier are pretty interchangeable and very close now. If you have a science strat just take the one that comes first, if they come at the same time I slightly prefer Gates then Einstein than Meier typically.
Chaplin is just fine as followup to bach/shakespeare but doesn't really produce more culture than them so he's just good for the last turn usually and the hollywood combo.
Gandhi finally is niche, if he can protect you and military is the way you can lose, sure go with him. But usually his ability won't save you. Before he also had 2 niche uses: you were going full military and gandhi's 2 culture per turn was just the best a leader could do for you, churhcill already does that now. Also gandhi could save you after you massively sacrificed for a war but that's no longer a thing now.

Governments

Monarchy
Theocracy

Constitutional monarchy
Republic

Democracy
Fundamentalism
Communism

CM is still the best government by far. But Monarchy if it comes up at a good timing is very good alternative. Theocracy is weaker than before even and rarely worth going. Republic is usually a combo with Robespierre still which is alright. Democracy at age III is quite good but it's tough to rely on so you usually want to go monarchy or CM if you can. Fundamentalism is nice to revolution into in a low to no science strat late but pretty awful in a science strat. Finally communism is a bit lousy and a real last resort.

Blue techs

Warfare
Strategy
Military Theory

These are still good but I find them less important in the new version. Digging for tactics is not as important when you can sometimes copy them. And i prefer to manouver myself into a position where i'm ahead in culture and they have to attack instead of the other way around. However military actions are also very good on defense so you might still want them then, just slightly less so than in the old TTA. Also the crucial third military action, is easier to obtain now with monarchy for example.

Code of Laws
Justice System
Civil Service

Code of laws is great now, it used to have a liability that you'd get swordsman/knights online too late and your defense would suffer. That's rarely an issue now since you have more time to get those going. Justice system/ civil service come a bit late and aren't really interesting. Warfare also used to be a just better tech to get but that's reversed now.

Masonry
Architecture
Engineering

Urban buildings are better in the new version and you make more of them. But I also find the science a bit more tight so I find these hard to fit in. But if you can they aren't bad.

Cartoraphy
Navigation
Sattelites

These weren't too great to begin with and the 1 military and the payoff for colonies (Cook especially) is less now so i don't like this strategy too much anymore. But if you draw only colonies, by all means seed them and get this.


Edit: Updated a few ratings.
57 
 Thumb up
8.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tables
United Kingdom
Coventry
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lots of interesting thoughts here. I feel like some of your thoughts seem to lead into each other, without looking at possible alternative routes, e.g. Joan + Theology means you're pretty set for happiness forever, plus your early strength boost is often enough to start attacking people, especially with the Basilica. 1 MA is also very nice early game for free to draw and have extra military cards in hand, and 1 culture per turn is a nice little extra. Still I'll be very interested to see where people have other thoughts.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M Van Der Werf
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I Eat Tables wrote:
Lots of interesting thoughts here. I feel like some of your thoughts seem to lead into each other, without looking at possible alternative routes, e.g. Joan + Theology means you're pretty set for happiness forever, plus your early strength boost is often enough to start attacking people, especially with the Basilica. 1 MA is also very nice early game for free to draw and have extra military cards in hand, and 1 culture per turn is a nice little extra. Still I'll be very interested to see where people have other thoughts.


Well this game is a lot about the synergies so the card valuations are all elated which makes it harder, especially key cards for a strategy. Hanging gardens vs library of alexandria for example is choosing to some extent how you fix your happiness and get your science income. How good alchemy, printing press, sticking on just 2 science, opera etc. All matter for this because you need to answer how much happiness is worth and how much science is.

Certainly there will be cards I'm over or undervaluating, the game is new and I've played about 13 games so far but none against great competition (BGO doesn't let you screen opponents well). It's quite possible for example I'm overrating Bach, who worked really well in my games so far, but better opponents don't give you the opportunity to go for.

Joan however is a pretty obvious combo with theocracy but it's a weak one i find. You get too few extra strength or of it imo that won't let you do aggressions usually. Also theocracy just gives an extra MA early at a time when you don't have too much use for that yet, governments are best when you get them really early in the age but theocracy is in a weird spot that it's not really strong when it comes early age 1, to the point i almost never want it.

Oh well, we will see what other people think. Most stuff is pretty similar to the old game in terms of rankings, some of the most interesting discussion points i think are the age A leaders, age A wonders and age II leaders as big changes happened there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tables
United Kingdom
Coventry
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, the game is about synergies and combos, to some extent, but of course you have to do a little bit of everything. However I think you're focusing too heavily on the strength side of Joan and forgetting she provides a lot of other benefits. 1 MA in Age I is great, that first extra MA is a huge difference - now you're going from drawing 2 cards to 3, and holding 3 instead of 2 cards. That's good both for finding useful events and to a lesser extent tactics and possibly grabbing an Aggression if you want to go that route, and also for defending yourself against enemy aggressions. The 1 culture per turn is a small trickle bonus as well, probably around 7 culture total which is nice. Doesn't affect a huge amount early on, but it's a few extra points at the end. And looking at the top event can be very powerful. It lets you know if it's safe to throw an event in now, and if you don't want to, you can use that knowledge to your advantage, by knowing what's about to strike. And then finally, she also gives a small amount of extra strength. Even with just a Religion, it's +1 strength, which can make a difference. It's very nice defensively, and allows you to avoid going too heavily into military in age I. Or you can use it aggressively with a strong military, to try and play aggressions. If you can get the Basilica, and Temples become insanely strong for her - Religions give +2 strength, +2 happiness, +1 culture for 3 resources, Theology gives +3 strength, +3 happiness, +3 culture for 5 resources. Both of those are bonuses comparable to building military units. But this is not the only thing she does - she gives a lot of nice, medium sized bonuses.

I don't know if she's the weakest or if she's strong, but I feel like she's underrated somewhat here.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jonas havreglid
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have now played a fair number of 2/3/4 player games against good players and have updated my assessment. I feel that a strategy that uses a lot of action cards for resources to push military and culture early is usually superior.

Economy

Farms //. The most crucial upgrades in the game but not necessarily the ones you want first. I find that I am often set up for upgrades early in age 2 while I build military and wonders in age 1. I still feel that irrigation does not work for the entire game without something extra. Early selective breeding is superior to irrigation by a lot but it is also riskier.

Mines //. They lose out badly to the new yellow cards in 2-player or if there is military pressure. Compare Iron and code of laws if you can have max 2 iron and you have 4 or 5 civil actions. In peaceful games they are ok. But it is hard to know that before age 2 tactics. With more players it is harder to get yellows so they gain a bit. The later mines can help secure a lead from lack of resources.

Labs //. I feel that scientific method is still the loser among the labs. If I get alchemy early I go labs and then I go into computers, otherwise I go with libraries.

Libraries //. Cheap printing presses and less early military pressure really enables this line. With a little help science is enough in most games and getting culture at the same time makes them great. They are still hard to get into. I often find myself holding of on philosophy to leave space for printing presses.

Arenas //. They are efficient in military pushes but do not jam with any culture strategy as most culture buildings/wonders gives happiness.

Temples /. Good interactions with the buffed Jeanne D'Arc. No real potential for later. Too expensive.

Theaters //. Once again I feel that the later ones are too expensive. Drama works good for happiness with a source of extra.

Military

Infantry //
Cavalry //
Artillery //
Air Force / /

Special

I think that extra actions are the number one priority in Age I and consequently I rate monarchy highly as it the most efficient way to do it. It is risky to wait for constitutional, you will often have to take it for many actions, you are forced to save science that could be invested in strategy or code of laws. You can use monarchy all game in military and culture strategies. Constitutional is still very good, but you want some extra actions before it so it is taxing on your science. If you have even more science, democracy is a worthwhile use of extra science. The others are desperation measures if you have been denied actions from better cards.

Monarchy
Theocracy

Constitutional monarchy
Republic

Democracy
Fundamentalism
Communism

These cards are worth even more on impacts now. If you have decent science you should aim to get one in every category.

War: //
Warfare compares badly with monarchy but is still very good. With the military changes you want at least one of these for both offense and defense.

Law: //
I prefer monarchy to code of laws but when you get it out a turn ealier it wins out unless the need for MA:s is dire. They actually work great with age 1 governments as getting the actions earlier is super important to push your advantange.

Architecture: //
A very nice luxury.

Colonisation: //
Half of it is the free strength.

Wonders

Pyramids
Library of Alexandria
Hanging gardens
Colossus

Pyramids is just better than the others. Library and gardens are eclipsed by their age 2 counterparts. Colossus is plain bad. Best as player 1 but there not 4 worse cards than it in the age so why would you choose it? You need some military draws to decide. The only scenario I see for it is picking it turn 2 after the cards draws with an EG and appropriate military cards.

St. Peter
Universitas
Great wall
Taj Mahal

These give a lot and come at a good time if you skip iron. St. Peters is always great. I rate great wall higher than most as it makes you a lot less dependent on tactics now that there are fewer in the deck. It shines in games without age 2 tactics and still works with every age 2 tactic except conquistadors and mobile artillery. It is amazing for mid game culture/military with Genghis. Best in 2-player games.

Eiffel tower
Kremlin
Ocean liner
Transcontinental
These can be hard to afford with the mounting military pressure. While all are nice the only real game changer is the ocean liner.

Hollywood
Fast food chains
First space flight
Internet

I do not think that science strategies are that nerfed and even in a low science game FSF scores at least 20 culture. Hollywood is very strong when you get it right but if you are able to do so you are probably already in the lead.

Leaders

Age A

Aristotle
Homer
Hammurabi
Alexander
Moses
Caesar
Aristotle science is so flexible, it kick starts your empire in whichever way you want, I prefer monarchy or code of laws. Homer and Alexander has a great long term bonuses but it is about the snowball. On that ground I rate Hammurabi highly, especially when there are so many good age 2 leaders. Moses feels inferior to Barbarossa.

Columbus
Leonardo
Barbarossa
Genghis khan
Joan of Arc
Michelangelo

These are well balanced and different. Columbus is best if you get vast territory but he is usually not worth drafting without a good territory. Joan of Arc is a bit messy with all her bonii but if you have temples she is way better than Michelangelo and even without them she is ok. Michelangelo does rarely give many more points than Genghis and does not have the military bonus. Use him for wonderspam not building unnecessary urban buildings.

Bach
Cook
Robespierre
Newton
Napoleon
Shakespeare

I have gotten so much out of Napoleon in my games so far. If he comes early in age 2 he is often devastating with 2 military action and 4 strength enabling some saved up aggression's against the lagging player. An auto-pick in 2-player. Newton is a good second pick. The others are situational. Shakespeare is extremely situational, even with cheaper printing press and drama he is such hard work to get going. And even if you do get theaters and libraries you may have to pick napoleon to avoid him destroying you. What kills him for me is that he no longer gives culture on libraries. I go for libraries in almost half of my games, theaters more rarely, and almost never both at the same time. He would be much better if he was like the old version + a happy face.

Churchill
Gates
Einstein
Chaplin:
Sid Meier
Gandhi

The lab leaders suffer from there only being 2 computers for 4 players and them being more expensive. Gates is amazing in the right circumstances and decent most of the time while Meier needs at least 2 computers/3 sci meth to be good. Churchill is never wrong and useful to deny your opponent. Chaplin is quite specific but can be good in a wondr combo. It is very obvious to your opponent when you go for it though.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M Van Der Werf
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
We have mostly the same ratings if i see that. Lots of the differences can be attributed to difference between 2p and 4p i think, for example:
Selective breeding is easy to hate in 2p making irrigation more important.
Science is more important in 4p, you often need to take a more expensive variant for something because you don't get something, ie cavalrymen instead of knights or selective instead of irrigation.
You need more CAs to get cards typically as you can't wait for stuff to drop to 1 conveniently. Economy is slightly different with more events popping too. Military and related cards are more important in 4p than 2p by quite a bit in new version. In 2p you can defend against 1 player fairly easily, in 4p it's harder and more strength based events punish you for being last. This used to be other way around imo as huge wars were the decider in 2p before but much rarer now.

Some other things like arena vs temple just depend on temple event which you see more in 4p.

For 4p i think your ratings are fine except you underrate the Bach/opera/Chaplin/hollywood route i think. And great Wall is much worse in 4p imo, if you don't stick to legion or defensive it's weak. But in 4p it's so much easier to get a good tactic if you're onto knights because the Knights payers help eachother out through copying whereas the great Wall player won't as effectively.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daiden Q
msg tools
mbmb
You guys do a good job making this game sound really boring. Breaking down the game to the most "optimal" path that EVERYONE should be going makes it sound like a waste of time to play. Was interested but sounds like I'll pass for something with more variety.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patar Absurdus the Shananigator
United States
Carrollton
TX
flag msg tools
"what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
badge
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
daiden wrote:
You guys do a good job making this game sound really boring. Breaking down the game to the most "optimal" path that EVERYONE should be going makes it sound like a waste of time to play. Was interested but sounds like I'll pass for something with more variety.


I hope your joking. People can discuss any skill based game in a similar manner. I haven't played a game with more meaningful variety. I haven't played a game that is more interesting or enjoyable than this. Not playing it due to a strategy article would be truly sad.
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M Van Der Werf
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
daiden wrote:
You guys do a good job making this game sound really boring. Breaking down the game to the most "optimal" path that EVERYONE should be going makes it sound like a waste of time to play. Was interested but sounds like I'll pass for something with more variety.


Lol if anything this is showing this game has big strategic variety now. Every card is playable, you just need to decide which is optimal and some are more primal than others more often. But every card will be worth using from time to time with just a few exceptions.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ido Abelman
Israel
Hod Hasharon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe it's because of the players I played with, but I've had some success with Ceasar. The early third MA is still very good - drawing more cards, possibly defending easier, and although getting a tactic is not as important it even helps with the copying because without it you cannot copy and build a unit in the same turn.

It of course got much weaker because it's hard to land early aggressions, but the double political action can compensate. The best option of using it is a double aggression against one opponent. To your question I'm pretty you defend against each aggression separately, but even so it's can be very hard to defend against two aggressions, even against a relatively mild strength difference.

It's a gamble of course, but it can pay out nicely. At the very least you force your opponent(s) to mind the arms race a bit more for fear of a double aggression, and maybe gain a bit more control over the event deck.

I didn't try Joan yet, but it doesn't seem so bad. Definitely much better than the previous version.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bestia immonda
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CBpegasus wrote:
Maybe it's because of the players I played with, but I've had some success with Ceasar. The early third MA is still very good - drawing more cards, possibly defending easier, and although getting a tactic is not as important it even helps with the copying because without it you cannot copy and build a unit in the same turn.

It of course got much weaker because it's hard to land early aggressions, but the double political action can compensate. The best option of using it is a double aggression against one opponent. To your question I'm pretty you defend against each aggression separately, but even so it's can be very hard to defend against two aggressions, even against a relatively mild strength difference.

It's a gamble of course, but it can pay out nicely. At the very least you force your opponent(s) to mind the arms race a bit more for fear of a double aggression, and maybe gain a bit more control over the event deck.

I didn't try Joan yet, but it doesn't seem so bad. Definitely much better than the previous version.


Joan of Arc is situational but at least pickable, and the ability to take a look at the next event card is not too shabby.
And yeah, you need to defend against the two separate Caesar aggression separately.
Caesar is still good but in new TTA I would rather pick Aristotle over him. Still not sure if Homer is better than him tho, and I couldnt rate Hammurabi very well! For sure is pickable now and no more a newbie trap...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bestia immonda
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My initial ratings after a few plays ( 2-3-4 players games ):


Irrigation 4
Selective breeding 3
Mechanized agriculture 2


Iron 3
Coal 2
Oil 2


Alchemy 4
Scientific method 3
Computers 3


Printing press 3
Journalism 3
Multimedia 4


Bread & Circuses 3
Team sports 2
Professional sports 2


Theology 3
Organized Religion 2


Drama 3
Opera 3
Movies 4


Swordsman 3
Knights 4
Riflemen 2
Cavalrymen 2
Cannon 3
Airforces 3
Rockets/tanks/modern infantry: 2


Wonders:


Pyramids 4
Library of alexandria 4
Hanging gardens 3
Colussus 2



St. Peter 4
Universitas 3
Great wall 3
Taj Mahal 3


Ocean Liner 3
Trans Railroad 3
Eiffel Tower 3
Kremlin 3


Hollywood 3
Fast food chains 3
First space flight 3
Internet 3




Leaders

Homer 3
Aristotle 5
Moses 2
Alexander 3
Hammurabi 3
Caesar 4


Columbus 4
Leonardo 4
Barbarossa 3
Michelangelo 3
Genghis khan 3
Joan of Arc 3


Bach 3
Cook 3
Robespierre 2
Newton 4
Napoleon 4
Shakespeare 2



Churchill 4
Gates 3
Einstein 3
Sid meier 3
Chaplin 2
Gandhi 2



Governments

Monarchy 3
Theocracy 2

Constitutional monarchy 3
Republic 3

Democracy 4
Fundamentalism 3
Communism 2



Blue techs

Warfare 3
Strategy 3
Military Theory 2


Code of Laws 4
Justice System 3
Civil Service 2


Masonry 2
Architecture 3
Engineering 3


Cartography 3
Navigation 2
Satellites 2
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Master
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Caesar is outstanding. in a class of his own in letting you draw extra cards early.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jonas havreglid
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you overrate operas and under rate the wall =).

The wall is very realiable in way that age 2/3 tactics are not. It is still
good with tactics like phalanx and napoleonic.

I get culture from libraries/cook/wonders more often. I have a hard time affording operas + military with only bronze. Drama + military I can do reliably with a bit of set-up. Both Bach and Chaplin are limited to 3 maybe 4 points a turn which is not that sexy considering the cost to set up for them and the alternative cost of not taking other strong leaders.

We should play a game sometime to settle our differences =)

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M Van Der Werf
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
chumchu2 wrote:
I think you overrate operas and under rate the wall =).

The wall is very realiable in way that age 2/3 tactics are not. It is still
good with tactics like phalanx and napoleonic.

I get culture from libraries/cook/wonders more often. I have a hard time affording operas + military with only bronze. Drama + military I can do reliably with a bit of set-up. Both Bach and Chaplin are limited to 3 maybe 4 points a turn which is not that sexy considering the cost to set up for them and the alternative cost of not taking other strong leaders.

We should play a game sometime to settle our differences =)


I'm certainly open to the possibility that I overrate opera's but the bach + opera strat has been working very well for me lately. When you don't have alchemy I find going for airforce is rough anyway now to afford the science. So near the end of age II I just upgrade the lone temple I have and my philosophies into opera's, no real use for science at that point anymore if i have my age II tactic going. And I don't need something like organized religion then because the philosophies turning into opera's at that point perfectly solves happiness problems. It's quite easy to afford lots of military besides it because between efficient upgrades and urban growth cards or even architecture it's fairly cheap to get 3 opera's. And yes bach only gives 3 extra culture then but the key is that he allows you to upgrade away those philosophies which are much better as opera's at that point if you aren't into a science strat. I either tend to have alchemy and go for computers (or printing press into media) or I like bach. The only crucial age III techs are those that give culture or airforce anyway and you get much more culture this way since you start producing it earlier, and 3 opera's with bach gives more per turn than a Computers strat anyway.

Here is a game for example where I end up with that setup sortof:
http://www.boardgaming-online.com/index.php?cnt=202&pl=72995...

And the wall is still fine, I just like it a lot less now because 1) basilica clearly dominates it now so committing to wall earlier means giving the other basilica usually and 2) you are much more likely to need to go classic, napoleonic or even stick on legion where wall is just not that good. Wall is great with defensive, only decent with napoleonic and classic. Classic you get a small boost from wall and going into napoleonic is rough if you started out with legion, which you usually do with wall. You can also start out with phalanx but wall is even less impressive to begin with then. 3) wall would often let you do aggressions, for example going up to 2 legions with wall for 22 power, which ws very hard to defend. Now that's just a fair bit easier, the few extra defense from discarding anything still matters quite a bit for that.

All in all wall is still solid but not close to a '5' anymore imo.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bestia immonda
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eumaies wrote:
Caesar is outstanding. in a class of his own in letting you draw extra cards early.



Caesar is very good but unlike the old TTA I would eagerly trade him for a good Era I Leader, expecially after I got Warfare.
PS: yeah that was a typo!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Charlap
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nicktaruffi wrote:
eumaies wrote:
Caesar is outstanding. in a class of his own in letting you draw extra cards early.



Caesar is very good but unlike the old TTA I would eagerly trade him for a good Era II Leader, expecially after I got Warfare.


(emphasis mine)

Era A leaders die at era II - did you mean era I?
There are few cases, now, that I would keep an era A leader through to era II - particularly since some of them have benefits if you replace them (Homer, Alexander). And, of course, the CA recovery makes this easier to do.
Out of curiosity (and only tangentially related), in the old TtA, if the CA recovery rule were in effect, would you rate the early leaders differently?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M Van Der Werf
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Qurqirish Dragon wrote:
nicktaruffi wrote:
eumaies wrote:
Caesar is outstanding. in a class of his own in letting you draw extra cards early.



Caesar is very good but unlike the old TTA I would eagerly trade him for a good Era II Leader, expecially after I got Warfare.


(emphasis mine)

Era A leaders die at era II - did you mean era I?
There are few cases, now, that I would keep an era A leader through to era II - particularly since some of them have benefits if you replace them (Homer, Alexander). And, of course, the CA recovery makes this easier to do.
Out of curiosity (and only tangentially related), in the old TtA, if the CA recovery rule were in effect, would you rate the early leaders differently?


There are nuance differences yes caused by the CA recovery rule. It's worse waiting for a specific leader now because there is a good chance they show up too late, if the leader you want is in the last ~10 cards of the age you will usually have your leader die by switch of era before taking a new one. So you should be more oppurtunistic in your picks and wait less often for the new one. Also switching earlier is just better now because switching is only the CA for picking, not for switching. A CA now is worth more than a CA a turn later because of the economic snowball effect, especially early on, so leaders that are better early improved.

Barbarossa most of all benefitted from this, I didn't like him too much in the old version because you really want to get him early for him to shine, ideally you use him like ~5 times. But in the old version committing to barbarossa early wasn't ideal, the switch was often not oppurtune and I didn't like giving up on columbus so easily. In the new version I like barbarossa much more because early replacement has benefits. Michelangelo and Leonardo also benefits from this. Columbus was partly so good because you could keep your age A leader very long, and switch into columbus at the very last moment, use him, and potentially grab an age II leader right away. That's worse now.

Anyway it's all tiny details but they do matter.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bestia immonda
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Qurqirish Dragon wrote:
nicktaruffi wrote:
eumaies wrote:
Caesar is outstanding. in a class of his own in letting you draw extra cards early.



Caesar is very good but unlike the old TTA I would eagerly trade him for a good Era II Leader, expecially after I got Warfare.


(emphasis mine)

Era A leaders die at era II - did you mean era I?
There are few cases, now, that I would keep an era A leader through to era II - particularly since some of them have benefits if you replace them (Homer, Alexander). And, of course, the CA recovery makes this easier to do.
Out of curiosity (and only tangentially related), in the old TtA, if the CA recovery rule were in effect, would you rate the early leaders differently?


Yeah sorry, I meant Era I.
Well, in the old TtA Era I leaders were pretty crappy and the CA recovery rule couldn't save the old Joan of Arc, Barbarossa, Gengis Khan from oblivion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Forrey
United States
Dallastown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
daiden wrote:
You guys do a good job making this game sound really boring. Breaking down the game to the most "optimal" path that EVERYONE should be going makes it sound like a waste of time to play. Was interested but sounds like I'll pass for something with more variety.


There is no perfect/solved path in this game at all. There are so many different ways to achieve victory even with cards others might perceive as "weak". If you want to see a civ game that IS solved and has one path to play down go try Clash of Cultures or even Nations to a lesser extent.

I would also caution you that playing this game for the first 10 or so times will probably make you think you were right. TTA's is the kind of game that you need to play many times at first to understand just exactly what is going on. Once you do though you will understand why so many place this at the top of all civ games and rightly so.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bestia immonda
Italy
Bologna
Bologna
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bearn wrote:
daiden wrote:
You guys do a good job making this game sound really boring. Breaking down the game to the most "optimal" path that EVERYONE should be going makes it sound like a waste of time to play. Was interested but sounds like I'll pass for something with more variety.


There is no perfect/solved path in this game at all. There are so many different ways to achieve victory even with cards others might perceive as "weak". If you want to see a civ game that IS solved and has one path to play down go try Clash of Cultures or even Nations to a lesser extent.

I would also caution you that playing this game for the first 10 or so times will probably make you think you were right. TTA's is the kind of game that you need to play many times at first to understand just exactly what is going on. Once you do though you will understand why so many place this at the top of all civ games and rightly so.


Well said!
Playing with experienced player can be tough if you plan on sticking to a "path" without relying on a plan B, C or even D! Counterdrafting is a thing you know
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Markwerf wrote:
We have mostly the same ratings if i see that. Lots of the differences can be attributed to difference between 2p and 4p i think, for example:
Selective breeding is easy to hate in 2p making irrigation more important.


This is my experience as well. In 2p if you miss irrigation, the other player will try very hard to hate selective breeding from you and lock you on populaiton size for the rest of the game.



Quote:

Economy is slightly different with more events popping too. Military and related cards are more important in 4p than 2p by quite a bit in new version. In 2p you can defend against 1 player fairly easily, in 4p it's harder and more strength based events punish you for being last. This used to be other way around imo as huge wars were the decider in 2p before but much rarer now.


Yes, events happen way more in 4p. Also, colonies arent a big deal in 2p because it takes a long time for the deck to cycle and often one player who is behind on military will refuse to play into it. But the more players, the more beneficial colonial bonuses are.

In 2p before the game often would come down to a big lategame war, but in 4p a big lategame war only ruins one opponent and thus is not game winning. In 4p its more about not falling behind in military, rather than trying to get way ahead.


Quote:

For 4p i think your ratings are fine except you underrate the Bach/opera/Chaplin/hollywood route i think.

I agree, Operas are very strong. Operas + enough military to not get crushed is good, and the new Bach lets you upgrade old Philosophies to them.

Quote:

And great Wall is much worse in 4p imo, if you don't stick to legion or defensive it's weak. But in 4p it's so much easier to get a good tactic if you're onto knights because the Knights payers help each other out through copying whereas the great Wall player won't as effectively.


Unless you get Genghis Khan, and then you have all swordsmen but adopt the best tactic in play. Genghis Khan is actually quite good in my experience so far. (Especially in short games, he is amazing in 2 age long games!)

I actually like Great Wall pretty well in general. It provides a versatile +1 happy, +1 culture, and usually about 2-3 military. It can sometimes does just enough in this mixture of 2 military and 1 happiness to just barely push you over the edge in both areas at once, in which case its strong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rockwell
United States
Lynnwood
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Age A wonders:

Pyramids > Hanging Gardens >> Library of Alexandria > Colossus

Pyramids are great and you should finish them fast.

I actually really like Hanging Gardens as well, but you should finish it in late Age 1, once you actually start to need it, not early on. The long term benefit of Hanging Gardens is actually strong, it provides more use later on in the game once you have acquired a better government.


Library is sometimes barely worth making. Colossus probably isnt, but maybe is viable in 4 player, when there are lots of colonies.



Age A leaders:

Aristotle/Alexander/Homer > Hammurabi/Moses > Caesar

I really like the buffed Alexander and Homer. Both get discarded for a long term benefit which lasts all game, which is nice. Hammurabi is was better than the old version, which was horrible. Moses some people love, but I seem to not know how to build him optimally. Can someone give a detailed build order for how to use him well? Caesar just doesnt feel very good given that not drawing a tactics card is no longer a death sentence, since you can copy one.




Age 1 Wonders:
All generally useful in the right position.


I like all three of St Peter's, Universitas, and Great Wall, both are usefull at filling in for a gap in your civilization, while Taj Mahal is useful if you are looking for a wonder on the specific turn that you replace a leader, because it ends up being action efficient. St Peter's fulfills your happiness needs very well, Universitas is solid if you miss Alchemy, and Great Wall provides 1 happy and a small military boost, which is good for any tactic that isnt cavalry heavy.

Taj Mahal is probably less exciting except in a 2 age game where the culture it provides is still nice. Still, the buffs to it of the blue token and the action discount of taking it when yuo replace a leader mean that it goes from pretty bad to a reasonable pick in a certain case where you replace your leader and can take it for free.

I actually like all of these wonders, but it can be a struggle to fit them in to your build, given the need to finish off your Age A wonder (if you took one), and then get a military built. For those that miss out on Pyramids or Hanging Gardens, I like to take an Age 1 wonder and build it instead.



Age 1 Leaders:

Columbus (if you drew a good colony) > Frederick Barbarossa/Genghis Khan/Leonardo Davinci > Joan of Arc > Michelangelo (except that Mike is tier 1 in 2 Age or pacifist games)


Columbus plus a colony giving yellow tokens is still the best imo. Without drawing a colony he is obviously bad.

Frederick is very good if you havent yet built up your military. Combining a short term age A leader like Alexander into an early Frederick and military buildup is a strong play.

The new Genghis Khan is actually strong in my experience, ESPECIALLY in a short (2 Age) game, because he gives culture in for you in age 2 and doesnt die and ruin your tactic. If you miss knights, Genghis Khan is awesome. You save on tech costs and then still get the best tactic in play. Essentially he is a strong backup plan for a player who misses out on knights. He makes it reasonable to miss out on knights instead of being horrible.


Davinci is useful as always, great with early Alchemy or Printing Press.
A solid pickup for anyone who gets either tech (especially an early alchemy. If I got early Alchemy I would prioritize him over the rest of the leaders with the exception of Columbus if I drew a colony that gave yellow tokens).


Joan of Arc is much better than before but imo she makes some cards I dislike (Temples and Theocracy) less bad. She is like a slightly better Caesar, in a time of the game where military is better, so she is definitely not useless. If the temple event is in the game she is okay, but otherwise weak imo. I see her as a backup plan in case you were forced into Theocracy or Theology tech.

Joan is the one I am least clear on, due to lack of experience with her new version.


Michelangelo is not great in a standard game, but is actually VERY good in either a pacifist game or a 2 age game! In those variations he is definitely tier 1!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Liu
United States
Irvine
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I based my thoughts on 4p games as I think they are the most balanced and offer the most strategtic options (a lot of things become less viable with lower player counts)

Quote:
Age A wonders:

Pyramids > Hanging Gardens >> Library of Alexandria > Colossus

Pyramids are great and you should finish them fast.

I actually really like Hanging Gardens as well, but you should finish it in late Age 1, once you actually start to need it, not early on. The long term benefit of Hanging Gardens is actually strong, it provides more use later on in the game once you have acquired a better government.

Library is sometimes barely worth making. Colossus probably isnt, but maybe is viable in 4 player, when there are lots of colonies.


Age A leaders:

Aristotle/Alexander/Homer > Hammurabi/Moses > Caesar

I really like the buffed Alexander and Homer. Both get discarded for a long term benefit which lasts all game, which is nice. Hammurabi is was better than the old version, which was horrible. Moses some people love, but I seem to not know how to build him optimally. Can someone give a detailed build order for how to use him well? Caesar just doesnt feel very good given that not drawing a tactics card is no longer a death sentence, since you can copy one.



Colossus is viable in 4p, especially if you plan it accordingly to use it. Library is not bad because it's a good insurance plan for some science without having to go for alch, making it easier to wait to make the jump to sci method or going printing press/lib.


A leader list looks good except I've had some unfortunate games with Homer where it was hard to transition him to A1 leader because of the order of cards or just getting him down in the timely manner. I rank Moses the same as him & alex

One of the better ways to use Moses is with hanging gardens (hello useful early happiness) or getting early food yellow card. You should reliability be able to grow 1 a turn. Goal is to get 6/7 of your pop out ASAP and then swap him to A1 leader. This makes it so you aren't interested in irrigation as much and can save for selective breeding or OLS. If you don't get HG, then you will either need St Peter and religion or B&C to help cover the early happiness.

The extra people come in handy for skipping early food tech and/or building up strong military.
 
 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.