Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

CO₂» Forums » General

Subject: Weird impressions - please comment rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Darek C
Poland
Kraków
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Hello, I had my first game with 3players yesterday and I have a few questions...

1. We played around 3h - is that normal length or just our first game?
2. Top player rounded approx 120 points. Is that more less in line with how others are scoring?
3. We finished in the last decade for 3 players and we managed to reduce co2 ppm below 350 and almost completed 2 regions with green energy. Therefore feels the game should have maybe ended earlier and lasted less time? Opinions please.

4. Biggest issue. At some point of the game nobody was installing projects because the moment player 1 installed, player 2 built that plant so nobody wanted to make grounds for others and the game stuck for a moment. Is that normal? This impass we did not like and it made us think it's the least enjoyable thing which also happens to be the core mechanism.

5. We almost topped 4 out of 5 expertise tracks, again seemed like it should have ended earlier.


Can you possibly comment how these things look for you in your games? I'm asking to figure out if we haven't done something wrong...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicola Bocchetta
Italy
Milano
MI
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) The game is quite long; on successive plays it will get a bit shorter, as you all know better what to do, but it will be always in the 2-3h range, IMO.

3) Just to be sure, did you play with the correct number of actions per decade?

4) This can happen in 3p, but the author says this is due to players not understanding the correct value of each action; building a plant is not the best action you can do, as installing it is. But to install something you need to pay CPCs. You might look for the posts about this in the forums.

An option is to shorten the game by 1 decade. This has been also suggested for 2p games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bartosz Popow
Poland
Gdynia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not a CO2 veteran, I think I played it like 3 times. But I did notice that my 3-player games are one decade (round) too long. We also maxed out some expertise tracks and overall felt it laster a bit too long. The most interesting round tends to be the one before the last, so I think the next time we play we'll do it like that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coin22 wrote:
Hello, I had my first game with 3players yesterday and I have a few questions...

1. We played around 3h - is that normal length or just our first game?
2. Top player rounded approx 120 points. Is that more less in line with how others are scoring?
3. We finished in the last decade for 3 players and we managed to reduce co2 ppm below 350 and almost completed 2 regions with green energy. Therefore feels the game should have maybe ended earlier and lasted less time? Opinions please.

4. Biggest issue. At some point of the game nobody was installing projects because the moment player 1 installed, player 2 built that plant so nobody wanted to make grounds for others and the game stuck for a moment. Is that normal? This impass we did not like and it made us think it's the least enjoyable thing which also happens to be the core mechanism.

5. We almost topped 4 out of 5 expertise tracks, again seemed like it should have ended earlier.


Can you possibly comment how these things look for you in your games? I'm asking to figure out if we haven't done something wrong...

I picked this up when it first came out and had a couple of sub-optimal plays of it - first 3-player game we got the CEP rules so wrong we broke the game and a second play with 5 ran so long (4+ hours) it was hard to judge.

However, the feeling remained that a good game was lurking underneath so I have recently got it back to the table a couple of times (3 and 4-player) and things have gone much better.......but...

1) Playing time around 3 hours..yup. I think with complete familiarity it will come in under 3 hours but only just.

2) Haven't played enough to get a feeling for the average points, I won our last game with 177 pts with the others in the 130's, but who knows.

3) Sounds like there was the possibility you could have finished a round earlier if you had dipped the CO2 back below 350, but again I have no feel for how often that is supposed to occur as a game end trigger.

4) We have experienced this, as from reading other threads have many others, although not so much on our last play after I had read up on the designers notes etc. I'm still not completely convinced this won't be a permanent problem for some groups but the thinking goes...building a power-plant costs money, and money is points, so the actual points that a power-plant nets you is the difference between the cost and VP value. Also there is an opportunity cost in building the plant in that if you install a project that gains you benefits many of which translate into money, and therefore points and provides you with the opportunity to place a scientist on it which also nets you money (via expertise and the bump cost when someone builds it). Therefore building a plant is not such a good action as it appears.

However, the UN cards would appear to undermine this as you have to build plants to have a sufficient variety to claim the UN cards which are also points. Plus building a plant also gets you expertise (which translates to money and therefore points) and installing a project costs you a CEP which at the end of the game is also points....so I am not completely convinced that there is not an inbuilt tendency of the game to deadlock around decade 3, where no one wants to install to prevent others from building. But I have only played 4 times.

5) I don't see a problem in topping out on the expertise tracks - one key to more points is getting there earlier so you can convert more of the expertise to VP's.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darek C
Poland
Kraków
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Faso74it wrote:

3) Just to be sure, did you play with the correct number of actions per decade?


We sure did, but we made a bunch of other small mistakes as we progressed.


Faso74it wrote:

4) This can happen in 3p, but the author says this is due to players not understanding the correct value of each action; building a plant is not the best action you can do, as installing it is. But to install something you need to pay CPCs. You might look for the posts about this in the forums.

An option is to shorten the game by 1 decade. This has been also suggested for 2p games.


I have read a few threads explaining this and I kind of understand it now but still not sure how this would play since building seems like a natural go to action. Well


My overall impression is still good, I love the theme and the fact it's not yet another worker placement game per se. I think for such complexity a better manual would be key and perhaps an updated manual to download from bgg that would include a bunch of q&a's that can be found in these forums.


 
 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.