The Hotness
Games|People|Company
The Hotness has gone cold...
Recommend
70 
 Thumb up
 Hide
34 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

SeaFall» Forums » Reviews

Subject: SeaFall Spoiler-Free Initial Impressions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
TJ
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a repost from my blog

SeaFall’s general release has been delayed to October due to customs issues, but about 150 copies were air shipped out early for sale at Gen Con with some of those copies set aside for reviewers. Reviewers have started to trickle out initial impressions, and impressions have been rather mixed. With such a small sample size of people out there that have actually played it, and being one of those lucky few to get a copy, I was motivated to write up my own spoiler-free initial impressions of the game.

Note: My group and I have not yet unlocked any of the six sealed boxes that come with the game, my impressions are all based on the game described in the base rulebook and shouldn’t spoil anything. I will also refrain from talking about any story bits that have happened in our games.

SeaFall isn’t Pandemic Legacy

Zero Punctuation once said “If you’re going to make something incredibly good that becomes frighteningly popular, make sure it’s the last thing you’ll ever make in your entire life, because otherwise you get to spend the rest of your creative career struggling under the weight of high expectation and bricks.” Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 currently sits comfortably at #1 on BoardGameGeek’s all-time rankings, “high expectations” might be an understatement.

Let’s just get this out of the way: SeaFall isn’t Pandemic Legacy: Season 2. If you loved Pandemic Legacy, you might end up hating SeaFall. Pandemic Legacy is at its heart a family-weight coop, SeaFall is a 4X-Euro hybrid. SeaFall is a longer game. It’s a slower game. It’s a more complicated game. It’s a competitive game with direct player conflict. This isn’t the type of game that you play multiple sessions of in a single night. This is the kind of game you play once a week, or maybe once a month, and let it digest.

Nothing I said above makes SeaFall a bad game, but SeaFall isn’t going to have the universal appeal that Pandemic Legacy does. It’s much more of a niche title than Pandemic Legacy, and even Risk Legacy. Unfortunately, groups may not realize that it’s not a game for them until they’ve sunk money into it, made irreversible changes to the components, and subsequently can’t trade it away.

What I Like About SeaFall

With all of that out of the way, what did I think of the game so far? I really like it, and so does my group! It’s a return to what we loved about Risk Legacy, but with a more strategic and nuanced game at its center, as well as a more interesting theme.

First of all, SeaFall is a competitive game, which works better for my group than a fully co-op game like Pandemic Legacy. We’re texting each other with smack talk about how our provinces will conquer the seas, crush our enemies, and hear the lamentation of their women. We’re not just playing the game when we sit down at the table, we’re still experiencing it throughout the week waiting for our next game night. I’d argue that reviewers that are rushing through games just to get the scoop aren’t having the same experience we are having with it, and I’d also argue we’re having the better experience with it.

The sealed packets in Risk Legacy have become one of the most popular elements of legacy games, and they’re of course in SeaFall (six sealed boxes total, each with a somewhat cryptic image on them). Similar to how they work in Risk Legacy, these get unlocked when players achieve specific goals within the game that introduce new components/rules/etc. The pacing at which these boxes get opened and the game evolves is largely in the hands of the players themselves. I loved Pandemic Legacy, but one of my few complaints with that game is the general lack of player agency in how the content gets unlocked. Despite having an advent calendar’s worth of stuff to unlock, it was all driven by a scripted legacy deck, that for the most part played out the same for every group. Putting this control back in the hands of the player may not make progression as silky smooth as it was in Pandemic Legacy, but it also makes each individual group’s experience that much more unique. Some groups will naturally just let them happen through the course of the game, other groups will collude to get them achieved as quickly as possible, and other groups may spend entire games just going into all out war and ignoring progressing the game.

SeaFall is also the first legacy game where you as a player are permanently tied to a character/faction. You get to choose how to improve your ships, your leader, and your province from game to game, without having to second-guess how this may help other players in future games like in Risk Legacy, or get group buy-off on an upgrade like in Pandemic Legacy. Heck, you even get your own personal treasure chest to store your stuff from game to game! SeaFall brings a sense of ownership to players, even a sense of roleplay, that previous legacy games have not really had.

In terms of actual gameplay, exploring is currently the most interesting bit in the early game. When you successfully explore a site on an island, you pick a site from the explorer’s map that matches the symbol you just explored, and read the corresponding numbered entry in the captain’s book. You’re given some sort of choice to make that will have a different outcome and story passage that your read (ex: do you trade with the natives, or do you attack them?) The choice you make typically affects whatever bonus/penalty you get from exploring (ex: choosing to attack the natives gets you an extra resource, but you have to place an enmity token), whereas the story passage you chose from the explorer’s map typically dictates what you discovered at that site. When you discover something (a spice field, a gold mine, etc), that is permanently stickered to that site for the remainder of the campaign. As a result, each island gets quasi-procedurally populated with content as they get explored, resulting in your copy of the game being unique from other groups’ copies, which I find really neat. Once again, you have that sense of uniqueness to your group’s experience and story.

On the subject of the story passages in the explorer’s book, we haven’t yet seen the vast majority of it, but we’ve arguably already read more flavor/story text than the entirety of Pandemic Legacy and Risk Legacy’s combined. The writing is on par with similar story books and event cards that other games have had. The story passages typically give players interesting choices to make, and since you never encounter the same event twice, you don’t know what the exact outcome will be of your choice in advance. The exploration events make references to things that may be going on in the world, but it doesn’t really spell it out for you. You may even miss certain clues depending on the choices you take. The story in SeaFall plays out a bit like a mystery on a TV show like Lost, and we’ll have to see if it pays out in the end.

Enmity in SeaFall is a new concept to the legacy system, and a rather interesting one. When you successfully raid an island site or player’s province, you must place an enmity token of your province color on that space. For every enmity you have on an island/province, you must roll one fewer die on future raid attempts, or spend one extra gold to buy goods and upgrades. There are some opportunities to remove enmity tokens, but at the end of the game all remaining enmity tokens on islands/provinces become permanent enmity stickers and carry over to all future games. This forces you to think about the short-term benefits of that game vs the long-term consequences of the campaign. It not only is an interesting manifestation of the meta between players (“I’m going after you this game because you attacked me last game!”) but also an interesting way to model how you treat the native population of the islands. Will raiding initial islands frequently in the early game ultimately hurt you in the long run?

Things I’m Less Excited About

SeaFall starts as an incomplete game, with a lot of the content sealed in boxes and the vast majority of the board empty, so I can’t say it’s a perfect game right out of the box. I mentioned before that Seafall is a 4X game, but initially it’s more of a 2.5X game. You can certainly explore, you can certainly exploit, but you can’t expand (although it’s spelled out in the rulebook this aspect of the game comes later), and extermination is limited (once again, spelled out in the rulebook that this will come later on). And until you explore a lot of the sites on islands, there really won’t be a lot of opportunities to trade goods, raid, etc. I expect that as the boxes and board open up, options for the player will open up as well.

The pick-up and deliver aspects of the game are the least interesting bit of the game this early on, since at this point in time we can only deliver to our home provinces, and that mainly serves as a means to an end to get discounts on structures, treasures, and ship upgrades. I expect that as more islands and sites get discovered, some interesting trade routes and scoring opportunities will emerge. But for now, not so much.

About That Prologue

This has come up in a couple initial impressions, so let me chime in on it as well. The game requires you to play through effectively a tutorial scenario that lasts ~3 rounds total. The points don’t matter for the campaign, and the only permanent change that happens in this scenario is that you can explore sites on islands, so players are free to just try things out to get a feel for how the game plays. After going through the rules with my group, we jumped into the prologue and I helped players through their turns, giving them advice on what actions to take. By the end of it, players had a much firmer grasp of the rules, and we all agreed that this was helpful (if not necessary) to do before playing our first real game. I think the only way one realistically could skip the Prologue is if everybody had read the rulebook in advance and understood it front to back, or if they had already played a Seafall campaign previously (and in those cases, the Prologue would probably take 15 minutes to get through). We also had fun with it, getting to name islands and kind of build up personalities for our provinces and leaders in our heads along the way.

In Summary

SeaFall is an ambitious title to say the least, and there’s a lot of game in its box. But it’s not necessarily a game for everybody. I will repeat again that this is a legacy 4X game set in the age of sail, that alone should rightfully scare some people off. People looking for a meatier experience than Risk Legacy or even Pandemic Legacy are going to love this. People looking for Pandemic Legacy: Season 2 may have to wait another year.
66 
 Thumb up
7.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We've only played the prologue, but I'm not looking forward to players being able to raid each other.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TJ
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jlerpy wrote:
We've only played the prologue, but I'm not looking forward to players being able to raid each other.


As far as I can tell, you don't have to raid each other if your group isn't into that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Romero
United States
Aiea
Hawaii
flag msg tools
mb
About raiding other players:

spoiler (just rules)

Spoiler (click to reveal)
The way the rules work out, it's so resource-heavy to raid other players that it is almost never worth it unless you need something specific from a treasure room. You give up enmity tokens for every damage/success you use. This means that if you raid another player's province for anything worth raiding for, you will have a hard time not giving them permanent enmity at the end of the game, and you won't have much left to raid with for the rest of the game. Raid-heavy builds are forced to focus on the islands to really be effective (island raids have a one-to-one ratio of glory to enmity tokens, while raiding other players tends to give a disproportional amount, even if a high value treasure is taken).

Also, if someone raids you, every token they have to give you can be used to attack them later. Most players I've seen aren't too keen to give other players such a powerful means of revenge.


Non-spoiler version: Don't worry about PvP too much.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustav W
Sweden
Lund
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
UnDfind wrote:
About raiding other players:

spoiler (just rules)

Spoiler (click to reveal)
The way the rules work out, it's so resource-heavy to raid other players that it is almost never worth it unless you need something specific from a treasure room. You give up enmity tokens for every damage/success you use. This means that if you raid another player's province for anything worth raiding for, you will have a hard time not giving them permanent enmity at the end of the game, and you won't have much left to raid with for the rest of the game. Raid-heavy builds are forced to focus on the islands to really be effective (island raids have a one-to-one ratio of glory to enmity tokens, while raiding other players tends to give a disproportional amount, even if a high value treasure is taken).

Also, if someone raids you, every token they have to give you can be used to attack them later. Most players I've seen aren't too keen to give other players such a powerful means of revenge.


Non-spoiler version: Don't worry about PvP too much.

At some point ship pvp will be unlocked though and we don't know the cost/reward ratio there.

Slight spoiler (I have not played the game or watched any spoiler videos)
Spoiler (click to reveal)
In Undeadviking's last (non spoiler) video you realize that it's unlocked fairly early as well.


Btw, nice review Slyght!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Pishnery
United States
Lakewood
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
extermination is limited (once again, spelled out in the rulebook that this will come later on)


What are you referring to here? I don't note anything approaching character elimination/extermination in the rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Hostetler
United States
Warminster
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can you recommend a game or games that is/are currently out that would be a good indicator to weather you would like Seafall?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Scaggs

Indianapolis
Indiana
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Really enjoyed your write-up. I think it's definitely going to be a fun table and I'm really looking forward to getting my pre-order and playing with my group.

I'm doing my best to avoid spoilers and just being excited about what the possibilities are after the prologue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TJ
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kpishnery wrote:
Quote:
extermination is limited (once again, spelled out in the rulebook that this will come later on)


What are you referring to here? I don't note anything approaching character elimination/extermination in the rules.


Ship combat comes later in the campaign, and you can raid provinces in Game 1. You can't knock somebody out of the game, but destroying their ships or raiding their provinces could set them back considerably.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon St.
Germany
Stuttgart
flag msg tools
mb
I really like that you mention the built up expectations from the most popular game right now and how it can skew perspective on this different game.

Seafall sounds really interesting for us actually, it's just that we don't yet have a regular group of more than 2 people where i would be confident that we can get something regular going without people dropping out...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shaun Varsos
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you Keith Romero for pointing that out. I would loathe this game apparently and that saved me a great deal. I'm all for 4x games but the running theme of trying to de-incentivize PvP in games so people don't get their feelings hurt is something I'm completely out on. That's not to say I think the games that do this are bad games, they're just very much not for me. I'm sure it's a great game, and I may even try it at some point, but it sounds like it would be less fun for a player such as myself. Especially with the Legacy element to this game it's something I wouldn't be as invested in.

Slightly off topic, that's actually where Scythe lost me too. I think Scythe is a phenomenal game, one that at least on my first play through I found myself far less interested in. It punishes the ever-loving hell out of you for combat with the popularity system despite the fact that two of the factions seem somewhat built to fight. I understand it's no fun if you're just trying to resource up and you keep getting your plans crushed by the "Genghis Khan" of your group, but if a conquering strategy isn't viable in a 4x game it just doesn't feel as satisfying to me. That's also what table talk and negotiations are for in games like this. So much of the fun of these is the player interaction that stems from the conflict. To bring it back to Seafall, if I'm having to turn over my sword hilt first to my enemy after I put them to its blade it's going to actively dissuade me from doing so.

- A Cardboard Conqueror's Gratitude and Perspective

*steps off soapbox

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
While I can't speak from experience, my feel is that the enmity system doesn't try to disincentivize PvP so much as add a cost to doing so. The intention, I believe, is for PvP to be in present in the game in the form of surgical strikes, rather than all-out warfare.

So if you're looking for a mainstream wargame, SeaFall probably isn't going to fill that void. And if your looking for that fourth X (extermination), you won't find it in SeaFall at all, per the designer (who I think referred to SeaFall as a 3.5X game, with the last half X indicating fighting but not extermination).(*)

But I'm fairly sure there *will* be occasional-to-frequent (but not continuous) PvP assuming the players have any inclination at all toward doing so. And frankly, if two players are inclined toward fighting each other, there is nothing to prevent that since they will simply be trading enmity back and forth -- in effect cancelling the cost.

(*) Edit: The first sentence of the game description on this site is "SeaFall is a 4X-inspired game (without player elimination/extermination) set in an "age of sail" world reminiscent of our world."
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeb
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
You found me!
badge
Hiss.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adding a cost is pretty much the textbook definition of deincentivization though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
And frankly, if two players are inclined toward fighting each other, there is nothing to prevent that since they will simply be trading enmity back and forth -- in effect cancelling the cost.


It's more than just cancellation. If I raid you and I give you enmity tokens, then when you raid me you give them back and you get a bonus in your raid. So the net exchange favors the person who raids second.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Zebadiah wrote:
Adding a cost is pretty much the textbook definition of deincentivization though.

Well, it turns out there is no textbook definition of "deincentivization", so I've corrected my grammar above (by using "disincentivize", instead). Yes, that's right -- I just grammar-policed myself.

But back to your point -- you're right, the two mean largely the same thing. But (and perhaps it's my own perceptions) I see a difference in tone between the two phrases. "Disincentivize" feels negative to me, like "you shouldn't do this; therefore I'm going to inflict this penalty when you do", whereas "add a cost" (or a "tradeoff") sounds more neutral, like "you can do this, but you'll need to weigh the costs and benefits". And yes, *those* two are technically saying about the same thing, too, but there's a difference in bias between the two.

I don't think the designers are trying to *punish* raiders or *discourage* PvP; I think they are trying to add a mechanism that reflects a build-up in tensions and balances the cost/reward ration of various actions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
It's more than just cancellation. If I raid you and I give you enmity tokens, then when you raid me you give them back and you get a bonus in your raid. So the net exchange favors the person who raids second.

How so? If Blue raids Red and steals a treasure, then Red used the resulting bonus to steal it back, the end result is that both provinces are as they were to begin with -- except that each player has an extra glory earned as a result of the action spent raiding.

As to the second player having a net bonus in the raiding action itself ... maybe, maybe not. The original raider most likely prepared for the action -- probably by grabbing a raiding adviser and ship upgrade. The original victim likely starts off in an inferior position, so the bonus may only be leveling the playing field. If the victim *was* prepared for war, then perhaps the raider made a tactical blunder.

(Note, once again, that I haven't played the game yet, so take my opinions for what they're worth!)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
As to the second player having a net bonus in the raiding action itself ... maybe, maybe not. The original raider most likely prepared for the action -- probably by grabbing a raiding adviser and ship upgrade. The original victim likely starts off in an inferior position, so the bonus may only be leveling the playing field.


Then that's the advantage. You got Raid +3 from your adviser, and I didn't have to use an adviser to get Raid +3 so I get a different adviser that gives me some different advantage.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Becq wrote:
As to the second player having a net bonus in the raiding action itself ... maybe, maybe not. The original raider most likely prepared for the action -- probably by grabbing a raiding adviser and ship upgrade. The original victim likely starts off in an inferior position, so the bonus may only be leveling the playing field.


Then that's the advantage. You got Raid +3 from your adviser, and I didn't have to use an adviser to get Raid +3 so I get a different adviser that gives me some different advantage.


I think that the raider in your example is being tactically foolish (or at least risky). In a more reasonable example, the aggressive player is likely to raid someone he has an advantage over. He has probably improved the Raid value on his ships more than his victim. He has likely invested in an upgrade (or two) that benefits his raiding. Perhaps he's picked up an enmity-related improvement, like the Vengeful appellation.

There's other factors, as well. Having planned the raid, the timing of the raid would be such that his ships would presumably be positioned properly to conduct the raid. The victim, on the other hand, is unlikely to have ships conveniently placed, may not have advisors or upgrades useful to raiding, and in any case can't take advantage of the enmity tokens until the following year, assuming the game doesn't end first.

So in this example, we might have the attacker rolling 5-6 dice more than baseline to take out the plunder 3 target, and the victim responding with only 2 dice more than baseline (or 3-4 if there's a mid-grade raid leader available and he chooses to buy it). And that response would occur the following year, and would require abandoning the current plan to reposition ships for the counter-raid. Which also gives the original attacker the option to defend with his own ships, buy gun towers, etc.

Of course, there are a LOT of variables in this, so it's hard to say what a "typical" case would be. But the attacker *should* be considering the possibility of a counterattack, and should include that in his decision to raid.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
I think that the raider in your example is being tactically foolish (or at least risky). In a more reasonable example, the aggressive player is likely to raid someone he has an advantage over. He has probably improved the Raid value on his ships more than his victim. He has likely invested in an upgrade (or two) that benefits his raiding. Perhaps he's picked up an enmity-related improvement, like the Vengeful appellation.


I think it's kind of weird that you're lecturing me about correct play. At least I've played the game, while you haven't.

Again, if you've invested in increasing your Raid value, in whatever manner, then the player who gets to Raid back with the same advantages but without incurring those costs is getting a benefit. That really couldn't be clearer.

Quote:
The victim, on the other hand, is unlikely to have ships conveniently placed, may not have advisors or upgrades useful to raiding, and in any case can't take advantage of the enmity tokens until the following year, assuming the game doesn't end first.


There's no rule that you can't make use of the At War enmity until the following year. Not sure where you got that idea.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Quote:
The victim, on the other hand, is unlikely to have ships conveniently placed, may not have advisors or upgrades useful to raiding, and in any case can't take advantage of the enmity tokens until the following year, assuming the game doesn't end first.


There's no rule that you can't make use of the At War enmity until the following year. Not sure where you got that idea.

There's no rule against making use of enmity in the At War box once it's there, but it won't be there until the winter after the raid takes place.

When you raid a target, the enmity is placed on the raided site (for example, a field). Enmity on a province site prevents that site from being raided and provides extra garrison (against that player). During winter, any enmity on province sites is moved to the "At War" box. The sites the enmity was on can be raided again, and the province garrison is still improved (against that player), and the province gains an attack bonus against the aggressor. Only tokens in the At War box can (and *must*) be returned in place of giving enmity.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
There's no rule against making use of enmity in the At War box once it's there, but it won't be there until the winter after the raid takes place.


OK, yes, I misunderstood. But the point is the same, if players are raiding each other then they are not "simply trading enmity back and forth -- in effect cancelling the cost." There's more to it than that because the second gets an advantage that the first doesn't. (And if they don't have the enmity in At War, then, as you say, they aren't returning it, so they aren't trading back and forth in that case either.)

Based on my experience, I mostly disagree with your assessment of if and when players will be raiding one another. I think it's going to be much more opportunistic or circumstantial than some sort of master plan. But I certainly can't convince you of that at this point. And, who knows, there may even be unlocks later that make that less true.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, fair enough.

So based on your experience, how do you feel the enmity mechanism alters the way the players in your game raid each other, relative to a hypothetical variant of the game in which the enmity system was removed entirely?
1) players are too afraid of the disadvantages of enmity to raid at all
2) players only risk enmity when the game is on the line: either they need something their opponent has, or they need to delay the opponent long enough to secure their own victory
3) players raid opportunistically, when they feel the rewards are enough to outweigh the costs
4) players largely ignore enmity, and raid just as frequently as they would otherwise (enmity just alters the amount of preparation needed)

(From your comments, my guess is that your answer will be (3), and judging from the comments by the designers, that's roughly what they were aiming for.)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say it's a combination of (2) and (3). [Maybe (2) is already a subset of (3)?] Definitely not (1) or (4).

As you suggested, it may also be that some players will build more "raid-oriented" positions. But I think (2) and (3) will still be more significant effects. If you have a "raid-oriented" position, you still are mostly going to raid unowned sites, not other players.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Stack
msg tools
mbmb
Becq wrote:
Ok, fair enough.

So based on your experience, how do you feel the enmity mechanism alters the way the players in your game raid each other, relative to a hypothetical variant of the game in which the enmity system was removed entirely?
1) players are too afraid of the disadvantages of enmity to raid at all
2) players only risk enmity when the game is on the line: either they need something their opponent has, or they need to delay the opponent long enough to secure their own victory
3) players raid opportunistically, when they feel the rewards are enough to outweigh the costs
4) players largely ignore enmity, and raid just as frequently as they would otherwise (enmity just alters the amount of preparation needed)

(From your comments, my guess is that your answer will be (3), and judging from the comments by the designers, that's roughly what they were aiming for.)


So far after 5 games, I personally have leaned towards 1, only making a major raid to delay a winning player ;long enough for me to catch up before the game ended. I've seen another player lean more towards 4 occasionally leaning to 3 when he wanted an opponent's treasure for the win. And then there is the other player who raids for fun and just apologizes afterwards (usually lots of reputation and some fortune at end of game). Then that leave 2 more players that have not really raided at all.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt S
United States
Sharpsburg
GA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So from my experience so far, it has been a mostly 1 with a little bit of 2-3 (as 2 really is just a subset of 3). Now some of that can be attributed to the group playing, between thinking to much about long term and generally not liking the war/attack focus in games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.