$30.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Mare Nostrum: Empires» Forums » General

Subject: Should I keep it . I don't know :( rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
noah caldwell
United States
galt
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We played a 4 player game last night and we were all a little disappointed
And we had one battle 2 ground troops vs 1 and then a few rounds later ome one bought the pyramid no one was close to doing anything else . It was really anti climatic .. And I put the game up for sale ... We all thought trading resources, collecting, and keeping track of the leader board was tedious ! I'm tempted to try one more time with 3! after that game comparing it to kemet or Cyclades ... Which I have it's hard for me to keep it .. seasson vets of the game should I give it another try or sell it ? Give me some tips on how to enjoy the game better .. Help make those thing mentioned less tedious ... I did have two trays one at each end but still..
It's sucks because I went all in and bought the huge mat and building ! I wanted to love this game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico
Germany
Germany
flag msg tools
But I don’t want to go among mad people
badge
Oh, you can’t help that, we’re all mad here.
mbmbmbmbmb
I think a pyramid win is normal for the first game.
How was it possible for the player to get 12 ressources or 12 coins. How many ressources were traded in that turn? I gurantee you the next game everybody will be more attentive to what the other players are doing.
I think the 4 player game is better than the 3 player game since with only 3 players a legendary city and a lot of rare ressources are removed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Reisinger
msg tools
mbmb
MNE is the type of game that needs a full compliment of players, 5 at a minimum and prefferably 6 I think. With too much space on the board, or more precisely not enough players competing for the resources, it becomes to easy to gain the resources needed to win the game. With more players the board becomes tighter and there is more interaction between the factions.

Is going to take players a few games to understand how to stop players from winning. Winning by pyramids, leaders, leadership, or even military is hard to do if you are paying attention. There is very little hidden information and the players should be able to deduce who is able to win from round to round and act accordingly to stop them.

If you cant get 5 or 6 people together I would sell the game, in my opinion the game will be even worse with 3 than with 4. The board is not made equal even if with fewer players you use a smaller area. More players are needed for balance, the more the better.

Ive never played Cyclades or Kemet, but if you find those more enjoyable to play then I see no reason to keep MNE. For me however, I am enjoying the game and will continue to play it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Jersey City
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played with various numbers of people - with 3 players the game is decent, with 4 it plays much better, and 5 or 6 is optimal. Depending on the situation, it can take 2-3 players to rein in a leader, and that is only practical with 4 or more players (The worst situation I saw was with Greece buying Ramses as a leader and occupying Egypt's Capital - it took both Rome and Carthage's entire build/combat for 2 rounds to stop the military juggernaut: Rome to kill the legions and Carthage to pillage. Then Carthage needed to be reined in with 15 resource production to 9 elsewhere).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Stearns
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I find it interesting they went from resource cards to resource tokens. I think the cards were much less tedious.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
noah caldwell
United States
galt
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Well looking back I made the mistake trading 5 resources that game .. Especially so late in the game when everybody was acquiring a number of resources ! Lesson learned ! Thanks for you help .. I don't really play to many 5 player games and that's why I was hoping 4 would be great ..with limited playing time maybe I will stick to my previous choice ..
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico
Germany
Germany
flag msg tools
But I don’t want to go among mad people
badge
Oh, you can’t help that, we’re all mad here.
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, never trade five if there is the possibility for another player to get 12 ressources and you are not the cultural leader. Then the other player can win before you. We had the same situation in our first game. The cultural leader chose to trade five and was not the cultural leader. This was the first mistake and another player did the second big mistake, he put some coins up for trade which allowed the player who already had 10 coins to get the last two.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Turner
United Kingdom
Farnham
Surrey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lowecore wrote:
MNE is the type of game that needs a full compliment of players, 5 at a minimum and prefferably 6 I think.


So are you saying that the base game is not actually complete for optimal play?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Rubinstein

Long Beach
California
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MrMT wrote:
Lowecore wrote:
MNE is the type of game that needs a full compliment of players, 5 at a minimum and prefferably 6 I think.


So are saying that the base game is not actually complete for optimal play?


With such terrible grammar, punctuation, and thought structure, I really have very little clue what the OP is talking about.

OP, I love this game and would love to chime in. But I also have very little clue what point you're trying to make.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico
Germany
Germany
flag msg tools
But I don’t want to go among mad people
badge
Oh, you can’t help that, we’re all mad here.
mbmbmbmbmb
MrMT wrote:
Lowecore wrote:
MNE is the type of game that needs a full compliment of players, 5 at a minimum and prefferably 6 I think.


So are saying that the base game is not actually complete for optimal play?


I think the base game is fine without the expansion, at least MN:E. The original version had some balance issues regarding Rome and Greece which were fixed in the expansion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
noah caldwell
United States
galt
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Don't worry Ben ! I was able to gather enough info based on the responses I've received So far . I've come to the conclusion to sell the game . Between my gaming group we have 600 games . I have ten on pre order and 30 on ks heading my way .
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Turner
United Kingdom
Farnham
Surrey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
noahshu wrote:
Don't worry Ben ! I was able to gather enough info based on the responses I've received So far . I've come to the conclusion to sell the game . Between my gaming group we have 600 games . I have ten on pre order and 30 on ks heading my way .


I suspect this is your challenge right here. With so many games, do you ever manage to play any of them more than once or twice?

I love this age of games, but it has one serious problem: the cult of the new, which pushes people not to learn games in any depth, and only to favour those which are immediately accessible.

This means great games which require a bit of learning often fall by the wayside.
11 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Inkpen
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The base game (old and new) needs 5p no other number, and with expansion (old and new) it needs 6p.

This is a fantastic game (although the original is better for my money) but it needs a) many repeated plays, b) players who keep careful track of where people can win from and c) max players. There will be many groups for whom one or more of those mostly won't apply, and honestly, this is not a good game for you...

2-4p is just a farce in all honesty.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Bauman
United States
Santa Cruz
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
All right. Well, I'm scratching this one off the wish list. I never have that setup.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paweł Bedz
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MN:E works ok with 2.
Works well with 3.
Works really good with 4.
Works awesome with 5.

I'v played 2/3/4/5. Of course the more the merrier, but it is pretty solid game even with 3. 2 player rules are there, but it is just OK in my opinion. There are better games for 2 players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Schroeder

Dubuque
Iowa
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
noahshu wrote:
Don't worry Ben ! I was able to gather enough info based on the responses I've received So far . I've come to the conclusion to sell the game . Between my gaming group we have 600 games . I have ten on pre order and 30 on ks heading my way .


Uh yeah, if you just keep getting new games and never take time to really learn a single one in depth through multiple plays, this one is not for you. This one takes a few plays to understand, and you have to be willing to go through the learning curve.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
noahshu wrote:
I have ten on pre order and 30 on ks heading my way .

How on Earth are you going to find time to play those 40 titles in addition to the huge collection you already have...? You need to start a 10 x 10 challenge or something like that, in addition to curbing your fear of missing out. Of course it's your money so go spend it in any way you see fit. But if most games you acquire thusly need to perform optimally from game #1 onwards (despite you and your fellow players having little clue to make this happen) because they'll be sold on otherwise, then logic suggests taking a much closer look at that huge backlog you've built up. Trust me, it's okay to take things easy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
noah caldwell
United States
galt
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lol I love games ! I love getting new games ! I'm an addict I just sold 100 games on Craig's list .. I had to trim down if a game dosent grab the group after the first play we tend to put it back on the shelf and move on .. With so many games it's hard to get it back to the table a 2nd time .. Games that have seen multiple plays and were hits .. Blood rage , scythe ,kemet , Cyclades with expansion , cry havoc pre order , two games I'm looking forward to .. By Eric Lang . Sorry I don't know the name off hand . Mafia , and the new coming to ks based off blood rage .. We love area control games .. I wanted to love mare ! I went all in .. With only playing once a week and not being able to get it back to the table because the group isn't interested , Im forced to move on .. I don't live in a big city so finding another group to get more gaming in really isn't an option .. Also I don't have a ton of space and have to rotate my collection .. I would like to play it one more time , if the group isn't interested I pretty my much stuck . Also it will never be played with more then 4 .. So after reading some comments it sounds like it's better with more .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
noahshu wrote:
I would like to play it one more time , if the group isn't interested I pretty my much stuck.

I understand your plight, but as I'm sure you realise your current way of handling things is the other extreme. Again, first and foremost: it's your money, so keep on doing what it is you want to do. This is just me, a geek, offering a little bit of friendly gratuitous advice to a fellow geek: Trust me when I say that doing a repeated-play-challenge brings stability and insight, and thus ultimately a better pre-order portfolio.

Quote:
Also it will never be played with more then 4 .. So after reading some comments it sounds like it's better with more .

It's better in the sense that there are more eyes to notice wayward players so accidents like yours don't happen as easily. But the group dynamics make the game more challenging.

I think it's interesting to see Kemet and Cyclades doing well at your end, but in retrospect it's not that surprising really. Those games thrive on bashing each other's brains out no matter what, and consequently handle that aspect well even if newcomers do the bashing. Later on you can try to think a little with whatever is left meeple in order to eek out a victory where it wasn't expected. MN:E requires a lot more thoughtful approach right from the beginning.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom M
United States
Huntington Beach
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
fwiw I have played this with four multiple times and it was fantastic. I disagree with the game requiring 5 or six players to shine.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefano Tine'
Italy
Genoa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb

I have played it twice, both 4 player games, and we were also disappointed with it being too short.

The first was a race to the 5th dude/power-up (forget the actual name), the other ended with a pyramid (there were only a couple coins exchanged). There was no time for any significant military conflict to develop.

The game is clearly interesting and fun, but it needs house rules to extend it, in our opinion. For 4 players, at least.

This seems to be a common issue with most modern games, at least those were extreme pain is taken to streamline/simplify/"germanize" as much as possible, to cater to the vast majority of gamers out there (=those who don't want or can't spend more than 2 hours on a game).

We are considering requiring completion of two objective/goals for the win, instead of just one. Or something such. We don't care if the game will then take 3 or maybe even 4 hours, if it's worth it.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico
Germany
Germany
flag msg tools
But I don’t want to go among mad people
badge
Oh, you can’t help that, we’re all mad here.
mbmbmbmbmb
barbanera wrote:

I have played it twice, both 4 player games, and we were also disappointed with it being too short.

The first was a race to the 5th dude/power-up (forget the actual name), the other ended with a pyramid (there were only a couple coins exchanged). There was no time for any significant military conflict to develop.

The game is clearly interesting and fun, but it needs house rules to extend it, in our opinion. For 4 players, at least.

This seems to be a common issue with most modern games, at least those were extreme pain is taken to streamline/simplify/"germanize" as much as possible, to cater to the vast majority of gamers out there (=those who don't want or can't spend more than 2 hours on a game).

We are considering requiring completion of two objective/goals for the win, instead of just one. Or something such. We don't care if the game will then take 3 or maybe even 4 hours, if it's worth it.


Try it but I think you will regret it.
The first game in Mare Nostrum is a learning game. It was a pyramid victory in my group after 5 rounds because nobody really understood when to attack. Our second game lasted a lot longer since everybody was alerted not to let the other players win.
To your first game. If everybody is rushing to build 5 heros/wonders which costs 7+8+9+10 = 34 ressources, build military instead! Instead of building the second and third hero in round one and two you could have build 5 legions/ships to not only conquer some regions but also get the ressources from them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
barbanera wrote:
This seems to be a common issue with most modern games, at least those were extreme pain is taken to streamline/simplify/"germanize" as much as possible, to cater to the vast majority of gamers out there (=those who don't want or can't spend more than 2 hours on a game).

Mare Nostrum has its roots in 2003 and years before that, and was the result of an effort to streamline the then king of 4X, AH Civilization. That game takes about 8 hours or so (more if you add its expansion), thus making the question of whether or not it could be shortened a rather legitimate and practical one. MN still took more than 2 hours to complete, though.

In MN:E no 'extreme pain' was taken to simplify matters; it just builds on the far earlier simplification built into its parent game (and its expansion, although that did away with the nice streamlining again) with the main goal being ironing out all the bugs and deficiencies of the parent game. Therefore it seems disingenious to suggest that MN:E's 'streamlining' is the result of modern design methodologies.

Quote:
We are considering requiring completion of two objective/goals for the win, instead of just one. Or something such. We don't care if the game will then take 3 or maybe even 4 hours, if it's worth it.

*Turns off his sparkling and smoking irony meter*. This seems to be a common issue with most players these days: being completely oblivious of their non-existent skills with a new game, yet after a botched first or second attempt immediately and in all seriousness suggesting house rules for it. Whatever happened to thinking things through for a while, and retrying? Some games are surprisingly better behaved and much more exciting the moment you play them as they were meant to be played. I've been there, too.

That all said, Mare Nostrum was not intended to have this sort of playing time. MN+MN:ME at 6 might reach 3 hours, yes, but that's simply due to there being a lot of players. I think you'll be overasking the game greatly by playing for two objectives, to be honest. You're better off immediately going for a different title which has that long playing time you want, instead of tinkering with MN:E.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Turner
United Kingdom
Farnham
Surrey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I played chess for the first time the other day.

The other guy won in about 3 minutes with something he called "fool's mate".

Game is clearly broken, stupidly so.

I proposed the next time we play that you need to kill both the queen and the king to win. I think it would make for a much better more balanced and more long-lasting game.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefano Tine'
Italy
Genoa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
cymric wrote:

In MN:E no 'extreme pain' was taken to simplify matters; it just builds on the far earlier simplification built into its parent game (and its expansion, although that did away with the nice streamlining again) with the main goal being ironing out all the bugs and deficiencies of the parent game. Therefore it seems disingenious to suggest that MN:E's 'streamlining' is the result of modern design methodologies.


Ok, so you are just saying that it was this short in 2003 already. Ok then.. it's a pioneer of the modern trend toward the (extreme) streamlining of games. Fair enough?

But whoever said I meant, dunno, 2010 or 2015 as the start of "modern"? Who told you I didn't mean, say, 2000? In truth, I am no game historian, and I cannot quite come up with a precise date for the start of the trend toward faster games. Somewhat post AH decline, perhaps, dunno.

Quote:
*Turns off his sparkling and smoking irony meter*. This seems to be a common issue with most players these days: being completely oblivious of their non-existent skills with a new game, yet after a botched first or second attempt immediately and in all seriousness suggesting house rules for it. Whatever happened to thinking things through for a while, and retrying? Some games are surprisingly better behaved and much more exciting the moment you play them as they were meant to be played. I've been there, too.


You probably turned off your *sparking and smoking irony meter* (thanks, that was getting me scared..) but it's... disingenious to imply that my friends and I are an example of the players you describe. As a matter of fact, at least one among us has been playing board games since like.. yeah.. AH Civilization (and much earlier) imagine that. The rest of us are not really complete newbies ourselves. On the contrary, I think we are veteran enough to have a good idea of how a game works (or doesn't) after just a few plays.

Quote:

That all said, Mare Nostrum was not intended to have this sort of playing time. MN+MN:ME at 6 might reach 3 hours, yes, but that's simply due to there being a lot of players. I think you'll be overasking the game greatly by playing for two objectives, to be honest. You're better off immediately going for a different title which has that long playing time you want, instead of tinkering with MN:E.


We play short and long games. We enjoy both, as long as they deliver on what we expect. But perhaps our mistakes was in expecting a little more depth or duration from Mare Nostrum.

But I would be happy to stand corrected and find that it works even without house rules. I sure hope it does for the 5-player games (untried yet). If it doesn't, we still like its ideas well enough that we will just house rule it as we please. We won't discard it, because at bottom there seems to be a pretty good game. Just seems to need a slight push towards a bit more length to allow some aspects to fully develop (like warfare).



 
 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.