Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » Rules

Subject: Trade agreement rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
david wood
msg tools
Is it ok to omit the trade agreement cards from the game? If so, does it make any difference in game play? Does it take away from the game if you do?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
Is it ok to omit the trade agreement cards from the game?


It's your game...

Quote:
If so, does it make any difference in game play?


Yes.

Quote:
Does it take away from the game if you do?


Yes, it takes away trade agreements. This also makes it impossible to be at peace with your rivals.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Warnken
United States
Harrison
Ohio
flag msg tools
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
badge
Happy grandfather!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
Is it ok to omit the trade agreement cards from the game? If so, does it make any difference in game play? Does it take away from the game if you do?


Why do you want to remove them? Removing them nullifies the Romulan's drawback. They also allow races to cooperate and move through each other's territory.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david wood
msg tools
I mainly one game partner. Once in awhile there are 3 of us but normally just 2. No doubt he will play the Klingons. He is aggressive and loves to fight. In this case, would removing trade agreement cards mess up the game?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
I mainly one game partner. Once in awhile there are 3 of us but normally just 2. No doubt he will play the Klingons. He is aggressive and loves to fight. In this case, would removing trade agreement cards mess up the game?


It's having only two players that will mess up the game. There is nothing to prevent a run-away victory. Two factions being able to work together against the leader is the balance of the game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david wood
msg tools
How does a 2 player game cause a run away victory? 2 player games are mostly what I do. Are you saying that playing this game 2 player would be wrong? Please explain in detail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
How does a 2 player game cause a run away victory? 2 player games are mostly what I do. Are you saying that playing this game 2 player would be wrong? Please explain in detail.


It's advertised as a 3 player game. Expansions will allow more, but not fewer. There is currently no rule set to handle only two players. You can play with two...but it's just not what the game is designed for. The trade agreements that are the subject of this thread are a big part of how two rivals can team up against a rival that is getting too powerful. They give much needed production, and exchanging trade agreements enables them to allow each others' ships to be in the same sector and thus defend together against attacks from their common enemy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Bass
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
This game is similar to Civilization in that the further ahead you get, the faster you can get even further ahead. A snowballing effect if you will. If you are playing only two players, once one player takes the lead, he will probably keep the lead (and continue to increase the gap) until his inevitable victory.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grish
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
"Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life." ♯ ♩ ♫ ♪ - Beethoven
badge
--------ViSiT--------- ---------------------- DockingBay416.com ---------------------- ------for some------ ---------------------- -------STAR--------- -------WARS-------- --------------------- ------l-o-v-e--------
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
No doubt he will play the Klingons.


The Klingons will have a big advantage in a 2 player game. They are much better at attacking than other factions. In a 3 player game, fear of being ganged up on will keep them in check, but in a 2 player game they will just shred apart any opponent.

If you are going to play 2 player, try to house rule some Borg AI as a 3rd faction to keep everyone honest. The game is designed to have threats of multiple factions attacking the leader and trade agreements between less powerful players to balance out any inherent advantages a race might have. If you could make a good AI for a 3rd faction, I think that would be the best way to play a 2 player game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lou Lessing
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
How does a 2 player game cause a run away victory? 2 player games are mostly what I do. Are you saying that playing this game 2 player would be wrong? Please explain in detail.


The first few turns of this game are very random. Exploration has the potential to go very well or very poorly. By the time players are in a position where they can fight, there's usually a player who is ahead.

In a three or more player game, people can team up to stop that player, and probably have to to stop them running away with the game. In a two-player game, that isn't an option. Getting a good exploration phase is very likely to give you the game.

I wouldn't say you *couldn't* play it two player. It'll just be even less competitive than it already is. (It isn't a super hardcore serious strategy game with 3 players either.)

I agree that trade agreements won't be the thing that breaks it at 2. If you're okay with the exploration randomness, you won't miss them -- they're important to the diplomatic elements of a 3+ player game, but it's those elements that are important, not the extra couple of production.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nova Cat
United States
Bakersfield
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
It's advertised as a 3 player game. Expansions will allow more, but not fewer.

It's pure speculation, but the Borg and Dominion expansions *might* make the 2-player experience better, by providing a common enemy for the two players to gang up on.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J

Texas
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
brisingre wrote:
dwood9999 wrote:
How does a 2 player game cause a run away victory? 2 player games are mostly what I do. Are you saying that playing this game 2 player would be wrong? Please explain in detail.


The first few turns of this game are very random. Exploration has the potential to go very well or very poorly. By the time players are in a position where they can fight, there's usually a player who is ahead.


This is the answer I was going to provide. The third player helps mitigate the randomness of the first few turns. While you may get lucky and find planets/discoveries that balance the two of you out, it is more likely that one of you will get ahead early on and the other person will have no way to catch up. A few people on this board have posted that they enjoy the two player game. It still lets you explore new systems, build out the map (which is very fun), and grow your economy. As long as you don't care about a fair competition, that might be enough. But I think you will find that the 3 player experience is far superior with a good group that knows how to manipulate each other and react to changing game conditions. In my opinion, while the game itself is fun, most of the enjoyment from Ascendancy is playing the other players rather than playing the game system.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Hardy
United States
Idaho
flag msg tools
With regard to getting rid of trade, the game begins very slowly because of lack of production; trade is the accelerator that gets the game going.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david wood
msg tools
I have tried playing federation vs. Klingon (2 player solo) without using trade agreements and taking out any cards dealing with trade. I experimented playing by myself (playing federation, then Klingon). I would also suggest using a total military victory only (capture the other players homeworld). I personally think that would work. I have practiced and it seems to work fine without one side completely overpowering the other. But its just my opinion, but it can work. Still plenty of building, researching, exploring and combat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david wood
msg tools
Any opinions on my previous post?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
Any opinions on my previous post?


In your previous post you gave an opinion. Are you asking for an opinion on your opinion? Personally, I have no frame of reference to offer an opinion on what you wrote because I haven't tried it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lou Lessing
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dwood9999 wrote:
I have tried playing federation vs. Klingon (2 player solo) without using trade agreements and taking out any cards dealing with trade. I experimented playing by myself (playing federation, then Klingon). I would also suggest using a total military victory only (capture the other players homeworld). I personally think that would work. I have practiced and it seems to work fine without one side completely overpowering the other. But its just my opinion, but it can work. Still plenty of building, researching, exploring and combat.


In my opinion, the federation will never win the variant you describe. If you left Ascendancy victory in the mix they could, but to hegemonize Kronos they need to win a space battle against whatever the Klingons leave in orbit, and it shouldn't be hard for them to render that effectively impossible. If I were playing with 2, I'd leave out Klingons and play Federation vs Romulans, I think? I definitely wouldn't take out ascendancy victory in a game with the Federation.
1 
 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.