Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Twilight Imperium: Fourth Edition» Forums » Variants

Subject: Bonus Counters rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andy Day

League City
Texas
msg tools
mb
Hi,
I'm pondering moving bonus counters over from T3 to T4. Seems like it would be a simple way to reduce the shortage of CC that T4 apparently suffers from.

Part of what makes T3 a turtle heavy game is that inaction costs so much less than taking action. By reducing the cost of action by increasing the volume of CC, my TI mates and I came out of our shells and game each other h...eck.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Williams
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
BITS FOR THE BITS GOD!
badge
Staring in dumbfounded terror at Frans Raynor's neckbeard.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is something I plan to try eventually as well, but probably not until at least 10 games of TI4 are complete.

On the one hand, all the secondary abilities being useful makes extra command counters interesting, but I like the scarcity inherent in TI4.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Bomholt
United States
Oxford
Ohio
flag msg tools
The "shortage" of CC was a design choice, it makes the game tighter and makes actions more important.

I'd be wary of flooding the game with more CC.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Day

League City
Texas
msg tools
mb
blarknob wrote:
The "shortage" of CC was a design choice, it makes the game tighter and makes actions more important.

I'd be wary of flooding the game with more CC.

Everything was a design choice. That doesn't mean it's a good design choice. "Tight" games tend to punish mistakes, which isn't fun and leads to AP.

I won't likely get in 10 games of TI4 before the next election so I will probably try the idea a bit sooner than that. Though I will play mostly RAW for the first game or two.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Bomholt
United States
Oxford
Ohio
flag msg tools
Gylthinel wrote:
blarknob wrote:
The "shortage" of CC was a design choice, it makes the game tighter and makes actions more important.

I'd be wary of flooding the game with more CC.

Everything was a design choice. That doesn't mean it's a good design choice. "Tight" games tend to punish mistakes, which isn't fun and leads to AP.

I won't likely get in 10 games of TI4 before the next election so I will probably try the idea a bit sooner than that. Though I will play mostly RAW for the first game or two.


My point was that fewer CCs wasn't a mistake. Try the vanilla game before implementing free parking.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Day

League City
Texas
msg tools
mb
blarknob wrote:
Gylthinel wrote:
blarknob wrote:
The "shortage" of CC was a design choice, it makes the game tighter and makes actions more important.

I'd be wary of flooding the game with more CC.

Everything was a design choice. That doesn't mean it's a good design choice. "Tight" games tend to punish mistakes, which isn't fun and leads to AP.

I won't likely get in 10 games of TI4 before the next election so I will probably try the idea a bit sooner than that. Though I will play mostly RAW for the first game or two.


My point was that fewer CCs wasn't a mistake. Try the vanilla game before implementing free parking.

I would content that house rules aren't explicitly to correct mistakes, but rather to modify a game to play in a way that house enjoys. I know that I don't enjoy "tight" resources in TI.

Some people-generally SA evangelists-make a lot of noise about how resource scarcity made T3 better. I tried it, didn't like it. They say less is more, but in my experience, in this instance, less is less.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gylthinel wrote:
blarknob wrote:
Gylthinel wrote:
blarknob wrote:
The "shortage" of CC was a design choice, it makes the game tighter and makes actions more important.

I'd be wary of flooding the game with more CC.

Everything was a design choice. That doesn't mean it's a good design choice. "Tight" games tend to punish mistakes, which isn't fun and leads to AP.

I won't likely get in 10 games of TI4 before the next election so I will probably try the idea a bit sooner than that. Though I will play mostly RAW for the first game or two.


My point was that fewer CCs wasn't a mistake. Try the vanilla game before implementing free parking.

I would content that house rules aren't explicitly to correct mistakes, but rather to modify a game to play in a way that house enjoys. I know that I don't enjoy "tight" resources in TI.

And I am just the opposite - one game we had where resources were NOT tight was by far the most boring and uneventful game I have ever played. Since everyone had plenty of resources, there was no reason to expand outside your "border", everyone had almost all their ships on the board, but no reason to actually fight (and this was with the SE objectives in play).

To each their own, but "plentiful resources" turned the game from a great game into an 8-hour snooze fest. It was one of the few times I came away from a game of TI3 thinking how much of a waste of time it was.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Bomholt
United States
Oxford
Ohio
flag msg tools
sigmazero13 wrote:
Gylthinel wrote:
blarknob wrote:
Gylthinel wrote:
blarknob wrote:
The "shortage" of CC was a design choice, it makes the game tighter and makes actions more important.

I'd be wary of flooding the game with more CC.

Everything was a design choice. That doesn't mean it's a good design choice. "Tight" games tend to punish mistakes, which isn't fun and leads to AP.

I won't likely get in 10 games of TI4 before the next election so I will probably try the idea a bit sooner than that. Though I will play mostly RAW for the first game or two.


My point was that fewer CCs wasn't a mistake. Try the vanilla game before implementing free parking.

I would content that house rules aren't explicitly to correct mistakes, but rather to modify a game to play in a way that house enjoys. I know that I don't enjoy "tight" resources in TI.

And I am just the opposite - one game we had where resources were NOT tight was by far the most boring and uneventful game I have ever played. Since everyone had plenty of resources, there was no reason to expand outside your "border", everyone had almost all their ships on the board, but no reason to actually fight (and this was with the SE objectives in play).

To each their own, but "plentiful resources" turned the game from a great game into an 8-hour snooze fest. It was one of the few times I came away from a game of TI3 thinking how much of a waste of time it was.


I completely agree, TI is best in scarce resource maps.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Williams
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
BITS FOR THE BITS GOD!
badge
Staring in dumbfounded terror at Frans Raynor's neckbeard.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think Shattered Ascension zealots are necessary big on scarcity; quite the opposite in that they double the amount of plastic everyone can build. I'm big on scarcity, not a fan of SA. Do like some of their maps though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tristian Martinez
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
It's your game, of course, and if you are confident that more CC=more aggression=more fun, I won't discount your idea. Still, I'll make an argument for limited CCs and no bonus counters.

1: It makes the Leadership SC something to fight over. I want to go more in depth on how satisfying it felt using these SCs in its own post, but for now, I'll compare it to TI3, where leadership could afford to be passed around turn 3. In TI4, that is potentially 8 less CC up for grabs by turn 3. Now, leadership is a powerful point of leverage, a potential equalizer against a player with a particularly rich pie slice who burnt their CCs expanding, and a must have for the races with CC stall.

1.5: Secondaries are powerful, primaries are risky. Because of the high power of the SC secondaries, choosing a situational SC (Construction, Diplomacy, Imperial) because you are starved of CC and just need one more move to finish your plan is dangerous. Choosing a situational SC can put you back massively (I recently saw a Letnev give his neighbor L1Z1X 8 resources with Diplomacy), and if teaching new players, I personally wouldn't want to give more options for a game-ruining choice to sour someone's first impression of TI4.

2: The loss of casual CC gain also makes abilities that manipulate/rely on CC much more impactful. The Sol bonus CC, the Hacan free trade secondary, and Warfare feel real good after you are up by one CC on everyone. Sure, Jol-Nar feel like they can get tech every turn, but the costs add up. The Summit AC feels like a god-send, and I would hate to be hit by Insubordination.

3: Shortage of CC gives the low resource, high influence planets more value. We have not particularly enjoyed the new voting system, so no real drive for influence there, but the CC cost makes the Meer System so incredibly valuable I have seen a war break out through a wormhole explicitly over the need for CC. It might just be my group, but I've never seen that in TI3. More aggression is good, right?


Hope it helped fill out the case for no bonus counters.
 
 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.