Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Just a game recommendation from a fellow TI3 player rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you like TI3 and haven't tried Star Trek Ascendancy yet, I just wanted to recommend you check it out.

Star Trek Ascendancy has many similarities with TI3, but emphasizes the negotiation and diplomacy aspect, while simplifying many mechanics (thus potentially shortening play time). The games are dissimilar enough to warrant playing both.

My full review of Star Trek Ascendancy can be found here:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1846905/star-trek-ascendanc...

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Reisinger
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
I just played my first game of Ascendency last night and I am an avid TI3 player, here are some thoughts:

Pros:
Really, really.... really, liked the galaxy exploration. Space lanes are a great idea and I like how newly connected systems can swing around. Systems have a max space lanes that can be connected which is great and leads to some strategy on how you explore.

Cons:
Random tech, random explore, random systems, random stuff on systems, random combat... everything just seems so random. Limited unit types ( only 1 ) and downtime.



A lot has been said about the downtime but that is the way 4x games are, that didn’t bother me much. It was the amount of randomness that puts the game into ‘ will play but wont buy ‘ category. Randomness is needed to a certain degree but should be limited enough where good ‘in game’ decisions can overcome the randomness built into the game. In STA almost everything has 2 or 3 layers of randomness which really controls the gameplay.

First you roll a die to see how far the next system is away from you, then you randomly draw a system tile. The systems are wildly different from amazing to deadly. Then if you survive the initial system pull you randomly determine what is on the planet.. which can also be amazing or deadly. It is just too much. Also, production is king in this game. You want to build as many ship as possible. If you dont get a good production going you’ll fall far behind, and because you cant control what systems you gain for production, it is... you guessed it, random.

In my game as the Federation I pulled 3 Phenoms, 2 Pre-Warp civs, and 2 systems that I could colonize after crisis pulls but only one of thise had a production node. So I was left with 2 production for most of the game which was not fun. I got mashed pretty good by the other more military focused powers quite easily and the game was a 2 horse race.

With all that negative said though I feel like there is hope for this game with a bit of tweaking and an expansion. Top of the list:

- a way to choose production node types instead of random
- a few new unit types, something specific to allow better defending of systems for non-military factions ( space stations are near useless )
- tech tree instead of random
- better mechanic for exploring/dealing with hostile systems/ hostile exploration cards
- removal of pre-warp civs.. why bone just 1 faction in the game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Oberlin
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lowecore wrote:
I just played my first game of Ascendency last night and I am an avid TI3 player, here are some thoughts:

Pros:
Really, really.... really, liked the galaxy exploration. Space lanes are a great idea and I like how newly connected systems can swing around. Systems have a max space lanes that can be connected which is great and leads to some strategy on how you explore.

Cons:
Random tech, random explore, random systems, random stuff on systems, random combat... everything just seems so random. Limited unit types ( only 1 ) and downtime.



A lot has been said about the downtime but that is the way 4x games are, that didn’t bother me much. It was the amount of randomness that puts the game into ‘ will play but wont buy ‘ category. Randomness is needed to a certain degree but should be limited enough where good ‘in game’ decisions can overcome the randomness built into the game. In STA almost everything has 2 or 3 layers of randomness which really controls the gameplay.

First you roll a die to see how far the next system is away from you, then you randomly draw a system tile. The systems are wildly different from amazing to deadly. Then if you survive the initial system pull you randomly determine what is on the planet.. which can also be amazing or deadly. It is just too much. Also, production is king in this game. You want to build as many ship as possible. If you dont get a good production going you’ll fall far behind, and because you cant control what systems you gain for production, it is... you guessed it, random.

In my game as the Federation I pulled 3 Phenoms, 2 Pre-Warp civs, and 2 systems that I could colonize after crisis pulls but only one of thise had a production node. So I was left with 2 production for most of the game which was not fun. I got mashed pretty good by the other more military focused powers quite easily and the game was a 2 horse race.

With all that negative said though I feel like there is hope for this game with a bit of tweaking and an expansion. Top of the list:

- a way to choose production node types instead of random
- a few new unit types, something specific to allow better defending of systems for non-military factions ( space stations are near useless )
- tech tree instead of random
- better mechanic for exploring/dealing with hostile systems/ hostile exploration cards
- removal of pre-warp civs.. why bone just 1 faction in the game?

In my view, what you describe as randomness is actually a feature that enhances the negotiation part of the game. I elaborate a little more on that here: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1857265/defence-humble-begi...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.
 
 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
Mattias wrote:
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.

Isn't STA only a 3 player game (maybe more with expansions, I don't know). TI3 isn't really a game I'd recommend for 3 players, so I don't know if player count comparisons are really fair.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Reisinger
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Mattias wrote:
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.


Ti3 with 6 players takes 6 hours to play, I think with 6 players STA would take much longer. Our 3 player game took 4 hours.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Mattias wrote:
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.

Isn't STA only a 3 player game (maybe more with expansions, I don't know). TI3 isn't really a game I'd recommend for 3 players, so I don't know if player count comparisons are really fair.

Three players work ok in STA (especially with the Advanced rules), but it is even better with more. Currently you can play up to five with the two available expansions. There is really no upper limit to how many factions can be in the same game other than that it will probably be pretty unwieldy when you reach nine or ten (much the same as in TI3).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lowecore wrote:
Mattias wrote:
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.


Ti3 with 6 players takes 6 hours to play, I think with 6 players STA would take much longer. Our 3 player game took 4 hours.

You must play extremely quick! Our six player TI3 games take a full day (10-14 hours or more).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Reisinger
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Mattias wrote:
Lowecore wrote:
Mattias wrote:
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.


Ti3 with 6 players takes 6 hours to play, I think with 6 players STA would take much longer. Our 3 player game took 4 hours.

You must play extremely quick! Our six player TI3 games take a full day (10-14 hours or more).


WHAT!!?? 10-14 hours!? No winder you dont play ti3, I wouldnt either if it took that long!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias Elfström
Sweden
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lowecore wrote:
Mattias wrote:
Lowecore wrote:
Mattias wrote:
obermeister wrote:
They are very different games at the core - mechanics-wise. GF9's previous game I've played (Firefly) had the same downtime issue. In my view this is one of TI3's strengths, the fact that you never go that long without doing something, even in larger games.

Strange. My experience is the exact opposite - TI3 has much more downtime and drag than Star Trek Ascendancy. STA actually simplifies a lot of the mechanics, leaving more room for dealing with and interacting with your rivals. STA will probably play in half the time TI3 does with the same number of players.


Ti3 with 6 players takes 6 hours to play, I think with 6 players STA would take much longer. Our 3 player game took 4 hours.

You must play extremely quick! Our six player TI3 games take a full day (10-14 hours or more).


WHAT!!?? 10-14 hours!? No winder you dont play ti3, I wouldnt either if it took that long!

But I do! 10-14 hours is what we call a "full game". I have no problem with that. I can't see how TI3 can be managed in less. This is comparable to sessions of Mega Civilization, Republic of Rome or Circus Maximus with 16 chariots.

Long games take several sessions to finish. ASL campaigns or Third Reich for example.
 
 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.