GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!

8,571 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
19 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Illusions of Glory» Forums » Rules

Subject: To Be More Specific, What do you guys think of the rules changes? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
SchizoCat1 SchizoCat1
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Especially on reinforcement and replacement Training costs. Pretty radical in my view, though that view comes from a guy who has never gotten past turn 2.

But the increased costs for playing reinforcement cards and replacement points once you hit the minimum seems to me to be a very radical change that will really blast the AH's in particular. Five points for an AH reinforcement card? Seven for an Italian? The implications are obvious.

So my questions for Perry are: what triggered these changes? Were you getting playtest reports that showed you something you didn't like? Were there balance implications, e.g., too many Central Powers wins so this was the balancing mechanism? My opponent has thrown up his hands in disgust and I'm quite puzzled if not concerned, and this is from two guys who otherwise really like the game. Perry, your thoughts are appreciated.

Mike
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal Senajko
Spain
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The changes related to the impact of reinforcements on the troop quality are VERY welcomed. Up until now, because the starting point of troop quality was the same for all the nations ( 16 ), it were the Russians, who were most affected by loses and by bringing in reinforcements. Historically however, AH almost didn't survive the first winter of the war, because of the loses. They had very little in terms of trained reserves. Russians had their problems for sure, but the size of their manpower pool was legendary. It was AH, which was the weak link of the CP on the Eastern Front. So far in the game, the dual monarchy usually does much better than historically. If it comes to Italy, I suppose the pace of loses usually doesn't math the historical one, hence the increased penalty for the reinforcements. From my experience, the balance was favouring too much the CP, so those changes ( along with the combat card discard mechanics ) are very welcomed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Burns
United States
Centennial
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Impact of reinforcements on troop quality seems very interesting and I can't wait to try it out to see the true impact.

One quibble, though: The revised rules and revised PAC1 conflict in regards to Sequence of Play Section H:

Rules: 1) Discard CC 2) Draw Cards 3) Reshuffle
PAC1: 1) Discard 2) Reshuffle 3) Draw Cards

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
SchizoCat1 SchizoCat1
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Clearly, the impact is going to be that troop quality is going to run down to 2 A LOT FASTER than before, twice as fast for the GE/RU and 5x as fast for the AH when playing Reinforcement cards, and good luck getting replacements after you've run down to 2 because the replacement cost just doubled.

Now, I don't understand why this rule change was necessary. Was there a play balance issue? I read the consimworld and this board pretty frequently and I don't remember any balance discussions, though I am not infallible. But these changes really hose up the AH player. Was that the objective (I hope so, because that's the result)? But if so, why?

Anyway, as far as my gaming partner and I are concerned, our confidence in the game's development is a little shot. Even though we both like the game very much, we're changing games to Arquebus until things settle down.

Any ideas, Perry? Thanks, man.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MichaelNeubauer wrote:
Anyway, as far as my gaming partner and I are concerned, our confidence in the game's development is a little shot.


I noticed the Developer is the same fellow who worked on Rebel Raiders on the High Seas, a good design marred by poor and inconsistent development.

A Designer can only do so much, and is dependent on playtesters and the developer to identify these obvious issues and then rectify them. There certainly was a let down here, and I sympathize with Perry for being under siege.

Best thing is to get this intriguing game fixed once the changes are solidified, but until then IoG has been relegated to the shelf (which is a real shame as I love the theater and am currently reading Prit Buttar's outstanding 4-volume series on the topic).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Perry Silverman
United States
Powell
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
My reply:

1. I did revise PAC1 to: (1) Discard CCs,(2) Draw Cards, and (3) Reshuffle. So, I don't know what happened there.

2. Players observed that IT was too strong, and both AH and IT had little chance of getting to Poor Troop Quality because there were too few AH and IT reinforcement cards, which undermined the Troop Quality rule. Remember that you can use RPs to: (1) avoid using Reinforcement Cards, and (2) rebuild destroyed LCUs to raise Troop Quality.

3. The AH army is historically fragile, and the Italian Front is historically tough for the IT army.

4. Don't blame Fred Schachter, my game developer. Playtesters let us both down by not "red flagging" problems.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Burns
United States
Centennial
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that's a rather harsh statement regarding Fred, who has a long history of developing games, many of which I have played and enjoyed for years.

As for the PAC1, it was easy to open it in Adobe, edit the text, save, and print out the corrected version, which is what I did.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You're right - I've edited my post about Fred, whom I've met in person and is a grand fellow.

Still, when things get so messed up (at least in the two games I mention) the Developer has to be mentioned in the conversation. When I develop a game, I play it repeatedly to conclusion not only to find issues but to also to better understand the feedback given to me by the playtesters. Many of the things being discussed were found (locally) by guys on their first play, and they should have been caught pre-publication.

Let me ask, in your view Perry how stable are the November '17 files that are now posted on GMT's site?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Perry Silverman
United States
Powell
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve, it's a wrap. These are the last updates.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Perry Silverman
United States
Powell
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, you are all now pressed into service as my future playtester pool. The last group are all fired.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good to know Perry, I'll start updating things via the posted files (thnx).

I'm in - and like any good playtester, I can be a real PITA... shocking, I know!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Perry Silverman
United States
Powell
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I’m a trial lawyer, Steve. Bring it on.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
SchizoCat1 SchizoCat1
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
I used to be a trial lawyer. Then I got help. Now I'm a finance geek.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
If you need additional testers to IoG, I would be glad to join
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Perry Silverman
United States
Powell
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Michael: yuk
 
 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.