Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Sid Meier's Civilization: A New Dawn» Forums » General

Subject: Limited Player Interaction - or are we doing something wrong rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
R. H.
msg tools
I've played four games, all two players. Two games on the starting map and two on maps we generated as per the rules in the back. In all but one of our games, we've had limited to no interaction:

-Game 1, starting map -- no interaction (no trade; no combat)
-Game 2, starting map -- littler interaction (one trade unit one time from one civ to another's city; no combat)
-Game 3, generated map -- (I don't remember, but I think no trade; combat involving one city state that flipped back and forth, but no other cities attacked)
-Game 4, generated map -- (no trade; no combat)

We really like this game, and are hoping our experience is not normal, and has more to do with the maps we are playing, or play styles. The starting map is particular bad for interaction with the water dividing it, we found. In game 4, our capitals were on opposite sides of the four "core" board pieces. In game 3, they were one tile away from each other, but we expanded away from each other, except for the one city state.

We work pretty hard toward getting the victory conditions, and found our games finishing pretty quick, before we usually had the chance, or need, to expand so we were in conflict, or felt like we had to fight over resources.

It got us thinking, maybe the game needs an army figure that can launch distant attacks, and be attacked and sent back - would create more tension in early game. Or, maybe resources need to do more than just build wonders, so you really need to fight over them. Or maybe better victory conditions.
(All of these are topics for other threads.)

Anyway, curious what other people are finding. And what strategies are causing more interaction, and why you think combat is worth it. (Note, neither of us has played the two combat-oriented civs yet.)

One more thing, we found the most interaction or countering of the other player came when we were generating the maps. And we enjoyed the strategy there. But after that, we felt like we were almost playing our own games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dustin Crenshaw
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Thematic Colors of Gaming Blog
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My main complaint in 3 games. The map is way too huge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike
Canada
Gatineau
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
I know that we each have our own tastes, but I do enjoy games where players can't "really" bother/affect other players like: Bunny Kingdom, Century: Spice Road, etc... But its really weird that a Civ game has no Interaction.

WTF is that. lol

But I am now sold on it. lol
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
wayne r
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems to me that you and your opponent actively sought to avoid interaction by neither fighting nor sending a caravan to an opponent's city.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duarte
Portugal
Ponte de Lima
Ponte de Lima
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you don't interact because you don't want to, even though you have the option to do it, how can you complain about it?

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Butler
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm hoping an expansion might make pvp actions more of an essential component, with a few alt. action cards (employed as either/or upgrades), an additional tier of barbarians, and objectives that encourage conquering/defence strategies.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hubbard
United States
Mullica Hill
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Our 3 games thus far have all been 2-player and we think the board is too big. Not that there's much to stop a player from placing his capital tile right next to the other player's capital tile.

We've talked about maybe trying the next game with 2 "core" tiles instead of 4. Seems like it would be an easy way to make conflict more likely.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xavier
France
Fréland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In Coc or Deus, the size of the map scales to the number of players. If it's the same size here, regardless of that number, it must actually seem big with 2.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Kempf
United States
Jefferson City
MO
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think at two player you are going to see this more often than not, regardless of the map building you choose. The map is just too big, and the goals are relatively easy to do without a whole lot of player interaction. Since the game is a race to three, if anyone is wanting to interact more they are having to take the time to get across the map to your opponent, meanwhile they are amassing things to get those goals knocked off and you are two steps behind at this point.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Koen Wijnants
Belgium
Vlaams-Brabant
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hopefully an expansion can fix this.
Did not tried it, but you can add some house made victory conditions to
increase interaction with opponent or barbarians.

For example make a card with 2 of following victory options:

1) Cover up 2 barbarian spawn points with a control token or city.
2) Attack rival capital city and win this battle. (For more player interaction)
3) Win battle over 3 rival control tokens.
4) Etc...

You can also make the map a little smaller.

Hope this helps.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Browes
United Kingdom
London
Tooting
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my one and only two-player game, it felt like we were just about to start getting in each others' faces when the game ended. Maybe the Epic variant is the way to go, to stretch the game out further so violence is more likely to erupt.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Keusch
United States
Ann Arbor
MI
flag msg tools
badge
Waves broke in swift lines on the beach, and she walked over the sand toward her friends, in the wind, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars, on Mars
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In our 4p game we saw a good amount of both combat and trading....but the guy who won did neither and just made himself busy buying wonders in the corner
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duarte
Portugal
Ponte de Lima
Ponte de Lima
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the major issues might come from the fact that it's a race. And a CIV game shouldn't be, in my opinion. Because it doesn't matter how good you CIV is, if you do it faster.
So, I guess that a scoring system might make it better..? I don't know, I'm just wondering.
You can still have the race to the end game, but adding some things to score points, might make it a better CIV game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Koen Wijnants
Belgium
Vlaams-Brabant
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dna_Boy wrote:
I think the major issues might come from the fact that it's a race. And a CIV game shouldn't be, in my opinion. Because it doesn't matter how good you CIV is, if you do it faster.
So, I guess that a scoring system might make it better..? I don't know, I'm just wondering.
You can still have the race to the end game, but adding some things to score points, might make it a better CIV game.


Yes, i think you are right keep the 3 victory conditions to end the game. And assign points to the achieved victory conditions. First 5 points, second 2 points, etc...

But also have additional points at the end of the game for:
Cities build
Wonders build
Barbarians defeated.
Resources left.
Control tokens placed.
Etc.
Maybe in future expansions
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B. Perry
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Those complaining of little/no player interaction, were you playing with only 2 players? I'm wondering if the game simply plays better with 3 or 4.

I know it's common in the industry for publishers to insist on support a given player range, even if the designer didn't design around that number. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I can see how it might have.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drake Coker
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
badge
This is my tank for Combat Commander
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kayvon wrote:
Those complaining of little/no player interaction, were you playing with only 2 players? I'm wondering if the game simply plays better with 3 or 4.

I know it's common in the industry for publishers to insist on support a given player range, even if the designer didn't design around that number. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I can see how it might have.


^this

My two games so far, both 4p, saw plenty of interaction.

Even so, the map still felt a little large.
 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It has been rare in our 2p games that it has been in both players’ interests to not push to interact relatively early (including in map setup).

A lot of issues in these threads, both strategy and rules, I feel might come from being anchored to ways many other Civ-themed games work. I agree with Duarte’s point above. But I wouldn’t try to ‘fix’ the game, I’d just play a game that’s trying to do what I’d want it to do. The actions in this game are brisk. High techs are not necessary for victory. The entire arc of the game is much smaller than your standard epic Viv.

That isn’t to say you cannot have epic games. One 2p was a multi-hour affair battling over Natural Wonders and City Maturity.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Malczak
United States
Fairfax
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We've played about half a dozen games (all 3-player) and we've had a fair amount of player interaction in all of them. It is typically occurring about 2-3 cycles before the end of the game.

There is little (ie, no) incentive to attack someone other than to fulfill a VC (or possibly preempt one). In many games, once someone starts to building up the VCs, you can attack them to bring them down. In Civ, once you complete the VC, they no longer care about the condition so attacking them after the fact does little good.

In each of our games we've had at least some trading and Diplomacy card usage and all of the have featured at least 1 attack on other players. But there is no incentive for prolonged 'wars' so it's usually just a quick strike to try and win right at the end.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierre Philippe Goyer
Canada
Verdun Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Looking for a Publisher for a Grand Strategic all fronts WW2 card game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After some games played with 4, we found that now we choose to place our home capital first before our other 2 tiles. Doing that help us being close to the center goodies and to help interaction with others and also having resources in our backyard. And interaction was a lot better.

Is it better...not sure but house ruling that makes interaction a lot heavier.

Owll
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Talenn wrote:
There is little (ie, no) incentive to attack someone other than to fulfill a VC (or possibly preempt one).


You are playing that when you successfully attack an opposing Control token, you immediately replace it with your own, correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dustin Crenshaw
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Thematic Colors of Gaming Blog
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interociter wrote:
In my one and only two-player game, it felt like we were just about to start getting in each others' faces when the game ended. Maybe the Epic variant is the way to go, to stretch the game out further so violence is more likely to erupt.


It doesn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xavier
France
Fréland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it possible to reduce the map?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dustin Crenshaw
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Thematic Colors of Gaming Blog
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flubuh wrote:
Is it possible to reduce the map?


With house ruling yes. For example, we are gonna deal the 3 to each player, but then only place two out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Malczak
United States
Fairfax
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LemonyFresh wrote:
Talenn wrote:
There is little (ie, no) incentive to attack someone other than to fulfill a VC (or possibly preempt one).


You are playing that when you successfully attack an opposing Control token, you immediately replace it with your own, correct?


Yep, but again, unless the 'Explorer' VC is out there, it doesn't accomplish much. Without Open Borders, it's usually too slow to 'convert' all of the tokens for the Mature City condition.

Flight renders (non-reinforced) control tokens useless for city defense and Flight seems to be a fairly highly sought after level IV tech in our group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. H.
msg tools
Thanks for the comments.

First, I wasn’t complaining about the game, just commenting on something we’d experienced. It seems a lot of people experienced this too.

Second, yes we could have actively interacted with each other. But in almost all cases it would be a suboptimal strategy or move to do so.

I think the problem lies in the race mechanic and victory conditions that don’t require interaction. It’s generally faster to stay in your corner and try to build your empire than to compete for the resources/space that aren’t necessary to win the game. As people here have said, this can be best fixed with better victory conditions (new cards, or a VP scoring system), and/or a reduced map size for two players. But as long as the game remains as is, I think player interaction will remain low.
 
 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.