Recommend
15 
 Thumb up
 Hide
45 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Scythe» Forums » Variants

Subject: Faction balance changes for expansions and other balance thoughts rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dan Michalowski
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
All work and no board games makes Dan a dull boy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All of these changes are the result of about 6 months of testing, tweaking, headaches, and good gamer friends willing to test/put up with them. Mostly this was done on the Tabletop Simulator Discord, but I also subjected some of my Irl friends to it as well, so credit to all those people is due.

I by no means think this is some definitive conclusion on what should be tweaked for balance in the game. These changes just seemed to help make the expansions be a little bit more dynamic in our play group. I'll be honest, we have basically played Scythe to death. I myself have more plays than I really want to admit lol. I don't expect these changes to be relevant for a lot of players, but I tried to keep the experience of newer players in mind while making these.

In my opinion, vanilla Scythe is very well balanced. However with the addition of each expansion, the balance seems to tilt a little bit further from the middle with each one. We found these changes helpful for making games with the expansions much more close and tense.

Scythe Discord: https://tinyurl.com/m7s9l44


MODULAR BOARD/MINIMAL CHANGES:




SUMMARY OF CHANGES (OLD):


After more testing, a lot of these don't seem necessary to me anymore. They probably are more balanced, but also add more bloat.


RUSVIET:




You could think of this as an extension of the official variant that Rusviet is not allowed to repeat factory actions. Since all factory cards have move actions in them, this makes it official that they are not allowed to be repeated.

Of all the things you could change about relentless, this might seem like a strange place to nerf it. This change came about after a long period of keeping track of how many times relentless is used in a game with how well Rusviet did. As it turns out, Relentless is not as important as it might seem. I managed to win in 14 turns with Industrial without using Relentless a single time by going to the Factory early (It’s basically impossible to fix the Industrial combo it seems).

Basically, most changes that we tried or that I’ve seen suggested on the forums end up not really changing the root of the issue, and can end up ruining fun things for Rusviet. They end up only nerfing some play styles or more importantly tend to suck the fun/uniqueness out of Rusviet by removing unique openings. The idea was to try to keep Rusviet’s power in line while still preserving their identity (PRODUCE PRODUCE PRODUCE ).

The goal then became clear: leave Rusviet’s crazy engine building ability alone, and nerf their combat ability/ability to spread out. I think it makes sense both thematically and mechanically. If you are going to have an insane strength in one area, there should be a weakness in another to balance it out.

The biggest problem I had with Rusviet’s play style is that they could turtle 90% of the game in the corner of the map, and have basically zero consequences for it later in the game. There was no real need to plan ahead, pay attention to the board, or consider what other players might do next. If need be, you can just move every turn and splat all your stuff across the board! I realized the reason for a lot of the uninteresting feeling Rusviet can have comes from the fact they could move every turn.

Needing to alternate turns while moving is also probably one of the most important design restrictions in the game. It's important for combat, engine building, achieving objectives, gaining territory, and just overall strategy. I realized that Rusviet having a pass on this is probably the biggest source of the ‘bleh’ feeling I get from playing against them. It can be almost impossible to defend against Rusviet because they can attack at any time. It also takes away one of the most fun/interactive aspects of the end game: planning your movement around other player’s movement. Also, being able to move every turn is one of the most important parts of getting a Factory card, which Rusviet can do very easily anyway. There is a pretty huge difference, however, between moving 1 unit 3 spaces and 3 units 2 spaces, especially with People’s Army involved…

PEOPLE’S ARMY


I think this change is pretty straight forward, but there are two main reasons for it. The first is obviously that People’s Army and Rusviet’s combat ability in general seems a bit too strong, but the second is I think the more important part: it’s more interesting.

In the time that I played with this change, there were many really interesting interactions with other mech abilities that reduced power in combat, as well as interesting things to weigh when trying to engage in multiple combats on the same turn. There was a situation once where Albion attacked with Sword and brought me down to 0 power, which meant I couldn’t use People’s Army because the attacker’s abilities go first. Also if you engage in multiple combats, you might not have 7 power in the second fight if you use People’s Army both times.

There’s also a fantastic mind game that is introduced with the 1 power cost. You pay the power before dials are revealed, so your opponent knows you are playing one more card (we interpreted the wording as if you pay the power, you must play the extra card). There’s a great intimidation factor involved. But are you playing good cards, or garbage cards with no power on your dial?

TOWNSHIP


This change follows suit with the previous two. It adds elements of planning and tension while restricting Rusviet’s combat ability. With the added restriction of ‘unoccupied’, you can no longer attack the factory. You also can’t stack a million units on the Factory using Township, because once you move a unit onto the Factory, it becomes occupied. This change requires Rusviet to pay attention to when others might be moving to control the Factory, and get in front of it. Again, it adds more interaction and thought to Rusviet’s play style.

The thing I disliked the most about Township was how Rusviet could sort of just ‘own’ the factory the whole game. Being able to attack the factory at any time seriously discourages other players from even going to it, or trying to hold it. It really diminishes a very fun part of the game imo. Also, being able to control the factory by just putting a ton of stuff on it early in the game is not very fun for other players I think.

I also think Township was just a bit too strong in general. I don’t think many players really make full use of it, but being able to move between villages you control allows for some pretty insane attacking movement that is often hard to see coming. That 14 turn Rusviet Industrial game I mentioned earlier where I didn’t use Relentless ended with me attacking into Saxony’s mountain hex with township and stealing a bunch of resources he thought were safe.


CRIMEA:

Oh boy, I’ve been sitting on this one for a while. About 7 months ago I discovered ‘THE FORMULA’ for winning with Crimea. It started with the Militant mat, and then quickly spread to basically every other player mat in the game. Same formula, slightly different iterations. I was reluctant to post anything about it, because it 100% ruined Crimea for me. Once I saw it, I couldn’t unsee it. There was a time period of a few months where I just refused to play Crimea because of it. Also, I should probably mention, it took me about 150 plays of Scythe to find ‘THE FORMULA’, so this probably isn’t an issue that the vast majority of players will run into.

I’ll just make a list of the wins I’ve seen/accomplished myself with Crimea:

Innovative, 13 turns (multiple times, possible in 12 turns actually. Most recent was this week at 14 turns)
Engineering, 13 turns (done myself multiple times on Digital edition, have screenshots)
Patriotic, 14 turns (duh)
Militant, 15 turns (basically every time, with a hefty score)
Mechanical, 15 turns (much more common at 16 turns, but still very hard to beat)
Agricultural, 15 turns (a small percent of the time, 16 is much easier, also with a hefty score)
Industrial, 13 turns (This was WITH the following nerf to Coercion, believe it or not. Not a common occurrence however. The man who did this, Gharr, is some sort of Scythe deity. Could be good or evil, hard to tell. Definitely chaotic though.)

I should also mention, it’s not possible to do ‘THE FORMULA’ 100% of the time. It seems close to about 70% of the time though, which is still a pretty huge problem. It relies on a doable objective, but there are usually ways to tweak the move sequence to fit it (the 13 turn win with industrial was with the Balanced Workforce objective).

‘THE FORMULA’ relies heavily on the starting power of Crimea, as well as power gained from enlist bonuses to get easy combat wins early in the game. It also uses (or abuses) Scout to drain opponents of what limited cards they might have early in the game.



The idea of these nerfs is to make Crimea have to work harder for their combat victories, as well as removing some cheese from Scout.

If it seems like a heavy nerf, it’s because it’s meant to be. Would I make new players play with these changes? Actually, probably yes. The interesting thing about these changes is that new players tend to only use Coercion maybe at most 3 to 4 times throughout the course of the game, where experienced players can use coercion upwards of 10 times. Crimea has a very interesting learning curve, and it usually has to do with figuring out how to use Coercion more effectively. This change naturally hits players harder who have figured out more of ‘THE FORMULA’, which is important, because Crimea’s power grows faster than other factions as you learn how to play them better.

These changes basically make 99% of the kinds of games I listed earlier impossible. It essentially kills ‘THE FORMULA’. I could go into more about how paying combat cards is kind of like paying nothing at all for Crimea, but this post is already way too long.

I will go into the subject of what makes Crimea so powerful a little bit, however. It’s not the Faction or mech abilities, it’s the starting resources. If there ever were a combination of starting resources that shouldn’t be allowed, it would probably be Crimea’s. It’s my hope that the modular board will fix this on its own, and none of these changes will be necessary. If I could wave a magic wand and change something about every Scythe copy in existence, I would probably swap the tunnel tundra outside Crimea’s home base with the mountain territory in it, and change Crimea’s Riverwalk to mountains/tundra.


Why all this for Rusviet/Crimea?
I should have probably put this earlier in the post, but if you noticed in the thread title, these are balance changes including content from expansions. It just so happens that both Innovative and Militant are both insanely good for Rusviet and Crimea. They are easily the top two strongest boards for each faction, and if not top two then definitely top three. Innovative in general is a pretty good mat, but militant definitely is not good for every faction lol (its easily the worst for Nordic, to the point where I think it could actually be banned for being too bad). The addition of these boards, and some of the other content, exacerbated the small, tolerable balance issues of the base game. It seems like every expansion has widened the balance gap between Crimea/Rusviet and the other factions a bit. Like I said earlier, it was Militant that led me to ‘THE FORMULA’ for Crimea.

Alternate changes for Rusviet/Crimea:

Crimea starting power


Rusviet starting power


These can be used in place of the changes to Scout/People’s Army. I think these changes are a bit more balanced, but they felt too punishing to inexperienced players, so I just left them out.

The idea was that because these factions start on a village territory, they have -2 starting power. This might be a useful rule for the upcoming modular board, as it seems to be a pretty fair change from what we tested.


NORDIC:



This is a situational buff for Nordic specifically for when Albion is in the game. It could possibly be used without Albion in the game, but in my opinion, it’s a bit too strong for that. It is rather difficult to weigh, however.

There are two main reasons for this change:
1. Albion's home base area takes up a lot of territory that Nordic often spreads out to. Being able to move an extra worker every time you move lets you make up for some of that lost territory while spreading out at the end of the game.

2. Not being able to use the right village removes a lot of good opening moves for Nordic. Most of my favorite openings for Nordic go to Albion’s village. Being able to move all three of your units from the start of the game lets Nordic maintain some of the opening move variety that they usually have.


SAXONY:




There’s many reasons for this change, and they are all rather complicated. I’ve never been a huge fan of Saxony’s faction ability because of its dependence on good card draws. It often ends up feeling like a coin flip. Did you draw good combat cards/easy objectives? Congratulations, you win.

The randomness however isn’t the main reason for this change. It seems like the vast majority of the time, Saxony ends the game early, but does not win after an effort to play aggressively. Sooo very often it seems like Saxony digs themselves into a hole trying to make use of their faction ability, only to realize around turn 15 the hole is too deep and goes nowhere. The benefits for Saxony’s faction ability are often very difficult to cash out on, and more often than not are just decided by what cards are drawn at the start of the game.

This change essentially changes the faction ability from ‘end the game earlier from being aggressive’ to ‘end the game with more popularity from being aggressive’.
It doesn’t really change Saxony’s play style all that much- there’s still a huge emphasis on being aggressive, the benefits are just different. Saxony is still scary and annoying, just in a different way.

On a side note, I dislike a lot of house rules that let Saxony just mulligan their opening cards, because part of their faction ability essentially just becomes ‘have better cards than everyone else’, which is not interesting at all. Also, getting dealt two difficult objectives with no other choice but to try and do them is how you figure out how to do difficult objectives. People often complain about certain objectives being too difficult, but I honestly think there’s only 3 in the game that are actually maybe too hard.


Albion and Togawa:

Both of these changes had the very difficult goal of increasing each faction’s mobility without increasing their ability to spread out to more territory, or have completely broken access to neighbors home bases early in the game. I must have gone through a dozen different ideas for each faction before coming to these changes. I could go more into that design process, but nah, too long. The initial motive for this change was to help these factions in the Rise of Fenris campaign, but they ended up being fair enough to include in any game (I think).

One really important thing to note is that with both of these changes, both factions can still only gain 3 territories maximum with an upgraded move action- very important.

Also, these decrease the turns required to get to the factory, but it's only by about 1 or 2 turns.

RONIN


This change is about as thematically satisfying as it is satisfying to actually play with. If a faction could experience losing 50 lbs, this is what it would feel like I think.


To clarify, ‘use two move actions on 1 unit’ means that rather than moving two units one hex, you can move one unit two hexes, something that new players often get confused. So with an upgraded move action, you could move one mech/character two hexes, and only one other unit one hex. Also, any action that typically stops your unit’s movement (encounters, sending workers home) still stop your movement, in that you can’t move again afterward. The way it is worded in the rules made me interpret it as ‘that units movement stops for this turn’, not just for the action itself. This also applies to laying traps, but I think there’s a more legitimate argument for the other side of this one. I just played it as you can only lay the Trap after your characters final movement.

Another thing to note is that this does not increase the range of a Factory card move. The factory move is one action that moves two spaces, there isn’t a second move action to add hexes of movement.

BURROW


This one is a mouthful, but intuitive enough when you understand what it is. Effectively this lets you skip past lake territories when moving to/from territories between tunnels. You never actually move onto the lake territories, so you can skip past lakes that are occupied by opponents.

This is a bit of a lateral change for Albion, though I think it’s still a significant buff. It reduces their ability to move into opponent’s home bases, but really increases their ability to move across the middle of the board and to the factory.
There’s many reasons for the change, and this post is too long already so I’ll just list them.

1. Building stars as Albion are difficult because of their terrible access to wood, more so than other factions.
2. If the mountain tunnel territory is blocked, Albion can easily get cornered into their home base area.
3. Getting combat stars as Albion can be very difficult, as it usually requires them to sit on tunnels in a very exposed, obviously avoidable position.


The Triumph Track and other thoughts on balance:

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of ‘broken’ or ‘too strong’ strategies include the worker star (it's part of THE FORMULA). I have an inkling that the power of 8 worker strategies was significantly underestimated in the original release of the game. I wouldn’t expect playtesters of a brand new game to go for such an extreme strategy after only playing a few times. It took me quite a few plays myself to even consider going for 8 worker strategies.

In my opinion, there’s really no need to incentivize getting all 8 workers on the board. 8 worker strategies are often just as good, if not better, as strategies with only 3 or 5 workers. It is kind of an empty feeling star. It doesn’t really require much of the player, and is easy enough that it almost feels mandatory to do regardless of what strategy/faction/mat combo is being used. That samey feeling is pretty meh and not very Scythe-like in my opinion.

REPLACES WORKER STAR


Thankfully, a cool option is replacing the worker star with a resource star. The resource star essentially acts like a more difficult worker star. You not only need to have all 8 workers on the board, you have to use them. This feels very Scythey to me. It’s possible to get the resource star without 8 workers, but it is quite difficult. At least there’s the possibility of it. Also, strategies that use 7 workers instead 8 of are more common, as they basically are nonexistent in the game currently.

Another thing to note is that the 16 resource star is a lot easier than it looks. Unlike the resource related objectives, this can be completed at ANY point on your turn. So if you produce up to 16 resources, you place a star, and then use the resources for a bottom action. It doesn’t require you to have 16 resources floating around at the start or end of your turn.

Also, something I really like about this change is that if multiple people are going for this star, it makes it easier to complete, as more players are likely to have resources on the board to steal. While stealing resources/making resources for points is a part of the game, it often comes as a sort of afterthought. Resources typically are not super influential in the end game scoring. I like how the resource star makes the resource stealing aspect of the game more important.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hoo boy, that’s it I think. I like this game a bit, is it obvious? Would love to hear everyone's thoughts on these ideas.

Oh also, no changes for Polania. Polania is perfect <3.

EDIT 7/25: Added first version of changes for the modular board, nerfed the revised dominate slightly.
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Smith
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Man that was an intense read, but clearly very well thought out. Do you plan on doing a spoiler version for the Rise of Fenris content at some point too?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Supreme
Germany
Böblingen
flag msg tools
While it is clear that Crimea is objectively over powered the fact remains that most players are not skilled enough to actually realize their full power so the problem only begins to show itself with people who have played Scythe dozens upon dozens of times and are reaching a level of mastery of the game that a large majority of players will simply never have. Really it's a testament to the quality of Scythe that people will play it enough to analyze its quirks to find these things out.

My fear would be that your nerfs, while necessary for expert players, would make Crimea seem weak for the 95% of players that are not experts running optimized strategies.

On the other hand I find your Nordic buff absolutely absurd. I am firmly on the side of, "nothing is wrong with Nordic" and your proposed buff would seem to magnify their strength multiple times. Their main route to victory is having lots of workers and spreading them all over the place which they can do very easily since the workers swim over rivers. Letting them move 3 units per move action by default (4 with upgrade) would be crazy powerful IMO.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Müller
msg tools
Hm, I think its slightly different with Crimea. In my experience Crimea is very easy for new players because their mechanic is forgiving mistakes in planning. I think Saxony is the hardest faction for beginners, because it requires very careful planning of the attacks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Holmgren
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
One obvious problem here is that there are so many changes!
It's a bit much to take in!

All in all though, the changes to Crimea and Rusviet seem very reasonable. We tweaked Rusviet to have 2 action tokens instead of one, but otherwise follow the standard rules for Action token placement. So they could at most do the same action two times in a row.
But this proposed change to Relentless might be better.
The changes to People's Army and especially Township seems entirely reasonable.

And Crimea... oh Crimea. I have also kinda figured them out, and as you say, it doesn't really matter what player mat you get, you will still win or be very close to winning either way. When you get those combat cards rolling in, you are set. The Power cost to Coercion and Scout both look like really good tweaks! Though, having a Power cost on both might be a bit much. Perhaps better to just have it on Coercion (meshes better with a certain mod in RoF too).

However, I don't see the need for the Togawa change?
I played them in the first half RoF and managed just fine, and in my experience they are cetrainly not worse or better than say Polania.
Same with Albion. Sure they can be boxed in, but they have a Riverwalk to get to the oil instead, and easy access to metal so...
Though the presence of airships has a huge impact on how easy IfA are to play, and we always use airships soo.

I fully agree with Dominate. All it tends to do currently is end the game fast, with Saxony somewhere in the middle as they will have a much weaker economy. The ability is cool, but doesn't help them win imo.

Swim seems a bit powerful, but on the other hand, even I have sort of had to give in to my groups consensus that Nordics are hard mode. I really really like them, but managing to win with them is much more difficult compared to everyone else, even Saxony.

And I agree with the Worker star. It's just sooo easy to get. We usually play with the random triumph track, and the most interesting change that can occur is imo that you don't get a star for mechs. Most will generally need to get a few or all mechs out anyway, so that can often be a sort of 'free' star. I like it when Mechs and Workers don't give stars.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Martorana
United States
Holbrook
New York
flag msg tools
Scythe tends to be a game that is very "Meta" dependent. That is, what works is often a function of how people in a particular group play in general, and what works or is a "killer strategy" with one group doesn't necessarily work with another. I don't even really think this is an experienced-players-vs-new-players thing. Different assumption about what will happen simply cause people to play differently, sometimes turning into a bit of self-fulfilling wisdom. I don't particularly think the game globally needs any of these particular changes, but what I really love is that you explain why you've suggested each variant rule. Anyone who sees similar issues can say "OK, let's try that!"

So, for example, the biggest "imbalance" issue I have with the game (Albion feeling screwed if the Nords have the lowest numbered Player Mat) is not addressed by your variants. (Arguably it's made worse). When I've played with the Nords in this case, I use my "don't be a jerk" variant where I tell Albion I won't take their Village on my first turn, but all bets are off after that

If you don't agree, with that being as big of an issue, that's cool. I've seen people say how weak Albion is and others say how strong it is. In their own games, they're probably both right. Anyway there's a lot of rules you listed so I'll just list a couple things that jumped out at me...

1. I don't see an alternative Riverwalk listed for the Nords. I'm pretty sure you've experimented with alternative Riverwalks here. Didn't make the cut?

2. Re:Township, I've never liked movement allowed to "unoccupied" territories. (For example the 6+ player rules for Criema's Wayfare). Unless I'm totally misinterpreting it, that means you can't really move two Mechs to that territory, but you can move two Mechs through the territory if you have Speed... In my own experiments with a variant that involved randomized Faction and Mech abilities, I introduced a keyword "safe", meaning "not controlled by opponents." Both not being able to move two Mechs to the Factory in one turn AND not being able to move anymore there next turn (per the Relentless change) seems like a pretty big deal - I feel like Rusviet is at least intended to be able to hold the Factory when it gets there.

3. I completely get the "losing 50 lbs" feeling of Togawa and what you're going for. I feel like they're supposed to be that heavy, though . I'm somewhat biased - I was absolutely wrecked by Togawa in one of my Fenris games as Rusviet, and if they could have smashed through my territory and trapped it even sooner... angry

The last non-Fenris game I played with Togawa (and no Nords or Polania), they managed to rush the Factory, Trap the Factory, Trap every territory surrounding the Factory, and take the Lakes next to the Factory...

I know a lot of people don't like playing with Togawa because of how slow they feel in most games, though. I'm not really opposed to any change that will make the game more fun, and this change really seems like it might do that for a lot of people.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guilherme Lima
United States
Palmer
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is awesome!

Would it be too difficult to share the numbers you have regarding number of plays, number of wins, and turns per game, for each faction-mat pair, separated by player count?

I'm asking out of curiosity mostly, and because I can already foresee people accusing you of only looking at outliers in the data.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Michalowski
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
All work and no board games makes Dan a dull boy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AnalyticalNinja wrote:
Man that was an intense read, but clearly very well thought out. Do you plan on doing a spoiler version for the Rise of Fenris content at some point too?

The Saxony, Togawa, and Albion changes were made specifically with ROF in mind. There's a few other tweaks I would add for ROF specifically though, so yea probably eventually. I haven't had to opportunity to test the ROF changes though, so it would just be throwing ideas out there.

SteveSupreme wrote:

On the other hand I find your Nordic buff absolutely absurd. I am firmly on the side of, "nothing is wrong with Nordic" and your proposed buff would seem to magnify their strength multiple times. Their main route to victory is having lots of workers and spreading them all over the place which they can do very easily since the workers swim over rivers. Letting them move 3 units per move action by default (4 with upgrade) would be crazy powerful IMO.

Yea I probably should have been more clear, this buff to Nordic was really only intended ot be used in the situation where Nordic is in-between Rusviet and Albion, but I just generalized it to when Albion is in the game. I agree that it's too strong in a non-Albion game, I probably should have removed the 'but can be used normally as well' from the changes summary.

The situation where Nordic is in-between Rusviet and Albion basically has a 0% win rate. I don't know that for a fact, it would be possible to dig through our data to find it, but if it isn't 0%, I would bet a lot of money it is under 5%. It's pretty bad, hence the strength of this buff.

Manhattan Jack wrote:

So, for example, the biggest "imbalance" issue I have with the game (Albion feeling screwed if the Nords have the lowest numbered Player Mat) is not addressed by your variants. (Arguably it's made worse). When I've played with the Nords in this case, I use my "don't be a jerk" variant where I tell Albion I won't take their Village on my first turn, but all bets are off after that

This is something I actually have a change for, but haven't had the opportunity to test yet. I came up with the idea, but it got vetoed pretty hard lol. I'm considering making a softer version, whereas a part of Albion's faction ability, their workers can move into territories with opponent's workers and send them home.



I actually really like this change over the alternate burrow, but it has zero testing on it currently. It fulfills quite a few of the 'requirements' I set for the change below.

EDIT: Also, thematically I love the idea of Albions workers being able to engage in combat.

Manhattan Jack wrote:

1. I don't see an alternative Riverwalk listed for the Nords. I'm pretty sure you've experimented with alternative Riverwalks here. Didn't make the cut?
Yea that got cut for the sake of consolidating the changes. The buff to the faction ability was enough for the 'Nordic squish situation'. It's not completely off the table though as a global change for all games.

Manhattan Jack wrote:

2. Re:Township, I've never liked movement allowed to "unoccupied" territories. (For example the 6+ player rules for Criema's Wayfare). Unless I'm totally misinterpreting it, that means you can't really move two Mechs to that territory, but you can move two Mechs through the territory if you have Speed... In my own experiments with a variant that involved randomized Faction and Mech abilities, I introduced a keyword "safe", meaning "not controlled by opponents." Both not being able to move two Mechs to the Factory in one turn AND not being able to move anymore there next turn (per the Relentless change) seems like a pretty big deal - I feel like Rusviet is at least intended to be able to hold the Factory when it gets there.
Interesting you mention this 'safe' thing, because that's originally how I had the change to Township. What we found was that Rusviet would just stack stuff on the factory in fear of letting anyone else actually take it, actually making the problem worse. In the end it just didn't work.


I also share the same sentiments about the 'unoccupied' concept for wayfare, however, it seemed much more appropriate for Township, because Township does soooo much already (early access to the Factory, moving between villages to get encounters/attack). Wayfare really only does one thing.


Manhattan Jack wrote:

3. I completely get the "losing 50 lbs" feeling of Togawa and what you're going for. I feel like they're supposed to be that heavy, though . I'm somewhat biased - I was absolutely wrecked by Togawa in one of my Fenris games as Rusviet, and if they could have smashed through my territory and trapped it even sooner... angry

The last non-Fenris game I played with Togawa (and no Nords or Polania), they managed to rush the Factory, Trap the Factory, Trap every territory surrounding the Factory, and take the Lakes next to the Factory...

I know a lot of people don't like playing with Togawa because of how slow they feel in most games, though. I'm not really opposed to any change that will make the game more fun, and this change really seems like it might do that for a lot of people.

So, I could have said a lot more about this change, but I ran out of steam in the original post.

My personal issue with Togawa isn't just that they are slow, it's that they are pretty one-dimensional. The best strategy that works with Togawa is making this hyper-efficient, upgrade focused, ridiculously good engine and slowly creeping towards the factory. If you want to play a different style, be prepared to lose lol. I would say they are even more one-dimensional than Crimea is in a way. Also, they are super unforgiving if you forget to place a Trap or make a mistake in planning.

The interesting thing we found in testing this new Ronin is that it does NOT play to Togawa's strengths very much at all. It buffs probably Togawa's biggest weakness/weakest play style. It takes a play style that was basically horrible garbage and makes it not so bad anymore. The idea was to add some more variety to the strategies that work with Togawa.

As an example, with the innovative mat I decided to go for mechs, enlisting, and exploring rather than the typical upgrade focused strategy I do. I got 5 encounters through the course of a 19 turn game. I also ended the game 2 turns later with 20 fewer points than I did the previous time I played Togawa/innovative where I focused on upgrading. I won both games, but one strategy was still clearly better in the end. It still buffs the upgrade focused strategy a bit, but not to the point where it's game breaking in my opinion.

I played the whole Fenris Campaign as Togawa. I ended up winning it by a very slim margin. I felt like I was playing 8 games of roughly normal Scythe with nome neat boosts thrown in. Neat special objectives? Nah, you don't get to do those if you want to get any points. (also, we only played with the Wind Gambit once)

How to play Togawa:
1. Upgrade Star
2. Engine Build
3. Creep
4. Win

Also, about the Wind Gambit and the Invader's changes. The Albion burrow change is 100% unnecessary for airships that can carry workers. Honestly, the Burrow change is the only one I'm not 100% on. The Albion change was trying to fulfill these requirements:

1. Better access to wood
2. Better ability to engage in combat on their terms
3. Without breaking or improving their ability to move into neighbor's home bases
4. Better ability to defend themselves early in the game/not get trapped in their home base area

Turns out, fulfilling all four of those requirements is insanely difficult. This Burrow change is about the 5th version of the concept. There were a lot of ideas that changed sword, rally, and even the faction ability that didn't work. I was thinking of throwing them all together into a picture to show just how difficult it was to come up with something decent. (it was fun to do though, btw )
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Michalowski
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
All work and no board games makes Dan a dull boy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GFLima wrote:
This is awesome!

Would it be too difficult to share the numbers you have regarding number of plays, number of wins, and turns per game, for each faction-mat pair, separated by player count?

I'm asking out of curiosity mostly, and because I can already foresee people accusing you of only looking at outliers in the data.

You snuck this in as I was posting!

This cool guy from the discord TYEwing just put this neat stat sheet together for us: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WP1dHlTPKs_THhLClZq1...

I don't think it includes player count, but it probably could be added rather easily, its something we keep track of.

This data is a bit old however. There hasn't been all that much added in the last 6 months because of all the messing with the balance changes. This data set is strictly for vanilla and Invaders without any changes.

<---World class Albion player

There are some really interesting things from this data set.

1. Everyone but me seems to suck at Albion in this group, I really don't know why lol.
2. Saxony Patriotic has 0 wins, which makes no sense to me. I know for a fact I have won multiple games with this combo, and that it is actually very strong. They may have occurred with WG or something.
3. Nordic Militant has a big ol' donut in the win category out of 15 plays. I'll count this one as being statistically significant, but not the one for Saxony Patriotic haha
4. Rusviet Militant has a 60% win rate, and Crimea Militant has a 64% win rate, even higher than I thought it would be surprise

It's really not enough plays to be really statistically significant though.

Also, with a rather small group of players who play alot, there's certainly favoritism in what factions do well. Didn't have this data when we were making the balance changes either. Most of the changes were based on win speed and repeatability of the speed rather than win percentage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Supreme
Germany
Böblingen
flag msg tools
Seems like I can avoid 60%+ win rates for Crimea and Rusivet AND 0% for Nordic by not buying Invaders from Afar.

Thanks, you have cemented 100% for all time my aversion to that expansion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Michalowski
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
All work and no board games makes Dan a dull boy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SteveSupreme wrote:
Seems like I can avoid 60%+ win rates for Crimea and Rusivet AND 0% for Nordic by not buying Invaders from Afar.

Thanks, you have cemented 100% for all time my aversion to that expansion.

I actually love both the factions and the playermats added in invaders. In fact, I wouldn't ever really want to play Scythe without invaders, even despite all this stuff. I guess you could say the whole reason for making all this stuff was so that I could squeeze more fun out of invaders after already playing it to death.

Don't be discouraged from buying it just because a few guys have too much time on their hands and learned how to cheese specific combos.

Albion is actually my second favorite faction, right behind Polania. The Militant and Innovative mats are really interesting because of how different they are. There's quite a bit of play time required before getting close to that 60% win rate.

And when you do, you can just use these changes
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Holmgren
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
SteveSupreme wrote:
Seems like I can avoid 60%+ win rates for Crimea and Rusivet AND 0% for Nordic by not buying Invaders from Afar.

Thanks, you have cemented 100% for all time my aversion to that expansion.

I'm a bit tired but were did you get those numbers from? Just hyperbole (I don't mean this in a rude way, I'm simply curious and it's easy to miss sarcasm online))?
(Ah, found the issue, but I think mixing up the win rate of particular combos with the general win rate of a faction is very misleading!)

Using basic vanilla stats from BGG still gives Crimea and Rusviet a significantly higher win-rate than the others (even when removing the banned combos), and places Nordics at the bottom.

The addition of Invaders doesn't swing that in any way.

But sure, having Albion next to you as Nordics is a bit of a challenge, last game I was exactly in that position.
5-player game, luckily I managed to move a worker to his village (even though I didn't have first turn), produced once, then he attacked my two workers, who went home and jumped up on my airship which I had left at the home base for this particular reason, then flew over to the other village.
It was smooth sailing for me but a severe challenge for Albion.

Ok, in the end Albion won the game, but I would have had it with a bit better use of my Power in combats. (Was attacked a lot by other players at the end.)

I don't think Invaders nerfs Nordics or buffs Rusviet or Crimea.
To the contrary, Togawa immediately puts pressure on both Rusviet and Crimea, due to being able to attack over both rivers and lakes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guilherme Lima
United States
Palmer
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrDer wrote:
You snuck this in as I was posting!

This cool guy from the discord TYEwing just put this neat stat sheet together for us: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WP1dHlTPKs_THhLClZq1...

I don't think it includes player count, but it probably could be added rather easily, its something we keep track of.
Thanks! Player count is quite important since otherwise you can really compare win rates. A win rate of 50% in two player games is balanced, whereas a win rate of 30% in five player games is quite unbalanced. But yeah, I'm guessing the games are somewhat evenly distributed throughout the player counts...


MrDer wrote:
There are some really interesting things from this data set.

1. Everyone but me seems to suck at Albion in this group, I really don't know why lol.
2. Saxony Patriotic has 0 wins, which makes no sense to me. I know for a fact I have won multiple games with this combo, and that it is actually very strong. They may have occurred with WG or something.
3. Nordic Militant has a big ol' donut in the win category out of 15 plays. I'll count this one as being statistically significant, but not the one for Saxony Patriotic haha
4. Rusviet Militant has a 60% win rate, and Crimea Militant has a 64% win rate, even higher than I thought it would be surprise
1. I'm guessing this is due to the good old "get 8 workers, bolster-deploy-enlist, then look for combat" strategy doesn't work so well when everyone is out of your reach. The data from scythebg.ga suggests that Albion starts performing better at higher player counts, probably because the board gets cramped and people end up dangerously close to Albion.

2. I think this might be another symptom of rushing 8 workers and getting fixated on enlisting as soon as possible... Strangely enough, on scythebg.ga Saxony Patriotic has a 44% win rate at 5 players, which is very unbalanced.

3. I hate this combo. I have only one single win with it, which was due to a beginner making some rookie mistakes.

4. On scythebg.ga Saxony Militant has ridiculous win rate at 2 players, and I'm guessing it's a variant of the same strategy: 8 workers, produce only once, bolster+upgrade to make trade+enlist self-contained, enlist the upgrade recruit to make that action space give you +4 power, then just alternate between these two. I'm guessing Crimea just trades for oil twice, then just uses combat cards.


MrDer wrote:
It's really not enough plays to be really statistically significant though.

Also, with a rather small group of players who play alot, there's certainly favoritism in what factions do well. Didn't have this data when we were making the balance changes either. Most of the changes were based on win speed and repeatability of the speed rather than win percentage.
Over 200 games is not bad, especially given that you guys seems quite experienced, but as Manhattan Jack said, we all need to be careful with the groupthink issue. Yet I'm always of the opinion that more data is always good, you just need to know how to filter it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Jinis
France
Florida
flag msg tools
Good ideas here.
I find too that Rusviet main strenght is its mobility. Being able to attack or defend every turn is really an huge advantage !

I find too that blue and black miss something to make them appealing.

Your nerf to yellow looks really too much Oo
What we do in our groups is that opponent choose which card he gives you, not at random. Then the fight isn't random with the "Oh you stole my only good card now I can just cry...".
Do you get power and cards by magic summoning? Because 1 power AND 1 card to reduce cost by 1 resource Oo You start with 0 card so you need some to use them as resources, and if its good cards then you have the big risk of not getting other good cards after that.
And 1 power in combat to steal a card you can't add in your fight is too much.

I think your changes are very well for your group with your strategies and habits, but not for everyone ^^

Edit: I really love the idea for green and purple to move one unit two times ! I think I will test it !

Edit 2 : For a better swim action it could be : "One of your swimming worker does not count in your total movement action."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guilherme Lima
United States
Palmer
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is something that has been on my mind for a while. Instead of nerfing Crimea and Rusviet, how about buffing the structures?

In my personal opinion, I find that there is an underlying imbalance in the bottom row actions. If we forget the coin bonuses of each particular player mat for now, investing a star for deploying or enlisting is generally better than doing so for building. More mechs means potentially more territory control, more combat options, and more mech powers. I have never gathered any data on this, but I'm pretty sure that, if you look at a large number of games, the average of the bonuses obtained from recruits overshadows those obtained from structures. Enlisting is without a doubt the best way to get combat cards. In the worst case scenario you only get 5, an amount which is hard to reach even via an upgraded bolster action. Sure, there are specific structures that play an important role in a given strategy, like the Mine for Polania, or an early Mill on a mountain for Nordic, or paying $3 for a monument on your first encounter to guarantee that investing in the max power star will also get you into (or very close to) the second tier of popularity. But that's usually it. I can only speculate, but I have the impression that maybe during the initial playtesting there were a lot of turns with top row actions b utno bottom row action, but since then players have become impressively more efficient.

When the faction has easy access to farm and mountain, and the player mat has a strong bonus for these, then we get things like Crimea Patriotic, Crimea Militant, Rusviet Patriotic, Rusviet Agricultural. I am unaware of any fast high scoring strategy that involves the structures star.

I've thought of two ways of trying to buff the structures. One is very simple, the other is quite fiddly.

The fiddly one consists of increasing the bonuses given by the structures. The Armory could give 2 power and the option of taking a combat card instead. During the move action, you could move a single unit using the Mine for free, like an extra move for a single unit. Every worker on a Mill could produce twice as much. And the Monument could give 2 popularity - but this one is a bit dangerous, and you'd have to change the price of the structures in the encounter cards, since getting an early monument for just $3 or 2 popularity would be way too cheap. Maybe 2 popularity is too much, maybe you get 1 popularity and something else, like 1 power and a coin, or maybe you could just leave the Monument as it is, I dunno. There's a lot of room for tinkering with this, but I think it could potentially revitalize these components of the game.

The simple solution is to just double the rewards on the structure bonus tiles. This could change the game play significantly. Moving and placing a structure on the right place could give you more end game points than winning a combat. I'm seriously thinking of trying this with my group.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven St. John
United States
Winter Springs
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GFLima wrote:
Here is something that has been on my mind for a while. Instead of nerfing Crimea and Rusviet, how about buffing the structures?

In my personal opinion, I find that there is an underlying imbalance in the bottom row actions. If we forget the coin bonuses of each particular player mat for now, investing a star for deploying or enlisting is generally better than doing so for building. More mechs means potentially more territory control, more combat options, and more mech powers. I have never gathered any data on this, but I'm pretty sure that, if you look at a large number of games, the average of the bonuses obtained from recruits overshadows those obtained from structures. Enlisting is without a doubt the best way to get combat cards. In the worst case scenario you only get 5, an amount which is hard to reach even via an upgraded bolster action. Sure, there are specific structures that play an important role in a given strategy, like the Mine for Polania, or an early Mill on a mountain for Nordic, or paying $3 for a monument on your first encounter to guarantee that investing in the max power star will also get you into (or very close to) the second tier of popularity. But that's usually it. I can only speculate, but I have the impression that maybe during the initial playtesting there were a lot of turns with top row actions b utno bottom row action, but since then players have become impressively more efficient.

When the faction has easy access to farm and mountain, and the player mat has a strong bonus for these, then we get things like Crimea Patriotic, Crimea Militant, Rusviet Patriotic, Rusviet Agricultural. I am unaware of any fast high scoring strategy that involves the structures star.

I've thought of two ways of trying to buff the structures. One is very simple, the other is quite fiddly.

The fiddly one consists of increasing the bonuses given by the structures. The Armory could give 2 power and the option of taking a combat card instead. During the move action, you could move a single unit using the Mine for free, like an extra move for a single unit. Every worker on a Mill could produce twice as much. And the Monument could give 2 popularity - but this one is a bit dangerous, and you'd have to change the price of the structures in the encounter cards, since getting an early monument for just $3 or 2 popularity would be way too cheap. Maybe 2 popularity is too much, maybe you get 1 popularity and something else, like 1 power and a coin, or maybe you could just leave the Monument as it is, I dunno. There's a lot of room for tinkering with this, but I think it could potentially revitalize these components of the game.

The simple solution is to just double the rewards on the structure bonus tiles. This could change the game play significantly. Moving and placing a structure on the right place could give you more end game points than winning a combat. I'm seriously thinking of trying this with my group.

There have been a couple of discussions here about this. For example, this thread. It would make sense to start a new thread or necro one of the other structure-based threads. See also.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guilherme Lima
United States
Palmer
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SJS1971 wrote:
There have been a couple of discussions here about this. For example, this thread. It would make sense to start a new thread or necro one of the other structure-based threads. See also.

Yeah, but I usually only start a new thread when I have actual results to show, and not just mere speculation. But that's just me.

I think I might have glanced over those threads but didn't pay that much attention to them because they were suggesting alterations that weren't merely quantitative, but changed the basic rules of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Müller
msg tools
I think doubling or even tripling the coins from the structure bonus tile (or use two or three tiles in parallel) is quite easy to implement, doesn't change gameplay much, and has significant positive influence on the build action.

BUT: Structures is only a part of the problem. Upgrade is still a weak bottom action. Saxony, Albion and Togawa (which I consider as weak factions which should be balanced) do not so much get benefits from improved structures. Only Nordic and Polania profit really much from any build improvement, but those two I'd consider as being already in mid-tier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Michalowski
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
All work and no board games makes Dan a dull boy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GFLima wrote:
Here is something that has been on my mind for a while. Instead of nerfing Crimea and Rusviet, how about buffing the structures?

In my personal opinion, I find that there is an underlying imbalance in the bottom row actions. If we forget the coin bonuses of each particular player mat for now, investing a star for deploying or enlisting is generally better than doing so for building. More mechs means potentially more territory control, more combat options, and more mech powers. I have never gathered any data on this, but I'm pretty sure that, if you look at a large number of games, the average of the bonuses obtained from recruits overshadows those obtained from structures. Enlisting is without a doubt the best way to get combat cards. In the worst case scenario you only get 5, an amount which is hard to reach even via an upgraded bolster action. Sure, there are specific structures that play an important role in a given strategy, like the Mine for Polania, or an early Mill on a mountain for Nordic, or paying $3 for a monument on your first encounter to guarantee that investing in the max power star will also get you into (or very close to) the second tier of popularity. But that's usually it. I can only speculate, but I have the impression that maybe during the initial playtesting there were a lot of turns with top row actions b utno bottom row action, but since then players have become impressively more efficient.

When the faction has easy access to farm and mountain, and the player mat has a strong bonus for these, then we get things like Crimea Patriotic, Crimea Militant, Rusviet Patriotic, Rusviet Agricultural. I am unaware of any fast high scoring strategy that involves the structures star.

I've thought of two ways of trying to buff the structures. One is very simple, the other is quite fiddly.

The fiddly one consists of increasing the bonuses given by the structures. The Armory could give 2 power and the option of taking a combat card instead. During the move action, you could move a single unit using the Mine for free, like an extra move for a single unit. Every worker on a Mill could produce twice as much. And the Monument could give 2 popularity - but this one is a bit dangerous, and you'd have to change the price of the structures in the encounter cards, since getting an early monument for just $3 or 2 popularity would be way too cheap. Maybe 2 popularity is too much, maybe you get 1 popularity and something else, like 1 power and a coin, or maybe you could just leave the Monument as it is, I dunno. There's a lot of room for tinkering with this, but I think it could potentially revitalize these components of the game.

The simple solution is to just double the rewards on the structure bonus tiles. This could change the game play significantly. Moving and placing a structure on the right place could give you more end game points than winning a combat. I'm seriously thinking of trying this with my group.

I share a similar viewpoint, but I don't think the balance between bottom actions is as bad as it might seem.

I think the core of the issue is that the structure bonus tiles give very inconsistent bonuses for buildings. I often will think about what bonus I would have if there was a different structure bonus tile drawn. Sometimes the difference is huge.

I'll just list the things that I think make building stars problematic
1. Part of the issue is that often building focused strategies are less mobile or less able to defend themselves, which makes it harder to be flexible for the structure bonus tile.

2. Some of the structure bonus tiles are much harder than they might seem, and are honestly not worth the effort. Particularly, the tile for building on farms and tundra is in my experience especially difficult to max out or even get tier 3. It's just not worth wasting a turn or two to get an extra 2 points.

3. Structure bonus tiles often don't reward going for a building star much more than building a structure or two. I feel like the gap between building 3-4 structures and building 1 structure needs to be widened. For instance, it's quite easy to get tier 2 on the bonus tile with just one structure. You might build three more buildings and only get one more tier on the bonus. So 1 building = $4 and 4 buildings = $6. It's a tiny difference.


I would love to see the structure bonus tiles restructured a little bit to:
- Not give any bonuses for just building one structure. Possibly this means removing a tier from the tile.
- More reward for reaching tier 3. Often getting tier 4 is impossible or very difficult, and at tier 3 the bonus is often quite marginal.
- More gold reward in general. It really doesn't need to be doubled, I was thinking something along the lines of

Tier 1 (at least 2 structures): 6
Tier 2 : 9
Tier 3 : 12

So in summary, I think a structure bonus tile that more consistently and heavily rewards going for a building star is all that is needed.

Again, it's my hope that the modular board helps solve part of this issue.

Edit: Here's an example
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guilherme Lima
United States
Palmer
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First of all, thanks for the comprehensive reply!

MrDer wrote:
1. Part of the issue is that often building focused strategies are less mobile or less able to defend themselves, which makes it harder to be flexible for the structure bonus tile.
If the bonus someone is getting is sufficiently large, then you really only need to worry about losing combat before you build. All that matters is the investment versus payoff. If the investment you made will give you $8, then that's more than what whoever is attacking you will get in terms of star+hex at tier 2 of popularity. So with either the Industrial or the Mechanical mat, which have build below move, Nordic, Saxony, and Polania could really sail. But yeah, with all other mats you're gonna move and be a sitting duck for a turn...


MrDer wrote:
2. Some of the structure bonus tiles are much harder than they might seem, and are honestly not worth the effort. Particularly, the tile for building on farms and tundra is in my experience especially difficult to max out or even get tier 3. It's just not worth wasting a turn or two to get an extra 2 points.
I'm glad you touched on that. This is very much like the issue with the secret objectives. First you have to decide whether it's worth it or not. I have thought of rigorously calculating which hexes are harder to reach for each faction, depending on what mechs they have, just to see where the imbalances lie. This would involve a whole bunch of adjacency matrices of size 47 x 47... and I haven't had the free time.


MrDer wrote:
3. Structure bonus tiles often don't reward going for a building star much more than building a structure or two. I feel like the gap between building 3-4 structures and building 1 structure needs to be widened. For instance, it's quite easy to get tier 2 on the bonus tile with just one structure. You might build three more buildings and only get one more tier on the bonus. So 1 building = $4 and 4 buildings = $6. It's a tiny difference.


I would love to see the structure bonus tiles restructured a little bit to:
- Not give any bonuses for just building one structure. Possibly this means removing a tier from the tile.
- More reward for reaching tier 3. Often getting tier 4 is impossible or very difficult, and at tier 3 the bonus is often quite marginal.
- More gold reward in general. It really doesn't need to be doubled, I was thinking something along the lines of

Tier 1 (at least 2 structures): 6
Tier 2 : 9
Tier 3 : 12

So in summary, I think a structure bonus tile that more consistently and heavily rewards going for a building star is all that is needed.
Yeah. I suggested just doubling the bonuses for simplicity, and also a bit for the shock value to make people break away from their usual strategies and try something different. Most people will take time to rethink things and get used to prioritizing the structure bonus. Maybe we will try doubling and see how it goes at first, but once the dust has settled what we might really need to do is rescale everything not so drastically and in a non-linear way, as you suggested. I was thinking you might need to reward the third structure more, since the fourth one already has the star as its own reward. If you've spent time and effort going for 3 structures, you might as well go for 4, it's not like you're gonna rebuild your engine at that stage.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Müller
msg tools
Nice discussion here ongoing, I like.


Just want to also give a list of suggestions to play around with in mind. Reasoning background for my ideas will follow later (hopefully today).


Nordic
Workers can move 2 hexes

Polania
Starts game with 2 encounter cards as replacement

Saxony
Starts game with 4 objective cards but can fulfill only 2

Togawa and Albion
Character and mechs can move +1 hex when starting on trap/flag
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Lacy
msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just printed these on to card. Gonna blutack them to the mats and try them out.

This may even get me to try Nordic or Saxony! laugh
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mihir Shah
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For Rusivet, we do what Jamey (the designer) did during playtest, i.e it cost Rusivet's 1 money to use their faction ability.

My core Scythe group has over 150 games and Rusivet does not feel that OP even without the above suggested house rule.

Rusivet is more forgiving for sure and i consider it as a positive as we always give that faction to a new player and that kind of ensures that the new player has a good time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Holmgren
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jalwaaa wrote:

Rusivet is more forgiving for sure and i consider it as a positive as we always give that faction to a new player and that kind of ensures that the new player has a good time.

I think my second game ever was as Rusviet, and I have disliked playing as them since then. I don't remember how the game went, but I certainly remembered that I felt their faction ability made playing them boring.

Their ability is, from my point of view, that they don't need to follow the core rule that makes the game fun.
For me the most fun part of the game was trying to plan out the actions, but with Rusviet that is kinda lost.

Each to their own, but I'm happy my first game was not playing as Rusviet, as that would probably have made my impression of Scythe be a 'meh', instead of 'wow'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Michalowski
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
All work and no board games makes Dan a dull boy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
totgeboren wrote:
jalwaaa wrote:

Rusivet is more forgiving for sure and i consider it as a positive as we always give that faction to a new player and that kind of ensures that the new player has a good time.

I think my second game ever was as Rusviet, and I have disliked playing as them since then. I don't remember how the game went, but I certainly remembered that I felt their faction ability made playing them boring.

Their ability is, from my point of view, that they don't need to follow the core rule that makes the game fun.
For me the most fun part of the game was trying to plan out the actions, but with Rusviet that is kinda lost.

Each to their own, but I'm happy my first game was not playing as Rusviet, as that would probably have made my impression of Scythe be a 'meh', instead of 'wow'.

I mean, this is a good example of why house rules are house rules. Two people with completely opposite experiences/opinions for the same faction.

These changes aren't really about being 'correct'. A lot of experience is pretty subjective, which is why I described the reasoning behind the changes as much as I could. If you don't experience the problem described, it's perfectly fine to just ignore the change.

Most of these changes came about because there was a consensus that particular parts of the game were problematic to the point where it started to ruin the fun for us. They aren't really about balancing win rates, but more about changing/improving the experience of the game to suit us better.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |