Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm» Forums » Variants

Subject: 'Epic' RtfG? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Seth Austin
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Has anyone considered extending the game by increasing the cards-in-tableau cutoff point and VPs per player? Just wondering if anyone has experimented with this.

Also, I'd been toying with the idea of expanding the number of players by having two sets of RtfG. In this style of play the sets would remain different and the players would be divided into two groups but their selected actions would apply for everyone...or maybe just X players to the right and left. Any thoughts?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ferejohn
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
badge
Pitying fools as hard as I can...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To the first question, this has been proposed as a variant a couple times. The problem is that extending the game favors a produce/consume strategy quite heavily. Generally speaking produce/consume loops take longer to get set up, but once they are they crank out points much faster than military and/or development strategies will.

That said, some folks seem to like it that way, so give it a shot.

I haven't heard of anyone combining sets and adding more players, but I would think that you would get to the point of every action being called every turn, which I would think would take away some of the tension...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would be a relief knowing that a card was built but was done by the other group. Say it was Mining League... then you could still play on with some hope you may be able to get it into your hand and build it.


I'm assuming the number of VP chips is still 12pts in VP chips x number of players and that each gorup has their own pool? What would be done if one pool is out but the other still remains? Would the game be done for both groups?

If it's one bigass pool, then concerns would indeed be there for someone who got a P/C going. Even though others can quickly end it by going to 12 cards, there should still be a set limit regardless.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Austin
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
cferejohn wrote:
To the first question, this has been proposed as a variant a couple times. The problem is that extending the game favors a produce/consume strategy quite heavily. Generally speaking produce/consume loops take longer to get set up, but once they are they crank out points much faster than military and/or development strategies will.

That said, some folks seem to like it that way, so give it a shot.

I haven't heard of anyone combining sets and adding more players, but I would think that you would get to the point of every action being called every turn, which I would think would take away some of the tension...


Yeah, I was aware that adding too many players could result in the issue you suggest...that's why I was proposing as an alternative that a player's action only gets performed by the closer players (ie 2 players to the right and left, or whatever works).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Ossar
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's a semi-official variant that you might find interesting:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/248484
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JR
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Memento ferrugo
badge
Memento ferrugo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On the subject of extending game length, everything I've read on that subject suggests that (very) extensive playtesting showed that the point at which the game currently ends is something of a "sweet spot" in terms of keeping the game interesting. Extending the game longer than it already is will only see the current leader get further and further ahead and therefore making the game longer would only make it less exciting at the finish. I know there are exceptions...we've all been caught by a sudden end-game right before we were able to drop a big 6-dev for a dozen points, but my understanding is that the statics showed this to be true and I'm inclined to believe it based on my 70 or so plays.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave J McWeasely
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
I thought Produce/Consume would dominate Settler in longer games. Military has good rounds where it double-settles for 10 vp. Once it's got its engine running, Prod can ship 10vp in chips every turn, and draft settles well enough.

The more I think about it, though the less sure I am. Longer games also make Replicant Robots and Dropships pay off more times too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Jones
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
Whether or not it's "right" or makes a more accurate and efficient determination of a winner, some people want to play longer. The friend I most often play with is in this category.

The system we've come up with lately is that the game end is triggered as normal with 12 buildings or X victory point chips. However, if either player wants to continue the game, they can do so by giving three cards to the other player, or half their hand, whichever is fewer. This isn't really intended for balance, it's that the player who expected the game to end often didn't leave any resources for a next turn, and won't be able to do anything on that turn. That's not fair, and as importantly, it's not fun.

There might be some problems with Produce / Consume strategies. They usually will not have Produced on the last turn. So far, we haven't tested it much with those. Maybe we would also want some automatic Produce phase rule in the event of a game continuation.

I don't think this has ever changed the winner. Again, it's not about whether you win or lose, it's about not stopping when there's still plenty of fun to be had. Recently, it almost changed the winner. She was seriously clobbering me, but wanted to extend the game anyway. I came back to within a few points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
morningstar wrote:
Whether or not it's "right" or makes a more accurate and efficient determination of a winner, some people want to play longer. The friend I most often play with is in this category.

The system we've come up with lately is that the game end is triggered as normal with 12 buildings or X victory point chips. However, if either player wants to continue the game, they can do so by giving three cards to the other player, or half their hand, whichever is fewer. This isn't really intended for balance, it's that the player who expected the game to end often didn't leave any resources for a next turn, and won't be able to do anything on that turn. That's not fair, and as importantly, it's not fun.

There might be some problems with Produce / Consume strategies. They usually will not have Produced on the last turn. So far, we haven't tested it much with those. Maybe we would also want some automatic Produce phase rule in the event of a game continuation.

I don't think this has ever changed the winner. Again, it's not about whether you win or lose, it's about not stopping when there's still plenty of fun to be had. Recently, it almost changed the winner. She was seriously clobbering me, but wanted to extend the game anyway. I came back to within a few points.


But, on a VP finish, don't you typically have multiple people getting VPs at the end game trigger? Isn't it common for at least one of the player to want to end the game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Jones
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
hibikir wrote:
morningstar wrote:
Whether or not it's "right" or makes a more accurate and efficient determination of a winner, some people want to play longer. The friend I most often play with is in this category.

The system we've come up with lately is that the game end is triggered as normal with 12 buildings or X victory point chips. However, if either player wants to continue the game, they can do so by giving three cards to the other player, or half their hand, whichever is fewer. This isn't really intended for balance, it's that the player who expected the game to end often didn't leave any resources for a next turn, and won't be able to do anything on that turn. That's not fair, and as importantly, it's not fun.

There might be some problems with Produce / Consume strategies. They usually will not have Produced on the last turn. So far, we haven't tested it much with those. Maybe we would also want some automatic Produce phase rule in the event of a game continuation.

I don't think this has ever changed the winner. Again, it's not about whether you win or lose, it's about not stopping when there's still plenty of fun to be had. Recently, it almost changed the winner. She was seriously clobbering me, but wanted to extend the game anyway. I came back to within a few points.


But, on a VP finish, don't you typically have multiple people getting VPs at the end game trigger? Isn't it common for at least one of the player to want to end the game?


I suppose you might on a 12-building finish as well, but we've only played this variant with two players.
 
 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.