Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization» Forums » Variants

Subject: Classic Army = spoiler rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nicolas DHALLUIN
France
flag msg tools
After 50+ games, I have come to the conclusion that the Classic Army is way overrated.

Compared to the other tactics :
A conquistador needs the same technos to get the full value.
The 4th unit (additional inf) increases the value of the tactics by 4.

As a comparison, between phalanx and medieval army, there is also 1 more inf to get and it increases only the tactic value by 1.
If you compare with tactics of different ages :
1 more inf from light cav to conquistador : +3 but you need an additional techno.

To get a full classic army (value 9), you need minimum 7 science and 12 ressources.
To get a full conquistador (value 5), you need minimum 7 science and 9 ressources.
To get a full shock troops (value 11), you need minimum 11 science and 20 ressources.

So for only 3 ressources, you get +4 in military strength.
And then you need 4 science and 8 ressources to get only +2...

As it is, I think it's a spoiler. The lucky guy who gets it is granted a military lead for a long period of time and can fully focus on producing science/culture. And combined with Napoleon, it's almost a game killer. You must wait until age III to have a chance to reach that military strength.

According to me the classic army should be worth only 7(4).
I'll try this in a few games and let you know. it won't make much difference but it avoids giving a huge advantage to a single player and breaking the game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that Classic Army is strong. However, it requires one additional worker over Conquistadors. This is a much higher cost than it first appears. You have the initial food cost, the action cost of creating the worker, the additional happiness pressure, and the fact that the worker could easily be used elsewhere for guaranteed productivity.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some military cards are better, on average, than others. This is good for the game, it provides uncertainty about what your opponents will get, and a reward for gaining more military actions that let you draw more cards for better selection.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nicolasd wrote:
After 50+ games, I have come to the conclusion that the Classic Army is way overrated.

When you say "overrated," do you mean "over-powered?"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you really need to factor in two components which you have ignored. 1) population cost (food cost and happiness cost; happiness is harder to quantify), and 2) the overall value of the army, which goes up as you increase ages.

If you add in average food cost of 3 per extra pop (let's ignore happiness costs for now), both Mobile Artillery & Napoleonic Army come out more favorably in terms of resource costs than Classic Army (Total resources divided by end strength). Classic Army has an advantage of 2 and 5 science respectively, but when you then consider the happiness costs, it looks a little more even.

So I agree that Classic Army is arguably the best Age II tactics card in certain conditions, I disagree that it needs significant nerfing, certainly not to 7(4).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
Join the Board Game Development Club, see behind the scenes, participate in development, add the games you are working on
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From what I have seen (I've played over 100 games, and played a lot with other experienced players) it is more a general problem of the unpredictability of the tactics. Too few of each in the deck. For no extra investment compared to another player, you might get a huge bonus instead of worthless cards. Defensive army is very good as well.

We either remove Napoleon, or limit him to 5 strength even though he is still too good like this (and handle air forces in the opposite way to the rules, so no double doubles).

Edit: Removed off topic extras.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Too few of each? I sometimes feel like there are too many.

But the current distribution seems right. It encourages you to gain extra military actions if you want to get the good stuff.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
Join the Board Game Development Club, see behind the scenes, participate in development, add the games you are working on
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if you max out on 3 military cards every turn, it often happens that you get no tactic at all for a long time or even a whole age. If you do not have all unit types it is even more common to get no usable tactic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RustanR wrote:
Even if you max out on 3 military cards every turn, it often happens that you get no tactic at all for a long time or even a whole age. If you do not have all unit types it is even more common to get no usable tactic.

Which encourages you to invest in military advancements. I don't see that as a bad thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
Join the Board Game Development Club, see behind the scenes, participate in development, add the games you are working on
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out4blood wrote:
RustanR wrote:
Even if you max out on 3 military cards every turn, it often happens that you get no tactic at all for a long time or even a whole age. If you do not have all unit types it is even more common to get no usable tactic.

Which encourages you to invest in military advancements. I don't see that as a bad thing.


Hmm. The first sentence was my main point, the situation being exactly that someone has invested heavily in military and by bad luck and nothing to do about it draws no tactics. I do not understand your reply.

If you think a player should not be able to get a usable tactic without all military types, the problem is larger still. Then all players need to focus completely on the military, in all games.

Do not get me wrong, I love the game, it is one of my very few tens.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RustanR wrote:
out4blood wrote:
RustanR wrote:
Even if you max out on 3 military cards every turn, it often happens that you get no tactic at all for a long time or even a whole age. If you do not have all unit types it is even more common to get no usable tactic.

Which encourages you to invest in military advancements. I don't see that as a bad thing.


Hmm. The first sentence was my main point, the situation being exactly that someone has invested heavily in military and by bad luck and nothing to do about it draws no tactics. I do not understand your reply.

If you think a player should not be able to get a usable tactic without all military types, the problem is larger still. Then all players need to focus completely on the military, in all games.

Do not get me wrong, I love the game, it is one of my very few tens.

It's entirely possible my reading comprehension is really poor, but I think I was replying to: "If you do not have all unit types it is even more common to get no usable tactic."

So when I say "invest in military advancements," I was intending to mean infantry, cavalry, and artillery. I always try to have as many as I can afford so that I am as flexible as possible when it comes to tactics. This game rewards flexibility. It's rare to not get any, just rare to get the "only one you can use."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
Join the Board Game Development Club, see behind the scenes, participate in development, add the games you are working on
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, I too think that a player that has invested in different unit types should have a better chance of getting a usable tactic. I think this is the main point of tactics, and it is sound.

I wanted to emphasize that even if you have all three types, it is still common that you get no tactic at all (at least in my experience). By common, I mean one player every 2:nd to 4:th game, for 4-player games, during one Age. This is of course a rough guesstimate and taken from my experience, with the style of play of my groups.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Snellman
Switzerland
Zurich
Zurich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
RustanR wrote:
Ok, I too think that a player that has invested in different unit types should have a better chance of getting a usable tactic. I think this is the main point of tactics, and it is sound.

I wanted to emphasize that even if you have all three types, it is still common that you get no tactic at all (at least in my experience). By common, I mean one player every 2:nd to 4:th game, for 4-player games, during one Age. This is of course a rough guesstimate and taken from my experience, with the style of play of my groups.


That sounds about right assuming sensible amounts of military actions. A quick simulation says that if a 4 player game goes for 7/6/5 rounds in age I/II/III with 1.5/2/3 military actions used for the average card draw, then about half the games will have somebody not draw any tactics in some age.

But I don't think that qualifies as common. For any single player the chance of drawing no tactics of a given age in a game is about 15%. And me drawing no tactics in two separate ages is something that might happen once in a hundred games.

I originally wrote the simulation to show that the military deck was broken (after two frustrating games in a row with the best early military but few aggression cards), but assuming the above guesses for the average age lengths and amounts of military actions are even close to right, it's pretty rare to have degenerate draws. I'm now blaming bad shuffling instead ;-)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rustan Håkansson
Sweden
Norrköping
flag msg tools
designer
bgdev.club is really a site address, no www or .com needed :)
badge
Join the Board Game Development Club, see behind the scenes, participate in development, add the games you are working on
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jsnell wrote:

But I don't think that qualifies as common. For any single player the chance of drawing no tactics of a given age in a game is about 15%. And me drawing no tactics in two separate ages is something that might happen once in a hundred games.


Impression of commonality is of course variable

I'm looking at the whole game, not on a single player, as one player getting no tactics affects the whole game. With this viewpoint, every other to every fourth is something I think of as common.

In my experience, the military draw piles are often exhausted and need to be reshuffled. Given that, a larger draw pile with more of everything would have been better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A larger draw pile would result in even more swingy card draws.

I also find that, in four-player games anyway, the draw pile usually exhausts.
 
 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.