Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Roll Through the Ages: The Late Bronze Age» Forums » Variants

Subject: VPs for developments rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really think that the VPs for developments should be more like the monuments - the first to 'discover' the development gets more points than those after.

This seems to make more thematic sense (civilizations are remembered for inventing things) and it adds more interaction as well since there is more jostling to be first.

In addition, it makes some unpopular developments more attractive.

A simply option would be to make each development worth one less VP but give a two VP bonus for the first to 'discover' it. I'm reluctant to simply give a discovery bonus on top of the full current VP value since this might tip the balance between developments and monuments too heavily to developments.

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

As a more complex variant, you could make a kind of Puerto Rico version where every development is worth ONE VP at the start of the game, but every time a development is purchased, all the others increase in VP value by one VP, so there is a kind of development 'market'. I think that this would make them worth too much by the end, so perhaps it could be something like all developments 'further up the table from the purchased development increases in value by one VP'.

For example: when Granaries is purchased then the VP value of Masonry, Engineering, Commerce, Agriculture and Empire would all increase by one VP. Something like that anyway.

This kind of thing means that there is no problem with how the game values the developments - the players decide when they are worth buying. Maybe I'll do some testing and write something up properly ...

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

ps. I raised this already elsewhere but I figured it was worth its own entry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Christiansen
United States
Mount Pleasant
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
OOK! OOK! OOK!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I still think the game is slightly biased too much toward developments over monuments. So I would say something like:
Leadership 2/1
Irrigation 2/1
Agriculture 3/2
Quarrying 3/2
Medicine 4/3
Preservation 4/3
Coinage 4/3
Caravans 4/3
Shipping 3/2
Smithing 5/4
Religion 7/5
Granaries 6/4
Masonry 6/4
Engineering 6/4
Commerce 8/5
Architecture 8/5
Empire 10/6

Note that I reduced Shipping as I am in the camp that it is a little too good right now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chris1nd wrote:
I still think the game is slightly biased too much toward developments over monuments. So I would say something like:
Leadership 2/1
Irrigation 2/1
Agriculture 3/2
Quarrying 3/2
Medicine 4/3
Preservation 4/3
Coinage 4/3
Caravans 4/3
Shipping 3/2
Smithing 5/4
Religion 7/5
Granaries 6/4
Masonry 6/4
Engineering 6/4
Commerce 8/5
Architecture 8/5
Empire 10/6

Note that I reduced Shipping as I am in the camp that it is a little too good right now.



They seem like a good division of points ... thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evertjan van de Kaa
Netherlands
den haag
zuid holland
flag msg tools
Doesn't this give an advantage to the first player(s)? after all they (by virtue of being first) can discover an technology first. and so far in the 2 games i played each player has bought a technology in the first round. Mind I'm not saying don't do it but if you do then either the first player(s) must have a disadvantage or more cheap technology must be available.

Evertjan van de Kaa
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Christiansen
United States
Mount Pleasant
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
OOK! OOK! OOK!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can see you concern.

I was hoping it would encourage different development "tracks" as well as devalue them somewhat relative to monuments.

But the first player in my games would tend to choose leadership. This way if others do, they will get 1 more VP than they do. Is that enough disincentive to choose something different?

I do not think so, if I were second I will still take leadership and get 1 fewer points, as I see it as essential. After that, the differentiation may well take place. But it does mean the first player gets +1 VP (assuming everyone takes the same initial advancement).

The easiest fix would be to take -1 VP from the first player (to develop anything?). Not sure I like this too much.

A better one would be to get rid of leadership. Either start everybody with it or remove it. I ALWAYS take it, even if I am doing a momunent strategy because of the effect it has in mitigating disasters.

I would imagine Matt would hate that. I believe he would not be fond of the reduced points for people who develop an existing advancement. If I recall, he thinks the monumunt strategy is now viable with the fixes to this expansion.

I think we should playtest this out with the VP reductions and WITHOUT leadership. Anyone care to prepare a player sheet
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evertjan van de Kaa
Netherlands
den haag
zuid holland
flag msg tools
The big difference between monuments and discoveries is that there are a lot of monuments (everyone could be the first with one of them) but there are only two discovery's in the first (two) rounds. To do away with the advantage to the start player(s) you could give the first player bonus point(s) only for the more expensive discoveries.
(after all after 1-2 turns all players will have different amount of goods)
 
 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.