GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
7,715 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
22 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

Bios: Megafauna» Forums » General

Subject: Game scaling problems? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played one 3-player game and two 4-player games so don't take this too seriously. I'm posting to see what others think of the matter.

While the 3-player game went well, the 4-player sessions didn't go that well.

We noticed that players tended to play cards faster which in turn caused A LOT of climate changes during a single round of play which made the game nearly impossible to play strategically.

Both sessions felt like the luckiest player won and that player skill had nothing to do with it.

This didn't happen in the 3-player session because there was more room for players to expand and they didn't play that many cards in the same round. So climate changes happened a lot less frequently. We had time to prepare and adapt.

In our 4-player sessions, climate changes were so drastic that there were many times were I had a specific plan formed in my mind but when my actual turn came up the board was in total CHAOS and completely different than my previous turn. There were turns where 2 or even 3 Greenhouse effects happened messing up the board in a totally chaotic fashion, followed by a scoring round which gave out VPs to the luckiest player still on the map after all the dust had settled. It looked like player skill had nothing to do with it.

I was thinking about it because we had a very different experience with the 3-player game. I believe that the game does not scale that well because of how the events work. More players means more card draws during a single round of play which in turn can potentially cause a lot of climate changes happening inbetween a single player turn. This makes for a pretty random game which cannot be controlled.
It looks like the less players play the game, the better control they have over the game and of course the game becomes more enjoyable in turn.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Eurogames but that doesn't mean that I like games that play in a totally chaotic fashion. I still want the best player to win in the end.

Our 4-player sessions seemed like player skill is not that important which is bad IMHO. The 3-player game went very well and I suspect that the 2-player game may be even better because of lesser card plays during game rounds.

I don't claim that I have mastered the game {far from it} but I wanted to know if I'm actually missing something big here. I just didn't find it enjoyable to have a lucky player win the game after having to endure through totally chaotic board wipeouts. I don't believe that the game plays like that.

I'm already thinking about possible home rules about this subject but I don't think that I have played enough times to start messing with the official rules. {Plus I hate using house rules, I prefer to play like the designer intended except when the game screams that it needs fixing}

One would be to restrain the possible Greenhouse changes to 1 per round regardless of the number of players and cards played during the round. I still don't know if this will mess with the game in a way that I haven't think of though.

What's your experience with the game and what do you think about using a house rule to reduce the wild swings of the Greenhouse effect during a single game round?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for posting this. I've only had one 3-player game, which went well, but now that you describe your games I could see where it could potentially get chaotic with 4. I find a lot of games actually have this "problem" when going from 3 to 4 players.

I'm not ready to house rule anything, but if I were, I probably wouldn't start by just patching greenhouse events. I'd likely increase the number of cards by some % in each age, and ignore roughly the same % of card events, no matter what type they were.

For example, maybe double the number of cards per age, and ignore every other event. Or something. But since I haven't played 4p yet, I'm not proposing this! Just suggesting what I would propose, if I were proposing anything. Which I'm not
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jasonwocky wrote:
Thanks for posting this. I've only had one 3-player game, which went well, but now that you describe your games I could see where it could potentially get chaotic with 4. I find a lot of games actually have this "problem" when going from 3 to 4 players.

I'm not ready to house rule anything, but if I were, I probably wouldn't start by just patching greenhouse events. I'd likely increase the number of cards by some % in each age, and ignore roughly the same % of card events, no matter what type they were.

For example, maybe double the number of cards per age, and ignore every other event. Or something. But since I haven't played 4p yet, I'm not proposing this! Just suggesting what I would propose, if I were proposing anything. Which I'm not


Now that you mention it I have to add something too. I did notice what I can only describe as a forced game end. It looks as this game was designed in a specific way in order to finish very quickly.

I believe that if the game was designed with more duration in mind it wouldn't have that "problem". So adding more cards could potentially fix it too.

It wouldn't look so bad if players had more DNA to play around and more turns to stand back on their feet after a big catastrophe but I don't really know how many cards should do the trick though and I don't want to have to playtest to find out. I just want to play the game.

Maybe Phil should add an 'Epic' variant in he game in order to make it last longer and/or add a rule about stopping too many Greenhouse effects from going off in the same round.

Anyway, I believe that as people get their hands on the game we will see if my observations are true and how often they do happen.

I'm pretty positive that it has to do with how many players are playing the game though. I had a very enjoyable 3-player session and two bad 4-player sessions. It all came down to how many card plays happened during a single round.

It may had to do with DNA availability due to random card distribution too but I'm not so sure about that so I didn't mention it above.

Cheers. meeple
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pablo Klinkisch
Germany
Heidelberg
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bowmangr wrote:
Maybe Phil should add an 'Epic' variant in he game in order to make it last longer


That is what American Megafauna is for
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
flag msg tools
What are you, like 80?
badge
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In our group we have enjoyed our games of Bios quite a lot, but the concensus is that the game is random and chaotic to an unhealthy degree (for our tastes, at least). We have found gameplay very harsh - random effects often seem to knock players around, and it sometimes feels like the game is playing itself with the players just acting as spectators.

We have experimented with a couple of variants to keep some of the harsher random effect in tow, and they have worked well enough - but of course, they still need a lot of polishing.

High Frontier was the runaway hit of (early) 2011 for a group of people in my club (including me), but without variants I just can't see Bios succeeding to the same degree. I love the theme, the science, and the whole level of detail of Bios, but from a gameplay point of view, being kicked around by the game system is just not very fun.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
flag msg tools
What are you, like 80?
badge
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bowmangr wrote:
It may had to do with DNA availability due to random card distribution too but I'm not so sure about that so I didn't mention it above.

That's definitely one of the main 'culprits' we have identified that contribute to the harshness of the game: The lack of connection between the DNA needed by the biomes a player can reach and the DNA available to him on the cards. The classic example is a player whose starting biome is surrounded by water biomes, but who can't get any "M" DNA and so is prevented from expanding at all. We have seen this more than once and it's not a pretty sight.

We tried a variant in our latest game, where we let all players' starting species start out with a single letter's worth of DNA (dietary or roadrunner) - chosen freely after seeing the way the biomes are set up. This seemed to work really well (it opened up the early game a lot) and it has very little rules overhead. Only thing is, we used the players' chits to mark any starting dietary DNA, only later realizing that this prevents people from inheriting this DNA letter when later creating a new species through expansion (since the chit is already being used). My suggestion for future games would be to either use a mutation card, or mark it in some other way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interestingly, one of the things that amused me about American Megafauna was that this scientific simulation of evolution was, in fact, a game of it's very antithesis - Intelligent Design. Players decided which mutations would emerge, players directed migrations and developments. The randomness of card draw was actually the scientific simulation bit of it...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristof Bodric
Serbia
Novi Sad
flag msg tools
badge
And the ranger's aim was deadly with the big iron on his hip...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jens_hoppe wrote:
Bowmangr wrote:
It may had to do with DNA availability due to random card distribution too but I'm not so sure about that so I didn't mention it above.

That's definitely one of the main 'culprits' we have identified that contribute to the harshness of the game: The lack of connection between the DNA needed by the biomes a player can reach and the DNA available to him on the cards. The classic example is a player whose starting biome is surrounded by water biomes, but who can't get any "M" DNA and so is prevented from expanding at all. We have seen this more than once and it's not a pretty sight.

We tried a variant in our latest game, where we let all players' starting species start out with a single letter's worth of DNA (dietary or roadrunner) - chosen freely after seeing the way the biomes are set up. This seemed to work really well (it opened up the early game a lot) and it has very little rules overhead. Only thing is, we used the players' chits to mark any starting dietary DNA, only later realizing that this prevents people from inheriting this DNA letter when later creating a new species through expansion (since the chit is already being used). My suggestion for future games would be to either use a mutation card, or mark it in some other way.


Hi Jens, I just wanted to join in the discussion. I too have experienced similar problems and even harsher ones where for the last two periods - Cretaceous and Tertiary, all three players ended up as Lazaruses and no viable mutation card was coming along to resurrect us, plus our homeland biomes were all inverted due to low CO2 levels. So, we sat out half the game flipping cards in the hope of a single B or M or G gene coming but to no avail.

The problem, I believe is in the distribution of the mutation cards. I did a little statistics and came up with the result that there are too few B, G, and M mutation cards, whereas almost all the biome tiles require these, some in multiple instances (BB, MM, BG, etc.). Only 21.2% of all the mutation cards have B or G genes on them and only 13.6% have M genes. After randomizing the distribution (creating the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Tertiary decks plus the 5 starting cards) we may end up with even fewer of these in a significant percentage of cases. And even then, all the, say, M cards may end up in the Tertiary deck, and 80% of the game will have passed before players gain access to them. On the other hand, there's a bunch of P genes, which are of very little use since carnivores require herbivores to prey on.

The solution, in my opinion, would be manipulating the starting decks. Setting aside the B, G and M cards, Shuffling them and creating, say, half the period decks from these, and the other half from the remaining cards, which would still allow for sufficient randomization and replayability.

I think this deserves a new topic and I'll raise the issue with Phil on the Yahoo Groups.

New topic:
BGG
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/7939464#7939464

Yahoo Groups
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Megafauna/message/2419
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Although I'm sad to see that others have encountered the same problems I believe that they can be easily fixed with some house rules.

The ideas that I have in my mind right now are:

a} When a catastrophe event is revealed then until the end of the player's NEXT turn no other catastrophe can be resolved. If they are revealed just ignore them or count them as a "Draw 2 new tiles" event.


b} It's difficult to think of a way to make stronger connections between the biome DNA requirements and the available DNA from the cards without adding extra components to the game. I believe that if any optional rules make an appearance they should use what is already in the box.
With that in mind I think that players should be allowed to use one of their inheritance tiles FOR FREE as part of the setup in order to evolve their starting species {or their resurrected species after pulling a Lazarus} into something that can be viable for expansion after seeing the type of DNA required by the biomes on the map.
So after seeing the map they simultaneously choose in secret 1 of their inheritance tiles and reveal it adding it as DNA to their starting species. Ofcourse, only single DNA is allowed.

They do the same thing after pulling a Lazarus in addition to the mutation card that they played.

and

c} One other idea would be to increase the number of cards available. I haven't given that much thought but a quick and dirty solution would be to have 2 rows of 5 cards as the Display. The first one will have Mutation cards only and the second one will have Genotype cards.
When a player buys a Genotype card no event is resolved.

The era decks contain only mutation cards and they are used to replenish the Mutation row. The whole Genotype deck is used to replenish the Genotype row but if it runs out then nothing happens. The game continues as normal.


As I said I don't want to start using house rules yet because there maybe something that we are missing in the game. I have only played 3 times. I want more people to play it so that we can see if the experience is the same for everyone.

I want to like this game, the idea is good, the theme is awesome but if the luckiest player wins then I prefer to play something else. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. I loved High Frontier, I prefer Origins over Through the Ages but Megafauna maybe the first Phil Eklund game that I have lukewarm feelings about and I want that to change.

P.S. I have started a similar discussion at the yahoo group and I'm waiting the crew over there to begin discussing it too.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Megafauna/message/2415
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristof Bodric
Serbia
Novi Sad
flag msg tools
badge
And the ranger's aim was deadly with the big iron on his hip...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New developments:

Phil has replied to the topic and has amended the rules to include a 5th action. Here's what the man said:

Quote:
I have posted a new page 3 in the living rules pdf files, and also a corresponding revision in the living word rules, adding a optional "roadrunner club" rule. This adds an optional fifth action, allowing one to buy (for 2 genes) a roadrunner adjustment (up or down). This includes marine of course, and is meant to address the Gilligan's Island syndrome, where a player gets stuck in an archipelago with no marine adaptations in sight.


I think this is an elegant solution, as M genes will become easily accessible to players.

I just thing that this option should also be added to the Lazarus resurrection action but at a discount or even free, provided that the Lazarus player cannot afford it (if the Lazarus player cannot afford to pay the required 2 genes, he places all the genes he has on the leftmost card, gains one roadrunner gene and may set himself up on any tile that
can support him)? His animal's size could be 1, for instance.

I do see a possible abuse of the rules. Once a player establishes himself as dominant, a viable strategy for him would be to start hoarding genes to undermine his opponents' ability to catch up. Perhaps the maximum number of genes owned by one player should be limited to, say, 5, after which he can no longer take genes from the cards he picks up, but leaves them on the (new) leftmost card instead. In our last game, one player ended up with all the genes and stopped purchasing cards altogether. This can also stall the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justus
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are gene's counter mix limited? It seems odd to me....another way you could limit gene hoarding is that whenever there aren't enough genes in stock, the player(s) with the most genes must pay back to the bank until there is enough to (re)distribute to everyone.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
vidra wrote:
New developments:

Phil has replied to the topic and has amended the rules to include a 5th action. Here's what the man said:

Quote:
I have posted a new page 3 in the living rules pdf files, and also a corresponding revision in the living word rules, adding a optional "roadrunner club" rule. This adds an optional fifth action, allowing one to buy (for 2 genes) a roadrunner adjustment (up or down). This includes marine of course, and is meant to address the Gilligan's Island syndrome, where a player gets stuck in an archipelago with no marine adaptations in sight.


I think this is an elegant solution, as M genes will become easily accessible to players.

I just thing that this option should also be added to the Lazarus resurrection action but at a discount or even free, provided that the Lazarus player cannot afford it (if the Lazarus player cannot afford to pay the required 2 genes, he places all the genes he has on the leftmost card, gains one roadrunner gene and may set himself up on any tile that
can support him)? His animal's size could be 1, for instance.

I do see a possible abuse of the rules. Once a player establishes himself as dominant, a viable strategy for him would be to start hoarding genes to undermine his opponents' ability to catch up. Perhaps the maximum number of genes owned by one player should be limited to, say, 5, after which he can no longer take genes from the cards he picks up, but leaves them on the (new) leftmost card instead. In our last game, one player ended up with all the genes and stopped purchasing cards altogether. This can also stall the game.


I agree that Lazarus players should be able to use that rule. I really like the new rule. It fixes the M problem but it also fixes some other minor ones too. It makes Genotype cards more viable and it also makes the P DNA more useful because IMHO it was the most useless DNA.

Also I'm not finding the gene hoarding problem a real problem right now but maybe the 2 genes should be placed in the RIGHTmost card and not the LEFTmost one so that the next player cannot just gain extra genes by playing the free left card.

There are still two potential problems that I still can see happening. The too many climate changes in a single game round issue which is the reason that this thread exists in the first place and the too many double-dietary DNA biome requirements, so few double-DNA cards issue which was raised by you in another thread if I remember correctly.

I believe that the Genotype cards are more trouble than their worth because you still need to have half the requirements to play them and they take over spots in the display. If they are unplayable due to a lack of the relevant DNA from Mutation cards they are simply dead weight.
The new optional rule may help with that because players may actually gain the required roadrunner DNA and then buy a Genotype card but this requires that your turn comes up a second time and that card is still in the Display and the climate hasn't changed everything again and so on.

I read the June 6, rules posted here in the Files section of the game's BGG page and I found out that the game originally allowed players to have a hand {which greatly helps building up a strategy because it is protected by catastrophes} and that Genotype cards could be played ALONE in order to start a new species. They didn't have a dependance on the available mutation cards. In general the June rules seem a lot more strategic than the October release rules which make the game feel like a light filler and not a strategy game.

I really like the concept and I'm a Phil Eklund fan so I want to like BIOS: Megafauna but my 3 sessions with it left me somewhat unimpressed with the gameplay. I'm impressed with the theme, I see that there is a great game here but the mechanics don't do it justice and it just feels that it can become really great with some minor tweaks here and there.

I want to play more to see if I'm missing something because I don't believe that 3 sessions are enough to pass a verdict but that's what I'm feeling right now, especially after reading the old June ruleset. I don't know why they decided to drop them but there were some pretty good ideas there that in my eyes seem to work better than the published rules. {I really liked the old Genotype card rules especially and the part where players had hands so they could create an actual plan instead of playing 'for the moment', did I mention that the P DNA was not counted for catastrophe extinction reasons giving it another reason for players to use it?}

I know Phil is always open to suggestions and his games always have living rules that get updated so I guess I just have to wait until the game reaches USA so that we get more opinions and things start to change.

or

I may change opinion if I play the game some more and see something that I've missed but unfortunately I doubt that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Eklund
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden Würtenberg
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
To address the scaling problem for the "too-eventful 4-player game", I have added the following rule for the 4-player game, found in both Word and pdf format in the living rules files for the Megafauna Yahoo Group.

3.2f. 4-Player game only. Make a deck of 30 cards and from this make a second 5-card display above the first. This Upper Display is treated as the Display except that cards purchased here are replaced from the 25-card deck and generate neither events (6.0) nor scoring rounds (4.4).

Discussion: I previously noted that I include a lot of cards in Bios Megafauna, most of which are never seen in a typical game. Since I have these extra cards, it would be nice to more of them available in the 4-player game, where it is most needed because of card competition. It would also be nice if these extra cards did not generate extra events. So the solution is to generate a second Display, immediately above the first, that is treated as an additional area to purchase cards but explicitly does not generate events. This lowers the events by 50% in the 4-player game, and naturally doubles the cards made available to players.

To address the Gilligan's Island concerns (players not having access to marine DNA when surrounded by water), I have added the Roadrunner Club optional rule, repeated here:

4.2e. Roadrunner club (optional). Place 2 genes on the leftmost card in the Display, and adjust the roadrunner of one of your animals by a step. If this animal has predator(s), they may similarly adjust a step (for free).

This rule explicitly gives predators a much-needed opportunity for free DNA. Both of these new rules are on page 3. I added clarification to page 4 and 12 to accommodate these rules.

I had also added a optional "Beginner's Game" (3.8) that removes all the Genotype cards from the deck. These cards are most useful for advanced players.
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice addition to the rules! It solves the scaling issue nicely.

I wonder if it would break the game if it was used in a 3-player game too? Maybe with less than 30 cards in the deck?

It would be a nice option for the 3-player game too I think.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristof Bodric
Serbia
Novi Sad
flag msg tools
badge
And the ranger's aim was deadly with the big iron on his hip...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The new action seems to have gone far to solve the problem. The ready availability of M genes has made the game more "responsive" in spite of the scarcity of B and G genes. Will report back after a few more sessions.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
vidra wrote:
The new action seems to have gone far to solve the problem. The ready availability of M genes has made the game more "responsive" in spite of the scarcity of B and G genes. Will report back after a few more sessions.


I haven't played the game with the new rule yet but it did sound great in concept. Glad to hear that it really solves the issues nicely.

I'm already considering extending the 4-player rule to the 3-player game using a 15-card deck Upper Display configuration {instead of 30 for as is for the 4-player game}.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vasilis
Greece
Heraklion Crete
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, we did play yesterday and I have to confirm that the game is MUCH better with the addition of the new rules. It's like a completely different game, a better game full of meaningful decisions and strategy.

I still think that the Upper Display rule should be extended to the 3-player game and maybe even the 2-player game. Upper Display Deck cards should be less though so that it will not drag. I will play a 3-player session with the official rules {no Upper Display} and see if it's really needed or not.

Such a minor change can make or break a game, it's impressive. Previous week we were disappointed, yesterday with the addition of the new rule we had a blast!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A L
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
"I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bowmangr wrote:
OK, we did play yesterday and I have to confirm that the game is MUCH better with the addition of the new rules. It's like a completely different game, a better game full of meaningful decisions and strategy.


This is great news, though not for my bank as I just slapped down a pre-order at my FLGS.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Astyaro
Spain
Madrid
Madrid
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jens_hoppe wrote:

We tried a variant in our latest game, where we let all players' starting species start out with a single letter's worth of DNA (dietary or roadrunner) - chosen freely after seeing the way the biomes are set up. This seemed to work really well (it opened up the early game a lot) and it has very little rules overhead.


I think this is a very elegant and simple variant to fix the M B or G DNA starting problem. Every player would start with a DNA and it has a thematic logic. Your starting spices starts adapted to its surrounding Bioms.
Thank you for sharing this idea.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leland Davis
Japan
Chichibu-shi
Saitama-ken
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I especially like the 2nd display rule, and definitely think that it should be allowed in the 3 and 2 player games, with some modification. For 2 players, 10 cards should be just fine. The thing is, it not only helps deal with too-rapid events, but it also is a big help towards the "not enough DNA" problem.

Even in my 2 player game, greenhouse events and catastrophes felt a little too random. Now, in part, this was because we were drawing and discarding lots of cards for lack of anything better to do. However, even one that was reduced a bit later in the game, it still felt incredibly random, and the endgame was particularly awkward.

For catastrophes, I might argue that a "1 per era maximum" rule, or "none in the Cenozoic era" rule might work. The latter in particular would allow for the endgame to be primarily about player strategy, and less about luck.

Actually, a larger idea, even - chaotic Mesozoic, and stable Cenozoic. Play the Mesozoic era with the rules as written, but lengthen the Cenozoic era a fair bit, bar catastrophes, and maybe skip every other erosion, greenhouse, or Milankovich event. This would give the endgame a distinctly different feel, build it up as a time where player strategy is more important than game system chance, and allow the players to see a lot more Cenozoic era tiles.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom W -
United States
West Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmb
I want to bump this thread because these ideas, especially the latter half, may go along way to make this a more enjoyable game (it is already an enjoyable story). I am particularly intrigued at Leland and jens suggestions...
1 
 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.