Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Evo (second edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Evo vs Small World rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Olaf Polly
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am considering buying Evo, but wonder how this game compares to Small World. I played the latter and liked it, but would like to buy a different game as my friend has SW. I like the theme of Evo, but not sure how dry and fun this will be compared to SW. Any opinions will be appreciated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brook Gentlestream
United States
Long Beach
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't personally get the Small World comparison. I have Evo and not Small World, but I've seen a video of Small World and don't understand how they are even remotely similiar, other than that they are both fun to play.

In Evo, everyone has one or two dinos on the board and a blank slate with all your powers. In this way, everyone starts off the same. Each turn, you can move one dino and place one new dino on the board. At the end of each turn, there's an auction for new "genes" that are drawn from a bag and these genes give your dino species new powers such as the ability to move more often, the ability to move into other dinos spaces (and drive them off), to survive dangerous weather, to place more dinos on the board each turn, etc. Over time, each dino species becomes different based on the genes they have purchased in an open auction.

Finally, there's also a hand of cards for some additional effects, though you don't get many cards over the course of the game and each can only be used once.

Small World seems to be about gaining territory by expanding your chits all across the world. Evo is about moving the chits you have from dangerous areas to safe areas, with the areas that are considered safe or dangerous changing every turn. You're not trying to "expand", so much as keep one step ahead of climate change and have the most surviving dinos at the end of every turn.

You get mutation points by having the most surviving dinos at the end of a turn. You use these in an auction to buy new genes, if you think they will help your dinos to survive and earn you more mutation points than they cost. At the end of the game, the winner is the player who was able to earn and keep the most mutation points.

I could be wrong, but that doesn't sound at all like Small World to me.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Currently listening to: "Nid: Hymner Av Hat" by Whoredom Rife
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe the question is being posed, because both games are by Philippe Keyaerts, so it's my understanding that Opaliy is simply interested in purchasing another game by the same designer.

If that's the case, I would actually recommend Olympos over Evo. I have all three (Olympos, Evo and Small World), and while I enjoy each of them greatly, I have found Olympos to provide for deeper and more fulfilling gameplay, while still being light on rules (not a personal requirement, but I still felt it was worth mentioning.)

Brook's description of Evo is great, though slightly errant on a few details: you can never have less than two dinosaurs (if you're at two, you can't be attacked and are immune to adverse climate situations); when it comes to movements, you have a set number of movement points (default is two) and they can be distributed amongst your dinosaurs as you see fit (ie. move one dinosaur two spaces; move two dinosaurs one space each; move one dinosaur and attack with another [attacks cost one movement point]; etc), so it's definitely possible to move more than one dinosaur in a given turn; and, lastly, the auction for the mutation genes is near the beginning of the turn, just after the climate change, not at the end.

The similarity between each game is that they're all fairly light on rules but still provide for fun, fulfilling, emergent gameplay. In my experience, Evo plays the quickest of the three games I've mentioned (a 3-player game usually takes about 45-50 minutes, including setup time); Small World and Olympos can sometimes rival each other on the propensity for analysis paralysis (though, even then, it's much lighter than in other games.)

Other things to consider:
Competition -- In Small World, you're not tied down to one race/power combination for the duration of the game, so there's an encouragement to be ruthless and get as much as you can as quickly as you can out of your Active Race, because you're fighting for territory VPs. In Olympos, you have a Personal Stock of settlers, and they remain on the board even when conquered (though they forfeit the resource of their territory to their conqueror); and, converse to Small World, Olympos uses a Time mechanic, so the turns of the game play out more slowly and with more deliberation (even though overall game time, in my experience, has been rather similar between the two), and you're ultimately fighting for resources so you can acquire discoveries and wonders. Lastly, in Evo, you can never be eliminated, so, while competition is still to be had and can still be painful, your dinosaurs are safe from all-out annihilation or oppression (however, when you're reduced to your base count of only two dinosaurs, you're only earning two points per Survival Phase.)

Game Time -- In a 3-player game (the usual for me), and depending on the players' propensities for analysis paralysis, Small World and Olympos take approximately the same amount of time to play (maybe about an hour to an hour and a half, give or take), whereas Evo, as mentioned above, only takes about 45 minutes or so.


In the end, if you're only looking at Evo, I apologize for derailing the conversation by mentioning Olympos. On the other hand, if you're looking for other options by Philippe Keyaerts, I gladly point toward Olympos as something worth considering.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olaf Polly
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brook, David, thank you for your thoughts.
I do have Olympos on my "wish list" as well, but have not actually thought that Evo and Olympos were at all similar. The reason why I asked about comparison of SW and Evo was that on the surface the mechanics were slightly similar (map with set territories, you acquire territories that give you victory points, you can attack other players, etc) and since I liked SW but did not want to buy it, I wondered if Evo is something for me to consider. It seems from your descriptions that the amount of fighting is less in Evo and it seems to be a slightly more strategic game than SW - both pluses for me.

How good is the replayability of Evo? - since there are only 5 dinosaur types and they do not seem to be different in anything, it looks like the same basic strategy might be used on each map. I saw that someone suggested to assign different starting bonuses for each dino, but not sure if that is a viable mod for this game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Currently listening to: "Nid: Hymner Av Hat" by Whoredom Rife
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Olaf, the dinosaurs in Evo are all identical, at least at the start of the game, before mutation genes have been purchased and applied. Everyone starts with two pairs of legs and an egg pre-printed on their large display card, granting them two movement points (during the movement phase) and one new dinosaur (during the birth phase) each turn, respectively. I’m a huge fan of the artwork of the game, but, that being said, the artwork is only cosmetic – it doesn’t matter whether your display card shows a pterodactyl dinosaur or a brontosaurus, they behave identically in the game. The only way the different players’ species will behave differently is by the mutation genes that they acquire during the mutation phase.

When talking about replayability, the mutation genes that each player acquires will have a good chance of being different each time you play the game, so there’s a good amount of replayability in that; especially when you consider the Event Cards that can be acquired instead of genes. I had a game last night where I did quite well in the bidding and acquired enough movement-related genes to help me avoid the shifting climate, whereas one of my opponents (who was in last place on the initiative track every turn, due to the lowest number of dinosaurs on the board) enjoyed taking the Event Cards for minimal cost (as in, for free!) During the last couple of game-turns, I was scoring 7 Mutation Points each Survival phase due to a large presence on the board, and my opponent was using her Event Cards to off-set her mediocre presence of only having three dinosaurs on the board. We ended up tying at the end of the game (my larger influx of points near the end of the game helped offset the expenditures from earlier, and her lack of expenditures and overall minimal/mediocre presence allowed her to have a steady, reliable trickle of points). The third player harried both of us, and while he still lost, he kept the game from having a definitive leader. My point is that the next game will very likely be entirely different!

I think the other key element to replayability is the ever-changing climate. I’d say it’s the driving force behind the game, as it dictates where everyone will be trying to move each turn as well as who will survive and who will die off. You can try to focus on acquiring movement-oriented genes, to give yourself some flexibility on the map, or you can try to pick up temperature-related genes (fur and thermoregulation) to help your dinosaurs endure the adverse climates. Incidentally, horns are a good gene option as well, though I’ve found that they tend to go hand-in-hand with movement genes, as you need to spend 1 Movement Point to attack an adjacent dinosaur on the map. Movement is precious, so you need to weigh the costs of risking an attack versus finding an uninhabited (yet safe!) territory. You won’t lose your dinosaur if your attack is unsuccessful, but you will lose the movement point you invested in the attack, whether you win the fight or not. The way the combat die works – 1/6 chance the combat fails outright, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the “X” side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the single horn side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the number of horns between the participants is equal; 2/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has more horns; 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has at least two more horns. So, you’re better off if you have more horns than your opponents (3/6), or if you have at least two more horns than your opponent(s) (4/6), but 4/6 is as good as it gets. One thing to remember, though, is that combat is the only way to remove enemy dinosaurs from the game, which is probably why the investment and low success rates are what they are. Bad climate, detrimental Event cards, etc, result in removing dinosaurs from the game map and returning them to their opponent’s personal stash.

When comparing all three of the games, each one involves a fixed and confining map in which control of a territory provides for victory points. The main difference is that Evo and SW provide those victory points at the end of every turn, whereas Olympos provides them at the end of the game (because the focus of acquiring points is directed elsewhere – mainly to discoveries and wonders). However, since the OP is particularly interested in Evo vs Small World, I’ll try to do better at leaving Olympos out of it, haha! The fighting in Evo is much less than in SW, for the movement-cost and low-probability reasons I mentioned above, though, again, it should be reiterated that combat is the only way to remove enemy dinosaurs from the game and, thus, reduce their overall stock. Spending the precious movement points might prove to be worth it if it means your opponent(s) will be able to field fewer overall dinosaurs.

To answer your last question, the same basic strategy applies to every game: Get to the safe territories every time the climate changes!!! It’s how you’re able to do that (and how well you’re able to do it) that really matters and changes with every game, and those safe territories will be different nearly every turn. If you’re interested in how the climate works, there’s a big climate dial. The first phase of every turn, the player with the first initiative turns over the top climate token from the stack and adjusts the climate dial according to what is shown on the token (usually, move the dial clockwise 1 or 2 spaces; sometimes, move counter-clockwise 1 space; rarely, don’t move the dial at all). So, there’s always some amount of replayability in that mechanic (because the stack of climate tokens is shuffled at the start of every game, and one random token is removed from the game), and I believe there’s an Event Card that causes the climate token to be ignored, so that can also change things up a little. Lastly, the meteorite token is always somewhere in the last three climate tokens on the stack, per the shuffling rules, so you only have a moderate idea of when the game will actually end. That’s one of my favorite parts to the game, because you may have a strategy that could be cut short by an “early” arrival of the meteorite.

I hope my replies are helpful and not too long-winded. I tend to ramble, haha! I love the conversation, though!


EDIT: Corrected the die-face results, and crossed out the comment about removing your opponent's dinosaurs from the game via combat. It is the case in the English translation, but not in the French (original?) translation.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Boy, that was a long answer but a very good one

The replayability is huge: Randomly drawn genes, random climate token order, randomly drawn cards with various effects that change the gameplay and create surprises (I just love when somebody says that your dinos are going to freeze or fry and then you'll play a card that your dinos will survive in all cold or hot areas, which ever is the case), you can try how different combination of genes work together, combat is determined with the combat die( I like it a lot), special genes will make each game totally different(8 out of 12 are in the bag each time) and many more.

I have played a couple of times and I have only scratched the surface of the strategy. The one sure thing I have learned is that you should not take cards early on in the game unless the gene prices are sky high.

I haven't yet played with three players but for a more balanced gene distribution, I'd put one gene less of each type inside the bag in the setup. The odds of drawing each type of gene become about the same as in a 4-player game of with this variant. The chances of drawing special genes in a 3-player game are just pretty low without this small variant. 2-player game just doesn't work, it would need major rule changes and there are none inside the box. I still see Evo mainly as a 4-5 player game but I'll still have to test a 3-player game to sure. Generally there is just less tension in auctions with fewer players and less options in Evo since you draw less genes.

I usually lean towards heavier euros but Evo seems to have a right combination of luck and skill. The new components are just gorgeous. As far as the area control system goes, it's really nice since it forces you move to areas where you are safe. This takes a lot of away from the king making and hitting the same guy type of situations usually seen in area control games. So much to like in Evo. The only downside I have encountered so far is that, take game could take a couple turns less but I think it will go faster with more experience but another good feature is that you can easily adjust the playing time if you want the game to last couple turns less just by removing climate tokens from the stack.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gene
United States
Venice
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Hey! Watch where you point that thing :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoadHouse wrote:

The replayability is huge:

I haven't yet played with three players but for a more balanced gene distribution, I'd put one gene less of each type inside the bag in the setup. The odds of drawing each type of gene become about the same as in a 4-player game of with this variant. The chances of drawing special genes in a 3-player game are just pretty low without this small variant. 2-player game just doesn't work, it would need major rule changes and there are none inside the box.


+1
Couldn't agree more thumbsup
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Currently listening to: "Nid: Hymner Av Hat" by Whoredom Rife
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kiitos, RoadHouse

I really like your suggestion for a 3-player game -- removing one of each type of common mutation gene -- and I'll have to give that a try. You're correct; the special genes don't make much of an appearance in a 3-player game, otherwise.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olaf Polly
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just wanted to say - thank you all for comments, comparisons, and explanations. I think I will definitely pick Evo up next time I am placing a large order.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Duncan Flint
United Kingdom
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was thinking of asking this question, so thanks! I have SW and have to say I really cannot stand it, its just not FUN despite the "cartoony" artwork. I liked the sound of Evo til I saw it was by the same designer. Now its on my "hmmmm" list.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Ramírez
Argentina
flag msg tools
Zythal wrote:
The way the combat die works – 1/6 chance the combat fails outright, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the “X” side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the single horn side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the number of horns between the participants is equal; 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has more horns; 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has at least two more horns. So, you’re better off if you have more horns than your opponents (2/6), or if you have at least two more horns than your opponent(s) (3/6), but 3/6 is as good as it gets. One thing to remember, though, is that combat is the only way to remove enemy dinosaurs from the game, which is probably why the investment and low success rates are what they are.



There is something I am missing here.

First, dice have 6 faces, so at least one of those 5 signs has to be repeating itself in another face, right? (or there is a "throw again" symbol, in which case the odds are 1/5 for each). Also, assuming the symbol that is repeated is the failed attack one, the odds should go from 1/6 if you have fewer horns, to 4/6 if you have an advantage of more than two horns (1/6 automatic, +1/6 equal horns, +1/6 one or more horns, +1/6 two or more horns). Am I doing something wrong here?

Also; I was wondering: Since in Evo you "gradually modify" your species, whereas in smallworld you can completely change it, it would seem like a rather "smoother" game (changes can be less abrupt) which adds to predictability and stability and, therefore, strategical planning (which, from what I read in other comments, you seem to agree with). However, there seems to be a rather important "random" factor in the cards that does not exist in smallworld: things may change fast, but you can always know what to expect from what is on the board (there is no secret information); here, a card can be played out of the blue and totally screw your game, and you don't get to chose cards, so you can get a really useful one or a useless one by bidding for them. I do not know what the event cards can o can't do, but I have certain fear that instead of compensating the loss of the amazing versatility of smallworld (the genes may add variability, but I think this can hardly compare to the one you get from playing 3 different races, all of which come from a rather unique combination of a base race and a modifier you get in smallworld), they will just end up making it a more random game.

What do people think about this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Currently listening to: "Nid: Hymner Av Hat" by Whoredom Rife
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, Nordico, one of the die-faces repeats (the "Horn+" symbol). I've corrected my post. Thanks for catching that!

In reply to yours, the cards aren't a large source for the game's randomness (though they do offer some randomness, to be sure.) The bulk of it comes from the climate, which you can only minimally anticipate. However, not knowing which direction the climate will go means that you have to try to anticipate the best locations to place your units. When talking about a "smoother" game, I'm inclined to think of SmallWorld as a smoother game. You can usually see where your opponents are on the board (unless they're a new opponent race coming in from a nearby edge), so you can openly anticipate their conquests. With Evo, you never know where the climate is going to swing, so there is always that anxiety and frantic rush toward safer ground.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Ramírez
Argentina
flag msg tools
Zythal wrote:
The way the combat die works – 1/6 chance the combat fails outright, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the “X” side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the single horn side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the number of horns between the participants is equal; 2/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has more horns; 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has at least two more horns. So, you’re better off if you have more horns than your opponents (3/6), or if you have at least two more horns than your opponent(s) (4/6), but 4/6 is as good as it gets.



Sorry for this, I really really don't mean to be annoying, but my "4/6" best case scenario was in case the repeated icon was the automatic failure one; in case the repeated symbol is the one with the "one or more horns wins", then you actually should have a 5/6 chances of winning in case you have more than 2 horns (4/6 in case you only have one more horn than the defender).


As to the other subject: the wheel is a little less worrying to me because, although the restricted movement may prevent you from saving all your dinos, you know what is going to happen from the beginning of the turn and hence you can take measures to counter it's effects. Moreover, I think the wheel can only move up to two spaces and only in one direction; according to previous draws, you should be able to have some idea on how things may look like (at the very least, you know that there will be at least two sectors that won't come up next turn). The difference I see with the cards is that they are distributed in a completely random way (you can't chose to spend your resources getting a good card; it is always a bet and you can get very screwed there) and you can never know what the other players have in their own hands. I would really hate to have a player who was extremely skillful at choosing genes and placing dinos in the right places so as to adapt effectively to the environment lose just because he was "outlucked" with the cards (and wasn't even given the chance to make up for this because of not being able to know the resources the other player had against him). Again, the likelihood of this situation to happen is highly dependent on what the cards actually do, which is something I ignore.

One other thing: when I spoke of "smoothness" I wasn't actually referring to predictability over the things you don't control (how the environment changes), but rather to how your own resources can change. Actually, I think that in games I would rather have a more predictable environment but a rather versatile toolkit than the other way around (which is not an easy thing to accomplish, since freedom for one player tends to imply unpredictability for the others). I knew that this game had less versatility in how you can change your own strategy; however, didn't know that it also allowed for less predictability over the things that happen around you; this worries me a little...I mean, I have no problem with things getting unpredictable, but as long as (a) there is at least SOME way in which you can adapt to the change before it hits you and (b) things tend to hit all players in a similar way (or at least proportionally to how well placed they are).

Oh; and one other concern I had with this game: Doesn't the restrictions on movement make it a less dynamic game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nordico wrote:
Zythal wrote:
The way the combat die works – 1/6 chance the combat fails outright, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the “X” side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins, regardless of the number of horns either participants has (the single horn side); 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the number of horns between the participants is equal; 2/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has more horns; 1/6 chance the attacker wins if the attacker has at least two more horns. So, you’re better off if you have more horns than your opponents (3/6), or if you have at least two more horns than your opponent(s) (4/6), but 4/6 is as good as it gets.



Sorry for this, I really really don't mean to be annoying, but my "4/6" best case scenario was in case the repeated icon was the automatic failure one; in case the repeated symbol is the one with the "one or more horns wins", then you actually should have a 5/6 chances of winning in case you have more than 2 horns (4/6 in case you only have one more horn than the defender).


As to the other subject: the wheel is a little less worrying to me because, although the restricted movement may prevent you from saving all your dinos, you know what is going to happen from the beginning of the turn and hence you can take measures to counter it's effects. Moreover, I think the wheel can only move up to two spaces and only in one direction; according to previous draws, you should be able to have some idea on how things may look like (at the very least, you know that there will be at least two sectors that won't come up next turn). The difference I see with the cards is that they are distributed in a completely random way (you can't chose to spend your resources getting a good card; it is always a bet and you can get very screwed there) and you can never know what the other players have in their own hands. I would really hate to have a player who was extremely skillful at choosing genes and placing dinos in the right places so as to adapt effectively to the environment lose just because he was "outlucked" with the cards (and wasn't even given the chance to make up for this because of not being able to know the resources the other player had against him). Again, the likelihood of this situation to happen is highly dependent on what the cards actually do, which is something I ignore.

One other thing: when I spoke of "smoothness" I wasn't actually referring to predictability over the things you don't control (how the environment changes), but rather to how your own resources can change. Actually, I think that in games I would rather have a more predictable environment but a rather versatile toolkit than the other way around (which is not an easy thing to accomplish, since freedom for one player tends to imply unpredictability for the others). I knew that this game had less versatility in how you can change your own strategy; however, didn't know that it also allowed for less predictability over the things that happen around you; this worries me a little...I mean, I have no problem with things getting unpredictable, but as long as (a) there is at least SOME way in which you can adapt to the change before it hits you and (b) things tend to hit all players in a similar way (or at least proportionally to how well placed they are).

Oh; and one other concern I had with this game: Doesn't the restrictions on movement make it a less dynamic game?

Die sides: +1 horn, +1 horn , +2 horns, FAIL, Auto-Success, = horns.

-If you have 2 or less horns than your opponent, you have 1/6 chance to win
-If you have 1 horn less than your opponent, you have 1/6 chance to win
-If you have equal amount of horns, you'll have 2/6=1/3 chance to win
-If you have 1 horn more than your opponent, you have 4/6=2/3 chance to win
-If you have 2 or more horns than your opponent, you have have 5/6 chance to win

The cards are not the biggest part of the game. You'll usually end up getting a card if the price for the genes are already too high. The cards become more valuable near the end since the benefit from the genes isn't a lot anymore but the card befefits can still be very good but on the other hand some of the cards are not very good near end. In any case, there isn't usually much competition for the cards. Still the cards give you more flexibility if you have acquired them early but getting the genes early on in the game is much wiser.

The players start to see the different strategies after a few games. If you just try to balance along the ride then you usually won't win the game. There are certain facts that have you have to "obey" in order to succeed. Players will see these when they have more games under their belt. At least one I'm sure of that you need to get one additional egg, it's not crucial in the first couple rounds but you better have it when you start to need it. Yet, the dynamics change in each game and adaption in your decisions is one key to victory. The gameplay is highly nuanced and many little things eventually grow into a larger situations which you start too understand with more experience. When we add the special genes, the different combinations and the proper "gene sets" have to realized, and in some situations have to be assured with high bidding.

You really have to know the time when you need to pay high. The case might be that a certain gene won't appear in the next few rounds and you made a big mistake not bidding high enough. Inexperienced will try to get everything with low price and end up ruining their game. Before even placing the bidding token, you'd should take into consideration many things that many people seem to ignore; Who wants this gene? How much is it worth this round, the following rounds and throughout the whole game? The potential change in player dynamics if a certain player would get it, in other words if a certain gene is too good for someone to have. The iniative order(it's more important than it might seem at first, especially if know how to take advantage of it).

The adaption is to buy the right genes, take advantage of the turn order, move correctly, attack correctly, bid correctly...Of course you are at the mercy of the climate to some degree but you need to see how game starts to evolve and how the player dynamics change.

What do you mean by dynamic game? What do you mean by "movement restrictions"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Ramírez
Argentina
flag msg tools
RoadHouse wrote:
What do you mean by dynamic game? What do you mean by "movement restrictions"?



Oh; I meant that it doesn't seem to be much action going on on the actual board with only two moves per turn. From only reading the RB (again, this is why I'm asking people who actually played the game), I have the impression that my first bet would almost certainly go for an extra pair of legs, but since there are only 6 leg genes, doesn't seem like all players will be able to get more than this two movements per turn in the whole game.


Could you share some more concrete examples of what you describe? (perhaps from your own play experience?) Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nordico wrote:
RoadHouse wrote:
What do you mean by dynamic game? What do you mean by "movement restrictions"?



Oh; I meant that it doesn't seem to be much action going on on the actual board with only two moves per turn. From only reading the RB (again, this is why I'm asking people who actually played the game), I have the impression that my first bet would almost certainly go for an extra pair of legs, but since there are only 6 leg genes, doesn't seem like all players will be able to get more than this two movements per turn in the whole game.


Could you share some more concrete examples of what you describe? (perhaps from your own play experience?) Thanks!

You start with 2 legs. There are indeed 6 leg genes. Also 3 special genes that affect movement. You don't have to move all your dinos each turn, some of them can stay still since they survive there or are in a good position to birth or just block other players(even if they die during the survival). Legs or survival genes are pretty good in the beginning. Yes, it starts slow but after a couple rounds there is a lot going on. Too much migration will scatter your dinos too much, at least you better have horns or some defensive genes if you are all over the board.

One thing I personally like in Evo is that you basically need everything and each gene has it's own advantages and disadvantages. You might think that the discount gene will win you 1 GP(money) each turn but sometimes you get a gene or card for free and the gene is essemtially worth nothing that round. You might do just fine many legs and many horns if you just move where it's safe. There isn't any foolproof strategy and any combination of genes might work in certain situation. It's varies so much what others get and what you get but like I said there are some things are very important; having one extra leg gene and one extra egg gene seem to be very important.

You better ask spesific questions or I end up writing too long aswers, as I might have already done.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Berry
United States
Raleigh
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
By now you've probably bought and played both but figured I'd comment in case. The biggest difference is in attack. In SM you attack several times per tun, ever turn. In Evo, you might be lucky to actually attack twice in the whole game. In Evo to attack you need to use movement points and as noted by others, they are pretty limited throughout.

I'm wondering if a house rule to change starting legs to 3 would be in order to make the game more combative (though some would use it just to run away).

The house rule about removing common genes with 3 players makes sense, but leave in the legs for God's sake. Also, many of the special genes don't seem that cool actually, but ymmv.

I'm also wondering if replacing the cards altogether with just another gene pull would be good. I find the cards typically underwhelming.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Finland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mecheng_analyst wrote:

I'm also wondering if replacing the cards altogether with just another gene pull would be good. I find the cards typically underwhelming.

If you replace the cards with a gene then you'll drastically change the dynamic of the auction phase. Basically the value of each gene becomes more predictable and bidding low most of time kinda makes sense. Less tension and less risks. Perhaps it could be used as a "family variant".

One variant rule for the cards is to draw 2 and keep 1, although some of the killer combinations become more viable, for example extra movement+extra horns cards.
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.