Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Trajan» Forums » General

Subject: Meeting the People's needs a little underpowered? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Loren Cadelinia
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Meeting the People's needs a little underpowered in 2 player games?
There are definitely more lucrative options mid-late game, if you consider the missing needs in isolation.

This makes the trajan need tiles so important, since one early in the game can save you from missing anywhere from 16-24 points.

So going to the forum for a single need tile or single military action is hardly worth it, when other actions would surely net you more points (large shipping action, senate tile to win a bonus tile, etc). In mid-late game, you'd have your engine setup.

If you need "needs", you'd visit the forum picking up a few useful tiles, as well as accomplish multiple military actions... so picking up the needs are just a part of your overall points.

I've played 6 or so 2-player, 2 3-player, and 2 4-player games, and I haven't noticed a huge difference in needs actions being of less importance. Other than the higher competition and tighter space with more players, the filling the needs felt just as "less" important toward the end game. Either trajan tiles helped with a huge load, or our players seemed to grab tiles opportunistically with other actions.

If you were to variant it, perhaps increase the penalty as the game progresses. It would make filling needs paramount at the end of the game, although it may alter early strategy from how the game was intended to be played. But I'm a fan of variants in general. Report back if you happen to experiment.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Re: Meeting the People's needs a little underpowered in 2 player games?
petercox1001 wrote:
Just curious to see if anyone has had similar thoughts?

No, not really. In the four player game the main focus remains to be as efficient as possible. The fact that there is a clearer penalty for specialisation is just another constraint to work with. Scores will of course be lower in the four player-case: but that's to be expected because the mechanics play out differently. What you are now doing is attempting to translate the feel of the game at one player number to another, and I think that is an exercise best left alone.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Thibodeau
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While it is true that if you are missing one need you "only" lose 4 VPs, you also have to take into account the number of available needs at the start of the round. Suppose there are only one each of helmet and fire available on the board. If you grab them both and fate has it that both helmet and fire are required for the people's need, you just earned 9 VPs while also denying other player(s) 9 VPs for themselves. That is a net +18 VPs for you.

edit: nevermind that post
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
fardoche wrote:
While it is true that if you are missing one need you "only" lose 4 VPs, you also have to take into account the number of available needs at the start of the round. Suppose there are only one each of helmet and fire available on the board. If you grab them both and fate has it that both helmet and fire are required for the people's need, you just earned 9 VPs while also denying other player(s) 9 VPs for themselves. That is a net +18 VPs for you.

No, you don't get plus points for meeting the people's needs. The net value of you grabbing those tiles is therefore 9 VP.

But you highlight the core of my argument that tinkering is not necessary: the game only cares that you are more efficient relative to the other player, and not to some absolute arbitrary standard (for example at more players).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Thibodeau
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cymric wrote:
fardoche wrote:
While it is true that if you are missing one need you "only" lose 4 VPs, you also have to take into account the number of available needs at the start of the round. Suppose there are only one each of helmet and fire available on the board. If you grab them both and fate has it that both helmet and fire are required for the people's need, you just earned 9 VPs while also denying other player(s) 9 VPs for themselves. That is a net +18 VPs for you.

No, you don't get plus points for meeting the people's needs. The net value of you grabbing those tiles is therefore 9 VP.

But you highlight the core of my argument that tinkering is not necessary: the game only cares that you are more efficient relative to the other player, and not to some absolute arbitrary standard (for example at more players).


Wow. Right. That's what happens when you reply while preparing your breakfast 5 minutes after waking up. Sorry, my mistake.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As an emperor of Rome who says my primary concern should be for the people? I'd much rather spend my time constructing buildings and conquering new territory so that future generations know about my greatness! I'll do just enough to keep the people from trying to overthrow the government.
4 
 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.