Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My biases first: I am a big fan of theme in games and do not mind reaching through piles of chits if the theme and game play is good enough. While I do favor confrontation, chits, bits and polished pieces of AT games, there are still a large number of Euros that I'll build my farm on or attend auctions at and be quite content at the end of my experience. Also, I am a big fan of both 4x games and civilization building games. I'm also a fan of the original 1981 "Clash of the Titans" movie, but not so much of a fan of Culture Club.



The Overview:

The box cover. My favorite bit is the one rider on the elephant pausing during battle
to admire the work that has been done on the wonder to his right.
Photo by W Eric Martin.

Clash of Cultures is a combination 4x/civilization/empire building game that runs somewhere between pre-Bronze Age to pre-Renaissance in the scope of technology advancements. Each player takes the role of a single settlement, each beginning equally and with no starting differences, but ultimately builds it into an empire whose strategies and objectives may differ vastly from his neighbors as there are multiple victory paths as objectives earned from a random hand of cards, research advancements, city sizes, wonders of the world built and random events each offer victory points to a civilization. The game ends after a set number of rounds, and advancements bring players up to a roughly pre-Renaissance era.

The game is for 2-4 players and plays in about 30 minutes per player. Unfamiliar players will slow this total down a bit, but with experienced players, a two-player game can run in an hour and a four-player game will finish in about 2.5 hours. The game is played out on a modular board of unexplored tiles that are flipped and revealed once they are explored, revealing land to be settled and resources available in each tile. Each player also has a player board that has 48 different advancements that can be learned, giving each civilization a wide-range of benefits and effects.

Skip to the next section, "The Theme", if you do not want to read a rules rehash.

The game is deceptively simple, but each action echoes loudly as they push each civilization along a different track and experience. The map is built according to the number of players and tiles are laid out face down to hide what is surrounding each player's start tile. Every player begins with one city and one settler as well as one Objective Card and one Action Card hidden from the other players.

Objective Cards are one of the main ways of scoring points and they can influence how a civilization will grow and what direction a player may move in if he wishes to score them. Objectives range from things such as building the first Wonder of the game, having all 4 Science advances or having at least one size 5 city. Each Objective Card also has a secondary means of scoring them at the bottom of the card which is worth the same amount of points, but generally offers a more militaristic goal, such as capturing another player's city, eliminating at least two Army units in battle against another player or having more Fortresses (city improvements) than other players. This offers an alternative to score points if the top of the card would lead you too far from your current path.

Action Cards give players extra options to perform on their turn and range from things such as gaining an advance as a free action, gaining an extra action during the turn or forcing another player from attacking you until your next turn. Similar to Objective Cards, they have an additional use which is listed on the bottom of each card and are played to affect combat. Cards can only be used like this after the Tactics advancement is learned.

At the end of each round, every player will draw an additional Objective and Action card into their hand, which can manipulate the way a civilization grows as the game unfolds.

Each player also has a player board, which tracks their advancements and the individual resources that they may collect. Food, Ore and Wood are the basic natural resources and can be gathered from tiles under the city or adjacent to it. Gold and Idea are two special resources that can be gained through other means. Idea can be spent as Food to get new advances and Gold can be spent to substitute for any other resource. Finally, Culture and Mood are two other tokens which are usually gained through advances and are used to pay for certain actions and card effects, and the movement of Culture and Mood trackers initiate player Event Cards when certain levels are reached, triggering events, for better or worse, that affect your civilization and have a chance of effecting other players as well.

The game takes place over six Rounds. Each round is broken into three Turns. And in each Turn, every player takes three Actions. A player takes his three Actions and then passes to the next player who then takes his three Actions.

There are six different Actions that a player may take. Each action can be taken in any order and multiple times on a turn.


Some of the player's available advances. Photo by Nobi.

1. Advance: A player can spend two food (or substitute any amount of it with Idea) to learn a new advance. The player marks the advance on his board. Each advance is in a category of 4 similar themed advances (such as the Spirituality category contains the advancements Myths, Rituals, Priesthood and State Religion). You must learn the first advance in a category before you can learn any of the others. However, once the first one is learned, any others in the category may be taken. If an advance has a blue border, it gives you a Culture token and if it has a yellow border, it gives you a Mood token. There are also three Government-based advancement categories, which have an additional prerequisite before you can learn them.

2. Found City: As an action, a player can remove a settler from a non-Barren space that he is in and found a city.

3. Activate City: As an action, the player can activate one of his cities. A city can only be activated once per Turn without the city reacting negatively and becoming unhappy (which affects how much a city can do). When activated, a city can do ONE of the following:
A. Build Units: A city can build any number of units up to its city size, plus one additional unit if the city's mood is "Happy". Settlers cost 2 Food each to build, Armies cost 1 Food and 1 Ore and Ships cost 2 Wood. If a city is "Unhappy" then it can only build one unit, regardless of size.
B. Collect Resources: A city can collect a number of like resources from its surrounding tiles to a maximum of its city size, plus one additional resource if the city's mood is Happy. So, for example, a size 3 city could collect 3 Wood if there were at least three forest tiles adjacent to it.
C. Increase City Size: Advancements allow city-pieces to be built and added onto cities. To increase city size, it costs 1 Food, 1 Ore and 1 Wood. Each added city-piece offers its own special benefits and abilities. An Unhappy city cannot increase its size and a city cannot grow larger than the number of other cities the player has (for example, if you only have 3 cities, then your maximum city size is 3).

4. Move Units: As an action, a player can move up to three groups of units one space each. Ships have special movement rules which are simple and intuitive once they are played. The Navigation advance increases the movement possibilities of ships.

5. Civil Improvement: As an action, a player can spend Mood tokens equal to the size of one of his cities to improve the happiness of that city. If a city is Unhappy, it becomes Neutral. And if it is Neutral, it becomes Happy.

6. Cultural Influence: As an action, one of the player's cities tries to influence a nearby city culturally. The range for this action is equal to the size of the city (so a size 4 city could affect an enemy city 4 spaces away). The player rolls a die and on a 5 or a 6, the influence attempt succeeds and the target enemy city must remove one of its city pieces and it is replaced by the influencing player's piece (for example, replacing the enemy player's Temple and placing your Temple there instead). This does not affect the target city in any way other than end-game scoring as you get 1 VP for each city piece on the board. It is one of the few ways that you can "swing" point scores. Culture tokens can be spent to increase the range or the roll of this action.


Objective Cards have two ways of scoring, the second one being militaristic.
Photo by marqzen.

After three Turns, players then enter the Status Phase, which consists of 5 stages.
1. Each player can score any completed Objectives at this time. Once scored, it does not matter if you later lose the requirement.
2. Each player receives a free advance.
3. Each player draws 1 new Objective Card and 1 new Action Card to add to his hand.
4. Each player may raze 1 of their size 1 cities if they wish.
5. The new First Player is determined. Each player adds their Culture and Happiness Levels and whoever has the highest total decides who will be the Starting Player.

After six rounds, point scores are totaled and a winner is determined.

Combat is simple and basic. When one player's armies moves into a space with another player's armies, combat is resolved. Each player has the option to play one Action Card in combat for its battle effect. And then each player rolls a number of dice equal to the number of Armies he has in the combat and then adds the result. That sum is then divided by 5 and rounded down. That total is the number of hits dealt to the opponent's forces. One hit kills one unit. This is resolved in a similar manner for navies and naval battles.



The Theme:

Clash of Cultures is a difficult game to gauge how well it translates its theme. Unlike games like Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game, each player does not start with a unique civilization. Themes of these games are often judged based on how much Egypt or Russia plays to that nation's stereotypical real world strengths. And games like Twilight Imperium 3 push players in a certain direction of play based upon what their individual races abilities suggest. There the theme ends up really being in how the asymmetrical nationalities or races play and ultimately balance in a full game.

Clash of Cultures ends up being more of a sandbox civilization builder. Everyone starts on equal footing with no player having any strengths or weaknesses or preset strategy laid out before they take their very first action. And, unlike Through the Ages, there is no need to curse if someone takes the Architecture card before you, denying you the ability to grab it yourself. I could, if I wanted, mirror my opponent's actions exactly and only be forced to deviate when it comes to terrain differences as tiles are explored. Wonders offer the only unique aspect of the game as once one is built, it cannot be built by another players.

This is not a bad thing at all, however. Being a longtime Civ player on the computer (I had Sid Meier's original Civilization on my Amiga), there was initially a strange feeling in being a generic civilization. I was so used to playing Germany and instantly knowing that I am geared for a military game or playing the Xxcha Kingdom and knowing I'll be taking a diplomatic route. It made my first game feel strange and almost lacking. However, upon a replay, you understand that there is more depth there and that it is actually quite liberating not to be pigeon-holed into a long-term strategy and instead be able to adapt to circumstances of my surrounding area, card draws and opponent actions.

So, in that case, Clash of Cultures succeeds very well at the theme of being a sandbox civilization game. The fact that the tech "tree" allows you to jump around and pick up stray techs without needing to fulfill long requirements also feels a little strange at first. But in the end, the theme of your civilization is what you make it.



Learning the Game:

Four-player game. Photo by marqzen.

The downside of having such a wide-opened sandbox build is that your early games can feel overwhelming in options. That isn't to say that the game is difficult to learn. It isn't at all. The most complicated portions of the game are probably naval movement and tile exploration rules. Both are actually simple, but are best understood in practice rather than description. So an experienced player helping explain these as the game develops is very helpful.

But if there is one advantage to games that start you with a unique civilization is that it is easy to tell new players how to start by telling them "You are good at techs. You'll probably want to build a lot of techs and focus on research." In Clash of Cultures there are stronger opening games and most players tend to focus on developing a handful of these. But really, there isn't that initial nudge to push someone in any direction and some players might feel overwhelmed.

However, the actual game itself is very easy to learn and the rules are presented exceedingly well. The rules even have bullet points after each pertinent rule to direct the reader's attention to relevant advances to consider how they affect the rules they just read. Learning the game is easy, but understanding the scope of what is out there and what you can do with your opening sandbox isn't as much and inexperienced players can often fall behind the initial curve of more experienced players.

Fortunately the game isn't very unforgiving, so learning players will not necessarily be hindered by waves of barbarians and frustrated by overwhelming setbacks. Instead, they just won't score as well as the experienced players in their first games (and might not know when to knock their neighbor on their ass for getting too far ahead).



The Components:


Game in progress showing tiles, figures and pieces in action. Photo by Nobi.



Player board showing available advances as well as advancements already known
and tracking resources at the top. Photo by squash.




Tokens in the game. Photo by Oldschool99.



Event cards in the game. Photo by marqzen.



Close up of the sculpts. Photo by Oldschool99.



There really is limited artwork throughout the game. This isn't necessarily a negative, but it just lends less to a slightly less robust and flavorful play experience. Instead, I marvel at the efficiency of the design instead of the art of it. The player boards have all of the tech, as well as enough of a summary of each that there is no reason to reach for the rulebook to understand them. Cards are well laid out with everything clear and open that you would be required to know about them available at a glance.

The art on the tiles themselves is perfectly efficient, if just a little bland. But even so, in the end, once cities and armies are out on the board, the world you make still ends up being pleasing to look at.

The mini sculpts are pretty, although they are made of a softer plastic which causes easy bending and a number of them had flash around them. I like the way that cities grow with a clever circular design.

The only issues I have with the components of the game are minor, but notable.

First of all, the sculpts for the ships are annoying. The sails pop out easily. This is easily rectified with a bead of glue with each sail. However, you know that you won't admit it out loud, but deep down inside of the depths of your gaming OCD, you know you don't want to glue your pieces. The instructions don't specifically tell you to glue them. And what if you want to trade the game some day. Do you have to make a note about how you "modified" your game pieces? And will people be unwilling to trade with you thereafter? And since you've then modified your game, do you need to put an asterisk by all of your games played stats from here on in? If Christian Marcussen has any kind of soul whatsoever, he will add in the official FAQ that players should glue their sails onto their ships to reduce the number of gamer aneurisms.

Second, the wonders are little cardboard standees. Yes, I'm glad that I didn't have to pay an addition $10 for the game to get a little plastic Pyramid or get to lay down Agricola style lengths of fence to represent my Great Wall, however, that would have been really neat. The standees are perfectly functional. However, I wonder if there is a subconscious psychological effect of the cardboard and maybe our group would build wonders more often if we could get pretty little pieces next to our cities. But then again, I suppose having a grand plastic Great Statue towering over my city like the Colossus of old might just look pretty enough that it would make my opponents more likely to attack that city. So there's give and take with the cardboard wonders.



Playing the Game:

Wonders are cardboard counters. Photo by Oldschool99.

As I stated, the game is very easy to learn. The sandbox start can feel overwhelming, but once the mechanics are understood from your first play, you start to see how certain advances compliment certain strategies and you begin to see different directions to build from. And, for us, it meant a desire to play again and try something new.

Other than with players who suffer from analysis paralysis, player turns actually move relatively quickly and smoothly and downtime isn't fully felt.

One of the issues with a games like Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game is that it ultimately a race. Players race to complete their civilization's preset victory path. If another player seems to be pushing ahead too much, then the only way to stop him is through military. However, by building up a military to stop the player, you are slowing your engine and allowing the other players an advantage as their engines continue to produce. So if you are going to stop another player, it is best to build a large military and go all out and try to conquer their military, otherwise you are giving the game to the other players. This creates a disjointed tension in the game as people sometimes will argue over who will stop the runaway leader as it is often the non-involved players who will win.

However in Clash of Cultures the race is taken out of it. The game plays to the end and Victory Points are assessed. There is still a military aspect of the game, but I've found that the design of the game allows for a more robust strategy. Objective Cards have a way to score them, but each has an alternative "military" means to score them. This actually encourages every player to have a bit of military. If I draw an Objective Card later in the game that scores if I have more Temples than any other player and my opponent has five temples out to my none, I don't have to completely alter my strategy midway through. Instead, I can try to use my armies to complete the secondary objective.

The other thing that discourages the game from becoming a mindless military smack down is that it is generally pretty easy to see armies coming. Roads and other advances can allow a surprise move here or there, but once you see something coming, it is usually fairly easy to defend against it because combat it relatively predictable. This isn't a bad thing either.

Combat uses dice, but it mitigates luck. You roll one die for each unit and add the results. This sum is divided by five and rounded down. That is the number of hits you inflict. Each hit destroys one unit. The beauty of this system is that if I needed a 5 to hit and were to attack with 4 armies and roll four 4's, I would get no hits and be very annoyed at my dice, however, using this system, I would get a total of 16 and divide that by 5 and get 3 hits and I would be very happy. Sure, dice can still roll terrible and it would have an impact. But what ends up happening is that larger armies tend to win fights, as they should. Also, bringing more armies is important because every unit contributes. I don't need to scorn the unit that rolls a two because it "missed". Instead, that 2 might just push my total over to get me another hit.

So with secondary military Objectives available to all and combat being predictable, it turns out that most people have a reason to build at least a nominal military. As a result, its less likely that someone will be caught completely undefended... just maybe out of position.

Also, another factor is that while city pieces on the board at the end of the game scores you points, if you scored an Objective it remains out and scored. So if I scored my Objective of having six cities, it doesn't matter (for the purposes of that card) if my opponents later show up and sacks a couple of my cities, I don't lose the points if I already scored it.

Military strategies are still there, but they are not completely dominant, which is good.



Scalability:

The game plays from 2-4 players. However, it plays best with 3 or 4. Two player games are still fun, however, I've found that they tend have much less interaction. With only two players, if each player takes a strategy of building up, they may never encounter one another or interact at all. Conversely, if one player takes a full military strategy, there is no "other player buffer" and it forces the game to become an arms race. There are games that fall into the middle with moderate interaction, but with only two players, you are more likely to experience the extremes.

However, the nice part of two player games is finishing them in an hour.

Ultimately I think the sweet spot is three players. This isn't because of downtime (which isn't that bad in four-player games), but rather because everyone is equidistant from one another in a three-player game. Four player games end up with player "pairs" being close neighbors with the others on the opposite side of the map. This can sometimes cause some issues where you may be lucky by having a passive neighbor or having to adjust to a conquesting neighbor. The four-player maps have slow mountain movement hexes to limit quick neighbor interactions, but I am still surprised that there wasn't an attempt to build with a little more distance between all players.



Does the Wife Like It?:

The most important category. I play games without her, but she's an integral part of my core gaming group and my most frequent game partner. She's actually a fan of civilization building games and was a big fan of Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game. I think, however, that she has a bit of a preference for Clash of Cultures now. The fact that the game is streamlined and doesn't feel as mathy or brain-burning as SMC:tBG gives it a lot of appeal. There is something to be said for the flash of color and appeal of the prettiness of SMC:tBG, but in the end, I think that the smooth and elegant mechanics ends up being a more appealing game experience for her. The other thing that pushes this game in her favor is that it is easily played with just two-players with less wonky and ultimately unbalancing issues than SMC:tBG as a two-player game, so we can play it together over an evening without eating up our entire night.



The Pros:

*Sandbox civilization creation.
*Multiple paths for victory allows repeated play with completely different strategies.
*Simple combat system is intuitive and doesn't overwhelm the game.
*Avoids the race to a preset end game win condition.
*Simple game mechanics that offer complex decisions.
*Great, organized, well-laid out and clear rulebook.
*Very efficient design for all game elements.
*Randomness in game is mitigated (you can prepare and protect yourself from certain events triggering and dice are totaled to determine hits, reducing effect of poor rolls).
*Short play time for the depth of game.


The Cons:

*Non-unique civilizations can be intimidating at first as there is no guidance in any victory direction (other than Objective cards).
*Efficient design, but it could be "prettied" up a bit with artwork and better sculpts.
*Two-player games can be a little wonky on amount of interaction.
*Four-player set up has pairs of players a little close, setting up advantages or disadvantages based solely on your neighbor.
*No five or six player support. Unfortunately an expansion adding these will most likely be included with extra bloat to justify the expansion.
*Game offers an official variant to allow players to avoid drawing Event cards instead of forcing players to suck it up and realize that sometimes things will happen in a game, or even life, that will be unplanned and we should each best prepare to mitigate for unforeseen circumstances. As a result, the game is inadvertently enabling a culture of dice-fearing spreadsheet builders who cannot pick up a penny they find on the street because it would mess up their exact calculations of how they planned on spending the money in their wallet who will eventually become bubble-gamers and will break down if someone takes a card they needed and "ruins their entire strategy".



Overall:

Clash of Cultures is a wonderful civilization building 4x game. Unlike games with unique races or leaders, CoC offers a real sandbox building style that may be intimidating to new players, but experienced players will find that it is actually very refreshing at not being handheld and lead along a singular path to victory. The game is simple in mechanics, but very complex in depth and weight of decisions. This game has replaced Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game as the go to medium weight civilization building game, beating it in both length of time and depth and openness of play without feeling unwieldy or bloated with unnecessary rules or math. It doesn't quite compare with Through the Ages because TtA's abstractions and playstyle feels like a completely different type of game. However CoC will find its way to the table much more often because of the quick playtime. Clash of Cultures truly is a genius, streamlined civilization building game that feels complete and full with a shorter playtime.








Edits: Formatting and clarity.
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kvothe Arliden
Germany
flag msg tools
mb
Thanks for the review, makes me want the game even more!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sky Zero
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review. Clash of Cultures is the only game I've scored a 10 in my collection. I like your point about luck mitigation at the end as well. Nothing deters me more from gaming with someone then a person who can't deal with mitigating luck. It's called a GAME for a reason...not a math equation.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shinners
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
You had me at:

thinwhiteduke wrote:
I'm also a fan of the original 1981 "Clash of the Titans" movie, but not so much of a fan of Culture Club.
Then won me at:

Quote:

As a result, the game is inadvertently enabling a culture of dice-fearing spreadsheet builders who cannot pick up a penny they find on the street because it would mess up their exact calculations of how they planned on spending the money in their wallet
I've been enjoying (and agreeing with) many of your reviews, so keep them coming!
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Kayati
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brilliant review!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hey, I've created a video channel! Hover over my avatar to get more info! :) - Josh -
Canada
Cambridge
Ontario
flag msg tools
My video channel has a Facebook page - Find it by searching "Josh Yaks page" on Facebook
badge
Find my video channel on YouTube as "Josh Yaks"!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent review!

I've been working on a detailed review over the last week, and I fear that it's going to end up repeating a lot of what you've just stated... whistle
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Cornell
United States
Corunna
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Stikfas Animate Better Than Legos!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thinwhiteduke wrote:
I'm also a fan of the original 1981 "Clash of the Titans" movie, but not so much of a fan of Culture Club.
My thumbs up is for this sentence alone!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruno Freitas
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The good point in seeing lots of reviews is the fact that lots of people just love this game, and want to "convince" others to do so.

I'm really happy with my copy!

I'll be playing many "solo" games this weekend!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
squash wrote:
Excellent review!

I've been working on a detailed review over the last week, and I fear that it's going to end up repeating a lot of what you've just stated... whistle

Glad I beat you to it then.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moe45673
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Great review! If I was sick of Through the Ages, I'd definitely pick this up. Being that I've not played it nearly enough, I'm resisting.

But the tugging.... oh the tugging. It appears this is THE go-to "Civ on a map" game for most gamers (those that like games that aren't too brain-burny)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Moe45673 wrote:
Great review! If I was sick of Through the Ages, I'd definitely pick this up. Being that I've not played it nearly enough, I'm resisting.

But the tugging.... oh the tugging. It appears this is THE go-to "Civ on a map" game for most gamers (those that like games that aren't too brain-burny)

I really love Through the Ages, but the primary reason why it doesn't reach the table often enough for us is because of the time commitment needed for it.

However, the two games are very difficult to really compare. While they are similar in theme, they really play completely different. I don't mind the abstract mapless form of TtA because the abstraction really still makes thematic sence. I'm not blocking another player from learning Agriculture by taking the card before they have it, but rather I am claiming the fertile land before they can inhabit it, and so on.

Clash of Cultures, however, presents less abstraction and a different kind of brain use. Rarely am I calculating out exact resource builds and needs to complete my plan in CoC. Instead, I am focused more on what plan to implement. I find that my brain burns less from trying to decide which strategy to use and mapping out a route for it rather than having to calculate and continually add resources and math out their most efficient expenditure.

TtA is still among one of my favorites and one of my group's favorites, but I just don't see it reaching the table enough for me.

I definitely agree that as far as "mapped" Civ games, this is the one to beat presently.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Auger
England
Manningtree
Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review.

Now I just need Z-Man to pull their fingers out and get it released in the UK and I will be a happy bunny!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Wand
United States
Chesterfield
MO
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, very excellent review and summary. This helped me make this a "must buy" from a "want to buy".

It was helpful how you contrasted it with Civilization, since I am researching both games currently to buy one of them to try with my group. Your "wife category" was very helpful because you gave a context in which to judge the gameplay - not fiddly, simple turns, low downtime - etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Lingwall
United States
Kirksville
MO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review. The consensus in my group seems to be that this is slightly (to much) better than Sid Meier's. It's becoming one of my favorites.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristoff Bergenholm
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The actual 'plastic' pieces are really the worst that I've ever come across. Too soft and squishy, and my boats were full of holes on the bottom where the material was too thin to compensate for the mast holes.

The city pieces were okay, but lots of flash left on them, and while one side of the Fortress was neat and crisp, the opposite side seemed rather flat.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magentawolf wrote:
The actual 'plastic' pieces are really the worst that I've ever come across. Too soft and squishy, and my boats were full of holes on the bottom where the material was too thin to compensate for the mast holes.

The city pieces were okay, but lots of flash left on them, and while one side of the Fortress was neat and crisp, the opposite side seemed rather flat.

My pieces weren't that bad. Apart from the "leaning" Settler or Army, our figures aren't too bad. The masts do not stay in the holes, which is why I will be gluing them in. The flash on the city pieces was bad as well for me, but nothing too earth-shatteringly bad. All of the pieces were still usable, but could stand me grabbing clippers to clean them up a bit. Overall, out of the box, everything was usable and nothing detracted from use or gameplay. However, I definitely think that as far as molded plastic pieces go, these are on the low middle end of quality at best.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Kayati
United States
Worthington
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I must have gotten an early run of the plastic pieces, because I has next to no flash on any of my pieces. Just a very small amount on the bottom of my ships, easily scraped off with an exacto knife.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glen Graham
United States
Carmichael
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's the mark of a good review:

I'm ordering the game today after reading it.

Thanks!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugh Grotius
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent review. I haven't had any problem with flash or jaggies on my plastic pieces. My only complaint is that they're a bit garish, with bright monochromatic yellow and red and blue. I suppose I could paint them myself, but knowing me, I won't. My kid's complaint is that he think it's dull there's only one type of land (army) unit, but that doesn't bother me.

I probably enjoy Through the Ages a tad more, but it takes so long, and it's such a brain-burner, that I can never persuade anyone to play it. CoC is much faster and has wider appeal, and it's got plenty of depth in its own right, plus a nicely-made map. I especially like the important role that water and ships play in the game. This alone makes me much more fond of this game than the recent Sid Meier Civ boardgame.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Grotius wrote:
Excellent review. I haven't had any problem with flash or jaggies on my plastic pieces. My only complaint is that they're a bit garish, with bright monochromatic yellow and red and blue. I suppose I could paint them myself, but knowing me, I won't. My kid's complaint is that he think it's dull there's only one type of land (army) unit, but that doesn't bother me.
I also don't mind that there is just one land unit. It stops the game from being a race for the stronger military might by tech. Sure, Steel Weapons is nice, but it is easily countered. But with a variety of units with different strengths, you push more toward the military game because as one player gets better units, other players need to respond to hold off his conquering. I like the fact that everyone remains roughly similar in strength and one person's military build up does not mean that every other player must suddenly start learning a military tech tree to defend themselves.



Grotius wrote:
I probably enjoy Through the Ages a tad more, but it takes so long, and it's such a brain-burner, that I can never persuade anyone to play it. CoC is much faster and has wider appeal, and it's got plenty of depth in its own right, plus a nicely-made map. I especially like the important role that water and ships play in the game. This alone makes me much more fond of this game than the recent Sid Meier Civ boardgame.
I think that this game is also the SMCiv killer for us as well. As much as I liked Civ initially, it eventually fell out of favor in our group and only recently had a resurgence with the expansion added to it. Now, I think I was the least enthused about playing it. I still liked it and enjoyed it, but I started to notice the trend that would pop up. Too often some little oddity would suddenly unbalanced the game. The right Great Person drawn at the right time or good draws from the Culture Card holders ended up throwing the game out of whack. When the game worked right, it was great. But it is too often unreliable and certain civilizations have a marked advantage in their race than others. I'm still fond of the game because it is fun and entertaining, but I think everyone in my group has agreed that this will be our go to game over SMCiv now. It just offers the same thing at a shorter time with a more stable framework.

I still don't think I can compare it to TtA though. The games each scratch a very different itch. However, as you stated, the accessibility of CoC as well as the length of time in play will ensure that this will make it to the table much more often. As it is, TtA still sits on my "favorites" game shelf, but only makes it out when everyone is in a mindset to play it and we have the whole day to game... which isn't that often. This is compared to CoC which made it to the table five times last weekend.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
petercox wrote:
I'm still a bigger fan Sid Meir's Civ personally. I like the stream lining of CoC, but there's an expansiveness to Sid Meir's that gives it a more epic feel, and sense of 'personality' to each civilisation every time I play it that CoC kinda lacks. Yeah, you can personalise things, but the options are relatively limited. Some people may find that expansiveness comes at the expense of being a bit fiddly, fair enough. Personally I find it well worth it.

I'd agree to an extent that there's also some randomness with culture card draws and great people and military card draws, but I personally find the randomness of CoC's dice combat a lot more in your face with its randomness and at least as equally game defining (and more overt about it).

Sid Meir's sucks as 2 player tho.

I definitely agree with the culture shock (heh. See what I did there?) of playing a civ game without a unique nation/leader/race. And part of me really misses that. However, despite really liking SMCiv:tBG, I started to sour a bit on it in our last few plays because of the singular path that each nation was set to follow. Since it is a race, you have one (possibly two) paths to victory and you are really hindered if you deviate from it at all. I find the engines in CoC are more flexible. If someone is at my doorstep with armies in CoC, I feel that I can still respond (or give up the city) without it having as big of an impact on my engine than in SMCiv:tBG.

However, what I will give SMCiv:tBG is that the brightness of the pieces and tiles and the art throughout really makes the game more fun to stare at for four hours than CoC. It just... is a bit dreary and could be prettied up. This doesn't impact on gameplay one iota. However, I find that staring at a built Civ map is much more pleasing to be looking at.

And I don't mind fiddliness in a game. But I definitely think the randomness in SMCiv:tBG ends up being more of an impact that combat in CoC. CoC mitigates the luck of the die roll and makes more units beneficial, even if you roll bad. The problem with SMCiv:tBG ends up being the cards (especially the Great Leaders from the expansion) are too varied in effect and usefulness. I could go heavy culture and every Great Person I draw along the track could be completely useless. But further, there still is randomness in Civ's combat, depending on the card draws from your hand when you fight. You may end up with all your Infantry in your hand while your opponent drew a ton of Archers. Sure, you can mitigate against that randomness with more careful buys and killing off specific units intentionally in battle, but it just shows that both systems have randomness and it can be worked around to an extent.

And I still am a fan of Sid Meier's Civilization: the Board Game. But I think Clash of Cultures just happened to come about during the wane of SMCiv's resurgence in our group. The last few SMCiv games felt a little disappointing to me, even the one I won (it was a lucky, runaway win and there was very little that could be done to stop me). So for us, CoC is currently sitting pretty, though I do not wish to bash Civ, as we probably would have played it the other weekend if we didn't have CoC.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Doupe
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thinwhiteduke wrote:


I also don't mind that there is just one land unit. It stops the game from being a race for the stronger military might by tech. Sure, Steel Weapons is nice, but it is easily countered. But with a variety of units with different strengths, you push more toward the military game because as one player gets better units, other players need to respond to hold off his conquering. I like the fact that everyone remains roughly similar in strength and one person's military build up does not mean that every other player must suddenly start learning a military tech tree to defend themselves.
Agreed. The relentless pursuit of better weaponry is what makes Eclipse more of a wargame than CoC. The latter game has more genuine paths to victory, and so is a more well-rounded civ game.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Simon
United States
Ashley
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
petercox wrote:

You make some good points. I will agree with you that you do feel set up on a path to victory with the different Civs. We draw them randomly, so in some ways I like having a forced variation in my play style otherwise I suspect I would end up playing the same way too often Some Civs are good with playing a coupe of different ways eg China, some less so eg Russia. I do like how the expansion gives the coin research advances which I think give a lot more flexibility in development.
Actually, that's a fair point as well. We draw random Civs and we have to try new strategies as a result. Right now CoC is still fairly new and we are still exploring and refining opening strategies. But maybe after a few more plays, maybe we will each start to settle on a favorite opening or two.


petercox wrote:

I really have to agree with you completely on the great person cards though. They are terribly swingy, and I despise the 'take that' style of play with them. They're optional luckily, and I leave them out of the game.
Yeah, they're optional and we should probably stop using them as well. However, I always feel a little weird about making choices like that. For example, were the Greeks balanced based on the idea that they could choose between cards? Are we "weakening" them by removing the card option? I usually try to put my faith in the fact that games are playtested well enough that they may see more of the big picture than I do and we need to break our groupthink.

But then again, this is a FFG I'm talking about and having faith in their playtesting...


petercox wrote:

About the randomness, I agree with some things, and not others. I find the army cards in Civ a bit more cumbersome than the dice for CoC but I do feel more of a sense of control. If I have a lowish Civ card at least I know it in advance and can play accordingly. With the dice it just feels too overtly random. It's possible that this is all just psychological, but a bad dice roll at a critical moment can make the game feel like 'all luck'. The same can be said for the cards also, but there's something about the dice rolling that - to me - feels more overtly random (I guess because it's so immediate and quantifiable compared to cards). It's a case of perception to an extent (over the course of a game, you'd hope the dice rolls would 'even out' through law of percentages, and so would good or bad culture cards, for example).

I will say that at least with a bad stream of cards, you can still bluff out what you have, and try to time out the play of your cards to take advantage of what you have or don't have. I guess because I know in advance what I do or don't have, I feel that I can mitigate my luck.
Heh. That's a good point too. For me, it might seem easier to mitigate dice luck in CoC because it's quick to "math out" what percentage of hits you should be getting in any roll.


petercox wrote:

I've never been super fond of dice combat though, so I guess it's personal taste to an extent.

Good discussion tho
Agreed. Good discussion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruno Gaia
France
Asnières
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Being a Geek is a sure sign of a sound mind, cause it means you think that life as it is is dull and should be more interesting. Which it is.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with your review.

There's something that needs to be pointed at too: setting/unsetting time never seen before for a game this length!

I think CoC has the best setting/unsetting time per playing time rate I've ever seen in a game, hands down.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arthur Rutyna
United States
Plymouth
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the GREAT review! You described the pros and cons, especially as compared to SMC: TBG, really well. Greatly helps when trying to decide which one to purchase.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |