Board Game Thread 4e: The Call of Catan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Thread 4e: The Call of Catan

al-azad: May 28, 2009

Panzeh posted:

Most factions cannot score objectives if they don't control their homeworld. One can.

Specifically public objectives. You can score secret objectives. Technically there is player elimination but the limitation of movement coupled with the high cost of building new units makes it seem highly unlikely unless every other player conspires against you (and again, this is a game about scoring points and fighting rarely scores points). However I got a little scared at one point when the Ghosts managed to drop a wormhole in my backyard. Thankfully they were busy elsewhere and I used it to my own advantage.

FulsomFrank posted:

Was this your first time playing TI period, or just fourth edition? If not I was going to ask if you noticed the differences between the third and fourth editions. Everything I've seen about the changes so far has made me pretty interested.

EDIT: Has anyone got to try the new Civilization game yet? It seems really reasonably priced and I was hoping we might finally have a decent non 14 hour civ experience.

First time period so I can't comment on the changes.

Chill la Chill posted:

I think it was you who had space empires 4x and suggested it to me a while back, but can use the counters for that pretty well with TI4? If it's more objectives-based like forbidden stars and I could cut out the minis crap and replace them with a superior fog of war version, I'd probably get it at some point. I was going to get it during my store's black friday sales but seeing how CSI/MM both oodles in stock, they'll probably have it on sale for $80 or so at some point anyway. I picked up Through the Desert instead

I wouldn't bother with fog of war. The game has restrictions on fleet size but infantry and fighters don't count as long as another unit can carry them. So if your fleet size is 3 and you're coming at me with a stack of 6 counters it defeats the purpose. Also Space Empires uses hidden technology when all of the technological upgrades are visible. But the big thing is that Space Empires, being an actual wargame, focuses on ships that do different things while TI4 you have a ship that's good at fighting, a ship that's good at moving, a ship that carries dudes, and a super ship that does something funny.

So it doesn't benefit from FOW at all. You could go through the effort of making 350+ counters but the rainbow minis are what cuts through the chaos of a sea of cardboard. The ships have a distinct silhouette, infantry are unmistakable (very smart making them flags), and they're garishly colored making it easy for me to look across the room and go "oh, you have two cruisers, a carrier, and four infantry in that spot." If it were chits I would have to carefully inspect each one, it would actually eat up more time.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 17:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 09:23

lockdar: Jul 7, 2008

FulsomFrank posted:

Was this your first time playing TI period, or just fourth edition? If not I was going to ask if you noticed the differences between the third and fourth editions. Everything I've seen about the changes so far has made me pretty interested.

EDIT: Has anyone got to try the new Civilization game yet? It seems really reasonably priced and I was hoping we might finally have a decent non 14 hour civ experience.

I played the new CIV game at Spiel and it was pretty cool. Everyone starts out with the same actions but in a different order. This combined with the way you assign strength to those actions is really well done and elegant. We played for about an hour and were sad we had to stop.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 17:38

adebisi lives: Nov 11, 2009

I set up a camelcamelcamel alert on all of the valley of the kings games after the feedback I got here about good deckbuilding games . Yesterday the price of the afterlife set dropped down to 10 bucks so soon I'll get to check it out and see how much more wifey and I like it over star realms.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 17:47

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

Lichtenstein posted:

I'm of a strong opinion alpha gaming is a natural result of skill disproportion among the players: were the game at the table competitive, the very same dude would be the one knocking out his turns in 10 seconds, as he had plenty of time to analyze the board while the others were pondering on their turn. While it is a negative experience and some safeguards are welcome to lessen it, getting mad at alpha gaming is just as silly as getting mad at better players beating you at a competitive game.

I think a big mistake in 'fixing' the problem lies in assumption of guilt - like, some games are clearly more AP-prone than others, but in the end it takes a certain mindset to fall down the AP rabbit hole. Most proposals on fixing alpha gaming - limited information, limited communication, time pressure - are planned as sticks to be thrown in between the gears of this supposed inescapable desire to dominate the table.

The real answer, I think, is very simpl: the abovementioned solutions don't work because they straightjacket the ability to alpha game per se, but rather touch the core problem at hand - they reduce one's ability to figure out the optimal solution alone, hence eliminating the very need to boss others around.

Tekopo almost touched on my favorite argument for that, but kinda missed the point: have you noticed how way less prone to alpha gaming are the games where everyone has their own little deck to manage? I mean, something a step above the simple hand management of Pandemic, something where you have to think, at least occassionally, about what's left in your deck or what's stuck in the discard. loving Sentinels of the Multiverse probably count here.

The thing is, having that as a mechanic doesn't really prevent anyone from alpha gaming, counting cards in everyone's discard pile and so on. However, to do so would require one to explicitly give a gently caress, consciously committing to maintaining their perfect control over the table. Which doesn't really happen - player capabilities are just muddied enough the veteran player cannot solve the board state at a glance and what actually occurs in practice is the dominant player asks a few questions every once in a while to check his estimated grasp on the current (tactical) situation, or perhaps a few strategic considerations (particular, key cards).

Notice, this is pretty much what Tekopo described in the 'Character Assymetry' section: he wasn't really talking about asymmetry, as understood by each player having starkly different, complementary capabilities. Hell, Pandemic or Ghost Stories, or really probably most co-ops out there have character assymetry, which doesn't do poo poo to mitigate alpha-gameness. The thing is, in Ghost Stories et al, the particulars of said asymmetry are clear to everyone and therefore don't change the ease to compute the board state: it's just more cogs the veteran player can easily spin around in his head. Conversely, each and every example in this section touches the real core aspect: in each of these games, players are toying with their own little decks, making tracking the exact availability of everyone's capabilities (regardless of their uniqueness) difficult, unless you really care.

I do agree with you, but I still think it is a problem. The problem is that in competitive gaming, there isn't an issue to play at the best of your abilities, but with co-ops, why bother playing them with more than one person if you are going to take over other player's turn anyways? I do honestly think that, as an alpha gamer, it falls down on the game to prevent creating situations that can be classed as multiplayer solitaire, and I think that it is important for alpha gamer's to acknowledge that their negative play can affect how others play. It's why I gravitate towards game that lessen that impact. I think it's important for alpha gamers to acknowledge this, much like APers should avoid games that cause issues with AP.

Honestly I think you are trying to say the exact same thing I'm saying in different words. To me, straightjacking the ability to alpha game and preventing the ability of someone to boss other people around because they are unable to figure out the optimal solution is the same thing. But I got a step up and acknowledge that alpha gaming is an issue, and that it isn't the same thing than getting mad at competitive games. Arguments against competitive gamers are different to me because you aren't winning or losing together, and you aren't preventing them from making their own choices within the context of the game. This is different than literally playing a game for someone else, preventing them from making choices and claiming it is for the greater good. It's the difference between preventing someone from playing, and preventing someone from winning: they aren't equivalent.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 17:50

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

I do think the situation in competitive gaming is kind of analogous for casual play - not meeting with other Final Destination crowd to savor the fine-tuned gameplay, but just playing a non-coop with someone (just as we're really talking about casual co-op play - I don't think anyone at tryhard tournament-y events, like the co-op LCGs have ever complained about alpha gaming).

I mean, if you're playing a competitive game with a friend from a position of major advantage and repeatedly trashing them 95% of the time, they'll have a pretty miserable experience and will soon want to change the game. This is both a real problem and kind of what you'd expect from a competitive game by definition. Therefore, while it's really a problem with the player dynamic, most games (sans the most tryhard ones) do try to add some solutions to smooth it out - be it catchup mechanics, rubberbanding, handicaps, introducing luck or whatnot. One could say the problem of skill disproportion is less noticeable in competitive games, because there's really not that lot of them that don't acknowledge it to some degree. On the other hand, there's a shitload of perfect information or essentially-perfect-information, math puzzle co-ops.

These are oftentimes very welcome additions, but they're never supposed to really combat the fact of the better man winning. And this is how I believe we should treat the alpha gaming problem, which is why I find its villifying frustrating - as this imaginary game of carboard cops and robbers diverts from dealing with the actual unfun dynamic.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 18:15

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

But I don't think it's as cut or dry for competitive games. I'm good at games but there are friends of mine that will regularly beat me at whatever game we play, and I still find those sort of games enjoyable because I feel like I'm learning, interacting with the games and still making decisions (good or bad). I'm the sort of person that could lose 95% of the times and still not have a miserable experience if I think I have the ability to get better at the game. It really depends on what kind of player you are playing with when it comes to competitive games.

The thing that I'm complaining against isn't someone being miserable in a game for any reason: what I'm complaining against is taking away the freedom of choice and being antagonistic to someone that is on your same side. It's not just a matter of disproportionate skill level in that case. When I'm playing a competitive game, hindering others within the extent of the rules is within the contract of the game. For cooperative games, that isn't the case.

Largely I agree with you: better designed games are better at being co-ops because they create situations in which you don't need to micro-manage everything to win, and I actually made that point (jokingly) in my article. But it cannot be denied that if you do play a game that is prone to alpha-gaming effects, you are in the wrong if you attempt to remove choice from other players, much more so than the example of a competitive gamer trying to win a game. The two just aren't equivalent to me because of the factor of choice (or lack thereof).

# ? Nov 28, 2017 18:33

Chill la Chill: Jul 2, 2007; Don't lose your gay

Lichtenstein posted:

I'm of a strong opinion alpha gaming is a natural result of skill disproportion among the players: were the game at the table competitive, the very same dude would be the one knocking out his turns in 10 seconds, as he had plenty of time to analyze the board while the others were pondering on their turn. While it is a negative experience and some safeguards are welcome to lessen it, getting mad at alpha gaming is just as silly as getting mad at better players beating you at a competitive game.

Disagree. The person who constantly alpha games in my group is one of the more mediocre players when we play competitive events. It's just that he happens to have the desire to think out loud for coop play and it actually gets in the way of useful play. Of course, when playing competitively, it doesn't become a problem because you shut the gently caress up if you don't want to tell everyone your plans.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 20:19

Mayveena: Dec 27, 2006; People keep vandalizing my ID photo; I've lodged a complaint with HR

Tekopo posted:

But I don't think it's as cut or dry for competitive games. I'm good at games but there are friends of mine that will regularly beat me at whatever game we play, and I still find those sort of games enjoyable because I feel like I'm learning, interacting with the games and still making decisions (good or bad). I'm the sort of person that could lose 95% of the times and still not have a miserable experience if I think I have the ability to get better at the game. It really depends on what kind of player you are playing with when it comes to competitive games.

I DO lose 95% of the time (I play with a super efficient optimizer type) and I still enjoy the experience!!! And occasionally I even do better next time

# ? Nov 28, 2017 20:47

golden bubble: Jun 3, 2011; yospos

adebisi lives posted:

I set up a camelcamelcamel alert on all of the valley of the kings games after the feedback I got here about good deckbuilding games . Yesterday the price of the afterlife set dropped down to 10 bucks so soon I'll get to check it out and see how much more wifey and I like it over star realms.

Here are some things you may want to note about Valley of the Kings. It is less luck-based than Star Realms. Even the official star realms website admits the best players can only manage a bit over a 60% win rate against low-ELO players. It also takes longer to play through. The cards have more text, and there are more decisions from turn to turn. In the star realms strategy guide (http://www.starrealms.com/guest-blogpost-the-star-realms-plateau/), hate-drafting and doing something more than just play all the cards in your hand don't matter until medium-high-ELO. But they are present from the very beginning in Valley of the Kings. Finally, Valley of the Kings does not snowball as hard as star realms, but it is more obvious when the snowball occurs. Since the giant deck is split in Valley of the Kings, a player can't luck into a 6+ cost card on their second shuffle and snowball to victory from there. But watching someone get down to a five card deck of extremely powerful cards to win is more obvious than someone being carried by a turn three Battlecruiser buy, or god-forbid a turn two Recycling Station buy.

golden bubble fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 28, 2017

# ? Nov 28, 2017 21:02

al-azad: May 28, 2009

Thinking more on Twilight Imperium: the core game is pretty average at best but what makes it really stand above basically every game I've played is how the game rules tie directly into table talk.

Most board games have a cut and dry approach to interaction. Deals are non-binding, you can't share resources, at most you can discuss your future movements and come to some agreement. COIN games take it a step further by having players interact through different actions, but even in monster wargames like Here I Stand the best you can offer a player is a card.

But TI is built entirely on these interactions. The commodities is a brilliant concept. Everyone can acquire a pool of exports, by themselves useless, but when traded with your neighbor they become free money. This encourages being close to the other players. Everyone has a different commodities pool so you want to be friendly with the guy who can give you a lot of resources. Tying into the strategic actions, this encourages drafting the trade card which lets you give other players commodities without paying precious strategic actions.

But the promissory cards are truly standout. I hate non-binding agreements in board games, hate it hate it hate it. Nobody makes a deal with an opponent without it being written. There are no promises in politics that aren't signed and witnessed. Entire conflicts have been started because people in power break the rules that hold our fragile societies in order!

So promissory notes are basically bound contracts you can offer. They're all hard rules and the factions have unique ones like the Nekro Virus can basically give a player immunity to their ability. The agenda phase is already the most interesting portion of the game, but all these extra layers really elevate it from being an average dudes-on-a-map game.

If players can't accept this, Twilight Imperium falls apart completely. People point to this game as prime Ameritrash but I can't agree on anything but aesthetics, there's too much politicking. If you play TI as Risk or Axis & Allies in space you will have a bad time. Try to play the game as a standard Euro with your nose in your player board, unwilling to look another player in the eye, and you're going to have a bad time.

Twilight Imperium is an intimate game, one that I understand how the Shut Up and Sit Down guys are all over. Without the table talk it's just a box full of cheap plastic. I want to see these ideas explored in a different genre, from a more conservative publisher, but its FFG audaciousness is precisely why I can get this to the table.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 21:56

jmzero: Jul 24, 2007

Tekopo posted:

I wrote an article about alpha-gamers and co-op games that try to avoid that particular problem, check it out

That was really well done. Super solid.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 22:03

rydiafan: Mar 17, 2009

CommonShore posted:

Whenever I play TI I completely ignore points and do a military buildup and burn the home planet of whoever sleights me first.

Stu: "But CommonShore, you have no points at the end of the game."
CS: "Yes, Stu, but the surface of your home planet has been turned into uninhabitable glass. You should have thought twice before placing that Asteroid field during game setup."

Which is exactly the style of gameplay that ruins large scale 4X games and gives things like TI a bad rep.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 22:13

SettingSun: Aug 10, 2013

No matter what game you're playing, not playing to win or worse playing to make others lose leads to a bad game for the whole table. TI is especially vulnerable to this.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 22:22

misguided rage: Jun 15, 2010; God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title

Tekopo posted:

I wrote an article about alpha-gamers and co-op games that try to avoid that particular problem, check it out

Good read. For Gloomhaven in particular the personal quests and battle goals go a long way to preventing one player from taking control, without it you just have the pandemic non-solution of hiding your cards. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it's imperative that the Scoundrel attacks the archer and tanks a hit from the guard on their next turn, but that doesn't do you any good when they flip over their cards and are actually loving off into the corner to pick up some loot. Gotta get that checkmark.

BSG does the same sort of thing, although obviously to a larger degree. Same with Dead of Winter, which I know a lot of people here don't like, but I enjoy it well enough as a low-stress zombie murder simulator. I don't like the traitor mechanic at all but having personal goals that cause you to go against the team every now and then is a neat thing.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 22:24

Bombadilillo: Feb 28, 2009; The dock really fucks a case or nerfing it.

misguided rage posted:

Good read. For Gloomhaven in particular the personal quests and battle goals go a long way to preventing one player from taking control, without it you just have the pandemic non-solution of hiding your cards. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it's imperative that the Scoundrel attacks the archer and tanks a hit from the guard on their next turn, but that doesn't do you any good when they flip over their cards and are actually loving off into the corner to pick up some loot. Gotta get that checkmark.

BSG does the same sort of thing, although obviously to a larger degree. Same with Dead of Winter, which I know a lot of people here don't like, but I enjoy it well enough as a low-stress zombie murder simulator. I don't like the traitor mechanic at all but having personal goals that cause you to go against the team every now and then is a neat thing.

# ? Nov 28, 2017 22:54

UrbanLabyrinth: Jan 28, 2009; When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence; College Slice

Bombadilillo posted:

Of course, IIRC you only get the checkmark if you win the scenario...

# ? Nov 29, 2017 00:21

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

CommonShore posted:

Whenever I play TI I completely ignore points and do a military buildup and burn the home planet of whoever sleights me first.

Stu: "But CommonShore, you have no points at the end of the game."
CS: "Yes, Stu, but the surface of your home planet has been turned into uninhabitable glass. You should have thought twice before placing that Asteroid field during game setup."

You're a monster.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 00:30

CommonShore: Jun 6, 2014; A true renaissance man

Trust me. Stu deserves it.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 00:34

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Now that I have tabletop simulator I thought it would be my chance to play the classic Republic of Rome, but I now know that the rulebook is over fifty grim pages long. Anybody know if this is worth learning in our modern age?

# ? Nov 29, 2017 00:49

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

My favorite in these types of games are the people who ignore your warnings not to gently caress with you and then get pissy when you dare to spend your remaining resources devastating then.

Sorry, if you did not want me to focus on you and destroy your chance to win, you should not have ignored my very clear warning that this is exactly what I would do.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:31

Orange DeviI: Nov 9, 2011; by Hand Knit

that's politics for you

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:40

Dancer: May 23, 2011

I guess this is a thing that Diplomacy has contributed to the world, for better or worse. People in the online diplo world seem to accept the idea of cross-game reputation and politics, where you also play the you're in. Choosing one player that you really hate and sacrificing your victory to block them would be weird in, say, Machi Koro, but I feel that games such as TI, GoT can be played in a way that embraces this.

I guess it's important to figure out, as a group, how you want to play them; maybe in some groups people would be terribly offended if, when you're basically out of the game, you stop "playing to win" and start playing to kill whoever beat you, but in other groups that's just part of the game.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:41

Bombadilillo: Feb 28, 2009; The dock really fucks a case or nerfing it.

UrbanLabyrinth posted:

Of course, IIRC you only get the checkmark if you win the scenario...

You don't have to be the one that does it though. Their fine over there. Gotta get that gold over here. :sax:

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:49

OgreNoah: Nov 18, 2003

UrbanLabyrinth posted:

Of course, IIRC you only get the checkmark if you win the scenario...

We completely ignore the rule about not telling people what your special objective is. It cuts down on "why is Nick taking all of the money that bastard" and having to explain really poor gameplay choices in the name of your objective.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:55

Orange DeviI: Nov 9, 2011; by Hand Knit

Dancer posted:

Choosing one player that you really hate and sacrificing your victory to block them would be weird in, say, Machi Koro, but I feel that games such as TI, GoT can be played in a way that embraces this.

and it saves a lot of time, think of all the board game nights you'd be invited to before pulling this move

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:04

The Eyes Have It: Feb 10, 2008; Third Eye Sees All
...snookums

"If you cannot win, spoil the one who thwarted you" maybe sounds like acceptable cross game meta strategizing until you remember that games don't come down to Alexander brilliantly out-manoeuvring Caesar at a pivotal moment. They come down to the fact that Jerry isn't the masterful strategist he thinks he is, and when he falls on his face he declares a vendetta on whomever it is he perceives as having kept him from a just and rightful victory.

Then it sucks

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:08

Dancer: May 23, 2011

please knock Mom! posted:

and it saves a lot of time, think of all the board game nights you'd be invited to before pulling this move

Social context can be complex. Like, yeah I'm not going to do that at the very start of a game, but with the right people, it can be legitimate and acceptable behaviour later in the game. The games I think about are often free-for-alls where king-making is inherent. If two people are close to winning, and you need to attack anyway, might as well attack the one who brought you down (especially if you warned them before-hand). Don't do this in groups where people will get pissed at you.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:21

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

That's very different from "attack the person who was rude to me in a game last week".

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:25

Fellis: Feb 14, 2012; Kid, don't threaten me. There are worse things than death, and uh, I can do all of them.

SlyFrog posted:

My favorite in these types of games are the people who ignore your warnings not to gently caress with you and then get pissy when you dare to spend your remaining resources devastating then.

Sorry, if you did not want me to focus on you and destroy your chance to win, you should not have ignored my very clear warning that this is exactly what I would do.

I once did this in a game of new angeles and was essentially told �we will not negotiate with terrorists�

It did not work out

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:27

Ojetor: Aug 4, 2010; Return of the Sensei

I mean king-making is often unavoidable in FFA games, but there's a big difference between this:

Dancer posted:

If two people are close to winning, and you need to attack anyway, might as well attack the one who brought you down

and this:

Dancer posted:

Choosing one player that you really hate and sacrificing your victory to block them

The former most everyone is probably fine with. The latter is clearly a spite-fueled move that ruins games for everyone, including the winner. It's not fun to win because some rear end in a top hat at the table decided their honor had been sullied on turn 2 and spent the entire game making the 3rd player unable to win.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:31

jmzero: Jul 24, 2007

Fellis posted:

I once did this in a game of new angeles and was essentially told �we will not negotiate with terrorists�

It did not work out

The only "political metagame" thing I do is always keep bargains, even if breaking them could decide the game. I don't begrudge people who break deals, but I don't mind losing a game to a bad deal I kept - and I want to preserve the advantage of being seen as trustworthy.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:36

Texmo: Jun 12, 2002; 'Time fer a waaagh from above!

It really seems like it depends on the group, because Twilight Imperium for me has always involved at least one player maintaining a petty in-game-only grudge throughout the whole event, much to the amusement of everyone else at the table.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:38

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

jmzero posted:

The only "political metagame" thing I do is always keep bargains, even if breaking them could decide the game. I don't begrudge people who break deals, but I don't mind losing a game to a bad deal I kept - and I want to preserve the advantage of being seen as trustworthy.

I think this is good generally but in a game where you have explicit formal alliances I think it�s in the spirit of the game to betray informal arrangements when and where it suits you.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:42

SuperKlaus: Oct 20, 2005; Fun Shoe

I just read The Thing's rulebook and I think it's going to be a pass. The player elimination is not quite the big issue I thought it might be because it cannot happen until the game is close to ending regardless and at least it requires majority approval from the table to go through. However, I really do not see a good reason why the Thing(s) would not be perfectly cooperative and helpful all game long and then board the chopper at the end. The Captain player who picks who gets to board the chopper can only leave one person behind at 5-6 players and two people at 7-8 players. I like those odds for Team Thing, especially with how whoever gets to be that Captain is pre-cleared for the chopper before random blood testing can happen.

So basically it seems like it would be extremely random with the Thing(s) getting revealed by random test, or not, and then winning cuz lol they were on the chopper, or not. They aren't going to be revealed when they shoot for other victory conditions by loving with missions, because really why would they do that when the chopper offers such nice odds?

SuperKlaus fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:53

CommonShore: Jun 6, 2014; A true renaissance man

In all seriousness, when I do something like that I tend to do it to a player at the table who hosed me over earlier, or even more often, the player who I'm battling for last place and who has a sense of humour about that kind of thing.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 03:14

SlyFrog: May 16, 2007; What? One name? Who are you, Seal?

I want to be clear that I�m talking about this happening in the same game. Not because Bob pissed me off three games ago, so now I�m beelineing for him in Turn One.

But attacking and crippling me in a given game and not expecting me to try to wreck your world is a bit like nuking a country in the real world and expecting them not to retaliate because they can�t win anymore.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 03:18

rydiafan: Mar 17, 2009

CommonShore posted:

Whenever I play TI I completely ignore points and do a military buildup and burn the home planet of whoever sleights me first.

is very different from "I am willing to abandon my attempts at victory to ensure mutual failure with somebody who hosed me over."

One of those means you agreed to play the game, but in reality just want to ruin the experience. The other means you are honestly playing the game, but people should be wary of stabbing you.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 03:55

Glazius: Jul 22, 2007; Hail all those who are able,
any mouse can,
any mouse will,
but the Guard prevail.; Clapping Larry

werdnam posted:

I've played this twice now and had a bit of a negative experience with balance, too. One guy got a clan that can turn milk into money every round, and he plays enough games to know how to maximize that, so he was pumping out crazy amounts of money each round and stomped us (winnning by about 20 points in a ~140 point game). It was hard to know how to stop him. There's a big thread on BGG about that clan in particular, with the designer of the game writing a bit about players have to play around that clan's power.

In that same thread, the designer claims that all the clans are balanced based on their internal playtesting. Maybe things smooth out with more plays? I enjoy the rest of the game enough to keep giving it a try for now.

Yeah, I played against them as the clan that does trading, and they were more down in the middle of the pack. I won by 20 points with about 110, but we were playing the simple game. When there isn't a per-round objective that money is an immense help in shooting for, things run a little more evenly, and they were constantly going last so we could poach most of the contracts that didn't require cheese or beef.

I had no idea how badly they were actually doing until the final scoring.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 03:56

Doug: Feb 27, 2006; This station is
non-operational.

Helllp! Someone in my work gaming group bought Zombicide Black Plague and everyone at work is hooked. Personally, I hate it. We�ve spent 2.5 days nitpicking over rules to figure out how we�re actually supposed to be playing. This whole business with the abomination only being able to be killed with two specific items and no actual weapons in the base game is bullshit. Also they�re trying to cram this whole mess into a 60 minute lunch break with 6p. Please kill me.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 04:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 09:23

Bottom Liner: Feb 15, 2006; a specific vein of lasagna

It'd be a real shame if the box were to go missing

# ? Nov 29, 2017 04:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Thread 4e: The Call of Catan

«‹›2842 »