You guys do this a lot where you take criticism about a game as a personal attack on yourself. Nowhere did I badmouth anyone, implicitly or explicitly.
“Here’s one aspect of the game that doesn’t function very well and leads to kingmaking when one person isn’t playing very well. After playing Through the Ages and Race for the Galaxy for over a year each and over a hundred plays, me and everyone in my group haven’t found any way to improve beyond the beginner hump and can’t find any difference between victories or losses in how we played.”
That’s more a self-deprecating comment than anything. I don’t see how anyone can get anything out of that other than “If there’s more to the game than that, I’m not able to see it so I gave up.” If you read that as me telling you to “ram my stupid head”, that’s your own voice talking.
I’ve played with a lot of local groups that always has “that guy”, who’s played a game a ton, knows that everyone else is playing for the first time, and pulls out every super veteran strategy to crush everyone else as much as possible. Even worse is when he goes through massive AP as he tries to wring every possible point out of his runaway lead, needing to win by 118-48 instead of 115-51.
Baffling though is when he’s the guy who brought out the game and introduced everyone. And then they’re surprised when it doesn’t go over very well and no one is excited to play again. Like, what makes someone think like that? I always spot new players and try not to take advantage of non-obvious first timer mistakes, let alone run out the clock overanalyzing everything to death for maximum crushing.
I tried the browser version of TtA with a semi-annual tournament some people used to run. One of the top players would insist on some very specific starting parameters which, surprise, heavily favored his play style and would refuse to ever play outside of them.
I’ve played a lot of competitive Race for the Galaxy (a couple of thousand matches) and Through the Ages (a couple of hundred). I’ve only rated half a dozen games as a 10 on BGG, and they’re both on that list.
There are plenty of criticisms one could make of both those games. But the idea that they have a low skill ceiling that’s reached after ten games is just not true. I was really rather good at those games (in the top 50 out of 16000 players for RftG; making it to the top leagues for the TtA tournament). But in both games there were players who would just regularly trounce me. Like, they’d beat me 80% of the time. In Through the Ages I could be in a position in a two player game where everything I understood about the game told me that I’d totally cornered them, and the game was a foregone conclusion. And then they’d pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Even in the base game, which I assume you’re talking about, Galactic Trendsetters and Galactic Resort (there’s no Resort World) are fairly mediocre cards. And you’ve missed what’s arguably both the strongest and the most combo-y card in the base game: Galactic Federation. (Man, the naming of these cards really sucks).
Or if you’re just talking about planets rather than developments, the Lost Species Ark World should be an absolutely game-defining card.
That said, the base game of RftG is somewhat biased toward a few strategies. Tom Lehmann claims it was intentional since those were the strategies new players would normally avoid. The Gathering Storm expansion is the bare minimum one should play with, and TGS+RvI has the richest set of viable strategies.
Rushing military speculatively is a bad idea. You either do it to keep pace in an ongoing arms race, or since you already have useful aggressions / wars. (And in the long term it’s actually extremely unlikely you’ll get screwed by the military deck. It only happens for players who undervalue military actions).
Until everyone knows the game, I mean knows it as in likes to play and makes mostly logical choices… I don’t even see how it’s enjoyable to win. The goal of boardgaming in my house is for everyone to have fun; that’s it.
There is so much to unpack here. But there are many more viable paths to victory. I’ve won with about every strategy there is, though the truth is that the first few expansions are essential. They greatly expand the viable options, while the base game is limited to about 3.5 paths.
And never military? The right military setup can be brutally quick.
But alien worlds are only viable if you get the perfect setup to begin, and genes worlds have no synergies in the base game. However alien world can be the lynchpin of a hybrid military consumption game, and genes world can beat everything on points that isn’t a max development rush.
Plus there is the whole psychology of other players. At the highest levels of play you are having to account for what actions your opponent will use, and being able to predict multiple turns in advance and setting up your cycles to best match? It really makes a difference.
It sounds like the biggest problem is your group, or the fact you don’t have expansions. If your group thinks the strategies are so rote and centered on only a few specific cards, I’d wager that the real issue is that they haven’t seen the way to use other strategies to win. I’ve won games where my only planet was my starting planet by going development heavy and farming points from turn 1. It requires some very specific cards, but I tried it and I won with it. (Turn 1 investment credits is seriously strong)
I have it preordered at minature market. They’ve currently got it listed for July. On board game geek it seems like it’s making it’s way to the kickstarter customers so hopefully that’s really going to be the case.
As an aside, I’ve read a little of what I think is the final or close to final rules and while I’m still ready to play it seems like the game Fief is closer to an authentic Crusader Kings experience. The CK boardgame is a little more structured and is definately moving along whether the players are ready or not. Fief can end up meandering until a sudden victory where CK has a definite end turn.
Wait, wait, wait, you’re saying I should get the expansions? I love the base game of Race for the Galaxy, and would like to add a bit more variety, but I’ve been waved off the expansions. Which ones do you recommend?
The Gathering Storm And Rebel vs Imperium really do a lot to flesh out the different strategies. There is also the addition of up to 7 players as well as goals.
Due to the game play additional players do not extend game time, so it works well. And goals are really interesting in that they give you objectives to compete over that can expand strategic options. For example one goal is have a planet of each of the four production types, another is have one card with an ability in every category. Or collect 3 alien planets. They’re randomly chosen at the beginning of the game and can influence your decisions in game. They don’t provide in game bonuses, just end game scoring. And they make an actual race for them.
At least those two are essential imo. Brink of War is fine, but the influence mechanic isn’t as thoroughly integrated (it’s clear that some of the ideas from early expansions were in mind in the initial game as keywords and icons that only pay off in them are present in the core game)
I like the Xeno Invasion expansion as well. It’s a different feel than the first line of expansions. There’s a lot more emphasis on military cards and explore powers, whereas consume strategies are less effective (though definitely viable).
But I agree that gathering storm is well worth it even if you don’t play with goals (I’m not as fond of them personally). Xeno Invasion is good for shaking up the game a bit, and is put in instead of other expansions. It’s also 3 times the cards I think.
Anybody have a suggestion for a Euro-style game that I can play with three other people coming to stay for three full days of boardgaming? They each have different levels of involvement in the world of boardgaming but are certainly able to comprehend anything. I plan to teach them to play Churchill while I watch. I also want them to try Pericles. A COIN is certainly on the menu. But I want something really “Euro-ey” to contrast with this and I’m afraid I don’t have a broad enough knowledge of the latest advances in game design. In the old days I would have said "let’s just play El Grande but that might be way too retro. Voyages of Marco Polo is a neat game. Is there something they have to play? That is not Troyes?
Well, Terraforming Mars is really quite good. I recommend it with the Prelude expansion but no other expansions. Scythe is another Euro that might scratch a combined euro/wargamer itch. I also like Manhattan Project: Energy Empire as a good quality just-light-of-medium Eruo. Champions of Midgard is a Euro-style worker placement game with American style dice rolling.
For the heavier stuff, I like Gaia Project and Trickerion.
I also just tried Crisis over the weekend and liked that.
And lastly, you know you love Star Wars and thus you must try Outer Rim.
Vital Lacerda is your man. Of the stuff I’ve played of his, I think I liked The Gallerist or CO2: Second Chance best, but really it’s all good. Haven’t gotten to play Escape Plan yet but that seems like it might be the easiest onboarding point? Dunno.
Can also second the recommendation of Trickerion. And Stonemaier’s Euphoria would be a lighter (though not light) option as well.
Kingsburg would be my first suggestion, although some might say it’s not a pure Euro. Maybe my favorite Euro is Notre Dame, by Stephan Feld. Can you still buy that?
Oh no, I’m straying into games that predated the Chick Cutoff For Decent Game Design!
Concordia is a robust strategic Euro they might appreciate if they’re also wargamers. And if you’re tired of games that have a board, try Imperial Settlers.
