It is currently Mon May 29, 2017 6:58 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]



Welcome
Welcome to boardgamingonline

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!





 Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: A New Story of Civilization: Better game?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:37 pm 

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:31 pm
Posts: 13
So. How do you people like the changes? I dont want to go into every detail here (and theres definetly some cool changes which i like and in general i do like the new version), but i have one general impression that i dont like:
Military has become way too strong/important.
I dont know whether that "really really" is the case (and thats why i started this topic), but the games that i play are almost exclusively decided by military.

1. Caesar is a no brain pick Age 1 with his new ability to perfrom 2 political actions. Its not very rare that you can build up a sufficient advantage in military (with a lucky carddraw) and press two aggressions in one turn. (happened in about 3/10 1on1's i played so far). These games were then more or less decided, at least heavily favoured.. Caesar has become too strong.

2. I perceive the change on Napeoleon as a buff. On one hand, the change to the bonus military strength makes kind of sense, it removes the amount of luck that was going on with a good early tactics card in the old game. On the other hand: There was games where you got napoleon and maybe still just had an age one or an inefficient age 2 tactic for some turns, so now you will allways have +6 strength when you take Nappy wheras back then this bonus came in later (sometimes). This change alone wouldve made sense though, BUT
The 2 MA actions are insane. You dont need a gouvernment. You dont need warfare/strategy. 4 MA is absolutely enough to play with until later stages of the game. If you can grab Napoleon early on Age 2 you can totally dominate your opponent military wise, he cant "outdraw" you with tactic cards because you can just adapt to his tactics.

3. And here we are in Age 3: Churchill has become a Monster?! the amount of rocks and science he can give is insane, and those 3 Culture points are almost as much as a Maximum 4 you can get from Charly Chaplin... Again a buff to military.

In general, i feel like theres a lot more succesful aggressions going on (which is often just based on the better carddraw timings, not lack of focus on military by one of the players).

Maybe this is just the Meta that i play with my friends, so what do you think? Have you made similair observations?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A New Story of Civilization: Better game?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:46 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:03 pm
Posts: 5
I've played many 2-3p games with my friends and about 30 4p expert pub games.

Caesar has been the least picked leader, coming out maybe like twice. Never to any effect. It's very easy to deflect A1 aggression as long as you have either knights or swords. Even without those, ghan is enough or great wall/colossus

Nap is better than before because of the MA. It gives you the extra MA's to be aggressive without a gov/war tech and you can pump that sci into better units faster.

Churchill is awesome because it's either 3 culture or those critical sci/rocks for military endgame. Chalplin just sucks and is the worst, I can gain more culture from A1-2 leaders.


Military is still very strong and necessary, especially in 4p. A good quote I heard was.. "Military in TTA is like Food in Agricola. You need it to survive however it won't mean you win the game. But you can definitely lose the game from it". With that said, I do find military is worst off in 3p because it's easy to deny 1 person if 2 of them are going culture and there aren't enough military tactics coming out.

There is definitely a lot of warring going on in A3 in 4p games but I'd say only 1/3 or 1/4 are won by military. More often the person with an early A3 sci will have the edge if they have good production and win through tech/events + enough defense. The rest of the games go to someone getting a really strong early culture eng (mich/shakespear/bach) and surviving A3 with ghandi


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


suspicion-preferred