geek
Recently Viewed
Hot Games
Agricola
Tomb
Le Havre
Battlestar Galactica
Race for the Galaxy
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942
Settlers of Catan, The
Puerto Rico
Power Grid
Stone Age
Dominion
A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game
Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Warhamster Rally
Arkham Horror
Pandemic
Twilight Struggle
Carcassonne
How to Host a Dungeon
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
Football Strategy
Risk
BattleLore
Tigris & Euphrates
StarCraft: The Board Game
War of the Ring
Galactic Emperor
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Caylus
Ticket to Ride
Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Commands & Colors: Ancients
Memoir '44
Shogun
Titan
Galaxy Trucker
World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game
New World: A Carcassonne Game
Brass
Age of Conan - The BoardGame
Halo Interactive Strategy Game
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
Quoridor
Ghost Stories
Memoir '44 - Mediterranean Theater
El Grande
Arkham Horror - The Black Goat of the Woods Expansion
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Tom Grant
flag
Avatar
050708
I had high hopes that Twilight Imperium v3 would be the game I've yet to find: the sweeping science fiction epic that works. Stuffing a lot of desirable elements (exploration, colonization, aliens, intrigue, space battles, etc.) into a single game, while still keeping it playable, is a challenge that past games valiantly tried, and failed, to meet.

The first, disastrous mission into space
Imagine my disappointment when our first game of TI3 was a disaster. We played the "standard game," with public objective cards flipped one at a time whenever someone chose the Imperial strategy. We applied only one suggested variant, dropping the value of choosing Imperial from two victory points to one.

After seven hours, the leading player had only a few victory points, and many of us were frustrated. Through a combination of bad luck and my own experience, I was stuck in a corner of the galaxy with few resources. Other players got tired of building up fleets that were quickly blown out of space (often by the out-of-control Jol-Nar player).

We all scratched our heads and wondered, "What do people see in this game that we don't?" TI3 went back on the shelf for several months, since plenty of other games, with less risk of hours of frusttration, commanded our attention.

Mission two--success!
Still, I held on to a fragment of hope that TI3 might work. When Dave Peters suggested we try again, I enthusiastically agreed. Having been burned once, we had some idea what not to do this time.

I summarized our approach, as newbies, in this thread. The short version:

* Reveal all public objectives, using the Age of Empires variant.
* Use the "fixed set-up" maps, available on the FFG web site. (But should have been in the original game, methinks.)
* Set up in advance.
* Skip any other variants.
* Focus, focus, focus on the victory points. Age of Empires helps you do that, since you can see how to score. However, it still takes a little extra discipline to avoid other distractions.

I've never seen as complete a turnaround in game play as we experienced. In quick succession, I played three games in one week:

* A three-player game at our normal Tuesday night get-together. We started at 6 PM, and ended early enough for us to squeeze a few games of Race for the Galaxy before midnight.
* A four-player game at the monthly game club meeting. We finished that game in about 5 hours, so we were able to play Manoeuvre and Race for the Galaxy before calling it a day.
* A four-player game the following Tuesday. This session went longer than the first, finishing around 1 AM. However, we started almost an hour later, and we had objectives that were a bit harder to achieve. We added a couple of variants

I'm a convert. I'd play TI3 again, at practically any opportunity. We learned how to keep the game shorter, and more importantly, on track towards someone winning.

The variants we chose made all the difference. We're a pretty intelligent, mature group of people, yet TI3 remained a mystery to us until we dropped a lot of the random elements in the "standard game," such as player-built maps and initially unrevealed public objectives. I'd be glad to try these elements, now that I have a firmer grasp of the game--but no one should learn the game that way.

The road to the future
I've seen a lot of people not even try TI3, since they've heard the stories about the long, long games. As we've discovered, the game does not have to burn as many hours as some fear.

FFG may have done itself a major disservice by not putting more thought into what new players need to learn the game. Reading the designer's notes, it's clear a lot of thought went into solving other problems, such as how to prevent "turtling." I'm betting, however, that most or all of the playtesters were veterans of earlier editions of Twilight Imperium--and therein might lie the source of the problem.

Enthusiastic fans of a game can be both a blessing and a curse--especially if the game is relatively complex. An especially vocal part of Starfleet Battles' fans drove the game far, far away from the simple, relatively easy to learn game that resembled the original Star Trek TV series and fit into a ziplock bag. That game won a lot of converts, in its day. Fast forward several years, and SFB had clearly evolved into a niche game.

Gestures towards new players, such as the Advanced Squad Leader starter kits, and the lighter-weight Federation Commander, make all the difference. If I were FFG, I'd think hard about how to make future editions of TI more accessible to new players.

Having to go to the company web site is, obviously, a less effective way to find out how to learn a game that you expect to be complete and accessible as soon as you open the box. (In all honesty, some TI3 enthusiasts here on BGG don't help.) FFG might also think how to "get the word out" directly, through game retailers, for the current version of the game. If my local game store and put a "quick start" summary of TI3 in the same bag as the game itself, that first session might have been a lot less painful.
Last edited on 2008-05-02 12:08:26 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Bill Norton
flag
Glad to hear things went better the second time around.

TI3 is a great game,
Henry Rodriguez
flag
Kingdaddy wrote:
The short version:

* Reveal all public objectives, using the Age of Empires variant.
* Use the "fixed set-up" maps, available on the FFG web site. (But should have been in the original game, methinks.)
* Set up in advance.
* Skip any other variants.
* Focus, focus, focus on the victory points. Age of Empires helps you do that, since you can see how to score. However, it still takes a little extra discipline to avoid other distractions.

The variants we chose made all the difference. We're a pretty intelligent, mature group of people, yet TI3 remained a mystery to us until we dropped a lot of the random elements in the "standard game," such as player-built maps and initially unrevealed public objectives. I'd be glad to try these elements, now that I have a firmer grasp of the game--but no one should learn the game that way.


Revealing at least some objectives is crucial to framing one's goals from the outset (and helps promote the devising of devious designs against thy neighbors :devil: ). I recall one 6 player game in which I was Mentak and had only 1 system with a single planet adjacent to my homeworld (& no more than one other resource-poor planet within 2 hexes of me and not adjacent to my neighbor's home systems). I managed to win that game.

However, the only reason I use pre-set maps is to speed up the game. I don't have a problem with that semi-random element. I think poor/generous starting positions are part of the political aspect of the game and helps to encourage political interactions between players (alliances, trades, war).

My biggest complaint with vanilla-TI3 (besides hidden objectives), was the propensity for turtling. Any new rule that provides incentives for aggressive play I include in my games. I would recommend including the artifact option, as it does do this.

Henry R.
Jacob Russell
flag
Avatar
08
Quote:
* Reveal all public objectives, using the Age of Empires variant.
* Use the "fixed set-up" maps, available on the FFG web site. (But should have been in the original game, methinks.)
* Set up in advance.
* Skip any other variants.
* Focus, focus, focus on the victory points. Age of Empires helps you do that, since you can see how to score. However, it still takes a little extra discipline to avoid other distractions.


Those are the same variants we used. It is so hard to resist using other options like Distant Suns (which are extremely cool), leaders, or refineries and colonies. But I agree... you have to. We used Age of Empire, all the duplicate strategy cards (except warfare), ISC2, pre-set maps (for balance, our first random map really soured us), and artifacts (they also help the game go faster, we removed two duds from the available pile)... you need to focus on just the victory points, not combat and area control (unless that fits into the objectives your going for). Great game though with a ton of versatility, which is one of it's greatest strengths. I don't know how people ever get into it without a community like BGG to tell them how to play, there's just too much to choose from. I'll play this one again, and again.

Quote:
so we were able to play Manoeuvre


Haven't tried Manoeuvre yet but it looks awesome.

- J
Tom Grant
flag
Avatar
050708
callidusx3 wrote:
My biggest complaint with vanilla-TI3 (besides hidden objectives), was the propensity for turtling. Any new rule that provides incentives for aggressive play I include in my games. I would recommend including the artifact option, as it does do this.


In the three games I played in a relatively short time, turtling was never a problem. With all public objectives visible, we could plan for anything that required combat, such as occupying Mecatol Rex, blockading someone's space dock, or winning two space battles in a turn.

The secret objectives, of course, have their own rationales for fighting battles. It's tough to occupy all the wormholes, for example, without fighting at least one battle.

I love the way wars unfold in TI3, now that we better understand the game. There's usually little value in crushing an opponent completely. You also have to fight under less than optimal conditions. These and other aspects of the game encourage a lot of negotiation, saber-rattling, and bluffing. Too many other games in this and similar genres give the players every incentive to steamroll over their opponents. Bleh.

Roland Wood
flag
Avatar
Both TI:3 and the Descent are games that have been designed so that they can be easily customized to any group's desires. We actually love the vanilla version of TI3 but have also had fun trying variants.
Mike Betzel
flag
Avatar
060708
My experience with the game is very nearly identical to yours. Our initial play was with the base set only although we did implement a few role modifications found here on BGG. It helped and I loved the game but with the slow rate that objectives were coming out we really didn't make any progress and I felt like we were all sort of waiting for something to happen. I could see the potential but it wasn't quite there yet.

Next play was with some expansion roles mixed in (not all, just a few), preset player map from FFG and Age of Empires variant. Having those public objectives out makes all the world of difference. From round one players have an immediate focus. All the points are out there, you just have to figure out how which ones you can achieve most quickly while stopping others from getting the ones they want.

The preset map is also extremely important I think. It gives everyone a balanced start and create the perfect hot spots. We did play with artifacts, which I think is another great addition to the game because it creates more focal points for action and tension.

TI3 is now my favorite game!
Last edited on 2008-05-02 16:02:24 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Stefan Lopuszanski
flag
Avatar
0708
My favorite settings are ISC2, Age of Empires (obviously because ISC2 requires it), Distant Suns with the variety to keep harsher possibilies near farther away (makes exploring planets fun and risky with a small party), Caretakers of Mecatol Rex (stops the quick rush there), and either using a pre-defined map, or a map made with the exception being you can't play any two planet systems next to your home world (to prevent pure turtling).

It seems like a lot of options, but it makes the game amazing (although a little long).

To speed it up I'd suggest either using artifacts (never used them, but I hear they speed up the game) or going for a smaller number of victory points for the win.

P.S. I don't get why so many people are against custom maps -- if you follow the rules you "build" it strategically. I can understand pre-defined maps for new players, but I'd hate to play with the same basic lay out every game. EDIT: I can understand using pre-set maps to speed up gameplay, but I still think it gets a bad rep, mainly because people have had bad experiences with it with their first game or two which put them off to the idea. TRY IT AGAIN with all experienced players! It adds a lot more fun!
Last edited on 2008-05-02 21:47:02 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Tiago Nunes
flag
Avatar
I've never played this way, but instead of revealing all the objectives, I'd prefer if you could qualify for more than one objective at a time it also speeds up the game imho and rewards you for trying to do more and more instead of focusing in a single objective each turn you could focus on 2 or maybe in a good turn even 3.

I've had games where I was making 2 objectives at a time and it sucked having to wait lots of turns to reap them...

About the preset maps, I'd like to try some myself but the setting up of the galaxy is pretty fun in itself.

Basically if you make sure you play with people interested in the game, it will flow better. (this is valid for every game out there though)
Mike Betzel
flag
Avatar
060708
ghosthack wrote:
I've never played this way, but instead of revealing all the objectives, I'd prefer if you could qualify for more than one objective at a time it also speeds up the game imho and rewards you for trying to do more and more instead of focusing in a single objective each turn you could focus on 2 or maybe in a good turn even 3.

I've had games where I was making 2 objectives at a time and it sucked having to wait lots of turns to reap them...


That's why you use Imperial II... it allows you to qualify for multiple objectives at the end of that round. Adds in even more strategy as you need to time taking that card on a turn when you can make the best use of it! And others might be keeping an eye from you and stop you from getting it.
Tiago Nunes
flag
Avatar
Deliverator wrote:
That's why you use Imperial II... it allows you to qualify for multiple objectives at the end of that round. Adds in even more strategy as you need to time taking that card on a turn when you can make the best use of it! And others might be keeping an eye from you and stop you from getting it.


I usually play with Imperial II but even so it seems a bit slow. Never tried this variant though, maybe it does speed up in a not so good way.
Josh K.
flag
Avatar
060708