|
Tom Grant
United States Foster City California
|
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 spaceImagine 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 futureI'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
United States Seymour Tennessee
|
Glad to hear things went better the second time around.
TI3 is a great game,
|
Henry Rodriguez
United States Miami Florida
|
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  ). 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
Canada Vancouver British Columbia
|
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
United States Foster City California
|
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
United States Visalia California
|
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
United States Madison Wisconsin
|
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
United States North Wales Pennsylvania
|
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
Portugal Ramada
|
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
United States Madison Wisconsin
|
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
Portugal Ramada
|
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.
United States Near Doyle's pub, Stony Brook, Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe, Everything
|
Glad you enjoyed the game, I like it a lot as well. I'd like to take the contrary position here for a moment, and say that I prefer not to have multiple objectives revealed. I'm not convinced that Age of Empire speeds up the game, and I like the surprise of having the objectives doled out. I like the fact that doling out the objectives promotes opportunism, and it might actually act as an anti-turtling method, because a player must strike while the iron is hot without a lot of preparation. When a game of TI3 is going along at a clip, players ought to be getting a VP just about every turn, even if this means deviating form their grand strategy. The chaos of TI3 is what its fans love.
|
Tom Grant
United States Foster City California
|
Quote: I'm not convinced that Age of Empire speeds up the game, and I like the surprise of having the objectives doled out. If the empirical difference between our before (standard game) and after (Age of Empires) experience doesn't convince you, I don't know what would.
|
Josh K.
United States Near Doyle's pub, Stony Brook, Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe, Everything
|
Well, your first game was your first game, right? Every game gets faster when people are familiar with the mechanics. I've played both ways, and in my experience the game goes 1 to 1.5 hours per experienced player either way.
|
Tom Grant
United States Foster City California
|
No, the problem with the first game wasn't the mechanics, nor was it analysis paralysis (something harder to avoid in your first game of many games). As I said in the review, the problem was...
(1) We did not have experience enough with the game to anticipate what actions or situations might pay off in victory points. (2) In the absence of this knowledge, the most obvious thing to do was to go after another player's planets, resulting in a lot of pointless battles. (3) Using the standard game rules, new public objectives turned up slowly. (4) The pointless battles exhausted many players, so that they were unable to pursue the objectives that finally appeared. (5) Using the suggested variant that Imperial only give 1 VP instead of 2 aggravated problem #3. (And let me underscore again how much I do NOT recommend this variant for beginning players.)
Anyone from our game group who played both the first and subsequent games, can chime in if they disagree with the following statement:
Had we used the same approach that we did in the first game, the second would have looked much the same.
In any case, we're talking about inexperienced players, NOT experienced one. Therefore, your comment, "[I]n my experience the game goes 1 to 1.5 hours per experienced player either way," doesn't really apply to what I'm describing.
|
Josh K.
United States Near Doyle's pub, Stony Brook, Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe, Everything
|
I'm really not trying to be contentious here. It's just that I've heard the claim that Age of Empires is the key to a faster game several times. That's not been my experience. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, glad you like the game!
|
Anders Gabrielsson
Sweden Uppsala
|
Kingdaddy wrote: 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. What I (with my very limited experience) like about the wars in TI is that they are much more wars of maneuver than wars of attrition. Trying to force your opponent into a position where he has to retreat because a direct confrontation would destroy him seems to be much more effective than actually fighting, even if you have the upper hand. Once you get to the shooting there is so much that can happen that all but the most overwhelming odds can be beaten, but before that every move you make can substantially affect the odds.
|
Greg White
New Zealand Wellington
|
JoshBot wrote: I've played both ways, and in my experience the game goes 1 to 1.5 hours per experienced player either way. 1 hour per player is manageable in a 6 player game. but 1.5 hours in a 6 player game shifts the game into an unwieldy chore in my opinion - and that's for an experienced player? crikey, it's anecdotes like that that deter folks from trying the game. the only game i've played (which included the shattered empire expansion) was a mixture of 3 experienced, 3 noobs. the game board was set up prior to arrival of the players. it still took 8 hours with no breaks at all and only ended because the 'the game ends immediately' objective card came out. i really liked what i saw, but for me to introduce this game to my game group i need to be able to trim this puppy down. at the moment i'm contemplating breaking a game over two distinct sessions - leaving the board set up, hopefully this will alleviate some of the player fatigue i encountered.
|
Josh K.
United States Near Doyle's pub, Stony Brook, Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way, Universe, Everything
|
NZRPGR wrote: experienced player? I should have been more specific. By "experienced player" I really mean one who is familiar with the rules, i.e. not playing a "learning game."
|
Neil Parker
United Kingdom London (west)
|
Good to hear you gave this one a second chance. To speed things up we have used Age of Empires which allows a lot more flexibility and we avoid some of the little options like leaders and facilities. We liked the basic game using IC2, but in our last game we used the variant SCs - all of them and the consensus was that we all liked them. As we were using Bureaucracy we dropped Age of Empires. Overall we had a cracking good game despite after 6 hours and 5 turns calling it a stalemate. Two things to cut down time are a) when we played for the first time we ensured everyone had a copy of the rules to read beforehand and b) we will now consider what setting up can be done prior to the day - this should save at least 30 mins. We also play in a group of social gamers so although we want to win we also try to ensure anyone new is carried along on the journey. Given the investment in time the most important thing has been to enjoy the journey - then you want to play more. Quote: I've never seen as complete a turnaround in game play as we experienced. In quick succession, I played three games in one week: Awesome.
Last edited on 2008-05-06 07:48:23 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Jeff Block
United States Mundelein Illinois
|
JoshBot wrote: i really liked what i saw, but for me to introduce this game to my game group i need to be able to trim this puppy down. at the moment i'm contemplating breaking a game over two distinct sessions - leaving the board set up, hopefully this will alleviate some of the player fatigue i encountered.
Honestly, if you want a quick game with the basic mechanics of TI3, Nexus Ops is the way to go: semi-random map with a quicker setup, victory points, secret objectives, disincentive for turtling, desparate maneuvers, and roughly 1 hour gameplay for 4 players. TI3 will always be a long game, but only because there is so much to it. Nexus Ops can give you the fix for your addiction on a regular basis, then you could break out TI3 for special occasions when you have the time. My 2 cents' worth, YMMV (I like both games).
|
Jason Pott
United States Portland Oregon
|
I've played this game twice & I have a third session scheduled for this coming sunday @ 10am. This is an EPIC game & it took hours to play. The 1st session was with 6 players & went from 4pm to 1:30am--our brains were jello by endgame. We used the standard 3rd edition without using DISTANT SUNS, leaders, etc. It didn't make me NOT want to play it again but I did feel like there had to be a way to speed up the process. I noticed players take FOREVER trying to decide which strategy card to pick. One player took almost 15 min. till we had to brow beat him into picking one--prompting an egg timer to be brought to the table with a 2 min. limit in strategy card decision making. Believe it or not, this helped in speeding up the game.
The 2nd session was with 5 players & went from 11am to 8:30pm (9.5 hours!!!) & it included DISTANT SUNS, leaders & the strategy cards from SHATTERED EMPIRES (no one in this group liked the original strategy cards) & I found myself in "learning mode" again--which kind of ticked me off but I didn't express this because I believe in majority rule.
I like the IMPERIAL strategy card's 2 victory points from the core game because it helped speed up the session. It seems no one--I mean NO ONE--likes the instant 2 victory points the card blesses the player with. Why? It helps someone who is still at the "1" position on the VICTORY TRACK while everyone else is way ahead. Many times I've seen players try to be aggressive--picking wars with races on their flanks--get their butts kicked & getting up from the table saying: "Well, I've lost this one! No point in continuing" & then try to bow out of the game. Again: Why? The IMPERIAL strategy can earn them 2 VP's plus, through building, they can achieve more ships to strike out again--seeking vengence on those who slammed them into a losing spiral. I understand the card's downside--giving the winning player an upper hand--but that's where the alliances come into play: working against the leading player & finding ways to prevent them from picking the IMPERIAL CARD (being familiar with the game DIPLOMACY--which helped inspire T.I.--also helps with forging alliances). I'm not saying to gang up on the winning player, but one alliance can help prevent the winning player achieve what all players hate about the IMPERIAL strategy card.
Your advice on speeding up the game is great & I will try very hard to get my group to try them. I personally do not mind how long a game takes but I have to admit, playing for 9.5 hours really taxes even the most patient player.
With that said, I really LOVE this epic space opera game & will continue to play it. I'm glad I got the expansion. Experienced players of T.I. tell me I won't be sorry.
Great review, by the way.
|
Will
United States Fresno California
|
Thanks for this thread, I recently got the game and this looks like it should help.
|
|
|
So, what's this review got to do with Shattered Empire?!
|
|
|