Are the missions public knowledge? If not then more mission cards should be added because it would be to easy to memorize the 5 cards.

Edit: You could even have 2 of each card and randomly draw them at the begining because you could have the possibly of duplicate missions and it would add more conflict because you would be competing for the same animals. Though I'm not sure the free animal in the barn is a good idea, maybe make it only cost -1 point instead of -2.

Sorry I forgot to mention that: the cards are kept secret so that no one knows which animal you are attepting to collect.

Having two of each card sounds like a good idea. I like the possibility of some conflict. And -1 also sounds like something worth trying.

Wouldn't reducing the barn gain from 0 to -1 almost completely negate the worth of that third of the mission card? I mean the maximum gain is 2 points as is (as you pay per species, not per individual of that species). A gain of only one one point makes it completely useless IMHO.

I have made a set of different mission cards by overlaying extrated images of the various animals on the standard card backgrounds. I now have a pack of thirty cards all with different combinations of animals so the "only a small number ov available missions" problem goes away.

Production values aren't great since the backgrounds don't quite match but my kids and I don't seem to care that much.

Hi Simon, I agree, for us the mission cards were a very welcome addition too. We no longer play Zooloretto without these Mission Cards.

Pick-up and placement considerations have become a bit more complex, right from the beginning, and the most surprising effect was not the targeting of the bonus-animals, but the various uses of having a zero-penalty-when-in-barn animal. It can be a great money spinner, and can even come in handy when filling the carts. Under certain circumstances your zero-penalty animal is the perfect way to remove a potential spoiler spot from a attractive looking cart, or to make it a lot less attractive to a competing player, without doing yourself any harm.

We do have one reservation though, and it has to do with "unfair advantage".

Not the one you describe...



... as the rules are pretty clear on this.

But the one that is a consequence of the amount of people you play with, and the way the animals that are included are spread over the cards.

There is no problem in a 5-player game. That way, all bonus"-animals and "zero-penalty"-animals are spread evenly. Each type on the cards is always sought after by two players, and of no negative consequence to one other.

But the even spread of this goes to pot the moment one or more of the five cards are not assigned to a player. In a 4-player game, two players will be collecting one animal type that no-one else is targeting, a marked advantage over the other 2 players, especially if more than one field can be filled! Having competition where others might not means the one who has that animal in the 3-point-bonus spot has to work the hardest to earn the same amount of points.

In a 3- and 2-player game that uneven spread is slightly less of a issue, but still has a noticeable impact.

We wondered about using different card sets for different numbers of players? It is pretty obvious how to make these card fairer for 2,3 and 4 players, so demand and competition for each type of animal would always affect all players equally.

That sounds great! Have you uploaded them to BGG? If not, why not?

Dunno if you can play this add-on with Aquaretto, but if so, would the Manager have any effect on the the -1 penalty of that "0 animal"?

Your only changing it by one point, it seemed overly powerful to me by allowing it to completely take away the penalty for putting animals in the barn but I haven't tried it. I like Zooloretto the way it is and haven't gotten a chance to play the official expansions even though I own them. I'm almost always playing with the kids or with at least one new player so I'm always trying to keep it easy.