|
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
|
At the outset I will state that this is not a review intended to acquaint one with the overall theme or mechanics of the game - that has been done and I would recommend that anyone reading this read one or two of the better of those first. Rather, this review is an overall impression that have gained through playing. I recently attended the BPA Con and had the opportunity to play this game twice, well more than twice but I didn't take the third. Prior to attending I had high hopes for TTA, it seemed to fit with kind of thing I liked. I love Advanced Civ, I've played Civ I-IV on the computer almost religiously since the series inception, all in all I love empire building games. After taking about an hour learning the rules by playing a bit of a scrimmage (since the publishers obstinately refuse to post them online) players were assigned into 3 player games at random. Such was my introduction to the game and at this point, I was still rather excited. As I played through my game things started to pile up against the game for me. First of all, I realized that what I was really doing was playing a 3-4 hour game of solitaire during which I was spending most of my time trying to pick up slippery glass beads (I know that they have been replaced with wood in 2nd edition) and making sure not to forget to move around any of said beads and markers at the end of my turn. I won that first game despite some fairly glaring (in my opinion) inefficiencies. Despite feeling unsatisfied in the game, I decided to play again the following day: "I should like this game" and "It deserves a chance to grow on me" went through my head as reasons to grind out 4 more hours of sliding stuff around. I went in thinking that it really could grab me. Needless to say, it didn't. Just one slow player, we had one, transforms this game from monotony to one step away from Chinese water torture. To wrap it up: There are good things about this game, and some ingenious mechanics. I don't have issue with the guts of it all. It's just the execution and the near zero player interaction (I realize that military can mix that up a bit, but you don't win this game with military - you lose by attacking). The game borrows too much from the computer series where bookkeeping is not an issue since that's what computers are good at. I am happy to have tried this game and poor production, high price and lack of availability aside; I would most likely refuse to play again.
|
Mark Beyak
United States
Santa Rosa
California
|
Jon, it is really unfortunate that you had such a bad experience playing this game. I have a wonderful time playing this game and look forward to my next playing. Yes, it is a bit of the multi-player solitaire you describe but when aggressions and wars start to be used wisely the player interaction does increase.
All that being said, if you are stuck playing any game with a "stranger/acquaintance" that is taking far too long to make their move the experience is pure torture. I have been in that situation more than I care to be. I don't feel comfortable enough to cajole the person into moving quicker and so I just have to sit and suffer. That is very unpleasant.
I do hope that at some point in the future you are offered the opportunity to play this again with people you are more comfortable with and who like to play at a brisker pace.
Cheers
|
Snooze Fest
United States
Hillsborough
North Carolina
|
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course.
But in this case, you're dead wrong!
Well OK, not really. The game is tremendously fiddly, especially the first version with those cute-but-so-hard-to-pick-up (unless you have small fingers, apparently) glass beads. And I also agree that the game takes too long when played with 4 (especially 4 new people -- I suspect that people who've played this a lot can make even a 4er game move along). For me, 2- or 3-player is best (but with new players even those could go on way too long ... like your games?). I also prefer the full game, which is better balanced than the Advanced version (which version did you play?). The game can be mostly a solitaire exercise in efficiency, but you do have to pay close attention to what your opponents are doing to do well in the game. Which cards will they want? What is their military strength? Which events should I play to totally hose their pathetic little civ?
Yes, I do kind of miss the board play of Sid Meier's Civ (computer game). But this game gives me just about EVERYTHING else from that experience, and is a good game in its own right. Not for you, I guess, but I already covered that above (see the "dead wrong" bit).
|
|
|
Nice review. I'm trying to avoid buying games that have little player interaction in them.
|
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
|
NojNosredna wrote: First of all, I realized that what I was really doing was playing a 3-4 hour game of solitaire Newbies play it like solitaire if they are trying to absorb the rules and mechanics. Experienced players play it like solitaire if they enjoy losing a lot. Quote: Just one slow player, we had one, transforms this game from monotony to one step away from Chinese water torture. That does suck, but it has nothing to do with any game in particular.
|
Chris Rudram
Canada
Victoria
|
jdludlow wrote: NojNosredna wrote: First of all, I realized that what I was really doing was playing a 3-4 hour game of solitaire Newbies play it like solitaire if they are trying to absorb the rules and mechanics. Experienced players play it like solitaire if they enjoy losing a lot. I agree, mostly. Heads down play is one way to play, but not necessarily the best. 'Multiplayer Solitaire' reads to me as 'this game doesn't force player interaction on you' and normally means its a more subtle interaction than players are used to. Quote: Just one slow player, we had one, transforms this game from monotony to one step away from Chinese water torture. That does suck, but it has nothing to do with any game in particular.
Through The Ages, due to nature of it's turn sequence, is liable to really suffer from this. You can sometimes wait a long time while someone prevaricates, and 90% of their actions are not going to impact your plan for the next turn, so it's not even watching to see what they do.
I would say if your not going to get 5-10 games out of this, don't bother buying. If you do, it's one of the best bang-for-buck games I have brought.. along with that other "multiplayer solitaire" candidate, Race for the Galaxy
|
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
|
NojNosredna wrote: I realize that military can mix that up a bit, but you don't win this game with military - you lose by attacking This may be a surprising revelation, but after playing the game a total of 2 times, it turns out that your expert declarations about how to win aren't really very accurate.
|
M Evan Brooks
United States
Gainesville
Virginia
|
I also experienced TTA at the WBC and completely concur with the reviewer. I have spent the hours at the computer on CIVILIZATIONS I-IV, and looked forward to this boardgame rendition.
However, what I found was that the designers trashed the gestalt of time and geography (what year is it? where are we?) and instead emphasized the mechanics of happiness and cost-benefit analysis.
These are the aspects in which the computer excels; to make the player perform these tasks transforms a would-be world conqueror into into a Keynesian accountant.
The main benefit of my experience is that I can now save a $70 purchase.
|
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
|
Odinsday wrote: You can sometimes wait a long time while someone prevaricates If they are lying to you, can't they do it quickly?
|
Eric Phillips
United States
Dist of Columbia
|
There's plenty of player interaction when you know what you're doing. And soulless? Egad, man. The game has character oozing out of it. That's why the little pieces are hard to handle, actually. They're slippery with character.
|
Eric Phillips
United States
Dist of Columbia
|
Quote: to make the player perform these tasks transforms a would-be world conqueror into into a Keynesian accountant What, you've never gone from city to city in one of the Civ computer games, making sure the right plots were being worked? Do you turn all the economic functions over to the "governors" and just focus on moving hordes of cavalry around that lovely geography? "I'm a conquerer, Jim, not an accountant!"
|
Chris Rudram
Canada
Victoria
|
DaviddesJ wrote: Odinsday wrote: You can sometimes wait a long time while someone prevaricates If they are lying to you, can't they do it quickly? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Oops.
|
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
|
It's easy for me to see how this game turns some people off, but I really love it! It requires a big investment; the question is whether the payoff in enjoyment is worth the investment.
I don't think you'll catch me playing ASL or Roads & Boats or Republic of Rome, but I've played Through the Ages 28 times and I'm just getting started.
|
Dan Freedman
United States
Apex
North Carolina
|
Fortuna wrote: Quote: to make the player perform these tasks transforms a would-be world conqueror into into a Keynesian accountant What, you've never gone from city to city in one of the Civ computer games, making sure the right plots were being worked? Do you turn all the economic functions over to the "governors" and just focus on moving hordes of cavalry around that lovely geography? "I'm a conquerer, Jim, not an accountant!" Cmon, you gotta admit...that was funny.
|
Dan Freedman
United States
Apex
North Carolina
|
Eric Brosius wrote: It's easy for me to see how this game turns some people off, but I really love it! It requires a big investment; the question is whether the payoff in enjoyment is worth the investment.
I don't think you'll catch me playing ASL or Roads & Boats or Republic of Rome, but I've played Through the Ages 28 times and I'm just getting started. Hey Eric...I see you haven't rated RoR but like some longer diplomacy style games. If you haven't tried RoR, you should give it a shot before declaring it off limits. The Early Republic beginner scenario (which sees the most plays) is more of a luck-filled simulation. But still a lot of fun. Once you have the rules down, the other scenarios are where it's at. While the rulebook is bad, the rules are not that difficult. I understand your feeling on the other 2...though I think SL is fun.
|
Christopher Seguin
United States
Akron
Ohio
|
Odinsday wrote: DaviddesJ wrote: Odinsday wrote: You can sometimes wait a long time while someone prevaricates If they are lying to you, can't they do it quickly? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. " Oops. "Inconceivable!"
|
Le Platypus
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
RJ
|
Well, not like the game is a right everyone have. But no player interaction is something that can never be stated. Military development is totally related to player interaction. If someone invest on it, everybody star a cold war to try and keep up at the military track. You will be , the whole time, struggling against cards and what people will take and what they will not. Eventually, you might even have to cut them some cards at that time.
What leaders people get will influence on your own. That are a bunch of event cards that require bidding (colonies) and what is Auction if not player interaction?
What about the "strongest"/"weakest" civilization duo? How can that be solitaire?
Aggression and political cards, not to mention the pacts are totally proned to player interaction. (You can't make a pact with yourself, right?). Maybe you should give the game another try with some people that have more experience and you will get some sense of what the game is about. And that SURELY includes player interaction.
|
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
|
I get a lot of what people who disagree with my opinion are saying. I think that those in love with the game most disagree with my assertion that there is little to no player interaction - aka solitaire.
The examples of interaction given throughout this thread, while valid just seem a bit weak to me:
Military - It seems like everyone knows you should have at least some capability, so buy at 1 point and if someone starts moving up make a guy or 2. That is a bit simplified, but not much I think.
Colonies - I believe there are about 6-7 of these which isn't a lot. I would suppose that the guy angling for Cook (and it doesn't take too much interaction to figure out who this is) will end up winning 3 or 4 since he has his plan and is following it. The other guys have their plans and don't want to screw themselves too much in order to screw the first guy. That doesn't rank high on interaction for me.
Pacts - (in 3 player) Who's winning? Ok, the other 2 players are in. Leader has the pact card? Worthless.
I could be wrong, but it seems the case.
Since I've only played twice and others commenting have probably played 10s of times in some cases, I would be willing to concede the point that what appears to a beginner as little more than solitaire could in fact be a subtle game of playing other players. This is certainly the case in Race for the Galaxy. The difference is that I can sit down and play 6-8 games of RotG in the time that it would take to play just one game of Through the Ages.
I think that when it comes down to what makes the game bad for me, if I sit down for 3-4 hours at a game it shouldn't feel like work. There's nothing wrong with resource optimization as part of a game design, but for me playing a game almost solely reliant upon this just doesn't work.
For those that enjoy TtA, and there obviously a lot of you, I don't intend to disparage what is clearly a successful game in many eyes. It is rather interesting to read differing opinions and perspectives especially on specific aspects of the game.
|
Eric Phillips
United States
Dist of Columbia
|
Quote: I could be wrong You are, in all three cases: Military: “Making a guy or two” to maintain military parity works in only the most peaceful games of TTA. Colonies: Everyone wants them, not just the guy who may-or-may-not get James Cook. They do all sorts of helpful things. And when you have to decide whether or not to send 2/3 of your army (and your precious Defense-or-Colonization cards) to some faraway land, and you're wondering whether the other players will outbid you or take advantage of your momentary weakness to hit you with nasty aggression cards, that involves a lot of player interaction. Pacts: The leader frequently gets to make a pact, for two reasons: A) a well-played pact will be mutually beneficial, so in a 3 or 4 player game, it’s usually worth it to help 1 opponent in order to gain an advantage over the other 1-2. B) In most games, it’s notoriously hard to figure out who the leader really is. Quote: I don't intend to disparage what is clearly a successful game in many eyes. You don't find the term "soulless disappointment" disparaging?
|
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
|
NojNosredna wrote: Military - It seems like everyone knows you should have at least some capability, so buy at 1 point and if someone starts moving up make a guy or 2. That is a bit simplified, but not much I think. You're totally wrong about the whole military aspect of the game. If your opponent suddenly jumps 30 points in military strength while putting out Napoleon, it's not going to be enough to say, "Oh, sigh, now I should put out a guy or two." You need to plan for what can happen. Quote: Colonies - I believe there are about 6-7 of these which isn't a lot. There are 12 colonies in the game (6 in Age I deck and 6 in Age II deck). Quote: I would suppose that the guy angling for Cook (and it doesn't take too much interaction to figure out who this is) will end up winning 3 or 4 since he has his plan and is following it. The other guys have their plans and don't want to screw themselves too much in order to screw the first guy. That doesn't rank high on interaction for me. I think the idea that you play this game by making a plan on turn one and then sticking to it throughout the game is one of your biggest misunderstandings. You have to adapt to which cards come up and which ones are taken by other players. That's what the whole game is about. Quote: I think that when it comes down to what makes the game bad for me, if I sit down for 3-4 hours at a game it shouldn't feel like work. It's hard to understand how you can enjoy Civilization IV, then. That's more work to play, and it takes 30-40 hours!
|
Matt Hoskins
United States
Broken Arrow
Oklahoma
|
As a fiddly point, why was this submitted as a review and not a session report?
It is 20% intro, 60% recap of 2 game sessions and a conclusion about the game.
As a session it is fine. As a review it is a bit light on content.
|
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
|
DaviddesJ wrote: NojNosredna wrote: Military - It seems like everyone knows you should have at least some capability, so buy at 1 point and if someone starts moving up make a guy or 2. That is a bit simplified, but not much I think. You're totally wrong about the whole military aspect of the game. If your opponent suddenly jumps 30 points in military strength while putting out Napoleon, it's not going to be enough to say, "Oh, sigh, now I should put out a guy or two." You need to plan for what can happen. I'm not going to argue with you on what ifs and could be scenarios. My point is that this game is just generally not won by going out and kicking behind with military. I've noticed this from my games, from talking to others and from reading about the game. Quote: Quote: Colonies - I believe there are about 6-7 of these which isn't a lot. There are 12 colonies in the game (6 in Age I deck and 6 in Age II deck). Ok, more than I remembered. Quote: Quote: I would suppose that the guy angling for Cook (and it doesn't take too much interaction to figure out who this is) will end up winning 3 or 4 since he has his plan and is following it. The other guys have their plans and don't want to screw themselves too much in order to screw the first guy. That doesn't rank high on interaction for me. I think the idea that you play this game by making a plan on turn one and then sticking to it throughout the game is one of your biggest misunderstandings. You have to adapt to which cards come up and which ones are taken by other players. That's what the whole game is about. You may have been reading someone else's posts - I've never said anything like that. There's a big difference between what you have described and building with some goals in mind. Quote: Quote: I think that when it comes down to what makes the game bad for me, if I sit down for 3-4 hours at a game it shouldn't feel like work. It's hard to understand how you can enjoy Civilization IV, then. That's more work to play, and it takes 30-40 hours!
Actually, in a Huge (or bigger) world with Epic speed and loads of Civs a bit longer. The difference is that my computer moves all my little beads around and it takes about a month and a half to get through a game.
|
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
|
NojNosredna wrote: My point is that this game is just generally not won by going out and kicking behind with military. Well, that is very different from your claim that the military interaction is pretty much irrelevant. It's true that there are many paths to victory, and military "conquest" is not a dominant one---even if you build up a large military advantage, there are mechanisms built into the game for other players to counter that, so you can't win by military strength alone (that is a very good thing!). But that doesn't mean you can just not worry much about military strength. While you can't win the game outright with military strength, you can easily lose it outright that way. And your original claim that "you lose by attacking" is 100% wrong.
Last edited on 2008-08-14 13:28:06 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
|
matthewjhoskins wrote: As a fiddly point, why was this submitted as a review and not a session report?
It is 20% intro, 60% recap of 2 game sessions and a conclusion about the game.
As a session it is fine. As a review it is a bit light on content. Depends how you read it to some extent. I see session mentions as illustrative to my opinion (review) of the game.
|
Jon Anderson
United States
Grantham
Pennsylvania
|
Fortuna wrote: Quote: I could be wrong You are, in all three cases: Military: “Making a guy or two” to maintain military parity works in only the most peaceful games of TTA. Colonies: Everyone wants them, not just the guy who may-or-may-not get James Cook. They do all sorts of helpful things. And when you have to decide whether or not to send 2/3 of your army (and your precious Defense-or-Colonization cards) to some faraway land, and you're wondering whether the other players will outbid you or take advantage of your momentary weakness to hit you with nasty aggression cards, that involves a lot of player interaction. Pacts: The leader frequently gets to make a pact, for two reasons: A) a well-played pact will be mutually beneficial, so in a 3 or 4 player game, it’s usually worth it to help 1 opponent in order to gain an advantage over the other 1-2. B) In most games, it’s notoriously hard to figure out who the leader really is. Maybe and maybe not. It could be that after 10-20 games my observations would change. Bottom line is that there's just no way anyone will convince me that this a really interactive game. Quote: Quote: I don't intend to disparage what is clearly a successful game in many eyes. You don't find the term "soulless disappointment" disparaging?
A little over dramatic maybe, but disparaging - no. Remember, this is a game that I really wanted to like. I mean I really wanted to like it, and it just fell flat on it's face for me. Heck, I won one game and did quite well in a second (both were full versions) and I think that the most fun I had both times was knowing it was over.
|
|
|
Posted Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:39 pm
