Game: Race for the Galaxy

Thread: Re: Optimium number of players?

Poruchik — 2008-05-09T03:24:21+00:00

I like 2 player advanced, well, because that's what most often happens.
3, and 4 player games feel almost awkward by now.

Frank Hamrick wrote:
...
I have played 40 2-player games, and 21 multi-player (3-4). All were equally enjoyable. With 2, however, we now remove Global Trendsetters and Tourist World. Our first 10 or so 2-player games were all won by getting 12 Worlds/Developments down. Once we discovered how to build a quick consume x2 engine, however, all games were ended by the VP chip exhaustion. The player using the "building" strategy could no longer win.
...

I am pushing 50 games with advanced 2-player. Since about game 10,
both Galactic Trendsetters and Tourist World are complimentary cards
at best me, and usually when I get them early in the game, I discard them mercilessly.

Even in a best case scenario (Start with ELC or AC, have Trendsetters in hand) the engine will still take minimum 3 turns to set up before you can start consuming 2x; in the meanwhile the opponent can set up either military, quick dev, or even rival consume strategy, predicated on blue, brown, or diversified economy. All of these are better because blue (Consumer Markets), Brown (Mining Robots) or Diversified economy let you draw cards on produce, and you can keep up with your opponent in card flow.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

hotc — 2008-05-09T03:13:09+00:00

amadan wrote:

Also, don't place Mining Conglomerate if you have one brown, and can see three browns in another tableau. Of course your strategy is influenced by others!

Otherwise, great review.

Agreed on the review.

As for Mining Conglomerate, your point is well taken – except that the development offers other benefits, such as the trade and consume powers. Also, if it's in your tableau, that guy with the 3 browns might never see it :-) . . . it may be better to get it on the table than recycle it back into the deck.

Walter.

Thread: Re: The Cards (German version)

sugadaddy — 2008-05-09T08:11:21+00:00

just got news from Abacus publishing that the German version will be out July/August ´08!

Thread: Re: 2x VP the way to victory ... very very very often

riledguy — 2008-05-09T03:09:05+00:00

etherton wrote:
I played Race twice last night, 4p, first game I was busy teaching two of the players.

Both times, the same person got Consumer Markets (5/3 3xBlue->1VP, Draw one card per blue produced) down in the first few turns and walked away with the game. They won the second game with over 80 points! (I think they managed to get Free Trade Association down too). CM gave them plenty of cards to pay for settlements whenever anybody else tried to expand, and they were quickly earning 8VP every other turn.

Even in a 4p game, the right combination of cards early on seems pretty unstoppable.

I'm sure the rest of us missed opportunities to slow her down.

-Dave

80 points is huge. I we have never seen a score that high. I think 58 is where we stand for the highest score. Consumer markets is a great card. More useful then the 6 development that helps the blue cards.

Thread: Re: The Cards (German version)

sugadaddy — 2008-05-08T11:25:42+00:00

Thanks a lot for clarifying this...my English is solid, but it will stall playing with my girflriend and others, so it won't be an option for us...anyone know when the German translated print will be published?-

Thread: Re: 2x VP the way to victory ... very very very often

etherton — 2008-05-08T04:35:32+00:00

I played Race twice last night, 4p, first game I was busy teaching two of the players.

Both times, the same person got Consumer Markets (5/3 3xBlue->1VP, Draw one card per blue produced) down in the first few turns and walked away with the game. They won the second game with over 80 points! (I think they managed to get Free Trade Association down too). CM gave them plenty of cards to pay for settlements whenever anybody else tried to expand, and they were quickly earning 8VP every other turn.

Even in a 4p game, the right combination of cards early on seems pretty unstoppable.

I'm sure the rest of us missed opportunities to slow her down.

-Dave

Thread: Re: Finally got to play this other than solitaire

LimboLance — 2008-05-08T03:05:20+00:00

dellchili wrote:
hmm. what is Kingsberg?

[GAMEID=27162] Great little game which has a amazing new feature (see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/304815) - a GREAT Java game (FREE) which allows you to hone your gaming skills.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

amadan — 2008-05-07T08:36:51+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
The double think depends on each player's strategies, but your actual strategies are largely made independent of any player interaction. You just don't go through the deck enough to worry about some other player taking the same cards you need. What strategy they take will have very small impact on what cards are available to you later.
I don't think this is entirely true. Imagine the scenario where there are two players who pursue the military strategy. That in itself is not a brilliant decision. Imagine one of them pulls both the big military 6-devs (can't remember the names - for rebels, and for military strength). The other one will be much less pressed to continue producing an army, unless he happens to be holding the Rebel Homeworld or something juicy like that.

Or, conversely, imagine a player getting the said fat military 6-dev, and has military 2. If he sees other two players drop Drop Ships, will he still aim to play it, or will he abandon the military pursuits?

Granted, I'm giving simplistic scenarios here, but I'm sure you can glimpse at my reasoning - what the others have played does indeed (or should) impact your strategy choice. If you're waiting on one of two different tiles in Mahjongg (or any other set-collection game), and you have to discard one of them, if you know that all of one and just one of the other are still in the game, you will naturally choose to keep the former, even if each player is collecting a set of his own. Same things apply.

Also, don't place Mining Conglomerate if you have one brown, and can see three browns in another tableau. Of course your strategy is influenced by others!

Otherwise, great review.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

violentzen — 2008-05-07T07:39:17+00:00

I have a comment to share regarding board game theme.

In most card games, I think there exists a level of detachment from the theme. Players look at the game before them and see an arrangement of cards rather than a board and pieces, and they are removed to a degree. I think it is human boardgaming nature to not at first consider the art and mechanics of cards when connecting, even subconciously, with the theme.

It is our nature to want something to hold onto, a model, or even a toy (I say this fondly), to convince us of the theme. But I think we should be careful of this way of thinking. Is Chess more thematic a war game because there are horses and castles? Or is Go the more thematic game because it employs battlefield tactics such as envelopment and feints, etc., though the pieces are "abstract"?

Are miniatures (usually off scale), any more thematic? Is it a more thematic space game because I'm holding a handful of plastic miniatures rather than a handful of cards with pictures of space ships? I think card games such as Race appeal thematically to those willing to make that connection with a little extra imagination.

Fuel for the debate.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

BFoy — 2008-05-07T07:35:18+00:00

Good review. I'd like to make a very minor point. I think there is more interaction than you mentioned, since it is easier to force a premature end to RftG than to PR. Good players can slow this down by consuming and producing, of course. But reacting to the strategies of others is interaction. I think there is plenty of interaction in RftG but its hidden and indirect.

Thread: Re: 2x VP the way to victory ... very very very often

riledguy — 2008-05-07T07:09:57+00:00

Frank Hamrick wrote:
I'm 50 games in (all but 5 were 2-player) - same experience. For the first 10 or so games all were won by getting 12 cards in the tableau - we didn't think anyone could get a VP engine quick enough to win - most games over by turn 7 with 12 develop/worlds.

Then, we discovered Tourist Word, Global Trendsetters, and how to establish a quick production engine, and that has now dominated the last 20 or so games.

I recently won a game in 5 turns with 30 VPs and only 4 worlds down (no developments). I got Tourist World down on the 2nd turn, and that, along with two Novelty Worlds spelled doom for my opponent. So, he went to a develop/settle strategy as he saw he would not have a chance against my 4 then 6, then 8 VP turns. Game ended after turn 5. He actually had 10 develop/settles down, but lost 22-30.

We now find that games last from 5-7 turns - but as soon as one of us gets TW or GT down, it's over. usually by turn 3 we know who will win and the other one seems completely helpless, though we both have experimented to find alternate solutions to the problem.

The last two games we have removed both TW and GT, but then, the person who gets Transforming Robots (I think - its the world that gives -2 to building non-military worlds) has won. It seems those are the three most dominant cards. However, we realize we may still have other options that haven't been discovered without having to remove the more powerful cards.

This is exactly what happens with us. The winner of the game is coming out faster and faster now. So that about mid way threw the game the person with the strongest VP x2 engine is going to win. What is frustrating is knowing that there is no way to stop it unless you can agree with someone to make sure there are settle and develop rounds happening each turn. Which would seem pretty cheap to me. Also that would not necessarily get you the win.

landryraccoon wrote:
I agree with the other players who have said this is a common spot on the learning curve. If your opponents are over picking produce, there are some good counters :

- Never settle unless you have an extremely good planet, especially if you are playing military. It is a mistake to think that settling is helping you - you are trying to bring the game to an end earlier, but every settle is 2 more victory points per cycle for each produce / consumer. Only settle if you have a bomb, such as a large alien planet, or if your opponents have very few cards in hand. It is NOT worth it to settle just to get a genes windfall, especially if the consumers drop a producing world. ......

This is a good call and I have seen this happen in games but it still does not seem like it can compete because the longer you let the game go the better it is for double VP.

I see your point in how powerful settle is for the 2x VP folks but how is military going to have a hope without those. What makes that tough is that everyone who is not going foe the 2x VP has to just seek good develop/explore avenues which like the 2x VP is going to be dominated by the person who dropped the better develop cards earlier.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

Hansolo88 — 2008-05-07T07:08:57+00:00

Great review!

I'm in agreement with the others that the theme is stronger than you suggest. The artwork and thematic elements of the cards mesh well with the game mechanics for the most part.

The best thing about the theme of RFTG is that it is in the perfect middle ground; its strong enough so that those who like the theme can enjoy it, but weak enough so that those who aren't particularly into the theme can largely ignore it.

Thread: Re: 2x VP the way to victory ... very very very often

riledguy — 2008-05-07T07:07:06+00:00

Chad_Ellis wrote:
There seems to be a common point in the learning curve where 2xVP dominates. We got there at about the same point you did, but it no longer dominates our play. I still win with Consume engines, but also win with Military, with Develop engines, with Aliens, with Consume: Trade (rather than VP) engines and probably a few things I've forgotten.

Develop engines can work as well but what makes the Consume 2x VP so powerful is the lack of drawing luck interference. To make military or develop work you need to constantly be hunting for the best cards to maximize your VP point total for the end game. With a good 2x VP system going once you get a few good cards down you don't need so many perfect cards" to win. Any good cards are icing on the cake, you eliminate a lot of "luck of the draw." All you need to do as add a bit of extra production each round, if that, since you are going to end the game fast on a VP pool drain.

Thread: Re: The Cards (German version)

byronczimmer — 2008-05-07T06:20:54+00:00

This is going to matter on a select number of cards - where the text attempts to clarify something on the card.

It will also matter on pattern matching for specific card names on the 6-? developments which call out cards.

Thread: Re: Race for the Galaxy: The Boardgame BETA, Prototype, Whatever

Dr Mabuse — 2008-05-07T03:00:23+00:00

It really looks promising. And the design is superb IMHO. I'll try to give it a shot -as long as I have the time to make the boards.

Has anyone else tried this yet?

Thread: Re: The Cards (German version)

kabutor — 2008-05-07T01:22:50+00:00

I have the Abacusspiele version, wich I think is the german one.

The cards are in English, however it cames with two manuals, one in german, and it also have two packs of reference cards one in english the other in german.

Thread: Re: The Cards (German version)

huber — 2008-05-07T01:12:04+00:00

Steffen,

The first edition available in Germany is the same as that in the US - dual language rules and player aids, but cards in English.

My understanding is that the next edition available in Germany will be solely in German, however.

Thread: Re: The Cards (German version)

Felkor — 2008-05-07T12:49:37+00:00

I don't know what language the cards in your area will be, but between the instruction manual (which comes in both English and German) and the reference cards (which also come in both English and German), you should be able to figure everything out just fine. 90% of the time, the icons explain everything in and of themselves, and the 10% of the time that they don't, there's an explanation at the back of the instruction manual, or on the reference card.

Thread: The Cards (German version)

sugadaddy — 2008-05-07T11:53:07+00:00

Hi All,

i'm looking into getting myself a copy and have a quick question:

are the cards in the version you can buy in Germany in German? It says on the back that (i'm translating/paraphrasing) "the author chose a strong symbolic language that renders the english text irrelevant".

well that's not the same thing as translating it-

thanks for the answers to come...cheerio!-

Thread: Re: Homemade Cards

Tycho — 2008-05-07T09:11:04+00:00

Now there's an idea for the contest: 'Spelling Bee World'. An opponent draws a card and reads you the title, you receive it only if you answer right. The folks who call Gambling World random should like the skill element of this one.
:D

Thread: Re: High Cost + Two expansions in production: why?

TedW — 2008-05-07T03:20:12+00:00

Since when does price of a finished good solely reflect the cost of the inputs?

One could argue that RftG is underpriced as there is more demand than there is supply.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

DarkoBeta — 2008-05-07T01:10:15+00:00

Really terrific review. You did a good job of providing information about who may want to steer clear, even if it's tempting to say, "PLAY 5 GAMES BEFORE YOU PAN IT!"

I'm trying to figure out how to fit it into the packing for a vacation I'm taking with my wife this week.

I made the tuckboxes that are available here on BGG. This was my first time making boxes and it seriously only took about 10-15 minutes each, though I did have to buy some startup materials (double-sided matte photo paper, and double-sided tape). It was a worthwhile investment, though, because I have made several more boxes after RftG.

Anyway, I boxed both sets of cards and put the VPs in a 2" x 3" ziplock bag, obtained from a craft store, and then put a rubber band around the two boxes and the VPs. I could carry this game around in the pocket of my cargo shorts now if I wanted. It travels fantastically.

-----

Edit: Corrected size of ziplock bag.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

sbarrera — 2008-05-06T07:53:37+00:00

Great review of a great game I need to play more.

(Here we go again...)

I think the theme is very well integrated with the design, in that the cards are defined very appropriately in accordance with the classifications of game elements. Just a couple of examples- expeditionary force helps explore and military, tourist world is good consumer. All of the card concepts are well thought out for the chosen theme.

But I can also see how the basic game design could be adapted to other themes - fantasy empire, new world discovery, or what have you.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

erak — 2008-05-06T07:18:00+00:00

violentzen wrote:
Awesome review! Probably the best review of Race I've read yet. And bonus points for the Princess Bride reference.

I must disagree with your opinion on theme however. I think the theme is there in force. The card art, organization and play all push the space empire theme. Ironically, one reason I liked your review so much is because it conveys the thematic strength of the game so well.

Well done.

Scott

Best application of theme:

(My first game)
ME: I'll use my colony ship to play the Rebel Home World
EXPERIENCED GUY: You can't use colony ships on military worlds. Only black-circled worlds.
ME: Really? That's lame.
EXPERIENCED GUY: Look at it this way: all the colonists show up and are immediately killed by the military guys.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

Mike A — 2008-05-06T07:16:09+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
There are player aids included in the game, but I almost found them more daunting than the cards themselves. Successful player aids make the game seem easier and simpler. The player aids in Race are scarier than the cards to me. It's important to understand that most beginners are just going to be lost in iconography for their first few games.

When I first played it, we were given the player aids and then went through the rules explanation. It seemed like a lot.

I've now taught the game to others a few times myself so I did it a little differently. First, I explained how the game plays - the roles and how the icons on the cards relate to them. Then after all the explaining was done and we were ready to start, I handed out the player aids and said "Here, this explains the icons and phases. If any questions come up as we play have a look at this for clarification." That's worked very well and hasn't seemed so daunting.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

Isamoor — 2008-05-06T06:50:15+00:00

stormseeker75 wrote:
Brilliant review Sheamus. Good job.

Thanks Steve, and thanks for the tip!

I read elsewhere you weren't too keen on Race. What was the biggest turn off for you? Did you play enough to get over the icons, or was it even promising enough to want to learn the icons?

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

stormseeker75 — 2008-05-06T06:39:18+00:00

Brilliant review Sheamus. Good job.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

BettyEgan — 2008-05-06T06:19:45+00:00

Wow, terrific review! I agree with all of your observations.

I personally am really itching to get a hold of the expansions that promise to open up even more potential strategies!
Me too.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

Isamoor — 2008-05-06T06:15:04+00:00

blindspot wrote:
Brilliant review! Love the photo captions.

Thanks! I was sure to thumb all the photos I used, but if there were some you really enjoyed, I'm sure the photographer would enjoy a thumb of yours as well.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

Isamoor — 2008-05-06T06:13:48+00:00

violentzen wrote:
Awesome review! Probably the best review of Race I've read yet. And bonus points for the Princess Bride reference.

Thanks for the compliment!

violentzen wrote:
I must disagree with your opinion on theme however. I think the theme is there in force. The card art, organization and play all push the space empire theme. Ironically, one reason I liked your review so much is because it conveys the thematic strength of the game so well.

I agree that the art does push the theme, but I'm still not sold on how integrated it is. After some thought, I almost think some flavor text would have gone a long way to helping the theme. I know the flavor text on M:tG cards assist that game's theme plenty.

I also can agree that the theme does a good job of supporting an explanation of the cards. Exploring, Settling and Producing are good names for the phases that do a good job of reminding you what actions you can take. However, I think you could have easily just labeled the game San Juan 2.0 and slapped the tried and true "New World Colonization" theme on to it just as easily.

The theme isn't as far-fetched as [gameid=12], but I still don't think there's strong theme to mechanics integration.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

blindspot — 2008-05-06T06:12:31+00:00

Brilliant review! Love the photo captions.

Thread: Re: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

violentzen — 2008-05-06T04:44:03+00:00

Awesome review! Probably the best review of Race I've read yet. And bonus points for the Princess Bride reference.

I must disagree with your opinion on theme however. I think the theme is there in force. The card art, organization and play all push the space empire theme. Ironically, one reason I liked your review so much is because it conveys the thematic strength of the game so well.

Well done.

Scott

Thread: Re: Portuguese review: sacana do jogo

pmduque — 2008-05-06T03:59:35+00:00

Excelente review!!! do melhor que tenho lido.

Thread: Deep Analysis of a Highly Addictive Game

Isamoor — 2008-05-06T03:52:19+00:00

Race for the Galaxy took quite a while to grow on me. Last year's Secret Santa was very gracious and secured a copy for me when it was just coming out. I played it once or twice, and then just let it collect dust for a few months. Some time later my wife and I pulled it out again, and proceeded to play 3 games in a row, stopping only due to work in the morning. It really is that addicting.

[imageid=323656]

0. Description

Race for the Galaxy (Race) is a card game about settling and developing your own Empire. You pay to add cards to your Empire from your hand by discarding other cards from your hand. The cards already in your Empire give you all sorts of abilities and bonuses conveyed by a wide array of iconography. Some cards represent worlds that can produce goods. These goods can be traded in for more cards or consumed for points.

[imageid=264786]
Sample Cards

Before each turn, all players simultaneously choose what phases they want to occur. The phases allow different actions such as drawing new cards, adding cards to your Empire, or producing and using goods. If any player chooses a particular phase, then all players get to perform the corresponding action, but those players who actually instigated the phase get a bonus.

[imageid=265207]
The Phase Cards for the Yellow Player

Play continues until an Empire reaches a certain size or a certain number of points have been claimed by consumption of goods. The players then add up the points they have earned from:

1. The points listed on the cards in their Empires.
2. The points they have earned from consuming goods.
3. Certain large development cards give a conditional bonus based on other cards in your Empire.

1. Analysis Paralysis / Downtime

Race is a very amazing game when it comes to downtime. Players do almost all of their actions simultaneous. Beyond just choosing the phases for a turn at the same time, all players actually perform the actions inside each phase simultaneously. It is possible for a slow player to drag the game out some, but it's really not as noticeable as when you must wait through their whole turn in other games.

The amazing thing is just how much faster the game plays as you become more familiar with it. This is not a game that slows down with repeated analysis. Part of that is due to the almost 100 unique cards. Your first few games are just going to be getting used to the sheer variety of the cards.

[imageid=276614]
There are just TONS of different cards

The other part I should touch on right away is the iconography. Race uses a very structured iconography on all of it's cards. Every card has a list of the phases running down the left side of it. Cards with abilities (most of them) will have icons shown next to the appropriate phase. When you go to perform the action for a phase, it is easy to scan your played cards for triggered abilities since you just look for all the icons next to the appropriate phase. This allows a player to assimilate the 100 unique cards very quickly and not become overwhelmed as their Empire grows. The cards you use to choose what Phases occur even has similar icons on them to show what bonuses you will receive for instigating that phase.

I just went over how great the icons are at allowing a wide variety of cards without greatly slowing down game play. But that mainly applies to experienced players. For beginners it can be a whole different story. It's true there are almost a 100 different cards, but I'd estimate there to be almost 20 different standard icons, with many of those having multiple variations on type of good and further limitations. On top of the standard icons, there are many special cards that have to resort to text to explain their ability. For the beginner, they may not be facing 100 unique cards, but they are facing 20 or so unique icons coupled with remembering the actions of 7 or so different phases. There are player aids included in the game, but I almost found them more daunting than the cards themselves. Successful player aids make the game seem easier and simpler. The player aids in Race are scarier than the cards to me. It's important to understand that most beginners are just going to be lost in iconography for their first few games. And the real problem is, if you're lost in iconography, it's very hard to play the game with any semblance of skill or understanding. In addition, waiting for the beginners to scan and understand all the iconography on each card they receive is really going to slow the game down.

[imageid=271270]
And that's only the FRONT of the Player Aid

So in the end, I think the icons were the right choice. It makes for a steep learning curve, but the depth levels off pretty quickly after a few games. I'll go more into skill versus luck later on.

2. Frequency of Meaningful Decisions

Race does a great job of offering you meaningful decisions at a brisk pace. It has tons of hand management quandaries, and each phase decision is a huge game of knowing "I clearly can't choose the Wine In Front Of Me!!!"

Making you pay for playing cards by discarding other cards from your hand is just a genius idea. It first surfaced in the well known San Juan, of when Tom Lehman (The designer of Race) had a heavy hand in. This mechanic makes sure that as long as you have a useful card or two in your hand, you will have a tough time deciding what to play, pay or keep. It also means it's okay to draw cards you have no need for since you can just use them to pay for the ones you do want. The toughest decisions come when you have a large hand of cards and you actually want to play a large majority of them. The game will force you to give some of them up to pay for the ones you think will best benefit you. Choosing that single card or two to best benefit you can be a real gut wrenching decision though. I love it!

Choosing what Phases to trigger can be a real joy too. There is plenty of double think going on each turn. One of the classics that comes up quite often would be choosing to trade in goods when you don't actually have any yet. You are counting on your opponent to choose to settle new worlds and you have a world in your hand that comes with a free good. If things go right, you'll get to trade in goods a whole turn before anyone else. That means you'll be able to settle new worlds and developments the next turn while nobody else has any cards. Of course, sometimes it backfires and the opponent doesn't trigger the settle phase, then you're whole trade gambit just fell flat. And that's just one of the more common double think decisions you'll face.

[imageid=263526]
Just what phase is my opponent going to trigger?

3. Multiplayer Solitaire / Player Interaction / (Competitive / Casual)

Right. You know that whole double think section I just put in above? Well, that's pretty much the entire range of player interaction you get with Race. For some players that's enough, for others it sure isn't.

This really is the trade off you get for how much of the game is done simultaneously. Additionally, there just isn't anything you can do to affect the cards your opponent has already added to their Empire. A card laid is a card played for the rest of the game.

The only other real interaction is some forced consumption (think of making your opponents ship their Coffee in Puerto Rico). Alien (Yellow) goods are very good to trade and it can be devastating if your opponent makes you consume them for just a point or two in the early game. However, you can mostly avoid these situations through smart phase selection, which pretty much comes back to the double think above.

I would think it safe to claim that Race caters more to the casual crowd when it comes to player interaction. You really just can't pull off a "screw you" move in Race.

4. Skill / Luck / (Competitive / Casual)

Well, this is a card game. There is going to be a healthy dose of luck in any game you are drawing cards. However, I think Race falls much further on the skill end of the spectrum than many beginners give it credit for. There are many placed for skillful play in Race.

For one, beginners usually completely miss out on the double think fun of phase selection. As long as the beginner doesn't play completely randomly, an experienced player can easily predict what the beginners will choose and piggyback off of their selections. It really does take a couple games before players can get past the icons on their own cards and get into their opponents' heads.

The second one is just a general familiarity with the cards. The large developments in Race give bonuses based on the cards in your Empire. Each bonus development generally has a theme to it and rewards cards that play along with that theme. These bonus cards stand out very different than San Juan or Puerto Rico's bonus buildings however. For one thing, they're not available from the beginning to base a plan around. Even in San Juan, there were multiple copies of each bonus card so you had pretty good chances of finding the one you wanted. In Race, there's only one of each bonus card and your odds are pretty slim of finding any particular bonus card you go looking for. However, Race makes up for this by making the bonus cards worth more than just points. In Race, the Bonus cards actually have very useful abilities that go a long way towards helping you tailor your Empire to meet their bonuses requirements. If a bonus card rewards you for having other developments, it is likely going to make playing more developments cheaper. This means it can be a very good plan to play bonus cards in the early to mid game of Race if you acquire them.

Well, back on subject, familiarity with cards can make a large difference with skill. Just knowing the general deck composition and how common production worlds versus development bonuses are can allow you to make much more informed decisions. It's much more likely a skilled player will be able to put together a smooth consumption engine or a complimentary chain of developments.

Still, this is a card game. It is possible for one player to just get all the cards they need while another player gets nothing coherent all game long. Actually, it is very hard to get truly bad cards all game, but it is definitely possible for one player to just get more coherent cards all game.

I think Race straddles the competitive versus casual line very close on the skill versus luck spectrum. A more skilled player is going to win most of the time, but the cards can flow against them occasionally.

5. Runaway Leader / Effective Elimination / Catch-Up Mechanics / Score Obfuscation

Most games of Race I have played have come down to just a few points. My wife and I have only 1-3 points separate us almost every game. The funny thing is just the general magnitude of the scores can be quite variable. It's not common for us to score in the 30s one game and then one of us to break 50 the next game. Generally, if someone breaks 50, their opponent is still in the upper 40s however.

There aren't really any assured catch-up mechanics in Race, but it is a little hard to tell who's actually winning during many games. It's not uncommon to earn 10-15 points worth of worlds and consumption points during the last turn of the game. I said earlier not to count on getting a particular Bonus card, but sometimes they do just fall into your lap right before the end of the game. I would say that overall, it's very uncommon to feel out of contention during Race.

That probably doesn't apply to beginners however. If you're not past internalizing the icons, then don't expect to score very high. High scores require a cohesive Empire which is just hard to do when you have to keep looking up what each icon does.

I have been in a few games with runaway leaders. They mainly have come from getting obscene production engines online way early in the game. The most recent example was then I had three different colored production worlds and a development known as "Diversified Economy" as my first 4 cards. The diversified economy card just let me milk those production worlds for points and cards before my wife could get down any production worlds of her own to piggy back off of my phases. I ran the point pool dry in only 3 consumptions.

Most games however are down to the wire and keep all experienced players engaged right up to the end.

6. Fiddliness / Elegance (Rules & Bits)

Well, this would have been a great place to go over the icons, but I thought they needed addressed right at the beginning. For having almost 100 unique cards and being able to tell what each of them do with only a glance, the icons really do raise this game to a certain level of elegance.

[imageid=312224]
Just what do those arrows mean again?

Also, for that many unique cards, I've never once had a case of rules ambiguities. They all make a very logical sense that build on each other and leave no room for questions.

However, explaining the game to a beginner can really show some difficulties in conveying the rules. For one, explaining how only those who choose to trade get to trade but that if someone chooses to trade then everyone much consume afterwards is just a bit too much for those people still staring at icons with glazed over eyes.

The actual bits are very elegant though. It's just a bunch of cards and a few points chits. You draw cards and you play cards. There aren't all sorts of "Zones" or "tapped versus untapped" cards. There is no currency and there are no bits to represent goods. The same deck of cards serve as money and goods as needed.

Overall, I'd call Race a pretty elegant game. The only rough spot can be explaining the icons and phase flow to beginners. Experienced players should expect fast and smooth sailing through all of their games. The rules and bits just step aside and let you get into the game.

[imageid=265206]
Look how clean that table is!

7. Theme / Enjoyment

Well, it's called Race for the Galaxy right? It's got to be all about space ships and colonization right? Not really. The theme is pretty much as tacked on as you can get. In Race's defense, there is some really gorgeous art work on all of the cards. Each unique card has it's own unique art work. And because the icons are so condensed, a very large portion of the card is available to display the picture. Even though, I think Race fails pretty hard on the theme front. It's just missing that certain something that makes Magic: The Gathering illustrations so interesting. In M:tG, the artwork is only about half the size, but it is just some thematic and engrossing. In Race, I hardly ever spare a glance at the pictures. Maybe it's just because Race is moving at such a fast pace I don't want to take the time to stop and look. I'm not sure. Just know the theme of Race is pretty forgettable and not integrated into the mechanics much at all. Others may disagree, but I don't see it.

However, that doesn't make Race a dry and boring game. I've enjoyed almost every game of Race, and I still want to play it more. It's just too addicting. There's just something so enticing about stringing together a set of cards into a successful Empire. No two games play out the same and yet every game stays engaging during the whole time. The decisions don't degrade into obvious choices and each flip of the cards is anticipated with glee. I don't know the exact secret, but Race is a very enjoyable game. It's surely some combination of the speed, multiple strategies and plethora of cards. It just keeps dragging you back in for more.

8. Tactical / Strategic / (Short Term / Long Term Planning)

Here's another place where Race shines. I think it's very easy to see the divide here. Most of your Phase choices are very short term and only affect the current turn. The choices of what cards to add to your Empire will stick with you for the rest of the game.

There is a healthy dose of tactical struggle in the phase choosing double think. It's also nice to know that a mistake in your double think will not resonate very far into the future. However, if you pull off a number of great phase choices over the course of the game, it can go a long way to giving you the win.

Every card you play to the table though is a long term decision that will stick with you for the rest of the game. In Race, it's perfectly reasonable to pass on building something you could technically afford. If the potential card just wouldn't give you enough long term benefit, it makes much more sense to hold onto your entire hand to pay for something better later. It's very possible for the winning player to finish with 3-4 less worlds than their opponents. Each played card also adds to the cohesive strategy of your Empire. Multiple cards with synergistic abilities are often better than the sum of their parts.

So I believe Race has a healthy dose of tactics and strategy. The interesting result of this analysis is that it seems that the majority of the player interaction is restricted to the short term tactical decisions. The double think depends on each player's strategies, but your actual strategies are largely made independent of any player interaction. You just don't go through the deck enough to worry about some other player taking the same cards you need. What strategy they take will have very small impact on what cards are available to you later.

9. Story Line / Multiple Paths to Victory

Here is another place that Race shines for me. Games of Race have a very distinct story line. Most games start with players exploring to draw some more cards and then steadily adding more cards to their Empire. As the game progresses, some players digress into a production and consumption cycle while others stay busy building up their Empire until the end of the game. The phase decisions and the card play decisions feel very different from the beginning to the end of the game.

Also, I love that Race has multiple viable paths to victory. In fact, I'm not even sure I know them all yet. There is definitely a pure production path to victory. But it can be based only on blue goods, only on brown goods, or a really diversified spread of goods. There's the ever popular military strategy that lets you settle worlds without paying cards, but few of these military worlds actually produce goods or even give you any abilities at all other than points. There are strategies of getting deep discounts on developments and then just filling your Empire with bonus developments that each add only a modest bonus to your score. All of these strategies and more are viable ways of winning the game. And even then, you have plenty of leeway to mix and match from the above. It's easy to splash military with a ton of developments. You might try accumulating some world discounts and then settling a large number of expensive Alien worlds.

I think the number of paths to victory is one of the primary things that makes Race so addicting.

[imageid=282175]
Cards for an Alien Strategy

10. Approachability / Player Ranges

Well, I think I've beaten the Approachability bit to death by now. Generally I don't get as deep into it earlier on in my reviews. If you think a player is interested enough in a fast economic card game to invest 1-2 hours for 2-3 learning games to get over the iconography, then I think it's worth teaching them. If a player needs more immediate gratification or deeper player interaction, then you probably should pass.

The base game plays from 2-4 players. As with most games, the more players you add the more the chaos is ratcheted up. In particular, the phase double think becomes very convoluted with multiple players. I've played most of my games as 2 players and have loved them to death. At the same time, I wouldn't hesitate to join in a nice multiplayer game either. I believe the first expansion is going to offer the bits to let a 5th player join in as well.

Conclusion

Well, I personally just adore Race for the Galaxy. It's really grown on me into a very addicting past time. I'm trying to figure out how to fit it into the packing for a vacation I'm taking with my wife this week.

The best parts of Race are the speed for the game, frequency of the meaningful decisions and number of strategies you can employ to win. You might want to steer clear if you don't want to invest the time to learn the iconography or need more player interaction than double think with only short term ramifications.

There is also a bit of a conundrum with the competitive versus casual implications. The player interactions definitely lend themselves to a more gentle casual environment, but the time investment to learn the icons would be more likely to scare off the casual crowd. If you can reconcile these conflicting interests, then this is a game for you! I personally am really itching to get a hold of the expansions that promise to open up even more potential strategies!

[imageid=260954]

Thread: Re: New card idea for increased conflict: Galactic Privateers

Hansolo88 — 2008-05-06T03:32:56+00:00

Oooh, I like that. Very nicely done. Combines my original idea with the steal a good idea, successfully allows a military strategy player to target and hurt a consume x2 player without the ability itself being overpowered.

It shouldn't slow down the game really because the player losing the good is going to take only a few seconds to choose which good to lose, versus having to choose a card of their hand with all the analysis that could go into that decision. Great flavor as well.

Thread: Re: Blank Card PDF?

Beowuulf1 — 2008-05-06T03:00:29+00:00

Thanks!

Thread: Re: My simple take

Atomic Wedgie — 2008-05-06T02:15:50+00:00

Regarding pricing actually, how do game companys actually figure out how much to charge for games?

Is it based on Components? because if it is, then 60 odd bucks is really quite expensive for a mere card game, while S$135 (singapore dollars) for Twilight Imperium feels dirt cheap? I hate it when the air volume to compenent volume in a game box is high. Or S$35 for Citadels is quite a rip off, since the box contains just cards and butterscotch.

I understand all companys want to make a profit, that's fine, but there seems to be a large discrepancy in price of different games. What are we really paying for?

Thread: Re: Blank Card PDF?

onigame — 2008-05-06T01:05:55+00:00

I think he's referring to these:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/258924
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/258919

Thread: Re: Homemade Cards

onigame — 2008-05-06T12:59:03+00:00

Separatist Colony has got to be the most-often misspelled card in the whole deck.

Thread: Re: High Cost + Two expansions in production: why?

Conbarris — 2008-05-06T08:30:48+00:00

It would be a great world to live in as a consumer if everything was priced just to cover the material and "production" cost...

I've read that the design process, development and testing of RftG have been enourmous. Now the testers probably enjoyed themselves, so one might say that the testing cost is pro bono.
But regarding the other costs, if the game designer would have put a normal wage/hour on his design and development time I would say this game might be a financial "loss" to the designer still.

But then again, developing games is probably a "hobby" for the designer so he might see it as a huge success. And in the game industry it probably is. Anyway, just because designing games might be fun doesn't mean the designers have to give their games away.

Thread: Re: Homemade Cards

Beowuulf1 — 2008-05-06T02:54:17+00:00

It's under creative.

Thread: Homemade Cards

Beowuulf1 — 2008-05-06T12:59:00+00:00

I added a homemade version of the Separtist Colony to images. If anyone wants to take a stab at the other rumored expansion homeworlds as discussed in the RTFG: TGS board, or any other homemade cards, I would greatly appreciate it.

Enjoy!

Image

Beowuulf1 — 2008-05-06T12:57:13+00:00

For those who can't wait for the real thing

Thread: Re: New card idea for increased conflict: Galactic Privateers

hodji — 2008-05-05T05:57:43+00:00

Hansolo88 wrote:
Stealing a good: I'm not as fond of this idea, but i would prefer to make it a "consume" power instead of a "produce" power and allow the privateer player to "consume" and allow it to consume someone else's resource for a card or something prior to everyone else doing their consume phase. This would allow a player to target and slow down someone who has a killer Consume x2 strategy going.
How about...

At the start of the Consume phase, may choose opponent with 2 or more goods in their tableau. Opponent must select one good to pay as Tribute which you add to your hand (as card, w/o revealing).

I think the '2 or more goods' requirement and having opponent choose lost good go a long way toward keeping this power in check while still allowing you to slow down an opponents Consume x2 strategy. And, if nothing else, it insures you won't be taking their intended Trade good.

Thread: Re: Blank Card PDF?

Beowuulf1 — 2008-05-05T05:07:59+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Where can I find these prototypes?

Thread: Re: New card idea for increased conflict: Galactic Privateers

Hansolo88 — 2008-05-05T03:41:11+00:00

Further refinement:

Stealing a card: I like the idea of the person who is losing the card choosing which card to lose. That does create an opportunity for more strategy for that player, at the cost of possibly adding a small amount of time for them to make a decision, especially if they have a lot of cards.

Stealing a good: I'm not as fond of this idea, but i would prefer to make it a "consume" power instead of a "produce" power and allow the privateer player to "consume" and allow it to consume someone else's resource for a card or something prior to everyone else doing their consume phase. This would allow a player to target and slow down someone who has a killer Consume x2 strategy going.

Pretty good discussion, I'm just trying to get a feel for what people think of this kind of direct conflict in the game. I really, really like the game but I am approaching it from a wargamer's perspective rather than a eurogamers and it seems to me you could introduce a bit more player interaction while still leaving the main gameplay intact.

Thread: Re: 4th time and the focus shifts

byronczimmer — 2008-05-05T03:35:31+00:00

Roliander wrote:
harris_family wrote:

There were just the 3 of us (again!) this week but I don't think that a problem with this game. Do others think the fact that you regularly only get 2 phases per turn affects the fun at all?

We've played with up to five people before and there were still often only two phases that would emerge. I think the only real difference with four or five players over three is that when it does happen that only two phases are called there are more voices to contribute to the collective "Doh!" :D

Are these specific phases that emerge (aka Produce/Consume) or are you saying on any given round that only two phases will be executed?

Thread: Re: Blank Card PDF?

byronczimmer — 2008-05-05T03:28:37+00:00

Action cards are identical on the front save for color.

Option 1: Photocopy them and muck with the color settings to get a 'different' color.
Option 2: Scan 'em in to Photoshop and muck with the color.

Backs will be obscured anyway by your sleeves.

-=-=-

Card template you can probably get already from the 'prototype' cards published here on the Geek. You won't have pretty pictures, but you will have the basic template, the action track on the left side and a few symbols. Additional symbols could be cadged from the periodic table.

Thread: Re: Variant: Satellites, Moons and Upgrades

byronczimmer — 2008-05-05T03:23:12+00:00

That would be difficult, since these are kind of like 'half cards', and would thus have to be created.

Thread: Re: 1st game - no clue - I won!?!

smtudor — 2008-05-05T02:05:50+00:00

20 points with 12 buildings? I'd say he rushed and filled his tableau with cheapies. I did the same thing the first couple of times I played. Looking back, I can't decide if the other players were annoyed at me or not. They probably were.

Edit: OK, they aren't all technically "buildings", but please humor my blatant San Juan-ism :)

Thread: Re: Finally got to play this other than solitaire

Frank Hamrick — 2008-05-05T01:15:00+00:00

"Some would say that you're still playing solitaire." True. But then, they don't really know the game, do they! Like most things, appreciation grows with knowledge.