Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:55:27 +0000

djgutierrez77 wrote:
synco wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
[What's so hard to understand about this?]

Indeed it is hard:

My understanding of the rules on page 3 (about happy and unhappy faces) is that one should first count the number of happy faces and substract from that the number of unhappy faces, so the Kremlin (and Communism too) has priority over SPB.
I have first followed the general rules of the booklet (that handle happy and unhappy faces) and later followed a special card. (SPB)

Your counting method clearly gives SPB (special card) priority over the Kremlin (or likewise Communism).

What has priority? (general rules or special cards?)

But SPB states on the card that it takes effect when you count the happy faces! You said it yourself! You count the number of happy faces (and they each count twice, because of SPB) and then subtract the unhappy faces. This is ludicrous....

Agreed. St. Peter's Basilica says "Each of your happy faces counts twice." It thus applies when you are counting happy faces. Kremlin affects your happy face count, so it too applies when you are counting happy faces. This leads to five possible "timing" approaches (four of which net out to the same thing):

1. Kremlin > SPB: Subtract Kremlin's unhappy faces before you count happy faces; i.e., you start at a -2 happy face deficit. Then count all your happy faces as two each. So if you have built three buildings on a single-happy-face temple, and built the kremlin (K) and St. Pete's (S), the sequence would be:

-2 (K) + 3 (temples) + 3 (temples/S) = 4 total happy faces.

2. Kremlin Interrupt: Count your happy faces, subtract two for Kremlin, then count them again for SPB. This splits into two possibilities:

(a) SPB "recounts" only one remaining happy face:
3 (temples) - 2 (K) + 1 (temple/S) = 2 total happy faces
(b) SPB "recounts" all happy faces:
3 (temples) - 2 (K) + 3 (temples/S) = 4 total happy faces

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the Kremlin acting as an interrupt to SPB's counting each happy face twice, option (a) has the Kremlin effectively preventing SPB from operating on two happy faces. I'm not sure what rule or logic would permit the Kremlin to cancel out the effect of SPB entirely with regard to those two happy faces. Only option (b) allows both the Kremlin and SPB to have their full effect.

3. Simultaneous: A truly simultaneous approach would have the Kremlin canceling a happy face that equals two happy faces due to St. Peter's:

3 (temples) + 3 (temples/S) - 1 (K) - 1 (K/S) = 4 total happy faces

4. SPB > Kremlin: Count each happy face as two happy faces because of St. Pete's, then subtract two for the Kremlin:

3 (temples) + 3 (temples/S) - 2 (K) = 4 total happy faces

I can't think of any compelling reason, in the rules or in logic, why 2(a) would be the correct approach.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

synco — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:50:54 +0000

by synco

I like a response from someone else.

What goes first?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Octavian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:10:36 +0000

by Octavian

We're well off the beaten path at this point.

For those who want to engage in further political discussion, please join us in the RSP forum: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/forum/152/region/1

]]>

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

djgutierrez77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:02:31 +0000

by djgutierrez77

Agreed. I don't have time to delete mine, but I'm at work and busy.

One thing we can definitely agree on, reasons for the policy change aside--this is a good game, and hopefully now more people get to play.

Carry on. :D

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:59:17 +0000

by djgutierrez77

synco wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
[What's so hard to understand about this?]

Indeed it is hard:

My understanding of the rules on page 3 (about happy and unhappy faces) is that one should first count the number of happy faces and substract from that the number of unhappy faces, so the Kremlin (and Communism too) has priority over SPB.
I have first followed the general rules of the booklet (that handle happy and unhappy faces) and later followed a special card. (SPB)

Your counting method clearly gives SPB (special card) priority over the Kremlin (or likewise Communism).

What has priority? (general rules or special cards?)

But SPB states on the card that it takes effect when you count the happy faces! You said it yourself! You count the number of happy faces (and they each count twice, because of SPB) and then subtract the unhappy faces. This is ludicrous....

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

azuredarkness — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:47:18 +0000

by azuredarkness

aaxiom wrote:
A marriage contract between two people (any two)

Only two?
That's very limiting, don't you think?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

aaxiom — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:20:36 +0000

by aaxiom

wwscrispin wrote:
Take this juvenile discussion elsewhere.

Agreed (and apologies, again). How?

I actually would be happy to remove all of my comments. Would that help matters any?

In fact, I'll do that, save my final reply to Dave.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

aaxiom — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:16:46 +0000

by aaxiom

My view:

A marriage contract between two people (any two) should be sufficient provided that they're (a) not kids, and (b) not coerced. A contract, not government, can handle powers of attorney, visitation, inheritance, etc.

Government has no business in those affairs. But for many of us, we've known of no other way.

Just my opinion, one among many.

P.S.: Incidentally Dave, I've enjoyed many of your posts over the past year on the Geek... I thank you for your viewpoint on this issue (which admittedly has strayed a bit). Also, my final comment earlier might have been missed:

To conclude, we as gamers tend to regard our gaming as an escape -- a respite if you will -- from the stresses of life. This is how I regard the hobby. This is a wonderful thing, and it is my hope that our differences of opinion on these matters will have no impact on our enjoyment of a great game should we ever have the opportunity to share a play at some point in the future.

Thanks for reading, and game on.

Apologies to anyone put off by this discussion -- I am completely at fault for this.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

wwscrispin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:15:38 +0000

by wwscrispin

djgutierrez77 wrote:
aaxiom wrote:

Regarding marriage: Why did you have to seek permission from your government to get married? Wasn't your love for your spouse (of whatever gender) enough for you? Having to ask permission isn't freedom.

Ah, good point. All those silly homosexuals who want the same legal protections of their marriages as heterosexual couples get shouldn't bother seeking equality, since if the government gives them "permission" to marry they're just taking away their freedoms anyway. So what if they can't have shared health benefits, power of attorney to make medical decisions, visitation rights in the hospital, protections in case of divorce, joint tax returns, automatic inheritance, or joint parenting rights. They have love! And freedom! I'm glad someone is courageous enough to fight for their freedom to be persecuted, even if they can't be made to see sense.

Take this juvenile discussion elsewhere.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

djgutierrez77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:03:57 +0000

by djgutierrez77

aaxiom wrote:

Regarding marriage: Why did you have to seek permission from your government to get married? Wasn't your love for your spouse (of whatever gender) enough for you? Having to ask permission isn't freedom.

Ah, good point. All those silly homosexuals who want the same legal protections of their marriages as heterosexual couples get shouldn't bother seeking equality, since if the government gives them "permission" to marry they're just taking away their freedoms anyway. So what if they can't have shared health benefits, power of attorney to make medical decisions, visitation rights in the hospital, protections in case of divorce, joint tax returns, automatic inheritance, or joint parenting rights. They have love! And freedom! I'm glad someone is courageous enough to fight for their freedom to be persecuted, even if they can't be made to see sense.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

synco — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:47:20 +0000

by synco

djgutierrez77 wrote:
[What's so hard to understand about this?]

Indeed it is hard:

My understanding of the rules on page 3 (about happy and unhappy faces) is that one should first count the number of happy faces and substract from that the number of unhappy faces, so the Kremlin (and Communism too) has priority over SPB.
I have first followed the general rules of the booklet (that handle happy and unhappy faces) and later followed a special card. (SPB)

Your counting method clearly gives SPB (special card) priority over the Kremlin (or likewise Communism).

What has priority? (general rules or special cards?)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

ekted — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:42:50 +0000

by ekted

djgutierrez77 wrote:
Again, wrong. The SPB card is not a "doubler." It says "each happy face counts twice." So you count all the happy faces on your civilization. Then you count them again. Then you count all the unhappy faces and subtract that number from your total. What's so hard to understand about this? If the SPB card said "multiply your happiness score by 2" or "double your total happiness," your assessment would be correct. It doesn't, though.

Put it in a different context. You are playing an RPG board game. You have a character with 20 hit points. During play you recieve 2 damage tokens. Then you find a magic item that doubles your hit points. Do you now have 18 or 16 hit points? It all depends on whether damage counts sgainst hit point or not. It's a semantic flaw in the game's design and rules to use 2 different terms/icons for (potentially) the same quantity. If the intent is that they are the same thing, then call them the same thing. If the intent is that they be different, then use completely different names, and specifically state (and give an example that shows) how they are to be treated.

There seem to be 4 different arguments going on:

- The intent of the designer.

- How the game SHOULD be played.

- The literal interpretation of the rules text.

- How to describe the 2 different interpretations.

Please don't get all caught up in combinations of these things. It gets us nowhere. For example, arguing that YOUR interpretation of the rules is correct because it was the designer's intent.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Golux13 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:42:54 +0000

by Golux13

aaxiom wrote:
Regarding market mechanisms: We've probably never seen one that hasn't been meddled with beyond recognition in our lifetime. This is the problem. You don't tell people who wish to voluntarily do business with each other what they can or cannot do -- unless you advocate tyranny (or just want cheaper games because you elected some official to force those providing games to do so).

Yes, in our wonderful world, where every party to a transaction has full access to all relevant information and equal bargaining power, the unfettered market works perfectly. Also, everyone has a pet rainbow unicorn.

We have a great deal of tyranny today... and it's a foothold for ever greater control. It's enough to make the mob blush.

As Tim correctly pointed out indirectly, all tyranny begins small. Tyranny claims freedom (even in the game market) and it NEVER WILLINGLY gives it back. When it does, people have to fight like hell to reclaim it.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The only chip on my shoulder is that I love freedom. That freedom is stolen from me in small (and accelerating) ways on a daily basis these days, and I like it not one bit.

Have fun storming the castle.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Through the Ages: A Soulless Disappointment

ohbalto — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:30:38 +0000

by ohbalto

It's curious, but the back and forth in this thread is only making me want to purchase this game more.

Also, the notion of a game that's mostly you building up your stuff, then turning around at an opportune moment and crushing your opponent, well . . . it might not be the best thing in the world to play with my wife (as that is, um, her preferred playstyle. Which is to say, crushing, then crushing some more).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

opks22 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:36:12 +0000

by opks22

Oh hooray, nothing like political discussion to ruin a nice thread. Anyhow, from what I have heard, FRED is moving towards a new model to add distributors into the mix as opposed to FRED serving as its own distributor. This has caused some of their sales reps to resign, as their jobs became that much more difficult.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Larry Levy — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:44:22 +0000

by Larry Levy

Jonathan Degann wrote:
Larry Levy wrote:
aaxiom wrote:
If it is market-driven: Good. If it's government-driven: Bad.

An opinion, from someone who enjoys what freedom remains.

And yet, the end effect is the same.

A response, from someone who enjoys reality.

So, for example, if protests in Iran die down on their own, or do so because of government crack down - it is no matter, the effect is the same?

I don't deny that my comment included some hyperbole. My only point is that if there's a result that you want to achieve, it seems foolish to automatically rule out having government actions influence it. I don't have total faith in governments, but I certainly don't have total faith in market mechanisms either. It seems wise to give yourself multiple tools for shaping society.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Velusion — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:21:45 +0000

by Velusion

I was speaking with a friend of mine who runs an online game store a couple weeks ago. He indicated that FRED is apparently dropping the price fixing structure completely.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

out4blood — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:03:19 +0000

by out4blood

djgutierrez77 wrote:
aaxiom wrote:
Jonathan Degann wrote:
Larry Levy wrote:
aaxiom wrote:
If it is market-driven: Good. If it's government-driven: Bad.

An opinion, from someone who enjoys what freedom remains.

And yet, the end effect is the same.

A response, from someone who enjoys reality.

So, for example, if protests in Iran die down on their own, or do so because of government crack down - it is no matter, the effect is the same?

Yep. Government gives you your games... the people who create them don't. Government is just so incredibly wonderful. My mistake.

I agree. As soon as the government stops telling me who I can marry, who who I can screw, when I can choose to terminate a pregnancy, and when my kids can learn about responsible birth control, my world will be a better place. Then maybe they can focus on things like infrastructure and social programs like they're supposed.

And really, Phil, how big does the chip on your shoulder have to be for you to turn this discussion into a political soapbox? Is there really anyone out here foolish enough to think the government is forcing FRED's hand on the couple thousand units of games they sell? Paranoid much?

In America, they came first for the Game Publishers, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Game Publisher...

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

djgutierrez77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:02:49 +0000

by djgutierrez77

aaxiom wrote:
Jonathan Degann wrote:
Larry Levy wrote:
aaxiom wrote:
If it is market-driven: Good. If it's government-driven: Bad.

An opinion, from someone who enjoys what freedom remains.

And yet, the end effect is the same.

A response, from someone who enjoys reality.

So, for example, if protests in Iran die down on their own, or do so because of government crack down - it is no matter, the effect is the same?

Yep. Government gives you your games... the people who create them don't. Government is just so incredibly wonderful. My mistake.

I agree. As soon as the government stops telling me who I can marry, who who I can screw, when I can choose to terminate a pregnancy, and when my kids can learn about responsible birth control, my world will be a better place. Then maybe they can focus on things like infrastructure and social programs like they're supposed.

And really, Phil, how big does the chip on your shoulder have to be for you to turn this discussion into a political soapbox? Is there really anyone out here foolish enough to think the government is forcing FRED's hand on the couple thousand units of games they sell? Paranoid much?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:57:35 +0000

by djgutierrez77

synco wrote:
The rules (FRED version november 2007) on page 3 Happy Faces :) tell me:

Other cards also have Happy Faces, sometimes several. A few cards have an Unhappy Face :( that cancels out 1 Happy Face.

So, this means (for me) that an Unhappy Face 'whipes out' a Happy Face face on an other card: it counts as one negative Happy Face.

The Kremlin would reduce the total number of Happy Faces (before scoring applies for the doubler card SPB and/or bonus card Michelangelo)
If possible you should choose the canceled Happy Faces from other cards than temples, theaters or wonders if you have Michelangelo in play.

The 2 cancelled Happy Faces (in this scoring example) chosen are from the Hanging Gardens.

happiness = 2*(0+1) = 2 times [SPB] ( 0 [Hanging Gardens] + 1 [Religion] ) = 2

Michelangelo scores 1+(1*2) [religion] + 1+(0*2) [Hanging Gardens] + 2 [SPB] + 3 [Kremlin] = 9 CP

Again, wrong. The SPB card is not a "doubler." It says "each happy face counts twice." So you count all the happy faces on your civilization. Then you count them again. Then you count all the unhappy faces and subtract that number from your total. What's so hard to understand about this? If the SPB card said "multiply your happiness score by 2" or "double your total happiness," your assessment would be correct. It doesn't, though.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

synco — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:45:46 +0000

by synco

The rules (FRED version november 2007) on page 3 Happy Faces :) tell me:

Other cards also have Happy Faces, sometimes several. A few cards have an Unhappy Face :( that cancels out 1 Happy Face.

So, this means (for me) that an Unhappy Face 'whipes out' a Happy Face face on a card: it counts as one negative Happy Face.

The Kremlin would reduce the total number of Happy Faces (before scoring applies for the doubler card SPB and/or bonus card Michelangelo)
If possible you should choose the canceled Happy Faces from other cards than temples, theaters or wonders if you have Michelangelo in play.

The 2 cancelled Happy Faces (in this scoring example) chosen are from the Hanging Gardens.

happiness = 2*(2+1-2) = 2 times [SPB] ( 2 [Hanging Gardens] + 1 [Religion] - 2 [Kremlin] ) = 2

Michelangelo scores 1+(1*2) [religion] + 1 [Hanging Gardens] + 2 [SPB] + 3 [Kremlin] = 9 CP

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:39:07 +0000

by Octavian

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
Octavian wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:
Haven't we demonstrated rather plainly here that the correct method wasn't as obvious as you seemed to have thought?

No. All you've demonstrated is that you believe an unhappy face is a kind of happy face. I admit, I thought it should be obvious that someone would be able to see the difference between the two.

I think we've finally reached perfect agreement on something here, because I thought it was just as obvious that one Unhappy Face equals minus-one Happy Faces! So here's one of each for you! :):(

:( != -:)

So you went to great lengths to explain why my interpretation might be breaking the game. What is your rationale for ignoring the same interpretation coming from the designer?

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:36:43 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Octavian wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:
Haven't we demonstrated rather plainly here that the correct method wasn't as obvious as you seemed to have thought?

No. All you've demonstrated is that you believe an unhappy face is a kind of happy face. I admit, I thought it should be obvious that someone would be able to see the difference between the two.

I think we've finally reached perfect agreement on something here, because I thought it was just as obvious that one Unhappy Face equals minus-one Happy Faces! So here's one of each for you! :):(

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:33:45 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

djgutierrez77 wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then? It certainly took you long enough to admit that. As for your argument about doubling unhappy faces, it's a straw man--nobody has claimed that St. Peter's Basilica should double the Kremlin's unhappy faces.

Uh...yeah, you did. If the Kremlin takes effect first, you have effectively doubled the unhappy faces. I'm sure you understand that, you were just too upset by other people's "condescending attitudes."

You've got just one total of happy faces. That's calculated by adding together all your happy faces and then deducting any unhappy faces you have. For the Kremlin, you deduct two. Now that you know what your happy face total is, you can apply the effect of St. Peter's Basilica. That's how I play it. The Kremlin just cost me two happy faces. Or to look at it another way--those two happy faces that are canceled out by the Kremlin aren't there to be doubled by St. Peter's Basilica. Those two happy faces don't exist because you built the Kremlin.

I think Matt's method weakens the effect of the Kremlin too much while making St. Peter's Basilica too powerful. It completely eliminates the intended bad side of building the Kremlin while my preferred method only partially weakens St. Peter's Basilica, which is far less harmful from a strategic standpoint.

Matt's method adds a strategic aspect to the game that is probably unintended and possibly even harmful to the spirit of the game. Using Matt's method, anyone who builds St. Peter's Basilica suddenly becomes hell bent to build the Kremlin now that they've entirely eliminated what was supposed to be the Kremlin's very serious drawback--it's two unhappy faces. My method of applying the effects of these Wonders keeps the Kremlin's effect completely intact--anyone with a chance to build it has to wonder whether gaining its advantages is worth suffering its penalties. Building the Kremlin shouldn't be a freebie bonus Wonder for anyone who builds it, including a civilization which has built St. Peter's Basilica.

From a realistic standpoint, shouldn't the Kremlin cancel out the effects of St. Peter's Basilica? Doesn't the Kremlin represent the atheistic communist philosophy that says that the state is now your only god and that you should ignore that other kind? If anything, anyone who has built St. Peter's Basilica should be prohibited from building the Kremlin. Building the Kremlin should pretty much cripple the effects of St. Peter's Basilica, just as it did in real life. In Through The Ages, it should be difficult if not impossible to sustain both those Wonders with the same civilization.

So remind me again why your arbitrary interpretation of the rule is supposed to be better again? I keep forgetting.

If the post you're replying to didn't do the job, I don't think further explanation will help; I think we've all pretty much dug in our heels on the matter.

If you go by what's on the card, you play it the way Matt and I have suggested. There's precedence for this in the rules, since there are events and other cards that score points for happy faces, and specifically say that they're not limited by the 8 available spaces on the happiness track. That's enough for me to conclude that Happy Faces and Happiness (as indicated by the track on the player board) are not necessarily the same count.

This point has already become a side issue. The Happiness-vs-Happy-Faces issue has nothing to do with the St. Pete's-vs-The-Kremlin issue. That's a whole 'nuther issue that isn't covered by the rules. And whether Michaelangelo or any other event is affected by the 8-point Happiness track is also totally unrelated to St. Peter's or The Kremlin. Neither card mentions "Happiness" any more than the rulebook does.

The fact that we disagree doesn't make either of us right, but I'm a lot more satisfied with my logic than yours, since yours seems entirely predicated on finding a rationalization that will justify your belief that playing my way makes SPB + Kremlin overpowered.

Here I completely agree with you. If you guys like the game as you're playing it, more power to you. Enjoy! Nor would I refuse a game against you over this one small rules issue. I'd play it your way just so I could scream bloody murder if you beat me by a couple of happy face points. :D

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Jonathan Degann — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:39:42 +0000

by Jonathan Degann

Larry Levy wrote:
aaxiom wrote:
If it is market-driven: Good. If it's government-driven: Bad.

An opinion, from someone who enjoys what freedom remains.

And yet, the end effect is the same.

A response, from someone who enjoys reality.

So, for example, if protests in Iran die down on their own, or do so because of government crack down - it is no matter, the effect is the same?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Golux13 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:46:47 +0000

by Golux13

Shouldn't that be "...from someone who enjoys what reality remains"?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:30:48 +0000

by Golux13

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
You've got just one total of happy faces. That's calculated by adding together all your happy faces and then deducting any unhappy faces you have. For the Kremlin, you deduct two. Now that you know what your happy face total is, you can apply the effect of St. Peter's Basilica. That's how I play it. The Kremlin just cost me two happy faces. Or to look at it another way--those two happy faces that are canceled out by the Kremlin aren't there to be doubled by St. Peter's Basilica. Those two happy faces don't exist because you built the Kremlin.

But the text of St. Peter's Basilica doesn't say "Double your total happy faces"; it says "Each of your happy faces counts twice." The only way to interpret this is to count each happy face as two happy faces. If you want to be literal about it, you go through each of your buildings and wonders and count your happy faces, so for Hanging Gardens, you say "one-two, three-four," and so on. Now if you do it that way, it's clear you don't do the same thing with the Kremlin, because St. Pete's doesn't say "Each of your unhappy faces counts twice."

If you somehow think of the Kremlin as canceling out two of your happy faces, then you still wouldn't net them out and then double. Since SPB makes each of your happy faces count twice, then the Kremlin should only cancels one of your happy faces (since it counts as two, matching the two unhappy faces of the Kremlin).

Either way you look at it, given the text of St. Pete's, you wouldn't (a) double your happy faces and subtract four or (b) subtract the Kremlin from your happy face total and then double.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

ekted — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:21:43 +0000

by ekted

There have been more cases than I can count where a literal interpretation of the rules was contrary to the designer's intent. This is one of those cases where it is unclear. It was "obvious" to me that a frown was a negative happy face. Nothing else even crossed my mind, even when the SPB/K combo came up in play. Even if Vlada himself stated otherwise (and I would play by his ruling), I would still call it an exception in an otherwise elegant system (the only other ineligance being the Newton/Revolution combo).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Larry Levy — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:38:04 +0000

by Larry Levy

aaxiom wrote:
If it is market-driven: Good. If it's government-driven: Bad.

An opinion, from someone who enjoys what freedom remains.

And yet, the end effect is the same.

A response, from someone who enjoys reality.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Eric Brosius — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:29:14 +0000

by Eric Brosius

Dan, it's a free country. You and your group may play it any way you like.

In general, when an ambiguity is discovered in a game's rules, people ask the designer what the ruling should be and follow that ruling. But this is only "in general," and is not a legal requirement.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:55:27 +0000

by Octavian

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
Haven't we demonstrated rather plainly here that the correct method wasn't as obvious as you seemed to have thought?

No. All you've demonstrated is that you believe an unhappy face is a kind of happy face. I admit, I thought it should be obvious that someone would be able to see the difference between the two.

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:28:18 +0000

by djgutierrez77

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then? It certainly took you long enough to admit that. As for your argument about doubling unhappy faces, it's a straw man--nobody has claimed that St. Peter's Basilica should double the Kremlin's unhappy faces.

Uh...yeah, you did. If the Kremlin takes effect first, you have effectively doubled the unhappy faces. I'm sure you understand that, you were just too upset by other people's "condescending attitudes."

You've got just one total of happy faces. That's calculated by adding together all your happy faces and then deducting any unhappy faces you have. For the Kremlin, you deduct two. Now that you know what your happy face total is, you can apply the effect of St. Peter's Basilica. That's how I play it. The Kremlin just cost me two happy faces. Or to look at it another way--those two happy faces that are canceled out by the Kremlin aren't there to be doubled by St. Peter's Basilica. Those two happy faces don't exist because you built the Kremlin.

I think Matt's method weakens the effect of the Kremlin too much while making St. Peter's Basilica too powerful. It completely eliminates the intended bad side of building the Kremlin while my preferred method only partially weakens St. Peter's Basilica, which is far less harmful from a strategic standpoint.

Matt's method adds a strategic aspect to the game that is probably unintended and possibly even harmful to the spirit of the game. Using Matt's method, anyone who builds St. Peter's Basilica suddenly becomes hell bent to build the Kremlin now that they've entirely eliminated what was supposed to be the Kremlin's very serious drawback--it's two unhappy faces. My method of applying the effects of these Wonders keeps the Kremlin's effect completely intact--anyone with a chance to build it has to wonder whether gaining its advantages is worth suffering its penalties. Building the Kremlin shouldn't be a freebie bonus Wonder for anyone who builds it, including a civilization which has built St. Peter's Basilica.

From a realistic standpoint, shouldn't the Kremlin cancel out the effects of St. Peter's Basilica? Doesn't the Kremlin represent the atheistic communist philosophy that says that the state is now your only god and that you should ignore that other kind? If anything, anyone who has built St. Peter's Basilica should be prohibited from building the Kremlin. Building the Kremlin should pretty much cripple the effects of St. Peter's Basilica, just as it did in real life. In Through The Ages, it should be difficult if not impossible to sustain both those Wonders with the same civilization.

So remind me again why your arbitrary interpretation of the rule is supposed to be better again? I keep forgetting.

If you go by what's on the card, you play it the way Matt and I have suggested. There's precedence for this in the rules, since there are events and other cards that score points for happy faces, and specifically say that they're not limited by the 8 available spaces on the happiness track. That's enough for me to conclude that Happy Faces and Happiness (as indicated by the track on the player board) are not necessarily the same count. The further conclusion would be that a card that doubles happy faces (such as, say, Saint Peter's) would double every happy face produced by a worker or wonder. Since the card makes no mention of adjusting this count by twice the number of unhappy faces, I still assume this means the adjustment by the unhappy faces is the last step in determining where your marker goes on that track. The fact that we disagree doesn't make either of us right, but I'm a lot more satisfied with my logic than yours, since yours seems entirely predicated on finding a rationalization that will justify your belief that playing my way makes SPB + Kremlin overpowered.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:20:08 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Octavian wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then?

It is, by virtue of the fact that doubling unhappy faces is never mentioned. You have to invent rules to come to your conclusion - either doubling unhappy faces or not REALLY doubling all your happy faces. If you go by only the rules as written your conclusion can't be reached.

Matt, if you go by the rules as written, NO conclusion can be reached because the written rules don't cover this problem. You have to invent rules to come to ANY conclusion on this issue. Okay, so you reached one conclusion and I reached another. And I realize that yours seems to be the way it's done by the majority; I have no problem with that. I just won't do it that way because I disagree with the majority's logic. But be fair about this--you're not going by the rules as written any more than I am. At least I'm willing to admit it--when the rules of a game don't cover a situation, one must improvise. If you think of anything not included in the rules as a variant, we're both using variants here. The rules don't say anything about unhappy faces in this game. Even the Kremlin card that has them doesn't explain them. It just shows two unhappy faces and leaves the gamer to figure out what they mean.

Do you really want game rules to state every single thing you shouldn't do in a game? That's not how most rules work.

That's true; game rules usually tell you what you can do, although they sometimes prohibit things as well. In this case, however, the rules don't tell you what to do with unhappy faces or how or when they're applied. That's all this is--a timing issue. You say that in effect St. Peter's Basilica allows one to ignore the Kremlin's effect while applying its own. I say the Kremlin effect should be applied first. Let's just agree to disagree, because the rules don't back up either side.

It's simply a question that nobody thought to include, possibly because the playtesters only used one method and it never occurred to them that anyone might use a different one.

Of course it never occurred to them that anyone might use a different one. Why on Earth would anyone do something the card doesn't say to do?

-MMM

Because the Kremlin has an effect that clashes with that of St. Peter's Basilica, and one needs to know which way it should be applied. That's the part I thought should be obvious--whichever side is right in this debate, it's a point that should be explicitly covered in the rules. Simply ignoring the point and assuming everyone will treat it the same way is risky at best. After all this debate, wouldn't you at least agree with that point? Haven't we demonstrated rather plainly here that the correct method wasn't as obvious as you seemed to have thought?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:49:05 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

djgutierrez77 wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then? It certainly took you long enough to admit that. As for your argument about doubling unhappy faces, it's a straw man--nobody has claimed that St. Peter's Basilica should double the Kremlin's unhappy faces.

Uh...yeah, you did. If the Kremlin takes effect first, you have effectively doubled the unhappy faces. I'm sure you understand that, you were just too upset by other people's "condescending attitudes."

You've got just one total of happy faces. That's calculated by adding together all your happy faces and then deducting any unhappy faces you have. For the Kremlin, you deduct two. Now that you know what your happy face total is, you can apply the effect of St. Peter's Basilica. That's how I play it. The Kremlin just cost me two happy faces. Or to look at it another way--those two happy faces that are canceled out by the Kremlin aren't there to be doubled by St. Peter's Basilica. Those two happy faces don't exist because you built the Kremlin.

I think Matt's method weakens the effect of the Kremlin too much while making St. Peter's Basilica too powerful. It completely eliminates the intended bad side of building the Kremlin while my preferred method only partially weakens St. Peter's Basilica, which is far less harmful from a strategic standpoint.

Matt's method adds a strategic aspect to the game that is probably unintended and possibly even harmful to the spirit of the game. Using Matt's method, anyone who builds St. Peter's Basilica suddenly becomes hell bent to build the Kremlin now that they've entirely eliminated what was supposed to be the Kremlin's very serious drawback--it's two unhappy faces. My method of applying the effects of these Wonders keeps the Kremlin's effect completely intact--anyone with a chance to build it has to wonder whether gaining its advantages is worth suffering its penalties. Building the Kremlin shouldn't be a freebie bonus Wonder for anyone who builds it, including a civilization which has built St. Peter's Basilica.

From a realistic standpoint, shouldn't the Kremlin cancel out the effects of St. Peter's Basilica? Doesn't the Kremlin represent the atheistic communist philosophy that says that the state is now your only god and that you should ignore that other kind? If anything, anyone who has built St. Peter's Basilica should be prohibited from building the Kremlin. Building the Kremlin should pretty much cripple the effects of St. Peter's Basilica, just as it did in real life. In Through The Ages, it should be difficult if not impossible to sustain both those Wonders with the same civilization.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: A Win from the far Back of the Pack: It is possible to come from way back

MysteryMan_007_007 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:37:52 +0000

by MysteryMan_007_007

Every game I have won was from being in last place before the final end game tally points were added.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:50:31 +0000

by Golux13

djgutierrez77 wrote:
Golux13 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Golux13 wrote:

I don't have the card in front of me, so I don't know the exact text, but there would be a significant difference between "Double your civilization's happy faces" and "Double the happy faces produced by your buildings and wonders."

So what exactly is the text?

The card says "Each of your Happy Faces counts twice."

]]>

It doesn't say "each of your unhappy faces counts twice." I would take this to mean simply that you count each happy face your workers are producing a second time. Then on your "Happiness" track on your player board, you would put your marker at that position. Then make any necessary modifications (for instance, subtracting two for the Kremlin.)

I'm not sure if this argument is something we can settle with just the text on the card and in the rules, which is a shame. I am 100% sure that I would like to play this game asap. Just looking at the card has me raring to go like Bristol Palin watching high school hockey practice.

Given this text, I agree: Double all happy faces -- they count double for anything that counts happy faces. Kremlin subtracts two from your total (doubled) number of happy faces. If you have two Temples, SPB, and the Kremlin, you have a total of eight happy faces (two from each Temple, doubled by SPB), and your happiness track is set at six (your eight less the two unhappy faces from the Kremlin).

Glad you've finally seen the light.

All it took was the actual text of the card. You know how big I am on scriptural literalism.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:25:23 +0000

by djgutierrez77

Golux13 wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Golux13 wrote:

I don't have the card in front of me, so I don't know the exact text, but there would be a significant difference between "Double your civilization's happy faces" and "Double the happy faces produced by your buildings and wonders."

So what exactly is the text?

The card says "Each of your Happy Faces counts twice."

]]>

It doesn't say "each of your unhappy faces counts twice." I would take this to mean simply that you count each happy face your workers are producing a second time. Then on your "Happiness" track on your player board, you would put your marker at that position. Then make any necessary modifications (for instance, subtracting two for the Kremlin.)

I'm not sure if this argument is something we can settle with just the text on the card and in the rules, which is a shame. I am 100% sure that I would like to play this game asap. Just looking at the card has me raring to go like Bristol Palin watching high school hockey practice.

Given this text, I agree: Double all happy faces -- they count double for anything that counts happy faces. Kremlin subtracts two from your total (doubled) number of happy faces. If you have two Temples, SPB, and the Kremlin, you have a total of eight happy faces (two from each Temple, doubled by SPB), and your happiness track is set at six (your eight less the two unhappy faces from the Kremlin).

Glad you've finally seen the light.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:23:52 +0000

by djgutierrez77

DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then? It certainly took you long enough to admit that. As for your argument about doubling unhappy faces, it's a straw man--nobody has claimed that St. Peter's Basilica should double the Kremlin's unhappy faces.

Uh...yeah, you did. If the Kremlin takes effect first, you have effectively doubled the unhappy faces. I'm sure you understand that, you were just too upset by other people's "condescending attitudes."

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:23:10 +0000

by Octavian

DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then?

It is, by virtue of the fact that doubling unhappy faces is never mentioned. You have to invent rules to come to your conclusion - either doubling unhappy faces or not REALLY doubling all your happy faces. If you go by only the rules as written your conclusion can't be reached.

Do you really want game rules to state every single thing you shouldn't do in a game? That's not how most rules work. The rules also don't say anything about being able to steal blue tokens from another player's bank when he's not paying attention. Are you suggesting that it should be allowed because the rules don't mention anything about it?

If you only double the net then you haven't doubled all the happy faces, only some.

Welcome to the whole point of this debate. The question has always been whether one should apply the Kremlin's effect before or after that of St. Peter's Basilica. Neither card mentions the other and the point isn't addressed in the rules the way certain other Wonder questions are. It's simply a question that nobody thought to include, possibly because the playtesters only used one method and it never occurred to them that anyone might use a different one.

Of course it never occurred to them that anyone might use a different one. Why on Earth would anyone do something the card doesn't say to do?

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:12:34 +0000

by Golux13

djgutierrez77 wrote:
Golux13 wrote:

I don't have the card in front of me, so I don't know the exact text, but there would be a significant difference between "Double your civilization's happy faces" and "Double the happy faces produced by your buildings and wonders."

So what exactly is the text?

The card says "Each of your Happy Faces counts twice."

]]>

It doesn't say "each of your unhappy faces counts twice." I would take this to mean simply that you count each happy face your workers are producing a second time. Then on your "Happiness" track on your player board, you would put your marker at that position. Then make any necessary modifications (for instance, subtracting two for the Kremlin.)

I'm not sure if this argument is something we can settle with just the text on the card and in the rules, which is a shame. I am 100% sure that I would like to play this game asap. Just looking at the card has me raring to go like Bristol Palin watching high school hockey practice.

Given this text, I agree: Double all happy faces -- they count double for anything that counts happy faces. Kremlin subtracts two from your total (doubled) number of happy faces. If you have two Temples, SPB, and the Kremlin, you have a total of eight happy faces (two from each Temple, doubled by SPB), and your happiness track is set at six (your eight less the two unhappy faces from the Kremlin).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:52:09 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Oh, so then this is NOT covered in your rules-as-written, then? It certainly took you long enough to admit that. As for your argument about doubling unhappy faces, it's a straw man--nobody has claimed that St. Peter's Basilica should double the Kremlin's unhappy faces.

If you only double the net then you haven't doubled all the happy faces, only some.

Welcome to the whole point of this debate. The question has always been whether one should apply the Kremlin's effect before or after that of St. Peter's Basilica. Neither card mentions the other and the point isn't addressed in the rules the way certain other Wonder questions are. It's simply a question that nobody thought to include, possibly because the playtesters only used one method and it never occurred to them that anyone might use a different one.

The St. Peter's Basilica card simply says to double the civ's happy faces. It doesn't say to double them ALL as opposed to only SOME of them nor does it imply that there are two possible totals of happy faces for a civilization. There is only one total number of happy faces to double, and that number should include the effects of the Kremlin. Your method requires temporarily ignoring one Wonder's effect while applying the effect of the other. This both weakens the effect of the Kremlin and strengthens the effect of St. Peter's Basilica in a way that just doesn't seem right at all.

You have to make a pretty big leap to come to the conclusion that unhappy faces means you should only double some of the happy faces your workers are generating.

I disagree that any "pretty big leap" is necessary. The fact that there are at least two pretty lengthy threads on this subject is evidence that this "leap" is small enough for numerous people to have made it. I won't even claim that my method is correct and yours is not, but your condescending attitude about how foolish we would have to be in order to interpret this rule any way other than the way you do is infuriating. This rule is nowhere near as clear cut or obvious as you're pretending.

Who are we kidding anyway? In the end, you're going to play the game your way and other people are going to play it their way. There's really no point in anyone going to any great lengths to prove that any "other" way is wrong, especially when the difference is only a couple of happy faces.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:42:56 +0000

by djgutierrez77

Golux13 wrote:

I don't have the card in front of me, so I don't know the exact text, but there would be a significant difference between "Double your civilization's happy faces" and "Double the happy faces produced by your buildings and wonders."

So what exactly is the text?

The card says "Each of your Happy Faces counts twice."

]]>

It doesn't say "each of your unhappy faces counts twice." I would take this to mean simply that you count each happy face your workers are producing a second time. Then on your "Happiness" track on your player board, you would put your marker at that position. Then make any necessary modifications (for instance, subtracting two for the Kremlin.)

I'm not sure if this argument is something we can settle with just the text on the card and in the rules, which is a shame. I am 100% sure that I would like to play this game asap. Just looking at the card has me raring to go like Bristol Palin watching high school hockey practice.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:20:21 +0000

by Golux13

Octavian wrote:
Golux13 wrote:

Can you just point to where the rules-as-written say that the Kremlin's Unhappy Faces are not to be netted out of the total of a civ's Happy Faces for purposes of St. Peter's Basilica?

That's on the PSB card itself. You double happy faces. It doesn't say you double unhappy faces. If you only double the net then you haven't doubled all the happy faces, only some. You have to make a pretty big leap to come to the conclusion that unhappy faces means you should only double some of the happy faces your workers are generating.

I don't have the card in front of me, so I don't know the exact text, but there would be a significant difference between "Double your civilization's happy faces" and "Double the happy faces produced by your buildings and wonders."

So what exactly is the text?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Why Is This Game Not Available In GB ?

Blustar — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:02:17 +0000

by Blustar

Why don't you just email them and ask them which edition it is??? Tell them how to accurately identify the edition and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help...

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:33:48 +0000

by Octavian

Golux13 wrote:

Can you just point to where the rules-as-written say that the Kremlin's Unhappy Faces are not to be netted out of the total of a civ's Happy Faces for purposes of St. Peter's Basilica?

That's on the PSB card itself. You double happy faces. It doesn't say you double unhappy faces. If you only double the net then you haven't doubled all the happy faces, only some. You have to make a pretty big leap to come to the conclusion that unhappy faces means you should only double some of the happy faces your workers are generating.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:23:52 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Octavian wrote:
Play with whatever rules you like for whatever reason you like to play by them. As long as you never find yourself in a situation where you might play with others that play the game correctly then you need never worry about your enjoyment nor your ability to learn good play of the game with the rules-as-written being adversely affected.

That's the whole point of this thread, Matt--the "rules-as-written" don't cover this and many other situations, hence the nearly 300 rules-related threads here on the 'Geek for this game. You can criticize me for not blindly accepting your ruling on the issue, but you certainly can't claim any moral high ground about following the "rules-as-written" on it. Nobody's following the rules-as-written on this issue because they don't cover it.

As for playing the game with anyone who plays it "correctly," there's probably little chance of that unless I run across someone who has not only digested the rulebook, but has waded through all 300 of these threads and sorted them all out.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:07:47 +0000

by Golux13

Can you just point to where the rules-as-written say that the Kremlin's Unhappy Faces are not to be netted out of the total of a civ's Happy Faces for purposes of St. Peter's Basilica? Or even where the rules-as-written necessitate such a conclusion?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Jonathan Degann — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:34:35 +0000

by Jonathan Degann

Brass is also being discounted. I don't think this is about TtA editions and changes. I think it is about applying a new policy to older games in the catalog.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:53:08 +0000

by Octavian

Play with whatever rules you like for whatever reason you like to play by them. As long as you never find yourself in a situation where you might play with others that play the game correctly then you need never worry about your enjoyment nor your ability to learn good play of the game with the rules-as-written being adversely affected.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

robcannonsoftware — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:42:47 +0000

by robcannonsoftware

I think the discount is to clear stock as a new (and hopefully corrected) edition comes out. I may finally purchase a copy, if the printing is finally correct.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Jonathan Degann — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:37:06 +0000

by Jonathan Degann

Well, the government, in the form of the US Supreme Court, did already weigh in on the subject and explicitly permitted manufacturers to set minimum prices on their goods when sold through retail.

I don't know that the new printing has anything to do with it - but I don't really know. I thought that the new printing was going to just have some minor tweaks.

I suspect that FRED is playing around with the policy, changing it so that older catalog games are no longer price protected. It makes some sense. You have a new game and you want to get the assistance of B&M retailers to promote and demo it, so you protect their prices. Once the game has been out for a while, you don't rely on their assistance (you've both moved on to newer things), so now you relax the price controls in order to let the game reach a wider audience.

Some retailers are discounting AoS and some aren't. It may be a case of renegade retailers - or perhaps FRED was finding that they needed to remain competitive with the Mayfair Steam.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

Odinsday — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:03:52 +0000

by Odinsday

DaviddesJ wrote:
aaxiom wrote:
Let's hope this was precipitated by a business observation based on market mechanics, not some artificial, ruinous, governmental meddling.

I'm pretty sure Barack Obama personally ordered the FTC to act on this vital matter.

Yeah I don't see what this has to do with any small/large government arguement. FRED didn't discount. FRED now discount. Seems like a change in business strategies.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

ekh_86 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:55:32 +0000

by ekh_86

Jonathan Degann wrote:
I still may wait for the next, corrected printing, but it's pretty good to go.

There will probably be a "next" printing (who knows if that one will be discounted). I wouldn't bet a whole lot of money on the "corrected" part, though.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

DaviddesJ — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:34:29 +0000

by DaviddesJ

aaxiom wrote:
Let's hope this was precipitated by a business observation based on market mechanics, not some artificial, ruinous, governmental meddling.

I'm pretty sure Barack Obama personally ordered the FTC to act on this vital matter.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

out4blood — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:23:32 +0000

by out4blood

Tom from Boards & Bits said something in in a post about them relaxing the pricing since they were coming out with a new edition, otherwise, they'd never sell at the same price. That doesn't explain AoS though.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

azuredarkness — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:08:57 +0000

by azuredarkness

Damn... 2 months after I give in and buy, it gets discounted.
Well, good for all the new players. :D

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: Discounted - at last!

out4blood — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:54:04 +0000

by out4blood

Fresh meat for the grinder!

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Discounted - at last!

Jonathan Degann — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:48:55 +0000

by Jonathan Degann

Evidently FRED is now permitting discounting on this game (and, it seems, Age of Steam) because some retailers are now selling it 25% - 30% off! At last I can buy this (still pricey) game! I still may wait for the next, corrected printing, but it's pretty good to go.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:06:04 +0000

by djgutierrez77

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
dkeisen wrote:
I agree. The interaction between Kremlin and St. Peter's cannot be deduced from the rules. Not enough detail in discussion of unhappy faces
in the rules to decide this.

Best we have is a ruling. Petr Murmak, from Czech Board Games, ruled that
the Kremlin's unhappy faces are not doubled if you have St. Peter's in this thread:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/1488916

I have been taking this as official.

I suppose that's what most people do--take that ruling as official. And I would as well if there were any logic proposed for doing it that way. But every time this comes up, it boils down to "because somebody official says so."

I hereby proclaim that God alone has that sort of power. You mere mortals will have to back up your rules with just a bit more. I'm not even saying that your ruling is wrong. I'm just saying that I at least have a logic for applying the Kremlin's effect before apply that of St. Peter's Basilica, and until somebody (official or otherwise) gives me a reasonable logic for following the herd, "Just Because" isn't enough to convince me do so.

I don't believe in god, and if he's going to start messing with my board games he and I are going to have a problem.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: The Hanging Gardens: Are They That Great?

out4blood — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:19:24 +0000

by out4blood

I think you have it right with the latter plan. You want to leverage the happiness to get more infrastructure faster than other players (the ones who are also building wonders, that is - there is another set of strategies that revolve around passing up an Age A wonder to build infrastructure). Whether you build a third farm or not largely depends on the timing of Irrigation, but Hanging Gardens makes that much easier. Same as an Age I temple or arena, just without the pop cost.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: The Hanging Gardens: Are They That Great?

meyerg — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:32:39 +0000

by meyerg

Obviously I like the Pyramids Better. The Hanging Gardens cost 2-2-2 and give you two happiness and one culture a turn. Obviously the culture isn't as important as the happiness.

But the Hanging Gardens are the second best Age A Wonder!

There are two ways to go with the Hanging Gardens. Stick with the standard mine lab strategy and build the Hanging Gardens when you have the spare resources and civil actions. Grow your population slowly and carefully, don't exceed two farms.

I propose a second plan. Build that third farm you were told not to build before your second lab and grow your population footprint early. Maybe even build that fourth mine. Finish the Hanging Gardens early. Look to grab the Basilica. Pour the population into a strong military.

The Hanging Gardens seem better to me when you use the two happiness as soon as possible.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: The Pyramids: Are they that Great?

meyerg — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:02:51 +0000

by meyerg

I have changed the original post. I think the 4th mine works for the hanging gardens, but not the Pyramids.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:08:49 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

djgutierrez77 wrote:
There's a difference between "Happiness" and "Happy Faces" because they're different things. You can have more Happy Faces than Happiness for purposes of scoring points and other modifiers. When you modify your Happy Faces, and that will change your Happiness. I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it,

Because you're making it all up. What does "Happiness" do in this game? There are lots of places where the rules either refer to or use Happy Faces; Michaelangelo, St. Peter's Basilica, Joan Of Arc, etc.

Other than the Age III event that refers to "Happiness" and limits your Happy Faces to 8, where is "Happiness" used? The only thing I see in the rule book under Happiness (Advanced Game Mechanics) is that you use your Happiness indicator to keep track of the number of Happy Faces your cards are producing. The rule book makes no reference to this concept of "happiness" at all other than using the term to describe the indicator you use to track your Happy Faces! Matt keeps chiding me for reading too much into the rules, but I see no references anywhere in the rule book to "happiness" as some concept that's somehow seperate from my total of Happy Faces. The rule doesn't even use consistent language--when describing the process for tracking my discontented workers, it tells me to move 1 yellow token from your Unused Workers Pool to your Happy Face indicator for each missing Happy Face.

Wait a minute! What happened to my Happiness indicator? Now it's a Happy Face indicator? Or are you guys going to try and tell me now that those are two different indicators? After all, if Happiness and Happy Faces aren't the same thing in this game, shouldn't they each have their own indicators?

The rules mention Happiness as a seperate concept nowhere at all, and I'm the one reading too much into the rules?

Don't get me wrong, this is a great game and I love to play it. But the rulebook is full of minor holes and omissions like this. There are several reasons for this:

Translation problems: I'm guessing that English isn't the first language in which it was published.

Scope: You're biting off a lot when creating a game that tries to simulate the way human civilization evolves, especially when trying to make the game halfway playable. A wonderful job has been done with this game in this regard. It's the most fun and playable civ game I've ever tried.

Layered rules: Teaching this game can be a real challenge, and learning it by yourself because you have no one to teach it to you is approximately twice that challenge. The layered rulebook helps with that, but layered rulebooks nearly always make lousy reference works when you have a question about the rules. I may be messing up this rule simply because I haven't stumbled across the right paragraph in the book. Please point it out to me if that's the case.

Lack of an Index: The only thing worse as a rules reference than a layered rulebook is a layered rulebook with no index. An index in the back of the game's rulebook would have made it SO much easier to use....

If you need more evidence than my bitching provides, just check out this game's Rules Forum, which contains just under three hundred rules-related threads as I type this. Now throw in a few more rules-related threads that were posted under the General Forum for the game (which also has nearly 300 threads) and then try to tell me that the problem here is my lack of reading skills, my willingness to read too much into these wonderfully written rules, or my simple willingness to "play the game wrong whenever I feel like it."

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:23:48 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

dkeisen wrote:
I agree. The interaction between Kremlin and St. Peter's cannot be deduced from the rules. Not enough detail in discussion of unhappy faces
in the rules to decide this.

Best we have is a ruling. Petr Murmak, from Czech Board Games, ruled that
the Kremlin's unhappy faces are not doubled if you have St. Peter's in this thread:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/1488916

I have been taking this as official.

I suppose that's what most people do--take that ruling as official. And I would as well if there were any logic proposed for doing it that way. But every time this comes up, it boils down to "because somebody official says so."

I hereby proclaim that God alone has that sort of power. You mere mortals will have to back up your rules with just a bit more. I'm not even saying that your ruling is wrong. I'm just saying that I at least have a logic for applying the Kremlin's effect before apply that of St. Peter's Basilica, and until somebody (official or otherwise) gives me a reasonable logic for following the herd, "Just Because" isn't enough to convince me do so.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: The Pyramids: Are they that Great?

Mr Mjeh — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:22:20 +0000

by Mr Mjeh

Agree on the fourth mine. Don't go there - three is enough - get iron.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Why Is This Game Not Available In GB ?

elfrododumbo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:10:13 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Yes, I noticed that amazon have two copies (a new one and a used one), but not sure which editions they are.
I think I will have to wait for the latest edition to come in stock at my FLGS. Better safe than sorry. It is not exactly a cheap game.

Thanks for the info Zipp :)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Variants:: Re: A potential mitigation for the random military problem.

out4blood — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:47:16 +0000

by out4blood

By the way. There's an official variant for military cards posted on page 19 of the rulebook. Something about how you can use a military action to draw a new military card.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Unofficial FAQ posted

jerkules — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:16:29 +0000

by jerkules

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/44344

As stated, this is completely unofficial, based on the 2008 FRED edition (their 2nd printing).

If anyone catches any corrections, let me know. Also, if anyone wants to use the info to post into a thread or Wiki page or whatever, feel free.

The obvious goal was just to make it easier for new players to find answers to questions in a single location. Enjoy.

File: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Unofficial FAQ

jerkules — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:08:20 +0000

by jerkules

Unofficial FAQ for Board Game: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization ]]>

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Why Is This Game Not Available In GB ?

rnijholt — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:16:32 +0000

by rnijholt

I know it was available at UK internet shops ages ago. Although I prefer English editions, I did not go for it because of the price tag. (I waited for the much cheaper German edition.) Seems to be quite popular and as a result out of stock just about everywhere in the UK now. If you're quick, Amazon.co.uk has 1 copy left for sale. :) (It does not say which edition though.)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Variants:: Re: A potential mitigation for the random military problem.

jerkules — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:02:51 +0000

by jerkules

I don't think it's a bad idea, but it seems like it would just shift the discarding of excess military cards from the end of your political action to the end of your turn. Kind of.

Maybe limiting its use to once per age would be a good way to start.

I don't think it is necessary, but can't hurt to try as a variant.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Why Is This Game Not Available In GB ?

elfrododumbo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:51:03 +0000

by elfrododumbo

I have been waiting ages (no pun intended) for this game and my FLGS has not got it yet.
Does anyone know when it will be re-released in GB ? Anyway,what is the reason for it's unavailabilty in GB ?

Thanks in advance.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: A Win from the far Back of the Pack: It is possible to come from way back

Dave — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:01:58 +0000

by Dave

It is possible to come from way back

Anything's possible if you're playing against people who will declare a war against a player holding Napoleon, 4 military actions, and multiple military techs. Heck, they're doing half the work for you by declaring the war themselves!

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: A Win from the far Back of the Pack: It is possible to come from way back

dcorban — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:59:26 +0000

by dcorban

Not commenting directly on this session, but I have repeatedly witnessed big comebacks in this game. It's at the point where I just assume that whoever is winning halfway through the game will undoubtedly lose.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: The Pyramids: Are they that Great?

dcorban — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:37:00 +0000

by dcorban

I agree that finishing the Pyramids early is good. I don't think they need to be completed by turn 3, but mine are usually done by turn 4.

One thing I like about the Hanging Gardens is that they are so great, yet not time sensitive. Lately, I have been putting them off as long as possible. Unless you really need the happiness immediately, I find that I can often wait until near the end of Age I.

I don't agree with building a 4th Bronze mine on turn 2 as the OP mentions. That is just setting yourself up for corruption and wasting resources that could be better spend on a wonder or a lab.

Session: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: A Win from the far Back of the Pack: It is possible to come from way back

meyerg — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:36:58 +0000

by meyerg

So, it is our regular 4-player face to face game. I get the first player, so I take the Pyramids. Next is Moses and a frugal, then Aristotle and a lab discount, followed by the leaderless empire. They just insisted on being efficient.

In the first nondraft turn I grab Alexander for 2 CA. Moses gets out to an early population lead and builds 2 knights and 2 warriors with the tactics card that rewards these two sets for two bonuses of 2. Aristotle gets out three swordsmen and a legion. I go for the cheesy fighting bands of legions. The bottom line is we all pound the leaderless empire mercilessly. We burn buildings, steal people, and the events are even more nasty. Moses gets an extra yellow token from the leaderless empire. You would think we would feel guilty, but when you need those three extra resources, who are you going after? The soft, leaderless empire of course!

The poor leaderless empire has no wonder, and have rebuilt their alchemy labs so many times they truly think they are going to stay. The second age starts and they have managed to crown a king, develop alchemy and iron, and stockpile some science. Aristotle now Columbus completes the transcontinental railroad and decides to play a war over resources to clean out the now Napoleonic empire before they can get going.

Well, Napoleon burns his three alchemy labs (I guess he wanted to beat Colombus to it) develops riflemen, the tactics card that gives a 9 bonus for two foot soldiers and two horseman, and build up to 2 riflemen and two knights. The one side victory for Colombus turns into a one=side defeat and all that coal developed by the transcontinental railroad goes to Nappy. Napoleon actually generates no science for three successive turns. He robs Colombus of all his resources and builds the ocean liners. Then Napoleon uses a nice yellow colony to start pumping out more people and has four knights, four riflemen and declares a war on territory with my civilization. The previous beatings we administer are not as bad as the one sound defeat when he cleans me out of my yellow tokens and proceeds to declare a war on culture and take all of Mr. Cook's (he followed after Colombus) culture. Mr. Robispiere had taken over for Moses, and was the last one hammered into the ground by the Napoleonic juggernaut. He almost had Churchill in place to do some good before he was assassinated and then hammered by Napoleon.

So, we have a rare come from way behind win in TTA! Rick craftily kept plugging and stockpiled his aggressions and grabbed Napoleon from the 3 CA spot when he popped up. Alchemy, warfare, knights, riflemen and iron were the few techs he needed to fuel his war machine. Drawing a few more good wars didn't hurt either.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: The Pyramids: Are they that Great?

Forthright — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:53:17 +0000

by Forthright

How early do you finish the Pyramids? My question exactly.

I have played Through the Ages four times and have read several strategy articles. You suggest we complete the Pyramids in the 3rd postdraft turn after building two bronze mines during postdraft turns 1 and 2. In a similar vein, in Planning the Opening: Turns 0-2, Alexfrog finds that "You should work to complete the Pyramids on [postdraft] turn 3 (or potentially turn 2 if you get a bonus rock event [as well as] Engineering Genius)." Eyhung suggests something else in The Econo-Military Strategy, under Wonders of the World, PYRAMIDS: "You can almost always get [the Pyramids] down by turn 5 if you build a mine on turn 2 (I prefer to build a 2nd lab on turn 3)."

How badly does early building of the Pyramids affect the fluidity of later Age I play? In particular, it commits to generating just a single science point for an extra couple turns, does it not? Is completing the Pyramids as early as possible worth that sacrifice? Is it really better to complete the Pyramids on postdraft turn 2/3, or should we first build the 2nd lab?

If you feel up to it, I would benefit from an Alexfrog-style enumeration of actions during turns 0-3 assuming you've taken the Pyramids during the draft turn.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Variants:: Re: A potential mitigation for the random military problem.

Dave — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:33:22 +0000

by Dave

I don't disagree that military is a crapshoot; my 2p and 3p games are being dominated by early culture investment, especially via Mike.

I do think that letting a player see too many military cards has the drawback that it gives him not only the powerful card he seeks, but also gives him too much information about what cards his opponents have and have not seen.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: The Pyramids: Are they that Great?

Octavian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:54:33 +0000

by Octavian

meyerg wrote:

Hint: Always take the Pyramids over ANY Age A leader.

Except Moses. :devil:

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Variants:: Re: A potential mitigation for the random military problem.

out4blood — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:29:40 +0000

by out4blood

Capoeirista wrote:
TtA should be in my top 10 games, it has the right theme, novel mechanics, interesting decisions and, for the most part, many different balanced strategies. Unfortunately, the military side of the game has always to me felt at odds with the rest of this well crafted game. To see this sentiment expressed by others in ways far more eloquently than I can manage read Chris Farrell's excellent review and analysis of the game. Having lost games simply for the lack of a tactics card (despite drawing the maximum each turn) or a complete lack of aggressions despite a strong military advantage (except for a War drawn on the last turn) I turned cold on this game, I don't mind being screwed by the deck in a 30-60 min game like Glory to Rome or Race for the Galaxy, but in a 2hr+ game, it's a little frustrating to see everything collapse because the deck decides to hold out on you.

So I have a simple modification to the game which could potentially mitigate the randomness of the military deck while still trying not to give players too much control over it. I haven't playtested this idea, but would be interested to hear what other, more experienced, players think of it. Credit for the variant has to go to Race for the Galaxy.

On his turn, a player may use his military actions in the normal fashion to draw single cards from the deck. Alternatively, he may spend all of his military actions to draw 2xN cards from the military deck, where N is the number of actions he played. He must then discard all of the cards except one. Any extra military actions gained during the turn are considered to also be used, but do not result in extra cards being drawn.

The idea here is that, if a player really, really needs a card of a given type, he has a means to trawl through the deck to get it at the expense of his military actions. There are a couple of things that need tested in this. It's possible that 2x is too strong and a better thing would be N+2 or N+3, alternatively, you could cap the number of cards drawn to 6 while still consuming all military actions. I'd be interested to hear what people think.

Edit: speeling

I'm not sure I like that idea. It's very often that a player won't use any military actions, especially in the early turns. You'd run out the military deck very quickly since it would almost always be better to draw 2N.

If the randomness bothers you and you want to mitigate it with additional card draws, I see 2 simple options:

1. Eliminate the cap of 3 cards per turn. If a player invests heavily into military, then he is likely to seek out extra military actions. This rewards those extra actions.

2. Alternatively, You could cap the "kept" cards to 3 while still allowing more draws. So if you ended the turn with 4 remaining actions, you could draw 4, but could only keep 3. This would prevent players from hoarding defense cards.

As a final word, I'd suggest that the card drawing keeps the game from becoming deterministic. The very slight inherent randomness keeps the game interesting all the way down to the end.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Is Napoleon worth the paper he is printed on?

Choubi — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:03:20 +0000

by Choubi

DaviddesJ wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
11 Tactics x 2 Air Force = 22 x 2 (Napoleon) = 44 + Unit Strengths

But some of this is probably wasted, because your strength can't go over 60, right?

There's also no guarantee, when you take Napoleon, that you will be able to get Air Force. The players who choose in front of you are likely to prefer otherwise.

Well not really as when you get Napoleon, you'll probably build one single army with some crappy units.

On my last game, I had 2 infantry (6 strength), 2 cavalry (4), 1 airforce and Napoleon with a 9 tactics card for my army. Which made me a
6+4+5+9*4 = 51 force...

How much more do you need? Either you already way overpower your enemies or you've just given yourself the benefit of not having to tech your military to be on a par.

The biggest draw back to Napoleon is that he dies at the end of age 3. This usualy means that you'll have one less occasion of waging war. And beware that the other players don't start a war just before the end of age 3 or you're in big trouble!

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: The Pyramids: Are they that Great?

meyerg — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:05:36 +0000

by meyerg

Let's look at the Pyramids. They cost 3-2-1 to build, and give an extra CA for the rest of the game. No other benefits. That means two turns after you build the Pyramids, you have broken even in civil actions, but still have spent 6 resources. Every wonder you build from now on will cost an extra CA.

Are the Pyramids worth it? DEFINITELY YES.
The Pyramids are THE BEST Age A wonder. Yes, the Hanging Gardens are good, but they don't give an immediate benefit all the time like the Pyramids.

So you have the Pyramids, how early do you finish them? In a three or four player game, I like to build a mine each of the first two nondrafting turns. That leaves you needing one additional resource to get it done on the third nondrafting turn, and this can be grabbed from an event or a discount on a mining site (if they let you get the engineering genius and the Pyramids, so much the better). I find this is superior to building a lab or holding the three resources a turn. I would rather immediately build a mine than leave them on the board.

Now how do you use the extra CA? Grab good cards from the 2CA and sometimes even the 3CA row! Get that early iron, alchemy, and irrigation (that order is my priority, but it may change due to your own game). If you got hosed on leaders to grab the Pyramids and settled for Hammurabi, pay 2CA for Columbus.

Do you need to get another CA through blue technology? I would rather pay 2 less science for a MA and a strength point.

But the Pyramids only give you a CA and no other benefit you say. Well, one CA for the rest of the game is like saying one of the later wonders only gives you five discount off a population without spending a CA for the rest of the game. Plus the Pyramids are in play so early.

Hint: Always take the Pyramids over ANY Age A leader.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

djgutierrez77 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:52:15 +0000

by djgutierrez77

DSHStratRat2 wrote:

Sorry, not when I play. When I play the game, unhappy faces simply reduce your number of happy faces. Then you double your net total of happy faces to calculate the effects of St. Peter's Basilica. Obviously you can't figure out how many happy faces St. Pete's "doubles" until you find out how many happy faces you HAVE. That's far easier and eliminates this silly unnecessary "difference" between happiness and happy faces.

Fortunately for you, you're welcome to play wrong whenever you feel like it. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and that, however arcane, the rule is set up differently than you'd like.

I thought Matt's explanation was perfectly acceptable. There's a difference between "Happiness" and "Happy Faces" because they're different things. You can have more Happy Faces than Happiness for purposes of scoring points and other modifiers. When you modify your Happy Faces, and that will change your Happiness. I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it, I think this makes perfect sense. You're deliberately not understanding that this is the purpose of the "goofy distinction," and then complaining about it.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

dkeisen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:52:05 +0000

by dkeisen

I agree. The interaction between Kremlin and St. Peter's cannot be deduced from the rules. Not enough detail in discussion of unhappy faces
in the rules to decide this.

Best we have is a ruling. Petr Murmak, from Czech Board Games, ruled that
the Kremlin's unhappy faces are not doubled if you have St. Peter's in this thread:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/1488916

I have been taking this as official.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:41:20 +0000

by Golux13

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
StephenV wrote:
This issue was covered here. (Scroll to the bottom of the first page to save time.)

I read this thread, and it's a confusing load of utter nonsense. It basically boils down to "it works this way because somebody important says so." No logic is presented to back up why the rule is supposed to be interpreted this way. "It's just the rule."

This "Happiness and Happy Faces are not the same thing" concept is unnecessarily arcane. The whole issue would be far simpler if they were treated as one and the same thing and either were or were not limited by anything. Apparently, the official word is that there is no limit on how many happy faces you can have; that's clear enough. So what's the point of limiting the effect of the Influence Of Happiness event card? Why should it suddenly become so important to limit the effects of one's happy faces? What is the point of this sudden exception to what otherwise seems to be a consistent rule? Nothing else limits a civilization's happy faces, so why should this event do so? Apparently because it's a rule.

Happiness and happy faces are not the same thing.

I get that. What I don't get is WHY this is the case, or why it needs to be. I see no purpose whatsoever in making this goofy distinction.

Happiness is always a value between 0 and 8, and is used to keep your people happy. Happy faces are the total number of happy faces you produce, which is not limited. Unhappy faces will reduce your happiness (unless your happy faces minus your unhappy faces is at least eight), but they do not reduce the number of happy faces you have.

This is where it just gets ridiculous. Unhappy faces don't cancel out happy faces--they just reduce your happiness. That's utter nonsense. There's no reason why it needs to be that arcane or complicated.

Because of this, St. Peter's Basilica will double your number of happy faces, and then you'll subtract any unhappy faces to determine your current happiness.

Sorry, not when I play. When I play the game, unhappy faces simply reduce your number of happy faces. Then you double your net total of happy faces to calculate the effects of St. Peter's Basilica. Obviously you can't figure out how many happy faces St. Pete's "doubles" until you find out how many happy faces you HAVE. That's far easier and eliminates this silly unnecessary "difference" between happiness and happy faces.

Yeah, I have to say I don't see any rules-based or logical reason to treat Frowny Faces as anything other than subtractions from Smiley Faces. I don't have a problem with Happiness being limited by what's on the player mat, since anything over 8 Happiness is superfluous for the purposes of worker discontent (i.e., the reason for tracking Happiness); but I don't see why you wouldn't net out your Smileys and Frownies to find your total (doubled or otherwise).

Example: 5 Smileys + Kremlin + SPB
Under one approach, this means (5 Smileys *2 = 10 Smileys) - 2 Frownies = Happiness of 8.
Under the other approach, this would instead be (5 Smileys - 2 Frownies = 3 Smileys) *2 = Happiness of 6.

Obviously, it's a material difference in this case -- and it's relevant to other Happy Face-dependent cards -- so an official clarification would be preferable, unless someone can point to a rule and/or card text that unambiguously decides the question.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Variants:: A potential mitigation for the random military problem.

Capoeirista — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:06:54 +0000

by Capoeirista

TtA should be in my top 10 games, it has the right theme, novel mechanics, interesting decisions and, for the most part, many different balanced strategies. Unfortunately, the military side of the game has always to me felt at odds with the rest of this well crafted game. To see this sentiment expressed by others in ways far more eloquently than I can manage read Chris Farrell's excellent review and analysis of the game. Having lost games simply for the lack of a tactics card (despite drawing the maximum each turn) or a complete lack of aggressions despite a strong military advantage (except for a War drawn on the last turn) I turned cold on this game, I don't mind being screwed by the deck in a 30-60 min game like Glory to Rome or Race for the Galaxy, but in a 2hr+ game, it's a little frustrating to see everything collapse because the deck decides to hold out on you.

So I have a simple modification to the game which could potentially mitigate the randomness of the military deck while still trying not to give players too much control over it. I haven't playtested this idea, but would be interested to hear what other, more experienced, players think of it. Credit for the variant has to go to Race for the Galaxy.

On his turn, a player may use his military actions in the normal fashion to draw single cards from the deck. Alternatively, he may spend all of his military actions to draw 2xN cards from the military deck, where N is the number of actions he played. He must then discard all of the cards except one. Any extra military actions gained during the turn are considered to also be used, but do not result in extra cards being drawn.

The idea here is that, if a player really, really needs a card of a given type, he has a means to trawl through the deck to get it at the expense of his military actions. There are a couple of things that need tested in this. It's possible that 2x is too strong and a better thing would be N+2 or N+3, alternatively, you could cap the number of cards drawn to 6 while still consuming all military actions. I'd be interested to hear what people think.

Edit: speeling

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:07:05 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

StephenV wrote:
This issue was covered here. (Scroll to the bottom of the first page to save time.)

I read this thread, and it's a confusing load of utter nonsense. It basically boils down to "it works this way because somebody important says so." No logic is presented to back up why the rule is supposed to be interpreted this way. "It's just the rule."

This "Happiness and Happy Faces are not the same thing" concept is unnecessarily arcane. The whole issue would be far simpler if they were treated as one and the same thing and either were or were not limited by anything. Apparently, the official word is that there is no limit on how many happy faces you can have; that's clear enough. So what's the point of limiting the effect of the Influence Of Happiness event card? Why should it suddenly become so important to limit the effects of one's happy faces? What is the point of this sudden exception to what otherwise seems to be a consistent rule? Nothing else limits a civilization's happy faces, so why should this event do so? Apparently because it's a rule.

Happiness and happy faces are not the same thing.

I get that. What I don't get is WHY this is the case, or why it needs to be. I see no purpose whatsoever in making this goofy distinction.

Happiness is always a value between 0 and 8, and is used to keep your people happy. Happy faces are the total number of happy faces you produce, which is not limited. Unhappy faces will reduce your happiness (unless your happy faces minus your unhappy faces is at least eight), but they do not reduce the number of happy faces you have.

This is where it just gets ridiculous. Unhappy faces don't cancel out happy faces--they just reduce your happiness. That's utter nonsense. There's no reason why it needs to be that arcane or complicated.

Because of this, St. Peter's Basilica will double your number of happy faces, and then you'll subtract any unhappy faces to determine your current happiness.

Sorry, not when I play. When I play the game, unhappy faces simply reduce your number of happy faces. Then you double your net total of happy faces to calculate the effects of St. Peter's Basilica. Obviously you can't figure out how many happy faces St. Pete's "doubles" until you find out how many happy faces you HAVE. That's far easier and eliminates this silly unnecessary "difference" between happiness and happy faces.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

StephenV — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:28:20 +0000

by StephenV

This issue was covered here. (Scroll to the bottom of the first page to save time.)

Happiness and happy faces are not the same thing. Happiness is always a value between 0 and 8, and is used to keep your people happy. Happy faces are the total number of happy faces you produce, which is not limited. Unhappy faces will reduce your happiness (unless your happy faces minus your unhappy faces is at least eight), but they do not reduce the number of happy faces you have.

Because of this, St. Peter's Basilica will double your number of happy faces, and then you'll subtract any unhappy faces to determine your current happiness.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:15:19 +0000

by Octavian

DSHStratRat2 wrote:

I see no difference between a civilization's "Happiness" and its total of "Happy Faces." They're one and the same.

If you have six Happy Faces from Religion buildings and also a completed Kremlin then your total Happy Faces and your civ's Happiness are not the same.

If you have nine or more Happy Faces from Religion buildings then your total Happy Faces and your civ's Happiness are, again, not the same.

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:14:02 +0000

by Octavian

Effects pegged on Happy Faces are not limited to 8. Joan of Arc is pegged on Happy Faces - not limited to 8. Michelangelo is pegged on Happy Faces - not limited to 8.

You may think the distinction between Happy Faces and your Happiness track is silly, but it appears that ignore it is leading you to several incorrect conclusions.

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:54:03 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Golux13 wrote:
DSHStratRat2 wrote:
I see no difference between a civilization's "Happiness" and its total of "Happy Faces." They're one and the same.

Except that Happiness is limited by the track on your player mat (to eight, I believe), while the number of Happy Faces you have can exceed that. The excess Happy Faces will have no effect on your civilization's Happiness, but will have an effect on other parts of the game.

I remember that the Age III Event Card Influence Of Happiness limits its effects (points per happy face) to 8 happy faces, but I don't recall that limit being applied to other uses of happy faces.

I'm pretty sure my groups that I've played the game with have always limited happy face effects to 8 because that's all the board lets you track. Isn't a civilization's strength limited to 60 because the board doesn't track it any higher than that? Isn't the cost of a new worker limited to 7 food because the board has no food prices higher than that? Aren't your science points also limited to whatever the board lets you track (I forget just how many that is)? If all these other aspects of a civilization are limited to what the board lets you track, why should having more happy faces than the board allows you to track help you in any way? I'm simply trying to apply a consistent logic to the game; I can't quote any rule that I remember that limits your happy faces (other than the Influence Of Happiness event already mentioned), but what logical reason is there for allowing a civilization to benefit from more than 8 happy faces if all its other assets are limited to whatever the board lets you track?

It sounds like you guys are assuming that because the Influence Of Happiness card specifically mentions a limit of 8 happy faces, there must be no such limit for any other use of happy faces. I just don't see any logical reason for this hair-splitting semantic distinction between the two terms "happiness" and "happy faces." Naturally, I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I hope you've got something besides linguistic trickery to do it with....

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:42:26 +0000

by Golux13

DSHStratRat2 wrote:
I see no difference between a civilization's "Happiness" and its total of "Happy Faces." They're one and the same.

Except that Happiness is limited by the track on your player mat (to eight, I believe), while the number of Happy Faces you have can exceed that. The excess Happy Faces will have no effect on your civilization's Happiness, but will have an effect on other parts of the game.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:25:54 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Octavian wrote:
Golux13 wrote:

I'm not disputing this, but why is the formula as you have it instead of

Happiness = 2(#Happy Faces - #Unhappy Faces)

instead?

Because this formula would have SPB double Unhappy Faces as well as Happy Faces, which the card says nothing about.

I completely disagree. This formula would have St. Peter's Basilica doubling your NET total of Happy Faces. Doubling the Kremlin's UNhappy faces would impose MINUS FOUR Happy Faces, which I believe it obviously should not (far too harsh).

If you double the net, as you suggest, then you aren't doubling all the Happy Faces - only some of them.

And that's exactly the point of my problem with the way you're interpreting this rule. Because the Kremlin cancels out 2 Happy Faces, St. Peter's Basilica shouldn't be able to double those 2 Happy Faces. I think your interpretation allows St. Peter's Basilica to completely ignore the Kremlin's effects, which makes St. Peter's Basilica far too powerful.

There is no ambiguity if you go strictly by the rules as written. You need to infer things that aren't present in the rules to come to the alternate conclusion.

I disagree with this as well. We can't go "strictly by the rules as written" because they don't address this point at all. St. Peter's Basilica doubles your happy faces, but the Kremlin deducts two of them. The rules say nothing about which of these effects is applied first, and it makes a significant difference.

I suppose it really only matters which way this debate "officially leans" if you and I are playing in the same game, since we can each apply our own interpretation to the rule easily enough. But it would be nice to have a logical application for this rule, and your application of it doesn't quite have a logical ring in my ear. Getting to "double every happy face" with St. Peter's Basilica and THEN deducting 2 happy faces with the Kremlin sounds and feels completely wrong. Applying the rule that way means that the Kremlin is deducting 2 "mythical" happy faces instead of actual ones, and that just feels completely wrong to me. With that application of the rule, the guy who builds both of these Wonders is getting all the benefits of both Wonders while suffering only half of the penalty the Kremlin is meant to impose.

The Kremlin deducts Happy Faces and St. Peter's Basilica doubles them. These two Wonders SHOULD clash pretty harshly when built by the same civilization. Any civilization which has built this huge Cathedral SHOULD think several times before erecting the Kremlin--a historical icon for atheism if ever there was one! The only thing harder than imagining St. Peter's Basilica being built in the Soviet Union is having the Kremlin get built there later without it really taking a bite out St. Pete's influence!

Historically, I imagine it as something like "St. Peter's Basilica doubles your happiness for as long as you don't do something stupid.... like building the Kremlin!" After that, there's not quite so much happiness to double! Doesn't that seem far more logical?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:00:08 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

Octavian wrote:
Note that the rules refer to your indicator as Happiness and the icon as Happy Faces.

Your Happiness = #Happy Faces - #Unhappy Faces.

SPB doubles Happy Faces, not Happiness. Thus, there is no timing issue. SPB changes the formula to:

Happiness = 2(#Happy Faces) - #Unhappy Faces.

-MMM

You lost me with this one. My "indicator?" Are you talking about the wooden block that keeps track of how many happy faces a civilization has accrued? Because if you're telling me that's a civilization's "happiness" and that this is somehow distinctly different from a civilization's "number of happy faces," I find that reasoning specious at best and semantic silliness at worst. Or is the "indicator" you're talking about something else?

I see no difference between a civilization's "Happiness" and its total of "Happy Faces." They're one and the same.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

Choubi — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:41:31 +0000

by Choubi

out4blood wrote:
Choubi wrote:
jaugusto72 wrote:
A question...you said wich detroyed the wonder before finish..like you make it? is possible destroy a wonder?

There is an aggresion card that makes you destroy an unfinished wonder of your opponent. I destroyed his Great Wall (+5 military and +1 per infantry and archer unit).

The French version must include some changes I'm not aware of. In the English version, the Great Wall does not provide +5 military. Maybe this is due to French love for fortifications (i.e., The Maginot Line)?

Actually there are no french version and I think you are right.

I wasn't sure if it did so since you're contradicting me, I guess I was wrong.

It would seem overpowered in fact. As it is, it already presents a very nice boost in strength.

So yes, Great Wall = +1 per infantry and archer unit and that's it.

Thanks for the correction!

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

out4blood — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:19:33 +0000

by out4blood

Choubi wrote:
jaugusto72 wrote:
A question...you said wich detroyed the wonder before finish..like you make it? is possible destroy a wonder?

There is an aggresion card that makes you destroy an unfinished wonder of your opponent. I destroyed his Great Wall (+5 military and +1 per infantry and archer unit).

The French version must include some changes I'm not aware of. In the English version, the Great Wall does not provide +5 military. Maybe this is due to French love for fortifications (i.e., The Maginot Line)?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

ekted — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:06:47 +0000

by ekted

Interesting. I've always viewed "unhappy faces" as "negative happy faces", and played it using Dan's formula. SPB just got a little stronger.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

Choubi — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:16:24 +0000

by Choubi

jaugusto72 wrote:
A question...you said wich detroyed the wonder before finish..like you make it? is possible destroy a wonder?

There is an aggresion card that makes you destroy an unfinished wonder of your opponent. I destroyed his Great Wall (+5 military and +1 per infantry and archer unit).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:02:33 +0000

by Octavian

Golux13 wrote:

I'm not disputing this, but why is the formula as you have it instead of

Happiness = 2(#Happy Faces - #Unhappy Faces)

instead?

Because this formula would have SPB double Unhappy Faces as well as Happy Faces, which the card says nothing about.

If you double the net, as you suggest, then you aren't doubling all the Happy Faces - only some of them.

There is no ambiguity if you go strictly by the rules as written. You need to infer things that aren't present in the rules to come to the alternate conclusion.

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

jaugusto72 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:33:30 +0000

by jaugusto72

A question...you said wich detroyed the wonder before finish..like you make it? is possible destroy a wonder?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Golux13 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:50:07 +0000

by Golux13

I'm not disputing this, but why is the formula as you have it instead of

Happiness = 2(#Happy Faces - #Unhappy Faces)

instead? The only reason I can think of to use your formula is if Kremlin subtracts two Happiness instead of two Happy Faces... but why must Kremlin be read that way? Why wouldn't you just net out all your Happy and Unhappy Faces and then double the net total with St. Pete's?

New Image for Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization

fangorrn — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:43:18 +0000

by fangorrn

Player board during a game with advanced rules

]]>

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

Choubi — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:36:40 +0000

by Choubi

rivaro wrote:
OK

Most of the time, we removed the wars by choice with more than 2 players. Maybe we decided to do the same with 2 players and now we are convinced it's the rule.

Anyway, most of my friends think the wars are the less interesting features in the game. A weak player (in term of military strenght) has enough disadvantages with the aggressions, most of the events and no possibility to gain colonies, so we think we don't need to add the wars.

They have a "all or nothing" effect and we think it's rather unpleasant.

I probably don't have enough plays under my belt to disagree about anything on this game but I rather like the tension brought by the wars. The huge effects can really turn a game around and forces the interaction between players I feel.

Anyway, I can understand your point of view too.

Cheers

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

rivaro — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:53:22 +0000

by rivaro

OK

Most of the time, we removed the wars by choice with more than 2 players. Maybe we decided to do the same with 2 players and now we are convinced it's the rule.

Anyway, most of my friends think the wars are the less interesting features in the game. A weak player (in term of military strenght) has enough disadvantages with the aggressions, most of the events and no possibility to gain colonies, so we think we don't need to add the wars.

They have a "all or nothing" effect and we think it's rather unpleasant.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

Choubi — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:36:34 +0000

by Choubi

jebry wrote:
The wars remain in a two player game, but the pacts do not.

Yep, we didn't play with the pacts.

You remove the wars only in the advanced game.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

jebry — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:19:36 +0000

by jebry

The wars remain in a two player game, but the pacts do not.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

rivaro — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:44:08 +0000

by rivaro

Hello

It's a very good game for 2 players but, in my mind, with 2 players, you remove the wars and the pacts.

Rivaro

Session: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Napoleon dies one turn too soon...

Choubi — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:22:32 +0000

by Choubi

I've introduced my friend Bassem to this game directly with the full game.

So let's see, it's not an easy jump but it definitely is manageable. However, Rules explanation took 1 hour with us being very concentrated and all. Be a little less concentrated and I expect this will just do no good.

The game itself took 4 hours... But hey, at least we have a new player!
So, how did the game go?

Bassem starts pretty hard and concentrates on production, taking both phase I upgrades for farms and mines. I take Aristotle and grab every piece of technology I can get my hands on (I'll have all blue technologies from age I !!)
Building the Pyramids very fast and teching justice system allows me to gain a good advantage on civil actions (despite Bassem's Hammurabi (? + 1 civil, -1 military)) but at the cost of my production which will be low for quite long.

Bassem discovers he has big problems getting rid of his food as he produces too much very early (almost 4 per turn before he even started paying consumption!). This will hinder him significantly for a while.

Militarywise, nothing quite extraordinary is happening except I plan on going heavy military with a good tactics card (+4 for 3 cavalry), a cavalry in hand and tons of science to spend. Moreover, I keep getting military-favoured event cards that I play almost every turn. Moreover, Bassem having just 1 military action, he was quite in a rough spot.

I'll manage to get in 2 aggressions, destroying his level 1 lab and then making him lose resources.

Bassem will let too many occasions of building wonders while I continue with trying to get many science with Universitas Carolinas and libraries. I also build arenas for happiness. I'm kind of mass teching in this early game while Bassem is mostly mass-producing but without seeming to do much with his resources.

He'll finally managed to get a good wonder with China wall. However afraid of the military boost Bassem would have, I decide to take action and manage to destroy his wonder just before he finishes it. Right now, I'm in the drover's seat military wise. And I'm also gaining ground each turn on culture, almost on a par with him despite his +6 culture and +5 culture played early.

I have put ALL events as of now in the future events and they all favour military where I have a +10 advantage on Bassem and getting better with Napoleon and a better army on the way. I have tons of bonuses with my special technologies. 7 civil actions and 5 military ones (still with my despotism government!) vs 7 and 2 for Bassem. I produce as much food as Bassem, have upgraded a better mine, though I still don't produce as much as Bassem (10 to 5 for the moment but I have 2 mines waiting to be upgraded). I win more points and more science each turn...

I have basically won this game...

Except...

Age 3 starts.
With Napoleon in play I have a HUGE advance on Bassm and I declare a war on population. Bassem will manage to upgrade pretty fast with Churchill but will still be left behind 18 points! After small sacrifices, Bassem loses 6 pop from his reserves while I win that much. Unfortunately, Bassem didn't really care and it was already a little bit too late for him to be hindered as he already had tons of guys standing around. He might have gotten problems with happiness but just one temple built and problem solved. At that point he builds Fast Food Chains and wins tons of points and get another big boost.

And this is where I'll make my biggest mistake, right after having declared my previous war, I was supposed to attack right away and build a airplane.
Producing 7 per turn, I didn't really pay attention to what I spent the turn before... Except that I had to pay corruption for 1 and the turn after that, I just had 6 resources with 7 needed. I couldn't build my airforce now. I couldn't launch my attack therefore as Bassem with vastly superior units and big advantages in resource production (and military costs thanks to Churchill) could get ahead. Next turn, I wanted to declare the war over culture I wanted, this time being able to build my airforce (which brought me: 5 + 9 for my army + 9 because the bonus is doubled by Napoleon... giving me, as Bassem had caught up with me a 23 strength advantage, with Bassem unable to build more (no man left for him))... Well no... Because before the war is resolved, age 3 would have ended, I would have lost Napoleon (ie: 36 in strength!) which would have left me WAAYY behind.

So no war, no points... Well I build a spaceship for 23 points and finish 1 point behind Bassem with a sucker production and without even being able to really make my military pay off...
Except he got good age 3 events cards and he will win tons of points there too.

Final score:

Bassem: 153
Choubi: 137

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

Octavian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:56:02 +0000

by Octavian

Note that the rules refer to your indicator as Happiness and the icon as Happy Faces.

Your Happiness = #Happy Faces - #Unhappy Faces.

SPB doubles Happy Faces, not Happiness. Thus, there is no timing issue. SPB changes the formula to:

Happiness = 2(#Happy Faces) - #Unhappy Faces.

-MMM

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Effects of Kremlin vs. St. Peter's Basilica?

DSHStratRat2 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:57:21 +0000

by DSHStratRat2

JGRno5 wrote:
Double happy faces only.

Do NOT double unhappy faces.

I still have a problem with timing on this issue.

Let's say I have 4 actual happy faces. Then I finish St. Pete's, which doubles them to 8.

Later, I buy the Kremlin and the timing issue arises. Does the Kremlin's -2 happy faces reduce my St. Pete's-affected total to 6 happy faces, or does it take its 2 happy faces off my ACTUAL happy face total, reducing me to TWO actual happy faces which are then doubled by St. Pete's to 4?

The way my group plays it is more harsh, but it makes more sense to me. We say that the Kremlin deducts two ACTUAL happy faces, not just a "mythical" two that are only there because of the St. Pete's effect. We don't let St. Pete's cancel out the Kremlin; it makes St. Pete's too powerful.

One disputer to this claim says that we should apply the St. Pete's effect first because St. Pete's is always "historically" finished long before the Kremlin. I dispute that approach because St. Pete's doesn't just double the happy faces that existed when it was finished--it doubles ALL your happy faces, whether you earned them before or after the Cathedral was built. So your ACTUAL happy faces should be lessened by 2 if you have finished the Kremlin.

In other words, we play that St. Pete's can't double your happy faces until you count them up, and that includes deducting two for having finished the Kremlin.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: A case for Hammurabi

MysteryMan_007_007 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:51:29 +0000

by MysteryMan_007_007

I feel pretty much the same...I have taken him before for 1CA to great effect. I don't hold on to him too long though funnily enough his extra CA he gives you can sometimes help you build troops. Age A leaders > Age 1...but I agree as soon as a 1/2 decent age-1 comes out thats when you switch away from Hammy having gained at least a few CA's.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: A case for Hammurabi

meyerg — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:20:05 +0000

by meyerg

Yes, he is far down my list. But I will make a case for taking Hammurabi.

It is a 4-player game (2-player leaves you too many better alternatives)

You draft late and are looking at what to do with your 3 or 4 CA. Rather than be inefficient, you grab Hammurabi in the 1 CA slot. Now, he is almost free to get. Then you play him after you have used an MA (maybe a tactics card play or a warrior conscription). Now he is pretty much free. You replace him with an age 1 leader and actually gain a MA!

I haven't done this often, but I think it can be worthwhile. Maybe you have a patriotism to use with him.

I will never turn down one of the big three leaders to get Hammurabi, but I can see taking him late for one CA in the drafting round. Unfortunately most age 1 leaders are less than impressive when compared to the big three.

Greg

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Received Missing Cards-Thanks to Fred Dis.

greenpawn — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:46:01 +0000

by greenpawn

I finally received the replacement cards from FRED. I was told several times that they had shipped. Today I received the cards and the box was postmark dated June 26, 2009. They threw in: War! Age of Imperialism PC game. Friday night I had decided that I was too frusterated to pursue this and I was going to cut my losses. I guess that I fared better that some, it only took about 2 months of promises and excuses to get the cards. Thanks FRED Dist. for the replacements.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: The 'Nikola Tesla' card

out4blood — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:33:05 +0000

by out4blood

ZiNOS wrote:
Thnx, this makes Tesla really interesting, especially if he shows early in the III age :).

Don't forget that Tesla makes it more expensive for OTHER players to build or upgrade their labs, too! Even without that, he can be quite powerful if played well, getting you two (or more) Age III wonders, or maybe max out on Theaters or Libraries for culture production. He's phenomenal in boosting production. He just needs to come out early enough to make it all work.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: The 'Nikola Tesla' card

ZiNOS — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:08:25 +0000

by ZiNOS

Thnx, this makes Tesla really interesting, especially if he shows early in the III age :).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Overrated ???

Stexe — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:44:30 +0000

by Stexe

Octavian wrote:
mavo wrote:
I just do not understand why in the last one or two years or so, games started really rushing in the Top 10, while in a long while before that, the ranks where slowly changing. Where is the point for that? More users? More hype-addicted users? Or just more good games?

This.

-MMM

I wouldn't say that exactly. There has a lot to do with new board game players, especially in the internet culture, that gets into board gaming and only has traditional board games (Monopoly, Scrabble, Sorry!) to compare the games they buy (all new, modern games).

I'm sure if a lot of old, out of print stuff that is in the top 200 or so was reprinted, they would jump up fairly high. I mean just look at how the reprint of Cosmic Encounter did.

Session: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Caesar again - 4 player game

meyerg — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:51:12 +0000

by meyerg

This time we sit down (face to face) and play a 4-player game.
I draft second and take the Hanging gardens for my 2 CAs after the first player drafted the discount to labs. Third player uses his 3 CAs in drafting round to get Hammarabi and a mining discount and a frugal from the 1CA row. Third player takes Aristotle for 3 CAs and the last 1 CA item, the Colossus.

First player gets Moses for 1 CA and is off to get the first lab built. I take Caesar for 2 CAs, play him, and build a mine. Lucky for me I don't regret the lack of a spare population, and turn two I populate twice, get out my lab, and grab a frugal. Third player triggers a free temple for all, unfortunately he built a warrior early to get Hammurabi efficiently into play, and is the only one without a temple. He actually replaces Hammurabi quickly with Christopher Columbus and settles a good colony early. Player 4 gets Aristotle going, but never gets the second lab built. He seems content to grab tech cards from the 1CA row to get tech.

With a quick warrior band tactics again and fighting band tactics card after the event triggering a free warrior build, I am off to a quick military lead. Once again I grab the early iron for 2CAs, and thanks to the event generating one extra science, I put it in play turn 4 (counting the drafting turn). A pact with Moses letting him spend food as resource and me spend resources as food, and we are off to the infrastructure lead. I build to four iron mines as quickly as possible and don't get irrigation or alchemy going at all.

Aristotle actually builds the Colossus and actually uses the colonization bonus to settle a good colony (blue token and yellow token). He bids three before me, and I don't have a bonus card if I wanted to sac a fighting band (he drops a warrior and a card with his bonus to get to 3).

So what I do with my resources? I get the hanging gardens completed, get the knights going and build knights. When the good yellow territory I seeded comes out on my turn, I bid four and with a colonization card I sac a fighting band. I quickly build back knights instead of warriors and have four knights and fighting band tactics out (kind of humorous). I replace Caesar with Michealangelo right at the end of the age, and find myself generating a little extra culture.

Moses gets very unlucky with events. Not being strong in military, he often loses population. His early irrigation plus up was followed by rats eating all his stockpiled grain. Aristotle actually picks Alchemy and builds a fully upgraded second lab, as he was neglecting his science generation as only Aristotle seems to do given his great ability to generate it on his own. Aristotle is followed by Napolean, and quick tactics card comes out.

After building the Eiffel Tower and the Transcontinental railroad in era two with my huge resources, (and jumping to era two labs straight skipping alchemy) it is another huge game. I snag the second coal to keep Napolean in bronze, and actually hammer Napolean and steal his technology to keep him from developing artillery. Four knights and the railroad put me at 13, and that is enough to steal his tech.

Hammurabi was followed by Columbus and then Robispierre got a quick Constitutional Monarchy going, then I burned two of his labs and he was quite unhappy.

With the transcontinental railroad, one coal mine and three iron mines, I had no lack of resources. Rifleman and cavalrymen traveled the transcontinental railroad and the development of a justice system and military strategy kept our poor despot humming until a republic was finally established and he had to step down.

Once again, Caesar gave me the jump on military cards and good events. Being the strongest the entire game allowed me to grab a yellow token from the weakest and other humorous things with no effort on my part.

Early iron is good! When players know their military, resources are more important than science early.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: The 'Nikola Tesla' card

DaviddesJ — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:30:49 +0000

by DaviddesJ

ZiNOS wrote:
Do the labs, after affected by Tesla, still give you science or do they only act as mines now?

Both.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: The 'Nikola Tesla' card

ZiNOS — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:27:01 +0000

by ZiNOS

Do the labs, after affected by Tesla, still give you science or do they only act as mines now?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Getting food in the early turns

dcorban — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:57:21 +0000

by dcorban

I agree that the second population is much more viable in a 3 or 4 player game. In a two-player game, I always delay the second population as long as possible.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Getting food in the early turns

meyerg — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:08:59 +0000

by meyerg

I have a suggestion. I firmly believe Alexfrog is correct in that an early farm puts you too far behind in resources and sciences.
My favorite tactic is to get Irrigation and just build the irrigation straight out for 4 rocks and then upgrade the other two later. If the irrigation is not coming, you need to watch when the third farm will be the difference between populating or not (normally you are in the one consumption zone with one food and you are trying to buy those three workers that cost three food each but still stay in the one unhappy zone). Buy the third farm so you can populate and it will double your net food production. Rather than getting one every three turns, you get two every three turns.

If the others in your game are not concentrating on infrastructure and military appropriately, drop a few aggressions and watch the events hammer them. If you grow your population footprint too much, you won't have the ability to efficiently build infrastructure and military.

Alexfrog has pointed out that building to the -1 consumption point of the game (second pop increase) will delay your next population and normally you just get an uncontent worker. In a 4 player game you need to build him if you are late in the turn order as events can put him to use. Plus if the free pop event comes out your free pop is a more "valuable" free pop.

I also point out Moses doesn't usually have this problem as much, and the frugal cards are quite useful for one CA early.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Getting food in the early turns

dcorban — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:43:17 +0000

by dcorban

You need either a third farm, irrigation, or a territory which provides population.

You also need to be sure that you are delaying the creation of new workers when appropriate so you do not waste food in consumption.

Certain wonders, such as the Hanging Gardens, can help immensely, since you will not have to build happiness buildings.

Upgrading current technologies instead of starting new ones (eg. Alchemy instead of Libraries) in Age I reduces the number of workers you need.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Getting food in the early turns

GazPAge — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:25:43 +0000

by GazPAge

Hi all,

I've been reading some of the strategy articles, and find my experience agreeing with the economy / tech / military focused approach. However, I find myself struggling in the early part of the game to get enough food. In particular, after I have popped a couple of guys to get my first mine and lab I find myself waiting for guys to put in my military. I've tried getting the action cards that help, but it often isn't enough. If I miss irrigation, I really struggle.

How do more experience players deal with this? Are you building a third farm at some point, or relying on getting irrigation?

Thanks
Gary

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

SevenSpirits — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:03:35 +0000

by SevenSpirits

He is not being serious. You can tell by highlighting his post - there's some hidden white text indicating it was a joke.

Hehe.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

dcorban — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:19:21 +0000

by dcorban

out4blood wrote:
the obvious superiority of Hammurabi over Caesar

I can't tell if you are serious.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

out4blood — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:49:09 +0000

by out4blood

Ben and I just played a 3-player game this week where I got suckered out of Iron and ended up taking Coal at 2 CAs when it came out on my turn. Despite that, I managed to win a very close game, but that was probably due to the obvious superiority of Hammurabi over Caesar, than that of Coal over Iron.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

meyerg — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:30:16 +0000

by meyerg

First comment: Great controversial post. Pushes the envelope.

My gut feeling is "ignoring" iron is too risky. I don't have problem "blowing" my first five science on iron and upgrading iron mines early. As I get to three mines quickly, this is the "best upgrade" (I am more reluctant to get to 3 labs or farms). My definition of ignoring iron is not paying 2CA for it and hoping it drops to 1CA as in our games it never drops to 1CA.

I would suggest that if you don't get iron, your opponents are not valuing appropriately the value of coal as picking it for them has the added benefit of keeping it from you.

Another factor to consider is you lose the early battle for iron, if you lose the battle for early irrigation too, you are in even more trouble. I have missed iron and gotten alchemy and irrigation.

Another point is resources are essential for military. If your opponents don't put pressure on you militarily, they may be letting you off easier than my opponents would.

By the way, don't you hate when Aristotle "blows" his 4 CAs to select the first 2 CA iron and the first 2 CA irrigation in 4-player in a single turn, then the rest are at the bottom of the deck?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

meyerg — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:23:25 +0000

by meyerg

It was a face to face game, so we watch each other to avoid overdragging.

I can't vouch for every game, but in this, the one extra MA did mean a lot. Extra colony cards, extra defense/colony bonus, extra events to benefit the leader and hurt the stragglers. Extra MAs to play raids on the stragglers and smoke out their defense cards. It all worked out perfectly this time.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

meyerg — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:18:05 +0000

by meyerg

I'd say this is impossible. You've got 3 ore after production on your turn 2. There aren't any events on turn 2 (because no one has any military cards to play events). So the only possible event before your turn 3 is the one that you can trigger on your turn 3 by playing an event card. And there's no Age A event that gives you +3 ore.

You are correct.

I have edited my original post. I built the mine, then the lab, then events played on the first five player turns where events could be triggered gave a total of 3 ore by the time my next turn came around to add to the three I saved to build the Pyramids. One event gave two ore, the other 1 ore, 1 food, 1 science.

First non-drafting turn I use my actions to get Caesar from a two spot (2), play Caesar (3), build mine (4) and hope I don't trigger an event that benefits from having a person free.

Second turn seed colony and trigger no event, increase pop twice (2) build lab (3) pick a frugal card (4) MA 1 play fighting band tactics and save 2 MAs to draw two cards.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: J.S. Bach + Breakthrough + Opera

out4blood — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:29:58 +0000

by out4blood

Yes, of course.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

MysteryMan_007_007 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:32:15 +0000

by MysteryMan_007_007

Corwin1980 wrote:
I'm new to the game, so bear with me, but does one extra military action matter that much? Most of the time I find myself with military actions remaining at the end of my turn anyway – which allows me to draw military cards, as a side effect.
Also, when an event makes your mines produce or makes you earn ressources, do you have to pay for corruption? I was under the assumption that you only pay for corruption when producing normally at the end of your turn.

They may not be pound for pound as good as Civil Actions but they are very nice.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: J.S. Bach + Breakthrough + Opera

dcorban — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:21:22 +0000

by dcorban

This is the same ruling as Frugality & Moses. "Full price" for you is the discounted price due to your leader.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: J.S. Bach + Breakthrough + Opera

jebry — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:36:39 +0000

by jebry

I would allow this! All Breakthrough says is to pay full price. Full price for you is six so, go for it!

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: J.S. Bach + Breakthrough + Opera

synco — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:12:46 +0000

by synco

Just for clarification:

If J.S. Bach is your leader and you have 6 points on technology, can you play the Breakthrough (of age II) action, invent the Opera (which costs normally 7, but with Bach only 6), and finish your technology indicator on 4 points?
Same analogy as on Moses + Frugality, discussed earlier.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

idmonfish — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:59:16 +0000

by idmonfish

Hi Gordon
Good luck finding the game. I just got a copy of it secondhand (First edition and in great condition) shipped to me from Turkey by a nice chap using the BGG marketplace. I think including shipping it cost me about £35. So I guess try the marketplace, amazon and other secondhand game sources, it seems to be out of stock everywhere else.

Good luck
David

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

elfrododumbo — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:51:58 +0000

by elfrododumbo

:) Hope that FRED will help us get the new re-print. I am so eager to play this game. Getting miffed playing with pegs (Rolling Through the Ages) :snore:
I really do not believe that a comparison of the two games would be fair, but I cannot understand why the game is unavailable. Was the dice and pegs a subsitute.......no, cannot believe that :shake:

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

Sorp222 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:27:58 +0000

by Sorp222

It's out of stock at Boardgameguru and at the distributors. Hopefully Fred will print some more soon, though i wonder if they will correct the (minor) errors in the last edition and take a little longer over a re-print.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

JimF — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:01:12 +0000

by JimF

Try Boardgameguru.co.uk

I got my copy from there and at a good price.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

Wolf_Apostle — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:33:29 +0000

by Wolf_Apostle

I was not able to buy the game here in the Netherlands either... According to their supplier, they are waiting for a new print from FRED. It should be arriving somewhere around august.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Could someone help downloading the vassal mod?

camus_dvd — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:22:10 +0000

by camus_dvd

Kubigaruma wrote:
I think you have to own the game to ethically download the Vassal module.

I know it was this way with the Cyberboard modules.

The price of the game made me "Look before I leap"...
I've already familier with the UI of vassal, so won't change :D

Lonster wrote:
Albert,

Also living in China, I had problems downloading the module too .....the file server is blocked here in China. But I was able to download it through this link:

File name: NewTTA_2.46
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/5jkc1deg24i

I got the link by having mediafire send me the download link in email. I then added a file extension of .vmod once it was downloaded so the final file name was NewTTA_2.46.vmod

Hope that works for you (if not, then send me an email on BGGeek).

Thanks,Lonster
But it doesn't work also. -_-

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Could someone help downloading the vassal mod?

Lonster — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:23:10 +0000

by Lonster

Albert,

Also living in China, I had problems downloading the module too .....the file server is blocked here in China. But I was able to download it through this link:

File name: NewTTA_2.46
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/5jkc1deg24i

I got the link by having mediafire send me the download link in email. I then added a file extension of .vmod once it was downloaded so the final file name was NewTTA_2.46.vmod

Hope that works for you (if not, then send me an email on BGGeek).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Could someone help downloading the vassal mod?

Kubigaruma — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:17:48 +0000

by Kubigaruma

I think you have to own the game to ethically download the Vassal module.

I know it was this way with the Cyberboard modules.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Could someone help downloading the vassal mod?

camus_dvd — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:02:54 +0000

by camus_dvd

I love civ theme and want to buy my own copy.
But since there is no offical rule PDF online or any simulation, I can't judge the game by myself.

And plus sad when I found I can't download the vassal file.
It will very appreciate if you, my geek buddy, help uploading this mod to a site which I could enter in China.
(eg, http://www.rapidshare.com/)

Through The Ages Mods
http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php?option=com_v...

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Wave of Nationalism Action card?

out4blood — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:39:39 +0000

by out4blood

Yup, as stated in the rules.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

elfrododumbo — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:50:47 +0000

by elfrododumbo

:( Gosh ! Just looked in at amazon and the s/h is £40 (new=£50).
Thanks for directing me there, though.
Just wondering why the game is no longer available when so many are intereted. Hey ho ! :shake:

Regards.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

dcorban — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:20:31 +0000

by dcorban

The extra military action is huge, especially in the early game when you have Caesar. It gives you 50% more military cards and allows you to produce military units without affecting your military card draw as much. These extra military cards result in better tactics cards and more choices of events. The better chance of getting a strong tactics card alone makes his ability valuable.

Whenever an event makes your mines/farms produce, the card will tell you if you should ignore or not ignore consumption/corruption. If it says "do not ignore", then you must pay the corruption, just as though you were doing normal production at the end of your turn.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

Corwin1980 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:31:38 +0000

by Corwin1980

I'm new to the game, so bear with me, but does one extra military action matter that much? Most of the time I find myself with military actions remaining at the end of my turn anyway – which allows me to draw military cards, as a side effect.
Also, when an event makes your mines produce or makes you earn ressources, do you have to pay for corruption? I was under the assumption that you only pay for corruption when producing normally at the end of your turn.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

DaviddesJ — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:30:27 +0000

by DaviddesJ

LashtonBryth wrote:
All it takes is an event that allows your mines to produce with no corruption, which I'm sure is one of the age A events.

Unfortunately, people can be "sure" and also be "wrong". :whistle:

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

Rastak — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:05:48 +0000

by Rastak

dcorban wrote:
Also, I find it really strange that all three of your opponents felt they had zero chance of winning at the end of Age II. The game can swing tremendously in just the final turn or two, let alone all of Age III.

Completely agree.....

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

Methsdrinker — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:04:47 +0000

by Methsdrinker

I was in the same boat just the other day. I just had my birthday two days ago and wanted this one badly. In the end I got it from Green Knight Games via the Amazon marketplace. Good luck, it's not an easy game to get your mitts on!!!

EDIT: Just checked Amazon.co.uk. Get yourself there right now as it's still in stock. You might end up paying very slightly over the odds for a new copy, but if you're happy with 2nd hand, I think it's going for £35. ;)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: Calling England !

Mr Mjeh — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:26:35 +0000

by Mr Mjeh

http://www.thegamesplayer.co.uk/khxc/index.php?sid=kz4584232...

EDIT: oops, out of stock

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

LashtonBryth — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:17:15 +0000

by LashtonBryth

Dave wrote:
LashtonBryth wrote:
All it takes is an event that allows your mines to produce with no corruption, which I'm sure is one of the age A events.

According to the reference sheet posted here, Age I. The most you can get from an age A event is 2.

If that is the case, then he probably has fat fingers and can't keep from overdragging.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

dcorban — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:51:56 +0000

by dcorban

Well, then I got nothin'. ;)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

Dave — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:40:55 +0000

by Dave

dcorban wrote:
Maybe he is like me and doesn't count the first turn where you simply select cards. I go so far as to just set everyone up with 1 science and the 2 food and 2 rocks right from the start. If you ignore the card selection turn, you can easily get pyramids done on "turn 3".

Except he wrote:

Events conspired to give me exactly 6 resources at the start of turn 3 (turn 2 if you don't count the drafting turn).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

dcorban — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:35:07 +0000

by dcorban

Also, I find it really strange that all three of your opponents felt they had zero chance of winning at the end of Age II. The game can swing tremendously in just the final turn or two, let alone all of Age III.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

dcorban — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:32:06 +0000

by dcorban

Maybe he is like me and doesn't count the first turn where you simply select cards. I go so far as to just set everyone up with 1 science and the 2 food and 2 rocks right from the start. If you ignore the card selection turn, you can easily get pyramids done on "turn 3".

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

Dave — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:34:17 +0000

by Dave

LashtonBryth wrote:
All it takes is an event that allows your mines to produce with no corruption, which I'm sure is one of the age A events.

According to the reference sheet posted here, Age I. The most you can get from an age A event is 2.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

LashtonBryth — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:11:01 +0000

by LashtonBryth

DaviddesJ wrote:
meyerg wrote:
Caesar dropped to the two spot, and I grabbed and played him. I also built a mine. From him, came nothing but good things. The extra military actions let me get a quick fighting band. Events conspired to give me exactly 6 resources at the start of turn 3 (turn 2 if you don't count the drafting turn).

I'd say this is impossible. You've got 3 ore after production on your turn 2. There aren't any events on turn 2 (because no one has any military cards to play events). So the only possible event before your turn 3 is the one that you can trigger on your turn 3 by playing an event card. And there's no Age A event that gives you +3 ore.

All it takes is an event that allows your mines to produce with no corruption, which I'm sure is one of the age A events. He built a mine on round 1, gets extra production from an event, and he has 6 resources.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Re: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

DaviddesJ — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:13:26 +0000

by DaviddesJ

meyerg wrote:
Caesar dropped to the two spot, and I grabbed and played him. I also built a mine. From him, came nothing but good things. The extra military actions let me get a quick fighting band. Events conspired to give me exactly 6 resources at the start of turn 3 (turn 2 if you don't count the drafting turn).

Session: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Sessions:: Caesar leads the way to victory - four player full game

meyerg — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:03:54 +0000

by meyerg

First, thanks to the strategy help in these forums.

I was first in a four-player game. I got to select first, and the Pyramids was my pick. Next was Moses and Frugal. Third was the Hanging Gardens and Homer (the only "good" CA one left after picking the HG for 2 CA). Last was Aristotle and a 6 culture boost.

Caesar dropped to the two spot, and I grabbed and played him. I also built a mine. From him, came nothing but good things. The extra military actions let me get a quick fighting band. Events conspired to give me exactly 6 resources at the start of turn 4 (turn 3 if you don't count the drafting turn) after building a mine and lab.

I dropped the Pyramids with the six rocks, and the extra CA was such a help. It was worth it. Moses and Homer were keeping up in military, but Aristotle was lagging behind. Homer actually snagged the Masonry early and managed to use it to finish the gardens with two CA including an engineering genius card. Then he built his second lab cheaper. Unfortunately the three science spent this early would be sorely missed. Moses built up a large population like usual.

As Caeser, I didn't get many good aggressions, but I did manage to grab an early swordsman and an early 2CA iron, and built up a strong military of swordmen with fighting band tactics. I sent out two raids when my hand was full and sucked some defense cards out of my neighbors they wished they could have held for later

I seeded two colonies, but the humorous thing is a better colony came out first. I sacrificed a swordsman and a bonus card and got it. I was using my resources and military actions to build back my army, then I would sacrifice a swordsman and a card to get another colony. From the first three colonies I had 3 extra yellow and 3 extra blue tokens. Homer had a turn where he picked and built the Colossus on his turn rather than have corruption (I think this was a marginal call).

I wasn't even consuming when everyone else was consuming one or two. Homer was followed by the leader that produced culture from smiles and built the Taj Mahal quickly with Masonry. I actually considered building the Great Wall, but correctly realized it was a poor play and kept the swordsman (and later knights) coming.

Although I couldn't get irrigation, I was first to iron mines and second to alchemy. I bagged another historical colony no one wanted and used Columbus to get a strategic colony.

Needless to say, even after a few pacts that didn't include me, I managed to cruise to victory, as a matter of fact, we called it after age II. Aristotle became a Monarchy and was quickly succeeded by Napoleon, but without the infrastructure, he never challenged me.

Caesar is great, mainly for the extra MA and the flexibility that brings. I could upgrade military and still keep the tactics and events flowing. The game punishes you plenty for being weak, I didn't feel any need to pound one of the stragglers as I had a quick route to a humming economy (iron mines quickly followed by alchemy labs).

I am now a blatant Caesar fanboy.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Calling England !

elfrododumbo — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:51:26 +0000

by elfrododumbo

I want to buy this game but it is unavailable. I ended buying Rolling through the Ages (not bad, but :shake
Has anyone in England bought this game recently , and if so, where from....please

Thanks in advance,

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Wave of Nationalism Action card?

dcorban — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:37:12 +0000

by dcorban

Just like with Patriotism, you may use the resources to upgrade as well as build new.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Wave of Nationalism Action card?

Fardog — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:22:11 +0000

by Fardog

Is this card just for building new units OR can it be used to upgrade a unit. Thanks

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Full Game second round question

djgutierrez77 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:28:17 +0000

by djgutierrez77

According to the "customer service" rep I talked to at Fred yesterday, they lost the upgrade packs in their warehouse when they moved, so the order I placed June 5th just shipped today. She neglected to offer a discount on the shipping, oddly enough. Apparently $6 for shipping gets you three week service.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Full Game second round question

molitor4 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:28:02 +0000

by molitor4

Mr Mjeh wrote:
First turn: you take Age A cards only.

In the first 'real' turn:

The first player uses Civil Deck A (Age A) at the start of his/her turn to fill up the rest of the card row. The second player fills up using the Age I deck.

that is, if I remember correctly

this is correct. also, i do not believe there is any 'sliding down' of the card row until the first player's actual turn.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Full Game second round question

Mr Mjeh — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:54:04 +0000

by Mr Mjeh

First turn: you take Age A cards only.

In the first 'real' turn:

The first player uses Civil Deck A (Age A) at the start of his/her turn to fill up the rest of the card row. The second player fills up using the Age I deck.

that is, if I remember correctly

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Full Game second round question

dcorban — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:51:27 +0000

by dcorban

After the initial card selection round, you refill the card row with Age A cards. You may then put the Age A deck away since you no longer need it. I just set it off to the side and use it as a face-down discard pile.

FRED has run out of the original fix pack components. From what I understand, you can order the 3rd printing cards/mats/board from them. However, the 3rd printing cards, while being of better physical quality, still have the printing errors.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Full Game second round question

Black Barney — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:44:24 +0000

by Black Barney

In the Full Game, it says to put Military and Civil Decks I (age I) on the board. In the Basic and Advanced Game, you don't put Civil Deck I until the 2nd player starts his turn (because the first player uses Civil Deck A (Age A) at the start of his/her turn to fill up the rest of the card row.

I've been playing the Full Game with the intention of putting the rest of Civil Deck A away after initial set up. Is that right?

Also, is Fred Distribution (or whomever) still sending fix packs? I never got mine.

New Image for Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization

Guantanamo — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:25:41 +0000

by Guantanamo

Keith teaches me at Rapier 2009

]]>

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: News:: Re: 3rd printing July 2009

jedisilentbob — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:00:29 +0000

by jedisilentbob

Here Is the message I got from Fred

jedisilentbob wrote:
Is this still planed for July 2009?

Hi Jeff,

No sir, we should have it in September (I am awaiting some files to approve and then production will start). The wood has already been ordered, so this should stay on track.

Thanks for the e-mail.

Keith

So I am guess that means stores will have it October or November?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: RuleS Stuff I seem to not understand

MysteryMan_007_007 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:28:07 +0000

by MysteryMan_007_007

coolpapa wrote:
For the sacrificing of units, you could think about it that you're committing those units to fight all-out, mo retreats, no survivors. As such, they won't survive the battle, but they add more to your strength. Committing one warrior unit, for example, adds 1 extra strength. If a whole army (a Fighting Band, for instance) commits to fight this way, then you get the army bonus added again as well, as in your example.

I also tend to think of it liek this...not all your troops died...they just became farmers and residents on the new land the conquered for you. ;)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Taking a Wonder if Hand Full

MysteryMan_007_007 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:24:17 +0000

by MysteryMan_007_007

Mr Mjeh wrote:
out4blood wrote:
The relevant rule for this is on page 7 (of the 2nd edition) under Summary of Civil Cards section.

P.4, under Wonders, it says: "Wonders are the only cards that you put directly into play. You never keep a Wonder in your hand."

The answer is in the 1st part of the rule you quoted -

"Wonders are the only cards that you put directly into play."

Directly into play means it never enters your hand.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

BFoy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:06:50 +0000

by BFoy

I can see spending 1-2 CAs to pick up a late Iron, then getting Coal and never playing the Iron. When Age III hits, the Iron card goes away.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:47:39 +0000

by Dave

cwtang wrote:
Remember, the "real" comparison of coal to iron is when you can use 3 workers on coal versus 4 workers on iron, ie. you are freeing 1 valuable token for use elsewhere.

Interesting spin to my above analysis. I find 4 workers on iron makes it hard to avoid corruption (maybe those blue tokens aren't so bad after all...), but in truth I haven't tried it much, but I usually cannot afford the worker.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:43:08 +0000

by Dave

out4blood wrote:
If Player A takes the first Coal, he CAN benefit from putting it into play. It's not JUST about denying your opponent.

Yes, when I write "Player A has better things he can do", that implies better things > 3 CAs for Coal > 0 benefit.

In doing the math, I think you have to figure the odds of a Coal card NOT being available for player C. I don't think you've quite captured that yet.

Yet I am contending that Iron is as good as Coal even if you assume that Coal can be had, so I am purposefully ignoring it.

In a 3-player game, the odds of having Coal available to draft are approximately 1/3 + (1/3*2/3) + (1/3*1/3) = 2/3 (although half of that is apt to show up later). If the OP thinks that Coal is a significant benefit over Iron, then those odds are fine to live with, especially if the other players value Iron over Coal. However, I think the math shows that Coal ain't much better in that one third of games you can get it early, and it's worse in the one third of games you can get it late.

In summary, I think the main points for arguing Iron vs. Coal should be (1) total production and (2) what you're spending your stuff on in Age I, and I would like to hear more from the OP more on this. Once the benefits of Coal are understood, then you can factor in the risk element easily enough.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

HuckmanT — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:19:38 +0000

by HuckmanT

You see, I don't even agree that you have to develop farming at some point during the game. Especially in 2P. Getting yourself a lot of CA is a great way to offset ignoring farm development, since you can Action Card your way to feeding the troops and shoot for something like Ocean Liner Service.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

out4blood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:36:22 +0000

by out4blood

Dave wrote:
I believe we were talking about taking Coal when you have Iron with the main driver being to deny Coal from the other player who does not have Iron (say, in a 3-player game).

Let's say the players are A-B-C seated clockwise. C is the player without Iron, and we'll assume C is at least in contention to win at this point. The first Coal appears on player A's turn. Player A has better things he could do with those 3 CA to improve his own board (say, grab some yellow cards, or spend resources to avoid corruption), but he has to at least consider grabbing that Coal to deny C.

If A grabs Coal, he will successfully deny Coal to C if the second Coal shows up on A's or B's turn (~ 2/3 chance).

If A passes on Coal and forces B to make that investment, then C will be denied Coal only if the next one shows up on A's turn (~1/3 chance).

A now has to make a decision based on the expected value of denying Coal for C and the net loss to himself for using those 3 CAs to grab it. If C gets the second Coal anyways, then those CAs are "wasted" on a suboptimal move, but it was a smart decision anyways.

Much also depends on the relative positions of A, B, and C, which could also impact whether B can be relied on to draft Coal either now or later.

If Player A takes the first Coal, he CAN benefit from putting it into play. It's not JUST about denying your opponent. Again, you are trading off some science and CAs for extra resources. If you also screw another opponent, so much the better.

In doing the math, I think you have to figure the odds of a Coal card NOT being available for player C. I don't think you've quite captured that yet.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

bazik123 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:41:08 +0000

by bazik123

hmm we should have played tta then last time we've had the chance. me experience is that if someone didn't take iron, others need a very good excuse not to try to deny him coal as well... so I might take iron and not put it out, waiting to see if the coal comes my way, but I'd be nervous not taking it at all against mean opponents (and in tta, my experience is they are all mean)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

cwtang — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:27:30 +0000

by cwtang

The postition of Iron VS Coal in the full game.

From the games I have played for (10+ 3p/4p games),

The competition for cards increase espoentially as each age progresses.

Age I is primarily focused on developing your production / science. There aren't many good cards at Age I, Michael, Columbus, Iron & St Peter stand out. You really have some civil actions to spare (to play 6 culture yeloow card, for example).

Age II is the crtical age about change of government, military build-up and wonder grabbing. There are so many good stuff out: Newton, James Cook, Napoleon, Cannon, Cavalry, Rifleman, Ocean Liner, Railrod, Eiffel, Republic, Con. Monarchy. You just don'y have the resources and actions to do all those thing, let alone upping your production.

Apart from that, upgrading from bronze to coal require six resources, meaning that you have to save and / or using yellow upgrade card, probably bad for corruption. Worse still, you are sometimes left with the awkard situation of say, 2 bronze and several coal to make up your "correct" quantities of rocks, which is bad for corruption.

Remember, the "real" comparison of coal to iron is when you can use 3 workers on coal versus 4 workers on iron, ie. you are freeing 1 valuable token for use elsewhere. But there are colonies out, some events as well as the Ocean Liner to change the balance of the equation.

Last word, I would have grab the iron card, even late in Age I, if that cost 1 or 2 CA, 3 CA only if I have nothing else to do.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:14:19 +0000

by Dave

I believe we were talking about taking Coal when you have Iron with the main driver being to deny Coal from the other player who does not have Iron (say, in a 3-player game).

Let's say the players are A-B-C seated clockwise. C is the player without Iron, and we'll assume C is at least in contention to win at this point. The first Coal appears on player A's turn. Player A has better things he could do with those 3 CA to improve his own board (say, grab some yellow cards, or spend resources to avoid corruption), but he has to at least consider grabbing that Coal to deny C.

If A grabs Coal, he will successfully deny Coal to C if the second Coal shows up on A's or B's turn (~ 2/3 chance).

If A passes on Coal and forces B to make that investment, then C will be denied Coal only if the next one shows up on A's turn (~1/3 chance).

A now has to make a decision based on the expected value of denying Coal for C and the net loss to himself for using those 3 CAs to grab it. If C gets the second Coal anyways, then those CAs are "wasted" on a suboptimal move, but it was a smart decision anyways.

Much also depends on the relative positions of A, B, and C, which could also impact whether B can be relied on to draft Coal either now or later.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: RuleS Stuff I seem to not understand

coolpapa — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:08:14 +0000

by coolpapa

For the sacrificing of units, you could think about it that you're committing those units to fight all-out, mo retreats, no survivors. As such, they won't survive the battle, but they add more to your strength. Committing one warrior unit, for example, adds 1 extra strength. If a whole army (a Fighting Band, for instance) commits to fight this way, then you get the army bonus added again as well, as in your example.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

out4blood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:26:16 +0000

by out4blood

Dave wrote:
out4blood wrote:
You are trading off CAs and science for incremental resource production over a Bronze -> Coal strategy. Who's to say that's always a bad move?

Ah. I didn't say it was inherently wasteful. I've done Iron-to-Coal myself. I meant in a situation where there were better risk-free options for one's own position that may cost fewer CAs and other resources. Still, the odds of that selection leading to the ultimate goal of Coal denial has an expected value, and you cannot really call it "wasteful" if it doesn't pan out.

I'm sorry. Was I supposed to understand that?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: RuleS Stuff I seem to not understand

jdludlow — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:15:39 +0000

by jdludlow

sasquatchdjh wrote:
I'm trying to search for the info and I'm apparently not searching correctly. As such I have a few questions regarding a game played last week.

Clarifications:
Strength and Sacrificing units.

When sacrificing units for a war or colony thing the tactics card bonuses are included only/when a number of guys are also sacrificed. So for example, I have 2 warriors and a tactics card of 2 "ground forces" for a bonus of 1. As such my strength is 3. When Bidding for colony and stuff, I can Bid 1 (which "kills" a dude and reduces my strength to 1 for the one warrior (Tactics no longer applies)), Bid 2 (each physical unit, but NOT the tactics), or Bid three. Strength of the 2 units plus 1 for the tactics.

That's all correct. You would probably never bid two in that case, but you got the rules right.

I can not sacrifice other strength giving "stuff" (Another colony a govt etc). I'm pretty sure that is correct.

Right. You can only sacrifice military units.

If I also understand war correctly, you sacrifice units the same way as above to get double strength (or maybe that was just for agression cards and NOT war)

Not exactly.

You can sacrifice units to add to your current strength. The value of your strength does not decrease until after the aggression or war is over.

From your example above, you would start with a stength of 3. If you sacrificed both warriors you would get +3 (two warriors and the army bonus) for a total of 6.

In that case it doubles your strength, but if you had a wonder, building, or leader that was increasing your strength your sacrifice would still be worth only +3, not an automatic doubling.

Defense cards are useless in wars (because basically you are both attacking one another thus not "defending")

Correct

Events on cards that say increase population:

These events mean we get a dude from the bank to the worker pool not adding a yellow counter to the Bank (or workerpool for that matter)

Correct

Discontent workers:

If your Happy faces are LESS than where the workers in the pool are being drawn from, then you can move one down from the worker pool to cover up the face.

For every empty section in your yellow bank, you need to have either a happy face or a discontent worker. If you are short by at least 1, then you do not produce at the end of the turn.

For card purposes these are discontent workers. However, for production purposes they are not discontent and production still happens.

They are still discontent. Production doesn't care about that alone. It's keyed to your happy faces + discontent workers being sufficient to cover your required amount of happiness.

Impact of Population Event Card

The card takes about every content worker above (beyond) 10. This count is both the bank and yellow token on the board.

No. A yellow token in the bank is not a content worker.

A content worker is a yellow token in your worker pool (not being used as a discontent worker), a yellow token being used as a building, or a yellow token being used as a military unit.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: RuleS Stuff I seem to not understand

sasquatchdjh — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:39:50 +0000

by sasquatchdjh

I'm trying to search for the info and I'm apparently not searching correctly. As such I have a few questions regarding a game played last week.

Clarifications:
Strength and Sacrificing units.

When sacrificing units for a war or colony thing the tactics card bonuses are included only/when a number of guys are also sacrificed. So for example, I have 2 warriors and a tactics card of 2 "ground forces" for a bonus of 1. As such my strength is 3. When Bidding for colony and stuff, I can Bid 1 (which "kills" a dude and reduces my strength to 1 for the one warrior (Tactics no longer applies)), Bid 2 (each physical unit, but NOT the tactics), or Bid three. Strength of the 2 units plus 1 for the tactics.

I can not sacrifice other strength giving "stuff" (Another colony a govt etc). I'm pretty sure that is correct.

If I also understand war correctly, you sacrifice units the same way as above to get double strength (or maybe that was just for agression cards and NOT war)

Defense cards are useless in wars (because basically you are both attacking one another thus not "defending")

Events on cards that say increase population:

These events mean we get a dude from the bank to the worker pool not adding a yellow counter to the Bank (or workerpool for that matter)

Discontent workers:

If your Happy faces are LESS than where the workers in the pool are being drawn from, then you can move one down from the worker pool to cover up the face. For card purposes these are discontent workers. However, for production purposes they are not discontent and production still happens.

Impact of Population Event Card

The card takes about every content worker above (beyond) 10. This count is both the bank and yellow token on the board. So does this mean that, lets say you are on happyface #4, and no other population out of the bank. Does this mean that You add all the yellow tokens you have, minus ten and get double that count? Or do you just count active worker minus 10 and double that count? Or Do you only count workers in the boxes up to and counting the line where #4 happy face is (thus not counting the rest of the markers in the bank?

Even better if you are on Happy #8 but only have the first two yellow boxes with out workers, do you count all yellow tokens minus 10, or again just the active ones doing stuff?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Territories, Happy Faces, and Discards, OH MY!

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:31:13 +0000

by Dave

sasquatchdjh wrote:
Dave wrote:
You are misinterpreting my intent. I know the rule. This doesn't make "So you can think of those cards as only costing you one civic action (to draw) instead of two (to draw and play)" false. Breakthrough costs you one action on the turn to draw it, and zero actions on the turn you play it and thus reap its benefit.

I dont have it in front of me....why does it cost zero to play it? I thought all action cards require a civ action to play....

The cost is absorbed by the cost to play the technology. Thus, in effect it has cost zero actions to play (just like the "Build a new..." and "Upgrade a ..." cards).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:28:02 +0000

by Dave

out4blood wrote:
You are trading off CAs and science for incremental resource production over a Bronze -> Coal strategy. Who's to say that's always a bad move?

Ah. I didn't say it was inherently wasteful. I've done Iron-to-Coal myself. I meant in a situation where there were better risk-free options for one's own position that may cost fewer CAs and other resources. Still, the odds of that selection leading to the ultimate goal of Coal denial has an expected value, and you cannot really call it "wasteful" if it doesn't pan out.

And if you're doing some sort of voodoo quantifiable analysis, you might want to consider 2, 3 and 4 player scenarios.

Fine, we can eschew numbers, just like all of the other TtA threads.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Territories, Happy Faces, and Discards, OH MY!

sasquatchdjh — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:11:14 +0000

by sasquatchdjh

Dave wrote:
You are misinterpreting my intent. I know the rule. This doesn't make "So you can think of those cards as only costing you one civic action (to draw) instead of two (to draw and play)" false. Breakthrough costs you one action on the turn to draw it, and zero actions on the turn you play it and thus reap its benefit.

I dont have it in front of me....why does it cost zero to play it? I thought all action cards require a civ action to play....

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

out4blood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:10:39 +0000

by out4blood

DaviddesJ wrote:
Dave wrote:
The first Iron player who wastes Civic Actions to grab a Coal is doing it in good faith that the other Iron player(s) will do the same

I just think the idea that the player who has Iron and takes Coal is "wasting" civic actions is fundamentally flawed.

Agreed. You are trading off CAs and science for incremental resource production over a Bronze -> Coal strategy. Who's to say that's always a bad move?

Dave wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
Dave wrote:
The first Iron player who wastes Civic Actions to grab a Coal is doing it in good faith that the other Iron player(s) will do the same

I just think the idea that the player who has Iron and takes Coal is "wasting" civic actions is fundamentally flawed.

In general, or this specific case (to deny the contender who doesn't have Iron)? I'll continue the discussion once clarified.

Either.

And if you're doing some sort of voodoo quantifiable analysis, you might want to consider 2, 3 and 4 player scenarios.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:09:00 +0000

by Dave

In general, or this specific case (to deny the contender who doesn't have Iron)? I'll continue the discussion once clarified.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

DaviddesJ — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:37:43 +0000

by DaviddesJ

Dave wrote:
The first Iron player who wastes Civic Actions to grab a Coal is doing it in good faith that the other Iron player(s) will do the same

I just think the idea that the player who has Iron and takes Coal is "wasting" civic actions is fundamentally flawed.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:25:56 +0000

by Dave

My Coal formula forgot to account for all of the turns between T0i and T0c that the Coal player is still getting 3/turn from Bronze.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

out4blood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:16:15 +0000

by out4blood

While the OP's idea sounds preposterous, based on mathematical theory, it does seem to have validity. However, through the Ages is not solely about mathematical efficiencies, it's also about risk management. If a significant percentage of time your strategy results in "game over" for you, then I would hardly consider it a reliable path to take to ensure victory.

In 2 player, you have a 50/50 chance of getting Coal, and a 50/50 chance of getting Oil. Oil will often come out too late to earn a return on your investment, but let's ignore that for a moment. This means that in 25% of your games, you'd AUTOMATICALLY lose. Consider that for a moment. I'd also suggest that the auto-lose percentage is actually higher since the chance that Oil comes out early enough to be useful is going to be pretty low, and even if it does, you'd be hard-pressed to have sufficient resources on-hand to upgrade without previously having suffered from corruption. So with this strategy of not taking one of the consensus all-time best cards, you are conceding anywhere from 25-50% of your games.

And that's BEFORE factoring any other considerations.

Maybe this has more chance of success in a 3 or 4 player game (I don't play 4-player anymore), but I won't be the one to try it. Me, I'm gonna take Iron.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: End game scoring

out4blood — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:55:12 +0000

by out4blood

Yes and yes. Ties for event cards go to the start player, and in then subsequent turn order, as per the rules.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:43:16 +0000

by Dave

ekted wrote:
In the 3/4p games, it seems you can be screwed "by design" if you don't get either Iron or Coal.

The first Iron player who wastes Civic Actions to grab a Coal is doing it in good faith that the other Iron player(s) will do the same, assuming that they get the chance before the non-Iron player. Plus, they will probably only do this if the non-Iron player is a serious threat in the game. I would expect that all of that is no more likely than the Coal cards all being stuck towards the bottom of the Age II deck.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: Michelangelo & St. Peter's Basilica .... Unbeatable Combo ..... or played unbelievably WRONG!!!

Dave — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:36:47 +0000

by Dave

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/367298

Unlimited.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Michelangelo & St. Peter's Basilica .... Unbeatable Combo ..... or played unbelievably WRONG!!!

jocose — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:28:30 +0000

by jocose

I know this a little work, but if you could endulge me and check out this thread and provide your interpretation of the Mike & Peter combination.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/417381

Answer here or in the linked thread.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

ekted — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:25:39 +0000

by ekted

Seems as good a place as any to bring up the topic:

In the 3/4p games, it seems you can be screwed "by design" if you don't get either Iron or Coal. It happened to me once early in Age II, and I was playing with no chance of winning for 90 more minutes. Comments?

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

dcorban — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:52:49 +0000

by dcorban

I have successfully passed on Iron and went for Coal. I think this works well in 3-4 player games. If the other players get Iron going, they are likely to not bother taking Coal, because upgrading is a waste, and taking it just to screw me isn't the zero-sum scenario it is in a two-player game.

In a two-player game, skipping Iron is more risky because if the Coal comes up on the opponent's turn, I could easily get screwed.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: This one card – some strategy considerations about cards evaluation.

Dave — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:23:29 +0000

by Dave

As an Iron lover, I would like to see some math supporting this preposterous assertion. :laugh:

It seems like your major driver for Coal is total number of resources produced by end of game. I would like to define formulae for total resources that each generates. However, one benefit to Coal is that these resources come at the end of game, whereas Iron you have to spend them in Age 2 (although I value blue tokens to help take care of this, and I think Age 2 libraries and theaters cost less and generate more culture by end of game, so I'm fine with the curve that Iron supports). Another drawback to Iron is that it forces you to spend resources and science in Age 1 rather than on something else that you get you benefits sooner. I will ignore all that and the yellow cards for this analysis.

Iron: To get to +6: 3 turns with a surplus of 3 resources when finished.

T0 +3=3 -3=0
T1 +4=4 -3=1
T2 +5=6 -3=3
T3 +6

Coal: To get to +9: 5 turns with a surplus of 5 resources when finished

T0 +3=3 -0=3
T1 +3=6 -6=0
T2 +5=5 -0=5
T3 +5=10 -6=4
T4 +7=11 -6=5
T5 +9

If T is the total number of turns in the game, T0i is the turn in which you can start upgrading your mines to Iron, and T0c is the turn in which you can start upgrading your mines to Coal, then:

Total resources in game with Iron = (T-T0i-3)*6+3

Total resources in game with Coal = (T-T0c-5)*9+5

What are typical numbers for this? If I plug in what I expect, even if T0i is late Age I and T0c is early Age II, Iron wins out. If you set both T0i and T0c to turn 7, Coal wins out by only 2 resources.

Unless there are errors in my formulas, I think your main argument for Coal over Iron should be centered around (a) getting other things going in Age I instead of (b) investing science and resources earlier to start the trickle of resource benefits earlier.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Re: End game scoring

dkeisen — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:07:21 +0000

by dkeisen

Explicitly in the rules. On the back page in discussion of Age III Event Cards. This is in the first edition, possibly the rules are laid out differently in later editions.