Anders Olin
Finland
Vasa
A hardcore Twilight Struggle fan, who would've guessed?
-
Ever since I started to play the original computer game civilization, have I been waiting for a good civilization game. Civilization is an almost two-day affair and I cannot find advanced civilization. Through the ages is very good, but I miss the map. So, when I heard that the man himself was going to create a boardgame civilization-themed I was very anxious to see what it would turn out to be.
The rules have been explained so I jump straith to my opinions.
*********************************
Postive:
-Good area control system.
-The territory tiles are neat and somehow lay the foundation for your 'empire'. (eventhough it is kind of theme-illogical that when your empires move from Turkey to South America, your forests, mountains and islands move with you   )
-The technologies add a nice touch to it. Actually it's bit PC-Civ-like that you can beat up an army with your grand ol' spear in the modern era.(remembering the phalanxes who somehow succeeded to bring down airplanes...) 
-A pretty good area control feel to it. Think Struggle of Empires, but a bit on the light side.
-Plays pretty fast and it is very intense.
-I like the way battles are fought.
*********************************
Neutral:
-The mirror turn mechanic. It's pretty cool but also a bit pain in the butt. As you are forced to take your action twice. First I thought it was pretty clever idea, but it somehow locks you in.
*********************************
The not so good:
- It has, in all honestly, very little civilization feeeling to it. I'd say it SoE with a civ touch to it. But it's not like I feel that I don't need to look for any Civ games anymore. The Idea of removing half your cubes from the board doesn't make sense to me in a Civ game. But I guess Martin wanted to show that no empire has lasted throughout man's history. But hey, they did in Sid Meier's Civilization (Washington - the 41 big capital, with Colossus AND SETI project standing side by side ).
That said, this is still a very good game. And I will gladly play it when it is suggested. But it is not a civlization game in the way I was learned they should be.
 
-
Łukasz Grabuń
Poland
Warsaw
-
MikeDowd wrote: I've always thought SoE was chock full of player interaction and diplomacy because of the alliances. How much player interaction would you say Rise of Empires has in comparison to SoE?
In comparison - relatively little. But it's not to say there's no interaction in RoE, it's just that SoE is truly exceptional on this field.
-
Łukasz Grabuń
Poland
Warsaw
-
Favedave1 wrote: What is SOE?
Struggle of Empires.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
There are no alliance, but there are still negotiation, even if some seems to play without.
-
dave cope
United States
Washington
-
I dont feel the "civilization" to this game either, area control is the most important (so far in our 3 games) and I dont really see that changing unless we come up with some variants. I was really hoping for multipul paths to victory, but the civilization building seems secondary to area control. By the end of era 1 I usually have enough territory tiles to use most if not all my cubes per turn and area control give you enough resource disks and gold to purchase any of the not so great city tiles when you wish. The progress tiles are very useful and are civ building I suppose, but again they dont score any where near as many VP as area control does.
-
|
|
Posted Sun Nov 1, 2009 9:37 am
