Tom Vasel
United States
Homestead
Unspecified
Top 100 Games of all Time
Dice Tower Convention, July 2012!!!!
-
I’m not sure how to express my first reading of the Twilight Imperium, Third Edition (Fantasy Flight Games, 2005 - Christian Peterson) rules, or my first impression when I saw the box and components included. I guess that “stunned silence” might fit the bill. All of my childhood I dreamed of playing an epic space game, with battles and empire growth. When I finally had a chance to play Twilight Imperium, Second Edition, it - despite flaws - became one of my ten favorite games. The game was everything I had imagined, and was incredibly fun. When I heard that TI3 was not going to be just an upgrade, but a total revamping of the system, I was more than excited. After playing the game, I have to say that the upgrade was fabulous for the system. Despite having some characteristics I’m not fond of (lengthy playing time, and player elimination), TI3 ranks as my third favorite game (out of about 800) - it’s that good! Allow me to go over several of the features of the game, giving my opinions of them.
1.) Plastic ships: There was one thing I absolutely detested about TI2, and that was the plastic ships that came with the game. Sure, they looked neat on the table, but cutting them out took literally several hours and was not a pleasant task. Thankfully, that problem has been rectified. The ships still come on sprues, but twist off quite easily, similar to those in an Eagle game. The ships themselves are highly detailed figures in nine different models, made of a hard plastic. They’re very nice - of the highest quality, and really make the game look nice on the board. The War Suns especially look pretty cool (although stepping on them would be a horrifying experience), and look like the massive attack fortresses they are.
2.) Box: TI3’s box is, without a doubt, the biggest box for any game I’ve gotten in the last several years. It’s humongous and is chock full of components. After punching everything out and plastic bagging everything - I think that the game could have more easily fit into a smaller box, but in unpunched form I’m not so sure. The box stands out on my shelf - an epic box for an epic game.
3.) Hexes: The map of TI3 is made up of interchangeable hexes, which have been upsized to match the size of the new plastic pieces. The artwork on the tiles is very nice, similar to that of previous editions; and when put together, they create a very nice looking star system. Of course, this increased size means that the game takes up more space; and when you included the amount of extra piles of components, and the amount of space each player uses for their own personal boards, technologies, etc., this means that your going to need a fairly large table to play the game. I’m not sure that I’ve seen any game (apart from monster war games) that need as much room as TI3. Even Sid Meyer’s Civilization takes up less space. But for me that’s okay - I love the massive board, it helps give the game the “epic” feel.
4.) Money system: Money has had a massive overhaul, in two different ways. For one, the entire economic system has been simplified, with costs much easier. For example, a dreadnaught costs ten gold in the TI2, while a technology costs 40 gold. Now dreadnaughts cost five gold, while technologies cost eight gold. The changes to the pricing really simplify the game, and players don’t have to mess with piles of gold. In fact - the gold coins have been removed from the game entirely, replaced by a much easier system. When a player controls a planet, they are given the corresponding planet card for the system. Each planet card is worth a specific amount of resources and is flipped over (“exhausted”) when used to purchase units and/or technologies. Planets flipped over in this way can’t exert a political power or be used to buy anything else until the following round, in which all planets are “refreshed”. Also, the new trading system introduces trade good counters, which have two uses - one of them to be used as resources when purchasing. All of this translates to a much more streamlined economic system; whereas players designed player aids to help with the math in TI2 purchasing - it’s all very simple and out in the open in TI3.
5.) Strategy Cards: Mr. Peterson deliberately borrowed a mechanic used in several of modern Eurogames, including Puerto Rico and Verrater, with the strategy cards. If one reads the detailed designer notes included with the game (also found at the company’s website, www.fantasyflightgames.com, he talks about how several games influenced his decisions to the TI3, and how he attempts (and succeeds, I might add) to merge Euro game mechanics with an exciting theme. Much of that is due to the strategy cards. At the beginning of each round, players choose one strategy card - that will give them a special “primary” ability while giving all of the other player’s a secondary ability that they can pay to utilize. Each strategy card also has a number on it, denoting turn order. These strategy cards have changed the game more than any other change, and I really enjoy them. Deciding which card to take can sometimes be daunting and may slow down the game a bit at first, as players learn about which strategy card does what. Eventually, though, the game speeds up, because players automatically know the cards they want (no one else better take it!).
6.) Races: There are ten races included with the game, each with a very distinctive style and abilities. The races start with different planets, starting units, and special abilities - all of which are noted on a very nice race sheet. In TI2, there were a few races that I thought were not quite as useful as other races, but now they seem all quite balanced, each with the ability to break some kind of rule in the game. Some of the special abilities are pretty neat - like the Naalu always go first, the L1X1X mindset can buy dreadnoughts for four resources, and the Barony of Letnev can spend resources to increase their combat values. On the back of each race card is a detailed history of the race - really increasing the theme and feel of the game.
7.) Fleet Supply: Aside from the strategy cards, the other great innovation of the TI3 is command counters. There are three spots on each player’s race sheet for command counters to be allocated to. One is the fleet supply: the amount of counters in that spot indicated the maximum number of ships a player may have in any system (not including fighters). This seems to be very similar with the excellent army system from A Game of Thrones Board Game, and it keeps players from building massive fleets. Players are in fact limited to the number of plastic pieces they have when building armies, the only thing they have unlimited numbers of are fighters and ground units - for which special chips are provided. I like the fact that fighters are unlimited; it gives them far more value than previous games, especially as their cost is 2 fighters for one resource. Because of the smaller fleet numbers, players cannot build huge forces and must make quicker, faster strikes across space. If a player does want large fleets, they have to sacrifice the command counters they would use in the other two spots.
8.) Command Pool: Command counters can also be placed in the command pool area or strategy allocation area. During the tactical action phase of each turn, players in turn order take one of the following actions.
- Execute the primary action on their strategy card, allowing other players to use the secondary action, but only if they discard one strategy allocation command counter.
- Place a command pool counter on any system on the board that does not have one of their own command counters in it, allowing them to move ships to that system, and/or build ships in that system. Players can also do a special transferring move between systems.
- Pass, but only after they’ve executed the action on their strategy card.
Since players can only move ships into one system at a time, then wait for other players to move/react, the game certainly takes on a different face. No longer are there huge assaults across the galaxy - but now a series of battles, fought one at a time. It also keeps downtime to a minimum, as players are constantly thinking about what they are going to do next. Players get two command counters at the end of each turn and can redistribute them as they wish, so it’s always a balancing act to figure out whether they should put the counters in the command pool, strategy allocation, or fleet supply.
9.) Initiative: The initiative strategy card doesn’t have any primary or secondary abilities. What it does give, however, is the ability for a player to go first (giving the owner the Speaker token associated with this), and allows the player to execute all secondary abilities for free (no command counter necessary). This is a big bonus, as the player gets to pick the first strategy card in the next round - one of the most important strategy cards to pick. It reminds me of the King role in Citadels, but with better powers.
10.) Diplomacy: The diplomacy strategy card (#2) allows a player to force one other opponent to be peaceful with them. This card can save the life of a player who is constantly getting bashed on by a stronger, aggressive nature. It’s not always chosen in the beginning of the game, but near the end, this card can be a lifesaver. This card also helps prevent one of the biggest negatives that people might have with the game, as player elimination happens a lot less.
11.) Political: The political strategy card (#3) gives the player three action cards and brings the top card of the political deck up for vote. The action cards are quite powerful in the game - some call them unbalanced, but I think they keep the leaders of the game in check. Instead of building a huge fleet, a player can concentrate on building up a hand of powerful action cards - it’s like having a huge spy network. The political phase of TI3 is very similar to that of TI2, except that now players can only use the political influence of planets that have not exhausted. Since the political card is #3, I haven’t seen this have too much of an effect, but a clever player could wait until the end of the round, assuring that some player’s votes are curtailed. The laws don’t seem quite as powerful as those in TI2, but they still can greatly affect the game. What I really enjoy is that the person who uses the political strategy card takes the top three cards of the deck, chooses one, and places the other two on the bottom. This allows them to set the next agenda, which keeps the agendas from being random, and really makes taking the political strategy card worthwhile.
12.) Logistics: Whoever takes this strategy card (#4) gets four command counters added to their pool, which greatly increases their options. Other players may exhaust planets, utilizing their political power to get command counters also. As this is one of the best ways to get command counters (sometimes two a turn is simply not enough), this is an oft-picked card.
13.) Trade: Trade is not nearly as powerful as it was in TI2. When a person picks this strategy card (#5), they automatically receive three trade goods (which can be used as resources or influence). They also receive goods equal to their trade agreements currently in play. Finally, all players can open trade negotiations, but the trades MUST be approved by the player taking the trade agreement card. Each race has specific trade cards, which provides a varying amount of resources, so for some races, trading can be next to worthless. The cool thing about the trade strategy card, however, is that a player can forgo everything I’ve just stated to cancel all trade agreements in play - a powerful “veto” ability.
14.) Warfare: The warfare strategy card (#6), allows a player to remove one of their command counters from the board - effectively letting them move a fleet twice. This is a card that aggressive players love, allowing them to snatch up some extra planets or make a double attack against another player. This brings up a point that some have complained about - “turtling”. This is where the players build up a defensive force and then hunker down, trying to win the game that way. So far, I’ve never run into this problem, but then again I play with fairly aggressive people. If this is a problem in your games, be more aggressive!
15.) Technology: The technology strategy card (#7) gives a free technology to the player who chose it and allows the other players to buy a technology for eight resources. The technologies are very similar to those in TI2, with some additions and changes because of the new rules. What I enjoyed quite a bit, however, was the fact that each player has their own deck of technology cards, which helped greatly; as player’s could look through the cards on their downtime and see the prerequisites they needed for each technology. This strategy card seems to be chosen every turn - who doesn’t want a free technology?
16.) Imperial: The imperial strategy card (#8) is often berated on the internet as game breaking. The reason is that whoever takes this card gets two victory points, as well as turning over the top card from the objective deck. I would argue most vehemently against this, however, as I felt that the card was merely a game clock, keeping the game moving. The person who takes this card is not only the last person to go (#8), but they also don’t get any other benefits. The objective cards that are turned over also help push the game along to its natural conclusion, giving players victory points for such things as “having five planets outside the home system”, “having four technological advances”, etc. Getting two victory points a turn is a big deal, but I can’t imagine the same player getting the card every turn, unless the other players are oblivious to what is going on.
17.) Bonus chips: In a mechanic that surely comes directly from Puerto Rico, strategy cards that are not taken have a bonus chip placed on them. Players who pick strategy cards with bonus chips can immediately exchange the bonus chips for a trade resource or a command counter. A nice little mechanic.
18.) Objectives: Besides the public objectives, which all players can complete, each player is given a secret objective at the beginning of the game. Most of them are extremely hard to complete and often result in a massive attack on one’s neighbors. But they are interesting, and I’m sure some people must complete them occasionally (haven’t seen it yet.)
19.) Rules: The rulebook is forty pages long, and we’re talking big pages here. Fortunately, everything is explained very clearly, and I though it was one of the best rulebooks I’ve ever read. With a game this huge and a rulebook this size, some errors were bound to happen, but a very clear FAQ has been posted at the website, as well as some variants for game play - http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ti3support.html. Explaining the game to new players is a different matter - I imagine that with some groups it could take almost an hour. I taught the game to experienced gamers, but it still took at least half an hour of rules explanation, and the first several turns proceeded fairly slowly. But that’s to be expected in a game this huge.
20.) Variants: Several variants are included with the game (they are the same that are in the expansions for TI1 and 2), such as leaders and Distant Suns. Some people are greatly irritated by the randomness of the Distant Suns variant (planets have random effects for the first landing parties), but others (like myself) don’t mind this randomness. The leaders are a nifty idea but can bog the game down a bit. Players can also ditch the victory point track or turn it over so that instead of needing ten points to win, players need fourteen. (I would never do this, as the game is long enough already.) With the ten races included in the game, the multiple technological tracks, and the piles of options - I can’t see the same game of this ever being played twice.
21.) Time and players: The game is long - quite long, in fact. A six-player game could take up to eight hours - not something everyone has in their day. In fact, the time and dedication it takes to get a game of this together are the only two reasons that it’s not my favorite game. I love it dearly, but it takes a commitment from people. Three, four, and five player games are okay, but a six-player game is where it’s at; it gives the player the optimal experience.
There are a lot of other things I could say, but this is already one of the longest game reviews I’ve written. I love the War Suns (who doesn’t want their own personal Death Star?), the battles, the strategy cards, etc. Yes, there are going to be some niggly little rules that may bother those who want a pure Euro game. To those people I say go elsewhere, this probably isn’t for you. And I have some advice to those aspiring designers who are seeking to make the ultimate space empire game - stop wasting your time; it’s already here. This is hands down the best game of its type, and one of the best games of all time. If you have the time and energy to play a game of this magnitude - then buy it right now! Yes, it’s big, somewhat expensive (although the amount of stuff you get in it makes it one of the best deals on the market), and long. But it’s a tremendous game - a masterpiece by Christian Peterson. This game is truly a flagship of games - one that you would be proud to have on your shelves.
Tom Vasel
“Real men play BIG board games.”
-
Steve Malczak
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#452336),
Very nice review. I agree with the bulk of it, but I think you are viewing it through too much 'rosey colored glasses' just because of the subject matter and the fantastic presentation.
My one large disagreement (and one you'll hear a lot) is the ISC.
It is INTENDED to be a game clock to force the action. If used in that role, it ALSO becomes a severe source of game imbalance based on turn order. So, in its intended role, its horribly flawed. The only counter argument is that its not the best pick in ALL cases, but even the designer has intended it be picked in "95% of the cases".
If it cut even across the players, it would have succeeded in being a 'pressure clock'. As it is now, its worth as much as the VERY difficult Secret Objectives or Stage II Objectives and its worth more to the early players. That CANT be balanced.
-
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
-
Re:User Review
Quote: TI3 ranks as my third favorite game (out of about 800) - it’s that good!
OK, what's 1 and 2, Tom?
-
Dave Kudzma
United States
Gumboro
Delaware
Muffins.
-
Re:User Review
What I have never stood about the objections to the isc is the fact that whomever takes it is a target....in a 6 player game that means ticking off 5 other people will get you eliminated from the game, or at least your home system compromised, not to mention screwed in political circles and you will never get points in the long run. I cannot for the life of me understand why no one takes that course of action. The threat of retaliation is high. I mean it takes 5 rounds to win that way given you get the isc every round. There is no way people shouldn't eliminate you if you just take the isc. I can say that I don't mind the idea of the avaiable variants, especially the Age of Empire variant.
-
David Barlowe
United States
Pennsylvania
-
Re:User Review
Tom:
Totally agree with your review. This game is incredible. There is some debate on a few issues, but unless you are going to play this game dozens of times, you may never discover the flaws that people are bringing up.
Really, it should be very interesting to see how this great game can be topped.
-
Jonathan Keith
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
Re:User Review
locusshifter (#456366),
I'm not concerned about one player taking the ISC several times in a row, as an experienced group will pass it around the table. But even if they pass it around the table the first couple of players (who get it first) have a much better chance of winning, since they'll spend a crucial couple turns 2 points ahead ISC-wise of the competition. And since everyone is taking the ISC in order, it doesn't make sense to punish them for it, since you'll be doing the same thing when your turn comes around...
-
Kunnagh Scott
England
Bristol
-
Re:User Review
Geosphere wrote:
Quote: TI3 ranks as my third favorite game (out of about 800) - it’s that good!
OK, what's 1 and 2, Tom?
http://gamefest.com/news/blog_tom
  
-
John Lopez
United States
Tucson
Arizona
Get off my lawn!
The explanation: Impossible Triangle + TW (my company initials) = my logo.
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#452336),
I have to say that this game surprised me. My wife wouldn't touch TI2 but she decided to attempt a game of TI3. We busted out an extra table to make room and have somewhere to eat when the time came.
We started the game explanation at 4:00 PM, started play at around 5:00 PM and ended the game at midnight. After a seven hour game (it should go somewhat faster next time, the first couple of turns were very slow as people got their bearings) I figured my wife wouldn't ever be interested in playing again.
Well, I was wrong. Over the Easter break will are going to play again, breaking it into three hour sessions each night, for up to three nights. This was my wife's suggestion!
The game has so many things going on, just about everyone found something to love. In my wife's case, it was the political phase. She would place the most ugly votes on the table and force compromises with an intensity that suggests I might have been wrong keeping Diplomacy out of her hands (although I'm not sure I would want to be *in* a game with her...)
The new threaded turns keeps everyone active during the game and those who say the ISC is unbalanced I think are missing the point of the ISC. It acts as a clock, but as the game winds down, it acts as a potentially *deadly* clock. Are you sure that Phase II is the one you hope it is? You can give the game away with a Phase II public goal flip... your two points don't count if Imperium Rex flips and if Domination flips it doesn't matter what your victory count is. The use of six Phase I public goals ensures everyone can take ISC once safely (in a six player game)... after that is is a gamble.
Even if something (a race or the ISC) is unbalanced, I can't see the issue. This kind of game is "self balancing" in that you beat on the leader (or perceived leader). Someone managed to get an extra ISC draw? I suggest economic, political and military action. Coordinate with the other players a retribution. Isn't that the point?
I love this game.
-
Steve Malczak
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Godeke (#458600),
"The use of six Phase I public goals ensures everyone can take ISC once safely (in a six player game)... after that is is a gamble."
Why is it a gamble after that? Maybe one time in ten its not a good idea to take it, but 90% of the time, if its your 'turn' to take it, you must. Here's why:
1)If you are leading in points, you want to take it to end the game or to increase your lead...no risk AT ALL...its good or its good.
2)If you are behind in points, you need to take it to try and catch up. Now, obviously you could accidentally end the game and lose by taking it so it APPEARS that its not a good idea to take it. BUT if you dont, a player who IS leading WILL take it (see point '1' above).
Only if you are tied with another player at the end of turn 6 and you can see an objective that you can claim this turn is it possible to not want to take it. But even there, on turn 7, your tied opponent might easily take it with a 75% of being right and basically taking the game. I'd take those odds, especially if I see that my tied opponent(s) have a chance to increase the lead by objectives.
In the end, someone WILL take the ISC on Turn 7 because they have the best of odd of increasing their lead with it. Even if none of the 'tied' players takes it, someone else farther down the VP track will take it if for no other reason than to 1) try and catch up or 2) end the game that they can no longer win. So again, it comes down to the chance the game will end that turn. If you are winning the tie-breakers, you should just go ahead and take it yourself because either way, you come out ahead. And if you arent winning the tie-breakers, you should STILL take it because someone else will and you are better off with at least the possibility of getting the 2 points and the win.
Basically there is no realistic situation that taking the ISC is not a good idea. There is no gamble and no decision to really be made. Its flat out best to take the darned thing regardless of the game situation in 90% of the cases that you'll see.
-
L. B. M.
United States
Fairborn
Ohio
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel wrote:
“Real men play BIG board games.”
So do real women *grin*
-
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
-
Re:User Review
I'll just start this by saying that Tom and I disagree vehemently  over Diplomacy (my #1 game) and I do have some gnawing concerns with Peterson's designs which I feel his fans ignore. And being above-board here, I've played TI2, TI3, and GoT all exactly once.
But at least we agree about the pieces, hexes and the box...but how could we not? What's not to like?
TomVasel wrote:
4.) Money system: In fact - the gold coins have been removed from the game entirely, replaced by a much easier system. When a player controls a planet, they are given the corresponding planet card for the system. Each planet card is worth a specific amount of resources and is flipped over (“exhausted”) when used to purchase units and/or technologies. All of this translates to a much more streamlined economic system; whereas players designed player aids to help with the math in TI2 purchasing - it’s all very simple and out in the open in TI3.
True, but the way I see it is that you had a horribly cluttered and clunky economic system for which the designer did not adequately prepare, and now you have a less cluttered and clunky economic system. A streamlined and elegant Euro this is not! Also, yes, they've gotten rid of the currency pieces, but in their place you have trade counters and planet cards. The whole system works better, absolutely, but it still involves a lot of bits, and only seems attractive because the last economic iteration was so hopelessly Byzantine!
TomVasel wrote:
5.) Strategy Cards: Mr. Peterson deliberately borrowed a mechanic used in several of modern Eurogames, including Puerto Rico and Verrater, with the strategy cards. If one reads the detailed designer notes included with the game, he talks about how several games influenced his decisions to the TI3, and how he attempts (and succeeds, I might add) to merge Euro game mechanics with an exciting theme. Much of that is due to the strategy cards.
Pardon me, but I don't see what's so laudable about lifting a famous mechanic from a famous Eurogame. The move certainly doesn't smack of innovation and creativity! And of course he succeeds in merging Euro mechanics with his theme; he lifted it wholesale! How could he have not succeeded! Let's give credit where it is due; I just don't happen to think that making "Puerto Rico In Space" is a huge design coup. What does that say about TI2?
TomVasel wrote:
6.) Races: There are ten races included with the game, each with a very distinctive style and abilities. The races start with different planets, starting units, and special abilities - all of which are noted on a very nice race sheet.
I'm mostly with you here, except that learning the other race's abilities is a real headache, especially with five other players!
TomVasel wrote:
7.) Fleet Supply: Aside from the strategy cards, the other great innovation of the TI3 is command counters. This seems to be very similar with the excellent army system from A Game of Thrones Board Game, and it keeps players from building massive fleets. I like the fact that fighters are unlimited; it gives them far more value than previous games, especially as their cost is 2 fighters for one resource. Because of the smaller fleet numbers, players cannot build huge forces and must make quicker, faster strikes across space.
I, too, like the counters and think they work better here than in GoT. But we obviously have different definitions of the word "big." midway through my first game of TI3, players were putting 5-6 counters in fleet supply, meaning that one hex could hold, oh, a dreadnought, two destroyers, a cruiser, and two carriers, each with six ships! That's mid-game! How is that not big?
Also, fighters were over-powered in TI2 and nothing has changed about that, the Destroyer's special ability notwithstanding.
TomVasel wrote:
11.) The action cards are quite powerful in the game - some call them unbalanced, but I think they keep the leaders of the game in check. Instead of building a huge fleet, a player can concentrate on building up a hand of powerful action cards - it’s like having a huge spy network.
And I'm one of the people who feel that some cards are unbalanced, as I was completely hosed by one in my last game. And if they are unbalanced, how do they keep the leaders in check if the leaders have them also? Lastly, powerful as they may be, I don't think I'd ever want a fist full of Action cards but no defending fleet if an enemy armada came calling.
TomVasel wrote:
15.) Technology: What I enjoyed quite a bit, however, was the fact that each player has their own deck of technology cards, which helped greatly; as player’s could look through the cards on their downtime and see the prerequisites they needed for each technology.
While the cards were an improvement over the chits, it's still more STUFF...which Peterson seems to like. I feel that TI3 is bloated beyond measure, and the little boy wonder at bits which I am sure we ALL share gets old after a while. "Did I take my planet card? How many trade goods do I get from this agreement? Where the heck are my action cards? And adding the various techs in, I can produce at this Space Dock...." The only thing Peterson didn't include were race-specific hats, but I suppose you have to save something for TI4.
TomVasel wrote:
16.) Imperial: The imperial strategy card (#8) is often berated on the internet as game breaking.
While I need to try this both ways, I do think it says something about the lack of playtesting where in both GoT and TI3 you have something obviously broken, so that even the designer has to post on the website large, significant changes. I'm all for designers making changes, posting living rules, and errata, but with proper preparation I doubt this would have been an issue. I could be wrong.
TomVasel wrote:
17.) Bonus chips: In a mechanic that surely comes directly from Puerto Rico, strategy cards that are not taken have a bonus chip placed on them. A nice little mechanic.
Well, it does come from Puerto Rico and a nice little mechanic it may be, but it's Seyfarth's, not Peterson's.
TomVasel wrote:
18.) Objectives: Besides the public objectives, which all players can complete, each player is given a secret objective at the beginning of the game. Most of them are extremely hard to complete and often result in a massive attack on one’s neighbors. But they are interesting, and I’m sure some people must complete them occasionally (haven’t seen it yet.)
I'm not crazy about secret objectives in any game (save, I think, Illuminati), because achieving one is anti-climactic for the other players. With all the STUFF in the game to track, I'm suppossed to guess what yoiur secret objective is and then stop you? Yikes!
TomVasel wrote:
19.) Rules: The rulebook is forty pages long, and we’re talking big pages here. Fortunately, everything is explained very clearly, and I though it was one of the best rulebooks I’ve ever read.
I disagee...I think the rules are as bloated as the game itself. Finally, I gave up preeparing for the game and just had to jump in. Noit to mention the fact that when we played, each of us had a copy of the rules and numerous charts and player aids. "Play TI3...harvest a forest." Comparted to true Eurogames and eklegant rulesets, this doesn't even compare.
TomVasel wrote:
With a game this huge and a rulebook this size, some errors were bound to happen, but a very clear FAQ has been posted at the website, as well as some variants for game play - http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ti3support.html. Explaining the game to new players is a different matter - but that’s to be expected in a game this huge.
And the point I keep making in my shrill manner is that the game didn't have to be this huge. Excusing Peterson for the long playing and teaching time, not to mention the length of the rulebook and the attendant variations and errata, just because he made a "huge" game doesn't make sense. There has to be a middle point between the heavily themed design of TI3 and an elegant but not-so-heavily-themed design of a Knizia. Peterson keeps winning kudos because the game "oozes theme" and is "crammed with bits", but those two things do not a great game make. And you pay for all that "chrome", too, let me add.
TomVasel wrote:
Yes, there are going to be some niggly little rules that may bother those who want a pure Euro game.
Or those who expect a balanced game out of the box. One may love Kingmaker and Dune, as I do, but I would never say they had "niggly" rules problems; they were flawed because of their rulesets. And I don't think anyone expects a Eurogame from TI3, rest assured! DDespite the lifting from Puerto Rico, it is the anti-Euro.
TomVasel wrote:
And I have some advice to those aspiring designers who are seeking to make the ultimate space empire game - stop wasting your time; it’s already here. }r This is hands down the best game of its type, and one of the best games of all time.
I wonder, how many other serious space empire games are out there? Not Dune, not Starfarers....I do think the field's still open. Peterson through his own indulgence has left plenty of room! What if one could make a streamlined, elegant, 3-4 hour, multiplayer space empire gamer? The gauntlet is down!
TomVasel wrote:
If you have the time and energy to play a game of this magnitude - then buy it right now! Yes, it’s big, somewhat expensive (although the amount of stuff you get in it makes it one of the best deals on the market), and long. But it’s a tremendous game - a masterpiece by Christian Peterson. This game is truly a flagship of games - one that you would be proud to have on your shelves.
Yes, if if if! Big ifs! It's more of a lifestyle than a game! But all that said, all this said, I'm playing it again this Sunday, and looking forward to it.
-
Heiko Hartmann
Germany
Stuttgart
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Natus wrote:
TomVasel wrote:
17.) Bonus chips: In a mechanic that surely comes directly from Puerto Rico, strategy cards that are not taken have a bonus chip placed on them. A nice little mechanic.
Well, it does come from Puerto Rico and a nice little mechanic it may be, but it's Seyfarth's, not Peterson's.
I would rather say that this mechanic comes from 'Vinci' (1999) and not from Puerto Rico (2002). It may be even older. Maybe they played it that way in Egypt 3000 years ago.
-
Matthew M Monin
United States
Branford
Connecticut
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
That guy
-
Re:User Review
beezle wrote:
I would rather say that this mechanic comes from 'Vinci' (1999) and not from Puerto Rico (2002). It may be even older. Maybe they played it that way in Egypt 3000 years ago.
It was a stretch for Peterson to credit that mechanic to Vinci. Puerto Rico's implementation of the bribes is significantly different from Vinci's. TI's is not significantly different from Puerto Rico's. I suspect that Christian couldn't resist the urge to namedrop an additional euro in his Designer Notes, and foced Vinci in any way possible.
-MMM
-
Dane Peacock
United States
Stansbury Park
Utah
That tickles
-
Re:User Review
Talenn (#455052),
Okay, I am convinced that the game has a balance issue, but this does nothing to explain if the game is good or not.
I have never liked the assumption that an unbalanced game = bad game. In fact, I feel that many gamers are so obsessed with balance, that they miss out on the fun.
-
Nathan Baumbach
United States
Omaha
Nebraska
-
Re:User Review
Natus (#464776),
I'm wondering how you would resolve the planet card/technology card == stuff issue?
These items have done nothing but speed up most of my games. They don't seem clunky to me, and they don't seem like more "stuff" I don't need. I haven't heard anyone else complain about this, either. So I'm not sure what the proper course of fixing the "blundering economic system" of the game would be?
{sarcasm}Space Vikings?{/sarcasm}
Although I have been in two games where the action cards did make or break a good plan, it just goes to prove the ancient adage that if your plan can't survive an unforseen set-back, then it wasn't much of a plan/strategy at all. The best game I've been in so far was where one player got nailed repeatedly by everyone in the game in space battles and set-backs, but still won because he maintained a flexible strategy and fulfilled every objective that came out (without taking the ISC once).
Of course, you may have the answer we're all looking for, but I've thought about this several times and can't seem to read your mind. So if you would enlighten us, I think we might have another variant on our hands.
-
Steve Malczak
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Re:User Review
Sky Knight X (#467972),
Well, it depends on the game and the situations. If you are playing a Napoleonic game, then yeah, France should be stronger than say, the Ottoman Empire. No problems there, because you are going into the game looking at a historical situation.
But in TI3, a random determination of player order determines who has the advantage. Sure, you can gang up on those players etc, but this is taking the fun of diplomacy and aggression out of the hands of the players and putting it in the hands of the dice before the game starts.
I'm not saying that cant be fun, but I dont see that it adds anything at all. So why have the mechanic as is if it is going to generate secondary effects like that?
-
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
-
Re:User Review
Nathan,
Since I like your first name so much, I'll bite.
Regarding the "stuff" issue, I don't necessarily disagree with the tech and planet card use, but I DO think there are too many bits. The game's too bloated, I've said it many times above. So, actually, the tech cards and planet cards might be the best use of bits/cards in the game!
I'm no game designer, but if I were thrown a challenge as you have thrown me, what I might do is have another long folding board with multiple tracks, for resources, influence, and all the techs. Players would place their power markers on them, so I'm doing away with all the tech and planet cards and adding a tech/resources/influence board. Not bad.
The largest benefit this would give is that everyone would know at a glance every other players tech/res/infl level in relation to their own. Also, the tech track (a la Civ, perhaps, if I'm thinking correctly) could be constructed in a way that all the players could easily see who could get what tech next, and then the player's knowledge of the techs and the tech tree would become more intuitive. You could see at a glance that the opponent to your left could charge into your system through the asteroid field easily and have upgraded fighters, whereas the opponent to your right has only economic techs. Hmmmmm....
And hell, while I'm at it, let's get rid of the extraneous trade cards and have them pre-imprinted on the player mats of each race. There are no need for trade cards, now!
OK, in one post I've just removed a quarter of the "stuff" in the game, and at first glance it looks like it should all work out! Now, if a knucklehead like me can think of this, why couldn't Petersen?
emceekhan wrote:
Natus (#464776),
I'm wondering how you would resolve the planet card/technology card == stuff issue?
These items have done nothing but speed up most of my games. They don't seem clunky to me, and they don't seem like more "stuff" I don't need. I haven't heard anyone else complain about this, either. So I'm not sure what the proper course of fixing the "blundering economic system" of the game would be?
{sarcasm}Space Vikings?{/sarcasm}
Although I have been in two games where the action cards did make or break a good plan, it just goes to prove the ancient adage that if your plan can't survive an unforseen set-back, then it wasn't much of a plan/strategy at all. The best game I've been in so far was where one player got nailed repeatedly by everyone in the game in space battles and set-backs, but still won because he maintained a flexible strategy and fulfilled every objective that came out (without taking the ISC once).
Of course, you may have the answer we're all looking for, but I've thought about this several times and can't seem to read your mind. So if you would enlighten us, I think we might have another variant on our hands.
-
Jonathan Fried
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Re:User Review
Natus (#469858),Quote:
OK, in one post I've just removed a quarter of the "stuff" in the game, and at first glance it looks like it should all work out! Now, if a knucklehead like me can think of this, why couldn't Petersen?
Because you got it all wrong, my friend. That's why.
To whit:
Quote: And hell, while I'm at it, let's get rid of the extraneous trade cards and have them pre-imprinted on the player mats of each race. There are no need for trade cards, now!
Trade cards are exchanged to show a trade agreement. Your mechanism would require some spot on the player map and a corresponding counter to indicate with which race the agreement is. To me it is far more simpler and elegant to exchange a card -- rather than go hunting for the new counter to identify with whom the trade is. Tweak: more fiddly.
Quote: tech track (a la Civ, perhaps, if I'm thinking correctly)
Nope. Civ uses Tech (Civ) cards. Perhaps you are thinking of the AST. But that is about VP progress and moving through different eras. There is no such corresponding evolution (i.e. from iron age to bronze age)
Quote:
could be constructed in a way that all the players could easily see who could get what tech next, and then the player's knowledge of the techs and the tech tree would become more intuitive.
Well, I guess that would be a nice idea, but given that tech progress is not linear, I don't see how it could be done. And why do you need to gather all your tech information in one chart at the top of the board. The advantage of the tech cards is that the player himself can see what his options are and all the others have to do is stand up and look in that players playing area. Your "solution" requires the same standing up to figure it out -- but now each person has to do it themself to figure out where they are in the process. Or do you mean to add the track to the card mechanism. If so -- tweak: more fiddly.
-
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
-
Re:User Review
Jonbone (#469861),
Quote: Because you got it all wrong, my friend. That's why.
Not at all, and it's going to gall you to have to apologize publicly when I show you the error of your ways.
Quote: Trade cards are exchanged to show a trade agreement. Your mechanism would require some spot on the player map and a corresponding counter to indicate with which race the agreement is. To me it is far more simpler and elegant to exchange a card -- rather than go hunting for the new counter to identify with whom the trade is. Tweak: more fiddly.
How is having the trade cards pre-printed on tyhe player mats more fiddly? And don't you place player counters on the trade cards anyway, or is that T12? You are for more cards, while I am for using counters that already come with the game. The trade rates for the other civs can be put on the player mat as well. Well, perhaps I don't have a fetish for bits...
Quote: Well, I guess that would be a nice idea
You should just stop there.
Quote: but given that tech progress is not linear, I don't see how it could be done. And why do you need to gather all your tech information in one chart at the top of the board. The advantage of the tech cards is that the player himself can see what his options are and all the others have to do is stand up and look in that players playing area. Your "solution" requires the same standing up to figure it out -- but now each person has to do it themself to figure out where they are in the process. Or do you mean to add the track to the card mechanism. If so -- tweak: more fiddly.
I find it HIGHLY ironic that you think my changes add MORE fiddly-ness to an already fiddly game! The Jonbone philosophy: "More is more!"
The tech tree is basically linear, but if that's the only objection the paths could be streamlined a bit (and there are calls for re-arranging it in other posts about this game, especially re the War Suns.) My solution, obviously, requires NO standing up...the track board would be placed where all(hopefully)could see it. In once glance, you could take everything in. The way it is now, we just ignore the others until combat looms. It would be great to know in an instant who has the highest influence, who the most resources, the tech advantage, etc. It's all about sharing of information and making it available to all. But yes, it means less bits...
-
Jonathan Fried
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Re:User Review
Natus (#469872),
Quote: How is having the trade cards pre-printed on tyhe player mats more fiddly? And don't you place player counters on the trade cards anyway, or is that T12? You are for more cards, while I am for using counters that already come with the game. The trade rates for the other civs can be put on the player mat as well. Well, perhaps I don't have a fetish for bits...
Nate. It would be helpful if you got your facts straight. TI3 works this way. Each race has 2 trade cards. Each race can exchange one trade card with another race. That's all there is to it. So, for 6 players. 12 cards. Under your proposal, the trade mat has a spot for each of the two trade agreements. And you propose that when I enter into an agreement with another race, we each place corresponding counters on that spot. So, first, we have to go hunting for the right counter -- instead of just exchanging cards. Then, the benefit of exchanging a card, is that after the agreement is entered into I don't care what my card pays -- I only care what my partners card pays. But that information is not in front of me. It is printed on the other players mat. So when the agreements pay out, instead of saying "I get 2 trade counters" I have to say to my partner, "How much does your trade agreement pay?" And then he tells me... no, Nate. 2 Cards apiece. No counters. There may be things to knock, but the trade agreements are not one of them.
Quote: The tech tree is basically linear
It's not - it's not - it's not. Come on. The trade is a sprawling interconnection of techs and prerequisites. It fundamentally cannot be streamlined down to a linear chart because it's a tree. In order to replicate the chart, you would need multiple tech tracks for the different tech families. And I repeat, the cards impart information to the player -- not just to his opponents. It lets you see what you can and cannot do and your other options. That simply doesn't follow in a progress chart. Sure, if I get to space X on that chart I get Tech Y -- but I need to know what tech Y does. That information is on the card. This is straight out of Civilization -- and is really quite simple.
-
Brian Newman
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
Re:User Review
Jonbone (#469881),
Total agreement. When you buy a tech, just lay it out in front of you (we lay them in a row above the race card). Then, if you want to know an opponent's tech (such as if they have advanced fighters), you *look*. Or ask them.
-
Jim R
United States
California
-
Re:User Review
Blackberry (#469900),
Laying out tech cards in front of you works in TI3, but I cant help thinking that it was easier in TI2 using the smaller Tech counters from that game in combination with a downloaded printed out chart that was available. Each chart had rectangles/explanations for all the techs in the game, and you could just put the corresponding tech counter on a rectangle when you got that tech. So each player could easily see which techs he had, AND all the techs down the line that he could shoot for. You could glance at someone else's chart to easily see what he had.
The biggest drawback was that the title of the tech was on the opposite side of the counter to the explanation of what the tech did, so you had to constantly flip over the counters-- bad design.
-
David Wilson
United States
Carsoin
California
-
Re:User Review
TomVasel (#452336),
I've read Tom's reviews on several newsgroups and have to say that when Tom likes a game, he really, really, likes it and paints it in glowing terms.
I think TI3 is a great game, but not without its flaws.
FIRST- it is just too darn long.
I've played it twice now, both times with 4 players and the game takes all stinking day to play. Movement is a bit too limited, restricting combat to later in the game in most cases.
Second- the game is NOT a Galactic conquering game, it is a building and holding your territory game. It is possible to be attacked by an opponent and even eliminated, but the goals and victory point awards of the game are too focused on gaining technology, etc. Only allowing a player to claim ONE of the public objectives per turn makes the game seem slower as well.
THIRD- the Action cards HURT the strategic planning of the game. Example: I played an action card to allow me to move extra so I could attack another player. He plays sabotage to prevent me from getting there with anything more than a token force. Neither he nor I could actually have planned all of that. It is my opinion that the Action Cards hurt the game by creating an unpredictability. In addition, the rules and cards are a bit confusing in regards to timing of action cards.
Fourth- did I mention the game as just too long. Well, it is with 4 players. that is because every strategy is chosen and players have extra things to do on their turns.
David "the preacher" Wilson
-
L. B. M.
United States
Fairborn
Ohio
-
Re:User Review
abimilech wrote:
.... THIRD- the Action cards HURT the strategic planning of the game. Example: I played an action card to allow me to move extra so I could attack another player. He plays sabotage to prevent me from getting there with anything more than a token force. Neither he nor I could actually have planned all of that. It is my opinion that the Action Cards hurt the game by creating an unpredictability. In addition, the rules and cards are a bit confusing in regards to timing of action cards.
....
David "the preacher" Wilson
This is more of a general comment than a comment on this review. It seems like any time a game introduces any random element - be it cards, dice, whatever; there are always people complaining that the unpredictability spoils the strategic planning.
Strategic planning is all well and good, but to me, unless there is an element of chance, there's no reason to play. If the outcome was based solely on strategic planning, then the best strategist will almost always win. There's not much fun to be in trying out all the ways to lose (not that I think a game is only fun if I win, but I do want a chance to win).
-
Brian Newman
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
Re:User Review
abimilech (#471534),
1) Four hours is too long? Compared to what?
2) When was it supposed to be a galactic conquering game? It is what it is. However you can get to 10 VPs is how you can win. If you do it through military means, that works. If you do it through economic means, that works. If you do it through negotiation, that works.
3) Then I guess you should strategize taking action cards into consideration, such as doing things that will get you some action cards as well. Or, on your big invasion turn, take Warfare so you can always try again if your attempt gets foiled.
-
|
|
Top 100 Games of all Time
