Quantcast
Channel: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 8273 articles
Browse latest View live

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by Fortuna

Ioan,

Yes, I agree that it's a good design for a computer game to handle certain things automatically until the player learns the game well enough to interfere and do it his own way. And I also agree that since board games don't come with robots, board game designers don't have that option for a way to make the learning curve gentler. However, TTA isn't nearly as complex as Civ IV is, so I don't think the robots are missed. The first time I played TTA I felt like my brain was too full, but I learned it.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by DaviddesJ

Kelanen wrote:

I also play Civ, Total War, etc and to be honest the control mechanisms in those are much more straight forward. There's never a case of producing 1 more rock makes you 2 worse off, or the reverse, spending an extra rock (and therefore perhaps not using that yellow card) can make you one 1 rock net better off over all.


I strongly disagree with the claim here. In Civ 4, for example, reducing your production can very frequently leave you better off, because of quirks in the way production carryover is handled. There's lots of things you can manipulate to increase your total production in Civ 4, and the interactions and the calculations you need to do in order to get that result are much more complex and intricate than anything in TTA. Not less.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by Ioan76_TM

Fortuna wrote:

Ioan,

Yes, I agree that it's a good design for a computer game to handle certain things automatically until the player learns the game well enough to interfere and do it his own way. And I also agree that since board games don't come with robots, board game designers don't have that option for a way to make the learning curve gentler. However, TTA isn't nearly as complex as Civ IV is, so I don't think the robots are missed. The first time I played TTA I felt like my brain was too full, but I learned it.


OK - it's great that we found in the end a common point. :)

I understand that are some players ( like you ) for whom the "initial contact" isn't too hard & harsh to discourage them playing further - but I assume that you could also agree that most people which complains about the game had serious issues exactly on this part ( and as a consequence of it - disliked the long downtime etc. ) and they have a point considering this a blocking-point in design.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: A different take on how to improve your game or maybe just blantant plagurism of other's ideas.

$
0
0

by vanatteveldt

Scoves wrote:

The actions for taking and playing the Arena [..] are most likely to occur regardless whether you have the Gardens or not. Similarly the science and associated costs would seem unavoidable as you look for a lasting solution to the happiness problem.


I disagree here. You might need more happy later, but 'later' can well be in age II, at which time the more (worker) efficient age II arena is available. End game hapiness in general needs more than the age I arena, so even if you get the age I you will need to spend CA's and science to get the 'lasting solution'.

At the end of age I you generally have an immediate happy problem, and Gardens are a viable way of dealing with that problem in a resource-rich, science/worker-scarce context.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by Fortuna

but I assume that you could also agree that most people which complains about the game had serious issues exactly on this part


That's a symptom, not a cause. Anyone who finds TTA's mechanisms too complicated either had a bad teacher / learning experience or doesn't really have the head / desire for serious Civ-type games in general. The fact that they might mess around with Civ IV on Chieftain level for a while doesn't prove otherwise.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by mecheng_analyst

First, rock on for a heckuva week of games!
Second, welcome to the world of crazy BGG review posts!

I love it when people defend by saying "you need to play this game 10 times first!" No, no you don't. Maybe twice. You won't win, or be good at a deep game until you've playd it 10 times, sure, but it should be "fun" long before then. Now, there are those of course who associate fun with only winning, so maybe that's at play.

Personal preference, but clearly you don't like downtime. Me neither. I go to play games, and socialize, not watch people do their taxes. Playing this game 10 times will never change that. Even if you played wih super fast master accounting robots, this game would still drag for you, because that's the mechanism of the game. And the argument that you need to play a game as 2p fails. Personal preference mind you, but if you're playing 2p, you have 4 choices: chess, go, magic, wargame. Anything else needs another player to allow for other interaction/chaos, or you might as well play chess in the first place.

What's just as informative is to look at your list of 15 games and their rankings. It's no surprise because TtA was the longest one you played and the others are certainly quicker and more interesting. Dominant Species is at 10 for you, and it's another long game that suffers AP but also a high amount of chaos and (mitigated) luck. These are not your type of games, because you could have played Lords of Waterdeep twice during any one play of DS or TtA and had more fun. This will not change any time soon. The only way really would be for you to get bored of LoW, and HT and PG, and then have a better teacher for TtA.

Summary: you would do well to play TtA again, with a better teacher, to grasp the mechanics and basic strategies better, and play faster. Only fair to give it another shake. But overall you have identified other new games you would probably have more fun playing for the next few months, and if you don't make it back to TtA, no big deal.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: If you buy the game new now, does it have any errors?

$
0
0

by shadow9d9

I was just wondering if there are any errors in the current edition that you will find at online retailers... I ask because my edition has a circle under the temple on the player mat and I read that the newer printing fixed this... Thanks!

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: [Video Review] - The Inevitable March of Time in a Three Hour Board Game.

$
0
0

by mecheng_analyst

Great video as always. A few thing I got from this that shocked me:
1. No map
Seriously? I just assumed there was one, glad you pointed that out.

2. Stuff
Other text reviews mentioned the fiddly bits, but now I see it. Holy crap, that's way too much stuff, especially not to have a map.

Price point is an issue, as is game length. Perhaps I'll try online play.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: [The Dissenting Opinion] - A negative review of Through the Ages

$
0
0

by mecheng_analyst

Thanks again for a thorough, critical review.
I believe I would agree with all these thoughts and thus have just saved $45. Thanks for that.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: If you buy the game new now, does it have any errors?

$
0
0

by lewis

There are no errors. The 3rd FRED version caught up with the original Czech version.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: General:: Re: If you buy the game new now, does it have any errors?

$
0
0

by Fortuna

lewis wrote:

There are no errors. The 3rd FRED version caught up with the original Czech version.


To be fair, the original Czech version did have at least one substantive error (Age II Breakthrough said you get +2 Science instead of +4).

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by DaviddesJ

mecheng_analyst wrote:

And the argument that you need to play a game as 2p fails. Personal preference mind you, but if you're playing 2p, you have 4 choices: chess, go, magic, wargame. Anything else needs another player to allow for other interaction/chaos, or you might as well play chess in the first place.


Whatever you think of Backgammon or Gin as games, they are very different from playing Chess, and there are plenty of people who might like one and not the other.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Questions on Colony Rankings

$
0
0

by avenger314

Hi all,

One topic I don't see discussed here is how the various colonies compare against each other. Not sure if that's because
1) Colonies themselves aren't worth it
2) People have pretty much already ranked the colony's usefulness in the same way that the Pyramids is agreed to be better than the Colossus.
3) It's a new rich area for discussion.

Hoping that it's option 3, let's continue.

I know that the answers on whether, or if, colonies are useful are very situation dependent. But it seems that there are some generalizations that can be made (assuming that you have the luxury of bidding on a colony and don't need to keep up your defense or try to sucker your opponent into emptying his reserves).

In my own rough order of preference:
1) Developed Territory: I absolutely love this one. Tech, blue tokens, yellow tokens? It's perfect. It's one of those 'just what I'm looking for' type deals. It helps out with pop growth, corruption, and can often give me that tech boost right when I need it. I also love that it isn't zero-sum: I don't spend military units to generate population to turn into military units. Instead, the units are traded in for bonuses that are otherwise hard to come by. I'm comfortable ranking this as my favorite
2) Inhabited Territory: I think this is almost strictly better than Fertile Territory. The population unit arrives there for you, no civil actions required. Admittedly, I might just use the pop boom to replace my colonizers. But the yellow tokens are a permanent boon and not a tradeoff. In particular, I like that the population increase is never greater than the tokens given--you never run into a problem with consumption or corruption increase.
3) Strategic Territory: Out of all of them, I think this is absolutely the hardest to rank. I feel like I'm too much of a beginner to put a value on it properly. In general, I think I'm fond of it. the extra military cards are often a nice perk, though I usually wind up having to discard them immediately. I also like the trade temp for perm aspect of it: Give up a military score now that can be rebuilt--in exchange, get a lesser but permanent military bonus. I definitely value the permanent military bonus over the card draw (and I'm not sure if I'm being foolish in this regard).
4) Fertile Territory: This one is certainly ok. I don't mind it. I just feel like with the cost of increasing population and assigning units to replace the colonizers, it feels like an even swap. It's also possible to give myself a corruption problem quite easily.
5) Historic Territory: I'm not a huge fan of this one. I'll take it if it falls in my lap, but usually I'm not willing to risk increasing my vulnerability just for a quick culture boost and a happines increase I'd have been able to get otherwise anyway.

I'm very interested in learning more people's opinions. my win/loss record on BGO is fairly poor, so I'm convinced there's something I'm valuing incorrectly in colonies: Perhaps I'm too excited to get one, or I'm rank-ordering them improperly. (I'm 'Jim Mangiameli' on BGO if anyone wants to propose a game).
Do please respond on what you think about colony rankings; I'd be curious to learn more.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Questions on Colony Rankings

$
0
0

by syrinx2112

As always, things in Through The Ages are situational. In a typical game here's my ranking of the Age 1 colonies:
1. Fertile Territory: 3 yellow tokens and enough food to create one population for a civil action
2. Inhabited Territory: slightly worse than Fertile Territory, because it only gives two yellow tokens
3. Developer Territory: the main value is in the yellow token, 3 science doesn't hurt either, blue token is not that important.
4. Strategic Territory. The main value is in the military cards it lets you draw. I value it higher if I'm looking for a tactics card. If I already have a good tactics card, I don't care much for this one. This one can be very helpful if it comes out in Age 2.
5. Historic Territory. One happy face is OK, 6 Culture Points hardly ever makes the difference in the end.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Questions on Colony Rankings

$
0
0

by NBAfan

Fertile Territory is pretty amazing, especially if you can get it with Columbus.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Questions on Colony Rankings

$
0
0

by QBert80

syrinx2112 wrote:

As always, things in Through The Ages are situational. In a typical game here's my ranking of the Age 1 colonies:
1. Fertile Territory: 3 yellow tokens and enough food to create one population for a civil action
2. Inhabited Territory: slightly worse than Fertile Territory, because it only gives two yellow tokens
3. Developed Territory: the main value is in the yellow token, 3 science doesn't hurt either, blue token is not that important.
4. Strategic Territory. The main value is in the military cards it lets you draw. I value it higher if I'm looking for a tactics card. If I already have a good tactics card, I don't care much for this one. This one can be very helpful if it comes out in Age 2.
5. Historic Territory. One happy face is OK, 6 Culture Points hardly ever makes the difference in the end.


Mark's analysis is pretty much dead-on, although I would probably swap Developed and Strategic Territories. The static military bonus can give you enough of a boost to beat out someone with a similar military configuration, and the card draw tends to replenish the Colonization card it might have cost plus maybe draws into an essential Tactics card.

Of course, Mark wins just about every game I play in with him, so it might be better to trust his analysis over mine!

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Questions on Colony Rankings

$
0
0

by Seghillian

avenger314 wrote:

One topic I don't see discussed here is how the various colonies compare against each other. Not sure if that's because
1) Colonies themselves aren't worth it
2) People have pretty much already ranked the colony's usefulness in the same way that the Pyramids is agreed to be better than the Colossus.
3) It's a new rich area for discussion.


I would guess it's because the number of times you would have to choose between them must be very limited (Columbus with more than 1 Colony in hand) - unlike leaders and wonders for example, when you're often presented with choice. Also not all the colonies are likely to come out, whereas almost all the Leaders and Wonders will.

As you correctly point out it's also very situation dependant as to which territory might be best at any given moment, so the idea of ranking them is probably not a very worthwhile exercise. That said, VERY approximately I would go with :-

1 Fertile
2 Inhabited
3 Strategic
4 Developed
5 Historic
6 Wealthy

That's for the Age I colonies. For Age II I would probably reverse Developed and Strategic.

However, it's hugely dependent on the situation. If you're short of rocks for that final game winning Age III Wonder, then suddenly Wealthy Territory becomes the most important card in the game. Also, exactly when the colony becomes available is important. I'm more concerned to get Strategic during Age II - especially if I have not yet drawn a suitable Age II Tactic. In Age I I would probably be less concerned about bidding for Strategic.

In any event, the yellow bank is a severe limitation on progress in the game, so Fertile is usually a huge advantage in any situation.

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Reviews:: Re: Playing 15 different games in 7 days: And Through the Ages was an unhappy ending

$
0
0

by Ioan76_TM

DaviddesJ wrote:

mecheng_analyst wrote:

And the argument that you need to play a game as 2p fails. Personal preference mind you, but if you're playing 2p, you have 4 choices: chess, go, magic, wargame. Anything else needs another player to allow for other interaction/chaos, or you might as well play chess in the first place.


Whatever you think of Backgammon or Gin as games, they are very different from playing Chess, and there are plenty of people who might like one and not the other.


And sometime nothing compare with a nice, fun game of Backgammon ( which - BTW, under name of Table is extremely popular in Romania ) ... ;)

Reply: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Strategy:: Re: Questions on Colony Rankings

$
0
0

by I Eat Tables

I agree with a lot of people so far: It's somewhat situation dependent, but most of the time there's a rough valuation you can give the territories.

As for former discussion, there's been a bit. Mostly, people agreeing Fertile is best and Wealthy is worst.

1) Fertile: As others have said, yellow tokens are important, and getting 3 of them is huge. Having to invest that food into pop costs you an action in age I, and probably 2 actions and a little food in age II but after that, it's just far better than Inhabited Territory, and gives you a massive population advantage.

2) Inhabited: Fertile's little brother. Each one essentially gives you a yellow token in the bank, and 1 or 2 yellow tokens straight into your unused workers, which is pretty nice. Loses a little less tempo than Fertile, but TtA isn't much of a Tempo game. Still, that edge can make it better in some cases.

3-4) Developed & Strategic: Things get a little fuzzier around here. One thing I think both of these share is that the age II version is much better than the age I version, relative to the differences between other territories age II and age I versions.
One particular quirk of the Strategic Territories is they're a lot more valuable if they come up at the start of an age. Drawing three age II military cards before your first turn in age II can be a massive edge. Or you could draw three total duds, but you know, there's a good chance you'll see something good. Similarly, drawing five age III military cards is massive, especially if you're going military - five cards at once is a huge chunk of the deck and gives you very good chances of finding 1-2 cards you want. The strength bonus is quite nice as well - probably smaller than the yellow tokens of the above, but it's a good boost, and in particular makes it a little less risky to bid on them as your military drops 2-4 points less than it otherwise would. But late in an age, these aren't worth much, as late military cards are a lot less valuable.
Developed Territories main bonus is the yellow tokens, but the science boost can be great if you missed out on good labs. I much prefer Age II's, because it's twice as many yellow tokens. The science bonus is perhaps a little less important at that stage, but it's still a good chunk of most techs in one go. The blue tokens are kind of nice as well, but corruption is rarely much of an issue - those blue tokens I guess might save you 2 resources in the long run, or so? It's not big. But yellow tokens are a big thing, and while you get less than the top two territories of them, I'd say the secondary benefit of the science is probably a little better (and blue tokens as well).

5) Historic: Perhaps the easiest way to note the flaw in Historic Territory is to point out that each yellow token is more or less half a happy face, as every two of them decreases the happiness you need by 1. And yellow tokens have other benefits as well. On top of that, early culture is rarely much use. I'd much prefer any of the one time benefits to 6 culture. Historic Territory II is a bit better, because it comes out when you probably want that 11 culture, and 2 happy faces is actually quite substantial. But at the same time, Developed and Strategic II are much better, so it stays in 5th position.

6) Wealthy: The main issue with Wealthy Territories is that you rarely get back more than what you paid, even if you don't pay very much. Two or three blue tokens are not worth very much. Perhaps 2 resources in corruption somewhere down the line. 4 if you're lucky (unlucky?). So really, Wealthy Territory works out as little more than 5/8 resources. How much does your military cost to sacrifice? At least 2 resources and 3-4 food just for a warrior. That's already about the value of Wealthy Territory I! What this means is that Wealthy Territory essentially serves as a chance to trade resources about a little, and not much else. Well, unless you have a leader who keys off of territories, that is.

Thread: Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization:: Rules:: Acceptance of Supremacy

$
0
0

by Norbert666

Playing on BGO so don't have the physical card handy. BGO text says:

The two civilizations cannot attack each other. Each round, A produces an extra [resource] and B produces one [resource] less.

Do you decide who is A and who is B or is it whoever plays the card?
Viewing all 8273 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>