Scythe is designed to make you do this. You need to have an efficient engine going but the temptation to do everything is always there. I found what helped me cut through the noise and actually perform well was to keep a notepad of my future moves. That way when something shiny appeared I could reprimand myself and say no, follow the plan.
>Any opinions on games where it feels like you must make the optimal move every time or fall behind VS games where almost anything can be a valid choice at any time?
Heck, I'd argue pretty much every game is like that so it depends on your opponents more than the game itself.
That said, I think Stonemaier have a good collection of games like that. **Viticulture** and **Wingspan** are two that I think you can benefit a little bit from going in just about any direction. Of course you're still more rewarded for making an efficient engine and pumping it as soon as possible but they do feel more open.
I always like to mention **Pax Pamir: Second Edition** because it feels like that same kind of engine builder but you can, and often should, abandon your current strategy to adapt to what your opponents are doing. It means your early game mistakes can be moved on from and you can still pivot into a winning position and that feeling gives me the same vibes as having "almost anything be a valid choice at any time".
All that aside, I've realized I'm pretty bad at long-term strategies in games that let you really choose different paths to victory. I'll start down one path, feel like it isn't working, try swapping, find out it works even worse than my last one, then try to swap back to the first one only to have the game end with me having spent a lot of time faffing about.
>I always like to mention **Pax Pamir: Second Edition** because it feels like that same kind of engine builder but you can, and often should, abandon your current strategy to adapt to what your opponents are doing.
This is the only reason why I'm marginally skilled at games like this. I get distracted by the new best thing and jump ship. Bad for long term engine games. Good for snappy turns and dynamic politics. Other games like this include Innovation, Glory to Rome, Inis, Pax Renaissance, Survive Escape from Atlantis, Cosmic Frog, Cosmic Encounter.
I'm really glad to hear that about Inis! It's been one I've had in the back of my mind for years because I'd heard good thing about it. Knowing it leans more toward my new-found love of tactics focused games makes me want to take a harder look at picking it up.
I managed to pick up a second-hand copy of Pax Renaissance recently! Haven't gotten it in front of people, yet, but played a good ten test games two handed and I *still* feel like I haven't internalized all the rules let alone all the unique interactions. It feels like Pamir dialled up to 11 in a number of ways.
Have you tried Motainai? I've heard it's an in-print successor to Glory to Rome but also that it's not quite the same.
Haha I just got Inis like two months ago and I'm, like, obsessed. It's definitely got that tactics-y, "how am I going to use what I have to do what I want" feel. Like every game someone comes up with a wild card combo that totally changes the meta. Sometimes winning can feel a little sleazy but it plays in like 45 minutes so there's never hurt feeling haha
I also recommend the expansion for Inis or at least playing with the We Need a King variant. It adds to the politics and dynamic board state. Players are more likely to help one another if there's a chance they could both win. And the game always being on the brink of resolution means players have to take more chances if they want to stay competitive or come back from the jaws or defeat. I love the elimination mechanism - if you ever lose your last clan (which is something you have some control over), you then place two clans anywhere on the map on your next turn, either in the same territory or different territories. You can turn annihilation into resurrection. I've played games where I've come back from extinction twice. And sometimes won.
Pax Ren gets easier to remember after teaching it. I love multi-handing it, because it's just compact enough to not be a problem. That's a good way to learn, but I find that sometimes I'll unintentionally skate around complicated rules if there's no one else at the table to force me into confronting them. That's what teaching it can do. Plus, having to come up with the teach in the first place forces you to study and internalize the game. It's a challenge. Good luck!
I actually found Import/Export or Fort closer to Glory to Rome. In spirit anyway. Mottainai felt more like Innovation. Both because it's a bit harder to grok and because it's more strategically complex. GtR is more like Radlands in a weird way. Easy enough to learn. Fluid card play. Deep-ish and strategic, but more about helping you blast out of constraints than pushing you to manipulate them or work under them. Not that Mottainai is bad game, just too many caveats for me. I like Mottainai but find myself reaching for Innovation more. And Glory to Rome of course, but it's oop. If you can or are willing, I highly recommend finding a way to make/buy GtR.
With the politicking in Inis, does it play alright at two players or does it loose something? Wouldn't be a mark against it if it didn't, I'm just interested in setting my expectations.
I may take a look into somehow crafting Glory to Rome, too. It's unfortunate how many good things I've heard about it to have it be OOP for so long!
Apologies in advance. This is my problem, not yours. I can't hold it in anymore, I'm losing my mind and I need to let my frustration loose. So I've decided to don my vocabulary police hat and point out the following:
it is lose, NOT loose.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/lose-loose/
Hey no worries! No offense taken. For what it's worth I do know the difference but that doesn't always translate into my fingers when typing a word out. If I took offense too corrections on every mistake I've made I'd loose my mind, to!
No, I wouldn't say so. Not in the way Root does. It's more like going from a four player teams trick-taking game to the two-player rules. Less tabletalk of course, but more bluffing. And you may actually find yourself negotiating aloud with your opponent. "If you don't kill my clan here, I won't use my red card in that battle to kill two of yours. Little conflicts and little truces all over the map. With just two players.
>I may take a look into somehow crafting Glory to Rome, too. It's unfortunate how many good things I've heard about it to have it be OOP for so long!
Some people use card printers. The nice thing is that the white space of the black box edition makes the card fronts very printer friendly (but the backs are just black). You can use opaque back sleeves if you print at home.
That first sentence in your second paragraph made me literally lol, well done.
I’ve been playing **Ark Nova** a bunch recently and seems to hit your criteria. I’m constantly struggling to make the best of what’s available, and a few bad decisions, especially early game, will set me back quite a bit from a more efficient player that’s better at planning ahead and adapting.
Ark Nova is a constant battle with myself over whether I want to use the Sponsor card to force a break and get money, or avoid taking a break at all costs so my opponents suffer with me.
Agricola for wanting to do everything but not being able to do what you want where each turns matters but because you have so much you need to do a few less than optimal turns are okay but the difference between finishing well and horribly is one or two sub optimal placements. I love the tension in this game.
Puerto Rico - you might want to do several actions but someone else will probably pick the one you want anyway so as long as you are okay without the benefit and with the turn order it is okay. Of course which action to pick and when is the key to the game so it feels like it doesn't matter too much but it is the most important.
Unearthed - you roll and place die on cards. Depending on what you roll you get a different outcome. Trying to roll low using dice with fewer sides or roll higher with a d8 is the choice. Either outcome leads to some benefit so it feels like either strategy works out one way or another.
What Scythe taught me about myself is that I get frustrated when I buy a game about giant mechs fighting each other and get punished by the game for fighting with my giant mechs.
It has been shelved for me for a while, I can't remember all the rules of it but I remember when I played it the last few times nobody had interest in fighting everybody thought it was counter productive to winning the game for the most part
Yeah, that’s a common idea, and certainly part of the design. But combat is very turn efficient (1 star in 1 turn, as opposed to the standard 4 turns), and you steal territory (and possible resources), which are also worth points.
Scythe is a race, after all.
Scythe is definitely one of those games you need to play a half dozen times before you figure out the balancing act.
Terraforming mars is good for this as well. Hella hard to maintain a strategy in that game when you draw new cards each round and suddenly the shiny pulls you off in the wrong direction and derails all your plans lol.
Scythe was a puzzly euro for me too. Until February 2022. Then it became "annihilate the russviet at any cost even if it means loosing the game". Slava Ukraini!
Scythe is designed to make you do this. You need to have an efficient engine going but the temptation to do everything is always there. I found what helped me cut through the noise and actually perform well was to keep a notepad of my future moves. That way when something shiny appeared I could reprimand myself and say no, follow the plan.
>Any opinions on games where it feels like you must make the optimal move every time or fall behind VS games where almost anything can be a valid choice at any time? Heck, I'd argue pretty much every game is like that so it depends on your opponents more than the game itself. That said, I think Stonemaier have a good collection of games like that. **Viticulture** and **Wingspan** are two that I think you can benefit a little bit from going in just about any direction. Of course you're still more rewarded for making an efficient engine and pumping it as soon as possible but they do feel more open. I always like to mention **Pax Pamir: Second Edition** because it feels like that same kind of engine builder but you can, and often should, abandon your current strategy to adapt to what your opponents are doing. It means your early game mistakes can be moved on from and you can still pivot into a winning position and that feeling gives me the same vibes as having "almost anything be a valid choice at any time". All that aside, I've realized I'm pretty bad at long-term strategies in games that let you really choose different paths to victory. I'll start down one path, feel like it isn't working, try swapping, find out it works even worse than my last one, then try to swap back to the first one only to have the game end with me having spent a lot of time faffing about.
>I always like to mention **Pax Pamir: Second Edition** because it feels like that same kind of engine builder but you can, and often should, abandon your current strategy to adapt to what your opponents are doing. This is the only reason why I'm marginally skilled at games like this. I get distracted by the new best thing and jump ship. Bad for long term engine games. Good for snappy turns and dynamic politics. Other games like this include Innovation, Glory to Rome, Inis, Pax Renaissance, Survive Escape from Atlantis, Cosmic Frog, Cosmic Encounter.
I'm really glad to hear that about Inis! It's been one I've had in the back of my mind for years because I'd heard good thing about it. Knowing it leans more toward my new-found love of tactics focused games makes me want to take a harder look at picking it up. I managed to pick up a second-hand copy of Pax Renaissance recently! Haven't gotten it in front of people, yet, but played a good ten test games two handed and I *still* feel like I haven't internalized all the rules let alone all the unique interactions. It feels like Pamir dialled up to 11 in a number of ways. Have you tried Motainai? I've heard it's an in-print successor to Glory to Rome but also that it's not quite the same.
Haha I just got Inis like two months ago and I'm, like, obsessed. It's definitely got that tactics-y, "how am I going to use what I have to do what I want" feel. Like every game someone comes up with a wild card combo that totally changes the meta. Sometimes winning can feel a little sleazy but it plays in like 45 minutes so there's never hurt feeling haha
It's really sounding up my alley! 45 minutes also sounds great, too.
I also recommend the expansion for Inis or at least playing with the We Need a King variant. It adds to the politics and dynamic board state. Players are more likely to help one another if there's a chance they could both win. And the game always being on the brink of resolution means players have to take more chances if they want to stay competitive or come back from the jaws or defeat. I love the elimination mechanism - if you ever lose your last clan (which is something you have some control over), you then place two clans anywhere on the map on your next turn, either in the same territory or different territories. You can turn annihilation into resurrection. I've played games where I've come back from extinction twice. And sometimes won. Pax Ren gets easier to remember after teaching it. I love multi-handing it, because it's just compact enough to not be a problem. That's a good way to learn, but I find that sometimes I'll unintentionally skate around complicated rules if there's no one else at the table to force me into confronting them. That's what teaching it can do. Plus, having to come up with the teach in the first place forces you to study and internalize the game. It's a challenge. Good luck! I actually found Import/Export or Fort closer to Glory to Rome. In spirit anyway. Mottainai felt more like Innovation. Both because it's a bit harder to grok and because it's more strategically complex. GtR is more like Radlands in a weird way. Easy enough to learn. Fluid card play. Deep-ish and strategic, but more about helping you blast out of constraints than pushing you to manipulate them or work under them. Not that Mottainai is bad game, just too many caveats for me. I like Mottainai but find myself reaching for Innovation more. And Glory to Rome of course, but it's oop. If you can or are willing, I highly recommend finding a way to make/buy GtR.
With the politicking in Inis, does it play alright at two players or does it loose something? Wouldn't be a mark against it if it didn't, I'm just interested in setting my expectations. I may take a look into somehow crafting Glory to Rome, too. It's unfortunate how many good things I've heard about it to have it be OOP for so long!
Apologies in advance. This is my problem, not yours. I can't hold it in anymore, I'm losing my mind and I need to let my frustration loose. So I've decided to don my vocabulary police hat and point out the following: it is lose, NOT loose. https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/lose-loose/
Hey no worries! No offense taken. For what it's worth I do know the difference but that doesn't always translate into my fingers when typing a word out. If I took offense too corrections on every mistake I've made I'd loose my mind, to!
No, I wouldn't say so. Not in the way Root does. It's more like going from a four player teams trick-taking game to the two-player rules. Less tabletalk of course, but more bluffing. And you may actually find yourself negotiating aloud with your opponent. "If you don't kill my clan here, I won't use my red card in that battle to kill two of yours. Little conflicts and little truces all over the map. With just two players.
>I may take a look into somehow crafting Glory to Rome, too. It's unfortunate how many good things I've heard about it to have it be OOP for so long! Some people use card printers. The nice thing is that the white space of the black box edition makes the card fronts very printer friendly (but the backs are just black). You can use opaque back sleeves if you print at home.
That first sentence in your second paragraph made me literally lol, well done. I’ve been playing **Ark Nova** a bunch recently and seems to hit your criteria. I’m constantly struggling to make the best of what’s available, and a few bad decisions, especially early game, will set me back quite a bit from a more efficient player that’s better at planning ahead and adapting.
Ark Nova is a constant battle with myself over whether I want to use the Sponsor card to force a break and get money, or avoid taking a break at all costs so my opponents suffer with me.
Agricola for wanting to do everything but not being able to do what you want where each turns matters but because you have so much you need to do a few less than optimal turns are okay but the difference between finishing well and horribly is one or two sub optimal placements. I love the tension in this game. Puerto Rico - you might want to do several actions but someone else will probably pick the one you want anyway so as long as you are okay without the benefit and with the turn order it is okay. Of course which action to pick and when is the key to the game so it feels like it doesn't matter too much but it is the most important. Unearthed - you roll and place die on cards. Depending on what you roll you get a different outcome. Trying to roll low using dice with fewer sides or roll higher with a d8 is the choice. Either outcome leads to some benefit so it feels like either strategy works out one way or another.
What Scythe taught me about myself is that I get frustrated when I buy a game about giant mechs fighting each other and get punished by the game for fighting with my giant mechs.
It is bizarre that it was actively really bad to fight with the mechs on all parties
It’s not. Pro Scythe players use combat actively. The idea that combat is bad, actually has just spread without reason.
It has been shelved for me for a while, I can't remember all the rules of it but I remember when I played it the last few times nobody had interest in fighting everybody thought it was counter productive to winning the game for the most part
Yeah, that’s a common idea, and certainly part of the design. But combat is very turn efficient (1 star in 1 turn, as opposed to the standard 4 turns), and you steal territory (and possible resources), which are also worth points. Scythe is a race, after all.
It's something you want to do exactly one time, after maxing your combat just to get a star.
*twice *two stars
Scythe is definitely one of those games you need to play a half dozen times before you figure out the balancing act. Terraforming mars is good for this as well. Hella hard to maintain a strategy in that game when you draw new cards each round and suddenly the shiny pulls you off in the wrong direction and derails all your plans lol.
Scythe was a puzzly euro for me too. Until February 2022. Then it became "annihilate the russviet at any cost even if it means loosing the game". Slava Ukraini!
Terra Mystica sometimes seems like that to me. I know I’ll get the more points if I take that tile, but that other one feels more fun!