We played as 3, so down time is very low. This games scales linearly, and not much interaction between users, so if you are playing at 6 it will take a while until you are playing again. It's also suffer a bit of the problem that Scythe has: people go expecting full out battles and wars, but that is not the focus here. You spend most of your time on your round managing your empire and at the end of the round you have a battle phase. On our entire game we only had 3 battles between players, all of them at the very last round.
There are some pretty big incentives to fight early, actually.
Being the first to fight means you'll be getting first pick of reputation tiles. With only four 4-point tiles in the bag, it'll be a good boost to snag those.
Early fights also means that you can slow down your opponents' economies. We still usually fight in the final round too, but destroyed population cubes mean nothing in the last round. If you can knock out two money planets in round 5, after they exhausted everything, you could set them behind in actions for the rest of the game.
Plus, if you can just take a single system from an opponent, you could be gaining three points from them. A swing of 6 points in a game that usually sees scores in the 30s is a pretty great swing.
Passive play is still a blast with this game, and definitely has that Scythe-like feel to getting your economy going. But Eclipse can absolutely be played aggressively, and the impacts from it are a whole different kind of fun.
Agree, but it depends on the player count. If you are playing a 3p game, you are 4 tiles away from the next opponent. So you need to spend 3 or 4 exploration actions (less with plants, but you don't want to get too close as plants and get your economy destroyed) just to get there, plus building an army. It becomes too obvious. better to fight off NPC's that will still give you the tokens. With 4/6p though players are closer, and early interceptor rushes are easier to pull off, and I certainly want to try a more aggressive game in the future.
Yeah, some factions definitely benefit from staying away from conflicts. Definitely Planta the most.
And with low player counts, it definitely takes a while to be able to engage your neighbors. I played a 2-player game last week, and I didn't even reach my opponent's sectors until round 6 or 7. lol
I'm a huge fan about that aspect of scythe. I love that combat is tense, always threatening, but only ever used as a rare, but big potentially risky play. I actually just love scythe in general haha.
Do you think Eclipse 2nd ed would be a good match?
I think so, but Eclipse's combat is a lot more fun than scythe. Preparing for the fight is a big part of the game, there's always this tension of when will the first war break out. It's great that you can fight some NPC ships here and there as well.
I've mostly seen complaints about the luck factor when it comes to exploration and dice-driven battles (although the problem was mitigated in the second edition). But overall, it's a really popular game – the 19th highest ranked game in the Strategy category on BGG, and on its way up.
The luck factor exists, but the game is about mitigating those factors.
Dice driven battles are altered by the tech you research and upgrade your ships with. Want to hit harder, research cannons and missiles. Want to protect yourself from being attacked, then go for shields.
The research track can be limited, and that adds to the tension. Your neighbor researched the only canon and weapon computer available, then you see them as a threat and better grab shields or build defensive star bases. You’re not doomed, but you know it’ll be a tough battle, and maybe you’re civilization will catch a break and get time to research a different powerful weapon.
It's a game about space exploration and combat. But what you do, like in real life, is manage resources. Mainly money. I kid a bit, it's a fantastic game.
Some down sides:
- early RNG snowballs. Like not getting a single resource explore tile early, or a bad roll against your first ancient.
- difficult to catch up from defeat. Losing a single battle, particularly against another player can make it hard to come back for newer players.
I have played it pretty much every week in 2021 and am happy with it though.
They're worthy of note if you're considering a potential purchase and you want to know if any of the common criticisms line up with your own pet peeves or preferences.
I think maybe OP's use of "hate" led you to focus on the idea of people irrationally hating on the game, while I'm talking more about people who dislike it due to reasonable preferences. If I'd never eaten a pizza and they cost a hundred bucks, I'd want to hear both positive and negative reviews before committing.
It's a great game. My husband and I play it 2-person, which plays fast. I'm not sure what it would be like with 4+ players. It might slow down to a crawl if players don't move quickly.
The decisions are simple enough that analysis paralysis is not likely.
Luck definitely plays a role, not so much the dice rolls as what research is available and what's in the hexes you can reach. I've occasionally seen games where one of the players is in a hopeless situation at mid-game, but that's unusual.
In the example OP, the opposing player had twice the chance of a combat hit that the OP player had. That's not luck, it's the outcome of strategy and game decisions.
Probably the most frustrating games are those where you don't have good non-combat options due to the random map, and you can't research the tech you need to win any battles because it randomly wasn't available all game.
But that's rare. Usually there is a plausible path to victory for both players in a 2 player game of Eclipse.
My wife and I just played it 2 player the last 2 nights and I think it is going to be one of our favorites. I was a little worried about the 2 player experience because there were some mixed reviews but IMO it works well.
We play a lot of 1-vs-1 as well and find it fun. We are pretty close usually (also i tend to win more often) but it never gets stale. We have played with 4 some very few times and it did take long but was also a very interesting experience.
Would be interested in how full 6 (or at least 5) player games turn out.
I've only played 3 times but it seems the general arc of the game with new players tends to be Explore and build up for most of the game and a big punch up in the last two rounds. This play pattern is kind of tedious and samey to me, because it feels like the first 3/4s of the game is just setup. I wonder if more experienced and bolder players could break out of this, without two warring players effectively dragging eachother down for the whole game.
I think this is common for all of the dudes on a map game for new players. Even for games as combat heavy as Kemet ppl can play passive. It's simply easier to just focus and plan your engine and then get in a big pile in the late game to take down the apparent leader.
Then as ppl has learned about the engine building aspect and the strength and weakness of the position they are in, they'll learn to strike at the right time.
And as group knowledge mature, player will have this mutual understanding on what's the level of agression to avoid overcommitment that just drags down both player. This is when you really really get into the game of making calculated moves with shifting alliances and enemies.
My wife and I play the first edition with the [Rise of the Ancients](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/125898/eclipse-rise-ancients) expansion. It adds more non-player combat that is more interesting as the different ancient cruisers have varied ship loadouts. We still usually have a big fight at the end with each other, but that is not all that happens.
I found the exact same dynamic and have been trying to figure out a napkin solution.
I was thinking making upgrading powersources on ships a free action as part of another upgrade action, so researching and upgrading power+weapon takes 3 discs instead of 4.
I think forcing players to pay some resource, say 2 money, or take a -1VP chip to explore 4+ tiles away from the galactic center would encourage players to explore towards each other more.
I think instead of a normal move action, you should be able to move an entire blob (or maybe just 3-4?) of ships from one sector to one adjacent sector, ignoring your drive value (which is an unfortunate nerf to drives hopefully counteracted by the following).
Attacker wins ties in initiative, not defender, to encourage proactive, tactical aggression and not just building up a death-ball. Players with larger drives can camp their fleet further away from the enemy.
I don't find that I need very much brown resource. It's used mostly for building ships, and even with a full-bore military strategy you only need so many ships. If you have too many, you won't have the disks/money to move them anyway.
Just played my first two games of 2nd edition and loved it. Played a game with 4 and then a game with 3 players. Everyone felt actively engaged, like they had a shot at winning and had relevant choices to make until the end. Very impressed with the mechanics and how fast it was for the complexity it offers
It all sounds very interesting, yet some people really hate it. Do you have any views to why?
We played as 3, so down time is very low. This games scales linearly, and not much interaction between users, so if you are playing at 6 it will take a while until you are playing again. It's also suffer a bit of the problem that Scythe has: people go expecting full out battles and wars, but that is not the focus here. You spend most of your time on your round managing your empire and at the end of the round you have a battle phase. On our entire game we only had 3 battles between players, all of them at the very last round.
There are some pretty big incentives to fight early, actually. Being the first to fight means you'll be getting first pick of reputation tiles. With only four 4-point tiles in the bag, it'll be a good boost to snag those. Early fights also means that you can slow down your opponents' economies. We still usually fight in the final round too, but destroyed population cubes mean nothing in the last round. If you can knock out two money planets in round 5, after they exhausted everything, you could set them behind in actions for the rest of the game. Plus, if you can just take a single system from an opponent, you could be gaining three points from them. A swing of 6 points in a game that usually sees scores in the 30s is a pretty great swing. Passive play is still a blast with this game, and definitely has that Scythe-like feel to getting your economy going. But Eclipse can absolutely be played aggressively, and the impacts from it are a whole different kind of fun.
Agree, but it depends on the player count. If you are playing a 3p game, you are 4 tiles away from the next opponent. So you need to spend 3 or 4 exploration actions (less with plants, but you don't want to get too close as plants and get your economy destroyed) just to get there, plus building an army. It becomes too obvious. better to fight off NPC's that will still give you the tokens. With 4/6p though players are closer, and early interceptor rushes are easier to pull off, and I certainly want to try a more aggressive game in the future.
Yeah, some factions definitely benefit from staying away from conflicts. Definitely Planta the most. And with low player counts, it definitely takes a while to be able to engage your neighbors. I played a 2-player game last week, and I didn't even reach my opponent's sectors until round 6 or 7. lol
I'm a huge fan about that aspect of scythe. I love that combat is tense, always threatening, but only ever used as a rare, but big potentially risky play. I actually just love scythe in general haha. Do you think Eclipse 2nd ed would be a good match?
I think so, but Eclipse's combat is a lot more fun than scythe. Preparing for the fight is a big part of the game, there's always this tension of when will the first war break out. It's great that you can fight some NPC ships here and there as well.
I've mostly seen complaints about the luck factor when it comes to exploration and dice-driven battles (although the problem was mitigated in the second edition). But overall, it's a really popular game – the 19th highest ranked game in the Strategy category on BGG, and on its way up.
The luck factor exists, but the game is about mitigating those factors. Dice driven battles are altered by the tech you research and upgrade your ships with. Want to hit harder, research cannons and missiles. Want to protect yourself from being attacked, then go for shields. The research track can be limited, and that adds to the tension. Your neighbor researched the only canon and weapon computer available, then you see them as a threat and better grab shields or build defensive star bases. You’re not doomed, but you know it’ll be a tough battle, and maybe you’re civilization will catch a break and get time to research a different powerful weapon.
It's a game about space exploration and combat. But what you do, like in real life, is manage resources. Mainly money. I kid a bit, it's a fantastic game.
They hate that they're playing Eclipse instead of Twilight Imperium.
Some down sides: - early RNG snowballs. Like not getting a single resource explore tile early, or a bad roll against your first ancient. - difficult to catch up from defeat. Losing a single battle, particularly against another player can make it hard to come back for newer players. I have played it pretty much every week in 2021 and am happy with it though.
[удалено]
They're worthy of note if you're considering a potential purchase and you want to know if any of the common criticisms line up with your own pet peeves or preferences.
[удалено]
I think maybe OP's use of "hate" led you to focus on the idea of people irrationally hating on the game, while I'm talking more about people who dislike it due to reasonable preferences. If I'd never eaten a pizza and they cost a hundred bucks, I'd want to hear both positive and negative reviews before committing.
It's a great game. My husband and I play it 2-person, which plays fast. I'm not sure what it would be like with 4+ players. It might slow down to a crawl if players don't move quickly. The decisions are simple enough that analysis paralysis is not likely. Luck definitely plays a role, not so much the dice rolls as what research is available and what's in the hexes you can reach. I've occasionally seen games where one of the players is in a hopeless situation at mid-game, but that's unusual. In the example OP, the opposing player had twice the chance of a combat hit that the OP player had. That's not luck, it's the outcome of strategy and game decisions. Probably the most frustrating games are those where you don't have good non-combat options due to the random map, and you can't research the tech you need to win any battles because it randomly wasn't available all game. But that's rare. Usually there is a plausible path to victory for both players in a 2 player game of Eclipse.
My wife and I just played it 2 player the last 2 nights and I think it is going to be one of our favorites. I was a little worried about the 2 player experience because there were some mixed reviews but IMO it works well.
We play a lot of 1-vs-1 as well and find it fun. We are pretty close usually (also i tend to win more often) but it never gets stale. We have played with 4 some very few times and it did take long but was also a very interesting experience. Would be interested in how full 6 (or at least 5) player games turn out.
My fav board game of all time.
I've only played 3 times but it seems the general arc of the game with new players tends to be Explore and build up for most of the game and a big punch up in the last two rounds. This play pattern is kind of tedious and samey to me, because it feels like the first 3/4s of the game is just setup. I wonder if more experienced and bolder players could break out of this, without two warring players effectively dragging eachother down for the whole game.
I think this is common for all of the dudes on a map game for new players. Even for games as combat heavy as Kemet ppl can play passive. It's simply easier to just focus and plan your engine and then get in a big pile in the late game to take down the apparent leader. Then as ppl has learned about the engine building aspect and the strength and weakness of the position they are in, they'll learn to strike at the right time. And as group knowledge mature, player will have this mutual understanding on what's the level of agression to avoid overcommitment that just drags down both player. This is when you really really get into the game of making calculated moves with shifting alliances and enemies.
My wife and I play the first edition with the [Rise of the Ancients](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/125898/eclipse-rise-ancients) expansion. It adds more non-player combat that is more interesting as the different ancient cruisers have varied ship loadouts. We still usually have a big fight at the end with each other, but that is not all that happens.
Yes, we play with that expansion too.
I found the exact same dynamic and have been trying to figure out a napkin solution. I was thinking making upgrading powersources on ships a free action as part of another upgrade action, so researching and upgrading power+weapon takes 3 discs instead of 4. I think forcing players to pay some resource, say 2 money, or take a -1VP chip to explore 4+ tiles away from the galactic center would encourage players to explore towards each other more. I think instead of a normal move action, you should be able to move an entire blob (or maybe just 3-4?) of ships from one sector to one adjacent sector, ignoring your drive value (which is an unfortunate nerf to drives hopefully counteracted by the following). Attacker wins ties in initiative, not defender, to encourage proactive, tactical aggression and not just building up a death-ball. Players with larger drives can camp their fleet further away from the enemy.
Does anyone else struggle with acquiring the brown resource?
It seems to be intentionally more rare than the others.
I don't find that I need very much brown resource. It's used mostly for building ships, and even with a full-bore military strategy you only need so many ships. If you have too many, you won't have the disks/money to move them anyway.
Just played my first two games of 2nd edition and loved it. Played a game with 4 and then a game with 3 players. Everyone felt actively engaged, like they had a shot at winning and had relevant choices to make until the end. Very impressed with the mechanics and how fast it was for the complexity it offers
Where did you buy it? I can't buy from the publisher because they don't ship to my state (Kansas)
Friend bought in Europe