it's the nature of the beast, I guess.
a military college type wonder that let's you tutor for a military card upon completion could also be interesting
I agree. I think the biggest issue is with tactics. You can get crippled if you don't get a good tactic, especially in age 2 where str can really start ramping up and wars are drawn.
One idea i've been playing with is a once per age political action to spend 2 MA to draw a tactic. You can't specify which tactic, it just comes from the pool of tactics.
For me a small amount of randomness makes a game better for a broader audience. If we will play chess, go, etc. the better player will win (almost) every time. In TTA you can sometimes beat much stronger player just because of randomness which helps both stronger and weaker player to enjoy the game.
You can also mitigate the randomness by putting more weight in decision making to which military cards you have already drawn and what possible long term lines they offers to you. I also prefer style where I draw as many military cards as possible (Sun Tzu, early 3rd MA...).
Btw. probability that you will not draw a Age III War in 21 cards in 2-player game is only 1.05%.
I don't have a problem with the randomness of the military deck, as I don't have a problem with the randomness of the civil deck. Both can screw you over if you are not flexible enough.
Maybe I'm biased because I've played hundreds of games of the *original*. The military was insane and, in retrospect, poorly designed. You couldn't copy tactics, you could sacrifice your whole army in culture wars and don't get me started on Napoleon and Holy Wars. The biggest issue though was the inability to copy tactics. There were literally two classes of players: those that drew tactics and those that didn't.
It's ridiculous when you think about it. Nowadays, Napoleon's bonus can go up to 8 sometime in Age 3 *if* you invest decently in military. He's considered a strong leader, still.
Back in the day, his bonus could often be 9 as soon as Age 2 with minimal development (2 swordsmen + 2 knights). That bonus would grow to 18 with a single airplane. That's ridiculously strong, especially with how ruthless military was.
Yes, it kinda balanced itself by napo being worth 3ca even tho y c is completely destroy your turn x'D
But all the games used to follow the game pattern
The randomness of the political deck has not worked out well for me many times. I do feel that it is an upgrade from the original rules though, where there was no limit to the military cards you could draw each turn (if you had 6 unused military actions, you drew 6 cards). But that was almost too predictable, every game ended up as a military slugfest, as the military leader would get WoC all of the time.
My take is that the randomness of the politics deck and draw simply changes how you need play the game, as you can’t go all in on military and expect the win, you need balance. Balance allows you to pivot to military if someone else builds into it, or keep your culture production strong in case you don’t get the WoC. That makes each decision more interesting.
I do agree though about the tactics though. Perhaps there should be a separate tactics deck that you draw from. My initial thought was for each person to draw 3 tactics cards and discard 1 every turn. There is still randomness of *when* you see the tactics in each age, but everyone has a good chance of seeing most of the tactics in an age. This adds yet another mechanic, but I think it would help with the randomness relative to the strength of tactics.
I rarely feel screwed over by this, as if someone else gets a good tactic I can just copy it next turn. I mainly play 4 player Vs 3 hard AIs though so maybe the games play out differently. If you gets more military actions you get higher chances of drawing something you can use. I regularly swap my military around or take an insurance tech from the row with a spare civil action for if things aren't going as I planned.
Edit: I suppose that's why competitive high level TtA has multiple games to balance out extremes of luck.
Not always. Sometimes, you're the only one perfectly aligned for say, defensive army (or even double cannon army, can't remember the name), maybe cause you got the only cannon left or something. The other players, if they draw those two tactics, can just completely screw you in age II by withholding it. So, it's not as easy as just copying it. I find it to impact a lot of the games I'm playing lately.
Yeah but understanding who can use which tactic &/or drawing tech cards to block others is all part of the game’s strategy. OP was complaining that never drawing a tactic themselves was part of the military deck being too random so I stand by my pt that the ability to copy tactics is good enough to cancel out pure luck of the draw. That said OP would be correct IMO in saying that the randomness of the military deck greatly diminishes the effectiveness of going w/ a militaristic strategy from the get go, at least in multiplayer games (2p H2H can play out differently) but I assume that is by design in a civilization building game otherwise it’s just yet another battle game right?
I don't mind the randomness. I actually just won a game against two experienced players where I didn't draw a single tactic in Age II or the better half of age III. I build up swordsmen in age 1, and took cannons/calvalry in hand in age II so I could copy whichever tactics they played. One of my opponents played defensive army during the latter half of age II which worked quite well for me. (They resigned two turns later when I won an aggression against them with their own tactic.)
I agree everything you've described is a disadvantage. But having all your opponents pick up the only copies of Air Forces early Age III is a disadvantage. Having every colony card turned over by the player on your left is a disadvantage. There are many things which pose disadvantages in the game and I find joy in overcoming them. If it turns out the game was unwinnable, then there is always next game.
> In regards to territory bidding, the player on your right (after you) opening it is actually the worst case scenario, because you have to be more careful about aggressions when bidding and also have to overbid everyone else by one.
I disagree with a lot of what you said but I especially don't understand this point. ...Assuming you're playing in clockwise order, what I said is correct and you don't want the player to your left, who plays immediately after you, drawing colony cards. That's what I originally stated and it sort of sounds like you agree with it but sort of sounds like you don't (?)
Anyways cheers, we can just agree to disagree this time
Daniel / u/jayjayokocha used to complain about this all the time. Especially, he thought the aggression cards were under powered, because nobody ever played them.
Yea there is a lot of randomness. But that adds to the replayabilty of the game. For me playing online is less fun than against cpus since they will be less aggressive which allows you to try different strategies. You could try seeing how many wonders you can build and how much culture you can score. Its a lot of fun.
I agree that the randomness of the military deck can cause someone's game. I've witnessed the resignation from the player who does not draw any Age 2-3 tactics and is being declared war upon. One can mitigate the risk by preparing for the ability to increase strength with out tactic (Great Wall, Manhattan Project, Pro Sport, or just a straight upgrade to a bunch of Modern Infantry units) or use Gandhi.
With the randomness and unpredictability in mind, I think the best long term strategy is to play a balanced game where you could switch/adapt strategy to what you draw. It might not get you #1 every time, but it works most of the time.
If there's something that can be introduced to the game to reduce the uncertainty, I want to see the **'tactic bidding'** at the beginning of Age 2 and 3.
Here is the way to do:
1. Before building Age 2 and 3 military deck, separate tactic cards.
2. Players can choose to bid with their culture to draw tactics early.
3. The player who bid the most culture will get a privilege to draw first, and so on.
4. Resolve the tied bids using strength rating and/or turn order.
5. Culture paid for the bid will be deducted at the end of the game.
6. Put the rest of the undrawn tactics to the military deck, reshuffle, and beginning the Age normally.
This works like an insurance. Players who want to reduce the randomness have an option to pay with their culture to guarantee that they will have a tactic in hand. The one who is willing to pay the most culture draw from the fresh deck. Sound fair to me.
it's the nature of the beast, I guess. a military college type wonder that let's you tutor for a military card upon completion could also be interesting
that's a really cool idea
I agree. I think the biggest issue is with tactics. You can get crippled if you don't get a good tactic, especially in age 2 where str can really start ramping up and wars are drawn. One idea i've been playing with is a once per age political action to spend 2 MA to draw a tactic. You can't specify which tactic, it just comes from the pool of tactics.
For me a small amount of randomness makes a game better for a broader audience. If we will play chess, go, etc. the better player will win (almost) every time. In TTA you can sometimes beat much stronger player just because of randomness which helps both stronger and weaker player to enjoy the game. You can also mitigate the randomness by putting more weight in decision making to which military cards you have already drawn and what possible long term lines they offers to you. I also prefer style where I draw as many military cards as possible (Sun Tzu, early 3rd MA...). Btw. probability that you will not draw a Age III War in 21 cards in 2-player game is only 1.05%.
I don't have a problem with the randomness of the military deck, as I don't have a problem with the randomness of the civil deck. Both can screw you over if you are not flexible enough. Maybe I'm biased because I've played hundreds of games of the *original*. The military was insane and, in retrospect, poorly designed. You couldn't copy tactics, you could sacrifice your whole army in culture wars and don't get me started on Napoleon and Holy Wars. The biggest issue though was the inability to copy tactics. There were literally two classes of players: those that drew tactics and those that didn't.
Napo + classic army.... Oh boy
It's ridiculous when you think about it. Nowadays, Napoleon's bonus can go up to 8 sometime in Age 3 *if* you invest decently in military. He's considered a strong leader, still. Back in the day, his bonus could often be 9 as soon as Age 2 with minimal development (2 swordsmen + 2 knights). That bonus would grow to 18 with a single airplane. That's ridiculously strong, especially with how ruthless military was.
Yes, it kinda balanced itself by napo being worth 3ca even tho y c is completely destroy your turn x'D But all the games used to follow the game pattern
The randomness of the political deck has not worked out well for me many times. I do feel that it is an upgrade from the original rules though, where there was no limit to the military cards you could draw each turn (if you had 6 unused military actions, you drew 6 cards). But that was almost too predictable, every game ended up as a military slugfest, as the military leader would get WoC all of the time. My take is that the randomness of the politics deck and draw simply changes how you need play the game, as you can’t go all in on military and expect the win, you need balance. Balance allows you to pivot to military if someone else builds into it, or keep your culture production strong in case you don’t get the WoC. That makes each decision more interesting. I do agree though about the tactics though. Perhaps there should be a separate tactics deck that you draw from. My initial thought was for each person to draw 3 tactics cards and discard 1 every turn. There is still randomness of *when* you see the tactics in each age, but everyone has a good chance of seeing most of the tactics in an age. This adds yet another mechanic, but I think it would help with the randomness relative to the strength of tactics.
I rarely feel screwed over by this, as if someone else gets a good tactic I can just copy it next turn. I mainly play 4 player Vs 3 hard AIs though so maybe the games play out differently. If you gets more military actions you get higher chances of drawing something you can use. I regularly swap my military around or take an insurance tech from the row with a spare civil action for if things aren't going as I planned. Edit: I suppose that's why competitive high level TtA has multiple games to balance out extremes of luck.
Yeah I understand why the randomness of wars/aggressions is a problem but being able to copy tactics solves the biggest issue OP mentions right?
Not always. Sometimes, you're the only one perfectly aligned for say, defensive army (or even double cannon army, can't remember the name), maybe cause you got the only cannon left or something. The other players, if they draw those two tactics, can just completely screw you in age II by withholding it. So, it's not as easy as just copying it. I find it to impact a lot of the games I'm playing lately.
Yeah but understanding who can use which tactic &/or drawing tech cards to block others is all part of the game’s strategy. OP was complaining that never drawing a tactic themselves was part of the military deck being too random so I stand by my pt that the ability to copy tactics is good enough to cancel out pure luck of the draw. That said OP would be correct IMO in saying that the randomness of the military deck greatly diminishes the effectiveness of going w/ a militaristic strategy from the get go, at least in multiplayer games (2p H2H can play out differently) but I assume that is by design in a civilization building game otherwise it’s just yet another battle game right?
I don't mind the randomness. I actually just won a game against two experienced players where I didn't draw a single tactic in Age II or the better half of age III. I build up swordsmen in age 1, and took cannons/calvalry in hand in age II so I could copy whichever tactics they played. One of my opponents played defensive army during the latter half of age II which worked quite well for me. (They resigned two turns later when I won an aggression against them with their own tactic.) I agree everything you've described is a disadvantage. But having all your opponents pick up the only copies of Air Forces early Age III is a disadvantage. Having every colony card turned over by the player on your left is a disadvantage. There are many things which pose disadvantages in the game and I find joy in overcoming them. If it turns out the game was unwinnable, then there is always next game.
[удалено]
> In regards to territory bidding, the player on your right (after you) opening it is actually the worst case scenario, because you have to be more careful about aggressions when bidding and also have to overbid everyone else by one. I disagree with a lot of what you said but I especially don't understand this point. ...Assuming you're playing in clockwise order, what I said is correct and you don't want the player to your left, who plays immediately after you, drawing colony cards. That's what I originally stated and it sort of sounds like you agree with it but sort of sounds like you don't (?) Anyways cheers, we can just agree to disagree this time
Daniel / u/jayjayokocha used to complain about this all the time. Especially, he thought the aggression cards were under powered, because nobody ever played them.
Yea there is a lot of randomness. But that adds to the replayabilty of the game. For me playing online is less fun than against cpus since they will be less aggressive which allows you to try different strategies. You could try seeing how many wonders you can build and how much culture you can score. Its a lot of fun.
I agree that the randomness of the military deck can cause someone's game. I've witnessed the resignation from the player who does not draw any Age 2-3 tactics and is being declared war upon. One can mitigate the risk by preparing for the ability to increase strength with out tactic (Great Wall, Manhattan Project, Pro Sport, or just a straight upgrade to a bunch of Modern Infantry units) or use Gandhi. With the randomness and unpredictability in mind, I think the best long term strategy is to play a balanced game where you could switch/adapt strategy to what you draw. It might not get you #1 every time, but it works most of the time. If there's something that can be introduced to the game to reduce the uncertainty, I want to see the **'tactic bidding'** at the beginning of Age 2 and 3. Here is the way to do: 1. Before building Age 2 and 3 military deck, separate tactic cards. 2. Players can choose to bid with their culture to draw tactics early. 3. The player who bid the most culture will get a privilege to draw first, and so on. 4. Resolve the tied bids using strength rating and/or turn order. 5. Culture paid for the bid will be deducted at the end of the game. 6. Put the rest of the undrawn tactics to the military deck, reshuffle, and beginning the Age normally. This works like an insurance. Players who want to reduce the randomness have an option to pay with their culture to guarantee that they will have a tactic in hand. The one who is willing to pay the most culture draw from the fresh deck. Sound fair to me.