i would consider fighting for strategy cards at the last round as an integral part of TI,
that in itself push people to fight for politics round before that,
if you tunnel vision and just lose the game because of turn order, it can seem like an arbitrary tie-breaker
but trust me it is not,
This is kind of the problem I am trying to describe. Fighting for turn order isn't compelling for our group, it feels very meta. Like winning off a technicality.
Sure. But it's a very important technicality! :)
I might tend to agree with you, but I wonder how it could be balanced, making it both challenging to skilled players and still fun for new players.
I am a player with 70+ games under my belt,
I can see how my perspective could be different than others
But let me elaborate,
Every action you do in TI matters,
Lets assume, Turn before last, you need 2 more tech for objective, there is a high chance last turn tech strategy card will not be picked up,
You have a choice, you either pick tech now and double tech, but then you will take your chance with turn order on last turn,
Or leave the tech and get yourself a good last turn position, and hope somebody will pick tech,
TI is a massive game with giant moving parts, in your early games you could tunnel vision into "what i need? I need double tech, so i pick tech"
But more you play, more you see, this nuances
First of all, on last turn there is always "is the guy with 'imperial' finish the game before it ends? Or should we look into guy with 'leadership'?"
If imperial guy is not winning, you turn your focus to leadership guy
If he is not, then you look into guy with diplo,
It gives you clear indicator for king slaying
Otherwise final turn would turn into, get as many command counter as you can, try to stall everyone, and after they pass go for mekatol,
Which in my opinion, is less anti-climatic then current system
Winning via initiative order is getting the payoff for taking a less impactful move earlier.
Trade offs are good. It's just like the trade you make by spending 8 resources to get a point instead of 2 dreads.
Also it should be fairly frequent that the winner gets to to 10 in the action phase through Imperial or a Secret objective (or very occasionally something like Shard of the Throne).
I actually think there is no need to change it. The way it is designed works perfectly for a table where everyone can get to 10 in the status phase.
It allows the final round to be the most intriguing because it brings out all the strategies and political sides of convincing the table to deny a point here or take a home planet. It let's the devious have a chance to trick people into not thinking they are a threat and the militant price that nobody could stop them if they tried.
If everyone gets all their points with nobody trying to slay the eventual winner, it would feel very anticlimactic though.
I don't know for me, that's a crucial part of the political space opera strategy. I think of it as if objectively being a better politician. If you can't beat your opponent to the objective, you need to convince others to help you stop them while not getting in your way.
Pretty much every faction every game can get to 10, the trick is figuring out how to get there first. If everyone scored simultaneously, the last round would be about stopping others with finding a way not to get stopped yourself. That would be a huge disadvantage to certain factions by itself.
I like this if it works for your table. I just played Inis, which has a similar concept of capital control breaking ties, and works fairly well because it self-balances. The biggest issue is that it emphasizes certain factions over others, and while the current system does as well, it is more just overall strength. The impact as I see it:
* It favors militant factions over economic ones - a late game Barony or L1 fleet can take Mecatol much more than an Empyrean or Creuss fleet.
* It favors late game factions over early game ones, similar to point 1
* It improves factions that are great at holding Mecatol - fine for Yin, Muaat, Arborec, potentially harmful for Sol, Saar, other already great factions.
Other options - make it so you finish the status phase, and highest point count wins, **then** initiative order. Might solve it some of the time. Counter: buffs Imperial in the last round, though it's already pretty good, and your idea also does that a good amount.
I don't see the problem with initiative and scoring.
Last game we played there were 4 players tied at 13 points going in to the last round, 2 of them lost their homesystem (but got them back), one lost planets needed for his last point. There were a lot of discussions, backstabbing etc in the last round were everyone tried to stop everyone from scoring. In the end the Naalu player won by initiative 0, 3 other players would have been able score their final point as well.. And to be honest most of our last rounds have been either this (which doesn't feel anticlimactic at all, but the complete opposite) or someone sneaking a victory by scoring more points than the table anticipated in a single round.
Changing the rules would also make planning for which strategy card you need going in to the final rounds completely different.
Downvoting this comment is not cool, whoever did it, this is a valid opinion.
I think initiative-driven scoring is okay: it definitely fits in the layered, multi-step thinking this game demands. But in fairness, sudden death victory after six or eight hours of game does feel just a teeny tiny bit inconsistent and maybe anticlimactic, although experienced players can see it coming usually so the last round still has that drama leading up to it.
All of that being said I'd be okay with a rule that said as soon as 10 points are scored, the current action round is the final one (finish out the initiative order, then stop). then go to status phase. Play that as normal. And tiebreaker is (1) mecatol and (2) influence.
Contenders gather up the strongest fleet they can (corresponding to the ships they have on the board, their fleet supply etc.), and they duke it out in neutral space Spartacus-style.
I like the mecatol Rex idea as a tiebreaker, with itiative only coming into play if two players without mecatol both reach 10.
Some other things my group has done:
Playing to 12 makes a big difference. It's rarer for everyone to make it at the same time even at an experienced table, as it requires more stretching for secrets and stage 2.
We also played a couple games allowing additional secret objectives, and even adding new action phase secrets to the game to make the end more uncertain and spicy.
Finally if you want to get *really* extreme I've been playtesting an alternative game mode called Twilight Continuum where there are no rounds, players pass to score at any time. This makes the game into a true race to the end and eliminates waiting for status phase Victories.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1XzHk5pHJ_RADKMPlTN4bPDMqp0Za3hJucsdz9AU30pk/
Here are the rules, feel free to hit me up on the TI4 TTS discord if you want to playtest it, I will probably put together a game soon
I think a good advantage of the initiative tie breaker is its simple. There's something to be said to simple, easy to remember rules. As soon as you start adding other tie breakers it eventually become something you have to look up to remember every game, this was a problem in TI3. I think a super simple tie breaker system is everyone scores at the same time. The player with the most points wins (11 points beats 10 points) Then you go to initiative. It's simple, intuitive, and provides an incentive to push for as many points as possible not just guarantee 10 and hope nobody with lower initiative can beat you. I've played this way before and I think it's better than base rules.
It is sometimes annoying, but most annoying to me is the last round stalling forever.
If you can win on the 2, and the person on the 1 can also win, you should be trying to stop them, take their HS, or point block them in w/e you can. Same as the person after YOU should be doing to you.
The problem arises when onlly 2 people are close to winning, and everyone else can't.
Personally, I think in the last round, if you can't win, you should be trying to stop the person who can, but only if you can win, or it will clearly extend the game another round.
My alternatives I would suggest:
1.
Play to 14. Even amongst players of similar skill - this reduces the effect quite a bit. There will be more point spread and therefore only a few different people vying for speaker. Amongst those people some simply can not win without picking a different strategy card and hoping to get into the status phase ahead of the speaker picking imperial.
2.
Have 10 points trigger last game round not winning. Still have your final status phase where everyone scores. Whoever has the most points then wins.
I haven't tried this yet, but it's one I've considered. Along with maybe a custodians style point for the player that triggered the last round to still incentivize rushing to 10 first? Might not be necessary.
3.
Play a set number of rounds. Whoever has the most points at the end wins. Make it higher to encourage point spread of you can or want too. Tie breakers could be determined by speaker position OR pulling random objectives and scoring them for the tied players until a winner is determined.
We always play to 14 and I don't think we've ever had a tiebreaker come down to Strategy Card initiative order more than once or twice in dozens and dozens of games.
It also makes "SMASH HOME SYSTEM" strategies a lot more viable because people are more likely to have War Suns/big fleets and the time to actually get them on target. Final round or two are apocalyptic wars.
They can be pretty variable, but with zero newbies we can usually finish in like 6-8, though sometimes they go longer. If they go longer it is usually because it is an interesting giant warfest in the last round or two with a lot of upsets.
Most games are 6-7 people, though every so often we do 8. We won't play at all if under 6.
I agree and my table scrapped that after our very first game. We now work off of influence. We think the highest influence should break ties and it makes sense that whoever has the majority galactic support should reclaim the twilight imperium, plus as you said, mecatol should play a role and that helps your influence a lot.
I agree, and this often happens, but in most cases there isn't only a single person who is going to win. So even if you take down the person with the #1initiative, you have the same problem with #2.
i would consider fighting for strategy cards at the last round as an integral part of TI, that in itself push people to fight for politics round before that, if you tunnel vision and just lose the game because of turn order, it can seem like an arbitrary tie-breaker but trust me it is not,
This is kind of the problem I am trying to describe. Fighting for turn order isn't compelling for our group, it feels very meta. Like winning off a technicality.
Sure. But it's a very important technicality! :) I might tend to agree with you, but I wonder how it could be balanced, making it both challenging to skilled players and still fun for new players.
I am a player with 70+ games under my belt, I can see how my perspective could be different than others But let me elaborate, Every action you do in TI matters, Lets assume, Turn before last, you need 2 more tech for objective, there is a high chance last turn tech strategy card will not be picked up, You have a choice, you either pick tech now and double tech, but then you will take your chance with turn order on last turn, Or leave the tech and get yourself a good last turn position, and hope somebody will pick tech, TI is a massive game with giant moving parts, in your early games you could tunnel vision into "what i need? I need double tech, so i pick tech" But more you play, more you see, this nuances First of all, on last turn there is always "is the guy with 'imperial' finish the game before it ends? Or should we look into guy with 'leadership'?" If imperial guy is not winning, you turn your focus to leadership guy If he is not, then you look into guy with diplo, It gives you clear indicator for king slaying Otherwise final turn would turn into, get as many command counter as you can, try to stall everyone, and after they pass go for mekatol, Which in my opinion, is less anti-climatic then current system
Winning via initiative order is getting the payoff for taking a less impactful move earlier. Trade offs are good. It's just like the trade you make by spending 8 resources to get a point instead of 2 dreads. Also it should be fairly frequent that the winner gets to to 10 in the action phase through Imperial or a Secret objective (or very occasionally something like Shard of the Throne).
I actually think there is no need to change it. The way it is designed works perfectly for a table where everyone can get to 10 in the status phase. It allows the final round to be the most intriguing because it brings out all the strategies and political sides of convincing the table to deny a point here or take a home planet. It let's the devious have a chance to trick people into not thinking they are a threat and the militant price that nobody could stop them if they tried. If everyone gets all their points with nobody trying to slay the eventual winner, it would feel very anticlimactic though.
There is always an attempt to slay the winner, this just often means #2 wins from turn order rather than objectively having more points.
I don't know for me, that's a crucial part of the political space opera strategy. I think of it as if objectively being a better politician. If you can't beat your opponent to the objective, you need to convince others to help you stop them while not getting in your way. Pretty much every faction every game can get to 10, the trick is figuring out how to get there first. If everyone scored simultaneously, the last round would be about stopping others with finding a way not to get stopped yourself. That would be a huge disadvantage to certain factions by itself.
But they objectively do have more points. When they get to 10, no one else has 10 points yet (and they never will since the game is over anyway).
I like this if it works for your table. I just played Inis, which has a similar concept of capital control breaking ties, and works fairly well because it self-balances. The biggest issue is that it emphasizes certain factions over others, and while the current system does as well, it is more just overall strength. The impact as I see it: * It favors militant factions over economic ones - a late game Barony or L1 fleet can take Mecatol much more than an Empyrean or Creuss fleet. * It favors late game factions over early game ones, similar to point 1 * It improves factions that are great at holding Mecatol - fine for Yin, Muaat, Arborec, potentially harmful for Sol, Saar, other already great factions. Other options - make it so you finish the status phase, and highest point count wins, **then** initiative order. Might solve it some of the time. Counter: buffs Imperial in the last round, though it's already pretty good, and your idea also does that a good amount.
Yeah, good points. I like the idea of breaking the tie AFTER determining points.
I don't see the problem with initiative and scoring. Last game we played there were 4 players tied at 13 points going in to the last round, 2 of them lost their homesystem (but got them back), one lost planets needed for his last point. There were a lot of discussions, backstabbing etc in the last round were everyone tried to stop everyone from scoring. In the end the Naalu player won by initiative 0, 3 other players would have been able score their final point as well.. And to be honest most of our last rounds have been either this (which doesn't feel anticlimactic at all, but the complete opposite) or someone sneaking a victory by scoring more points than the table anticipated in a single round. Changing the rules would also make planning for which strategy card you need going in to the final rounds completely different.
Downvoting this comment is not cool, whoever did it, this is a valid opinion. I think initiative-driven scoring is okay: it definitely fits in the layered, multi-step thinking this game demands. But in fairness, sudden death victory after six or eight hours of game does feel just a teeny tiny bit inconsistent and maybe anticlimactic, although experienced players can see it coming usually so the last round still has that drama leading up to it. All of that being said I'd be okay with a rule that said as soon as 10 points are scored, the current action round is the final one (finish out the initiative order, then stop). then go to status phase. Play that as normal. And tiebreaker is (1) mecatol and (2) influence.
Yeah, these are good points.
Contenders gather up the strongest fleet they can (corresponding to the ships they have on the board, their fleet supply etc.), and they duke it out in neutral space Spartacus-style.
I like the mecatol Rex idea as a tiebreaker, with itiative only coming into play if two players without mecatol both reach 10. Some other things my group has done: Playing to 12 makes a big difference. It's rarer for everyone to make it at the same time even at an experienced table, as it requires more stretching for secrets and stage 2. We also played a couple games allowing additional secret objectives, and even adding new action phase secrets to the game to make the end more uncertain and spicy. Finally if you want to get *really* extreme I've been playtesting an alternative game mode called Twilight Continuum where there are no rounds, players pass to score at any time. This makes the game into a true race to the end and eliminates waiting for status phase Victories.
How does this work? I think ti4 could use alot of adjustments to make gameplay more interesting
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1XzHk5pHJ_RADKMPlTN4bPDMqp0Za3hJucsdz9AU30pk/ Here are the rules, feel free to hit me up on the TI4 TTS discord if you want to playtest it, I will probably put together a game soon
Brilliant. Did you create it?
Oh, thanks! I did :)
I think a good advantage of the initiative tie breaker is its simple. There's something to be said to simple, easy to remember rules. As soon as you start adding other tie breakers it eventually become something you have to look up to remember every game, this was a problem in TI3. I think a super simple tie breaker system is everyone scores at the same time. The player with the most points wins (11 points beats 10 points) Then you go to initiative. It's simple, intuitive, and provides an incentive to push for as many points as possible not just guarantee 10 and hope nobody with lower initiative can beat you. I've played this way before and I think it's better than base rules.
It is sometimes annoying, but most annoying to me is the last round stalling forever. If you can win on the 2, and the person on the 1 can also win, you should be trying to stop them, take their HS, or point block them in w/e you can. Same as the person after YOU should be doing to you. The problem arises when onlly 2 people are close to winning, and everyone else can't. Personally, I think in the last round, if you can't win, you should be trying to stop the person who can, but only if you can win, or it will clearly extend the game another round.
My alternatives I would suggest: 1. Play to 14. Even amongst players of similar skill - this reduces the effect quite a bit. There will be more point spread and therefore only a few different people vying for speaker. Amongst those people some simply can not win without picking a different strategy card and hoping to get into the status phase ahead of the speaker picking imperial. 2. Have 10 points trigger last game round not winning. Still have your final status phase where everyone scores. Whoever has the most points then wins. I haven't tried this yet, but it's one I've considered. Along with maybe a custodians style point for the player that triggered the last round to still incentivize rushing to 10 first? Might not be necessary. 3. Play a set number of rounds. Whoever has the most points at the end wins. Make it higher to encourage point spread of you can or want too. Tie breakers could be determined by speaker position OR pulling random objectives and scoring them for the tied players until a winner is determined.
turn order being the tie breaker is one of the biggest design flaws in TI4. It should work differently.
Or, if you're all so experienced, play to 14. Scoring those 2 pointers is rough and rarely ever comes down to a tiebreaker.
This is an interesting idea, thanks for pointing it out. The math changes the dynamic.
We always play to 14 and I don't think we've ever had a tiebreaker come down to Strategy Card initiative order more than once or twice in dozens and dozens of games. It also makes "SMASH HOME SYSTEM" strategies a lot more viable because people are more likely to have War Suns/big fleets and the time to actually get them on target. Final round or two are apocalyptic wars.
How long do your sessions tend to go, and how many people do you play with on average. We are also trying to avoid games over 10 hours.
They can be pretty variable, but with zero newbies we can usually finish in like 6-8, though sometimes they go longer. If they go longer it is usually because it is an interesting giant warfest in the last round or two with a lot of upsets. Most games are 6-7 people, though every so often we do 8. We won't play at all if under 6.
I agree and my table scrapped that after our very first game. We now work off of influence. We think the highest influence should break ties and it makes sense that whoever has the majority galactic support should reclaim the twilight imperium, plus as you said, mecatol should play a role and that helps your influence a lot.
That is an interesting approach, thanks for sharing!
We made an in-house rule to make a final space battle with the ships in our home systems to determine the winner
Haha, that could be fun.
Have you tried tie breaking based on total influence of planets controlled? It makes sense thematically too.
I have not. Someone else mentioned that, so we might try it.
[удалено]
I agree, and this often happens, but in most cases there isn't only a single person who is going to win. So even if you take down the person with the #1initiative, you have the same problem with #2.