Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35142 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20818 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3494 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2074 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2582 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2250 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2494 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3014 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1971 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3692 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2619 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2289 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2505 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

Star Trek: Ascendancy

More
24 Aug 2016 11:41 #232725 by SuperflyPete
Replied by SuperflyPete on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

Ken B. wrote: I've never watched a single episode of the show. I rarely have trouble selling it to folks as a game where you run drugs, guns, make money, and shoot people. That is the definition of fun in a box.


I really need to send you a copy of Hoodrats.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Aug 2016 11:49 #232726 by Michael Barnes

Gary Sax wrote: Yo, anyone played this more? 2p?

I thought about putting it in a preorder but it's competing with another dumb size tranche of Armada ships which will probably win out.


I have 4 complete games in, 2 soloed. Another game didn't finish and I'm not counting a learning setup. It actually solos well- there's not as much to keep track of as you might think, you just kind have to improvise with the trade agreements/diplomacy angle.

I think two players, likewise, will actually work ok as long as you aren't concerned about the loss of dynamism the "third wheel" brings to the table.

I think it's going to win a prize.

But yeah, tough call between this and wave 4, very different things of course. Times like these I'm glad to get some stuff comped!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Aug 2016 14:08 - 24 Aug 2016 14:09 #232736 by hotseatgames
Replied by hotseatgames on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

Ken B. wrote: I've never watched a single episode of the show. I rarely have trouble selling it to folks as a game where you run drugs, guns, make money, and shoot people. That is the definition of fun in a box.


First, don't waste your time with the show, it's terrible.
Second, you would think so... but I have, more often than not, found the game to be rather dry.
Last edit: 24 Aug 2016 14:09 by hotseatgames.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Aug 2016 14:32 #232738 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Sons of Anarchy, dry? WTF. My games tend to have as much negotiation and shenanigans as Cosmic Encounter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Aug 2016 15:17 #232742 by JEM
Replied by JEM on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a eurogamer negotiate.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 09:04 #232767 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Hol-y shit. Finally played my copy last night. Wow.

First impression: fan-fucking-tastic. At first blush I think I still prefer Eclipse if I had to choose one 4x game to keep in my collection, but this game has the best exploration mechanisms I've ever seen (planets placed free-form, dramatic cards dictating events) and the Warp system is so damn cool. I really love the fleets as well.

Just so awesome. If it could shave a half hour off playtime and if player actions were interwoven and more granular (each player taking one action in turn instead of a player taking ALL of their actions at once with lots of downtime), this game could be a top 10er for me. The length and downtime though will likely keep it just out of reach.

Just first impressions though. Loved it. Everyone loved it, even hard to please guy.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, JEM

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 09:23 #232769 by Varys
Replied by Varys on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Release the game already! They apparently didn't sell out at Gen Con because they had tons of copies. I read they'll be selling it at some other con this week or next.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 09:31 - 26 Aug 2016 14:26 #232770 by southernman
Replied by southernman on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

charlest wrote: Hol-y shit. Finally played my copy last night. Wow.

First impression: fan-fucking-tastic. At first blush I think I still prefer Eclipse if I had to choose one 4x game to keep in my collection, but this game has the best exploration mechanisms I've ever seen (planets placed free-form, dramatic cards dictating events) and the Warp system is so damn cool. I really love the fleets as well.

Just so awesome. If it could shave a half hour off playtime and if player actions were interwoven and more granular (each player taking one action in turn instead of a player taking ALL of their actions at once with lots of downtime), this game could be a top 10er for me. The length and downtime though will likely keep it just out of reach.

Just first impressions though. Loved it. Everyone loved it, even hard to please guy.


On the interwoven turns suggestion, after your initial play (and Mike's few plays) would it be feasible to do this as a house rule or would it affect game play (and strategy, balance) too much ? For a 3-player game we could probably put up with big downtime but after being used to games like Runewars and Forbidden Stars that do threaded turns or shorter turn games as in Firefly it will probably reduce table time.
Last edit: 26 Aug 2016 14:26 by southernman.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 09:51 #232773 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
I don't see why it wouldn't work mechanically. It does nerf the bidding for turn order mechanic though tremendously.

I do think it would likely affect balance. Turn order leads to some interesting opportunities because if I go last I can respond to what you do or if I go first I can clog space lanes or initiate a fight before you get to go, etc.

I trust GF9 and my inclination is that the current turn structure is an important part of the game.

If you have three hours to kill and some willing participants it may be worth a shot to test it out.
The following user(s) said Thank You: southernman, Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 10:22 #232776 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Three hour play time is not concerning at all, but if that includes long bouts of downtime, that is a bit of a concern. That said, I'm picking it up for sure.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 10:26 #232777 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
Yes, 3 hours isn't terrible although at 4 hours with 4 players it starts to become not feasible on regular game night.

I can see downtime shrinking a little bit but not sure how much. Will play a few more times and see.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 10:52 #232780 by Feelitmon
Replied by Feelitmon on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
This game sounds really fun and I have pre-ordered it. It is interesting how player turns are not interwoven, the way modern games tend to do it. And hasn't Gale Force 9 talked about increasing the player count via expansions until conceivably we will be able to have a 5-, 6-, or 10-player game? Surely at some point they'll have to introduce a rule that addresses this issue.

Another option to the "one or two actions per turn" rule might be to allow for simultaneous turns where regions of the galaxy have not yet made contact. For example, at the beginning of an 8-player game, before anyone has made first contact, players 1 and 5 might take their turn at the same time, then 2 and 6, etc. Later, in the mid-game, you might separate players into two groups--those that have made first contact and those that have not--and then have those two groups working concurrently. I don't know, it sounds pretty messy, really, but they'll have to do something if they really are planning to increase the player count with each expansion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 10:59 #232782 by JEM
Replied by JEM on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy
GF9 changed the turn order in the X-Men game from Spartacus. It went from "play all cards" to an atomic turn structure. We played Spartacus that way once to see how it worked- it made the game longer as people started to AP about the micro-developments as others played one card a time. It changed the game from reacting to three players, to reacting to 15 card plays.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 11:06 #232784 by Michael Barnes
There are numerous options in the rules for accelerating the early game including simultaneous turns when no one has made contact. I think a couple of these options will help the time a lot and actually be critical for higher player counts.
The following user(s) said Thank You: southernman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Aug 2016 12:43 #232796 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic Star Trek: Ascendancy

Michael Barnes wrote: There are numerous options in the rules for accelerating the early game including simultaneous turns when no one has made contact. I think a couple of these options will help the time a lot and actually be critical for higher player counts.


A lot of games can benefit from "simulcast" turns as long as players agree not to fuck with other players. The OCS wargame system has this in several games where there are long stretches of pre positioning supplies, moving up rear area units, etc.

But I do agree with whoever upthread mentioned that as player counts increase, the lack of threaded SOP will start to drag games down.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.173 seconds