- Posts: 2584
- Thank you received: 1802
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.
John Company
I would like to take it for a spin now that it's stabilizing a bit. We managed to step on a few rakes in the last 1e game, and I think the "zombie company" aspect that you can slot into in the 10-turn scenario isn't as present in 2e.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Not Sure wrote: However, my casual reading is that Cole is doing his own thing and treating this as data points at best.
I recently listened to the Ludology episode linked on the first page of this thread where Cole and co. discussed their approaches to playtesting. The conversation was in the context of Root but your summary above kind of aligned with how I felt Cole approaches playtesting. He seems to work on identifying the problem and then extracting the signal from the noise (conversation on playtesting starts around the 27th minute).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Not Sure wrote:
mezike wrote: ...I don't think [secret scoring] belongs in a game like this...
I'm of mixed opinions about all of that. I mean, isn't the machiavellian plotting somewhat richer with some hidden threats to fuzz up the info? I think some sand in the gears helps there, if only to keep point-counting from bogging things down.
...
The real odd part is that "secret" info is less than secret based on spending order, which set up this whole situation.
You make good points, although I still find it jarring. For me the manipulation in JoCo is a product of both physically seeding your intent into the Company with family member placements, sometimes a couple of turns ahead so that they are well placed for when they will be needed, and the negotiation element leading to faction forming and dissolution. This is why I find it a harsh angle to have a 'secret plot' introduced that literally boils down to collecting something to score VPs - this will sound terribly pompous but there is no artifice to it. Maybe it is just that one card that sounds like a good idea but is a bit weird in practice. The other thing that I will point out is that the chaos and unreliability in action resolution never made 1e feel like it was devolving into bean counting despite the lack of secret scoring.
edit: just thought about it a bit more and I feel like it would have made more sense if those secret cards were granting Power rather than VPs, but I also recognise that I know nothing about how all of this has evolved through playtesting so that's just a knee-jerk reaction. There were a couple of funky cards in 1e that we always used to toss out of the deck before setup so that promises card might just end up suffering a similar fate.
As to the other point you made,
Not Sure wrote: edit: And of course, we haven't even seen the 2e private firms yet, which were my favorite part of the 1e game...
I totally agree! I think that we will play quicker now that we are familiar with the flow of 2e so I am super keen to try this out. Family firms changed the context of so much of 1e so I'm looking forward to finding out what kind of impact it has now.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 12707
- Thank you received: 8343
A game I'd compare it to is Argent. To the extent the "most of X" scoring works it's because everyone gets a good amount of most of the things you score for intrinsic reasons, so you can compete for a good and the other players can block you, even inadvertently. It also makes looking at face down objective cards a resource a little like JC but even moreso.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Seeing a lot of Secret Prestige out should activate the Argent (what are they collecting?) senses for sure. Another quirk in our deck was that none of the voting-related Prestige cards (Rotten Borough, Newspapers) ever appeared at all, which I think nerfed the PM fight a bit. We were very heavy on Secret Prestige, with something like 6/10 appearing in our top half of the deck.
For the appeal (or lack of) of Secret Prestige and "aha" scoring moments, I definitely see Mezike's points as well. I tend to like a little bit of muddled motivation, but I really don't know how important that is in this game.
I think there's a lot of variability, and more than ever I'm wary of judging anything on one relatively short-handed play.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 12707
- Thank you received: 8343
This is a great game. I think I like it better than 1st ed but I'm not sure. It does have a distinct flavor from the original with much, much heavier considerations at home. It's a different thing. I think a lot of the rougher edges of the original are now handled better---the domestic politics House of Commons stuff is incredibly interesting and influential now. The Company positions have more meaningful powers. The Company is harder to tip over against the will of the majority of other players because the other players can buy up the debt of the company while simultaneously buying shares which shores up the Company. I am finally on board with the promise deeds instead of the promise cubes, their powers are distinct and interesting; my game probably hinged on my lack of killer instinct in taking the prime ministership and forcing sornars to vote against a bill.
Anyway, so it's good. I think 3p is still a little wonky, this game was made for more players ideally I think. I think the lack of writers in the game is a legitimate design problem at 3p and on a personal level I do not really like the secret scoring cards with that number of players either, I think they are worth too many VP too tbh.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
The political side of the game is fantastic - both the India events and Domestic events are hugely impactful. The India events make India feel like an organic living thing with agency that is independent of the company. From a gameplay perspective this is fantastic as the depth of potential outcomes is deep. The Pandemic style Shuffle chip is also great as places that have seen lots of activity will continue to show up time and again.
In 1e I felt like the India event deck was mechanical and abstract in what it did to India but while bad from a game perspective, it really solidified the perspective of the player as a British person who was only interested in politics in India as an abstract and mechanical problem. In that sense, this new living and breathing India softens the critique of 1e in which you were clearly a selfish person trying to achieve status. This perspective shift is reinforced by the event card layout as in 1e the most important part of the card was the headline which focused on British problems whereas the crisis in India was just a corner of the card. By separating the two decks it feels implied that both things are of equal importance (which in game terms they are). I'm aware of the component constraints Cole was working under in 1e but I believe that this is a case where constraints forced the author to ruthlessly prioritize what's important to the game and thus strengthen the argument being made.
On the domestic side - In 1e there were a lot of times where a player didn't care about the law being passed and that holds true in 2e but the round robin structure of voting means that even if you don't care about the law being passed you have a lot of leverage over the people that do care. It's especially great because the PM can keep things going so you can extract concessions that end up being worthless in very short order; it's vicious and cruel and I love it even if it felt a little gamey. Not Sure and I ended up wasting ~15 credits fighting each other for votes and that put us very behind Gary Sax for a few turns. I'm not sure how I feel about the power track in the upper right. I love that it's dynamic but it's dynamism is constrained by whatever pops up out of the law deck. I had no interest in luxuries but it was almost impossible to get it from the top to the bottom in the span of the 1710 game, without getting lucky, despite being PM for most of the game.
On setup cards - I absolutely love these. They provide an asymmetric starting position which you can easily pivot away from if need be with such a low component and rules overhead.
On secret goals - I got handed one from the start and I think that that is extremely powerful (over picking from the London Season), especially since it happened to mildly synergise with my other starting assets. The reason I think that this is powerful is to get a Secret Card that no one else has seen mid game you need to outspend your opponents in retirements that phase. The costs to do that are highly variable but assuming someone else is retiring in the same phase as you, that would probably cost at least £2-4. I think my setup card with a Secret Prestige Card was paired with £3 making that setup card worth about £5-£7.
I appreciate that if someone has Secret Cards you need to look at what they're collecting but in 3p the opportunity to compete on whatever that is is so limited as you almost naturally specialise so it's not often worth the opportunity cost of not doubling down on your specialty. I think the real issue in our game is that we saw a ton of Spouses and those seem wildly overcosted in relation to other options from the Season. The restrictions they add are extremely onerous and the VPs don't seem worth it unless it's near the end of the game. Maybe you should be allowed to do a blind pull from the deck if you don't like any of the three things on display (maybe only available to the person who spent the most?).
I've written a lot of words and shared a lot of thoughts but I recognise that this was only my first game of a game who's rules I'm still a bit shaky on. The feeling I got while playing was electric, but not quite as electric as my first time playing 1e which I think will remain the more interesting critique while this is almost guaranteed to be the better game. I can't wait to play again (hopefully at 4p)!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 12707
- Thank you received: 8343
Workshop two votes and one auto dollar is a very strong power, I might consider it next game to backstop myself.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 12707
- Thank you received: 8343
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jackwraith
- Away
- Ninja
- Maim! Kill! Burn!
- Posts: 4364
- Thank you received: 5684
Gary Sax wrote: I uh did not expect our game report to get a serious development discussion and exploratory beta branch.
I have no idea what this means.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
He also mentioned that there was only a few more weeks of development time available on the (already delayed) production timeline.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Interested to see what comes of it. I'd really like to see if we can get it scheduled some more.
The thing I felt somewhat keenly this time is that the 1710 short scenario is too short. This might sound stupid given that it took us almost 3 hours to play, but we're still in the cross-checking rules a lot stage. The actual number of turns is so tiny that pursuing the wrong path early can really sideline you (like military becoming a non-factor after I'd invested 40% of my family actions into it).
If the playtime starts to come down when the mechanics get internalized, I really feel like 5 turns is going to feel over almost before it begins.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 12707
- Thank you received: 8343
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.