Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

O
oliverkinne
February 07, 2023
278 0
O
oliverkinne
February 01, 2023
542 0
T
thegiantbrain
January 31, 2023
238 0
O
oliverkinne
January 31, 2023
409 0
O
oliverkinne
January 30, 2023
1162 0

Soulaween Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
January 27, 2023
934 0
O
oliverkinne
January 26, 2023
408 0

Aves Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
S
Sagrilarus
January 25, 2023
414 0
O
oliverkinne
January 24, 2023
435 0
W
We-reNotWizards
January 24, 2023
436 0
T
thegiantbrain
January 23, 2023
529 0

Hardback Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
S
Sagrilarus
January 20, 2023
393 0
O
oliverkinne
January 20, 2023
1156 0

Outpost 18 Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
January 05, 2023
997 0

Villagers Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
T
thegiantbrain
January 05, 2023
859 0
O
oliverkinne
January 03, 2023
1426 0
×
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.

× WELCOME TO TRASHDOME!

This is part of a series of bloody matches to the death. Show support for your favorite game so it will do better in the fight. You can support it by writing why you think its the better game and more importantly by betting (i.e. voting for) it. Please make it clear for when I check the bets later. You have until Friday when I tally the bets and declare the winner. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.

Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;

Two games enter! One game leaves!

Trashdome: Mare Nostrum vs Cyclades

More
16 May 2013 13:48 #152314 by ChristopherMD
Two games enter. One game leaves.

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

More
16 May 2013 14:08 #152318 by Matt Thrower
What, really?

Mare Nostrum

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

More
16 May 2013 14:10 #152319 by dysjunct
MN is the better game, but Cyclades is a lot more robust. Scales players easier, doesn't break down if people don't know how to stop Egypt, etc.

Vote: Cyclades.

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

More
16 May 2013 14:15 #152321 by san il defanso
I feel like we might have done this one before...

It's closer than I thought it would be. If we did do it before, I bet that Mare Nostrum won handily. I don't think that would be the case around here anymore.

Cyclades has settled into a pretty strong position. It's a lot faster and lot more fighty. I (like Michael and Pete) traded away my copy, but unlike them I don't really regret it. I like how brutal the auction is, but between the tension there and the volatile nature of the mythological creatures, I always found it a little too...I guess the word is tense. I think it also has a tendency where it can be easy to win on accident. Like, circumstances line up that suddenly allow you to win in a turn. I don't know if that's a problem, but I think it's there. It's a great game though, nasty and intense.

Mare Nostrum has its own problems. It's a more fragile game, and it really needs an experienced group to work well. The metagame is practically required, because the ruleset doesn't do much heavy lifting in terms of balance. What I really like though is the way that it packs a huge epic experience into a three-hour game with a minimum of rules and fuss. And I really love the balancing act it pulls off when everything comes together. There's a slightly higher failure rate, but still my vote goes towards...

Mare Nostrum
The following user(s) said Thank You: dragonstout

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

More
16 May 2013 14:30 #152324 by Matt Thrower

dysjunct wrote: Vote: Cyclades.


Someone remind me how bans work?

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

More
16 May 2013 14:37 - 16 May 2013 14:38 #152325 by ChristopherMD

MattDP wrote: What, really?


San Il Defanso's reply was more than worth reading. So yeah, really.

For me its never about the votes. Its about the discussion.
Last edit: 16 May 2013 14:38 by ChristopherMD.

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

More
16 May 2013 14:55 #152326 by Matt Thrower

Mad Dog wrote: San Il Defanso's reply was more than worth reading. So yeah, really.

For me its never about the votes. Its about the discussion.


Anything for you, Mr. Dog.

The short answer is that I own both and have traded neither, but I've played Mare Nostrum multiple times, and several of the groups I've played it with have requested back-on-back games. Cyclades I've played once and everyone forgot about it.

The long answer is that Cyclades is, like most combative Euros, a rag-bag collection of mechanics thrown together in the name of diversity, interest and balance. There's nothing essentially wrong with that, but it's not new or unique and several other games do it better in a similar play time/complexity window: Imperial and Wallenstein leap to mind.

That doesn't make Cyclades bad. It just makes it worse than Mare Nostrum which uniquely manages to fit all the essential elements of a civilization game into 2-3 hours (yes, I've played it in 2, several times) with bags more mythological and classical flavour, bags more direct interaction and bags more re-playability. It's a phenomenon, an incredible game.

I don't understand this suggestion that Mare Nostrum is somehow "fragile". It has a simple and superb self-balancing mechanic in the need to spend a turn consolidating a territory before benefiting from it. It does need 4+ players. It benefits hugely from the expansion. But get both of those and you're guaranteed a good game.

Will that do? Now can we ban Dysjunct?

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

More
16 May 2013 15:39 #152338 by Juniper
I haven't played either of these, so I should probably be banned before dysjunct.

If given the choice of trying either game, I'd probably ask for Mare Nostrum. Cyclades looks fun, but Mare Nostrum looks unique and special.

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

More
16 May 2013 17:17 #152349 by SuperflyPete

dysjunct wrote: MN is the better game, but Cyclades is a lot more robust. Scales players easier, doesn't break down if people don't know how to stop Egypt, etc.

Vote: Cyclades.


THIS.


Attachment Cyclades.gif not found

Attachments:

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

More
16 May 2013 17:28 - 16 May 2013 17:32 #152350 by dragonstout
Last edit: 16 May 2013 17:32 by dragonstout.

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

More
16 May 2013 17:42 #152352 by ChristopherMD

dragonstout wrote: No......really?

fortressat.com/forum/32-trashdome/74466-...-nostrum-vs-cyclades

and

fortressat.com/forum/32-trashdome/98561-...trum-closes-july-3rd

I guess Mad Dog needs to do this every year?


In my defense I didn't start both of those. Also I'm lucky if I remember internet posts from last month nevermind three years ago.

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

More
16 May 2013 20:29 #152359 by dragonstout

Mad Dog wrote: I'm lucky if I remember internet posts from last month nevermind three years ago.

I think it's a bad sign for myself when that's what my brain is apparently being put to use for...
The following user(s) said Thank You: san il defanso

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

More
16 May 2013 21:11 #152360 by DukeofChutney
I havent played Mare Nostrum, though it remains on the want in trade stack.

I traded off my copy of Cyclades and did not regret it. I've always felt the game didn't give enough turn by turn DOAM satisfaction as you could only really do something awesome if you won your auctions in the right order or had enough cash to burn through the beast deck. IN my group someone usually won by hardly fighting and just building their way to victory euro style.

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

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.176 seconds