Thanks tofubones.

What do you mean by 'analysis paralysis'?

I am hopefully going to try Conquest tomorrow evening, so if I like it I will need to break out the piggy bank!

I've been playing Netrunner since July, and I just played my first game of Conquest last night with a player who had only played one game before.

Conquest is OK, but I didn't get immediate urge to go out and buy all of the packs and build a deck that I had when I played my first game of Netrunner. My expectation for the game would be that it would be easier to teach people than Netrunner, but I think because of the fact that there are 3 different phases with their own timing structures makes it about as bad in that regard.

Thanks tofubones.

What do you mean by 'analysis paralysis'?

I am hopefully going to try Conquest tomorrow evening, so if I like it I will need to break out the piggy bank!

"Analysis Paralysis", or AP as commonly known, is a condition where a player, during their turn, is mentally stuck on a particular game decision, extending the game time and frustrating the other player(s). It's prevalent in most games to some degree, but some games nowadays use "housekeeping" elements to help pass the time for players when it's not their turn. Things like allowing instant events to be played, drawing cards, drawing/mixing dice, and simultaneous turns help reduce AP, creating more flow to a game.

tl:dr version:"Analysis Paralysis" is a term used to describe when a player is mentally stuck finishing their turn.

Thanks tofubones.

What do you mean by 'analysis paralysis'?!

It's been awhile since I played CoC, so I may have some of the details wrong. CoC is a you go I go game, similar to magic. So anyone I defend with will be able to attack next turn, but whoever attacks will probably not be able to defend. CoC also an icon resolution mechanic that occurs in a specific order, with the player with the most icons getting a benefit. Also there are 3 potential battle sites. I think the attacker assigns first. And basically the mental math of the icon resolution plus who the defender 'might' assign and where can be too much for some people.

CoC is a decent game, but unless you are in love with the theme, there are probably better options, ie 40k.

Ok,

So I keep seeing people say that Netrunner is more complicated and that Conquest is not. It is exactly the opposite. Netrunner has several ways to do the exact same thing. Grab some econ, build a rig, and grab Agendas. Alternately, build econ and try to rush agendas through before the runner gets his rig built. It gives the appearance of complexity, but in reality it is almost entirely dependent on your opposing card draws to see how it plays out. Despite the bluffing mechanics, there is almost always a best play based on what you have drawn. Netrunner feels complex when you first start, but becomes less so as you gain knowledge of the game.

Conquest seemed very simple when we first started playing it, but as my playgroup has gained knowledge it has become much more complex. It has enough resources (cards and credits) that you are making real choices every turn, rather than simply playing whatever you drew/can afford. It has a very solid balance between winning early planets and setting up for the long game. It also has a very large element of bluff.

Conquest is a much deeper game than it first appears. As you keep playing you will realize how much more there is under the surface. It is an excellent game.

Ok,

So I keep seeing people say that Netrunner is more complicated and that Conquest is not. It is exactly the opposite. Netrunner has several ways to do the exact same thing. Grab some econ, build a rig, and grab Agendas. Alternately, build econ and try to rush agendas through before the runner gets his rig built. It gives the appearance of complexity, but in reality it is almost entirely dependent on your opposing card draws to see how it plays out. Despite the bluffing mechanics, there is almost always a best play based on what you have drawn. Netrunner feels complex when you first start, but becomes less so as you gain knowledge of the game.

Conquest seemed very simple when we first started playing it, but as my playgroup has gained knowledge it has become much more complex. It has enough resources (cards and credits) that you are making real choices every turn, rather than simply playing whatever you drew/can afford. It has a very solid balance between winning early planets and setting up for the long game. It also has a very large element of bluff.

Conquest is a much deeper game than it first appears. As you keep playing you will realize how much more there is under the surface. It is an excellent game.

You have a point. Maybe I need to play more games to really see the subtleties in the game. I know with Netrunner, I had to invest a lot of headspace because there was many ways to do the same thing. In addition, the bluffing was just...ever present. In Conquest, to me it seemed simpler, but with the same complexity.

I'm not refuting your statement at all, I think maybe I'm not thinking deep enough.