I've been playing Cosmic Encounters for years. I have the original, EONs, and Fantasy Flights (FFG) edition. We love this game and it has been one of my go to games for longer than I want to say. But for a long time it just sat on my shelf while the rest of life got in the way. So I recently picked up the FFG version and something happened that I don't recall. Really it is a few things.

1) The game can take a while. Really that isn't a problem unless it starts feeling drug out with no end in sight. Which is has a couple of times.

2) Playing a Negotiate so two people win in the end seems very cheesy to a few in our group. We're fighting, on and on only to have two people say 'we'll both take a planet and we'll both win'.

3) Last night we tried 'No joint victories' so it was 6 against one with everyone piling all of their ships on the defenders planet. The reasoning is, 'why not, if he wins the game is over anyway'.

So far we have not used Hazards or Tech and only have the Core, Incursion , Conflict and Alliance. We are really not looking to add any more expansions, satellites, etc. as it would be nice if what we have works.

What are your thoughts? Does the game seem to drag out sometimes? Do you stick to the rules and allow joint victories? What is your opinion? I do love the game, so what is the normal, best experience and way to play.

Thanks,

[Edit: Cross posted at BGG https://boardgamegeek.com/article/26332381 ]

Hi Ken. I've been playing for years also, all the way back to the original. I stick with the FFG version these days for a variety of reasons. One thing I love is that it's never the same game twice. I've sometimes had a game drag on, but that has been the exception. One of the original design goals of the game was to make sure that no one was eliminated from the game until it was over (so they wouldn't have to sit doing nothing while the others finished), and to make sure that there would not be a point in the game where you kept playing even though you knew who was going to win. I think they did that.

I don't think of shared victories as being cheesy at all; it's part of the strategy. One cool thing is that if 2 people are angling for joint victory, until negotiate cards are revealed (and sometimes after that), there are many opportunities for betrayal. All part of the fun as far as I'm concerned.

The piling on, even with shared victories, is also part of the game. It's one of the reasons that even someone with no alien bases, when the others are one base away from winning, still has a chance to improve their situation and win. Again, I think it adds to the fun.

I stick to the rules. One of the great things about the FFG version is the clarity of the rules and that it's easier for beginners to learn the game and enjoy it. I very seldom encounter disagreements over the rules. I seldom play with the optional rules, not because I don't want to use them, but because of the beginners attracted to the game, the basic rules are already at their threshold for complexity. I'd rather keep the extra players and ditch the optional rules, and I can occasionally convince people to try some of them.

Perhaps cheezy isn't the right word. But one thing I've noticed very clearly, is that in the last few games one or a couple of people get tired and say 'let's just end this'. It went as far as in the last game a player threw the game to someone else so he could go home. Anther time in a two player win, they openly said let's do this so we can play something else.

It is more than a matter of preference. When I hear things like this during a game then the general feeling is that it is taking too long. By the way, this is from a group that will play a 4 hour strategy game, so it isn't the actual length. Rather it is the impression and feeling the players have during this game.

Having said that the last few games were 6 to 8 people so maybe that is an issue too. Just getting one turn for eight people could take an hour.

CE is a game where it is pretty clear that the destination takes second place to the journey.

The group I play with allows shared wins, but I have a house rule that "A negotiation cannot result in a win." This makes for some interesting and fun negotiations towards the end of the game.

15 hours ago, jdu98a said:

The group I play with allows shared wins, but I have a house rule that "A negotiation cannot result in a win." This makes for some interesting and fun negotiations towards the end of the game.

If I understand correct 'Negotiation" cards cannot be played for the end. The could joint attack someone. Interesting idea.

The problem isn't really with the game or the rules. It just seems that in larger 8 player games most people are ready to just end the game, i.e. they want it over. That's not a good state for a game. I don't often see this is with 6 or fewer people. An 8 person game can last a few hours and we'll still only get three turns. What happens is nearly every attack has allies, otherwise you would be there all night.

Yeah, I feel ya on those 8 person games. They have the potential to stretch on if there isn't a power like the Winner or the Tick-Tock at the table. Something I've thought about trying, but have not had the opportunity yet, is instituting a house rule that artifact cards can only be used once per game (unless some alien power overrides that like the Vulch). Basically, once used, artifacts are removed from the game.

What i've noticed in large table games is that with so many players and so many cards always out there in people's hands it's almost impossible for there not to be several zaps ready to be played to prevent anyone from winning. As a result it takes forever until finally someone is able to muster overwhelming numbers or just get lucky to have a turn where no zaps are available in order to win. Like I said, I haven't tried it, but I'm guessing the removal of the artifacts in the end game would result in a quicker finish.