Hi there;

In our group, we think that the 1st player is at a big disanvantage, so we house ruled that he get to buils the map all by himself;

so he might build a balanced map, because the games we tried before, the first player was pretty much screwed from the start, being stuck between 2 players, things like that.

What do you think?

It's a good way to avoid a build up of three strong starting positions vs. one weak.

But in my opinion the shape of the hex tiles (2 to 4 hexes) does not let you build a real "weak" position. In comparison to TI3 you dont have any blank hexes which can decide the game before it has begun.

I don't see the first player's disadvantage being that big. The first player still gets to choose where the start markers go. He thus gets to put them in places where all spots have their plusses and minuses. Sure, maybe one will be in the middle - but maybe it's got the best resources, allowing that player to build up early. Maybe one will be in a lower-resource area - but can be more well defended.

I think that no matter how the map is built, the first player can place the markers in such a way that there is no one single "awful place". It may take a little work to find, but I don't see it happening with enough thought.

Of course, having a single player build the map can lead to cooler maps, too!

i like the idea of having one player make the map and starting locations and pick last...

reminds me of being a kid and having one piece of cake to split between two kids.

1st kid cuts, second kid gets first pick of the piece to eat.... That makes for some careful cutting!

mateooo said:

I saw a funny video about this once in a college class. It had two little girls having this problem - a piece of cake needed to be shared. It went through various scenarios of how to do it, such as "one cuts, and takes the one she wants", "one cuts, the other picks", and "mom cuts and divides".

The funniest one was one of the little girl who picks up the knife to cut, thinks for a second, then takes the plate with the cake, holds the knife out in warning, and walks away

sigmazero13 said:

I'd have to disagree. I've played about 12 games thus far and the first player rarely wins. No matter what the first player does, it would be possible for the other three players to set up a map in such a way that a player would be at a serious disadvantage. It all comes down to choosing where the home realm markers go. If they can be set up in such a way that they are four spaces apart (one with 3 spaces, if necessary) they must be put down there. The first player does not have the option of forcing a reconstruction.

Something by group has done to try and counteract this is that we play with all the map tiles and the first player gets three. This way, the map gets constructed as normal, but if after all the other players have placed their pieces and the first player feels as if a certain part of the board is disadvantageous, he may place the last tile to help balance the set up. We've found that this helps better balance starting positions (both for resources and proximity to enemies).

How many players were in the games involved? How many is "rarely wins"?

If it's 4 player games, the first player would only expect to win 3 games of that 12. If it's 2 player games... well, all my games have been 2 player games except for a few, and the first player has won just as often as the second player.

In the 3-player games I've played, I can't even remember who the first player was, because it ended up being pretty well distributed.

While the "one player builds the map" is a neat idea, I think I would prefer a different approach: The map is built as normal (so all players can contribute). But after the map is built, Fate cards are drawn AGAIN to see who is the one to place the home realm markers. This would keep players from deliberately skewing the map, because THEY may be the one who ends up facing the tough choices.

Time will tell if I have similar experience to you, but thus far, I've not seen it in my own games.

Game setup does seem a bit unbalenced.

I think the 2nd player gets the best option, with 2nd choice of race & 1st choice of start location.

The 4th player is probably the worst off. No choice of race, and the 2nd last choice in start location. So if two start locations have to be 3 spaces apart the 4th player (with the weakest race) is likly to end up adjascent to the 1st player (who should have chosen the strongest race)

I'd suggest resequencing the map setup.

As worded the setup sequence is

choose race: player order {1,2,3,4}

Place tiles: {1,2,3,4}

Place home tile {2,3,4,1}

Many games solve the unbalence of getting two setup choices which are both advantageous by making the 2nd choice in the reverse order to the first.

i.e. Place home tile {4,3,2,1}

With that sequence it's possible the 4th player may gain too much advantage by both placing the last map tile & the first home location. If that advantage seems too great compared to the liability of getting the worst race. Then a better sequence might be;

choose race {1,2,3,4}

Place 1st tile { 1,2,3,4}

place 2nd tile {4,3,2,1}

place home tile {4,3,2,1}

I think only play testing would show which of those two options is better, but either should be more balenced than the written setup rules, which clearly nurf the 4th player.

I think your suspicion that placing your tile last and then picking your area first would be too much of an advantage is correct. I really like your second idea, though.

Basically food wins the game many times.

Not enough food at start means too much distributing with units and attacks very weak and easily countered. If you dont have the food to support your surviving attacking units they die before you have a chance to ever move them.

A player starting with lots of food can keep all rectruits and force forward very fast and keep the front lines really thick.

From the games I've seen, what wins the game isn't food, it's using influence & quests to gain dragon runes.

Food only affects the military game, as such it probably won't "win" you the game. But it might loose you the game. If you get ahead on dragon runes, the other players should try a military assault to prevent you winning.

XAos said:

I agree that food is more of a "game loser" than a game winner directly. Without food, you can't build large armies to protect your runes, making it much easier for players with more food/bigger armies to overrun your territories.

Of the 3 resources, Food is probably the most important, because it's vital for your army sizes. Wood and Ore are also important (I'd probably say Wood is slighly more important, due to development building, but don't neglect Ore), but you can build big armies with JUST food (bland armies, yes, but they can be BIG bland armies).