If they include religions, I'd like to see them do more than they did in Civ IV. But maybe that's asking too much. :3
New Civ Boardgame: early speculations
MarthWMaster said:
If they include religions, I'd like to see them do more than they did in Civ IV. But maybe that's asking too much. :3
They have to leave room for an expansion.
Oh, I suppose.
Dayereth said:
Being an FFG game, i'm sure we can count on lengthy setup still being an issue. I don't mind this as long as the setup time mitigates play time wasted with complexities and still allows richness and variety. Enthusiasm is something every game benefits from, but some games are better at inspiring this than others. Our group has had great success with FFG's game line keeping us coming back for more. FFG is claiming 2-4 hours, which does mitigate my concern about EG's version. Finally the 2-4 player window. Better than Catan's 3-4, not as good as Arkham's 1-8. I just hope it plays as well for 2 players as it does for 4.
- Different customizable board for every game
- Different playable factions
- Several routes to victory (like Android but easier to explain and vizualize)
- Many pieces to allow for wonderous complexity that's easy to manage
Yep, wallet is already creaking open...
I don't really see how Civ and Arkham can be compared in this way. Also, Arkham is a one player game.
Trump said:
The Eagle Games version was drek so this can't help but be better. I'm not stressed about the combat system yet. I HOPE it's a bit simplified and abstracted, maybe similar to that of the Age of Mythology boardgame. I think a good Civ game needs to be more about moving through the tech tree and less about using your tanks against the other player's spearmen. However, a poor military sysytem is one thing that keeps Through the Ages from being perfect for me. The abstracted military strength is okay, but I really don't like how the game encourages the military leaders to smash the players lowest on the food chain.
Excellent point! The Military system in Through the ages is the thing I like least about that game. It is very hard on new players because they can't see how the raids etc will work. I think sometimes the military strength part of that game can Hi jack it from newer players.
I don't mind a Simple combat system in a Civ game as it was stated above you want to focus on growing your Civ in the teck tree and exploring and the military stuff come later.
It would seam there should be some variable game end conditions that keep this game from dragging on. If it was king of the mountain that would become extremely boring and just a complicated version of Risk.
I have had two different CIVILIZATION board games. The Avalon Hill game, which is abfab, and the Eagle games version, which was ebay bait long ago. The Eagle games version was painful. Cool looking, but man! The best thing in the Avalon Hill game was the trading! Man, I would love to see that mechanic or something similiar worked into the resource gathering aspect of the game.
I don't know what to take on this new edition. Based off of CIV Revolution, which I own and still play. I will watch this. This seems like a play a friends version of the game kind of thing to me, rather than set game acquisition expectations so far.
I am beginning to miss dice as well. It works for Rune Wars, was acceptable in Star Craft (Though Star Craft seem like tension would be better in a dice game)
qwertyuiop said:
Dayereth said:
Being an FFG game, i'm sure we can count on lengthy setup still being an issue. I don't mind this as long as the setup time mitigates play time wasted with complexities and still allows richness and variety. Enthusiasm is something every game benefits from, but some games are better at inspiring this than others. Our group has had great success with FFG's game line keeping us coming back for more. FFG is claiming 2-4 hours, which does mitigate my concern about EG's version. Finally the 2-4 player window. Better than Catan's 3-4, not as good as Arkham's 1-8. I just hope it plays as well for 2 players as it does for 4.
- Different customizable board for every game
- Different playable factions
- Several routes to victory (like Android but easier to explain and vizualize)
- Many pieces to allow for wonderous complexity that's easy to manage
Yep, wallet is already creaking open...
I don't really see how Civ and Arkham can be compared in this way. Also, Arkham is a one player game.
just referring to the overall playability of a board game. I was referring to how some games can handle a wide range of numbers of players. Arkham is a game that can be played solo, with 3 players or with 8 players, so it can accomodate almost any group's style of "game night." Catan out of the box needs at least 3 players (you can play 2, but need house rules of your own or found online.) For me personally, a game that can played with 2 players will see more play than one that requires 3 or more. On the other hand, we also have some nights where we need a game that can handle 5 or 6 players. Civ (out of the box) will not work for us on those nights...